Being sensible that I am unable to do any thing without God’s help, I do humbly entreat him, by his grace, to enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ’s sake. Jonathan Edwards.
Remember to read over these Resolutions once a week.
1. Resolved, That I will do whatsoever I think to be most to the glory of God, and my own good, profit, and pleasure, in the whole of my duration; without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved, to do whatever I think to be my duty, and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved, so to do, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many soever, and how great soever.
2. Resolved, To be continually endeavouring to find out some new contrivance and invention to promote the forementioned things.
3. Resolved, If ever I shall fall and grow dull, so as to neglect to keep any part of these Resolutions, to repent of all I can remember, when I come to myself again.
4. Resolved, Never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God, nor be, nor suffer it, if I can possibly avoid it.
5. Resolved, Never to lose one moment of time, but to improve it in the most profitable way I possibly can.
6. Resolved, To live with all my might, while I do live.
7. Resolved, Never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do if it were the last hour of my life.
8. Resolved, To act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings, as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God. Vid. July 30.
9. Resolved, To think much, on all occasions, of my dying, and of the common circumstances which attend death.
10. Resolved, when I feel pain, to think of the pains of martyrdom, and of hell.
11. Resolved, When I think of any theorem in divinity to be solved, immediately to do what I can towards solving it, if circumstances do not hinder. xxi
12. Resolved, If I take delight in it as a gratification of pride, or vanity, or on any such account, immediately to throw it by.
13. Resolved, To be endeavouring to find out fit objects of liberality and charity.
14. Resolved, Never to do any thing out of revenge.
15. Resolved, Never to suffer the least motions of anger towards irrational beings.
16. Resolved, Never to speak evil of any one, so that it shall tend to his dishonour, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.
17. Resolved, That I will live so, as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.
18. Resolved, To live so, at all times, as I think is best in my most devout frames, and when I have the clearest notions of the things of the gospel, and another world.
19. Resolved, Never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do, if I expected it would not be above an hour before I should hear the last trump.
20. Resolved, To maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.
21. Resolved, Never to do any thing, which if I should see in another, I should count a just occasion to despise him for, or to think any way the more meanly of him.
22. Resolved, To endeavour to obtain for myself as much happiness in the other world as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigour, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.
23. Resolved, Frequently to take some deliberate action, which seems most unlikely to be done, for the glory of God, and trace it back to the original intention, designs, and ends of it; and if I find it not to be for God’s glory, to repute it as a breach of the fourth Resolution.
24. Resolved, Whenever I do any conspicuously evil action, to trace it back, till I come to the original cause; and then, both carefully endeavour to do so no more, and to fight and pray with all my might against the original of it.
25. Resolved, To examine carefully and constantly, what that one thing in me is, which causes me in the least to doubt of the love of God; and so direct all my forces against it.
26. Resolved, To cast away such things as I find do abate my assurance.
27. Resolved, Never wilfully to omit any thing, except the omission be for the glory of God; and frequently to examine my omissions.
28. Resolved, To study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly, and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive, myself to grow in the knowledge of the same.
29. Resolved, Never to count that a prayer, nor to let that pass as a prayer, nor that as a petition of a prayer, which is so made, that I cannot hope that God will answer it; nor that as a confession which I cannot hope God will accept.
30. Resolved, To strive every week to be brought higher in religion, and to a higher exercise of grace, than I was the week before.
31. Resolved, Never to say any thing at all against any body, but when it is perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of christian honour, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the golden rule; often, when I have said any thing against any one, to bring it to, and try it strictly by, the test of this Resolution.
32. Resolved, To be strictly and firmly faithful to my trust, that that, in Prov. xx. 6. ‘A faithful man, who can find?’ may not be partly fulfilled in me.
33. Resolved, To do always what I can towards making, maintaining, and preserving peace, when it can be done without an overbalancing detriment in other respects. Dec. 26, 1722.
34. Resolved, In narrations, never to speak any thing but the pure and simple verity.
35. Resolved, Whenever I so much question whether I have done my duty, as that my quiet and calm is thereby disturbed, to set it down, and also how the question was resolved. Dec. 18, 1722.
36. Resolved, Never to speak evil of any, except I have some particular good call to it. Dec. 19, 1722.
37. Resolved, To inquire every night, as I am going to bed, wherein I have been negligent,—what sin I have committed,—and wherein I have denied myself;—also, at the end of every week, month, and year. Dec. 22 and 26, 1722.
38. Resolved, Never to utter any thing that is sportive, or matter of laughter, on a Lord’s day. Sabbath evening, Dec. 23, 1722.
39. Resolved, Never to do any thing, of which I so much question the lawfulness, as that I intend, at the same time, to consider and examine afterwards, whether it be lawful or not; unless I as much question the lawfulness of the omission.
40. Resolved, To inquire every night before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking. Jan. 7, 1723.
41. Resolved, to ask myself, at the end of every day, week, month, and year, wherein I could possibly, in any respect, have done better. Jan. 11, 1723.
42. Resolved, Frequently to renew the dedication of myself to God, which was made at my baptism, which I solemnly renewed when I was received into the communion of the church, and which I have solemnly re-made this 12th day of January, 1723.
43. Resolved, Never, henceforward, till I die, to act as if I were any way my own, but entirely and altogether God’s; agreeably to what is to be found in Saturday, Jan. 12th. Jan. 12, 1723.
44. Resolved, That no other end but religion shall have any influence at all on any of my actions; and that no action shall be, in the least circumstance, any otherwise than the religious end will carry it. Jan. 12, 1723.
45. Resolved, Never to allow any pleasure or grief, joy or sorrow, nor any affection at all, nor any degree of affection, nor any circumstance relating to it, but what helps religion. Jan. 12 and 13, 1723.
46. Resolved, Never to allow the least measure of any fretting or uneasiness at my father or mother. Resolved, to suffer no effects of it, so much as in the least alteration of speech, or motion of my eye; and to be especially careful of it with respect to any of our family.
47. Resolved, To endeavour, to my utmost, to deny whatever is not most agreeable to a good and universally sweet and benevolent, quiet, peaceable, contented and easy, compassionate and generous, humble and meek, submissive and obliging, diligent and industrious, charitable and even, patient, moderate, forgiving, and sincere, temper; and to do, at all times, what such a temper would xxii lead me to; and to examine strictly, at the end of every week, whether I have so done. Sabbath morning, May 5, 1723.
48. Resolved, Constantly, with the utmost niceness and diligence, and the strictest scrutiny, to be looking into the state of my soul, that I may know whether I have truly an interest in Christ or not; that when I come to die, I may not have any negligence respecting this to repent of. May 26, 1723.
49. Resolved, That this never shall be, if I can help it.
50. Resolved, That I will act so, as I think I shall judge would have been best, and most prudent, when I come into the future world. July 5, 1723.
51. Resolved, That I will act so, in every respect, as I think I shall wish I had done, if I should at last be damned. July 8, 1723.
52. I frequently hear persons in old age say how they would live, if they were to live their lives over again: Resolved, That I will live just so as I can think I shall wish I had done, supposing I live to old age. July 8, 1723.
53. Resolved, To improve every opportunity, when I am in the best and happiest frame of mind, to cast and venture my soul on the Lord Jesus Christ, to trust and confide in him, and consecrate myself wholly to him; that from this I may have assurance of my safety, knowing that I confide in my Redeemer. July 8, 1723.
54. Resolved, Whenever I hear anything spoken in commendation of any person, if I think it would be praiseworthy in me, that I will endeavour to imitate it. July 8, 1723.
55. Resolved, To endeavour, to my utmost, so to act, as I can think I should do, if I had already seen the happiness of heaven and hell torments. July 8, 1723.
56. Resolved, Never to give over, nor in the least to slacken, my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.
57. Resolved, When I fear misfortunes and adversity, to examine whether I have done my duty, and resolve to do it and let the event be just as Providence orders it. I will, as far as I can, be concerned about nothing but my duty and my sin. June 9, and July 13, 1723.
58. Resolved, Not only to refrain from an air of dislike, fretfulness, and anger in conversation, but to exhibit an air of love, cheerfulness, and benignity. May 27, and July 13, 1723.
59. Resolved, When I am most conscious of provocations to ill nature and anger, that I will strive most to feel and act good-naturedly; yea, at such times, to manifest good nature, though I think that in other respects it would be disadvantageous, and so as would be imprudent at other times. May 12, July 11, and July 13.
60. Resolved, Whenever my feelings begin to appear in the least out of order, when I am conscious of the least uneasiness within, or the least irregularity without, I will then subject myself to the strictest examination. July 4 and 13, 1723.
61. Resolved, That I will not give way to that listlessness which I find unbends and relaxes my mind from being fully and fixedly set on religion, whatever excuse I may have for it—that what my listlessness inclines me to do, is best to be done, &c. May 21, and July 13, 1723.
62. Resolved, Never to do any thing but my duty, and then, according to Eph. vi. 6-8. to do it willingly and cheerfully, as unto the Lord, and not to man: knowing that whatever good thing any man doth, the same shall be receive of the Lord. June 25, and July 13, 1723.
63. On the supposition, that there never was to be but one individual in the world, at any one time, who was properly a complete Christian, in all respects of a right stamp, having Christianity always shining in its true lustre, and appearing excellent and lovely, from whatever part and under whatever character viewed: Resolved, To act just as I would do, if I strove with all my might to be that one, who should live in my time. Jan. 14, and July 13, 1723.
64. Resolved, When I find those "groanings which cannot be uttered," of which the apostle speaks, and those "breathings of soul for the longing it hath," of which the psalmist speaks, Psalm cxix. 20. that I will promote them to the utmost of my power; and that I will not be weary of earnestly endeavouring to vent my desires, nor of the repetitions of such earnestness. July 23, and Aug. 10, 1723.
65. Resolved, Very much to exercise myself in this, all my life long, viz. with the greatest openness of which I am capable, to declare my ways to God, and lay open my soul to him, all my sins, temptations, difficulties, sorrows, fears, hopes, desires, and every thing, and every circumstance, according to Dr. Manton’s Sermon on the 119th Psalm,. July 26, and Aug. 10, 1723.
66. Resolved, That I will endeavour always to keep a benign aspect, and air of acting and speaking, in all places, and in all companies, except it should so happen that duty requires otherwise.
67. Resolved, After afflictions, to inquire, what I am the better for them; what good I have got by them; and, what I might have got by them.
68. Resolved, To confess frankly to myself, all that which I find in myself, either infirmity or sin; and, if it be what concerns religion, also to confess the whole case to God, and implore needed help. July 23, and August 10, 1723.
69. Resolved, Always to do that, which I shall wish I had done when I see others do it. Aug. 11, 1723.
70. Let there be something of benevolence in all that I speak. Aug. 17, 1723.
About Me
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Birds, Black Presidents, and Babies
Birds, Black Presidents, and Babies
BIRDS
When King David contemplated how many were God’s “wondrous deeds,” he said, “I will proclaim and tell of them, yet they are more than can be told” (Psalm 40:5). That’s how I have been thinking about God’s display of His sovereignty these last few weeks. God is patient and slow to anger. The crash of Flight 1549 illustrates God’s right to judge, and the landing represents God’s mercy. In Matthew 10:29 we find that God governs the fall of every bird, and I would say the crash of flight 1549 was designed by God. It is both a display of His sovereignty and His mercy. It is a call back to a shift from an anthropocentric view of life to a theocentric view. Read Acts 4:23-31.
BLACK PRESIDENTS
As a nation we have just elected Barack Obama, the first African-American President of the United States. As much as I reject President Obama’s stance on many moral issues, I am thankful that an African-American can be President of United States. This is God’s doing. “He removes kings and sets up kings” (Daniel 2:21).
How do we be a pro-life Christian under a pro-choice president? (I Peter 2:13-17) Peter did not live in a Christian nation. He knew the depravity of man and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And yet he wrote, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him.” And, "Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king."
Here is John Piper’s answer to the question, "How do pro-life Christians honor a pro-choice president?"
1. Humbling Ourselves We will honor you, Mr. President, by humbling ourselves under the mighty hand of God (1 Peter 5:6) acknowledging that we are ourselves sinners in need of mercy and forgiveness from God.
2. Acknowledging God's Image We will honor you by acknowledging that you are created in the image of God, an utterly unique, human being created in the image and likeness of the living God with untold potential.
3. Acknowledging God's Institution We will honor you by acknowledging that government is God's institution. You are in power by God's appointment and we honor that. It grieves us that you will not protect the unborn, the most innocent, weak, and helpless group of Americans. But we honor your God appointed role.
4. Honoring Laws Not Conflicting with Christ's Lordship We will honor you by submitting to law wherever they do not conflict with our higher allegiance to Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords. 1 Peter 2:13 says that we are to submit not for your sake but for the Lord's sake.
5. Not Withdrawing into Isolation We will honor you by not withdrawing and living in isolation from American culture. We will honor you by trying to do as much good as we possibly can, so that we will not be thought inconsistent in asking from you what we are not willing to do. See I Peter 2:15.
6. Opposing with Non-Violence We will honor you by opposing your position as long as we can with non-violence instead of violence, with reasoning instead of rocks, with rational passion instead of screaming, with honorable speech instead of obscenities, and with forthright clarity of language instead of dodging the tough realities and tough words.
7. Expecting Straightforward Answers And we will honor you by expecting from you straightforward answers to straightforward questions. You have immense power as President of the United States. To wield it against the protection of the unborn without giving a public accounting in view of moral and scientific reality would be dishonorable. We will honor you by expecting better.
8. Trusting the Sovereign, Loving Purpose of God Finally we will honor you by trusting that the purpose of our sovereign and loving God to defend the fatherless and contend for the defenseless and to exalt the meek will triumph through your presidency. And to that end we will pray for you as Christ our King commands us.
BABIES
What does the Scriptures say about this?
Psalm 139:13: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.”
Jeremiah 1:5:“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you….”
Job 31:13–15: “Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?”The key person at work in the fashioning of the fetus inside the womb is God. The status of Job’s mother or the servant’s mother is irrelevant because mothers are not the main nurturers and fashioners during the time of gestation—God is. Mothers and fathers can contribute an egg and Sperm, but only God creates a person. It is an arbitrary assault upon the prerogatives of God the Creator to assume that we can destroy this person at anytime within the womb based upon our definition of personhood.
James 4:2 offers and interesting perspective, “You desire and do not have; so you kill.” What desire? -- Any self-autonomous freedoms that we want that does not restrict our plans for future happiness. But then comes the pregnancy and we cannot have. And so we use abortion as a birth-control measure to preserve our own freedoms and desires. Christians, we are called to speak the truth in love and mercy.
Look at Ephesians 5:8b-11. God calls us to be the conscience of the culture. Many believers only have a passive avoidance ethic, "Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness.” That's half your duty. But the next phrase states: "Rather even expose them!" Don't just avoid the works of darkness, but expose them.
We are guilty of silence when it comes to justice. We are guilty of speaking the truth, but not in love and mercy. We are guilty of condemning without offering hope and prayer and solution. We have a biblical obligation to speak the truth in love. We have a responsibility to rescue the innocent. We must put feet to our faith and intercede for the helpless. We must compassionately reach out to the perishing. I am embarrassed when I read what some of us write on the internet.
The belligerent and disrespectful words directed toward the president and those who have had abortions and who are pro-choice make me cringe at times. We are intercessors and rescuers. We do so with logical arguments, a Scriptural foundation, patient interaction, loving and merciful engagement, faith with feet, and prayer.There are many who have had abortions who bought into a lie and did not realize exactly what they were doing, and are now suffering the horrific consequence of emotional, spiritual, psychological, and possible present or future physical trauma. Someone must tell them that there is forgiveness and healing in Christ Jesus.God has been merciful to us.
God does not owe America anything. We owe him everything. I pray that the President of the United States, passengers of flight 1549, pro-choice citizens, and everyone who does not know Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior would turn to Him.God is sovereign and merciful. He stands today as Savior, He will stand one day as Judge.
BIRDS
When King David contemplated how many were God’s “wondrous deeds,” he said, “I will proclaim and tell of them, yet they are more than can be told” (Psalm 40:5). That’s how I have been thinking about God’s display of His sovereignty these last few weeks. God is patient and slow to anger. The crash of Flight 1549 illustrates God’s right to judge, and the landing represents God’s mercy. In Matthew 10:29 we find that God governs the fall of every bird, and I would say the crash of flight 1549 was designed by God. It is both a display of His sovereignty and His mercy. It is a call back to a shift from an anthropocentric view of life to a theocentric view. Read Acts 4:23-31.
BLACK PRESIDENTS
As a nation we have just elected Barack Obama, the first African-American President of the United States. As much as I reject President Obama’s stance on many moral issues, I am thankful that an African-American can be President of United States. This is God’s doing. “He removes kings and sets up kings” (Daniel 2:21).
How do we be a pro-life Christian under a pro-choice president? (I Peter 2:13-17) Peter did not live in a Christian nation. He knew the depravity of man and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And yet he wrote, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him.” And, "Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king."
Here is John Piper’s answer to the question, "How do pro-life Christians honor a pro-choice president?"
1. Humbling Ourselves We will honor you, Mr. President, by humbling ourselves under the mighty hand of God (1 Peter 5:6) acknowledging that we are ourselves sinners in need of mercy and forgiveness from God.
2. Acknowledging God's Image We will honor you by acknowledging that you are created in the image of God, an utterly unique, human being created in the image and likeness of the living God with untold potential.
3. Acknowledging God's Institution We will honor you by acknowledging that government is God's institution. You are in power by God's appointment and we honor that. It grieves us that you will not protect the unborn, the most innocent, weak, and helpless group of Americans. But we honor your God appointed role.
4. Honoring Laws Not Conflicting with Christ's Lordship We will honor you by submitting to law wherever they do not conflict with our higher allegiance to Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords. 1 Peter 2:13 says that we are to submit not for your sake but for the Lord's sake.
5. Not Withdrawing into Isolation We will honor you by not withdrawing and living in isolation from American culture. We will honor you by trying to do as much good as we possibly can, so that we will not be thought inconsistent in asking from you what we are not willing to do. See I Peter 2:15.
6. Opposing with Non-Violence We will honor you by opposing your position as long as we can with non-violence instead of violence, with reasoning instead of rocks, with rational passion instead of screaming, with honorable speech instead of obscenities, and with forthright clarity of language instead of dodging the tough realities and tough words.
7. Expecting Straightforward Answers And we will honor you by expecting from you straightforward answers to straightforward questions. You have immense power as President of the United States. To wield it against the protection of the unborn without giving a public accounting in view of moral and scientific reality would be dishonorable. We will honor you by expecting better.
8. Trusting the Sovereign, Loving Purpose of God Finally we will honor you by trusting that the purpose of our sovereign and loving God to defend the fatherless and contend for the defenseless and to exalt the meek will triumph through your presidency. And to that end we will pray for you as Christ our King commands us.
BABIES
What does the Scriptures say about this?
Psalm 139:13: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.”
Jeremiah 1:5:“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you….”
Job 31:13–15: “Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?”The key person at work in the fashioning of the fetus inside the womb is God. The status of Job’s mother or the servant’s mother is irrelevant because mothers are not the main nurturers and fashioners during the time of gestation—God is. Mothers and fathers can contribute an egg and Sperm, but only God creates a person. It is an arbitrary assault upon the prerogatives of God the Creator to assume that we can destroy this person at anytime within the womb based upon our definition of personhood.
James 4:2 offers and interesting perspective, “You desire and do not have; so you kill.” What desire? -- Any self-autonomous freedoms that we want that does not restrict our plans for future happiness. But then comes the pregnancy and we cannot have. And so we use abortion as a birth-control measure to preserve our own freedoms and desires. Christians, we are called to speak the truth in love and mercy.
Look at Ephesians 5:8b-11. God calls us to be the conscience of the culture. Many believers only have a passive avoidance ethic, "Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness.” That's half your duty. But the next phrase states: "Rather even expose them!" Don't just avoid the works of darkness, but expose them.
We are guilty of silence when it comes to justice. We are guilty of speaking the truth, but not in love and mercy. We are guilty of condemning without offering hope and prayer and solution. We have a biblical obligation to speak the truth in love. We have a responsibility to rescue the innocent. We must put feet to our faith and intercede for the helpless. We must compassionately reach out to the perishing. I am embarrassed when I read what some of us write on the internet.
The belligerent and disrespectful words directed toward the president and those who have had abortions and who are pro-choice make me cringe at times. We are intercessors and rescuers. We do so with logical arguments, a Scriptural foundation, patient interaction, loving and merciful engagement, faith with feet, and prayer.There are many who have had abortions who bought into a lie and did not realize exactly what they were doing, and are now suffering the horrific consequence of emotional, spiritual, psychological, and possible present or future physical trauma. Someone must tell them that there is forgiveness and healing in Christ Jesus.God has been merciful to us.
God does not owe America anything. We owe him everything. I pray that the President of the United States, passengers of flight 1549, pro-choice citizens, and everyone who does not know Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior would turn to Him.God is sovereign and merciful. He stands today as Savior, He will stand one day as Judge.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Conversing with the Emerging- part 7
Regarding ECM’s view of doctrine we find their leaders claiming one thing, but practicing something quite different. They may say they believe Scripture, historic doctrine, and the church creeds, but what they mean is they believe them as filtered through a postmodern worldview, which essentially creates a theology of personal religion that emphasizes practice over belief. If you check emergent websites "you will notice that they don’t like statements of faith. They don’t like them because they say they alienate people (John Piper)." This eventually becomes a moralistic, private religion based on Christian principles that implies a works salvation ethic. This self produced ‘Christ-like’ fruit is paramount and the doctrinal system that it is built upon is secondary, if not irrelevant.
Yet, the Scripture offer clear evidence of the necessity of right believe (John 1:12, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 2:8-9), and the relationship between right believe and right behavior (2 Timothy 3:16-17), which only the Spirit of God can produce in us as new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17). Having and holding right doctrine (system of belief) is both biblical and necessary: Romans 6:17 talks about being committed to "a standard of teaching", Acts 20:27 mentions Paul’s presenting the "whole counsel of God", 2 John 1:9 mentions abiding "in the teaching of Christ", while 1 Timothy 4:6 is a reminder of "being trained…of the good doctrine", and numerous other references to doctrine (Rom 16:17; Eph 4:14; 1Tim 1:3, 1:10, 6:3; Titus 1:9, 2:1, 2:10; Heb 6:1) which are clear and unambiguous.
What is birthed from this is a denial or marginalizing of the historic and biblical doctrine specifics of God, original sin, substitutionary atonement, hell, the Bible, salvation, and more. The exclusivity of Christ (John 14:6) and the absolute necessity of surrendering to Him heart, soul, mind (Romans 10:9-10) is seen by the ECM as a wrong understanding of the gospel. The general view of the ECM is that everyone is in and the important thing is not personal conversion in Christ or becoming a disciple of Christianity, but rather to simply follow the pattern of Jesus. This is nothing short of a different gospel (2 Cor 11:4) worthy of nothing but judgment.
With respect to Scripture they generally do not believe in inspiration and inerrancy, but instead focus on the story aspect of the Bible, and conclude that the Bible contains the Word of God but is not the complete Word of God. So the Word of God becomes a sort of guide to navigate people through life, but is not the ultimate source of truth and inspiration from beginning to end. This too is heretical as it stands in contradistinction to the self-proclaimed revelatory nature of the Bible itself as inspired in totality without exception.
We are told in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that all Scripture is God-breathed, irrespective of whether Jesus said it or Paul wrote it. On the road to Emmaus Jesus instructs the two disciples of Himself by referencing the entirety of the Old Testament as referring to Him. Furthermore, we find in the gospels such phrases uttered from the lips of Jesus as; ‘Have you not read? Have you not heard what the Scriptures says? Do you not understand the Scriptures? Search the Scriptures….’ And finally, Peter in commenting on Paul’s writings tells his audience that what Paul wrote was inspired. The Scriptures were written with clarity, and spoken with purpose, and are sufficient enough for understanding with the reasonable expectation of accountability and obedience.
Finally, the ECM is essentially a neo-Gnosticism promoting mystery and mysticism. As it ultimately denies absolute and objective truth, along with the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and its clarity on doctrine and belief and expectation it has confused uncertainty with humility and has determined that mystery is to be embraced. Culture now defines Christianity and postmodernism has become fully embraced with a truth that is not universal, but rather personal, intuitive, experiential, ambiguous, and secret.
What are left are not an exclusive Christ, a particular gospel, and a system of beliefs that is biblical, but a foundationless and ambiguous set of virtues that exalt diversity, tolerance, and mystery. Since truth is subjective and not absolute and objective we must tolerate each others truth and not expose it to critical analysis from the Scripture. And since tolerance is exalted diversity is expected, which comes at the expense of unity. The church is not called to be diverse with respect to truth, but a unified (Rom 15:5-6; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 1:27, 2:2, 3:16, 4:2; 1 Peter 3:8) body of believers who are willing and equipped to carry out the great commission (Matthew 24) to a world filled with diverse people.
The mystery that needed to be revealed has been revealed (1 Cor 1 and 2). Those who would deny the exclusive nature of the gospel (John 14:6) and would embrace mystery are lovers of darkness and not light (John 3). There is truth which can be known and the Giver of truth who can be known and experienced. The outcome of is that a person can be set free (John 8:32).
My conclusion is that the ECM as a movement presents a gospel of a different kind. They have confused uncertainty with humility, and have missed that true humility is born out of a right understanding and relationship with Christ. It is spiritually depraved having surrendered to the vain philosophy of this world. And, it is intellectually lazy not willing to study and think through text trusting that God will provide the timely and appropriate illumination (2 Timothy 2:7).
Yet, the Scripture offer clear evidence of the necessity of right believe (John 1:12, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 2:8-9), and the relationship between right believe and right behavior (2 Timothy 3:16-17), which only the Spirit of God can produce in us as new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17). Having and holding right doctrine (system of belief) is both biblical and necessary: Romans 6:17 talks about being committed to "a standard of teaching", Acts 20:27 mentions Paul’s presenting the "whole counsel of God", 2 John 1:9 mentions abiding "in the teaching of Christ", while 1 Timothy 4:6 is a reminder of "being trained…of the good doctrine", and numerous other references to doctrine (Rom 16:17; Eph 4:14; 1Tim 1:3, 1:10, 6:3; Titus 1:9, 2:1, 2:10; Heb 6:1) which are clear and unambiguous.
What is birthed from this is a denial or marginalizing of the historic and biblical doctrine specifics of God, original sin, substitutionary atonement, hell, the Bible, salvation, and more. The exclusivity of Christ (John 14:6) and the absolute necessity of surrendering to Him heart, soul, mind (Romans 10:9-10) is seen by the ECM as a wrong understanding of the gospel. The general view of the ECM is that everyone is in and the important thing is not personal conversion in Christ or becoming a disciple of Christianity, but rather to simply follow the pattern of Jesus. This is nothing short of a different gospel (2 Cor 11:4) worthy of nothing but judgment.
With respect to Scripture they generally do not believe in inspiration and inerrancy, but instead focus on the story aspect of the Bible, and conclude that the Bible contains the Word of God but is not the complete Word of God. So the Word of God becomes a sort of guide to navigate people through life, but is not the ultimate source of truth and inspiration from beginning to end. This too is heretical as it stands in contradistinction to the self-proclaimed revelatory nature of the Bible itself as inspired in totality without exception.
We are told in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that all Scripture is God-breathed, irrespective of whether Jesus said it or Paul wrote it. On the road to Emmaus Jesus instructs the two disciples of Himself by referencing the entirety of the Old Testament as referring to Him. Furthermore, we find in the gospels such phrases uttered from the lips of Jesus as; ‘Have you not read? Have you not heard what the Scriptures says? Do you not understand the Scriptures? Search the Scriptures….’ And finally, Peter in commenting on Paul’s writings tells his audience that what Paul wrote was inspired. The Scriptures were written with clarity, and spoken with purpose, and are sufficient enough for understanding with the reasonable expectation of accountability and obedience.
Finally, the ECM is essentially a neo-Gnosticism promoting mystery and mysticism. As it ultimately denies absolute and objective truth, along with the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and its clarity on doctrine and belief and expectation it has confused uncertainty with humility and has determined that mystery is to be embraced. Culture now defines Christianity and postmodernism has become fully embraced with a truth that is not universal, but rather personal, intuitive, experiential, ambiguous, and secret.
What are left are not an exclusive Christ, a particular gospel, and a system of beliefs that is biblical, but a foundationless and ambiguous set of virtues that exalt diversity, tolerance, and mystery. Since truth is subjective and not absolute and objective we must tolerate each others truth and not expose it to critical analysis from the Scripture. And since tolerance is exalted diversity is expected, which comes at the expense of unity. The church is not called to be diverse with respect to truth, but a unified (Rom 15:5-6; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 1:27, 2:2, 3:16, 4:2; 1 Peter 3:8) body of believers who are willing and equipped to carry out the great commission (Matthew 24) to a world filled with diverse people.
The mystery that needed to be revealed has been revealed (1 Cor 1 and 2). Those who would deny the exclusive nature of the gospel (John 14:6) and would embrace mystery are lovers of darkness and not light (John 3). There is truth which can be known and the Giver of truth who can be known and experienced. The outcome of is that a person can be set free (John 8:32).
My conclusion is that the ECM as a movement presents a gospel of a different kind. They have confused uncertainty with humility, and have missed that true humility is born out of a right understanding and relationship with Christ. It is spiritually depraved having surrendered to the vain philosophy of this world. And, it is intellectually lazy not willing to study and think through text trusting that God will provide the timely and appropriate illumination (2 Timothy 2:7).
Conversing with the Emerging- part 6
The ECM methodology is largely centered on spiritual experience, spiritual mystery, and the usage of the five senses in worship. This is driven, in part, by the ECM’s reaction against the rightly perceived shallowness and superficiality of the seeker-sensitive movement with its show biz presentations, felt-needs sermons, and businesslike organization and professionalism. ECM understands that the under-thirties are spiritually hungry, and have determined that they want this hunger satisfied in experience and feeling, and not theology, apologetics, and logic. And so, the ECM incorporates mystery into their service making sure that there are elements that would incorporate all the senses.
The issue with this is that it tends to put the focus on the method and not the content of the message associated with it. It emphasizes experience and feeling at the expense of truth and the person who should be the object of affection in worship, Christ. The methodology must not be the focus of the experience, nor should the subjects own satisfaction of feelings be the ultimate goal. It is clear from Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 that the methodology must be Spirit-filled and Christ-centered. In addition, the methodology itself is to be scripturally focused, orderly, and appropriate producing an experience that focuses on Christ and is edifying to others.
With respect to ECM theology we cut to the chase of this syncretistic amalgamation of postmodern philosophy and its own brand of biblical theology. Where the seeker-sensitive movement was all about method and from its perspective kept the core of the gospel message in tact, the ECM is willing to adjust the message as well. Since ECM ministers to postmoderns and since postmoderns largely reject absolute truth and authority the ECM has itself abandoned the clarity and certainty of absolute truth claims. As expected this philosophy effects doctrine, tradition, and the exclusive and particular claims of the gospel message.
The ECM’s deconstruction mindset minimizes, if not eliminates the original author’s words and intent redefining the words and ideas to suit the current reader. The ECM likes to project its own attitude as one born out of humility. Yet, this deconstructionist philosophy is one that tears everything down, dismantles the essentials that the majority of Christendom has believed through millennium, and has determined they (ECM) have now gotten it right and are revising history. As we examine the Scriptures (ex. 2 Timothy 1:13-14) we discover a mandate to remember and hold the biblical traditions past down to us.
This is not a genuine attitude of humility, but a massive display of ego masquerading as false humility. The ECM has torn down centuries of history, tradition, doctrine, and story and has replaced it with nothing of substance or credibility. In its wake it has left a people and a church with no solid foundation to build from, and has robbed the church of her richness and uniqueness.
This deconstruction combined with abhorrence for absolute truth has naturally led to a subjective, personal form of Christianity that disposes of doctrine, and the authority of the Bible. Both of these combined the minimizing of absolute truth and the deconstruction of truth and Scripture has left behind a postmodern pluralistic relativism as the foundation for ECM theology.
This attack on the Word of God should come as no surprise since it is found in the very beginning of Scripture as found in Genesis 3 when Satan sought to sow the seeds of doubt in Adam and Eve’s mind regarding the clarity of Scripture as a Word from God that was to be taken literally and obeyed fully. "Has God said," was the ploy to get Adam and Eve to begin to doubt the truth claims of God.
With respect to truth it is true that we may not have exhaustive truth regarding a thing or person, but that is not the same as the ability or inability to have a certain truth about a thing or a person. The Word of God is replete with references to truth, and an expectation to believe and obey. I Peter 3:15 gives evidence that there is a known body of truth common to the faith, necessary for salvation, particular to Christ that each believer was to remember and reflect upon in order to present an apologetic for the faith as opportunity presented itself.
The Spirit of God is known as the ‘Spirit of Truth’. Jesus said, "I am…the truth…." (John 14:6). The Psalmist prayed that God would "Lead me in your truth…." (Ps 25:5). Paul’s letters to Timothy make reference to ‘knowledge of the truth’ and ‘handling the word of truth’. In his epistles John talked about truth being in us or not in us, practicing the truth, acting in truth. All references to objective standards and not subjective feelings and experiences.
The subjectivism of the ECM runs counter to the teaching of experience. It is one thing to agree on the meaning of the text, and then discuss various applications to the individual, it is quite another thing to say that we can never know the original author’s meaning and therefore the text has a different meaning for different people. We are warned in Colossians about being taken "captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition…." Jude 3 also makes reference to a common faith or salvation that Jude needed to discuss again. In words, the community was not to determine doctrine based on subjectivism, but was to receive that which they had already known and whose elements were essential and particular to all.
The issue with this is that it tends to put the focus on the method and not the content of the message associated with it. It emphasizes experience and feeling at the expense of truth and the person who should be the object of affection in worship, Christ. The methodology must not be the focus of the experience, nor should the subjects own satisfaction of feelings be the ultimate goal. It is clear from Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 that the methodology must be Spirit-filled and Christ-centered. In addition, the methodology itself is to be scripturally focused, orderly, and appropriate producing an experience that focuses on Christ and is edifying to others.
With respect to ECM theology we cut to the chase of this syncretistic amalgamation of postmodern philosophy and its own brand of biblical theology. Where the seeker-sensitive movement was all about method and from its perspective kept the core of the gospel message in tact, the ECM is willing to adjust the message as well. Since ECM ministers to postmoderns and since postmoderns largely reject absolute truth and authority the ECM has itself abandoned the clarity and certainty of absolute truth claims. As expected this philosophy effects doctrine, tradition, and the exclusive and particular claims of the gospel message.
The ECM’s deconstruction mindset minimizes, if not eliminates the original author’s words and intent redefining the words and ideas to suit the current reader. The ECM likes to project its own attitude as one born out of humility. Yet, this deconstructionist philosophy is one that tears everything down, dismantles the essentials that the majority of Christendom has believed through millennium, and has determined they (ECM) have now gotten it right and are revising history. As we examine the Scriptures (ex. 2 Timothy 1:13-14) we discover a mandate to remember and hold the biblical traditions past down to us.
This is not a genuine attitude of humility, but a massive display of ego masquerading as false humility. The ECM has torn down centuries of history, tradition, doctrine, and story and has replaced it with nothing of substance or credibility. In its wake it has left a people and a church with no solid foundation to build from, and has robbed the church of her richness and uniqueness.
This deconstruction combined with abhorrence for absolute truth has naturally led to a subjective, personal form of Christianity that disposes of doctrine, and the authority of the Bible. Both of these combined the minimizing of absolute truth and the deconstruction of truth and Scripture has left behind a postmodern pluralistic relativism as the foundation for ECM theology.
This attack on the Word of God should come as no surprise since it is found in the very beginning of Scripture as found in Genesis 3 when Satan sought to sow the seeds of doubt in Adam and Eve’s mind regarding the clarity of Scripture as a Word from God that was to be taken literally and obeyed fully. "Has God said," was the ploy to get Adam and Eve to begin to doubt the truth claims of God.
With respect to truth it is true that we may not have exhaustive truth regarding a thing or person, but that is not the same as the ability or inability to have a certain truth about a thing or a person. The Word of God is replete with references to truth, and an expectation to believe and obey. I Peter 3:15 gives evidence that there is a known body of truth common to the faith, necessary for salvation, particular to Christ that each believer was to remember and reflect upon in order to present an apologetic for the faith as opportunity presented itself.
The Spirit of God is known as the ‘Spirit of Truth’. Jesus said, "I am…the truth…." (John 14:6). The Psalmist prayed that God would "Lead me in your truth…." (Ps 25:5). Paul’s letters to Timothy make reference to ‘knowledge of the truth’ and ‘handling the word of truth’. In his epistles John talked about truth being in us or not in us, practicing the truth, acting in truth. All references to objective standards and not subjective feelings and experiences.
The subjectivism of the ECM runs counter to the teaching of experience. It is one thing to agree on the meaning of the text, and then discuss various applications to the individual, it is quite another thing to say that we can never know the original author’s meaning and therefore the text has a different meaning for different people. We are warned in Colossians about being taken "captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition…." Jude 3 also makes reference to a common faith or salvation that Jude needed to discuss again. In words, the community was not to determine doctrine based on subjectivism, but was to receive that which they had already known and whose elements were essential and particular to all.
Conversing With The Emerging- part 5
Today, the ECM echoes the populist arguments of the main line denominations of the early and mid 1900’s. Then, as with the ECM today "penal substitution is too harsh a model for understanding the atonement; the claim that too much stress on orthodoxy undermines orthopraxy; and the incessant please for liberality and tolerance—even while leading voices in the movement are systematically attempting to dismantle the biblical foundations of evangelical belief."
The ECM is largely a reaction against the Enlightenment and modernism and what the ECM perceives as modernity’s arrogance with respect to certainty and absolutes and human reasoning. Modernity, which was stems mainly from Rene Descartes’ foundationalism and was unleashed with Darwin’s theory on evolution exalted human reasoning and science, and determined that humanity was not accountable to any higher being. With numerous wars being birthed out of its era modernity eventually died in the mid-late 1900’s giving way to postmodernism.
"Postmodernism—borrowing ideas made popular by existentialism and cultural and ethical relativism, and blending them with values made politically correct by secular humanism—stepped into the gap. The ECM is fundamentally a self-conscious attempt to adapt the church and frame the gospel message in a way that meets the unique challenges postmodernism presents." Ironically so, the ECM is concerned with trying to communicate more effectively with postmoderns, which is something that evangelicals should also give more attention to. The problem is that in doing so the ECM has compromised the message of the gospel and has used questionable methods to articulate the gospel.
However, while the ECM is a reaction against the Enlightenment and modernity with all of its tenets of rationalism, reasoning, certainty, and the scientific method, and seeks to be in conversation with postmoderns, the ECM does have a common touch points with modernity. Not only does the ECM and the Enlightenment minimize the certainty of knowing truth through the Scriptures, but both also have "important threads of continuity between [them]…not least among these is the fact that at the center of both is the autonomous self, despite all the postmodern chatter about the importance of community…."
Interestingly enough, the ECM does not particularly care for the seeker-friendly movement because it sees the movement as being big-business, which is more concerned with entertainment and flash than it is with mystery. The seeker-friendly mega churches grew largely without a sense of community and personal touch. This left a number of people longing for something more. Into this void stepped the ECM with its promise and deliverance of community. The fact that it lacks in solid biblical doctrine and teaching seems irrelevant to many.
From my perspective the ECM and their conversation methodology will be "laid to rest in the theological cemetery within the not too distant future due to its shallowness and ‘faddish’ nature." The remaining of this paper are my own brief views and conclusions to the message and methodology of the ECM.
Quotes taken from Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason, Reforming or Conforming.
The ECM is largely a reaction against the Enlightenment and modernism and what the ECM perceives as modernity’s arrogance with respect to certainty and absolutes and human reasoning. Modernity, which was stems mainly from Rene Descartes’ foundationalism and was unleashed with Darwin’s theory on evolution exalted human reasoning and science, and determined that humanity was not accountable to any higher being. With numerous wars being birthed out of its era modernity eventually died in the mid-late 1900’s giving way to postmodernism.
"Postmodernism—borrowing ideas made popular by existentialism and cultural and ethical relativism, and blending them with values made politically correct by secular humanism—stepped into the gap. The ECM is fundamentally a self-conscious attempt to adapt the church and frame the gospel message in a way that meets the unique challenges postmodernism presents." Ironically so, the ECM is concerned with trying to communicate more effectively with postmoderns, which is something that evangelicals should also give more attention to. The problem is that in doing so the ECM has compromised the message of the gospel and has used questionable methods to articulate the gospel.
However, while the ECM is a reaction against the Enlightenment and modernity with all of its tenets of rationalism, reasoning, certainty, and the scientific method, and seeks to be in conversation with postmoderns, the ECM does have a common touch points with modernity. Not only does the ECM and the Enlightenment minimize the certainty of knowing truth through the Scriptures, but both also have "important threads of continuity between [them]…not least among these is the fact that at the center of both is the autonomous self, despite all the postmodern chatter about the importance of community…."
Interestingly enough, the ECM does not particularly care for the seeker-friendly movement because it sees the movement as being big-business, which is more concerned with entertainment and flash than it is with mystery. The seeker-friendly mega churches grew largely without a sense of community and personal touch. This left a number of people longing for something more. Into this void stepped the ECM with its promise and deliverance of community. The fact that it lacks in solid biblical doctrine and teaching seems irrelevant to many.
From my perspective the ECM and their conversation methodology will be "laid to rest in the theological cemetery within the not too distant future due to its shallowness and ‘faddish’ nature." The remaining of this paper are my own brief views and conclusions to the message and methodology of the ECM.
Quotes taken from Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason, Reforming or Conforming.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Dark Night of the Soul- part 3 of 6
The first and best place to start is that such desertions occur out of the sovereignty of God. He is infinitely sovereign and ‘His ways are not our ways’ and ‘who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him’? The ultimate end God’s workings are so high above us that we will never be able to comprehend the reasoning behind God’s actions. According to His own counsel He has purposed at times to withdraw His felt presence. Our focus should not be so much on the ‘why’, but the ‘who’- as in who is God and who am I in the midst of this time of life.
Perhaps the best summary of this desertion and God’s sovereignty is from Robert Asty in his book, Rejoicing in the Lord Jesus in all Cases and Conditions:
“The Lord is pleased to act as a Sovereign in the sealing and assuring and comforting of his people. Sometimes he will come in upon a believer at his first conversion, and will fill him with joy and gladness that shall abide upon his soul many years; and sometimes the believer shall wait upon God from ordinance to ordinance, and follow him many years in the dark, and not have a discovery of his love. Sometimes the Lord will give a soul no sight of its interest, nor evidence of its relation, until it come to die; and some believers have walked with the evidence of God’s love in their hearts almost all their days, and when they have come to die, they have died in the dark. Sense of interest is under a sovereign dispensation, both as to the persons to whom it is given out, and as to time when, and as to the way and manner how.”
The second reason why the experience of desertion visits us is to “show us the source of all our comforts, and our dependence upon him for them.” We are not to get caught up in the blessing at the expense of the Giver of the blessing. Acts of obedience and godliness are right, but they should not be done to elicit an automatic response of blessing for the sake of blessing. God’s grace is free and it is given at His discretion alone. God’s occasional withdrawal is to remind us that as wonderful as prayer, and worship, and obedience are, our ultimate peace, comfort, assurance, and satisfaction must come from God alone and not from the things done in relationship to God. Any encouragement that comes from elsewhere is not an encouragement in God himself. God, as our tender Father, will not have us to find comfort and satisfaction in the good graces more than in Him. When this happens, He may allow a certain sense of darkness to come over us so that we find ultimate comfort in Him, and not in the experiences that occur about Him.
Perhaps the best summary of this desertion and God’s sovereignty is from Robert Asty in his book, Rejoicing in the Lord Jesus in all Cases and Conditions:
“The Lord is pleased to act as a Sovereign in the sealing and assuring and comforting of his people. Sometimes he will come in upon a believer at his first conversion, and will fill him with joy and gladness that shall abide upon his soul many years; and sometimes the believer shall wait upon God from ordinance to ordinance, and follow him many years in the dark, and not have a discovery of his love. Sometimes the Lord will give a soul no sight of its interest, nor evidence of its relation, until it come to die; and some believers have walked with the evidence of God’s love in their hearts almost all their days, and when they have come to die, they have died in the dark. Sense of interest is under a sovereign dispensation, both as to the persons to whom it is given out, and as to time when, and as to the way and manner how.”
The second reason why the experience of desertion visits us is to “show us the source of all our comforts, and our dependence upon him for them.” We are not to get caught up in the blessing at the expense of the Giver of the blessing. Acts of obedience and godliness are right, but they should not be done to elicit an automatic response of blessing for the sake of blessing. God’s grace is free and it is given at His discretion alone. God’s occasional withdrawal is to remind us that as wonderful as prayer, and worship, and obedience are, our ultimate peace, comfort, assurance, and satisfaction must come from God alone and not from the things done in relationship to God. Any encouragement that comes from elsewhere is not an encouragement in God himself. God, as our tender Father, will not have us to find comfort and satisfaction in the good graces more than in Him. When this happens, He may allow a certain sense of darkness to come over us so that we find ultimate comfort in Him, and not in the experiences that occur about Him.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Dark Night of the Soul- part 2 of 6
It is apparent from the writings of the Puritans, and gleaning from the Scriptures that spiritual desertion is real. From our perspective, it stands in contradistinction of the popular gospel preached today, which promises ease of living and avoidance of pain. The Puritans were not afraid to publicly write and pronounce that it was quite possible and even probable that the child of God, walking holy and upright before God, may at some point in his life experience a sense of desertion.
The question we would ask here is, why’? It is the question that Jesus asked on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” It is the question we most frequently ask in the midst of life. Why would God invite us to call Him, Father, and then at times in our relationship allow us to feel this sense of desertion?
The Puritans believed that some desertions were the result of the direct action of God. However, they were careful to point out that while God may be the chief cause of the condition, He was not cause of those associated features, such as fear and doubt. Often, we must admit that we do not ultimately know the causes of God’s withdrawal. The reasons are many and varied. However, as William Bridge said in answer to the question of why, “In general, it is for their good. For their good they have peace and comfort, and for their good they lack peace and comfort.” The Puritans placed the reasons for the desertion in seven general categories, which we will review in parts 3 - 6.
The question we would ask here is, why’? It is the question that Jesus asked on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” It is the question we most frequently ask in the midst of life. Why would God invite us to call Him, Father, and then at times in our relationship allow us to feel this sense of desertion?
The Puritans believed that some desertions were the result of the direct action of God. However, they were careful to point out that while God may be the chief cause of the condition, He was not cause of those associated features, such as fear and doubt. Often, we must admit that we do not ultimately know the causes of God’s withdrawal. The reasons are many and varied. However, as William Bridge said in answer to the question of why, “In general, it is for their good. For their good they have peace and comfort, and for their good they lack peace and comfort.” The Puritans placed the reasons for the desertion in seven general categories, which we will review in parts 3 - 6.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Dark Night of the Soul- 1 of 6
The Dark Night of the Soul
The ‘dark night of the soul’ was a common phrase in Puritan thought describing a sense of spiritual desertion experienced by the believer in relationship to God. This sense was not abandonment by God, but rather a lack of the sense of His presence in love, grace, mercy, fellowship, and power. This lack was not necessarily attributable to the believer being in a backslidden condition. Thomas Goodwin wrote, “That one who truly fears God, and is obedient to him, may be in a condition of darkness and have no light; and he may walk many years in that condition.”
Numerous Puritan pastors wrote on this subject, referencing such scriptures as Job 13, 16, 19, 31; Psalm 77, and Psalm 88. A description of this condition comes from the pen of Christopher Love. In Love’s book, Grace, the Truth and Growth and Different Degrees Thereof, he writes:
“A child of light may walk in darkness for a time, and though he have the Holy Ghost working grace and an increasing grace in his heart, yet he may want the oil of gladness, though he have received a precious annointing of grace.”
A lack of the sense of God’s presence is the most prominent form of spiritual desertion, and is best described as an extreme isolation and desolated state. John Wells graphically illustrates this condition:
“So it is with a gracious soul: wife is nothing, children nothing, estate nothing, friends nothing, all nothing when Christ is gone. What have I more, says a poor believer? Christ is gone, all is gone, faith gone, aye, and heaven gone too in his thoughts, and what are all his enjoyments then but dross and dogs-meat, but trash and lumber?”
The second form of desertion is a weakness in the exercise of spiritual graces. It does not begin with a willful intent to cast aside spiritual graces and abilities, but rather finds itself in such a state of discouragement and despair that ultimately the soul refuses to participate in its duties. In Jeremiah 20:7-9 we find that though Jeremiah was commissioned to preach, he nonetheless refused to do so. Richard Sibbes has described the condition in such a manner:
“They find not that former assistance in holy duties, they find that their hearts are shut up, and they cannot pray as formerly when they had the Spirit of God more fully; This is first done when we hear the Word of God not with that delight and profit as we were wont. When they find how they come near to God in holy communion, and yet feel not that sweet taste and relish in the ordinance of God as they were wont to do, they conclude, certainly God hath hid his face.”
The third element is rather peculiar in that it is described as refusing comfort on the midst of pain and discouragement. So overwhelmed is this person that they question the very genuineness of God’s past and present graces, and therefore doubt the very comfort that God brings in the midst of their current depression. In Psalm 77:2, we see this refusal of comfort when Asaph writes, “My soul refused to be comforted.”
Thomas Goodwin in commenting on this refusal writes:
“Graces in us shine but with a borrowed light, as the stars do, with a light borrowed from the sun; so, and unless God will shine secretly, and give light to thy graces and irradiate them, thy graces will not appear to comfort thee, nor be at all a witness of God’s favour to assure thee. For our spirit, that is, our graces, never witness alone; but if God’s Spirit joineth not in testimony therewith, it is silent: ‘The Spirit of God witnesseth with our spirits,’ Rom.8:16. Now therefore, when God hath withdrawn his testimony, then the testimony of our hearts and of our graces hath no force in it.”
The last description of spiritual desertion is a lack of assurance and a certain overwhelming fear of the future. The soul has no assurance of its salvation and doubts of its entrance into heaven or whether such a place exists (Psalm 77:7-9; 88:5, 6, 11, 12). Fear fills the mind with such intensity that there is severe doubt regarding mercy or what God intends to do with the person. On this element, William Bridge writes:
“Oh, says one, but I have not only cursed the day of my birth as Jeremiah, and wished I had never been born; but I am weary of life, and have sought after mine own death: and was there any godly, gracious man that was thus discouraged and cast down? Yes! What think you of Job? Oh, what a mighty deep of discouragements may the saints and people of God fall into, and yet be godly and gracious.”
The ‘dark night of the soul’ was a common phrase in Puritan thought describing a sense of spiritual desertion experienced by the believer in relationship to God. This sense was not abandonment by God, but rather a lack of the sense of His presence in love, grace, mercy, fellowship, and power. This lack was not necessarily attributable to the believer being in a backslidden condition. Thomas Goodwin wrote, “That one who truly fears God, and is obedient to him, may be in a condition of darkness and have no light; and he may walk many years in that condition.”
Numerous Puritan pastors wrote on this subject, referencing such scriptures as Job 13, 16, 19, 31; Psalm 77, and Psalm 88. A description of this condition comes from the pen of Christopher Love. In Love’s book, Grace, the Truth and Growth and Different Degrees Thereof, he writes:
“A child of light may walk in darkness for a time, and though he have the Holy Ghost working grace and an increasing grace in his heart, yet he may want the oil of gladness, though he have received a precious annointing of grace.”
A lack of the sense of God’s presence is the most prominent form of spiritual desertion, and is best described as an extreme isolation and desolated state. John Wells graphically illustrates this condition:
“So it is with a gracious soul: wife is nothing, children nothing, estate nothing, friends nothing, all nothing when Christ is gone. What have I more, says a poor believer? Christ is gone, all is gone, faith gone, aye, and heaven gone too in his thoughts, and what are all his enjoyments then but dross and dogs-meat, but trash and lumber?”
The second form of desertion is a weakness in the exercise of spiritual graces. It does not begin with a willful intent to cast aside spiritual graces and abilities, but rather finds itself in such a state of discouragement and despair that ultimately the soul refuses to participate in its duties. In Jeremiah 20:7-9 we find that though Jeremiah was commissioned to preach, he nonetheless refused to do so. Richard Sibbes has described the condition in such a manner:
“They find not that former assistance in holy duties, they find that their hearts are shut up, and they cannot pray as formerly when they had the Spirit of God more fully; This is first done when we hear the Word of God not with that delight and profit as we were wont. When they find how they come near to God in holy communion, and yet feel not that sweet taste and relish in the ordinance of God as they were wont to do, they conclude, certainly God hath hid his face.”
The third element is rather peculiar in that it is described as refusing comfort on the midst of pain and discouragement. So overwhelmed is this person that they question the very genuineness of God’s past and present graces, and therefore doubt the very comfort that God brings in the midst of their current depression. In Psalm 77:2, we see this refusal of comfort when Asaph writes, “My soul refused to be comforted.”
Thomas Goodwin in commenting on this refusal writes:
“Graces in us shine but with a borrowed light, as the stars do, with a light borrowed from the sun; so, and unless God will shine secretly, and give light to thy graces and irradiate them, thy graces will not appear to comfort thee, nor be at all a witness of God’s favour to assure thee. For our spirit, that is, our graces, never witness alone; but if God’s Spirit joineth not in testimony therewith, it is silent: ‘The Spirit of God witnesseth with our spirits,’ Rom.8:16. Now therefore, when God hath withdrawn his testimony, then the testimony of our hearts and of our graces hath no force in it.”
The last description of spiritual desertion is a lack of assurance and a certain overwhelming fear of the future. The soul has no assurance of its salvation and doubts of its entrance into heaven or whether such a place exists (Psalm 77:7-9; 88:5, 6, 11, 12). Fear fills the mind with such intensity that there is severe doubt regarding mercy or what God intends to do with the person. On this element, William Bridge writes:
“Oh, says one, but I have not only cursed the day of my birth as Jeremiah, and wished I had never been born; but I am weary of life, and have sought after mine own death: and was there any godly, gracious man that was thus discouraged and cast down? Yes! What think you of Job? Oh, what a mighty deep of discouragements may the saints and people of God fall into, and yet be godly and gracious.”
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Conversing with the Emerging- Part 4
During the Enlightenment and the dawning of modernity the church again faced truth issues, the relevance of the gospel, and the accommodation of the gospel for the sake of cultural relevance. "Modernism made…human reason the king. Reason was supreme in modernism. Out of that came worship of the human mind and the mind trumps God…. Modernism says…there is truth and we can find it in human reason… revelation from God, not the Bible."
It was in this atmosphere that Friedrich Schleiermacher entered and created his own brand of the modern seeker-sensitive theology that sought to make the gospel relevant to the culture of his day that had fallen under the influence of the Enlightenment with its emphasis on human reasoning and its de-emphasis on supernatural revelation and the need for Christian doctrine. His approach was one that stressed feeling or sense of a dependence upon God over doctrinal truth statements.
Mark Patterson captures the essence of Karl Barth’s concern over the theology of Schleiermacher and Emil Brunner of his day. "The church of Germany had almost completely succumbed to the populist theology of its day, a belief that that was built not upon the unique revelation of God in Christ but a theology built upon human feelings, presuppositions, aspirations, and prejudices….What they had done was turn to a new revelatory center, and from this center redefine classic words and reinterpret traditional perspectives….the church rejected its astonishingly unique message of God’s mercy, love, and grace in Christ, and replaced it instead with an all too common message that simply affirmed the biases and opinions of the culture. The populist ideas and values were given a theological vocabulary, dressed up as divine, priceless, and authoritative and presented to a people who had little interest or ability to discern the true and drastic changes that had occurred."
In the 19’TH century Herman Bavinck was dealing with the ‘Ethical Theologians’ of his day. It was upon the writings of men like Schleiermacher that these theologians were dependent upon and built their methods from. And what did this look like" as Bavinck describes, "The method does not start out from the doctrine of the church or from the teaching of Scripture but from the believing subject, from the Christian consciousness. Kant, Schleiermacher, and Hegel were in agreement in longer regarding religious truth as objectively given in Scripture or confession, and all three believed that it could be found in and derived from the religious subject."
As with the ECM of today, the church during Spurgeon and Shindler’s time was under pressure to adapt their methods and message to accommodate the culture and modern thought. Both warned that such an accommodation would result in the loss of the inherent power of the church, and its subsequent loss of influence and relevance, and both were right. By the mid-nineteenth century all main line denominations who embraced modernist principles in order to be culturally relevant lost influence and membership.
It was in this atmosphere that Friedrich Schleiermacher entered and created his own brand of the modern seeker-sensitive theology that sought to make the gospel relevant to the culture of his day that had fallen under the influence of the Enlightenment with its emphasis on human reasoning and its de-emphasis on supernatural revelation and the need for Christian doctrine. His approach was one that stressed feeling or sense of a dependence upon God over doctrinal truth statements.
Mark Patterson captures the essence of Karl Barth’s concern over the theology of Schleiermacher and Emil Brunner of his day. "The church of Germany had almost completely succumbed to the populist theology of its day, a belief that that was built not upon the unique revelation of God in Christ but a theology built upon human feelings, presuppositions, aspirations, and prejudices….What they had done was turn to a new revelatory center, and from this center redefine classic words and reinterpret traditional perspectives….the church rejected its astonishingly unique message of God’s mercy, love, and grace in Christ, and replaced it instead with an all too common message that simply affirmed the biases and opinions of the culture. The populist ideas and values were given a theological vocabulary, dressed up as divine, priceless, and authoritative and presented to a people who had little interest or ability to discern the true and drastic changes that had occurred."
In the 19’TH century Herman Bavinck was dealing with the ‘Ethical Theologians’ of his day. It was upon the writings of men like Schleiermacher that these theologians were dependent upon and built their methods from. And what did this look like" as Bavinck describes, "The method does not start out from the doctrine of the church or from the teaching of Scripture but from the believing subject, from the Christian consciousness. Kant, Schleiermacher, and Hegel were in agreement in longer regarding religious truth as objectively given in Scripture or confession, and all three believed that it could be found in and derived from the religious subject."
As with the ECM of today, the church during Spurgeon and Shindler’s time was under pressure to adapt their methods and message to accommodate the culture and modern thought. Both warned that such an accommodation would result in the loss of the inherent power of the church, and its subsequent loss of influence and relevance, and both were right. By the mid-nineteenth century all main line denominations who embraced modernist principles in order to be culturally relevant lost influence and membership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)