202 thoughts on “24/7/52/12 Christians”

1. It seems like the old trap I used to be caught in. I used to spend way more time focused on making clear connections with the most mundane things that i did to the glory of God that it became simply an academic exercise. I rarely applied myself to actually doing a good job on tasks because I spent so much more time jumping through hoops to spiritualize them. In a way, that undermines the very principle of doing all things as unto the Lord and makes pursuing the glory of God an academic exercise to be analyzed and compared to others. Pietism, in that sense, leads much more closely to one up mentality and a competition of sorts in regard to holiness. Nothing could be further from the intended purpose of Paul than such a thing. For the pietist then, it almost seems as if the intellectual ascent of proper conduct becomes much more emphasized than the actual attainment of work, play, routine and all of life _actually_ done in such a way that glorifies God (as in done well).

   Bravo Dr. Hart.

   LikeLike

2. I was just reading an article by Horton that readily overlaps (even duplicates) this article in its mentioning:
   “How to discover your calling”
   http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/how-to-discover-your-calling

   LikeLike

3. Bravo, Darryl, bravo.

   Sounds like the Confessionalist is industrious, dutiful, honourable, decent and dignified–a commendable role model providing “transformationlist” potency to those–outsiders too–who have eyes to see and ears to hear. While perhaps not seeking to “transform” outsiders, he quietly and earnestly bears witness to all. Bravo, I say.

   An industrious role model for fellow Churchmen, children and grandchildren to replicate.

   Bravo, Darryl, bravo.

   LikeLike

4. D.G. Hart quoting RS: If confessionalists are just going to church on Sunday, affirming the confession, taking the sacrament and just waiting for Christ to come again, then they are being lazy. If confessionalists are not seeking His glory in all things, then they are being lazy.

   D.G. Hart waxing eloquent after taking RS out of context or perhaps misreading him:
   Say, for instance, a father of four, keeps the Lord’s Day holy by going to two worship services, relaxing with his family, and leading his children in some catechism memorization. Then during the week he holds down a respectable job that takes at least fifty hours of his time (especially given the commute; on some of his drive he does not listen to Christian radio but tunes in to NPR). He also eats with his wife and children at breakfast and dinner, and leads family worship after both meals (though the morning devotions are abbreviated). Meanwhile, on Wednesday night he enjoys friendship and camaraderie with the members of his bowling team. Thursday nights he pays the bills (thanking the Lord for on-line banking). Saturdays he catches up with home projects and plays a little basketball in the drive way with his three sons. And through it all he tries to talk to his wife about life, the kids, the Republican primaries, and the current season of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
   I ask you: is this man lazy? Is he cold and indifferent to the “things of the Lord”?

   RS: I would have thought better of you, Dr. Hart. You have an ability (I am not knocking that, just noting) to pick up on words in sentences that make a difference in the meaning of the sentence and paragraph. Notice my word “just” in the following sentence. ” If confessionalists are just going to church on Sunday.” The word “just” is huge in the context of what I was saying and meaning. Notice that in your description of a man (while waxing eloquent or…) you were talking primarily about things the man was doing on days other than the Sabbath. Even more, you mentioned a few things that he did on the Sabbath that went beyond my “just” in the comment. Allow me to give you several places in the WCF that shows that Christians are to do far more than what I listed after my “just.” This is demonstrative evidence that a person that “just” does the things that I listed in the original quote is in violation of the WCF. Are you now going to take the WCF to task?

   Chapter XIII Of Sanctification
   I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]
   III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]

   RS: Surely it is obvious that these things are to take place on more than the Sabbath.

   Chapter XVI Of Good Works
   I. Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word,[1] and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.[2]
   II. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:[3] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[4] strengthen their assurance,[5] edify their brethren,[6] adorn the profession of the Gospel,[7] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[8] and glorify God,[9] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[10] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.[11]
   III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.[12] And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure:[13] yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14]

   RS: Of doing good works one is not “to grow negligent.” Surely these things must happen on other days than the Sabbath as well.

   Chapter XXI Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
   V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching[18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence,[19] singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] and thanksgivings upon special occasions,[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.[26]
   VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations,[38] but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.[39]

   RS: If you read this carefully you will see that there is a lot more prescribed to keeping the Sabbath than the things I listed after my word “just.”

   Chapter XXVI Of the Communion of Saints
   I. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory:[1] and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces,[2] and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.[3]
   II. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification;[4] as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offers opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.[5]

   RS: Again, these things to be done properly have to happen on more than the Sabbath.

   Chapter XXXIII Of the Last Judgment
   I. God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ,[1] to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father.[2] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged,[3] but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.[4]

   RS: The WCF does not say that one is to appear before the tribunal of Christ “to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil” for all the things they have done on the Sabbath or specifically the time spent in the four walls of a building.

   LikeLike

5. Stan Hauerwas ( once a Methodist, now an Anglican, and never a Mennonite or a Roman Catholic): “I believe that living in damaged times and in a damaged church is where God would have us be. ‘The hardest thing in the world is to be where we are’ is Rowan Williams’ way to remind us that the ordinary time we have been given is all the time we need to attend patiently to what seems to be the intractable and contingent problems that beset us.

   “To live well in ordinary time is no easy achievement because we are tempted to the dramatic in the desperate attempt to make our lives significant if not heroic… We cannot and should not try to make our lives more authentic by dramatic gestures. Rather we must learn to engage in everyday tasks as common as learning to speak the truth and, perhaps even more demanding, to hear the truth through the time consuming work of conversation…

   LikeLike

6. I’m sorry Richard, what’s your point?

   LikeLike

7. RS,

   That is a fair response to the “just” side of your formulation. I trust DGH will respond.

   Meanwhile, would you reference the same sections of WCF to explain what you mean by “seeking his glory in all things”? Are you referring there to sanctification, good works, and religious worship?

   I think the confessionalist might be hearing in that phrase the suggestion that it isn’t enough to shoot hoops with your kids on Saturday afternoon, you somehow have to shoot holy hoops, i.e., play “HORSE” with a theological term instead (“FAITH”), or invite orphans and widows to play with you.

   Can you clarify? Thanks.

   LikeLike

8. Richard, why don’t you recognize the Protestant doctrine of vocation which makes it possible for a Christian father to feed his children rather than reading the Bible? Your response only proves the point of the post. You want religious activity outside the Sabbath. The Reformation gave the green light to “worldly activities” because they could serve God and neighbor in caring for the world. Your logic seems to be that if only we could read the Bible and pray more, we would be better off. Meanwhile, you almost entirely disregard that people have bodies, families, and needs that come with them.

   As for the final judgment, I am so glad the Confession of Faith contains the following in Chapter 11: “Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.” If I had to stand before God unadorned with Christ’s righteousness, I’d be toast.

   LikeLike

9. Brian and Richard, my response to the “just” side of Richard’s comment is that I find it hard to believe any person only goes to church on Sunday and doesn’t do anything the rest of the week — that anything especially includes all that activity necessary to make a Lord’s Day holy and restful.

   LikeLike

10. But revivalists do love that word “just.” I just hope that the hours of endless prayer aren’t riddled with that four-letter word. But, Richard, you can’t really think that confessionalism means there is no such thing as being spiritual between Sabbath days. The point is that we are also still very much created.

    LikeLike

11. The use and defense of “just” is problematic, Richard.

    (1) There is an implied tone that may tend to diminish the Ministry of the Word and Sacrament. It was not a good sentence. It suggested that faithful Churchmen, receivers of the Word in meekness and faith, nurtured and sustained in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, “just” sit around and are “lazy.” You may not have intended that, but you chose the word “just.” While that may well be so with some, as hypocrites do exist, it still suggests–even imputed–an uncharitable judgment. It is true that we are lazy at times. We are addressed in the Word and Sacrament re: that. However, whoever would think that fair and honourable Churchmen “just” sit around and are “lazy?” You invited the critique by your own word choice–“just.”
    (2) The word “just” did not warrant other suggestions and the long quotes, that is, your implied suggestion that Darryl tossed the Confession’s chapters on good words, sanctification, and communion of the saints. I did not see Darryl toss those chapters from the WCF. Did he toss them? Is Darryl a Confessionalist revisionist?

    LikeLike

12. “just” and “really.” I really just would like to really hear an evangelical prayer that just really doesn’t repeatedly use those words.

    But Richard, I am also confused about what your point is. Are you accusing Hart of advocating “just going to church on Sunday, etc.” even with this current post? Or do you think that Hart really is advocating literally doing nothing but “just going to church, etc.” despite the post? Or are you objecting to Hart picking on your use of “just,” because…?

    Please take a step back and clarify for those of us confused: what your problem is with this particular post’s description of a Christian’s life, how it is disobedient to Scripture and counter the confession, and what you might envision to make his life more obedient.

    LikeLike

13. In another direction on the word “just.” A different direction than Darryl’s and Richard’s for a moment. Taking up Darren’s comment for a moment, three things.

    1) A few decades back. Met a Methodist USMC Chaplain. MDiv, Duke. DMin, Vanderbilt. Liberal, but well read. Double-purple-hearted USMC sniper from Vietnam. A stack of ribbons and medals to his shoulder. A fine Veteran. He often lampooned evangelicals as “`Just’ Wanna Thank Ya Theologians…” His name was Norm. He had a quirky smile. The fellow himself had a holiness type Wesleyan background in his youth. I had the sense that he had unresolved issues with his past. I know he suffered embarrassments while studying at Duke. But a revivalist background from the hills of West Virginia was his background. Coal-miners, his father and grandfather. The word “just” was in the critique. “Father God, we `just’ love ya…” He called them the “`Just’ Wanna Thank Ya Theologians.”

    2) In my travels (half the globe over to the Indian Ocean from east coast, USA), I often heard these exclamations. “Father God, we `just’ wanna thank ya…” In those earlier years, I was a kinder, gentler and a more tolerant sort. Although catechetized (WSC) and a Prayer Book man, I was less grumpy about this word “just” as ubiquitously used by well-meaning, but–may I say it?–lazy, ecstatic, and revivalist types. As age develops, less tolerant of these types now. Get some discipline, I say.

    3) Confessional Churchmanship and Prayer Book Churchmanship takes time, discipline, committment, thought, evaluation, meditation and use. These well-meaning types lacked discipline. They ‘just” wanted the indiscipline and spontaneity of “enthusing.” A good hearty faith is commendable. A good hearty “Amen” is in order after a fine collect. The Heidelberg Catechism speaks of hearty faith. However, order, decency and decorum, yeah Biblical discipline and self-control, are serious matters to Confessional Churchmen. They “just” are not lazy. The “`Just’ WannaThank Ya Theologians,” however, have proven themselves to be indolent. Their prayers reflect this.

    Thank you for the digression. Back on point.

    LikeLike

14. Brian Lee: RS, That is a fair response to the “just” side of your formulation. I trust DGH will respond. Meanwhile, would you reference the same sections of WCF to explain what you mean by “seeking his glory in all things”? Are you referring there to sanctification, good works, and religious worship?

    I think the confessionalist might be hearing in that phrase the suggestion that it isn’t enough to shoot hoops with your kids on Saturday afternoon, you somehow have to shoot holy hoops, i.e., play “HORSE” with a theological term instead (“FAITH”), or invite orphans and widows to play with you.

    Can you clarify? Thanks.

    RS: Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?

    A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God,[1] and fully to enjoy him forever.[2]

    Romans 11:36. For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. 1 Corinthians 10:31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

    RS: The 24/7/52/12 is actually a good designation for the Q & A of the catechism and of the Scriptures.

    Q. 93. What is the moral law?

    A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body,[399] and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man:[400] promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.[401]

    Q. 102. What is the sum of the four commandments which contain our duty to God?
    A. The sum of the four commandments containing our duty to God is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind.[444]

    Q. 103. Which is the first commandment?
    A. The first commandment is, Thou shall have no other gods before me.[445]

    Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment?

    A. The third commandment requires, That the name of God, his titles, attributes,[561] ordinances,[562] the Word,[563] sacraments,[564] prayer,[565] oaths,[566] vows,[567] lots,[568] his works,[569] and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought,[570] meditation,[571] word,[572] and writing;[573] by an holy profession,[574] and answerable conversation,[575] to the glory of God,[576] and the good of ourselves,[577] and others.[578].

    Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?

    A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required;[579] and the abuse of it in an ignorant,[580] vain,[581] irreverent, profane,[582] superstitious[583] or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes,[584] ordinances,[585] or works,[586] by blasphemy,[587] perjury;[588] all sinful cursings,[589] oaths,[590] vows,[591] and lots;[592] violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful;[593] and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful;[594] murmuring and quarrelling at,[595] curious prying into,[596] and misapplying of God’s decrees[597] and providences;[598] misinterpreting,[599] misapplying,[600] or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it;[601] to profane jests,[602] curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines;[603] abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms,[604] or sinful lusts and practices;[605] the maligning,[606] scorning,[607] reviling,[608] or any wise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways;[609] making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends;[610] being ashamed of it,[611] or a shame to it, by unconformable,[612] unwise,[613] unfruitful,[614] and offensive walking,[615] or backsliding from it.[616].

    LikeLike

15. Darren: “just” and “really.” I really just would like to really hear an evangelical prayer that just really doesn’t repeatedly use those words.

    But Richard, I am also confused about what your point is. Are you accusing Hart of advocating “just going to church on Sunday, etc.” even with this current post? Or do you think that Hart really is advocating literally doing nothing but “just going to church, etc.” despite the post? Or are you objecting to Hart picking on your use of “just,” because…?

    RS: I was actually in a discussion with another person. I am not accusing any specific person of doing this. So I am objecting to his using my statement out of context.

    Darren: Please take a step back and clarify for those of us confused: what your problem is with this particular post’s description of a Christian’s life, how it is disobedient to Scripture and counter the confession, and what you might envision to make his life more obedient.

    RS: The discussion with another person was primarily discussing confessionalism versus those who hold to true revival. The other side appeared to be saying that we need to attend services on Sunday, affirm the confession, take the sacraments, and then all is well. I was trying to make the point that just doing those things is not enough, but instead the Church requires more and is not inconsitent with the type of revivals that happened during the time of Jonathan Edwards. In fact, God does not just require our Sundays, but He requires us to love Him with all of our being at all times.

    LikeLike

16. Donald Philip Veitch: The use and defense of “just” is problematic, Richard.

    (1) There is an implied tone that may tend to diminish the Ministry of the Word and Sacrament. It was not a good sentence. It suggested that faithful Churchmen, receivers of the Word in meekness and faith, nurtured and sustained in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, “just” sit around and are “lazy.” You may not have intended that, but you chose the word “just.”

    RS: Like I said, there was a context to my using that word. There is no inmplied tone in the larger context that diminishes the preaching of the Word of God.

    Donald Philip Veitch: While that may well be so with some, as hypocrites do exist, it still suggests–even imputed–an uncharitable judgment. It is true that we are lazy at times. We are addressed in the Word and Sacrament re: that. However, whoever would think that fair and honourable Churchmen “just” sit around and are “lazy?” You invited the critique by your own word choice–”just.”

    RS: Again, you are adding to my words. I said nothing about fair and honorable Churchmen. I was simply arguing that Sunday alone is not enough and so those who do spiritual things throughout the week (such as those who desire true revival) are really not odd or strange. At least that is where it was going.

    Donald Philip Veitch: (2) The word “just” did not warrant other suggestions and the long quotes, that is, your implied suggestion that Darryl tossed the Confession’s chapters on good words, sanctification, and communion of the saints. I did not see Darryl toss those chapters from the WCF. Did he toss them? Is Darryl a Confessionalist revisionist?

    RS: Sigh. Context, context, context. What warranted the comments from the WCF was that to do those things require far more than Sunday morning alone. That was in the context of the previous discussion.

    LikeLike

17. Wow, I want to smack my forehead reading this. Palms up, buddy.

    LikeLike

18. D. G. Hart: Brian and Richard, my response to the “just” side of Richard’s comment is that I find it hard to believe any person only goes to church on Sunday and doesn’t do anything the rest of the week — that anything especially includes all that activity necessary to make a Lord’s Day holy and restful.

    RS: Which, I think, is gettting at my original point or at least what I was driving at. By the way, a strict reading of Westminster does not really allow for a restful Lord’s Day. I cannot believe that one that truly holds to the confessions would only hold to Sunday alone.

    WLC: Q. 119. What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
    A. The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required,[630] all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them;[631] all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful;[632] and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations.[633]

    Chapter XXI Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day

    VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations,[38] but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

    LikeLike

19. D. G. Hart: Richard, why don’t you recognize the Protestant doctrine of vocation which makes it possible for a Christian father to feed his children rather than reading the Bible? Your response only proves the point of the post. You want religious activity outside the Sabbath. The Reformation gave the green light to “worldly activities” because they could serve God and neighbor in caring for the world. Your logic seems to be that if only we could read the Bible and pray more, we would be better off. Meanwhile, you almost entirely disregard that people have bodies, families, and needs that come with them.

    RS: I simply don’t even have an idea of how you can come up with that. I have said nothing that would lead one to believe that I actually intended to assert what you are saying. I plead guilty that I think we should read the Bible more and pray more (even pray without ceasing), but Jesus did instruct us to seek His kingdom first. Of course I want Christian activity outside of Sunday. But as best that I know my heart, I certainly believe that Christian activity includes all that one does out of love for God. But that does not deny out other specific activities of being part of a church. All the duties that Westminster sets out cannot be done only on Sunday mornings. I am still amazed that you think I don’t recognize that a Christian father should read his Bible rather than feed his children.

    D.G. Hart: As for the final judgment, I am so glad the Confession of Faith contains the following in Chapter 11: “Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.” If I had to stand before God unadorned with Christ’s righteousness, I’d be toast.

    RS: Yes, but there is also much more to be said.

    WLC: Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
    A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.[269]

    Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
    A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace,[270] whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband;[271] which is done in their effectual calling.[272]

    Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
    A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace,[273] whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto)[274] he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit;[275] savingly enlightening their minds,[276] renewing and powerfully determining their wills,[277] so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.[278]

    Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
    A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification,[283] adoption,[284] sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.[285]

    LikeLike

20. I feel the pain of those who happen to have Richard as their Pastor. He claims that he interprets Edwards differently than Piper but this video, which McMark sent me, would lead me to believe otherwise: I think McMark has a more accurate interpretation of 1John than either Piper or Richard-

    http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/no-one-born-of-god-makes-a-practice-of-sinning

    LikeLike

21. Richard, so you do think that believers won’t be judged according to what they have done but will be declared innocent because of Christ, their head and savior. That’s good to know. But why did you quote from the last chapter of the Confession to threaten us with needing to do more Bible reading and pray more frequently?

    The reason why I don’t think you affirm vocation properly is that you never seem to talk about the ordinary activities of life in this world. Your very definition of revival discourages a proper recognition of vocation. A revival makes me more religious and more mindful of God. Work distracts from my religious duties.

    LikeLike

22. Richard,

    Do you believe replacing a car’s oil or changing a baby’s diaper are activities that glorify God?

    LikeLike

23. D. G. Hart: Richard, so you do think that believers won’t be judged according to what they have done but will be declared innocent because of Christ, their head and savior. That’s good to know. But why did you quote from the last chapter of the Confession to threaten us with needing to do more Bible reading and pray more frequently?

    RS: How is it that I am now threatening people? Christ lived, died, and rose again for sinners. But He is also the very life of those who truly have Christ. He speaks to them through His Word and prayer is their natural langauge. In the langauge of Westminster, this manifests the union believers have with Christ.

    D. G. Hart: The reason why I don’t think you affirm vocation properly is that you never seem to talk about the ordinary activities of life in this world.

    RS: Most likely it is not explicitly there because that has not been the topic of discussion. However, the WSC and WLC deals with that in the very first question. The chief end of man in all that is done is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

    D. G. Hart: Your very definition of revival discourages a proper recognition of vocation.

    RS: Not in this world.

    D. G. Hart: A revival makes me more religious and more mindful of God. Work distracts from my religious duties.

    RS: When have I said anything like the last part of what you wrote? True enough a revival makes one more like Christ and more mindful of God, but how does it follow that work distracts from our religious duties? Instead, they should make us strive to do them better. Implications are a dangerous thing. Reading someone with predispositions can lead to wrong implications. I think I see why you read Edwards in such a negative fashion now.

    LikeLike

24. Lily: Richard, Do you believe replacing a car’s oil or changing a baby’s diaper are activities that glorify God?

    RS: When Christ is dwelling in a person and that person loves God, then that person may manifest the glory of God when changing oil or a diaper.
    1 Corinthians 10:31 “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God”.

    The “whatever you do” covers all that one does. All that one does is to be done to the glory of God.

    LikeLike

25. John Yeazel: I feel the pain of those who happen to have Richard as their Pastor.

    RS: I am not a pastor, but the pain I have right now is because of eisegesis when someone reads what I post.

    John Yeazel: He claims that he interprets Edwards differently than Piper but this video, which McMark sent me, would lead me to believe otherwise: I think McMark has a more accurate interpretation of 1John than either Piper or Richard

    RS: So, how do I interpret I John? I was unaware that I have interpreted I John here. So one video leads you to believe that I interpret Edwards like Piper rather than my claim that Piper misinterprets Edwards. I seriously doubt that Piper misinterprets all of Edwards and I seriously doubt I understand Edwards in all places. However, I have said (if you wish, claimed) that Piper does misinterpret Edwards. By that I am meaning that one of the things that Piper has built his ministry on is a misinterpretation of Edwards. But that does not mean that he misinterprets Edwards in all places.

    LikeLike

26. Donald Philip Veitch: In another direction on the word “just.” A different direction than Darryl’s and Richard’s for a moment. Taking up Darren’s comment for a moment, three things.

    1) A few decades back. Met a Methodist USMC Chaplain. MDiv, Duke. DMin, Vanderbilt. Liberal, but well read. Double-purple-hearted USMC sniper from Vietnam. A stack of ribbons and medals to his shoulder. A fine Veteran. He often lampooned evangelicals as “`Just’ Wanna Thank Ya Theologians…” His name was Norm. He had a quirky smile. The fellow himself had a holiness type Wesleyan background in his youth. I had the sense that he had unresolved issues with his past. I know he suffered embarrassments while studying at Duke. But a revivalist background from the hills of West Virginia was his background. Coal-miners, his father and grandfather. The word “just” was in the critique. “Father God, we `just’ love ya…” He called them the “`Just’ Wanna Thank Ya Theologians.”

    RS: The word “just” in the context of the man above is the idea that we want to do nothing but love you. Which, by the way, is almost precisely the way I was using the word.

    Donald Philip Veitch: 2) In my travels (half the globe over to the Indian Ocean from east coast, USA), I often heard these exclamations. “Father God, we `just’ wanna thank ya…” In those earlier years, I was a kinder, gentler and a more tolerant sort. Although catechetized (WSC) and a Prayer Book man, I was less grumpy about this word “just” as ubiquitously used by well-meaning, but–may I say it?–lazy, ecstatic, and revivalist types. As age develops, less tolerant of these types now. Get some discipline, I say.

    RS: So they should get some discipline so you will not be irritated at the way they pray? Let me jump to some conclusions here (much the same you did in jumping to some conclusions in a former post). I take it that you want people to desire to pray with less than love for God. After all, if they want to pray with nothing more than love for God, then your irritation with that means that you want them to pray in a way that has no love for God or perhaps just some less. So people should discipline themselves to pray without love. Just to repeat, I jumped to conclusions on purpose.

    Donald Philip Veitch: 3) Confessional Churchmanship and Prayer Book Churchmanship takes time, discipline, committment, thought, evaluation, meditation and use.

    RS: But not necessarily the love of Christ in the soul.

    Donald Philip Veitch: These well-meaning types lacked discipline. They ‘just” wanted the indiscipline and spontaneity of “enthusing.” A good hearty faith is commendable. A good hearty “Amen” is in order after a fine collect. The Heidelberg Catechism speaks of hearty faith. However, order, decency and decorum, yeah Biblical discipline and self-control, are serious matters to Confessional Churchmen. They “just” are not lazy. The “`Just’ WannaThank Ya Theologians,” however, have proven themselves to be indolent. Their prayers reflect this.

    RS: So now you are the judge of prayer. If it is not the prayer of the Prayer Book, it is not in order? I fear that you would not have liked Jesus and His disciples much. They were blasted by people just because they did not have the proper order, decency, and decorum. While Jesus did not use the exact words you don’t like in prayer,

    John 14:31 but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.

    John 15:9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.

    1 John 3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

    Donald Philip Veitch: Thank you for the digression. Back on point.

    RS: Actually, it was no digression. It appears that whenever someone uses the word “just” in a sentence that has the meaning of “limited to” or “only”, it sets off something in you and sure seems to lead you to judging the prayers of others and even the writing of others. Is judging the prayers or writing of someone because of one word you don’t like a sign of Confessional Churchmanship?

    LikeLike

27. I plead guilty that I think we should read the Bible more and pray more (even pray without ceasing), but Jesus did instruct us to seek His kingdom first.

    Richard, the way you read the Bible makes it sound like we are to literally pray without ceasing. But you do understand that the Bible is using linguistic device to make a point? It doesn’t really mean to pray 27/7/52/12/364. It means praying should be regular and routine. I mean, I have to believe, even for a fine revivalist as yourself, there are minutes you do not pray. So how do you explain those minutes? Are you being lazy and disobedient, or are you being as human as the confessionalist who has even more minutes, even hours, he doesn’t pray? Sure, we’re not nearly as spiritual as the revivalist, but if we both have minutes we don’t pray then at least in those minutes we are equally human.

    LikeLike

28. Pingback: 24/7/52/12 Christians – via Old Life Blog | Pilgrimage to Geneva

29. Thanks, Richard. It’s good to know that you see God glorified in the ordinary life of the Christian. Which begs a question: if God is pleased and glorified by our ordinary lives, why do you add revival and Edward’s affections?

    LikeLike

30. Maybe the word “revival” is like the word “evangelical”. Some folks like the word and want to contest its meaning. Others of us are content to let others have the word.

    Ian Murray writes: “The men of the Old School, while believing in revival as fervently as they did…nevertheless knew no biblical reason to be cast down by the normal” (385).

    http://www.9marks.org/books/book-review-revival-and-revivalism

    LikeLike

31. Zrim Quoting RS: I plead guilty that I think we should read the Bible more and pray more (even pray without ceasing), but Jesus did instruct us to seek His kingdom first.

    Zrim: Richard, the way you read the Bible makes it sound like we are to literally pray without ceasing. But you do understand that the Bible is using linguistic device to make a point? It doesn’t really mean to pray 27/7/52/12/364. It means praying should be regular and routine.

    RS: So why didn’t it just say that we should have a routine of pray and do it on a regular basis? But more to the point, I do believe that it holds out that we are literally to pray without ceasing. Of course if a person thinks of prayer as praying from a Prayer Book, then that is obviously not possible. But if a person thinks of prayer as the soul communing with God and relying on His grace each moment, that would be something different.

    Zrim: I mean, I have to believe, even for a fine revivalist as yourself, there are minutes you do not pray.

    RS: Oh no, I have it down to” just” seconds now. For all OldLifers who are reading at this point, that was an attempt at humor. Please don’t respond with endless citations of various ways that is impossible and so on. The Bible sets out a perfect standard that by grace we are to strive for. I am far from that standard in practice, but that does not lessen the standard. If I loved God with all of my heart, mind, soul, and strength, then I would be praying without ceasing. However, I fall short of His glory and His perfect standard. At this point McMark would step in and say that we are justified by Christ and I would say absolutely. However, it is because we are justified by grace alone through faith alone that we should be moved to seek the face of God.

    Zrim: So how do you explain those minutes? Are you being lazy and disobedient, or are you being as human as the confessionalist who has even more minutes, even hours, he doesn’t pray?

    RS: The shortest answer is simply yes.

    Zrim: Sure, we’re not nearly as spiritual as the revivalist, but if we both have minutes we don’t pray then at least in those minutes we are equally human.

    RS: I am not arguing as to the level of who is more or less spiritual. As far as I know I entered the discussion when Edwards was falsely maligned regarding revival and it has moved from there. The moments that confessionalists or those who seek revival are not in prayer, are moments that we are not in communion with God. Prayer is not a work of the human flesh and it is not something we do to gain merit before God. Just trying to be clear in order to prevent some of those unwarranted implications (not just from you, Zrim).

    LikeLike

32. John Yeazel: He claims that he interprets Edwards differently than Piper but this video, which McMark sent me, would lead me to believe otherwise: I think McMark has a more accurate interpretation of 1John than either Piper or Richard

    RS: So, how do I interpret I John? I was unaware that I have interpreted I John here. So one video leads you to believe that I interpret Edwards like Piper rather than my claim that Piper misinterprets Edwards. I seriously doubt that Piper misinterprets all of Edwards and I seriously doubt I understand Edwards in all places. However, I have said (if you wish, claimed) that Piper does misinterpret Edwards. By that I am meaning that one of the things that Piper has built his ministry on is a misinterpretation of Edwards. But that does not mean that he misinterprets Edwards in all places.

    John Y: Not that I am that concerned about this debate anymore but you have used 1John on many occasions in your posts. Mainly, as a book that would exhort us to examine ourselves to determine if we really had Christ and the Holy Spirit in us. If we did we would keep His commandments (and not make a practive of sinning) and show evidence of love of the brethren in our lives. I am pretty sure now that the gist of the book is more about Cain and Abel and Law and Gospel than it is about an exhortation to examine ourselves to see if we are really in the faith. The conclusion that Piper comes to is that the book should lead us to develop discernment in regards to presumption, on the one hand, and despair on the other. It is this tension in the book which is how we should discern our spiritual condition. So, subjective discernment becomes more important than the objective Gospel which becomes no Gospel at all and an attempt to bolster our own “works” as the thing that proves our “true” faith. This is what separated Cain and Abel. The key to interpreting the book seems to lie in 1John 4:13-21.

    You also stated that you did not interpret 1John like Brian Lee did in his article in Modern Reformation magazine. I probably started making assumptions about how you interpreted 1John based on that remark. The book has more to do with proper worship than a guide into how to examine oneself by looking for objective or subjective evidence in your own self.

    LikeLike

33. Lily: Thanks, Richard. It’s good to know that you see God glorified in the ordinary life of the Christian. Which begs a question: if God is pleased and glorified by our ordinary lives, why do you add revival and Edward’s affections?

    RS: Believers are not to live ordinary lives, but all is to be done to the glory of God. But using the term as you are using it, I am not sure what I have said that would make people think that God is not glorified in our daily activities and the mundane aspects of life. I would also argue that I do not add revival, but the Bible speaks of God reviving His people so that He may dwell in them. The Bible speaks of His people seeking His face at all times. I also don’t add Edwards’ affections, but instead as he did in his book on Religious Affections, he has demonstrated that they are biblical.

    John 15:11 “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.

    John 16:24 “Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full.

    John 17:13 “But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves.

    1 Peter 1:8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,

    LikeLike

34. mark mcculley: Maybe the word “revival” is like the word “evangelical”. Some folks like the word and want to contest its meaning. Others of us are content to let others have the word.

    Ian Murray writes: “The men of the Old School, while believing in revival as fervently as they did…nevertheless knew no biblical reason to be cast down by the normal” (385).

    RS: I would certainly agree with Murray’s statement. It is not knocking the “normal” life of the church to seek more of God, but instead that is one way of seeking the face of God. He is sovereign over all of these things and gives Himself as He pleases.

    LikeLike

35. John Y: Not that I am that concerned about this debate anymore but you have used 1John on many occasions in your posts. Mainly, as a book that would exhort us to examine ourselves to determine if we really had Christ and the Holy Spirit in us. If we did we would keep His commandments (and not make a practive of sinning) and show evidence of love of the brethren in our lives. I am pretty sure now that the gist of the book is more about Cain and Abel and Law and Gospel than it is about an exhortation to examine ourselves to see if we are really in the faith. The conclusion that Piper comes to is that the book should lead us to develop discernment in regards to presumption, on the one hand, and despair on the other. It is this tension in the book which is how we should discern our spiritual condition. So, subjective discernment becomes more important than the objective Gospel which becomes no Gospel at all and an attempt to bolster our own “works” as the thing that proves our “true” faith. This is what separated Cain and Abel. The key to interpreting the book seems to lie in 1John 4:13-21.

    RS: I John 4:13-21 = At least five times it speaks of God and/or His love dwelling in the believer. verse 16 speaks of us coming to know and believing the love that God has in us. Below are a few verses about knowing whether a person is converted or not. It does seem to be a main theme.

    1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:

    1 John 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

    1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

    1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

    1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

    1 John 3:16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

    1 John 3:19 We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him

    1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

    1 John 4:6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

    1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.

    1 John 4:16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

    1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

    1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

    1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

    John Y: You also stated that you did not interpret 1John like Brian Lee did in his article in Modern Reformation magazine. I probably started making assumptions about how you interpreted 1John based on that remark. The book has more to do with proper worship than a guide into how to examine oneself by looking for objective or subjective evidence in your own self.

    RS: I said that, but primarily on one or two verses. Perhaps your assumptions were correct as I do believe the book is about knowing whether or not a person has eternal life dwelling in him or her.

    LikeLike

36. Here is the dialog had with McMark about the Piper video:

    Show Details

    John, I agree with what you say about Piper. What he’s teaching is not
    the gospel. I don’t think he understands I John.

    I John 3:12We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and
    murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds
    were evil and his brother’s righteous.

    What is an evil deed? What is a righteous deed? Is the evil deed here
    the murder? No, even though murder is an evil deed, Cain murdered Abel
    because of Cain’s status as a condemned sinner and unbeliever in God’s
    gospel.

    Cain was a bad tree who thereby necessarily brought forth fruit which
    was all bad, all unacceptable. So it’s not a matter of more and more,
    but of either/or. There are those who abide in God’s gospel and those
    who do not.

    I John is not comparing morality with immorality. It is not mere
    morality that the world hates. It was not morality that Cain hated.
    Cain hated Abel’s gospel because that gospel said that even Cain’s
    best efforts to please God (his fruits, his sincerity) were an
    abomination to God.

    Cain’s works were evil, according to God’s gospel, which Abel
    believed. For this reason, Cain murdered Abel. For this reason, the
    world hates those who believe the gospel and who have passed out of
    death into life(3:13).

    But what does I John have to say about gospel imputation? Isn’t I John
    about one of the “pegs of assurance”?: better morality, without being
    perfectionist about it? I John 4:16 tells the good news of God’s love
    for “us”, not for those who “went out from us”.

    I John 4:17 explains that God’s election (love) is “perfected with us,
    so that we have confidence in the day of judgment, because as He is so
    also are we in the world.”

    Even though I John 4:17 does not use the word imputation, that is the
    only way the elect can be as He is in the world. (Check out your
    commentaries on this: even those who deny that the righteousness of
    Matthew 5:20 is imputed, even those who deny that the “fine linen” of
    the saints are by imputation, even most of these commentators agree
    that God’s love in 4:17 means sinners having legal union with Christ’s
    obedience.

    Now we can make distinctions where we say, yes my ultimate hope is
    imputed righteousness (not as that which makes up the difference, but
    as that which is sufficient for the elect), but right now my assurance
    of that verdict also depends on this new morality with which I have
    been graced.

    But I John 3 is about the difference between a Nicodemus and a
    prodigal publican, about the difference between a religious Cain and a
    religious Abel. Think of the context! The religion of Cain is nothing
    but evil deeds.

    You don’t have to be effectually called to become ashamed of murder.
    But the reason Cain murdered was that He wanted to glory in/ rejoice
    in (Phil 3:3) the deeds done by his false god in his body. Cain
    refused to put to death those deeds (Rom 8:13), even though “religious
    and moral” deeds by a unjustified unbeliever are an abomination to
    God.

    Those deeds were motivated by a mercenary spirit seeking assurance by
    means of deeds. Cain in the flesh “could not please God” (Rom 8:8),
    not even with claims of having a better nature on the inside or with
    his
    religious worship.

    To pass over from death to life is to be put into the new man, to be
    given a new legal state, in which one’s confidence is not in what God
    does in you but rather in what God has done in Christ outside you.
    Only in this way can we be in the world as Christ was in the world.

    Two positions: “those who were once slaves of sin have become obedient
    from the mind to the standard of information to which they are
    committed” (Rom 6:17) so that there are “things of which you are now
    ashamed” (Rom 6:21).

    You may have been ashamed of immorality before, but not of your false
    worship and not of your assurance based partly on your works that you
    thank God that you can do, not like the publican.

    The Cains of this world are ready for a self-examination and contrast
    in terms of their morality. But they will not come to the light,
    because they love darkness and the light of the gospel will tell them
    their deeds are evil, all their deeds, even their moral deeds. (John
    3:19)

    Abel “does what is true”. Abel abides in the gospel.

    mark

    On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:27 PM, John Yeazel wrote:
    > Listened to Pipers teaching on 1John chapter 3 but was left more unassured
    > than assured. One is still left with looking inside for evidences (like
    > Richard who claims that Piper interprets Edwards wrongly) of being “born
    > again.” I still have trouble interpreting 1John especially when you read
    > Romans 7 along side it. The Romans 7 man is making a practice of sinning.
    > However, in 1John if you make a practice of sinning you do not know God.
    > Romans 8 instructs us to put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit.
    > Piper does not go into imputed righteousness at all in his lecture. Nor
    > does he instruct one on how to put to death the deeds of the flesh. He just
    > leaves one with the tension of being presumptious about being born again on
    > the one hand and despairing on the other- with having sin still in our flesh
    > yet having the seed of God which cannot sin inside us too. I’m confused!!!
    > That was one of the reasons I became a Lutheran because Luther always
    > instructed to look extra nos at what Christ did for us. I do not think
    > Piper is saying the same thing as Luther. Our inside is a confusing mess of
    > Christ in us, the Spirit in us, abiding sin in us and the Law still
    > condemning us in our consciences. It seems to me it is never good to look
    > inside for evidences of anything but a confusing mess of contradictory
    > voices. Better to look to the cross and let God take care of our subjective
    > mess in the ways that He knows how to do it. Do you have any better insight
    > than I might have?
    >
    > I like what you have said in posts in the past about the new creation being
    > a change in legal status. Piper gives no indication that he sees things
    > that way. He is still looking for evidences of being born again (and seems
    > to equate the new nature with being born again) and instructs others to do
    > so too. It still seems to be some kind of ontological change inside us when
    > we are born again for Piper. He used no legal language in his lecture. If
    > the guilt of our sin is not dealt with then sin still has power over us.
    > That seems to be the better way to deal with the problem but Piper does not
    > go into that at all.
    >
    > From: Mark McCulley
    > To: John Yeazel ; David Ouila
    > ; Dave Adkins
    > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:30 AM
    > Subject: piper on i john 3
    >
    > http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/no-one-born-of-god-makes-a-practice-of-sinning
    >
    >

    LikeLike

37. Richard, so you do take “praying ceaselessly” literally. But how can one be similtaneously praying and concentrating on any given vocation? Aren’t we finite beings as creatures? Isn’t multi-tasking a creaturely way of trying to be Creator-like? Something’s gotta give, and it seems to me prayer and vocation both get short-shrift if one is trying to do both at once by a creature designed to do only one thing at a time if he is to do it well. And what’s wrong with a prayer book? The Bible is a prayer book. Are you saying that when we pray the Psalter it’s even more laze and disobedience?

    By the way, you answered an either/or question with a yes, which seems to suggest this attempt at spiritual multi-tasking isn’t working out for you.

    LikeLike

38. “And through it all he tries to talk to his wife about life, the kids, the Republican primaries, and the current season of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”

    This post is pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good…

    LikeLike

39. Richard, you did quote from the last chapter of the Confession all by itself, and seemed to lead everyone to think that they would be judged on the basis of their works. Why else did you quote it?

    As for “religious duties,” since believers and unbelievers have duties to care for children and obey the laws of the land, I don’t see how most of the activities that my fictional father during his ordinary work week are “religious.” Why can’t we call them part of the created order?

    LikeLike

40. Zrim and Richard, and while we’re quantifying more prayer and Bible reading, Richard knows, right, that the Bible was unavailable to most of the believers to whom the apostles wrote? Christians were not sufficiently literate and Bibles were not widely available until at least the 19th century. We don’t want to assume that “our” standards of piety were the ones of earlier saints (though Richard may fault me for thinking to historically, which is really just a way of paying attention and showing some respect for God’s providence).

    LikeLike

41. Richard,

    Re: Believers are not to live ordinary lives, but all is to be done to the glory of God.

    If the ordinary life of a believer glorifies God why do say: Believers are not to live ordinary lives, but all is to be done to the glory of God? It looks like there is an inherent contradiction in this statement. Look at it phrased this way: Believers are not to do ordinary vacuuming, but all vacuuming is to be done to the glory of God. What do you add to change the vacuuming to make it glorifying?

    Re: I would also argue that I do not add revival, but the Bible speaks of God reviving His people so that He may dwell in them.

    Well, if you are born-again, you have been regenerated and given the Holy Spirit and God dwells in you. Daily he renews us with all of his benefits for he is faithful and as we confess our sins, he is faithful to forgive us, and cleanse us from our sin. What more do you want?

    LikeLike

42. Zrim: Richard, so you do take “praying ceaselessly” literally. But how can one be similtaneously praying and concentrating on any given vocation?

    RS: Again, it is the state of heart being in communion with God and calling on Him to give grace in order to do one’s vocation in a way that His glory is manifested. It is like the mother that is not in the room with her sleeping baby, but her mind is never far away. The baby is still on her heart as she goes about her other activities. That was just an analogy, but the point is that one can focus on one thing while the love of the heart still has something else in mind.

    Zrim: Aren’t we finite beings as creatures? Isn’t multi-tasking a creaturely way of trying to be Creator-like? Something’s gotta give, and it seems to me prayer and vocation both get short-shrift if one is trying to do both at once by a creature designed to do only one thing at a time if he is to do it well.

    RS: Of perhaps we are designed to pray without ceasing in a way that enables us to do our vocations to His glory.

    Zrim: And what’s wrong with a prayer book? The Bible is a prayer book.

    RS: I didn’t say something is wrong with a prayer book, but simply that prayer is not “just” a matter of reading a prayer from the prayer book. Prayer can be a matter of the heart as one is going about daily functions.

    Zrim: Are you saying that when we pray the Psalter it’s even more laze and disobedience?

    RS: I cannot speak for you or others. But praying the Psalter could be more laziness or it could be a way of true prayer. It depends on the motives and nature of the heart.

    Zrim: By the way, you answered an either/or question with a yes, which seems to suggest this attempt at spiritual multi-tasking isn’t working out for you.

    Zrim’s Old Question which makes him question my spiritual multi-tasking: So how do you explain those minutes? Are you being lazy and disobedient, or are you being as human as the confessionalist who has even more minutes, even hours, he doesn’t pray?

    RS quoting old RS answer to Zrim’s old question: The shortest answer is simply yes.

    RS (present): The background of the question has to do with the minutes a person spends not obeying the command to pray without ceasing. Zrim is setting out a snare for me. I simply went between the horns of his dilemma with a yes answer since the “or” did not really get at the issue. There are times when laziness is the answer and there are times when I must confess that I am almost as human as the confessionalist. (Note to OldLifers. Warning, a small amount of humor was infused into the previous paragraph. If it makes you smile, it may be that could be seen as an affection. If it makes you frown, that could still be an affection. Note again, I am not saying that sinners are saved by infused righteousness as opposed to imputed righteousness, but simply that a bit of humor was infused into the previous paragraph)

    LikeLike

43. John Yeazel: Here is the dialog had with McMark about the Piper video:

    John, I agree with what you say about Piper. What he’s teaching is not
    the gospel. I don’t think he understands I John.

    I John 3:12We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and
    murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds
    were evil and his brother’s righteous.

    RS: I guess my thinking on I John (now I am getting it out how I interpret it) is that John opens the book talking about the point of the book that he will talk about and then he ends the book by what he has talked about.

    1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life–
    2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us–
    3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
    4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
    5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
    6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
    7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

    I John 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
    12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
    13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life

    1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

    RS: It seems to me that John gives us the reason why he wrote the book. It is all about eternal life, which is really Christ Himself.

    LikeLike

44. After vowing to myself and DGHart many times that I would not mess in his nearly daily Old Life articles and the hundreds of comments, and that I would never go to Old Life again, But here I am! The Lord blessed me with a seminary education, (WTS 1954) nearly 60 years of a great marriage, 3 sons and a daughter, 25 grandkids and 4 great grands, I say this— Neither I nor any true Christian I ever met was so busy with trying to love our wives as Jesus loved the church, being hands on Dads, worshipping as God wants, etc. etc. etc., that we haven’t time to fight the good fights necessary in THIS world (created by Jesus— John 1:3,10, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2). It is yet another both/and, NOT EITHER/OR. Seems to this old fellow that many of the above comments are mostly choosing between our spritual duties of the complete Christian and duties God lays out for us on THIS, His earth! Threats from evil earthlings to our marriages, churches, our very lives! OBM

    LikeLike

45. D. G. Hart: Richard, you did quote from the last chapter of the Confession all by itself, and seemed to lead everyone to think that they would be judged on the basis of their works. Why else did you quote it?

    RS: Context, context, context. Now here you are talking about the last Chapter of the Confession. I brought it up with other parts of the Confession to show that the things that the Confession says we should be doing are things that require us to do things throughout the week and not just on Sunday morning.

    D.G. Hart: As for “religious duties,” since believers and unbelievers have duties to care for children and obey the laws of the land, I don’t see how most of the activities that my fictional father during his ordinary work week are “religious.” Why can’t we call them part of the created order?

    RS: I suppose you can call them what you please, but the Greatest Commandment commands us to do all that we do out of love for God with all of our being. I guess I am naive enough to believe that this command is true of all that we do and if we don’t, then we violate the 1st Commandment. Regarding your fictional father, he could lead his children in catechism memorization without one gram of love in his heart for God but instead just wants his children to be raised according to a religious expectation. The Greatest Commandment teaches us that your fictional father should lead his children in catechism memorization out of love for God. Again, my statements should not be construed as to say that all who love God should spend ten hours a week leading them in memorization of the catechism. The intent of the above statement was limited to saying that what the fictional father does should be done out of love for God.

    LikeLike

46. D. G. Hart: Zrim and Richard, and while we’re quantifying more prayer and Bible reading, Richard knows, right, that the Bible was unavailable to most of the believers to whom the apostles wrote?

    RS: Right. but this is why they gathered in groups so often. They had to memorize if they wanted it to remain with them.

    D.G. Hart: Christians were not sufficiently literate and Bibles were not widely available until at least the 19th century.

    RS: Gutenberg came along in 1450 or so, however. Luther got his version out a lot and then Tyndale, so there was an increasing number of people who were getting the Bible before then.

    D.G. Hart: We don’t want to assume that “our” standards of piety were the ones of earlier saints (though Richard may fault me for thinking to historically, which is really just a way of paying attention and showing some respect for God’s providence).

    RS: Yet the command of God was not lessened. This is one reason why those who were hungry for the Scriptures met together so often. I would say that our standards of piety are a lot less than that of earlier saints.

    LikeLike

47. Lily: Richard,
    Re: Believers are not to live ordinary lives, but all is to be done to the glory of God.

    If the ordinary life of a believer glorifies God why do say: Believers are not to live ordinary lives, but all is to be done to the glory of God? It looks like there is an inherent contradiction in this statement. Look at it phrased this way: Believers are not to do ordinary vacuuming, but all vacuuming is to be done to the glory of God. What do you add to change the vacuuming to make it glorifying?

    RS: Doing it with love for God in our hearts. Ordinary activites (in this sense) are things that many people do, but few do the ordinary activities out of love for God. Doing an outwardly ordinary activity out of love for God makes it more than ordinary.

    Liley: Quoting RS: Re: I would also argue that I do not add revival, but the Bible speaks of God reviving His people so that He may dwell in them.

    Lily: Well, if you are born-again, you have been regenerated and given the Holy Spirit and God dwells in you. Daily he renews us with all of his benefits for he is faithful and as we confess our sins, he is faithful to forgive us, and cleanse us from our sin. What more do you want?

    RS: Dessert. By that I am meaning that eternal life is to know God and His Son. But we can know them more and more. John 17: 25 “O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; 26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

    Jesus make the Father’s name known to them, but He said that He will make it known. For what reason? So that His love would be in His people and Christ Himself would be in them. I would argue that we can grow in our knowing Him and should grow in our knowing Him. This knowing Him is not just knowing about Him, but is eternal life itself in the soul. What more do I want? I want more of God in my soul. As Jesus prayed in John 17:1, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You.” We should desire for the Father to manifest His glory in us so that we may glorify Him.

    LikeLike

48. But, Richard, if I read your analogy the way you read the Bible (i.e. figurative linguistic devices literally) then our mother can’t be in the other room while her child sleeps. And to press it further, she is being lazy and disobedient to take her mind off her duties for a spell and go finish that episode of “CYE”–her other option is to be helicopter-ish. But if all of life is prayer then, like worship, nothing really is. It’s glorified neglect of vocations. How does neglect of God-given duties glorify God?

    As to my either/or question, I’m all for a sense of humor, but I don’t see why you’d want to avoid admitting being human. It’s ok, Richard, God won’t smite you for being the creature he made you to be.

    LikeLike

49. Dr. Hart, I would be interested in knowing where the Edwards quote is from. Do you have the reference?

    LikeLike

50. Richard,

    I don’t see anything about looking for objective and subjective evidences within that we are born again in those verses from the beginning of 1John and the end of 1John. It is all about Christ and what he did so we could inherit eternal life and have fellowship with those who walk in that light. Walking in darkness is relying and looking to our deeds as the evidence that we have inherited eternal life. I doubt if this will go anywhere although the 3 year discussion with Jeff did end up bringing me more understanding of legal union with Christ as opposed to union with Christ through regeneration, faith and repentance. Without the priority of legal union (imputation) which justifies the ungodly, there would be no hearing of the Gospel, regeneration, faith and repentance. I saw that this could be proven by many texts of scripture.

    LikeLike

51. Richard – If you are saved, you do have the love of God in your heart. If you are saved, you do know Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We walk by faith in Christ not by looking at our temporal lives. Our faith does not rest upon our emotions, but upon Christ. It’s not I need God’s glory – it’s I need God’s grace. Find God in the cross.

    Re: I want more of God in my soul.

    Then take your eyes off yourself and quit making yourself the center of your attention. Get busy with your daily life and focus on the work and people he has given you to care for. Live unselfishly. Jesus has promised you trials, tribulations, and suffering in this life. If you want to glorify God, then be a steward in all that he has given you.

    Re: As Jesus prayed in John 17:1, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You.” We should desire for the Father to manifest His glory in us so that we may glorify Him.

    Reread the passage. It’s not about you. It is about Christ. You are not Christ, the sinless Son of God, crucified upon the cross. You will see his glory when he returns.

    LikeLike

52. Zrim: But, Richard, if I read your analogy the way you read the Bible (i.e. figurative linguistic devices literally) then our mother can’t be in the other room while her child sleeps.

    RS: But praying without ceasing is not a figurative linguistic device. But anyway, the mother does not need to be in the same room while the child sleeps. The child is on her mind and heart in a way that does not take her attention away from her other labors.

    Zrim: And to press it further, she is being lazy and disobedient to take her mind off her duties for a spell and go finish that episode of “CYE”–her other option is to be helicopter-ish. But if all of life is prayer then, like worship, nothing really is. It’s glorified neglect of vocations. How does neglect of God-given duties glorify God?

    RS: But it is not neglecting the vocation, it is doing it unto God.

    Zrim: As to my either/or question, I’m all for a sense of humor, but I don’t see why you’d want to avoid admitting being human. It’s ok, Richard, God won’t smite you for being the creature he made you to be.

    RS: I didn’t avoid admitting being human. Let me give you the quote again: “I must confess that I am almost as human as the confessionalist.” I said that “I am almost as human as the confessionalist.” So I did not avoid admitting that I am human, but just not as human as some. Again, as I said, there was an attempt at humor.

    LikeLike

53. John Yeazel: Richard, I don’t see anything about looking for objective and subjective evidences within that we are born again in those verses from the beginning of 1 John and the end of 1John. It is all about Christ and what he did so we could inherit eternal life and have fellowship with those who walk in that light. Walking in darkness is relying and looking to our deeds as the evidence that we have inherited eternal life. I doubt if this will go anywhere although the 3 year discussion with Jeff did end up bringing me more understanding of legal union with Christ as opposed to union with Christ through regeneration, faith and repentance. Without the priority of legal union (imputation) which justifies the ungodly, there would be no hearing of the Gospel, regeneration, faith and repentance. I saw that this could be proven by many texts of scripture.

    RS: I am not sure that this is the place to ask this, but surely someone brought up that there is no legal union apart from an actual union? Using an analogy of marriage, the minister as a legal agent pronouces the couple married but until the marriage is consumated, they can get the legal marriage annulled quickly and easily. Unless people are really and truly united to Christ and are one with Him, then how can the imputation of sins be legal?

    As to the interior life in 1st John, it is full of places which tell us to look inside us. But of course we are not looking inside of us in one sense, but we are looking for the objective evidence of the life of Christ who is eternal life in us. For example, a person that murders or hates is not one that eternal life dwells in (I John 3:14-16).

    I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
    8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
    9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

    10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
    11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
    12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
    13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
    14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
    15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
    16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
    17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.

    As you look through these verses, the issue is about objective evidence. But that evidence is whether we love or not and whether God abides in us or not. Sure enough a person must have the imputed righteousness of Christ, but if the text does not say that there is no need to drag it in. The parts where the Bible speaks of imputed righteousness it does not take up the issue of loving God. These two great truths stand together, though the writers did not always put them together.

    LikeLike

54. Lily: Richard – If you are saved, you do have the love of God in your heart. If you are saved, you do know Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We walk by faith in Christ not by looking at our temporal lives. Our faith does not rest upon our emotions, but upon Christ. It’s not I need God’s glory – it’s I need God’s grace. Find God in the cross.

    RS: Of course faith does not rest upon “emotions” as such, but the Bible speaks of knowing if one is saved by testing themselves to see if Christ is in them (II Cor 13:5) and if eternal life is dwelling in them (I John, the book). John 1:14-18 shows us that the glory that Christ displayed is the glory that is full of grace and truth.

    Lily quoting RS: Re: I want more of God in my soul.

    Lily: Then take your eyes off yourself and quit making yourself the center of your attention. Get busy with your daily life and focus on the work and people he has given you to care for. Live unselfishly. Jesus has promised you trials, tribulations, and suffering in this life. If you want to glorify God, then be a steward in all that he has given you.

    RS: Ah, yes, work harder. How did you know that my eyes are on myself and I am making myself the center of attention? Of course Jesus has promised trials and so on. But to glorify God requires me to be filled with the glory of God or I will go around doing things in my own strength just thinking that I glorify God. Jesus told us that apart from Him we could do nothing (John 15:4-5). In other words, no one can do anything that is spiritual or good apart from Him. It must come from Him or it will not come at all.

    Lily quoting RS: Re: As Jesus prayed in John 17:1, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You.” We should desire for the Father to manifest His glory in us so that we may glorify Him.

    Lily: Reread the passage. It’s not about you. It is about Christ. You are not Christ, the sinless Son of God, crucified upon the cross. You will see his glory when he returns.

    RS: The verses below show us that we are to see His glory in this life as well. It is only if we are seeking His glory can we take our eyes off of ourselves. The Lord Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, was crucified on the cross in order that we may behold His glory. It is the basis of true unity. John 17: 22 “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

    John 11:40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

    2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

    2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

    Rom 5:2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
    3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance;
    4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;
    5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

    LikeLike

55. Richard, have you ever noticed people using the phrase “literally” incorrectly? As in, “When he said that, I literally died.” No, you didn’t. You were flabergasted, but you didn’t really die. It’s the same thing here. And so when you read “pray without ceasing” literally it’s as mistaken as going around saying you literally died when you were simply flabergasted. And being on someone’s mind isn’t the same as actually engaging him, which is what prayer is. If my wife said she thought about me today, that’s not the same as saying she engaged me.

    Still, if your point is that our lives are lived ever before God then there is no argument. But that isn’t how you speak. You speak as if there is only one mode of living before God. Confessionalism wants to say that there are implicit and explicit modes of living before God. This is just more example of how pietism and confessionalism differ. To confessionalist minds, pietism doesn’t account for the nuances and complexities of being human (as in Creator-creature distinction where Creator is simple and creature is complex), and when it does pietism calls it lazy and disobedient.

    LikeLike

56. Richard, Gutenberg’s books cost close to what a car costs today. Book reading was still a rarefied practice.

    LikeLike

57. Richard, your first invocation of Chapter 33 was a solo shot. You gave no other confessional context. It was all warning.

    As for the greatest commandment, it comes with another, to love our neighbor as our self. Doesn’t it ever strike you as a bit difficult to love God with all my being and to love my neighbor. Oh wait, plus, I’m to love my neighbor the way I love myself. So I have three loves either commanded or assumed by the two great commandments. Those loves might temper your quick appeal to loving God with everything. How would there any love left for my neighbor or me?

    LikeLike

58. Ken, I didn’t quote Edwards in this piece. I you mean the one on Phebe Bartlet, it’s from A Faithful Narrative.

    LikeLike

59. Richard,

    If you understand that your faith does not rest upon your emotions, then why are you so consumed with taking your emotional temperature and receiving a special power to glorify God? If you believe that Christ died for you and you are baptized, then you are justified, sanctified, placed in Christ and united with him. If this does not satisfy you, then you can join the Pentecostals and find help with developing your skills in their special blessings (speak in tongues, prophesy, etc) to confirm your salvation in Christ. I hear they can see the glory floating down from the ceiling like gold glitter.

    You betcha I told you to get to work taking care of your ordinary life. It is there that you will learn the daily rhythm of repentance and faith. It is there you will learn to put your eyes upon Christ who is your Savior and be satisfied in him. He is your glory. Look at what God has revealed in Christ and stop pining to see God’s glory apart from where he has revealed his glory – Christ crucified for you. You see through a glass darkly – faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. You will waste a lot of time pursuing God’s glory if you do learn to rightly divide the word.

    LikeLike

60. Re: John 1:14-18 shows us that the glory that Christ displayed is the glory that is full of grace and truth.

    Richard, please stop confusing yourself with Christ. He is the way, the truth, the door, the good shepherd, and grace is found in him. You ain’t him and he hasn’t returned yet.

    [And no more cherry picking scriptures to support your views. Anyone can try to support anything they want in the way you are using scripture and I don’t have time to sort your scriptures and show your errors.]

    LikeLike

61. Apology, Richard. I was in a hurry and completely goobered what I was trying to say in the 2nd comment on John. Everything you are looking for will be found in Christ. His glory is seen clearest in his crucifixion on the cross for you. I think you are confusing yourself with what is unique to Christ and what is given to man in a number of passages and what you will receive when he returns – the now but not yet aspects of salvation. I hope that makes sense – still hurried.

    LikeLike

62. Zrim: Richard, have you ever noticed people using the phrase “literally” incorrectly? As in, “When he said that, I literally died.” No, you didn’t. You were flabergasted, but you didn’t really die. It’s the same thing here. And so when you read “pray without ceasing” literally it’s as mistaken as going around saying you literally died when you were simply flabergasted. And being on someone’s mind isn’t the same as actually engaging him, which is what prayer is. If my wife said she thought about me today, that’s not the same as saying she engaged me.

    RS: Yes, I have heard people using the phrase incorrectly, but I don’t think that Paul meant it anything other than literally. It is a list of things or commands that believers are to do and none of the other ones are figurative. Here is another time he spoke of prayer.
    Ephesians 6:18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,

    Zrim: Still, if your point is that our lives are lived ever before God then there is no argument. But that isn’t how you speak. You speak as if there is only one mode of living before God. Confessionalism wants to say that there are implicit and explicit modes of living before God. This is just more example of how pietism and confessionalism differ. To confessionalist minds, pietism doesn’t account for the nuances and complexities of being human (as in Creator-creature distinction where Creator is simple and creature is complex), and when it does pietism calls it lazy and disobedient.

    RS: Remember the context of that statement. I need to rephrase it, evidently. If a person focuses their spiritual life only on Sunday mornings and do nothing but listen to the sermon and take the sacrament, that is a spiritually (at best) person. I find it interesting that you think I am a pietist of sorts, but that is okay. I still find confessionalism as not looking at the absolue sovereignty of God over all things and at all times.

    LikeLike

63. D. G. Hart: Richard, Gutenberg’s books cost close to what a car costs today. Book reading was still a rarefied practice.

    RS: Yes, but look at how many people have cars today.

    D.G. Hart: Richard, your first invocation of Chapter 33 was a solo shot. You gave no other confessional context. It was all warning.

    RS: No, the only time I quoted Chapter 33 was when I quoted it in a series of quotes from the WCF in order to show that according to the WCF much more is required of believers than can happen on Sundays.

    D.G. Hart: As for the greatest commandment, it comes with another, to love our neighbor as our self. Doesn’t it ever strike you as a bit difficult to love God with all my being and to love my neighbor. Oh wait, plus, I’m to love my neighbor the way I love myself. So I have three loves either commanded or assumed by the two great commandments. Those loves might temper your quick appeal to loving God with everything. How would there any love left for my neighbor or me?

    RS: But notice the texts of Scripture that those commands came from. The second of the greatest commandments is said to “be like unto it” (the first). The commands to love my neighbor as myself is in no way contradictory to the Greatest Commandment, but instead rests upon it. For example, 1 John 5:2 is quite instructive in this: ” By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.” We cannot even know that we love the children of God unless we love God AND observe His commandments. Boiled down, we do not love our neighor unless we love God and we only love our neighbor truly out of a true love for God. That is why I John 4:7-8 teaches us that unbelievers cannot love because only believers are born of God and know God. I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

    The origin of all true love is from the triune God and the only source human beings have for true love is from God. That is why when one reads on in I John 4 the love of God dwelling in believers is so important. This is also the real proof that one has been born of God and knows God. So it is no quick appeal to the Greatest Commandment that a person must love God with all of his or her being, it is the root of it all. As I Corinthians 13 tells us, we can give all we have to the poor and we can give our body to be burned, but apart from true love there is no benefit at all.

    LikeLike

64. Lily:

    Excuse me while I go out to try to teach a Bible study in a little town about 40 minutes or so from where I live. I am not ignoring or running from your thoughts, but have simply run out of time (whatever that is) for this time.

    LikeLike

65. Richard,

    Re: Of course faith does not rest upon “emotions” as such, but the Bible speaks of knowing if one is saved by testing themselves to see if Christ is in them (II Cor 13:5) and if eternal life is dwelling in them (I John, the book).

    – So what is “not … emotions as such”

    – How did you determine that Christ is in you and find eternal life dwelling in you?

    Re: How did you know that my eyes are on myself and I am making myself the center of attention?

    – Because the focus in your comments is me, myself, and I. It’s all about what you want from God so you can… You talk about God like a fuel pump. You seek his glory to be filled with it, so you can… The focus is upon your piety (how you feel and what you do). The natural religion of man is always law oriented (what man does).

    Re: It is only if we are seeking His glory can we take our eyes off of ourselves.

    – I don’t believe the bible teaches that. I see grace and rest in Christ, the gifts of the means of grace, and the freedom to look outward instead of inward. What you seek God to do for you, I see as already done for me and I trust him to keep his promises. In Christ is found the liberty to love and serve.

    Re: I would argue that we can grow in our knowing Him and should grow in our knowing Him. This knowing Him is not just knowing about Him, but is eternal life itself in the soul. What more do I want? I want more of God in my soul.

    – More all about me and what I want. The answer is to simple continue in his Word and partake in his means of grace. God gives the growth.

    LikeLike

66. Re: I still find confessionalism as not looking at the absolue sovereignty of God over all things and at all times.

    The focus is on sovereignty of God (the rule of the Hidden God) not the grace of God for us in Christ (the gift of the revealed God). The focus is upon God’s glory, not his mercy and forgiveness for us in Christ. There is no talk of repentance and faith, but of glory and moral improvement. There is no asking for grace but seeking power for moral improvement. There is a seeking to be a cut above the run-of-the-mill Christian. That is the natural man working to be made perfect and find assurance from his moral improvement. The Confessionalist understands he has been declared perfect for Christ’s sake, clothed in Christ, and trusts in Christ’s promises for life everlasting and daily grace for the sinner.

    It is the difference between looking inside for assurance (pietist) and looking outward for assurance (confessionalist). Pietists seek the sovereignty of God for his glory and to be filled with his glory and given life. The emphasis is on the lived Christian life. Confessionalists looks to Christ – his perfect life and work – we confess our sins, and receive his words of absolution and his words of life in the gospel. His love and mercy for us in Christ fills us with his life to love God and love our neighbor. The emphasis is upon Christ and Christ gives his grace to live the Christian life.

    LikeLike

67. Lily, very aptly put. It is Christ crucified for us in which we “boast.” By the way, do you have your own blog? If not, you should. I appreciate your contributions here, and would enjoy reading more of your thoughts.

    DGH, it appears that your well-intentioned “all about me” focus has been derailed. This blog has become “all about Richard Smith”! The universe is out of kilter!

    LikeLike

68. Richard, my point is that your standards are too exacting. No person can exist and love God the way you prescribe. Which means there is another way of interpreting the great commandments without having to leave planet earth.

    As for your comment to Zrim that confessionalism doesn’t recognize God’s absolute sovereignty, well right back at you. Revivalists didn’t trust the ordinary means of grace and can’t see God’s sovereignty in ordinary acts of devotion, hence the demand for extraordinary displays. Then WE/YOU know that God is large and in charge. Maybe sometimes we need to trust that God is in charge even if it doesn’t look that way?

    LikeLike

69. Come on Tony, be fair, it’s all about Edwards and his reincarnations.

    LikeLike

70. I appreciate your kindness, Tony, but I am a lay Lutheran always in danger of mangling things. If you are interested in good confessional Lutheranism, then Issues Etc. radio program is available online.

    LikeLike

71. ‘Preciate your humility, Lily. Clearly, you are well-catechized Lutheran, even in your response. And I’m already a big fan of Issues, Etc. I even endure The God Whisperers on a regular basis.

    DGH, Luther diagnosed the true source of these Edwardsian “reincarnations” – which of course pre-date Edwards and have been around since the fall:

    “3] And in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word, in order that we may [thus] be protected against the enthusiasts, i.e., spirits who boast that they have the Spirit without and before the Word, and accordingly judge Scripture or the spoken Word, and explain and stretch it at their pleasure, as Muenzer did, and many still do at the present day, who wish to be acute judges between the Spirit and the letter, and yet know not what they say or declare. 4] For [indeed] the Papacy also is nothing but sheer enthusiasm, by which the Pope boasts that all rights exist in the shrine of his heart, and whatever he decides and commands with [in] his church is spirit and right, even though it is above and contrary to Scripture and the spoken Word.

    “5] All this is the old devil and old serpent, who also converted Adam and Eve into enthusiasts, and led them from the outward Word of God to spiritualizing and self-conceit, and nevertheless he accomplished this through other outward words. 6] Just as also our enthusiasts [at the present day] condemn the outward Word, and nevertheless they themselves are not silent, but they fill the world with their pratings and writings, as though, indeed, the Spirit could not come through the writings and spoken word of the apostles, but [first] through their writings and words he must come…” – Smalcald Articles, Article VIII

    Enthusiasm is the inborn religion of the flesh. And since the Reformation, it has reared its head again and again, under the guise of piety & revival. The old lie from the old serpent is readily believed by the Old Adam: Word & Sacrament are not sufficient.

    LikeLike

72. Richard, just to follow on what dgh said re your remark on confessionalism and God’s sovereignty, confessionalism agrees with Kuyper that Jesus is Lord over every square inch. In fact, pointing out his Lordship over inches (and minutes) is smart because it follows something like HC 1 when it follows Scripture in making the point about the hairs of our heads being governed. And all of that is brilliant because it accents the small, unobserved and uncelebrated, quiet, ordinary. So, I don’t have any idea where you get that Calvinist (!) confessionalism is allergic to God’s sovereignty. It’s actually a natural trait.

    LikeLike

73. I’m friends on Facebook with Jonathan Edwards (!). I just received this status update:

    “[Before my conversion] I had much self-righteous pleasure; and it was my delight to abound in religious duties….My affections seemed to be lively and easily moved, and I seemed to be in my element when engaged in religious duties. And I am ready to think, MANY are deceived with such affections, and such a kind of delight as I then had in religion, and MISTAKE it for grace.”

    Doubt & despair, pride & self-delusion, thy name is one: religious affections!

    LikeLike

74. Lily: Richard, If you understand that your faith does not rest upon your emotions, then why are you so consumed with taking your emotional temperature and receiving a special power to glorify God?

    RS: I am concerned about love for God since God is the source and origin of all true love. Since the fruit (singular) of the Spirit is love and joy (yes, seven others too), it should concern all to be sure that their true joy is in Christ. The special power to glorify God is simply Christ in the soul (Col 1:27; Gal 2:20).

    Lily: If you believe that Christ died for you and you are baptized, then you are justified, sanctified, placed in Christ and united with him. If this does not satisfy you, then you can join the Pentecostals and find help with developing your skills in their special blessings (speak in tongues, prophesy, etc) to confirm your salvation in Christ. I hear they can see the glory floating down from the ceiling like gold glitter.

    RS: Well, I guess I am not real comfortable with the Pentacostals since so many deny the deity of Christ and so on. I am also not a big fan of dancing in the aisles. However, it is one thing to say that Christ died for you and it is quite another to have His blood applied (I John 4:9-10). We even have some in the Bible who were baptized but were then declared not to be saved/justified and so on (Acts 8:13, 20-23).

    Lily: You betcha I told you to get to work taking care of your ordinary life. It is there that you will learn the daily rhythm of repentance and faith.

    RS: And here I thought that faith came from hearing the Word of God. Silly me.

    Lily: It is there you will learn to put your eyes upon Christ who is your Savior and be satisfied in him. He is your glory. Look at what God has revealed in Christ and stop pining to see God’s glory apart from where he has revealed his glory – Christ crucified for you.

    RS: But that is not the essential glory of God. That is not the glory that Christ prayed for in John 17.

    Lily: You see through a glass darkly – faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. You will waste a lot of time pursuing God’s glory if you do learn to rightly divide the word.

    RS: I prefer to take my Word undivided and whole.

    LikeLike

75. Lily: Richard,
    Lily quoting RS: Re: Of course faith does not rest upon “emotions” as such, but the Bible speaks of knowing if one is saved by testing themselves to see if Christ is in them (II Cor 13:5) and if eternal life is dwelling in them (I John, the book).

    Lily: – So what is “not … emotions as such”

    RS: “Emotions” is too encompassing a word to describe with any degree of accuracy the state of the soul. The older writers divided the “emotions” into affections and passions. The affections were the feelings of the soul that were guided by truth. The channel of the affections is truth. The passions (notice the root that also goes with passive) are those powerful feelings that drive the soul and do not follow the channel of truth. There is a huge difference between the two and the word “emotion” encompasses both and aids in confusion.

    Lily: – How did you determine that Christ is in you and find eternal life dwelling in you?

    RS: The book of John tells us how to do this. It has to do with the true loves of the soul.

    Lily Quoting RS: Re: How did you know that my eyes are on myself and I am making myself the center of attention?

    Lily: – Because the focus in your comments is me, myself, and I. It’s all about what you want from God so you can… You talk about God like a fuel pump. You seek his glory to be filled with it, so you can… The focus is upon your piety (how you feel and what you do). The natural religion of man is always law oriented (what man does).

    RS: But our command is to do all to His glory. So in one sense the focus is on our duty and privilege to do what He has commanded, which He alone can provide as well. The fact that He has to work this in the soul does not mean that what man does is law oriented. John 15 is not law oriented at all, but teaches that we can do nothing spiritual apart from His working it in us. The focus is not on how I feel, but on what God requires of man. While some smirk and laugh at those who speak of religious affections, the Bible is full of them.

    Lily quoting RS: Re: It is only if we are seeking His glory can we take our eyes off of ourselves.

    Lily: – I don’t believe the bible teaches that.

    RS: II Cor 3:18

    Lily: I see grace and rest in Christ, the gifts of the means of grace, and the freedom to look outward instead of inward. What you seek God to do for you, I see as already done for me and I trust him to keep his promises. In Christ is found the liberty to love and serve.

    RS: But what has Christ done “for you” is the question. He has purchased the Holy Spirit for His people (Gal 3:13-14). He has propitated the wrath of God so that the soul may become His temple (I John 4:9-16; I Cor 6:19).

    Lily quoting RS: Re: I would argue that we can grow in our knowing Him and should grow in our knowing Him. This knowing Him is not just knowing about Him, but is eternal life itself in the soul. What more do I want? I want more of God in my soul.

    Lily: – More all about me and what I want. The answer is to simple continue in his Word and partake in his means of grace. God gives the growth.

    RS: I reality it is not all about me. If a person loves God, then that person will want more of God and more of His glory in the soul so that person may really and truly glorify God rather than just in name only. This is, once again, the prayer of Jesus. John 17:1

    LikeLike

76. Lily quoting RS: Re: I still find confessionalism as not looking at the absolue sovereignty of God over all things and at all times.

    Lily: The focus is on sovereignty of God (the rule of the Hidden God) not the grace of God for us in Christ (the gift of the revealed God).

    RS: There is no grace apart from sovereign grace. It is the only kind of grace that there is.

    Lily: The focus is upon God’s glory, not his mercy and forgiveness for us in Christ.

    RS: But the kind of glory God reveals is the glory full of grace and truth (John 1:14-18). Christ Himself is the shining forth of the glory of God (Heb 1:3).

    Lily: There is no talk of repentance and faith, but of glory and moral improvement.

    RS: Then you misunderstand what is going on if you only read moral improvement. The only way a person truly “improves” in holiness is by sharing in His holiness: “For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness” (Hebrews 12:10).

    Lily: There is no asking for grace but seeking power for moral improvement. There is a seeking to be a cut above the run-of-the-mill Christian. That is the natural man working to be made perfect and find assurance from his moral improvement. The Confessionalist understands he has been declared perfect for Christ’s sake, clothed in Christ, and trusts in Christ’s promises for life everlasting and daily grace for the sinner.

    RS: But the Bible teaches us to seek the holiness or sanctification without which no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14). This holiness is part of what the HOLY Spirit does in working His fruit in the sinner.

    Lily: It is the difference between looking inside for assurance (pietist) and looking outward for assurance (confessionalist).

    RS: But Paul and John tell us to look inward for Christ. It is not looking inside for this and that, it is looking for Christ Himself who dwells in His people and is the life of His people (Gal 2:20; Ii Cor 13:5).

    Lily: Pietists seek the sovereignty of God for his glory and to be filled with his glory and given life. The emphasis is on the lived Christian life.

    RS: Quite a bad misunderstanding of my position and the one of the Puritans. We are to see the glory of God knowing that it is His sovereign hand that gives it because it only comes by grace. The desire for His grace is a desire for Himself and for His glory to be manifested through His people.

    Lily: Confessionalists looks to Christ – his perfect life and work – we confess our sins, and receive his words of absolution and his words of life in the gospel. His love and mercy for us in Christ fills us with his life to love God and love our neighbor. The emphasis is upon Christ and Christ gives his grace to live the Christian life.

    RS: So Christ fills you with His life? So how do you know that He is in you (not personal, but plural)? Does He make a big enough difference in your lives that you can know He is King of your life and you can really know He is there? How do you know that He speaks words of absolution to you (plural)? It seems to me that one could confuse a lot you have said there as being all about you. My view teaches that Christ kept the Law perfectly so that all that He did was out of love for the Father (the Greatest Command). It is only when He changes the heart and dwells in it working true love for the Father in the soul that one can know that King Jesus resides in the soul.

    LikeLike

77. D. G. Hart: Richard, my point is that your standards are too exacting. No person can exist and love God the way you prescribe. Which means there is another way of interpreting the great commandments without having to leave planet earth.

    RS: Which is exactly why we must have Christ living His life in us. Despite the fact that we cannot keep the perfect standard, that does not change the standard. It should drive us to Christ as our sacrifice, as our righteousness, and as our life.

    D.G. Hart: As for your comment to Zrim that confessionalism doesn’t recognize God’s absolute sovereignty, well right back at you. Revivalists didn’t trust the ordinary means of grace and can’t see God’s sovereignty in ordinary acts of devotion, hence the demand for extraordinary displays.

    RS: That is not exactly accurate. It is not that people who long and seek for true revival don’t trust the ordinary means of grace, it is that they believe that God can use those to come and manfiest Himself to and through them in greater power, The older men who loved revival thought of revival coming through the ordinary means of grace. The focus was on preaching the truth, prayer, and the Lord’s Table.

    D.G. Hart: Then WE/YOU know that God is large and in charge. Maybe sometimes we need to trust that God is in charge even if it doesn’t look that way?

    RS: But of course we are to know and rest in the fact that God is in charge even when our physical eyes cannot see that. But that does not keep us from wanting God to show Himself in power and glory. The OT saints sought the face of God as well.

    LikeLike

78. Tony: 4] For [indeed] the Papacy also is nothing but sheer enthusiasm, by which the Pope boasts that all rights exist in the shrine of his heart, and whatever he decides and commands with [in] his church is spirit and right, even though it is above and contrary to Scripture and the spoken Word.

    RS: Luther said that the Pope was an enthusiast, not all those who seek revival which you made the deduction.

    Tony: “5] All this is the old devil and old serpent, who also converted Adam and Eve into enthusiasts, and led them from the outward Word of God to spiritualizing and self-conceit, and nevertheless he accomplished this through other outward words. 6] Just as also our enthusiasts [at the present day] condemn the outward Word, and nevertheless they themselves are not silent, but they fill the world with their pratings and writings, as though, indeed, the Spirit could not come through the writings and spoken word of the apostles, but [first] through their writings and words he must come…” – Smalcald Articles, Article VIII

    RS: Luther said that enthusiasts condemn the outward Word, but did not say a word about those who believe in the older revivals who were focused on the Word as you did in making your deduction at the end.

    Tony: Enthusiasm is the inborn religion of the flesh. And since the Reformation, it has reared its head again and again, under the guise of piety & revival. The old lie from the old serpent is readily believed by the Old Adam: Word & Sacrament are not sufficient.

    RS: There is nothing in what Luther said in the post you have quoted that goes against the older Puritan way of revival. The older way of revival was through preaching, prayer, and the Lord’s Supper. By the way, Scripture itself tells us that it is not Word and Sacrament that are sufficient. Instead, the Word must have the Spirit. It should be Word and Spirit. Calvin taught that it was the Word preached that gave efficacy to the Sacrament. You might want to check and make sure you are not using the word “enthusiasm” a bit differently than Luther. A few verses below for your reading pleasure to show that the Word apart from the Spirit is a dead letter. You might want to consider if it is possible to trust in the sacraments rather than in the work of the Spirit in giving grace.

    John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

    Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

    1 Corinthians 2:4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
    13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
    14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

    LikeLike

79. Richard, could you present an “abstract” or “executive summary” of your point or points with a thesis sentence in, say, 5-6 sentences?

    LikeLike

80. Tony: I’m friends on Facebook with Jonathan Edwards (!). I just received this status update:

    “[Before my conversion] I had much self-righteous pleasure; and it was my delight to abound in religious duties….My affections seemed to be lively and easily moved, and I seemed to be in my element when engaged in religious duties. And I am ready to think, MANY are deceived with such affections, and such a kind of delight as I then had in religion, and MISTAKE it for grace.”

    Doubt & despair, pride & self-delusion, thy name is one: religious affections!

    RS: Until you take the hereneutic approach of Marcion or Jehoiakim, you will not be able to get religious affections out of the Bible. Until you strip the Bible of all love, joy, and pleasure you cannot get rid of affections out of the Bible. Until you strip the Bible of the words of Jesus who wanted and prayed forHis people to abound in joy, you will not be able to get them out of the Bible. If you think the affection of joy is pride and self-delusion, then you must think that Jesus prayed for His people to be filled with pride and self-delusion. At some point you would think that people would learn that many people are deluded and have feelings, but those are not true religious affections and no one should try to join them at the hip.

    Jer 36: 21 Then the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he took it out of the chamber of Elishama the scribe. And Jehudi read it to the king as well as to all the officials who stood beside the king.
    22 Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning in the brazier before him.
    23 When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier.

    LikeLike

81. Zrim: Richard, just to follow on what dgh said re your remark on confessionalism and God’s sovereignty, confessionalism agrees with Kuyper that Jesus is Lord over every square inch. In fact, pointing out his Lordship over inches (and minutes) is smart because it follows something like HC 1 when it follows Scripture in making the point about the hairs of our heads being governed. And all of that is brilliant because it accents the small, unobserved and uncelebrated, quiet, ordinary. So, I don’t have any idea where you get that Calvinist (!) confessionalism is allergic to God’s sovereignty. It’s actually a natural trait.

    RS: I am saying that on a more practical level rather than on what the confessionalism confesses. For example, why can’t God of His own mere pleasure and grace revive the hearts of His people as He pleased? Why can’t God decide to give His people a greater degree of joy in Himself as He pleases? Why can’t God decide to convert larger numbers of people at once than He does at so-called “normal” times? Why can’t God bring His adopted children to share in the Father’s love for the Son and the Son’s love for the Father by the Spirit? Why can’t God work in His people so that they do all of their daily tasks out of love for Him and His glory? That does not mean that they do all things or anything perfectly or even close to perfectly, though that is the standard of the Greatest Commandments. If God works even a small amount of love in His people (even as small as a mustard seed) then why can’t they do all that they do out of love for Him? It seems to diminish His glorious sovereignty when we say that this cannot happen.

    LikeLike

82. Yes, Richard, it was my deduction – and of course, Luther preceded the Puritans. What Puritans (at their worst) share in common with the enthusiasm Luther condemns is what the word literally means, “God-within-ism.” Looking inward for inward spiritual motions, affections, or evidences is deadly dangerous and a formula for despair. You may want to keep reading in Romans 7. What did Paul find when he looked within? SIN. Where did that inward look drive him? To Christ and the promise of the Gospel. Not the Christ in us, but the Christ for us.

    Affections are a by-product of the external Word, wrought by the Spirit. But like the wind, if you try to grasp the Spirit or His inward work apart from the Word, you’re grasping nothing but wind. If you try to put a metric on the Spirit, and your affections for Christ, He’s already gone. The only thing He’s pleased to show us inside ourselves is our sin. He points us always and only away from ourselves – to Christ, outwardly presented to us, in Word & Sacrament. The faith which grasps this outward Word of grace then works through love – for God and neighbor, in the ordinary, mundane, everyday mess of life.

    LikeLike

83. Donald Philip Veitch: Richard, could you present an “abstract” or “executive summary” of your point or points with a thesis sentence in, say, 5-6 sentences?

    RS: Wow, what a tall order. I probably cannot do that, but will try to keep it short. I have been an occasional reader here for a period of time, but I started posting when there was an “attack” on Edwards and the idea of revival that I thought was important enough to make a few comments. Well, so much for the few comments.

    My main point is that the Puritan or older form of revival is not the same thing as revivalism. True revival is the reviving of the people of God with God Himself and is biblical. The older form of revival preached the Word of God, focused on prayer, and also the Lord’s Table. True enough, like the Puritans, they were more experiential.

    Second point: the work of God in the present world is in the inward man. Hence, true religious affections are not so much self-centered but are an objective work of God in the soul.

    The above two points are in short form, but you wanted me to keep it short. I will just add that the third point, which is where you entered into the “fray” a bit earlier, is about the confessional church. I have tried to say that if the confessional church only meets on Sunday morning, hears a sermon, takes the sacrement and that is it, then it is not following the WCF. By that I am saying that to follow what the WCF says would require more of a life in and from the church. So I am not knocking confessions in and of themselves, not am I knocking preaching and the sacraments. I am just saying that the WCF does not limit the church to those activities.

    LikeLike

84. And that faith in Christ for me bears all manner of spiritual fruit… Remember, Galatians 3:1-3 provides the proper context for 5:22-23.

    LikeLike

85. Tony: Yes, Richard, it was my deduction – and of course, Luther preceded the Puritans. What Puritans (at their worst) share in common with the enthusiasm Luther condemns is what the word literally means, “God-within-ism.”

    RS: But believers are the temple of the living God and the great mystery of the Gospel is Christ in you. Colossians 1:27 “to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

    Tony: Looking inward for inward spiritual motions, affections, or evidences is deadly dangerous and a formula for despair.

    RS: Yes, it can be. However, that is precisely what Paul said to do.
    2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?

    John also: I John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
    13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
    14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
    15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
    16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for [in] us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

    Tony: You may want to keep reading in Romans 7. What did Paul find when he looked within? SIN. Where did that inward look drive him? To Christ and the promise of the Gospel. Not the Christ in us, but the Christ for us.

    RS: But Scripture is very clear that Christ is in His people and is the life of all true believers.

    Tony: Affections are a by-product of the external Word, wrought by the Spirit.

    RS: So you do agree that there are affections given by the Spirit.

    Tony: But like the wind, if you try to grasp the Spirit or His inward work apart from the Word, you’re grasping nothing but wind. If you try to put a metric on the Spirit, and your affections for Christ, He’s already gone.

    RS: So Christ leaves His temple?

    Tony: The only thing He’s pleased to show us inside ourselves is our sin.

    RS: But Paul said to test ourselves to see if Christ was indeed in us.

    Tony: He points us always and only away from ourselves – to Christ, outwardly presented to us, in Word & Sacrament. The faith which grasps this outward Word of grace then works through love – for God and neighbor, in the ordinary, mundane, everyday mess of life.

    RS: But how is this love anything but a work of the flesh if it does not come from the Spirit of Christ? But of course the Spirit of God works in the mess of everyday life, but are you limiting Him to that? Remember Acts 2 where 3,000 were converted in one day. Remember the book of Acts where the Gospel was preached to the whole (not necessarily every person) known world. When people received the Word, they received it with joy. 1 Thessalonians 1:6 “You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit.” Word and Spirit, Word and Spirit.

    LikeLike

86. Tony: And that faith in Christ for me bears all manner of spiritual fruit… Remember, Galatians 3:1-3 provides the proper context for 5:22-23.

    RS: But don’t forget Gal 2:20
    “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

    LikeLike

87. RS: I am concerned about love for God since God is the source and origin of all true love. Since the fruit (singular) of the Spirit is love and joy (yes, seven others too), it should concern all to be sure that their true joy is in Christ. The special power to glorify God is simply Christ in the soul.

    If this is your concern, they why abandon the focus on the gospel of Christ as being God’s chosen message? It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes – God’s love is revealed in the gospel. We love because we know we are loved by God. Do you believe the Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ and we respond to his witness? Is the Holy Spirit a person or a power?

    RS: Well, I guess I am not real comfortable with the Pentacostals…

    But the similarities in enthusiasms and wanting to swallow the Holy Spirit feathers and all – remains.

    RS: …it is one thing to say that Christ died for you and it is quite another to have His blood applied (I John 4:9-10). We even have some in the Bible who were baptized but were then declared not to be saved/justified and so on (Acts 8:13, 20-23).

    Sigh… Acts clearly states the Simon believed and was baptized. When Simon went astray by coveting the apostle’s gifts in miracles, he sought to purchase God’s gift from them so he could be like them. Peter sharply rebuked him and told him he had no part of that gift and to repent of his wicked intentions that he might be forgiven. Nowhere does it say that Simon was an unbeliever. Anywho, has God appointed you to determine if an individual’s confession of faith in Christ crucified for them personally is genuine or not?

    RS: And here I thought that faith came from hearing the Word of God. Silly me.

    Not silly, just missed the point. It is in our ordinary lives that our faith is exercised and we find ourselves in constant need of repentance.

    Regarding my comment: Look at what God has revealed in Christ and stop pining to see God’s glory apart from where he has revealed his glory – Christ crucified for you. And your reply: But that is not the essential glory of God. That is not the glory that Christ prayed for in John 17.

    Pray tell in your own words, what is the glory Christ prayed for?

    RS: I prefer to take my Word undivided and whole.

    Then you defy Paul’s instruction in how to handle the Word of God.

    RS: “Emotions” is too encompassing a word to describe with any degree of accuracy the state of the soul.[omitting the rest of RS comment to keep this short].

    What qualifies you to diagnose the state of your own soul and/or other people’s souls?

    RS: The book of John tells us how to do this. It has to do with the true loves of the soul.

    I still ask how you made this subjective determination by looking at yourself since you obviously flunk the test. You are a sinner who sins daily and are only saved via grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone. If you break the smallest dot of the law, you have broken them all. You do not love God with you whole heart and being and you do not love your neighbor as yourself. You are sinner/saint not sinless in your love.

    RS: But our command is to do all to His glory.

    In hearing his law, you should immediately see that you do not obey it and cannot obey it. No matter how much you “progress” in your Christian life, you will never arrive. You will always fall short for you will always be a sinner in your temporal life.

    RS: The focus is not on how I feel, but on what God requires of man. While some smirk and laugh at those who speak of religious affections, the Bible is full of them.

    Yes, Richard, the commands are all there and you flunk them all – from the least to the greatest. You have no hope in your obedience to the law. You have no hope in moral improvement. You have no hope apart from Christ crucified for you.

    RS: II Cor 3:18

    This refutes you and my comment stands. The gospel is God’s power for salvation. It is always God’s mercy that gives this hope and his benefits to us never our obedience to the law.

    RS: But what has Christ done “for you” is the question.

    The bible clearly states that the gospel of Christ crucified is for whosoever believes. That you are confounded by what the bible lists as what he has done for us suggests you need to be taught rather than aspire to teach.

    RS: I reality it is not all about me. If a person loves God, then that person will want more of God and more of His glory in the soul so that person may really and truly glorify God rather than just in name only. This is, once again, the prayer of Jesus. John 17:1

    Nay, Richard, ye are still blind to your bondage to yourself. It’s all about you or you would proclaim Christ and cease to complain about your estate.

    2 Timothy 2:15 – Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    RS: There is no grace apart from sovereign grace. It is the only kind of grace that there is.

    The grace of God for us is not revealed to us in Christ alone? You can find it apart from Christ? Nay.

    As for the rest of litany of scripture scattered in the rest of your replies, I can only say: humble yourself and let someone who knows how to rightly divide the word of God teach you. Your understanding points to a theologian of glory not a theologian of the cross. Until you understand that you are a beggar, a poor miserable sinner, completely dependent upon God’s mercy for you in Christ daily, you will continue to drown in pietism.

    RS: So Christ fills you with His life? So how do you know that He is in you (not personal, but plural)? Does He make a big enough difference in your lives that you can know He is King of your life and you can really know He is there? How do you know that He speaks words of absolution to you (plural)? It seems to me that one could confuse a lot you have said there as being all about you. My view teaches that Christ kept the Law perfectly so that all that He did was out of love for the Father (the Greatest Command). It is only when He changes the heart and dwells in it working true love for the Father in the soul that one can know that King Jesus resides in the soul.

    I know because God is not a liar – Christ died for me. “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do … O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

    LikeLike

88. Aim for spiritual affections, and all you get is the flesh, the old man all worked up in a pietistic lather. Aim for Christ, and the new man – who is animated by Christ and His indwelling Spirit and lives by faith (Gal 2:20) – bears all manner of good fruit, including the biblical “affections.” It’s all in where you put the emPHAsis, Richard. Peace. Love. And joy. In Him. 🙂

    LikeLike

89. Richard, the point isn’t that none of us can keep God’s law. Not even the revived keep it since our good works are filthy rags (that’s in the Bible). The point is that your understanding of love is also inhuman. The only way a believer could possibly seek to love God as you desire would be to enter a monastery.

    LikeLike

90. Richard, of course, God can do whatever he wants. No one is disputing that. What we’re disputing is your and Edwards’ powers to interpret what God is doing. That doesn’t mean I’m right and you’re wrong. But you don’t reveal the slightest scintilla of concession that you may be wrong about the First Pretty Good Awakening and that Edwards may have been wrong about Phebe. I disagree with you, not with God. There is a difference.

    LikeLike

91. Darryl:

    (1) Disclaimer: not heavily read in revivalism or the Perhaps-Not-So-Great Awakenings. Am an old school Confessionalist and Prayer Book man, so enthusiasts don’t have any draw or appeal. Yet, historically, there is a duty to understand them.

    (2) There is something–presumptively–arrogant amongst them. That’s my sense. The “I have a little more than you” crowd. “Let me take you a little higher.” Certainly, Mahaney formed and shaped his sectarian outfit with that–for close to three decades. The witnesses to that presumption, assumption and assertion–by SGMers themselves–are many, many, many. As such, a quiet, peaceful, dutiful, believing and honourable Churchman is viewed as deadening, unlively, and, worse, unconverted.

    (3) I need to study the matter.

    (4) Re: George Whitefield’s intineracy and presumptions, there are some golden and implied questions here by Charles Chauncey in “Seasonable Thoughts on Religion” (c. 1750ish?). I quote:

    “I shall first mention Itinerant Preaching. This had its Rise ( at least in these Parts ) from Mr. WHITEFIELD; though I could never see, I own, upon what Warrant, either from Scripture or Reason, he went about Preaching from one Province and Parish to another, where the Gospel was already preach’d, and by Persons as well qualified for the Work, as he can pretend to be. I charitably hope, his Design herein was good: But might it not be leavened with some undesirable Mixture? Might he not, at first, take up this Practice from a mistaken Thought of some extraordinary Mission from GOD? Or, from the undue Influence of two high an Opinion of his own Gifts and Graces? Or, from the undue Influence of two high an Opinion of his own Gifts and Graces? And when he had got into this Way, might he not be too much encouraged to go on in it, from the popular Applauses, everywhere, so liberally heaped on him? If he had not been under too strong a Bias from something or other of this Nature, why so fond of preaching always himself, to the Exclusion, not of his Brethren only, but his Fathers, in Grace and Gifts and Learning, as well as Age? And why so ostentatious and assuming as to alarm so many Towns, by proclaiming his Intentions, in the publick Prints, to preach such a Day in such a Parish, the next Day in such a one, and so on, as he past through the Country; and all this, without the Knowledge, either of Pastors or People in most Places? What others may think of such a Conduct I know not; but to me, it never appeared the most indubitable Expression of that Modesty, Humility, and preferring others in Love, which the scriptures highly recommend as what will adorn the Minister’s, as well as the Christian’s Character. (Chauncey 36)

    (5) Why wasn’t Whitefield satisfied to be a Parish Rector or confine himself to a smaller region where 100s of parishioners from the Church of England could have been care for? Chauncey was onto him. It also little appears that there was a widespread push-back against Whitefield by faithful believers that gets little press.

    (6) Also, still waiting for a response to the “fictional father” in your account: believing, honourable, dutiful (perhaps tired from his work from time to time), Confessional, catechetical, in regular involvement with God’s Word and Sacrament each Sabbath Day, and serving in his daily vocation the other six days under God. What more is sought? Something “higher” or “better?” There appears to be an imported intention, an assumed intention, of superiority.

    LikeLike

92. Viking, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking about the father? Do I personally think this is a model of spiritual superiority? Not really, though I think it is pretty good. The intent was to show how filled the lives of saints are, and that holiness may come in the fulfillment of earthly responsibilities.

    LikeLike

93. Darryl, I understood your point about the “fictional father,” dutiful, quiet, believing, involved, perhaps tired too, a Sabbatarian, a Confessionalist, but faithful…24/7/52/12. I think the “fictional father” in the original post evinces a commendable faith. I can’t see a problem with it. In fact, I see it as a commendable role model. Let all Churchmen follow such a role model. I don’t understand any further objections from Richard on the question.

    My larger question involves the “presumption of superiority” amongst the revivalists. Seeking an higher ground, a better spirituality, a more enthusiastic response. That was the point in the Chauncey quote.

    I yield the floor.

    LikeLike

94. Lily quoting RS: I am concerned about love for God since God is the source and origin of all true love. Since the fruit (singular) of the Spirit is love and joy (yes, seven others too), it should concern all to be sure that their true joy is in Christ. The special power to glorify God is simply Christ in the soul.

    Lily: If this is your concern, they why abandon the focus on the gospel of Christ as being God’s chosen message? It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes – God’s love is revealed in the gospel. We love because we know we are loved by God. Do you believe the Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ and we respond to his witness? Is the Holy Spirit a person or a power?

    RS: There is no abandoning of the Gospel of Christ. The Holy Spirit does bear witness to Christ, but He also convicts of sin, illuminates the Word, and regenerates souls by grace alone. The Holy Spirit is a Divine Person and as such has infinite power. God’s love is only known when He takes a person’s sin away and dwells in that soul. It is His dwelling in a soul by love that enables the soul to love God (see I John 4:7-21). We love because God loved us first means that we love becaure of what He has done so His abiding love would be in us.

    Lily quoting RS: Well, I guess I am not real comfortable with the Pentacostals…

    Lily: But the similarities in enthusiasms and wanting to swallow the Holy Spirit feathers and all – remains.

    RS: I think you have the Holy Spirit confused with a physcial dove. There is no real similarity to those who believe in the Bible and the Pentacostals.

    Lily quoting RS: …it is one thing to say that Christ died for you and it is quite another to have His blood applied (I John 4:9-10). We even have some in the Bible who were baptized but were then declared not to be saved/justified and so on (Acts 8:13, 20-23).

    Lily: Sigh… Acts clearly states the Simon believed and was baptized. When Simon went astray by coveting the apostle’s gifts in miracles, he sought to purchase God’s gift from them so he could be like them. Peter sharply rebuked him and told him he had no part of that gift and to repent of his wicked intentions that he might be forgiven. Nowhere does it say that Simon was an unbeliever. Anywho, has God appointed you to determine if an individual’s confession of faith in Christ crucified for them personally is genuine or not?

    RS: The text says things about Simon that tells us that he was an unbeliever.
    Acts 8:18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
    21 “You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.”

    RS: 1. Simon loved money rather than spiritual things 2. Peter told him that may his silver perish with him, so Simon could have perished (damned is how I take that). 3 Simon had no part or portion in this matter (maybe depends on what this matter means). 4. He was told to pray that “if possible” the intention of his heart may be forgiven. Evidently Peter judged Simon’s heart to know the intent of it. A beliver may be forgiven, but it was unsure about Simon. 5. Peter told him that he was in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity. A believer is not in the bondage of iniquity, but Simon was. The Bible declares Simon to be an unconverted man and in interpreting this passage it tells us that the man was unconverted, so it is not I who am deciding if this man’s confession is true or not.

    Lily quoting RS: And here I thought that faith came from hearing the Word of God. Silly me.

    Lily: Not silly, just missed the point. It is in our ordinary lives that our faith is exercised and we find ourselves in constant need of repentance.

    Regarding my comment: Look at what God has revealed in Christ and stop pining to see God’s glory apart from where he has revealed his glory – Christ crucified for you. And your reply: But that is not the essential glory of God. That is not the glory that Christ prayed for in John 17.

    Pray tell in your own words, what is the glory Christ prayed for?

    RS: He prayed for the Father to glorify Him. He prayed that others would see His glory. The essential glory of God is the glory of God as it is within Himself.

    LikeLike

95. Lily quoting RS: I prefer to take my Word undivided and whole.

    Lily: Then you defy Paul’s instruction in how to handle the Word of God.

    RS: No, I just strive to be biblical in doing so. 2 Timothy 2:15″ Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” The KJV “rightly dividing” means a “straight cut” which has the idea of being accurate.

    Lily quoting RS: “Emotions” is too encompassing a word to describe with any degree of accuracy the state of the soul.[omitting the rest of RS comment to keep this short].

    Lily: What qualifies you to diagnose the state of your own soul and/or other people’s souls?

    RS: Scripture and the Spirit who illuminates the Scripture. Here is one verse among many that gets at that point.
    1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

    Lily quoting RS: The book of John tells us how to do this. It has to do with the true loves of the soul.

    Lily: I still ask how you made this subjective determination by looking at yourself since you obviously flunk the test. You are a sinner who sins daily and are only saved via grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone. If you break the smallest dot of the law, you have broken them all. You do not love God with you whole heart and being and you do not love your neighbor as yourself. You are sinner/saint not sinless in your love.

    RS: Absolutely correct that every person flunks this test. However, the unbeliever only loves self and all things are loved for the sake of self. The true believer, one who is born of God and knows (intimate knowledge) God, is one who has God as the center of all s/he does. One can do many things in the name of religion and yet do them for self. But I Cor 13:1-8 tells us with clarity that we can have all knowledge and yet without love there is no benefit. All the works and all the religion we do are no benefit without true love. True love is that which only comes from God alone.

    Lily quoting RS: But our command is to do all to His glory.

    Lily: In hearing his law, you should immediately see that you do not obey it and cannot obey it. No matter how much you “progress” in your Christian life, you will never arrive. You will always fall short for you will always be a sinner in your temporal life.

    RS: While true in a matter of degree, yet those who have Christ as their life have Christ fulfilling His law in them. While believers are not perfect, that does not mean that they should not strive for obedience out of love for His name’s sake. The New Covenant means that God will put His Spirit in His people and enable them to keep (not perfectly) the Law.

    Ezekiel 36:26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

    Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
    4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    James 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well.

    Lily quoting RS: The focus is not on how I feel, but on what God requires of man. While some smirk and laugh at those who speak of religious affections, the Bible is full of them.

    Lily: Yes, Richard, the commands are all there and you flunk them all – from the least to the greatest. You have no hope in your obedience to the law. You have no hope in moral improvement. You have no hope apart from Christ crucified for you.

    RS: Actually, that is not quite correct. Col 1:27 says out hope is Christ in you. The hope of sinners is also in the imputed righteousness of Christ. The hope of sinners is also in the resurrection of Christ. The hope of sinners is in the ascension of Christ. The hope of sinners is in Christ as He sits at the right hand of the Father and intercedes for His people. The hope of sinners is in the Kingship of Christ. The hope of sinners is in the priesthood of Christ. The hope of sinners is in Christ out prophet. Scripture is quite clear that love for God is to keep His commandments. Scripture is also quite clear that those that Christ saves from sin will not give themselves to sin because the seed of God lives in them. The hope for justification is not in moral improvement, true enough, but it is not wrong to want to be free from sin more and more.

    Lily Quoting RS: II Cor 3:18

    Lily: This refutes you and my comment stands. The gospel is God’s power for salvation. It is always God’s mercy that gives this hope and his benefits to us never our obedience to the law.

    RS: Yes, but that glory is seen in the Gospel and it is only when God shines that in the heart are people truly converted. Saved souls do not grow unless they are beholding His glory and being changed to be more like Christ.

    Lily quoting RS: But what has Christ done “for you” is the question.

    Lily: The bible clearly states that the gospel of Christ crucified is for whosoever believes. That you are confounded by what the bible lists as what he has done for us suggests you need to be taught rather than aspire to teach.

    RS: We might differ on what it means to believe. The devil’s believe and they tremble. The Pharisees believed and yet by that committed the unforgivable sin. Jesus said that one must be born from above in order to see (which is what true faith does) or enter the kingdom. By the way, that was in John 3:3-8. John 3:16 comes just a few verses after that. It would be more theologically accurate in our day to say that all those who that Christ died for will believe because repentance from an unbelieving heart to a believing heart is by grace alone. No one has the power to change his or her own heart and nature. The old nature has an unbelieving heart and the new nature has a believing heart.

    LikeLike

96. Lily quoting RS: In reality it is not all about me. If a person loves God, then that person will want more of God and more of His glory in the soul so that person may really and truly glorify God rather than just in name only. This is, once again, the prayer of Jesus. John 17:1

    Lily: Nay, Richard, ye are still blind to your bondage to yourself. It’s all about you or you would proclaim Christ and cease to complain about your estate.

    RS: I am not complaining about Christ or my estate, I am complaining about your jumping to conclusions rather than dealing with what is actually said. If a person truly beholds the glory of Christ (II Cor 3:18), then that person will want more of Christ and pursue Christ.

    Hosea 6:3 “So let us know, let us press on to know the LORD. His going forth is as certain as the dawn; And He will come to us like the rain, Like the spring rain watering the earth.”

    Philippians 3:13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you;

    Lily: 2 Timothy 2:15 – Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    RS: A good word rightly divided.

    Lily quoting RS: There is no grace apart from sovereign grace. It is the only kind of grace that there is.

    Lily: The grace of God for us is not revealed to us in Christ alone? You can find it apart from Christ? Nay.

    RS: Never said that it is found apart from Christ. Grace was planned by the Father, purchased by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. He will be gracious to whom He will be gracious.

    Lily: As for the rest of litany of scripture scattered in the rest of your replies, I can only say: humble yourself and let someone who knows how to rightly divide the word of God teach you. Your understanding points to a theologian of glory not a theologian of the cross. Until you understand that you are a beggar, a poor miserable sinner, completely dependent upon God’s mercy for you in Christ daily, you will continue to drown in pietism.

    RS: But I am not drowing in pietism, Lily. The theology of the cross properly understood is the theology of the glory of God. It is at the cross where the glory of God shone forth and it is the Spirit that was purchased by Christ can open eyes to that. It is not the glory of the human self that is being spoken of, but it is the glory of God.

    Lily quoting RS: So Christ fills you with His life? So how do you know that He is in you (not personal, but plural)? Does He make a big enough difference in your lives that you can know He is King of your life and you can really know He is there? How do you know that He speaks words of absolution to you (plural)?

    RS: He does not have to speak words of absolution to me. That would be walking by sight rather than by faith. But we know we are forgiven when His temple has been cleansed (the human heart) and He takes up the reign and rule of true love in that heart. It is only when the guilt of sin is really removed does He take up His rightful reign in the human heart. (see John 13-17 and I John)

    Lily: It seems to me that one could confuse a lot you have said there as being all about you.

    RS: Yes, but then that means that the other person would be confused.

    Lily quoting RS: : My view teaches that Christ kept the Law perfectly so that all that He did was out of love for the Father (the Greatest Command). It is only when He changes the heart and dwells in it working true love for the Father in the soul that one can know that King Jesus resides in the soul.

    Lily: I know because God is not a liar – Christ died for me. “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do … O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

    RS: John 17:9 “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;

    Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
    9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
    10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
    11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
    12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–
    13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
    14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
    15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”
    16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
    17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

    LikeLike

97. D. G. Hart: Richard, the point isn’t that none of us can keep God’s law. Not even the revived keep it since our good works are filthy rags (that’s in the Bible). The point is that your understanding of love is also inhuman. The only way a believer could possibly seek to love God as you desire would be to enter a monastery.

    RS: The point of the Law is to show us our inability which in turn would drive us to Christ. No believer can keep this Law of love whether in a monastary or not. As Warfield said (not exactly), the Law is not given in order for us to keep it, but in order to drive us to Him for strength to keep it. It is true that my view of love is inhuman, it is Divine. No fallen human being has the capacity to love even the slightest amount apart from the indwelling love of God. So we are driven to Him to have a source of love that we may even begin to love at all.

    LikeLike

98. D. G. Hart: Richard, of course, God can do whatever he wants. No one is disputing that. What we’re disputing is your and Edwards’ powers to interpret what God is doing. That doesn’t mean I’m right and you’re wrong. But you don’t reveal the slightest scintilla of concession that you may be wrong about the First Pretty Good Awakening and that Edwards may have been wrong about Phebe. I disagree with you, not with God. There is a difference.

    RS: Yet, when you are shown from Acts 2 that men were pierced in heart and cried out, you don’t seem to think that this can happen today. There were many people who cried out when God convicted them of sin and it appears a lot like Acts 2. I don’t doubt Acts 2 and I don’t doubt that Phebe’s convictions might also have been true. Of course I cannot speak with certainly about her, but I am willing to take the word of Edwards who did examine people rather thoroughly. But again, it seems that you discount the idea that this can happen today. I think that when God opens the eyes of people to their sin, some will have true agony of soul. Notice that I said “some” and did not say “all”. The fact that I am enthused about the convicting work of the Spirit and don’t deny that things like Acts 2 can happen today does not make me a Pentacostal nor an enthusiasts.

    LikeLike

99. Donald Philip Veitch: Darryl, I understood your point about the “fictional father,” dutiful, quiet, believing, involved, perhaps tired too, a Sabbatarian, a Confessionalist, but faithful…24/7/52/12. I think the “fictional father” in the original post evinces a commendable faith. I can’t see a problem with it. In fact, I see it as a commendable role model. Let all Churchmen follow such a role model. I don’t understand any further objections from Richard on the question.

    RS: Just that a person could do all of these things without love. One could do all of these things and be nothing more than a Pharisee.

    Donald Philip Veitch: My larger question involves the “presumption of superiority” amongst the revivalists. Seeking an higher ground, a better spirituality, a more enthusiastic response. That was the point in the Chauncey quote.

    RS: Hmmm, I am seeing a lot of superiority from the other side. I cannot see how seeking to have more of Christ is wrong. Isn’t that what Paul is praying for in Ephesians 3? Isn’t this a prayer of desire to know more of Christ and have more of Christ? Isn’t this a prayer that others would have more of Christ?

    14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,
    15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name,
    16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

    LikeLike

100. Richard,

     As I remember it, our exchange began with my disagreement with your assertions that you understand Luther teaching on predestination and the theology of the cross and that Lutherans do not, and your laser focus upon receiving God’s glory so you could glorify God. The exchange has careened all over the road and I have not been able to assist you in seeing the pietism and theology of glory that permeate your thinking and your handling of scripture. I don’t believe it will be fruitful to continue and it seems best to end with a warning that the path you have taken leads to a fork in the road with one path leading to despair and the other path leading to self-righteousness.

     LikeLike

101. Lily: Richard, As I remember it, our exchange began with my disagreement with your assertions that you understand Luther teaching on predestination and the theology of the cross and that Lutherans do not, and your laser focus upon receiving God’s glory so you could glorify God. The exchange has careened all over the road and I have not been able to assist you in seeing the pietism and theology of glory that permeate your thinking and your handling of scripture. I don’t believe it will be fruitful to continue and it seems best to end with a warning that the path you have taken leads to a fork in the road with one path leading to despair and the other path leading to self-righteousness.

     RS: And I would still insist that to understand Luther’s teaching on Bondage of the WIll it is necessary to believe in the sovereignty of grace. Go back to the source and read the book itself. I can only tell you that there is a huge distinction between the theology of man’s glory and the theology of God’s glory. The theology of the cross destroys the glory of man and exalts the glory of God. If you shut your eyes to the command of Scripture (which God alone can live in a sinner and work His love in the heart of the sinner) to love God with all of your being and no matter what you do you are to do to His glory, then I will insist that you have yet to understand the cross of Christ.
     Again, He prayed just before He went to the cross that the Father would glorify Him so that He could glorify the Father. Again, in John 11:40 after raising Lazarus from the dead, he said that “if you believe, you will see the glory of God.”

     The Gospel itself is said to be the Gospel of the glory of Christ. The Gospel of the cross is all about the glory of God. Indeed this Gospel of the cross has to do with human suffering, but we are to suffer to the glory of God. Why does God saves sinners? “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Eph 1:6 in context). The glory of God is absolutely inescapable in the real Gospel. If you miss that, you are missing something that is essential.

     II Cor 4: 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake.
     6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

     2 Corinthians 3:8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

     Colossians 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

     1 Timothy 1:11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

     Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

     LikeLike

102. So Richard, you believe in tongues and miracles? Didn’t those things happen in Acts? Even if you don’t, there is not the least shred of analogy between the professions of faith in Acts and those recorded in Edwards’ faithful narrative. We don’t know the Acts’ converts last names. We don’t know if they swayed. We don’t know how much anguish they experienced. We don’t know if they memorized the catechism.

     Come on Richard. You can do better than that.

     LikeLike

103. D. G. Hart: So Richard, you believe in tongues and miracles?

     RS: Yes, I believe in tongues. I speak in the English tongue and some Greek here and there. Sorry to bring up a sore spot, but Edwards wrote to his parents while in school and said that he had some problem with tongues, but the hardest was his study of Hebrew (I think).

     D. G. Hart: Didn’t those things happen in Acts? Even if you don’t, there is not the least shred of analogy between the professions of faith in Acts and those recorded in Edwards’ faithful narrative.

     RS: I am not quite as concerned about analogies as in how the Spirit works. Jesus told us what the Spirit would do when He came: John 16:8 “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.” When the Spirit came (was poured out) He convicted people of sin and they were in such anguish in Acts 2 that the language is that of a sword that pierced their hearts. The Holy Spirit has not been removed since Christ has purchased the Holy Spirit for His people. I don’t think it is a leap to say that the Spirit still convicts sinners and even convicts them to where they have deep anguish. No, I am not saying that He always does this, but I am saying that He does this.

     D.G .Heart: We don’t know the Acts’ converts last names. We don’t know if they swayed. We don’t know how much anguish they experienced. We don’t know if they memorized the catechism.

     RS: We have the important One in Acts and that was the Spirit. True that we don’t know how much anguish they had, but we do know it was described in the language of a sword piercing their hearts. That is something more than a pin prick I would assume. We do know that they did not memorize the catechism because Jesus never told anyone that they needed to do so to be saved. In fact, He never told anyone to do that at all.

     D.G. Hart: Come on Richard. You can do better than that.

     RS: Indeed.

     LikeLike

104. Richard cited the following. Note the quotation marks as coming from Richard. A dash will distinquish it from my points.

     Richard cites:

     “Donald Philip Veitch: My larger question involves the “presumption of superiority” amongst the revivalists. Seeking an higher ground, a better spirituality, a more enthusiastic response. That was the point in the Chauncey quote.

     “RS: Hmmm, I am seeing a lot of superiority from the other side. I cannot see how seeking to have more of Christ is wrong. Isn’t that what Paul is praying for in Ephesians 3? Isn’t this a prayer of desire to know more of Christ and have more of Christ? Isn’t this a prayer that others would have more of Christ?

     ——————————————
     Donald Philip Veitch responds:

     (1) Listen, Sir, I’ve been patient for three decades listening to this stuff. Patient, indulgent even, tolerant. I’ve been viewed as dead, unalive, restrictive and worse as a Confessionally Reformed and Prayer Book man. I’ve heard it over and over. I have stories and decades. The day of tolerance is over on my end.

     (2) You come in here and list chapters of the WCF and Bible verses from His Majesty’s Word–copy and paste–that ne’ery an old schooman person here denies. As per the above, you hope to win your inquest by posting two interrogatives rhetorically. Puleeze. Further, as requested several posts back–way back, where did Dr. Darryl Hart ever, repeat ever, deny the chapters on Good Works, Sanctification, or Communion of the Saints in relation to the “fictional father?” He posted the story of a “fictional father.” You’ve never shown where Dr. Hart denied the appertaining and relevant chapters. Really, it’s a time for you–a personal pronoun, “you-“-to stand down.

     (3) As to your arrogant “sense of superiority” from me, Sir, call it a legitimate, ever-increasing, and justifiable “assertion of vigourous self-defense” against the years of arrogant imputations from revivalist types against a quiet, unassertive, believing, and longsuffering indulgence by me. Anglicans tend to be charitable, forgiving and longsuffering. It’s in our DNA. I quietly and believingly read my BCP (with the Bible too). Some good days. Some bad days. But, His Sovereign Majesty has given me imperfect repentance, imperfect faith, imperfect perseverence, imperfect works, imperfect sanctification, imperfect communion with the saints, yet, with life, belief and perseverance in the very perfect promises and an ever-Faithful Redeemer. Five decades of it, Sir, since baptism through the years. The days of tolerance are over from these self-exalted inquisitors. Stand down and tell us of–Richard–of your wickednesses and manifold failures and repentances. Sir, prepare to face a tough-minded push-back. An Anglican’s patience has worn very thin with you. I shall watch your posts like a “cat watches a mouse.”

     (4) How dare you claim that you sense “a sense of superiority?” Who are you? Are you the “new barometer” of spiritual health? Sorry, Sir. Most highly and very heavily unimpressed. Have you prayed the BCP for years and decades? What do you know about it? On this end, it has been used…sometimes errantly and distractingly, lovelessly, wickedly, distractingly, yet, at many other times with love, involvement, earnestness, faith, hope and depth? Sell your wares of enthusiasm elsewhere.

     (5) We old Confessionalists well understand our sin, our manifold wickednesses, our transgressions, our failures, be we also express our joys in Christ alone, our thanksgiving (“Venite”),our aspirations (Collects for Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer…what do you know about that?), and our many, many, many prayers. What do you even know of these things? Don’t dance in here thinking you’ve got new goods, new wares and new verses. Sell it elsewhere.

     As an old Arab, not in the market for sandbags. As an old Eskimo, not in the market for bathing suits or sun glasses. As an old school Confessionalist and BCP man, not interested in revivalistic lectures and presumptive pride. Sell it to the naive.

     Donald Philip Veitch

     LikeLike

105. While Richard wishes to establish a “card check” and “TSA patdown” for doctrine, worship and piety, a few notes are rendered. If there was an historic review across the centuries, one might have heard humility, inquiry, and modest analysis. Richard, time to stand down, Sir.

     (1) Today, while driving eastwards from western NC to eastern NC, the coast, Camp Lejeune, home to the few and the elite Marines (myself included), another opportunity to rehear “All Saints Sunday, 2011” from Mariners’ Anglican, Detroit, MI. Grandly done. Replete with Morning Prayer and Holy Communion. Grand staples in the faith of the Reformed Church of England. The grand tune with rehearsals of those saints through the ages, 1000s of 100,000s of thousands. The elect, the justified and the gathered. “For All the Saints, Who From Their Labours Rest.” One rendering is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoO-7M_bXAw&feature=related

     (2) The lyrics follow. One is reminded of St. Augustine’s “Civitatis Dei.” 100,000s of 100,000s have been baptized, listened, confessed, believed, lived, died and been transferred to the Church Triumphant above while remaining united in spirit and purpose with the Church Militant below.

     For all the saints, who from their labors rest,
     who thee by faith before the world confessed,
     thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest.
     Alleluia, Alleluia!

     2. Thou wast their rock, their fortress, and their might;
     thou Lord, their captain in the well-fought fight;
     thou in the darkness drear, their one true light.
     Alleluia, Alleluia!

     3. O may thy soldiers, faithful, true, and bold,
     fight as the saints who nobly fought of old,
     and win with them the victor’s crown of gold.
     Alleluia, Alleluia!

     4. O blest communion, fellowship divine!
     We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
     yet all are one in thee, for all are thine.
     Alleluia, Alleluia!

     5. And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,
     steals on the ear the distant triumph song,
     and hearts are brave again, and arms are strong.
     Alleluia, Alleluia!

     6. From earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s farthest coast,
     through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
     singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:
     Alleluia, Alleluia!

     (3) We are cheered by the great, infallible and certain promises of the Triune God, in life and in death. Our forbears and predecessors have left this Catholic, Reformed, Protestant, Confessional and Biblical faith to us. Tis’ our duty, like the “fictional father,” to live as becomes it. Darryl, a grand example of a good husband, father and churchman.

     LikeLike

106. Donald Philip Veitch: While Richard wishes to establish a “card check” and “TSA patdown” for doctrine, worship and piety, a few notes are rendered. If there was an historic review across the centuries, one might have heard humility, inquiry, and modest analysis. Richard, time to stand down, Sir.

     RS: Jesus was perfect in humility and yet your standards are perhaps not something He would have met. Jesus is the life of His people and one of His promises is that His children will be hated. Another promise of His through Paul is that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (II Tim 3:12). That does not sound like your version of humility, inquiry, and modest analysis. Again, you might want to think this through again. Humility bows before Christ and His words. The spirit of inquiry wants to inquire regarding His words. Modest analysis? Whatever that may be, it does not sound like something that those who pant after God want to settle for. That does not sound like those who have tasted and seen that the Lord is good. That does not sound like those who want to see God and His glory. It sounds like those who want to sit around and with calmness and coolness (no disturbance to their soul and life) talk about this and that. Sorry, but that sounds a lot like Jesus’ warning against being lukewarm.

     Psa 42:1 As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for You, O God.
     Matthew 5:6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
     Philippians 3:13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you;

     LikeLike

107. Richard, you are a barking, yapping, yipping, dancing and insignificant French Poodle. Admit it, if for no one else, than yourself. Stand down, man, from further self-embarrassments. Spare yourself further disgraces, Sir, for your own sake. You add nothing here, whatsoever.

     Donald Philip Veitch

     LikeLike

108. Good grief, Sir Richard, some of us have sung the Psalms (as you cite, e.g Ps. 42) for years and years. Some of us have sung them month by month, but would you know of it? Others, rather than singing, have read them. Your assumption, as a revivalist, is that we are ignorant. Such presumptiveness–by you–must be called and stiffly rebuked. Year in and year out, for decades. But you, Sir Navel Checker, Sir Life Analyst, and “Sir TSA Patdown-Checkmeister” should recoil from further rebuttals. You, Sir, should stand down. No more free passes on the presumptions, assumptions and assertions. You have an annoyed, old school, BCP, Confessionalist Anglican on the scent of your trail. Not letting up, for a second. Are we clear? Donald Philip Veitch

     LikeLike

109. Richard, do you have anything more you wish to say? Please bring it on. Point by point, Sir Overseer of the Faith. We’ll have a point-by-point rebuttal of an earnest variety, O Thou Most Sovereign Overseer. We await Thy divine illuminations, Sir Richard. Donald Philip Veitch

     LikeLike

110. Donald Philip Veitch 1: While Richard wishes to establish a “card check” and “TSA patdown” for doctrine, worship and piety, a few notes are rendered. If there was an historic review across the centuries, one might have heard humility, inquiry, and modest analysis. Richard, time to stand down, Sir.

     Donald Philip Veitch 2: Richard, you are a barking, yapping, yipping, dancing and insignificant French Poodle. Admit it, if for no one else, than yourself. Stand down, man, from further self-embarrassments. Spare yourself further disgraces, Sir, for your own sake. You add nothing here, whatsoever.

     Donald Philip Veitch 3: Good grief, Sir Richard, some of us have sung the Psalms (as you cite, e.g Ps. 42) for years and years. Some of us have sung them month by month, but would you know of it? Others, rather than singing, have read them. Your assumption, as a revivalist, is that we are ignorant. Such presumptiveness–by you–must be called and stiffly rebuked. Year in and year out, for decades. But you, Sir Navel Checker, Sir Life Analyst, and “Sir TSA Patdown-Checkmeister” should recoil from further rebuttals. You, Sir, should stand down. No more free passes on the presumptions, assumptions and assertions. You have an annoyed, old school, BCP, Confessionalist Anglican on the scent of your trail. Not letting up, for a second. Are we clear

     RS: I take it that Donald Philip Veitch #1’s words of “humility, inquiry, and modest analysis that I was being judged by were demonstrated by Donald Philip Veitch #2 and #3. If that is a case for Confessionalist Anglicanism, I think I will stick with the Bible. Sing Psa 42 until the French Poodles go home, but that does not change the heart into one that really seeks the reality of the words.

     LikeLike

111. Richard – you ducked these questions once: 1. are you in a denomination, or are you non-denominational? 2. You stated you lead some little bible study or something. Are you ordained?

     Viking – thanks for opening a can. Still would love to read your SGM report sometime!

     LikeLike

112. Richard, you continue to be a barking French Poodle. The gig is up, while you may leap up and down, as Poodles do, and bark furiously. Yap, yap, yap. Time for the German Shepherds to nip your Poodlish behaviours. You’ve been called on it, as a self-exalting, everyone-examining, revivalistic, and non-liturgical pietiest. Sir Richard, sniff as you might like a Poodle, the gig is up.

     LikeLike

113. DJ, I ought revise and post the SGM analysis. The bottomline? SGMers are veritable whack-jobs from the Baptacostalist, revivalist and anti-intellectualist tradition. SGM followers manifestly deserve what they sought–enthusiasm, ignorance and the fruits thereof. May post those results. Thanks for the reminder. Best regards.

     LikeLike

114. Richard, what’s next on your agenda for discussion? Awaiting your Sovereign Edicts. Let’s hear it. Step by step, precept upon precept, verse by verse, prayer by prayer, Psalm by Psalm. On standby, Sir. Donald Philip Veitch

     LikeLike

115. DJ Cimino: Richard – you ducked these questions once:

     RS: Don’t recall ducking. One calls me a French poodle, one a weasel, and now a duck.

     D.J. 1. are you in a denomination, or are you non-denominational?

     RS: Denom

     D.J. 2. You stated you lead some little bible study or something. Are you ordained?

     RS: Yes

     LikeLike

116. Donald Philip Veitch: humility, inquiry, and modest analysis

     Donald Philip Veitch: Richard, you continue to be a barking French Poodle. The gig is up, while you may leap up and down, as Poodles do, and bark furiously. Yap, yap, yap. Time for the German Shepherds to nip your Poodlish behaviours. You’ve been called on it, as a self-exalting, everyone-examining, revivalistic, and non-liturgical pietiest. Sir Richard, sniff as you might like a Poodle, the gig is up.

     RS: Remove the log out of your own eye.

     Donald Philip Veitch: Richard, what’s next on your agenda for discussion? Awaiting your Sovereign Edicts. Let’s hear it. Step by step, precept upon precept, verse by verse, prayer by prayer, Psalm by Psalm. On standby, Sir. Donald Philip Veitch

     RS: Matthew 5:22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

     Matthew 12:36 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

     LikeLike

117. I had asked you a couple of weeks ago. While you seem to have the time to answer everyone, you somehow had previously failed to answer my former inquiry.

     Do you mind stating which denomination you belong to?

     LikeLike

118. Sir Richard, this is your rebuttal? This? That’s it? While you pull logs out of everyone else’s eyes–as throughout here–with your pietistisms, yet you cite “pull the log out of your own eye?” Do you see the boomerang to your own head, Sir Rev Richard (of some denomination)? A bang to your own scalp? Tell of your failures, wickednesses, and manifold transgressions which are egregious and painful to remember? Or, are you too self-righteous to see your wickedness? I suspect you think you have few to little transgressions, but you can help us here by an exposition of your humility. And the absolutions thereof, or does your liturgy have no need for that? BTW, what is your denominational backgrounnd? Your educational and theological background? We never heard your answers thereto, just your tap-dancing divagatilons, copy and paste circumnavigations, and lengthy posts that refuse to answer questions. You’re really beginning to evince a self-righteousness here, but we shall see. On your scent like a hound-dawg, Sir Richard. Post on and let us go toe-to-toe. Unless Dr. Hart decrees otherwise, we’ll be on your scent, point by point and precept upon precept. Now, Sir, answer the several questions posted by Dimino and me.

     LikeLike

119. Donald Philip Veitch: Sir Richard, this is your rebuttal? This? That’s it? While you pull logs out of everyone else’s eyes–as throughout here–with your pietistisms, yet you cite “pull the log out of your own eye?” Do you see the boomerang to your own head, Sir Rev Richard (of some denomination)? A bang to your own scalp? Tell of your failures, wickednesses, and manifold transgressions which are egregious and painful to remember? Or, are you too self-righteous to see your wickedness? I suspect you think you have few to little transgressions, but you can help us here by an exposition of your humility. And the absolutions thereof, or does your liturgy have no need for that? BTW, what is your denominational backgrounnd? Your educational and theological background? We never heard your answers thereto, just your tap-dancing divagatilons, copy and paste circumnavigations, and lengthy posts that refuse to answer questions. You’re really beginning to evince a self-righteousness here, but we shall see. On your scent like a hound-dawg, Sir Richard. Post on and let us go toe-to-toe. Unless Dr. Hart decrees otherwise, we’ll be on your scent, point by point and precept upon precept. Now, Sir, answer the several questions posted by Dimino and me.

     RS: I am extremely sorry that you think that all those other things are more important than dealing with the Word of God. While I am not uneducated, there are more important things. I would refer you to the text below. 1. Discover who you sound like. 2. Know that being with Jesus is still important.

     Acts 4:13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.

     LikeLike

120. DJ Cimino: I had asked you a couple of weeks ago. While you seem to have the time to answer everyone, you somehow had previously failed to answer my former inquiry.

     RS: Sorry I missed it or simply forgot.

     DJ Cimino: Do you mind stating which denomination you belong to?

     RS: Yes

     LikeLike

121. Donald Philip Veitch: Richard, you continue to be a barking French Poodle.

     RS: “The French Poodle is certainly one of the more fascinating and beautiful breed of dog. This dog is classified as a French hunting breed and shares various similarities with other dogs in the hunting breed category.” Donald, thank you.

     LikeLike

122. Donald Philip Veitch: (1) Listen, Sir, I’ve been patient for three decades listening to this stuff. Patient, indulgent even, tolerant. I’ve been viewed as dead, unalive, restrictive and worse as a Confessionally Reformed and Prayer Book man. I’ve heard it over and over. I have stories and decades. The day of tolerance is over on my end.

     (2) You come in here and list chapters of the WCF and Bible verses from His Majesty’s Word–copy and paste–that ne’ery an old schooman person here denies. As per the above, you hope to win your inquest by posting two interrogatives rhetorically. Puleeze. Further, as requested several posts back–way back, where did Dr. Darryl Hart ever, repeat ever, deny the chapters on Good Works, Sanctification, or Communion of the Saints in relation to the “fictional father?” He posted the story of a “fictional father.” You’ve never shown where Dr. Hart denied the appertaining and relevant chapters. Really, it’s a time for you–a personal pronoun, “you-”-to stand down.

     RS: I never argued that he denied those chapters, that was not the point.

     Donald Philip Veitch: (3) As to your arrogant “sense of superiority” from me, Sir, call it a legitimate, ever-increasing, and justifiable “assertion of vigourous self-defense” against the years of arrogant imputations from revivalist types against a quiet, unassertive, believing, and longsuffering indulgence by me. Anglicans tend to be charitable, forgiving and longsuffering. It’s in our DNA. I quietly and believingly read my BCP (with the Bible too). Some good days. Some bad days. But, His Sovereign Majesty has given me imperfect repentance, imperfect faith, imperfect perseverence, imperfect works, imperfect sanctification, imperfect communion with the saints, yet, with life, belief and perseverance in the very perfect promises and an ever-Faithful Redeemer. Five decades of it, Sir, since baptism through the years. The days of tolerance are over from these self-exalted inquisitors. Stand down and tell us of–Richard–of your wickednesses and manifold failures and repentances. Sir, prepare to face a tough-minded push-back. An Anglican’s patience has worn very thin with you. I shall watch your posts like a “cat watches a mouse.”

     RS: What would be the purpose of discussing my sins? To show my pride? When did that become the point of discussing things on this forum? Perhaps if Dr. Hart started posting on how we should discuss our sins, but that doesn’t sound like something that confessionalists would do.

     Donald Philip Veitch: (4) How dare you claim that you sense “a sense of superiority?” Who are you? Are you the “new barometer” of spiritual health? Sorry, Sir. Most highly and very heavily unimpressed. Have you prayed the BCP for years and decades? What do you know about it? On this end, it has been used…sometimes errantly and distractingly, lovelessly, wickedly, distractingly, yet, at many other times with love, involvement, earnestness, faith, hope and depth? Sell your wares of enthusiasm elsewhere.

     RS: Recall that you were the one that made the quote about the presumption of superiority. My point is that it makes people “feel superior” to others when they think that others feel superior. No, I have not prayed the BCP for decades or for even minutes. So far I have not found that the Bible has commanded that. Does that make you better than those who don’t?

     Donald Philip Veitch: (5) We old Confessionalists well understand our sin, our manifold wickednesses, our transgressions, our failures,

     RS: Maybe you don’t understand it as well as you think you do. Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

     Donald Philip Veitch: be we also express our joys in Christ alone, our thanksgiving (“Venite”),our aspirations (Collects for Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer…what do you know about that?), and our many, many, many prayers. What do you even know of these things? Don’t dance in here thinking you’ve got new goods, new wares and new verses. Sell it elsewhere.

     RS: Why are you telling us of your many, many, many prayers? Is that supposed to be the spiritual barometer of everybody else? By the way, I don’t dance.

     Donald Philip Veitch: As an old Arab, not in the market for sandbags. As an old Eskimo, not in the market for bathing suits or sun glasses. As an old school Confessionalist and BCP man, not interested in revivalistic lectures and presumptive pride. Sell it to the naive.

     RS: Your lack of interest noted. But you really sound like an enthusiast for certain things.

     LikeLike

123. Richard,

     You don’t stick with the points in an exchange. You are in great need of seeing the mirror of the law. You are being given one, but you still can’t see that you are so full of yourself that you’ve become too big for your britches and your rear-end is hanging out. If you want to continue to provoke people with your smart ass usage of scripture, weasel answers, yapping nonsense that you mistake for knowledge, then don’t complain about being called on the carpet like the miscreant teen.

     Argue all you like for your view of Luther, you will still be wrong because you lack the scholarship and basic understanding of Luther’s teaching on predestination. Get real, Richard. You don’t know 1/4 as much as you think you do. For a man who claims to be ordained, I’ve not encountered one so blind and foolish regarding his own limitations – unless he purchased his ordination online or went to an unaccredited school. So what is it Richard? I can’t believe you are the product of a good seminary.

     LikeLike

124. Lily: Richard, You don’t stick with the points in an exchange.

     RS: Interesting, and I thought that was what you did.

     Lily: You are in great need of seeing the mirror of the law. You are being given one, but you still can’t see that you are so full of yourself that you’ve become too big for your britches and your rear-end is hanging out. If you want to continue to provoke people with your smart ass usage of scripture, weasel answers, yapping nonsense that you mistake for knowledge, then don’t complain about being called on the carpet like the miscreant teen.

     RS: I am not complaining, but really it seems so childish to call names and write like you are doing. If this is the maturity I am supposed to have, I will stick with the Bible and Edwards.

     Lily: Argue all you like for your view of Luther, you will still be wrong because you lack the scholarship and basic understanding of Luther’s teaching on predestination.

     RS: I suppose you think that is an argument, but it sounds more like anger.

     Lily: Get real, Richard. You don’t know 1/4 as much as you think you do.

     RS: How much do I think I know?

     Lily: For a man who claims to be ordained, I’ve not encountered one so blind and foolish regarding his own limitations – unless he purchased his ordination online or went to an unaccredited school. So what is it Richard? I can’t believe you are the product of a good seminary.

     RS: It was quite accredited. Nevertheless, you should be careful about calling others blind and foolish along with the other names that flow so easily from your keyboard. It is not in accordance with the Gospel or the Law. You really should stick with the points.

     LikeLike

125. Richard,

     It’s plain that you are neither orthodox nor confessional. If you were, you would understand that you cannot get away with your nonsense with well-catechized confessional laity. The evidence shows you know even less than I do; it might be in your interest to get a refund and enroll in a good seminary next time. You do not grasp your poverty. The evidence also shows that you do not understand the law is descriptive to suit the behavior and you are even uncorrectable by natural law. A fool ensnared by his folly.

     LikeLike

126. Lily
     Posted March 12, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
     Richard,

     It’s plain that you are neither orthodox nor confessional. If you were, you would understand that you cannot get away with your nonsense with well-catechized confessional laity. The evidence shows you know even less than I do; it might be in your interest to get a refund and enroll in a good seminary next time. You do not grasp your poverty. The evidence also shows that you do not understand the law is descriptive to suit the behavior and you are even uncorrectable by natural law. A fool ensnared by his folly.

     RS: How is it so obvious that I am not orthodox? Because I don’t agree with all that Lutherans teach? How do you know that I don’t grasp my poverty and don’t understand the law? Who gave you these words of knowledge?

     LikeLike

127. Lily: Richard,

     It’s plain that you are neither orthodox nor confessional. If you were, you would understand that you cannot get away with your nonsense with well-catechized confessional laity. The evidence shows you know even less than I do; it might be in your interest to get a refund and enroll in a good seminary next time. You do not grasp your poverty. The evidence also shows that you do not understand the law is descriptive to suit the behavior and you are even uncorrectable by natural law. A fool ensnared by his folly.

     RS: I have avoided this point for a time, but maybe it is time.
     I Cor 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
     23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
     24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.

     I Cor 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.
     19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”;
     20 and again, “THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.”

     LikeLike

128. Richard,

     You fail to see that this has nothing to do with Lutheranism. It is about orthodoxy and the right handling of scripture. You do not preach Christ crucified for you. You preach yourself and think because you can toss scripture around that you understand scripture. You are a sinner turned in on himself who has fallen into a moralism that can be just as idolatrous, self-focused, and godless as immorality. It is an experiential religion which seeks a constant state of exaltation with the belief that it will somehow effect a pure and holy life. It elevates unverifiable subjective experience as the mark of a Christian over an objective confession of faith in Christ crucified as the mark of a Christian. It is the misguided conviction that, if we are justified, it will now be a matter of inward improvement. You have bitten into the lie that you “get” what the bible is really about and believing the lie, are looking for renovation not salvation. If you are honest, you will come to a place where you admit that your renovation isn’t working.

     God’s saving plan is one of grace and not one of improvement. The gospel is for every moment of our lives. The good news of free forgiveness in the cross of Jesus Christ, this is the driving energy that makes the Christian life possible. Go and learn what this means: Christianity is not the move from vice to virtue, but one of moving from virtue to grace. For if you are in Christ, you will increasingly see more and more of the depth of your sin and your helplessness. When you have learned to repent of even your so-called “good works” then you will have begun to understand life under the cross of Christ and that life is found in him alone.

     LikeLike

129. Lily: Richard, You fail to see that this has nothing to do with Lutheranism. It is about orthodoxy and the right handling of scripture. You do not preach Christ crucified for you.

     RS: You have never heard me preach, but when I do, it is Christ crucified. Scripture interprets Scripture is the right handling of Scripture.

     Lily: You preach yourself and think because you can toss scripture around that you understand scripture.

     RS: I don’t preach myself and I don’t toss Scripture around, though I must admit that it might be better to toss it around than not use it at all.

     Lily: You are a sinner turned in on himself who has fallen into a moralism that can be just as idolatrous, self-focused, and godless as immorality.

     RS: Moralism? Where did that come from? Others think that I have fallen so deeply into grace that I am far from morality at all. Perhaps that log is keeping you from seeking with accuracy.

     Lily: It is an experiential religion which seeks a constant state of exaltation with the belief that it will somehow effect a pure and holy life. It elevates unverifiable subjective experience as the mark of a Christian over an objective confession of faith in Christ crucified as the mark of a Christian.

     RS: You do understand that a Christianity that is not experienced is not Christianity. Eternal life is in knowing God, but it is far more than just knowing about God. As stated previously, this is not elevating subjective experience as such. It does, however, say that an outward (objective) profession of faith in Christ crucified can be repeated by anyone and is not what marks a Christian from a non-Christian. Remember, Paul said that all we can do without love is of no use. Jesus said that if we loved Him we would keep His commandments. He did not say that if we love Him we will profess Him as crucified. Indeed Christ must be preached as crucified, but you might consider the context of that passage as well.

     Lily: It is the misguided conviction that, if we are justified, it will now be a matter of inward improvement. You have bitten into the lie that you “get” what the bible is really about and believing the lie, are looking for renovation not salvation. If you are honest, you will come to a place where you admit that your renovation isn’t working.

     RS: But the Bible clearly does speak of renovation.

     Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

     Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

     Lily: God’s saving plan is one of grace and not one of improvement.

     RS: So God loves us and does not deliver us from sin? So God’s grace is not powerful enough to deliver us from the power of sin? King Jesus does not take over the reign and rule of hearts that He saves? This sounds like very new teaching to me.

     Lily: The gospel is for every moment of our lives. The good news of free forgiveness in the cross of Jesus Christ, this is the driving energy that makes the Christian life possible. Go and learn what this means: Christianity is not the move from vice to virtue, but one of moving from virtue to grace.

     RS: You might consider for a moment that forgiveness just might involve more than a mental activity in God. For instance, read carefully I John 4:7-16.

     Lily: For if you are in Christ, you will increasingly see more and more of the depth of your sin and your helplessness.

     RS: You have assuredly made huge leaps in your assumptions to to write that not knowing my heart.

     lily: When you have learned to repent of even your so-called “good works” then you will have begun to understand life under the cross of Christ and that life is found in him alone.

     RS: And you are so certain that I have not repented from my “good works” based on what evidence?

     LikeLike

130. Richard,

     You play games with yourself. It’s not rocket science to read your comments and see what you are consumed by. Your finagling words confirm that you preach yourself, lack skill in dividing the word of truth, and pursue holiness via an experiential ladder. You have yet to become secure in Christ and insecure in yourself.

     LikeLike

131. “For all have sinned, and are under the curse. However he does not say this yet, lest he should seem to lay it down of himself, but here again establishes his point by a text which concisely states both points; that no man has fulfilled the Law, (wherefore they are under the curse,) and, that Faith justifies. What then is the text? It is in the book of the prophet Habakkuk, “The just shall live by faith,” (Hab. ii: 4) which not only establishes the righteousness that is of Faith, but also that there is no salvation through the Law. As no one, he says, kept the Law, but all were under the curse, on account of transgression, an easy way was provided, that from Faith, which is in itself a strong proof that no man can be justified by the Law. For the prophet says not, “The just shall live by the Law,” but, “by faith”.

     John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 3

     LikeLike

132. A quote regarding separating Word and Spirit and therefore Christ and Spirit, thus setting the stage for Pietism, Methodism, Pentecostalism and other hyper-spiritual aberrations (the natural religion of man):

     “Early in the history of the Church the understanding of grace came to be affected by notions of charis long rampant in Hellenism. In classical times ‘grace’ or charis could be thought of as a supernatural quality conferred by the gods on legendary heroes making them ‘godlike” …it could refer to an objective endowment, to a mystical power affecting even inanimate objects, to a pneumatic potency infused into the soul, or to the divinity that dwells upon Caesar endowing him with the power to confer divine blessings. …In the New Testament grace is regularly associated with the Person and work of Christ, and is only twice brought into connection with the Spirit (Heb. 10:29; James 4:6), but later on grace was often used in detachment from the Person of Christ and then thought of as an independent principle or as correlated only with the Spirit. This facilitated its lapse into the Hellenistic notion of pneumatic potency… …grace came to be treated as something akin to magical power. The connection of grace with the Spirit is not itself theologically unsound, for grace must surely be understood in relation to the Holy Trinity, but detachment from intimate relation to the personal Being of Christ,…could, and often did, lead to serious error. Notions of ‘spiritual grace’ are found in Protestant as well as in Roman pietism.”

     T.F. Torrance

     LikeLike

133. Lily: Richard, You play games with yourself. It’s not rocket science to read your comments and see what you are consumed by. Your finagling words confirm that you preach yourself, lack skill in dividing the word of truth, and pursue holiness via an experiential ladder. You have yet to become secure in Christ and insecure in yourself.

     RS: I will agree that I pursue holiness in more than name only. Other than that, you sure find it easy to arrive at firm conclusions in our judgement of others based on shifting sand.

     LikeLike

134. Lily quoting the Golden Mouthed One: “For all have sinned, and are under the curse. However he does not say this yet, lest he should seem to lay it down of himself, but here again establishes his point by a text which concisely states both points; that no man has fulfilled the Law, (wherefore they are under the curse,) and, that Faith justifies. What then is the text? It is in the book of the prophet Habakkuk, “The just shall live by faith,” (Hab. ii: 4) which not only establishes the righteousness that is of Faith, but also that there is no salvation through the Law. As no one, he says, kept the Law, but all were under the curse, on account of transgression, an easy way was provided, that from Faith, which is in itself a strong proof that no man can be justified by the Law. For the prophet says not, “The just shall live by the Law,” but, “by faith”.

     John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 3

     RS: Great quote and a lovely theme.

     LikeLike

135. Lily: A quote regarding separating Word and Spirit and therefore Christ and Spirit, thus setting the stage for Pietism, Methodism, Pentecostalism and other hyper-spiritual aberrations (the natural religion of man):

     “Early in the history of the Church the understanding of grace came to be affected by notions of charis long rampant in Hellenism. In classical times ‘grace’ or charis could be thought of as a supernatural quality conferred by the gods on legendary heroes making them ‘godlike” …it could refer to an objective endowment, to a mystical power affecting even inanimate objects, to a pneumatic potency infused into the soul, or to the divinity that dwells upon Caesar endowing him with the power to confer divine blessings. …In the New Testament grace is regularly associated with the Person and work of Christ, and is only twice brought into connection with the Spirit (Heb. 10:29; James 4:6), but later on grace was often used in detachment from the Person of Christ and then thought of as an independent principle or as correlated only with the Spirit. This facilitated its lapse into the Hellenistic notion of pneumatic potency… …grace came to be treated as something akin to magical power. The connection of grace with the Spirit is not itself theologically unsound, for grace must surely be understood in relation to the Holy Trinity, but detachment from intimate relation to the personal Being of Christ,…could, and often did, lead to serious error. Notions of ‘spiritual grace’ are found in Protestant as well as in Roman pietism.”

     T.F. Torrance

     RS: Torrance is a great writer on the Trinity and one of my favorites on the Trinity. You might want to think closely, however, of what he says about grace. What he says in your quote and a quote I am about to give you is perfectly in line with Jonathan Edwards, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria: The Nicene formulation of the homoousion or concept of consubstantiality gave exact expression to the supreme truth of the Gospel that God himself is the content of his revelation and that the Gift which God bestows upon us in his grace is identical with himself the Giver of the Gift–the exact point to which Athanasius gave such attention… Trinitarian Perspectives

     LikeLike

136. Richard,

     Re: “Paul said that all we can do without love is of no use. Jesus said that if we loved Him we would keep His commandments. He did not say that if we love Him we will profess Him as crucified. Indeed Christ must be preached as crucified, but you might consider the context of that passage as well.”

     You stand on shifting sand. You do not love Christ. How do I know? Because you do not obey him. You are a sinner who does not keep the law and cannot keep the law. Yet, you consistently place the law (especially via emotional criteria) as your ladder to God, not faith in Christ. Your religion is the law of natural man, not the faith that begets good works. “For the prophet says not, “The just shall live by the Law,” but, “by faith”.” You still fail to understand your inability to keep the law for your words condemn you.

     LikeLike

137. Lily: Richard,
     Re: “Paul said that all we can do without love is of no use. Jesus said that if we loved Him we would keep His commandments. He did not say that if we love Him we will profess Him as crucified. Indeed Christ must be preached as crucified, but you might consider the context of that passage as well.”

     Lily: You stand on shifting sand. You do not love Christ. How do I know? Because you do not obey him.

     RS: How do you know that I don’t obey Him?

     Lily: You are a sinner who does not keep the law and cannot keep the law. Yet, you consistently place the law (especially via emotional criteria) as your ladder to God, not faith in Christ.

     RS: Not true at all. The Law was never given as a way of salvation. Christ alone is the way to the Father. Of course my saying that does not mean anymore than my saying that, but you have no basis for your continued verbal barrage.

     Lily: Your religion is the law of natural man, not the faith that begets good works. “For the prophet says not, “The just shall live by the Law,” but, “by faith”.”

     RS: My religion is of the newly born man who has Christ living in him, It certainly is not of the natural man and is certainly not one based on good works. You err greatly in this.

     Lily: You still fail to understand your inability to keep the law for your words condemn you.

     RS: Oh no, as I have stated or at least quoted, John 15:5 teaches us that apart from Him we can do nothing (spiritual or good). I have no ability to keep the Law and there is nothing good in the sinner in and of himself. Remember, as one who has read over and over Luther’s Bondage of the Will, I believe very strongly in the twin truths of the total inability of man in sin along with the twin truth of the sovereign grace of God.

     LikeLike

138. Richard.

     If you deny that you are a sinner who sins – you are a liar. If you say you obey Christ – you are a liar for you do not. You fail everyday. And yet it is to your imperfect and fleeting emotions and works that you continually point, not to Christ. You are a teacher of the law with an experiential ladder to reach God, not faith in Christ. That is what you consistently preach. Me, myself, and I and how you pine for glory that you might glorify God as though you can pass go and arrive in this life. You do not preach the Savior who has saves me from my inability to keep his law, who forgives all of my sin, who cleanses me from all unrighteousness, and begets his love and good works in me. Daily he does this. I am a child of the freewoman not the bondmaid. My good works are a fruit of faith in Christ alone not of my flesh climbing your experiential ladder. And that faith is not of myself, but a gift of God. God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. It is God who works in us to will and to do his good pleasure through faith. Salvation is gift from a to z. It is not a ladder to climb via experiential mystical glory.

     LikeLike

139. I know nothing of your Edwardsean god with a psychologized anthropology who bids me to judge myself and others by his experiential criteria as the proof of my salvation. I know only the Lamb of God sacrificed for me. He is my testimony. He is my God, my Savior, my King. His passion, his bloody and broken body nailed to a cross, his death, his descent into hell, his resurrection for me. I do not judge myself or others. It is God who judges. There is only one confession of faith: Christ crucified for me. There is only one baptism: into his death and his resurrection. Keep your foolish Edwardsean god of affections who saves no one, if you wish, but don’t expect those who have been washed by the blood and hear their Master’s voice to not recognize it’s a thief. My Shepherd comes through the gate and it’s drenched with his blood. My God saves me from all of my sin, no one can snatch me from his hand, nothing can separate me from his love, and he will raise me from the dead to live with him in eternity. Though I am faithless, he is faithful. I know this because he is my God who died for me. My affections and works are dung. I confess Christ alone.

     LikeLike

140. Lily: Richard. If you deny that you are a sinner who sins – you are a liar. If you say you obey Christ – you are a liar for you do not.

     RS: Of course all sin, but there is a degree of obedience to Christ because He said those who love Him will do so. This does not mean perfect obedience, but there is some obedience there. This is a fruit of being in Christ and the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

     Lily: You fail everyday. And yet it is to your imperfect and fleeting emotions and works that you continually point, not to Christ.

     RS: Not true in the slightest. You continue to bear false witness against me.

     Lily: You are a teacher of the law with an experiential ladder to reach God, not faith in Christ. That is what you consistently preach.

     RS: Sigh, you are so mixed up if you think that is what I am saying.

     Lily: Me, myself, and I and how you pine for glory that you might glorify God as though you can pass go and arrive in this life.

     RS: It is biblical to desire to taste of His glory and then be an instrument of His glory in the world. It is a command of Scripture to glorify God in all we do (I Cor 10:31). So if I think that it is right to obey the commands of Christ (not perfectly) by grace, you think that is wrong? Again, I will stick with the Word of God.

     Lily: You do not preach the Savior who has saves me from my inability to keep his law, who forgives all of my sin, who cleanses me from all unrighteousness, and begets his love and good works in me. Daily he does this.

     RS: So Christ puts His love in you and does good works in you? So how is that different from what I have been saying? I have been saying that it is Christ who lives in His people and works His love in His people.

     Lily: I am a child of the freewoman not the bondmaid. My good works are a fruit of faith in Christ alone not of my flesh climbing your experiential ladder.

     RS: “Experience” means to learn by practice. An experiential ladder is one who learns to climb by practice. If you are truly doing good works as a fruit of faith in Christ, then you are climing the ladder of practice.

     Lily: And that faith is not of myself, but a gift of God. God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. It is God who works in us to will and to do his good pleasure through faith. Salvation is gift from a to z. It is not a ladder to climb via experiential mystical glory.

     RS: Do this faith is a gift of God and He does not give this gift to all people. That is predestination. So if you glory in the cross, are you not seeking His glory, that is, the glory of His name? That is exactly what I have been saying. We are to seek His glory. So God works in you to will and to do His good pleasure. Do you intend to do that which is His pleasure? What is the pleasure of God? It is His own glory. So do you seek His pleasure and glory? If so, then how is that any different from what I have been saying?

     LikeLike

141. Lily: I know nothing of your Edwardsean god with a psychologized anthropology who bids me to judge myself and others by his experiential criteria as the proof of my salvation.

     RS: The God of Jonathan Edwards is the one and holy God and there is no other. Your previous position is simply based on information that is in error.

     Lily: I know only the Lamb of God sacrificed for me. He is my testimony. He is my God, my Savior, my King. His passion, his bloody and broken body nailed to a cross, his death, his descent into hell, his resurrection for me. I do not judge myself or others. It is God who judges.

     RS: Yet if Christ died for all as you say, then there must be some distinction between those who are truly regenerate and those who are not or you are plunged into universalism of some sort. That requires judgment. Even in the passage which says do not judge, it goes on to require judgment in that it says do not cast your pearls before swine.

     Lily: There is only one confession of faith: Christ crucified for me. There is only one baptism: into his death and his resurrection. Keep your foolish Edwardsean god of affections who saves no one, if you wish, but don’t expect those who have been washed by the blood and hear their Master’s voice to not recognize it’s a thief.

     RS: I fear that if your affections are not saved you are not saved. Christ saves whole people and gives them a new mind, new affections, and new wills. In other words, new souls. You can keep talking about being washed in the blood, but that has to be more than just an intellectual belief. The soul has to actually be cleansed. If the affections are not changed, then the nature of the soul has not been changed and the soul is still dead.

     Lily: My Shepherd comes through the gate and it’s drenched with his blood. My God saves me from all of my sin,

     RS: So you are saved from all of your love for sin? That sounds like perfection on the one hand but at least your affections have been delivered from a love for sin.

     Lily: no one can snatch me from his hand, nothing can separate me from his love, and he will raise me from the dead to live with him in eternity. Though I am faithless, he is faithful. I know this because he is my God who died for me. My affections and works are dung. I confess Christ alone.

     RS: Yet faith without works are dead and love without the affections is not real love either.

     LikeLike

142. Richard,

     You forget sin is an all or nothing proposition. Break one dot of the law and you’ve broken it all. If imperfect obedience is acceptable, why did Christ die? If you say that you keep the law perfectly each day then you are a liar. There is no false witness there. If you think imperfect obedience plus grace fills the gap, well I wonder if you are Roman Catholic. Christ crucified for you is what is required not works + grace. Your best good works are but filthy rags. Nothing more and nothing less.

     I am not in the least confused about the Edwardsean malarky regarding judging people’s salvation by their affections. Edwards’ Affections is man’s reason peering into hidden things (who can know his own heart? It delusional to think we can). Worship Edwards and his false standards if you must – it’s mere psychology clothed in biblical language. It’s a false standard. Believe in the Lord Jesus and be baptized is the standard.

     As for Christ in you, that’s not the way you’ve presented it. You have presented the pursuit of glory to be filled with it. You’re weaseling.

     Waffle all you want with the words experience and experiential. Ladders are ladders. There are no ladders to God. The way is Christ alone – period. And big no: “If you are truly doing good works as a fruit of faith in Christ, then you are climbing the ladder of practice.” That’s law-oriented hogwash that feeds pride and the lusts of the flesh. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are gifts that we receive and freely share and give to others.

     Your understanding of predestination and Christ is truly twisted. You immediately think about who’s-in-and-who’s-out (when did God tell you to figure out who are the wheat and who the tares? I remember the opposite.) That belongs to God not man. God did not call us to judge a man’s salvation by other than his confession in Christ crucified for him. God is his judge and he stands or falls before him.

     As for your seek his glory to partake of it for self-improvement purposes like power source. More all about you clothed in religious talk. No, I don’t seek God’s glory. It’s easily seen in the cross – Christ who inexplicably laid down his life for us, loves us, and died for us. We are to worship him and fear, love, and trust him. He is a person not a power outlet to be used.

     The answer to “I fear that if your affections are not saved you are not saved” is to drop the false standard. God saves and gives growth as it pleases him. God didn’t call you to be an affections inspector troubling his flock but an under-shepherd to feed his sheep nutritious food and to tenderly care for his flock. Trying to judge affections is like trying to nail jello to a tree. Take the example of a grief group: one person may be numb, showing no emotion and appearing to not care; another has compartmentalized and appears fine while he is experiencing great pain; and yet another is sobbing uncontrollably. So who is the one grieving properly? If you think you know the answer to that, you should resign and find a new vocation.

     You appear to be confused regarding what saved from all of our sin means. There is the now-but-not-yet sense that applies to many aspects of salvation. You are also still confused regarding “faith without works” and “love without affections” – faith begets works and love has affections. Sometimes the ground is fallow while the seeds are germinating. Try to remember that you are not God and he did not appoint you to judge his sheep but to feed. Resist the temptation to judge them.

     LikeLike

143. Lily: Richard,
     You forget sin is an all or nothing proposition. Break one dot of the law and you’ve broken it all. If imperfect obedience is acceptable, why did Christ die? If you say that you keep the law perfectly each day then you are a liar. There is no false witness there. If you think imperfect obedience plus grace fills the gap, well I wonder if you are Roman Catholic.

     RS: But you are forgetting that Christ works in His people. There is nothing in and of the person that makes the act acceptable, but Christ does. The good news of the Gospel is a lot more than just the bare fact of the cross of Christ. It is certainly at the heart of it, but don’t forget the rest. Christ has risen from the dead and He is the life of His people. Are you saying that the life of a true believer (which is Christ) is nothing but sin? Sure enough anything I touch is tainted with sin and all that I would do is sin. But Christ is the life of the believer and He can do things in and through His people so that they are not 100% sinful. Instead, in and through Christ, they are pleasing to the Father.

     Lily: Christ crucified for you is what is required not works + grace. Your best good works are but filthy rags. Nothing more and nothing less.

     RS: True, if they are works of the flesh. But when Christ Himself works in the soul there is something there that is less whan wholly sin.

     Lily: I am not in the least confused about the Edwardsean malarky regarding judging people’s salvation by their affections. Edwards’ Affections is man’s reason peering into hidden things (who can know his own heart? It delusional to think we can). Worship Edwards and his false standards if you must – it’s mere psychology clothed in biblical language. It’s a false standard. Believe in the Lord Jesus and be baptized is the standard.

     RS: God knows the heart and He can reveal out hearts to us. That is what David prayed for. Yes, you are horribly confused or mistaken about Edwards.

     Lily: As for Christ in you, that’s not the way you’ve presented it. You have presented the pursuit of glory to be filled with it. You’re weaseling.

     RS: I have spoken much of Christ in the soul. The reason we are to pursue His glory is in order that His glory would be manifested through His people. By the way, Christ Himself is the glory of God. To pursue His glory is not opposite or contrary to pursuing Christ.

     Lily: Waffle all you want with the words experience and experiential. Ladders are ladders. There are no ladders to God. The way is Christ alone – period. And big no: “If you are truly doing good works as a fruit of faith in Christ, then you are climbing the ladder of practice.” That’s law-oriented hogwash that feeds pride and the lusts of the flesh. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are gifts that we receive and freely share and give to others.

     RS: Again, I am not Law oriented in that sense, but continue on. The Gospel is of grace alone and is so much of grace alone that I am not sure you would like what I would say about it much at all.

     Lily: Your understanding of predestination and Christ is truly twisted. You immediately think about who’s-in-and-who’s-out (when did God tell you to figure out who are the wheat and who the tares? I remember the opposite.) That belongs to God not man. God did not call us to judge a man’s salvation by other than his confession in Christ crucified for him. God is his judge and he stands or falls before him.

     RS: The doctrine of election means that justification is by grace alone through faith alone. Apart from the doctrine of election you end up with God responding with grace to something people do rather than God showing and giving grace despite what people do.

     Lily: As for your seek his glory to partake of it for self-improvement purposes like power source. More all about you clothed in religious talk. No, I don’t seek God’s glory. It’s easily seen in the cross – Christ who inexplicably laid down his life for us, loves us, and died for us. We are to worship him and fear, love, and trust him. He is a person not a power outlet to be used.

     RS: 1 Corinthians 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
     2 Corinthians 12:9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

     Lily: The answer to “I fear that if your affections are not saved you are not saved” is to drop the false standard. God saves and gives growth as it pleases him. God didn’t call you to be an affections inspector troubling his flock but an under-shepherd to feed his sheep nutritious food and to tenderly care for his flock. Trying to judge affections is like trying to nail jello to a tree. Take the example of a grief group: one person may be numb, showing no emotion and appearing to not care; another has compartmentalized and appears fine while he is experiencing great pain; and yet another is sobbing uncontrollably. So who is the one grieving properly? If you think you know the answer to that, you should resign and find a new vocation.

     RS: There are answers that help people through that. Perhaps you are thinking this out with psychology rather than the Bible.
     Philippians 1:8 For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.
     Philippians 2:1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,

     Lily: You appear to be confused regarding what saved from all of our sin means. There is the now-but-not-yet sense that applies to many aspects of salvation. You are also still confused regarding “faith without works” and “love without affections” – faith begets works and love has affections. Sometimes the ground is fallow while the seeds are germinating. Try to remember that you are not God and he did not appoint you to judge his sheep but to feed. Resist the temptation to judge them.

     RS: I will work hard at trying to remember that I am not God and that He did not appoint you as my judge either.

     LikeLike

144. Richard,

     What you are describing is the Roman Catholic justification of infused grace not justification via the solas. Christ is our righteousness. We are washed, clothed, and hidden in him. Pursue Christ and his glory all you wish. I see no need since he’s not lost. His mercies are new every morning.

     What pleases God? Faith. If our trust is placed in Christ and we go about our daily business – he is pleased. He created us for good works and since he doesn’t need our good works, we give them to our neighbors. When we care for the least among us, it is as though we have done it to him.

     Not an iota confused regarding Edwards and if you think God shows you the full depth of the wickedness in your heart – you need a psychiatrist. To quote Jack Nicholson: “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.” You are clueless about the depth of wickedness in your heart. If you will stop trying to pry into the hidden things of God and take care of what he has given you – you will see oodles of sin crop up.

     Not law oriented? LOL. Afraid to proclaim the gospel because you think I can’t take it? Since nobody can preach gospel like a confessional Lutheran pastor, I’m afraid you would sound pale in comparison.

     Your explanation of predestination makes no sense. I don’t know why you are obsessive-compulsive about knowing who’s-in-and-who-out, but it’s not healthy. It’s God’s business not yours. You were called to preach and care for his field, both wheat and tares, and not to disturb them.

     You still mishandle scripture. When you figure out Christ is a person with all power belonging to him and not an electric outlet you plug into, let me know. Hint: you are a beggar.

     Regarding grief groups – no, I’m not thinking psychology. I was pointing out that you cannot use Edwards affections to discern anything. It would help mourners to have a pastor who knows how to preach Christ, but would you know such things since you aren’t a theologian of the cross?

     You are confused if you think I am judging your salvation. That’s off limits. Your doctrine and behavior? You betcha.

     LikeLike

145. I have a thesis: “A theologian of glory must always have the last word.” Richard, please prove me wrong. 🙂

     LikeLike

146. Isaiah teaches that Christ has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his striped we are healed. He was cut off and stricken, poured out his soul unto death, bore our sin and made intercession for the sinner. For his sake we are justified.

     All of this is true. Yet, in the Christian life, we still find the sinful nature at work, we still wrestle with sin and transgress, we still suffer grief and sorrow, we still become sick, we do not feel peaceful, and we most certainly all die. Since it is God’s good pleasure to give us his kingdom, why do we not see heaven on earth? Why do men seek to pull down heaven in revivals? Such foolishness. We wait for Christ or we tempt God to our own peril and see the idiocies of the Edwards, Whitefield and Finney’s great awakenings, the nonsense of the Pentecostals, and so forth. It is all vanity.

     LikeLike

147. Richard,

     I would offer: Tullian Tchividjian’s book, Jesus + Nothing = Everything. I haven’t read it, but I am familiar with a number of his mentors (such as: Sankbeil, Rosenbladt, Horton, Ferguson), and their books are listed in the bibliography. Why not consider letting God speak to you through these highly-regarded law/gospel preachers. Let them preach Christ to your hungry soul and find rest in Christ.

     LikeLike

148. tony: I have a thesis: “A theologian of glory must always have the last word.” Richard, please prove me wrong.

     RS: Since Christ is the last Word, a theologian of the glory of Christ will always have the last word to the glory of Christ.

     LikeLike

149. Lily: Richard,

     Lily: What you are describing is the Roman Catholic justification of infused grace not justification via the solas. Christ is our righteousness. We are washed, clothed, and hidden in him. Pursue Christ and his glory all you wish. I see no need since he’s not lost. His mercies are new every morning.

     RS: You are missing the point on this one. It is the imputed righteousness of Christ in terms of justification. But it is God working in us to do as He pleases in sanctification.
     Philippians 2:13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
     Hebrews 13:21 equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

     Lily: What pleases God? Faith. If our trust is placed in Christ and we go about our daily business – he is pleased. He created us for good works and since he doesn’t need our good works, we give them to our neighbors. When we care for the least among us, it is as though we have done it to him.

     RS: But there is another biblical way of looking at it. We are to try to learn what is pleasing to Him.
     Ephesians 5:10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.
     Colossians 1:10 so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;

     Lily: Not an iota confused regarding Edwards and if you think God shows you the full depth of the wickedness in your heart – you need a psychiatrist. To quote Jack Nicholson: “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.” You are clueless about the depth of wickedness in your heart. If you will stop trying to pry into the hidden things of God and take care of what he has given you – you will see oodles of sin crop up.

     RS: Again you make a very confident assertion about something you cannot possibly know.

     Lily: Not law oriented? LOL. Afraid to proclaim the gospel because you think I can’t take it? Since nobody can preach gospel like a confessional Lutheran pastor, I’m afraid you would sound pale in comparison.

     RS: Well, I guess there is no need to speak of confessional Lutheran pastor’s, but it seems like when Gospel topics come up you tend to get angry. You just keep trusting in your confession and in your pastor. They are supposed to point to Christ Himself.

     Lily: Your explanation of predestination makes no sense. I don’t know why you are obsessive-compulsive about knowing who’s-in-and-who-out, but it’s not healthy. It’s God’s business not yours. You were called to preach and care for his field, both wheat and tares, and not to disturb them.

     RS: If people take the Supper in an unworthy manner, it brings sickness and death (I Cor 11). Perhaps it is the business of ministers to help people in this manner. People are are dead in their sins and/or sleeping in their lethargy need to be disturbed. Even more, those who are sleeping while their houses are burning around them could use a little disturbance.

     Lily: You still mishandle scripture. When you figure out Christ is a person with all power belonging to him and not an electric outlet you plug into, let me know. Hint: you are a beggar.

     RS: Correct, we are not plugged into him by our own works. But we are united to Him by the Spirit through faith. Yes, I am a beggar. There are promises to beggars (Mt 5:3).

     Lily: Regarding grief groups – no, I’m not thinking psychology. I was pointing out that you cannot use Edwards affections to discern anything. It would help mourners to have a pastor who knows how to preach Christ, but would you know such things since you aren’t a theologian of the cross?

     RS: But I am a true theologian of the cross. It is through the cross that man dies to self and the glory of God is declared.

     Lily: You are confused if you think I am judging your salvation. That’s off limits. Your doctrine and behavior? You betcha.

     RS: I am not a big fan of gambling either. No thanks.

     LikeLike

150. Lily: Richard, I would offer: Tullian Tchividjian’s book, Jesus + Nothing = Everything. I haven’t read it, but I am familiar with a number of his mentors (such as: Sankbeil, Rosenbladt, Horton, Ferguson), and their books are listed in the bibliography. Why not consider letting God speak to you through these highly-regarded law/gospel preachers. Let them preach Christ to your hungry soul and find rest in Christ.

     RS: Have Tullian Tchividjian’s book, Jesus + Nothing = Everything. Have tried to read it several times, but not really a very good book. Horton? He is all Word and sacrament rather than Word and Spirit. I think I will stick with the really good guys from previous centuries who were truly God-centered and taught the truth of sovereign grace. Grace is always sovereign or it is not grace at all.

     LikeLike

151. Sorry, Richard. Your theology of the glory of Christ = the theology of glory. You have Luther so bass-ackwards it’s not even funny. You don’t even come close to being a theologian of the cross. And, since you’ve determined to cling to the sovereign grace of the Hidden God, there is nothing more to be said.

     LikeLike

152. Lily: Sorry, Richard. Your theology of the glory of Christ = the theology of glory.

     RS: Yes, the theology of the glory of God which is the basis of all true Christian theology. The reason that man must deny himself and his own glory is so that all would be done to the glory of God.

     Bondage of the Will, Published by Revell, 1957 edition, p. 317:

     In the context of the justice of God in his dealings with men: “Keep in view thre lights: The light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory (this is a common and a bad distinction). By the light of nature, it is inexplicable that it should be just for the good to be afflicted and the bad to prosper; but the light of grace explains it. By the light of grace, it is inexplicable how God can damn him who by his own strength can do nothing but sin and become guilty. Both the light of nature and the light of grace here insist that the fault lies not in the wretchedness of man, but in the injustice of God; nor can they judge otherwise of a God who crowns the ungodly freely, without merit, and does not crown, but damns another, who is perhaps less, and certainly not more, ungodly. But the light of glory insists otherwise, and will one day reveal God, to whom alone belongs a judgment whose justice is incomprehensible, as a God Whose justice is most righteous and evident–provided only that in the meanwhile we believe it, as we are instructed and encouraged to do by the example of the light of grace explaining what was a puzzle of the same order to the light of nature.”

     Moving over to p. 320, in his closing words to Erasmus, Luther said this: “May the Lord, whose cause this is, enlighten you and make you a vessel to honour and glory. Amen.”

     Clearly, in both quotes, Luther was not contrary to the idea of a theology of the glory of God. Instead, he asserted them.

     Lily: You have Luther so bass-ackwards it’s not even funny.

     RS: True, these things are not funny. But I would argue that the quotes given below might move the shoe to another’s foot.

     Lily: You don’t even come close to being a theologian of the cross. And, since you’ve determined to cling to the sovereign grace of the Hidden God, there is nothing more to be said.

     RS: From the same book above, pp. 100-101, in which the sovereign grace of God can be seen in the writings of Luther.

     God has surely promised His grace to the humbled: that iis, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realises that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will, and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of Another–God alone. As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans out for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, an occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation. But he sho is out of doubt that his destiny depends entirely on the will of God despairs entirely of himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such a man is very near to grace for his salvation.

     So these truths are published for the sake of the elect, that they may be humbled and brought down to nothing, and so saved. The rest of men resist this humiliation; indeed, they condemn the teaching of self-despair; they want a little something left that they can do for themselves. Secretly they continue proud, and enemies of the grace of God.”

     LikeLike

153. Richard, it doesn’t matter how many quotes or scriptures you offer if you do not understand them. You don’t understand Luther because you don’t understand his work. Let’s back up for a moment. Look at what you wrote in your previous comment. Can you spot the problems?

     “He [Horton] is all Word and sacrament rather than Word and Spirit. I think I will stick with the really good guys from previous centuries who were truly God-centered and taught the truth of sovereign grace. Grace is always sovereign or it is not grace at all.”

     LikeLike

154. You stated that these 2 things should be central or primary:

     1. God
     2. Sovereign grace

     So, what’s the problem?
     They are both unknowable (hidden from us)
     —- try again —-

     You stated it should be Word & Spirit rather than Word & Sacrament

     1. Does the Holy Spirit bear witness to:
     a) Himself
     b) The Word
     c) The Word & Sacrament (Christ’s body and blood)

     *Hint: RS: If people take the Supper in an unworthy manner, it brings sickness and death (I Cor 11).

     LikeLike

155. Lily: Richard, it doesn’t matter how many quotes or scriptures you offer if you do not understand them.

     RS: In other words, where you and I don’t agree the obvious problem is that I don’t understand them.

     Lily: You don’t understand Luther because you don’t understand his work. Let’s back up for a moment. Look at what you wrote in your previous comment. Can you spot the problems?

     “He [Horton] is all Word and sacrament rather than Word and Spirit. I think I will stick with the really good guys from previous centuries who were truly God-centered and taught the truth of sovereign grace. Grace is always sovereign or it is not grace at all.”

     RS: Yes, you won’t deal with Luther’s comments and Horton stresses Word and Sacrament rather than Word and Spirit. A simple reading of the NT reveals almost no stress on the Sacraments while there is a lot of stress on the Spirit. For example, Eph 3:16 “that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
     18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.”

     Several things to note:
     1. This must be granted
     2. It must be granted in accordance with the riches of His glory
     3. The inner man must be strengthened with power
     4. The inner man is strengthened in power by the Spirit
     5. The reason for this is so that Christ would dwell in your hearts
     6. When Christ dwells in your hearts then people are rooted and grounded in love
     7. Then people are able to know the love of Christ which suprasses knowledge

     LikeLike

156. Lily: You stated that these 2 things should be central or primary:

     1. God
     2. Sovereign grace

     So, what’s the problem? They are both unknowable (hidden from us)

     RS: God has revealed them so that they are not unknowable. Indeed many think that they are unlikeable, but they are not unknowable.

     Lily: —- try again —-
     You stated it should be Word & Spirit rather than Word & Sacrament

     1. Does the Holy Spirit bear witness to:
     a) Himself
     b) The Word
     c) The Word & Sacrament (Christ’s body and blood)

     *Hint: RS: If people take the Supper in an unworthy manner, it brings sickness and death (I Cor 11).

     RS: Do we have the Scriptures saying that the Spirit works in the Lord’s Supper? How many times do we have the Lord’s Supper actually discussed in the Bible? What we have is the Spirit illuminating, regenerating, strenthening the inner man, and enlightening minds and souls to Christ. I don’t recall that the Scriptures give us teachings regarding the work of the Spirit regarding the Lord’s Supper. The Scriptures speak far more of Word and Spirit rather than Word and Sacrament.

     LikeLike

157. Richard,

     You would like to make Luther a mere matter of disagreement, when it is not. You do not understand Luther’s premises or his theology which refute your understanding of him. I’m backing up to your previous comment to help you see a couple of things that are important to cover before we can move forward. These things are not unrelated to Luther.

     I’m asking you questions for the purpose of helping you to think some things through. The importance of the Lord’s Supper cannot be blown off. Read your Savior’s words: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Take that in. If he means what he says, you dare not take it lightly and the Lord’s Supper is of grave importance for the Christian. [Christ has much more to say… study the passages.]

     Neither can the relationship of Christ and the Holy Spirit be blown off. I believe this theologian hits the mark: “The New Testament’s view of the Holy Spirit can be stated in one sentence: Where Christ is, there is the Holy Spirit; where the Holy Spirit is, there is Christ. Christ and the Holy Spirit belong together.” Reread the scriptures you gave and notice the connection.

     Regarding your second reply: You are being incredibly dense about the Lord’s Supper. Since the Reformed believe in the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, the connection of Christ and Spirit should be clear.

     I will address the topic regarding hidden in a separate comment.

     LikeLike

158. Here’s a paste of the Q & A:

     You stated that these 2 things should be central or primary:

     1. God
     2. Sovereign grace

     So, what’s the problem? They are both unknowable (hidden from us)

     RS: God has revealed them so that they are not unknowable. Indeed many think that they are unlikeable, but they are not unknowable.

     —————————————-

     So, how are they knowable?

     LikeLike

159. Lily: Richard, You would like to make Luther a mere matter of disagreement, when it is not. You do not understand Luther’s premises or his theology which refute your understanding of him. I’m backing up to your previous comment to help you see a couple of things that are important to cover before we can move forward. These things are not unrelated to Luther.

     RS: It is easy to make an assertion that I don’t understand anything of Luther, but I have read that book ( Bondage of the Will) several times. I have read several other authors on it and am not in disagreement with them.

     Lily: I’m asking you questions for the purpose of helping you to think some things through. The importance of the Lord’s Supper cannot be blown off.

     RS: While I don’t think I blow it off, I would argue that it can be blown beyond the biblical proportions that it is given.

     Lily: Read your Savior’s words: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Take that in. If he means what he says, you dare not take it lightly and the Lord’s Supper is of grave importance for the Christian. [Christ has much more to say… study the passages.]

     RS: That is taken from John. Here is more of the context. 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life

     RS: I simply see nothing in that text or context that makes room for the Lord’s Supper to be taught from it. It is the Spirit who gives life. The words that Christ spoke were spirit and life. Jesus had words of eternal life. Jesus was the bread sent from heaven, but He was also a door (John 10:9).

     Lily: Neither can the relationship of Christ and the Holy Spirit be blown off. I believe this theologian hits the mark: “The New Testament’s view of the Holy Spirit can be stated in one sentence: Where Christ is, there is the Holy Spirit; where the Holy Spirit is, there is Christ. Christ and the Holy Spirit belong together.” Reread the scriptures you gave and notice the connection.

     RS: Because of the Trinity that would be a very accurate statement.

     Lily: Regarding your second reply: You are being incredibly dense about the Lord’s Supper. Since the Reformed believe in the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, the connection of Christ and Spirit should be clear.

     RS: The Reformed believe in the real presence, but a real, spiritual presence. I am not arguing against a “connection” between Christ and the Spirit.

     Lily: I will address the topic regarding hidden in a separate comment.

     LikeLike

160. Richard, I was reading the Curmudgeon and thought of thee:

     http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/2012/03/not-pietism-not-activism-but-realism.html

     LikeLike

161. Lily Here’s a paste of the Q & A:
     You stated that these 2 things should be central or primary:

     1. God
     2. Sovereign grace

     So, what’s the problem? They are both unknowable (hidden from us)

     RS: God has revealed them so that they are not unknowable. Indeed many think that they are unlikeable, but they are not unknowable.

     —————————————-

     So, how are they knowable?

     RS: Eternal life is defined by Jesus as knowing God (John 17:3). John said that everyone that loves is born of God and knows God (I John 4:7). So God is knowable both to the mind as things are revealed in Scripture but also by the love of God that dwells in His people. God is knowable in that the Spirit works in people and now they view things in a spiritual way. After all, faith is the optic of the soul (see Hebrews 11). Jesus said that He had made the Father known and would make Him known so that the love with which the Father loved Him would be in His people and Jesus would be in His people (John 17:26). Other verses:

     1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
     1 John 4:16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

     2 Peter 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature,

     So we have the revelation of the facts in Scripture and then the application of those truths by the Spirit. We have Christ dwelling in His people (Col 1:2&; Gal 2:20) and in these things we have the triune God sharing His moral nature (holiness, love, joy, peace, patience…) with His people. He dwells in His people and His love is in them in a way that they can know that He dwells in them rather than the sinful and self-centered self.

     LikeLike

162. Zrim: Richard, I was reading the Curmudgeon and thought of thee:

     http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/2012/03/not-pietism-not-activism-but-realism.html

     RS: Thanks, I think? For whatever its worth, I don’t think of Piper as a modern Edwardsean. There is no modern Edwardsean that I have read.

     LikeLike

163. Richard,

     You keep insisting that you understand Luther from one book which is an argument against free-will in salvation. Yet you do not know his premises and his theology or how it all hangs together. You have yet to begin to understand the Hidden God and the Revealed God. The problem you are experiencing is called perspectivism. You have made your limited view authoritative. It’s also called pride of life.

     No, you missed the context. The setting is shortly before Passover (think of what Passover means and how Christ fulfilled it). You gloss over the importance of the Lord’s Supper in favor of making the Holy Spirit central and forget there is no salvation without the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood for us. Christ and his sacrifice for us is central. Christ says: You must eat my body and drink my blood or you have no life in you. The Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ and his sacrifice for us. There is no Holy Spirit without Christ. Our faith is placed in Christ and him crucified for us, not the Holy Spirit. You cannot separate Christ from his words. He is the Truth. He is eternal life. Thus his words are life and truth. The Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ and his words. Christ is central. That we believe is the gift of God.

     LikeLike

164. Richard,

     You mangled the answer about knowing God. Back up. What is the problem with theism?

     LikeLike

165. Lily: Richard,

     You keep insisting that you understand Luther from one book which is an argument against free-will in salvation. Yet you do not know his premises and his theology or how it all hangs together. You have yet to begin to understand the Hidden God and the Revealed God. The problem you are experiencing is called perspectivism. You have made your limited view authoritative. It’s also called pride of life.

     RS: I did not say that all I have read of Luther is that one book. I have many other volumes of his works, but that is the one that I have read over and over. But if he preferred it to the others, then I think it is safe to say that the heart of his theology is expressed in that book. In other words, if we let Luther be the expert on Luther, Bondage of the Will expresses this theology the best.

     Lily: No, you missed the context. The setting is shortly before Passover (think of what Passover means and how Christ fulfilled it).

     RS: The context is Jesus feeding the crowds (five thousand men and who knows how many women and children) with five barley loaves and two fish. He then takes that and turns the conversation to Himself showing that while Moses (only in a sense since it was the Father who did this) gave them manna, He was the true bread from heaven. John 6:35. ” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” He is the bread of life to those who believe. And once again, ” 63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” It was not until John 18 that the Passover was eaten. While the Passover was near (as the text says), it was not the time of the Passover. In John 6 Jesus was using the miracle of feeding the thousands of people to point out that He was true life.

     John 7 gives us the Feast of Booths. John 6 gives us this teaching: 37 “Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38 “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'” 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

     Lily: You gloss over the importance of the Lord’s Supper in favor of making the Holy Spirit central and forget there is no salvation without the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood for us. Christ and his sacrifice for us is central.

     RS: I am not glossing over the importance of the Lord’s Supper and I am especially not forgetting the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. I am simply saying that the Bible itself does not put the stress on the Lord’s Supper that some do. The focus is on faith and trusting in Christ alone. Outside of Jesus keeping the Passover in the Gospels, we have Paul in I Cor 11 saying how the Supper was to be done. But throughout the Gospels Paul teaches us about Christ and what He did and is doing. I am saying the stress should be where Paul put the stress. Galatians 3:12-14 says that Christ purchased the Holy Spirit for His people. Over and over again we have references to the Holy Spirit and His work in the NT. So the emphasis of the NT is on the work of the Spirit over the Lord’s Supper. The Scriptures are our final authority in this.

     Lily: Christ says: You must eat my body and drink my blood or you have no life in you. The Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ and his sacrifice for us. There is no Holy Spirit without Christ. Our faith is placed in Christ and him crucified for us, not the Holy Spirit. You cannot separate Christ from his words. He is the Truth. He is eternal life. Thus his words are life and truth. The Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ and his words. Christ is central. That we believe is the gift of God.

     RS: Indeed Christ said that, but He did so in a context that had nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper. He clearly said in that same context that “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (John 6:63). When the crowds left, Peter said that Jesus had “words of eternal life.” A few verses below that speak of the Word of God being meat and milk to the soul.

     Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.
     1 Peter 2:2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
     1 Corinthians 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,

     LikeLike

166. Lily: Richard,
     You mangled the answer about knowing God. Back up. What is the problem with theism?

     RS: As long as Jesus defines eternal life as knowing God, I don’t think my answer is mangled. The problem with modern theism is that true theism is virtually unknown in our day.

     LikeLike

167. Richard,

     It’s not in your best interests to baby your pride. It is an obstacle that calls for repentance not defense. If you will repent of your pride in thinking your understand Luther and the heart of his theology, then we can move forward. If not, the discussion ends because you will remain blinded by your pride and you will not profit from Luther.

     Again, you are still mishandling scripture. You are blind to what John is showing you and leading you to. The context is Passover. Again, you have an obstacle that calls for repentance before we can move forward.

     Lastly, you are weaseling on theism and mishandling scripture. Who does Christ say he is?

     LikeLike

168. Lily: Richard, It’s not in your best interests to baby your pride. It is an obstacle that calls for repentance not defense. If you will repent of your pride in thinking your understand Luther and the heart of his theology, then we can move forward. If not, the discussion ends because you will remain blinded by your pride and you will not profit from Luther.

     RS: Unless you can show me from Scripture or evident reason, I will stand on the heart of the truth of Luther’s theology is best expressed in his work on The Bondage of the Will. I am not sure how to interpret his own words any differently. Toward the end of his life he was willing that all of his writings be burned other than Bondage of the Will and his work on the Cathechism. You can call that pride if you prefer, but I guess I will accept Luther’s words on the matter and think that I am not being prideful in that regard.

     Lily: Again, you are still mishandling scripture. You are blind to what John is showing you and leading you to. The context is Passover. Again, you have an obstacle that calls for repentance before we can move forward.

     RS: But Jesus Himself did not mention the Passover and there are twelve chapters in the Gospel of John before Passover. There are other feasts in John before Passover. The text itself giving the words of Jesus tells us that He is speaking spiritual words.

     Lily: Lastly, you are weaseling on theism and mishandling scripture. Who does Christ say he is?

     RS: Neither or your accusations are true. Christ says He is God in human flesh.

     LikeLike

169. Lily Richard,

     It’s not in your best interests to baby your pride. It is an obstacle that calls for repentance not defense. If you will repent of your pride in thinking your understand Luther and the heart of his theology, then we can move forward. If not, the discussion ends because you will remain blinded by your pride and you will not profit from Luther.

     RS: I am still deeply puzzled by your thinking on this. Writing to Capito on July 9, 1537, with reference to a suggested complete edition of his works, he roundly affirmed that none of them deserved preservation save the little children’s catechism and The Bondage of the Will; for only they, in their different departments, were ‘right’. I suppose in one sense it is logical to disagree with Luther about which books were his best, but I am just agreeing with Luther of his assessment of his own works. I still fail to see how that must mean that I am babying my pride.

     LikeLike

170. It’s pride to continue ignoring your ignorance and trying to defend your misunderstanding on partial knowledge. Unless you repent, you will remain blinded by your pride and no help will be given.

     Look at John 6. The setting is the days before Passover (vs 4) In a nutshell: Jesus provides the miracle of multiplying the bread and fish, and feeds the people. The crowd follows him the next day. The miracle that gave temporal life to their earthly bodies bears witness to what he next tells them about eternal life: I am the Bread of Life. To receive this life, you must eat my flesh and drink my blood (an allusion to the future night before Passover where he will feed the apostles his body and blood). When people grumbled and wondered at his teaching, Jesus said that belief in his words is a gift of God. He reminds them that he has already taught them that no one can come to him unless the Father draws them. Let the pieces of the puzzle come together by remembering that all of scripture is about Christ and testifies of him. You are tripping over his words being spirit and life.

     Yes, both assertions fit. You are still not seeing the problem and unless you will look at what theism means contrasted with who Christ is, you will not see the problem. Let’s use this definition of theism: 1) it involves a god who is active within the human world. 2) it places immense value upon the experience of god 3) god is described as the ideal paradigm of moral perfection. 4) god is thought of in highly personal terms and includes a human incarnation.

     Let me ask you some questions about theism.

     1) If a person believes these things are true, is there a problem?
     2) What does this person lack?

     Now let me ask some questions about Christ:

     1.) Your Savior says:

     I have come that they might have life.
     I lay down my life for the sheep.
     I give unto them [my sheep] eternal life.

     No man taketh it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

     Why did the Son of God become incarnate?

     2) Your Savior says:

     Enter by the narrow strait.
     No one comes to the Father but through me.
     The Father and I are one.
     I am the Door.

     For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

     How do you know God and receive eternal life in God?

     LikeLike

171. Lily:

     I wanted to chime in to encourage you in your responses to Richard. Rest assured that at least one person is reading these exchanges and benefiting from them.

     As others have mentioned here, I value your perspective and insights. I used to come from a similar place as Richard, and I found that his approach is a recipe for self-righteousness or despair–in my case it was too often despair.

     I thank God for his gift of free grace and for plucking me from the labyrinth of self. Keep fighting the good fight here, Lily. I think it is very helpful.

     LikeLike

172. Is there anyone else who has thought of the old saw?

     “A man convinced against his will; is of the same opinion still…”

     LikeLike

173. Lily: It’s pride to continue ignoring your ignorance and trying to defend your misunderstanding on partial knowledge. Unless you repent, you will remain blinded by your pride and no help will be given.

     RS: I would simply tell you once again regarding the two things we have been discussion of late.
     1. Toward the end of his life (about 9 years away) Luther was very clear as to which of his many writings he valued the most. It is the one that I have been leaning on. I think it would be quite arrogant for theologians or anyone else to try to correct Luther’s own thoughts on this.

     2. Regarding John 6, there is simply no biblical evidence for your point other than you say that it is so.

     Lily: Look at John 6. The setting is the days before Passover (vs 4) In a nutshell: Jesus provides the miracle of multiplying the bread and fish, and feeds the people. The crowd follows him the next day. The miracle that gave temporal life to their earthly bodies bears witness to what he next tells them about eternal life: I am the Bread of Life. To receive this life, you must eat my flesh and drink my blood (an allusion to the future night before Passover where he will feed the apostles his body and blood). When people grumbled and wondered at his teaching, Jesus said that belief in his words is a gift of God. He reminds them that he has already taught them that no one can come to him unless the Father draws them. Let the pieces of the puzzle come together by remembering that all of scripture is about Christ and testifies of him. You are tripping over his words being spirit and life.

     RS: I am not tripping over them, but simply setting them out for what they are. He did not say one word concerning the Supper and He did not institute the Supper until a lot later. The text in its own context does not hint at the Supper and Jesus Himself specifically said that His words were spirit and life. I am limiting my points to what comes from the text, but you are bringing something into the text.

     Lily: Yes, both assertions fit. You are still not seeing the problem and unless you will look at what theism means contrasted with who Christ is, you will not see the problem. Let’s use this definition of theism: 1) it involves a god who is active within the human world. 2) it places immense value upon the experience of god 3) god is described as the ideal paradigm of moral perfection. 4) god is thought of in highly personal terms and includes a human incarnation.

     Let me ask you some questions about theism.

     1) If a person believes these things are true, is there a problem?
     2) What does this person lack?

     RS: I am not even sure what you are asking at this point. If you are asking about the four questions above, that is not a definition of theism.

     Lily: Now let me ask some questions about Christ:

     1.) Your Savior says:

     I have come that they might have life.
     I lay down my life for the sheep.
     I give unto them [my sheep] eternal life.

     No man taketh it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

     Why did the Son of God become incarnate?

     2) Your Savior says:

     Enter by the narrow strait.
     No one comes to the Father but through me.
     The Father and I are one.
     I am the Door.

     For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

     How do you know God and receive eternal life in God?

     RS: Eternal life is to know God (John 17:2-3). A person must be born of God and know God in order to love (I John 4:7-8). In His prayer Jesus prayed this: ” I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” Eternal life and the life of love are connected to say the least. I John 4:7-21 is very clear that the true believer is one that abides in God and God abides in the believer. I John also teaches that we can know and believe the love of God has in us. If we take the Scriptures and let them give us the test, it is not a matter of agreeing that something is true, which the devil can do, but whether or not a person has Christ and His love in the soul.

     LikeLike

174. Piper channeling Edwards: “Heaven will be a never ending, ever increasing discovery of MORE AND MORE of God’s glory with great and ever greater joy. The perfection of heaven is not static”

     Edwards: “Christ by His righteousness purchased for everyone complete and perfect happiness. BUT this does not hinder that the saints, being of various capacities, may have various degrees of happiness. It be still left with God, notwithstanding the perfect obedience of the second Adam, to fix the degree of each one’s capacity, and so by the proportion of the saints’ faithfulness here, He gives higher degrees of glory, in reward for higher degrees of holiness and good works.”

     mcmark: I do not agree with their philosophical speculations.

     LikeLike

175. RL Keener Lily: I wanted to chime in to encourage you in your responses to Richard. Rest assured that at least one person is reading these exchanges and benefiting from them.

     As others have mentioned here, I value your perspective and insights. I used to come from a similar place as Richard, and I found that his approach is a recipe for self-righteousness or despair–in my case it was too often despair.

     RS: A recipe for self-righteousness? I know you are just chiming in, but that is simply absurd. The only way to escape self-righteousness and despair is by a true grace alone. It is the righteousness of Christ given by grace, it is sins taken away from grace, and it is the life of Christ in the soul by grace. Lily’s way is not truly a way of grace.

     LikeLike

176. mark mcculley: Piper channeling Edwards: “Heaven will be a never ending, ever increasing discovery of MORE AND MORE of God’s glory with great and ever greater joy. The perfection of heaven is not static”

     Edwards: “Christ by His righteousness purchased for everyone complete and perfect happiness. BUT this does not hinder that the saints, being of various capacities, may have various degrees of happiness. It be still left with God, notwithstanding the perfect obedience of the second Adam, to fix the degree of each one’s capacity, and so by the proportion of the saints’ faithfulness here, He gives higher degrees of glory, in reward for higher degrees of holiness and good works.”

     mcmark: I do not agree with their philosophical speculations.

     RS: So you do not agree that God in His sovereignty can fix the degree of capacity of each person? Do you not agree that Scripture does tell us that the greatest is the most humble?

     LikeLike

177. Richard – this is my last comment: enter by the narrow strait.

     Jack – yes.

     Mark – bravo.

     RL – you’ve embarrassed me, there are much better people to listen to – but thanks. I am thankful God delivered you from that awful hamster wheel and you rest in his grace!

     LikeLike

178. One of my favorites from the book, Jayber Crow (Wendell Berry), on page 154:

     “As a rule, when the pressure was on, Roy eased away. He was not by nature a man who was very much in evidence.”

     You gotta love that second sentence.

     LikeLike

179. RL – I thought you might appreciate what I found in my evening devotions:

     Mark 13:3-6 (ESV)
     And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, [4] “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?” [5] And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray. [6] Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray.

     See that no one leads you astray. I think the problem is, we don’t need to be led astray. We’re wont to go astray, so it doesn’t take much in the way of leading at all. People come and tell people what they want to hear, and they are gone. This happens whether the man comes preaching libertinism, or moralism, or a mixture of the two. Our old Adam wants to hear moralism, boundaries, do this don’t do that, just as much as he wants to hear a defense of hedonism. He will hear one or the other, but not the gospel. The others let him pretend to be God, master of his own destiny, but the gospel forgives sins, and recognizing we need forgiveness takes the power away from us to do anything. It deflates our ego. It puts us in our place, and reminds us that we in fact are not gods, we do not belong to ourselves. But then, when you are given the gift of faith, given the ability to live with forgiveness, Its hard to go either of the other two ways for very long. When you live in the love of Christ, and by the love of Christ, well it won’t let you be either a moralist, or a hedonist, it won’t allow you to be anything but a forgiven sinner.

     LikeLike

180. “Once God begins a work in the life of the person He has chosen, they are incapable of resisting his overarching sovereignty, even if they kick and scream and do terrible things….. it is as though each person has two seperate lives: one that they are aware of, which is a complete illusion, and another that they are predominantly unaware of, which is far more true in every sense than the one they perceive. To quote Luther on this point: ‘We still have sin that bites and entices us, but it doesn’t rule over us. The sin within us is like a person who is tied up and being led away to his death. The weapons that person might use to harm others have all been taken away. But that person isn’t dead yet (although we should “consider” consider him dead- my addition). With similar breath, the leaders of the English Reformation in the 16th century added in their 9th article of Religion that: sindoth persist, year in them that regenerate.”

     LikeLike

181. That should be: “sin doth persist, yea in them that are regenerate.”

     LikeLike

182. Lily: Richard – this is my last comment: enter by the narrow strait.

     RS:
     Luke 13:24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

     Mat 7: 13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
     14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
     15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
     16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
     17 “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
     18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
     19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
     20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits.
     21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
     22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
     23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
     24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
     25 “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
     26 “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
     27 “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell– and great was its fall.”
     28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching;
     29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

     Matthew 18:3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

     Matthew 5:20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

     Mat 19: 24 “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
     25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”
     26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

     John 6:41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
     42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven ‘?”
     43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves.
     44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
     45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

     LikeLike

183. Here is an essay on Mathew 25 which normally does not get interpreted this way. I thought his comments about “fruit”, near the end of the essay, were relevant here. Thanks to McMark for sending it to me:

     Click to access robbins.pdf

     LikeLike

184. John and Mark,

     Spot on article. When I read it, it struck me that: it is God’s will that we believe upon his Son for our salvation. Jesus says that our faith is the work of God. And when we believe, we hear Jesus say it is finished on his cross and to find our rest in him. So… we believe in Christ and rest in him… we have done the will of God. We are forgiven sinners. And it is all gift – he did it all. Ain’t God grand? 😉

     It also reminded me of the ladders pietists use trying to reach God. -1- moralism – the ladder of the will to obey the law and live the Christian life -2- mysticism – the ladder of emotions seeking to experience God and find the flower divinity in their soul and -3- speculation – the ladder of reason trying to know God through knowledge and peering into the hidden things of God apart from his Word. They are to be pitied. It is dung.

     LikeLike

185. “If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

     My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
     My sin, not in part but the whole,
     Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more,
     Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

     It is well, it is well, with my soul.

     LikeLike

186. Article by John Robbins: These people, these church leaders, were never Christians. They were never foreknown, elected, called, regenerated, justified, adopted, reconciled, or sanctified. They may have been baptized, confirmed, ordained, chrismated, and canonized, but they were never born again. They were active churchgoers and church leaders; they did many extraordinary and wonderful works, all in the name of Jesus; but they were never Christians. Christ Jesus never knew them. This declaration eliminates Romanist and Arminian doctrine, with its “saved on Sunday, lost on Monday” soteriology, as well as the Neolegalism of men like Norman Shepherd and Steven Schlissel.

     Lily: Spot on article.

     Lily: It also reminded me of the ladders pietists use trying to reach God. -1- moralism – the ladder of the will to obey the law and live the Christian life -2- mysticism – the ladder of emotions seeking to experience God and find the flower divinity in their soul and -3- speculation – the ladder of reason trying to know God through knowledge and peering into the hidden things of God apart from his Word. They are to be pitied. It is dung.

     Jesus: John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
     John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
     John: 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

     Jesus: John 15:11 “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full
     John 17:13 “But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves.

     Luke: Acts 13:52 And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

     Paul: Romans 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
     Romans 15:13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
     2 Corinthians 1:24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm.

     Peter: 1 Peter 1:8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,

     Matthew 22:37 And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’

     1 Corinthians 2: 6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
     7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
     8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
     9 but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
     10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
     11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
     12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
     13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
     16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

     LikeLike

187. Is there a higher realm than the theology of glory? Maybe the theology of hubris? Richard, it seems like you think that you not only can see the hidden God, but want to sell the pictures you snapped to the rest of us. Sorry, but I’m not buying. I only want to know the God-man who suckled at Mary’s breast, who hung dead on a cross for my sins, who rose from the dead for my justification. That’s “my Lord and my God” who perfectly reveals everything I need to know about God the Father. After all, He’s the One who said, “This is My Beloved Son, whom I love. Listen to Him.” The Father points us to His Incarnate, Crucified, and Risen Son, and so does the Holy Spirit. This is God for you, Richard, in the flesh – living, dying, and rising for your salvation. No need to ascend into heaven, to pull Christ down. He already came down for you. No need to descend into the abyss to bring Him back from the dead. He’s already risen for you. He now comes to you in the Word which is near you. Believe it. It is all sufficient for your justification, your sanctification, your glorification.

     LikeLike

188. tony: Is there a higher realm than the theology of glory? Maybe the theology of hubris? Richard, it seems like you think that you not only can see the hidden God, but want to sell the pictures you snapped to the rest of us. Sorry, but I’m not buying.

     RS: The sight of the glory of God in the face of Christ is not for sale.

     Tony: I only want to know the God-man who suckled at Mary’s breast, who hung dead on a cross for my sins, who rose from the dead for my justification. That’s “my Lord and my God” who perfectly reveals everything I need to know about God the Father. After all, He’s the One who said, “This is My Beloved Son, whom I love. Listen to Him.” The Father points us to His Incarnate, Crucified, and Risen Son, and so does the Holy Spirit. This is God for you, Richard, in the flesh – living, dying, and rising for your salvation. No need to ascend into heaven, to pull Christ down. He already came down for you. No need to descend into the abyss to bring Him back from the dead. He’s already risen for you. He now comes to you in the Word which is near you. Believe it. It is all sufficient for your justification, your sanctification, your glorification.

     RS: If all you can see is those things that the Pharisees could see, then you are missing a lot of vitally important things. Of course Christ died in the flesh, but He was united to the second Person of the Trinity. Behold your God!! A worship of Jesus in the flesh was also nothing more than the Jews were willing to do when He gave them free food. He is God in human flesh and we must behold His glory or we don’t really see Him in truth as He is. We must see His glory and the glory of the Father in Him or we don’t really see Him.

     John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'”

     John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
     17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.
     18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

     John 2:11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

     John 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him. 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father ‘?

     John 11:40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

     2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

     John 4:24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

     LikeLike

189. Amen and amen, Tony.

     Blessed are his commands:

     Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

     I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

     He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

     Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

     Jesus took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

     LikeLike

190. Lily: Amen and amen, Tony.

     Blessed are his commands:

     Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

     RS: John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

     Lily: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

     RS: John 10:7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

     Lily: He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

     Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

     RS: Jesus did not take part of Himself and give to them, but gave them bread.

     Lily: Jesus took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

     RS: Jesus did not open a vein and give them to drink, instead He gave them fruit of the vine to drink.

     Matthew 18:3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

     Isaiah 6:10 “Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.”

     1 Peter 2:1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
     2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

     Matthew 11:12 “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.

     Acts 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”

     Luke 13:24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able

     LikeLike

191. For we know that salvation is a gift given to whomsoever he choses.

     Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

     According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust …This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

     We find rest in Christ alone.

     LikeLike

192. Lily: For we know that salvation is a gift given to whomsoever he choses.

     Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

     Tomans 9: 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
     14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
     15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
     16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
     17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”
     18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
     19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
     20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
     21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
     22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

     LikeLike

193. We think by some little work or or merit we can dismiss sin. 
     Luther-Galatians

     LikeLike

194. William Romaine (1714-1795) preached a series of semons on “Law and Gospel” and began with a sermon on John 6:45, “They Shall All be Taught of God”. He said that “in all divine teachig, these (Word and Spirit) two go together; the Word, and the Spirit explaining and applying the Word.”

     “What the Holy Spiirt does is, that “He gives [the sinner] a view of himself in the glass of the law, and shows him, and makes him feel, the entire corruption of his nature, the blindness of his understanding, the depravity of his will and the rebellion o fhis heart. The natural man is a bad scholar and this is a humbling lesson.”

     Another said about Romaine, “in contending for a personal work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual before he or she can receive spiritual truth and understand either the law or the gospel, Romaine was aware that he was running counter to the prevailing view, which was that such claims amounted to enthusiasm.” But back to Romaine, “At this day the knowledge of vital and experimental religion is so far lost, that whenever the generality of our people hear it spoken of, they do not understand it; and what they do not understand they reject under the odious name of enthusiasm.”

     LikeLike

195. But we placard ‘Christ crucified for you’ before men, not ourselves. Enthusiasms cannot save; love cannot save; faith in Christ alone saves. There is only one mediator, Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. There is only one Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.

     Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Lamb of God. You search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of the Lamb slain for us.

     LikeLike

196. Here is an interview with the Getty’s- perhaps they have a boring testimony too but their music speaks volumes. I think Alistair Begg is close friends with them. I don’t hear much about him anymore.

     LikeLike

197. Thanks, Lily.

     John: Nice article.

     I’ve been thinking about those ladders of ascent as well. Some folks just need to be knocked off their ladders.

     LikeLike

198. RL,

     Those ladders are nasty and it’s easy to find myself on one. There are too many ways to go astray: allow sanctification to swallow justification, or allow justification to swallow sanctification, or try to swallow the Holy Spirit, and so forth. It’s all far beyond my understanding. Good teachers in sound doctrine and law/gospel sermons are precious beyond words.

     I think it is his great mercy at work when he knocks us off of those ladders. It’s far too easy to start climbing one. For some it can feel like Paul being knocked off his horse and blinded. I always find it interesting that after Paul’s fall and being blinded, he was healed of his blindness through an elder, and then needed to spend time in Arabia being taught before he was able to preach the gospel. In Acts, it looks like Christ met him on the road, zapped him, and then he almost immediately started preaching the gospel, whereas Galatians tells us otherwise.

     LikeLike

199. I posted this under the wrong heading. Here is the right one. Some may call them ladders, but Jesus did refer to Himself as a ladder to heaven. We are also commanded to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ.

     Philip Doddridge in a sermon, Christ Formed in the Soul the only Foundation of Hope for Eternity.

     “Trust not in the external forms of devotion, as the foundation of your great hopes for eternity. You are, it may be, joined to a society, which not only wears the Christian name, but seperates itself from many other professors, under the apprehension, at least, or a more pure and scriptural worship. You, perhaps, so much approve and esteem this worship, as to be diligent and constant in attending on the publick exercises of it, not only in its stated Returns, but on occasional opportunites. You fill your places here from time to time, not merely in obedience to the commands of your parents and governors, but by your own voluntary choice. And it may be, to these you add the forms of family-devotion morning and evening, and possibly a few moments of daily retirement for reading and prayer. What can such religious persons have to fear? Nay, rather, my brethren, what can you have to hope, if, while you draw near to God with your mouths and your lips, you remove your hearts far from him, if, while you come before him, as his people come, and present yourselves in the posture of humble worshppers, your heart be going out after your covetousness? God hath for ever confounded such vain presumption, by declaring, that the prayer of the wicked is an abomination to him, and that he shall certainly be so that turns away his ear from hearing the Law, i.e., that refuses obedience to it, That servant that knew his master’s will, and did it not, became justly liable, to be beaten with many stripes; and ’tis not to be wondere’d, if, in this sense, judgment begins at the House of God, and seise first on those who affront and profane his Ordinances, by making them to supersede those very things which they were originally appointed on purpose to promote.

     LikeLike

200. p192, Jonathan Edwards Evangelist, Gerstner–“Edwards taught perseverance of the saints. However, the marks of grace and the signs of salvation were so meticulous, exacting and searching on one hand;
     and the deceitfulness of sins, the counterfeits of Christian experience, and the difficulty of being truly objective about the state of one’s soul were so great, on the other, that assurance became
     a relatively rare thing…For followers of Edwards, assurance of salvation remained dubious to
     the end of their lives.

     LikeLike

201. mark mcculley: p192, Jonathan Edwards Evangelist, Gerstner–”Edwards taught perseverance of the saints. However, the marks of grace and the signs of salvation were so meticulous, exacting and searching on one hand; and the deceitfulness of sins, the counterfeits of Christian experience, and the difficulty of being truly objective about the state of one’s soul were so great, on the other, that assurance became a relatively rare thing…For followers of Edwards, assurance of salvation remained dubious to the end of their lives.

     RS: 1. Gerstner made some comments on that, but he did not provide any footnotes to show that his assessment was based on evidence from that period in time. 2. On the other hand, it may also be that it is more biblical to have fewer people with assurance. In other words, it would appear that in our day we strive and work and end up with far more people who are assured of salvation than those who have salvation. In the words of a former prof, they have arrived at assurance too soon.

     Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

     Mat 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

     Luke 13:23 And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

     LikeLike

202. Of course John Owen is correct that nobody has the duty to believe that Christ died for him or her, or that Christ died for everybody. Christ did not die for everybody. And we can and should say that in
     the gospel. But without turning the gospel into something where the cross depends on regeneration, we can tell everybody the good news that Christ died for the elect alone.

     Christ’s death for the elect alone is good news. It’s gospel to say
     that all for whom Christ died will be saved. It’s not gospel to tell people falsely that Christ died for them. And this is true, whether you are an Arminian saying that based on the idea that Christ died for everybody or whether you are saying it as a revivalist making speculative distinctions between moral and natural inability.

     John Owen makes a distinction between truth about the extent of the atonement and the false idea that the sinner must obtain a subjective experience of the work of Christ for him personally by some
     sort of preparation in him.

     LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.