So why is it that some tweeters choose to block followers? If you want to have a private conversation on social media I believe we still have email, discussion list-serves, and even password protected blogs. But if you are in the business of trying to enlighten as many as possible about how unjust U.S. society is, why do you cut off someone from hearing what you tweet and link?
I mean, not even Johnny Eric Williams was all that careful about his social media profile (Greg and those like consider this a trigger warning):
Williams’s case has attracted the interest of academic freedom and free speech advocates, partly because the sociologist is among a number of other scholars who have been physically threatened or harassed online in recent months for their public comments. Most of those comments concerned race in some way.
Williams last week shared an article from Medium called “Let Them Fucking Die.” The piece argues that “indifference to their well-being is the only thing that terrifies” bigots, and so people of color should “Let. Them. Fucking. Die” if they’re ever in peril. The Medium piece linked to another Fusion piece about Republican Representative Steve Scalise, who was shot earlier this month in Alexandria, Va. It says Scalise has previously opposed extending protections to LGBTQ people and reportedly once spoke at a meeting of white supremacists, while one of the black law enforcement officers who rescued him is a married lesbian.
In sharing the Medium piece, Williams used the “Let them fucking die” comment as a hashtag, and wrote that it is “past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system.”
That post and a similar one prompted critical reports on conservative websites suggesting Williams was advocating violence against white people.
“Less than one week after a gunman opened fire on more than a dozen Republican members of Congress on a Virginia baseball field, a Connecticut college professor said that first responders to the shooting should have ‘let them die’ because they are white,” The Blaze reported, for example.
Williams has since apologized for his remarks and said he was not advocating violence against whites, only drawing attention to systemic racism.
Maybe this is a case where you want to block those who may disagree. But what fun is it to be provocative with those already #provake?
100 thoughts on “Isn’t the Point of Social Media to Attract Followers?”
The purpose for social media (internet generally) for me is to preach the word and glorify God in every kind and level of conversation. That means helping people and being helped by them in willingness to believe the scriptures rightly divided no matter who or what it costs me or makes me wrong about.
I have never, banned, blocked or unfriended anybody in my life.
McMArk did unfriend me though. We’ll leave that alone for now.
Zuckerburg thinks social media is like the church, so that makes blocking like excommunication.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greg, I was warning you about ehff-bombs.
Dr. Hart says:”Greg, I was warning you about ehff-bombs.”
I believe that was a sincere consideration on your part Darryl and do appreciate and thank you for it.
Let me however explain a couple things. Life in Adam’s world is full of ehff-bombs. It’s full of blasphemy, death, blood, sickness, perversion and debauchery. Not only is all of that (and more) unavoidable, our job as ambassadors of Christ therein is to reach into it and be the hand of a holy, merciful, redeeming savior offering the only way out.
Not be entertained by it’s well financed and masterfully crafted bloody, blasphemous, pornographic “art.”
That is not legalistic “pietism,” It is Westminster Protestantism 101.
There is a vast difference between wading through the non-fictitious filth of this world in obedience to Christ’s command to make disciples and teach them of Him, and bringing it into my heart, house and life “…SIMPLY BECAUSE I LIKE IT…”
Look yourself in the mirror. Really actually do that, and ask yourself honestly:
If you can’t bring yourself to even ask the question, it means you have a severely damaged, but still functioning conscience.
If you ask and answer that you have to honestly say that it not has not made you more like your savior and Lord, then repent Darryl. I’m not yelling or sneering. I’m pleading. I know it’s almost impossible to fathom at the moment, but you’ll one day be glad you did after you’ve been living without that incessant flood of immersive unholy pollution into your heart and mind for a while.
If you ask and answer that it has made you more like the spotless Lamb of the thrice holy God then you need to get saved. You know NOTHING of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus.
All the past aside for a moment. If you (or anybody) dedicated the time and money to the things of God that you do to this dead world’s television and movies, you would be a one man battalion in the army of the Lord and a clear and present danger to the devil’s schemes. Probably not very popular in today’s apostate world loving American Christendom, but joy and peace that passes understanding in the knowledge of God’s favor on your life.
You’re gonna get this. I cannot get it outta my head that you are going to get this.
Cyber banning is for those who take themselves more seriously than their ideas. So Bayly-ish, so Schrute-y.
Greg, what you’re missing is that you are to media what some college freshman are to ideas–dainty. Which is funny given all that “Cavinist crunching” you show off, whatever that means. Aren’t crunches just crunches no matter the cruncher? Why is all of life swallowed up by faith for you?
That video was made for a specific person who was asking about ab exercises, for whom the “Calvinist” attribute would be seen as a tongue in cheek inside joke Zrim.
My PAGE is fully public and open. Anybody can see or say whatever they want. Whatever conclusions they reach are up to them.
“Why is all of life swallowed up by faith for you?”
Because I’m a Christian. What part of life do the scriptures teach that I should keep for myself Steve? That’s a very telling question you asked and one that should terrify you, but it won’t.
The stuff I can’t unsee
Greg, except for anything having to do with that “bloody, blasphemous, pornographic art” euphemistically called “cinema.” Then it’s snowflake time.
Which raises an interesting question about eeeevangelicals (and those influenced by them) and their tendency to guffaw at political correctness. Interesting since one would think their pietism would be more open to things like heavy policing of language and portrayal. They even purchase software to censor media they consume privately. So why so put out by political correctness? Maybe it’s selective, as in the kind of censorship that is perceived to gag eeeevangelical virtues and proselytizing–as long as it’s not that then political correctness is pretty, pretty good.
Zrim, your monumental cluelessness concerning all things pertaining to life and godliness, regrettably marches on unabated. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Tiribulus – Zrim isn’t clueless, but he is confused about what the word *all* means. As in “do all to the glory of God.” On the other hand, he isn’t a fundamentalist, which seems to be your leaning based on what I’ve read from you on here. He seems to err on the side of secularism, you seem to err on the side of excessive scrupulosity. If you two could find a way to marry liberty of conscience with a Gospel-shaped life, you would be a match made in heaven. Or just your average Neo-Calvinist.
DGH – yeah, the whole blocking people on Twitter thing makes no sense whatsoever. Neither does having a blog without comments. I appreciate that you allow comments and allow people to disagree with you – that’s ultimately more edifying and educational for everyone.
But Zrim, I’m not from evafish land and I resent PC culture. I think it’s all the erroneous underpinnings(socialism, anarchism, SIPTSD, WP) and the coercive implications of legislative tyranny.
Sean, right, you’re not a pietist so less curious is your resentment. But if PC is a form of pietism, more interesting to watch pietists cherry pick which kind they’ll howl about and which they’ll get behind (like Greg and media, loosing his bleep over cinema but turning old school when it comes to cyber-space).
Then again, I’m clueless, so…
Zrim, ah, thanks for the expansion. Cherry picking, indeed.
Sean, but while I’m at it, it may also have something to do with the right’s yuge success at defining PC as “whatever the left thinks” instead of PC being what the old timers called “group think.” So the howling comes when PC is understood in the former, nouveau sense. Since all groups are vulnerable to group-think, the upshot is that to the extent evangies are righties, they are now innocent of the common human foible of group-think. “What ‘bandwagon’? This is the chariot to heaven, which you would know were it not for our monumental cluelessness concerning all things pertaining to life and godliness.”
Zrim, you’re just a silver-lining kinda guy. But, the right’s yuge success right now appears to be the left’s pretty convincing meltdown. I know I’m eager to get home and hear about the latest on the russian collusion development and see Anderson squint pensively.
Vae victis, if you’re actually interested in an answer, please read from HERE down.
Vae Vic and Greg,
These conversations with Zrim about glorifying God in all things always sputter out with a citation of 1 Cor 10.31, at which point both parties retreat to their corners, with Greg feeling satisfied that he’s proven Zrim wrong and Zrim convinced that nothing he says will be heard.
It’s a predictable arc, and not very fruitful.
I would like to see some progress made. Consider: Zrim is or has been an officer in a Reformed church, IIRC. (If IDRC, at least a committed layman).
Given that, it is highly unlikely that he *denies* 1 Cor 10.31, that we are to do all things to the glory of God. Right?
So why not explore: On the assumption that he affirms the authority of 1 Cor, how does that play out for him? In what way *does* he glorify God in, say, doing crunches, while yet not having all of life swallowed up by faith?
*That* could be a useful conversation.
The current arc practically writes itself and doesn’t edify.
Jeff, there was a recent exchange with VV on another thread in which I agreed with him that we are to do all things to the glory of God by suggesting that all who have faith can’t help but do all things to the glory of God–it’s inevitable. He didn’t reply.
And we’ve been here before. It’s where the neos among us seem to think the command is synonymous with “do all things in a superior way” and the less than neo wonder what happens when believers aren’t the best at everything (since that happens a lot). Do they still glorify God in ways that unbelievers who are better at X never can? We answer in the affirmative, because faith glorifies God the same ways it saves sinners, in contrast to works.
Jeff – that’s fair, and I would love to read Zrim’s response. I know Zrim affirms 1 Cor 10:31, at least in an abstract sense, but he and Dr. Hart criticize Neo-Calvinists for not drawing a distinction between the temporal and the eternal. That criticism can be fair, depending on the individual Neo-Calvinist. But if doing crunches or baking a cake is merely temporal and not worthy of spiritual consideration, then what do we do with 1 Cor 10:31, Col 3:17, Psalm 127:1, etc? I would like him to address that, especially in light of his criticism of “every square inch” theology.
Zrim – you beat me to it. In response to your last paragraph, I don’t think most Neo-Calvinists believe baking a cake for God’s glory means it will necessarily be a better tasting cake than a cake made by an atheist. Yes, we should do the best with the talents God has given us, but more than that we should have the proper motivation for baking the cake – namely glorifying God and providing a service to others – and do it in the right way for a fair price. The motivation for the activity and the way we perform the activity is how we apply God’s Word to temporal tasks.
VV, I’m at ground zero for all things neo (west Michigan) and simply beg to differ–that’s precisely what doing all things to the glory of God means to the neo-Cal, doing it in a superior way. Granted, admitting something that direct is gauche but it is the sub-text. But the question remains for you: what about when believers not only don’t bake so well but with more mundane motivations (even selfish–what, I can’t bake myself a cake because I love cake)? Are they then not glorifying God?
Zrim, you can’t bake a cake for yourself because metformin isn’t some crutch that allows you to eat whatever. Plus, it’s a good way to destroy a bathroom when you use it that way.
Zrim – if a Neo-Calvinist claims that being a Christian makes you a better baker (or anything) on a technical level, then I disagree with them. And of course there is nothing wrong with baking a cake for yourself, or enjoying any (lawful) temporal pleasures (Eccl. 2:24-26, 9:7-10, 1 Tim 6:17), as long as it is done with thanksgiving to God for providing the ingredients, technical ability, time, and capacity to enjoy the cake. Enjoying what He has given us with thanksgiving gives glory to God.
Zrim: “Why is all of life swallowed up by faith for you?”
Greg: Because I’m a Christian.
Jeff: a predictable arc and not very fruitful.
Zrim: all who have faith can’t help but do all things to the glory of God–it’s inevitable.
Vae victis: Zrim, The motivation for the activity and the way we perform the activity is how we apply God’s Word to temporal tasks.
Zrim: that’s precisely what doing all things to the glory of God means to the neo-Cal, doing it in a superior way. Granted, admitting something that direct is gauche but it is the sub-text.
-true believers= good trees (1)
-Good trees =bear good fruit (2)
-God =good fruit bearer author/perfecter (3)
-God = really, really loves good fruit bearing (4)
-In the now = war on corruption =God really, really hates bad fruit (5)
-Note: slander* e.g. = not good fruit
-Note also : there are fake good-fruit bearers (6)
Matt 7:17 every good tree bears good fruit, bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
-Col 1:3 We give thanks to God…4 ..the gospel 6 ..is constantly bearing fruit and increasing
-2 Pet 1:…8if these qualities are yours and are increasing-, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ…. 11 in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom will be abundantly supplied to you.
-Matt 13:23 good-soil-sown-seed bears fruit – some 30x, 60x,100x
John 15:4-5 the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine; Jesus is the vine; believers, the branches;he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
-John 15:8a My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit.
-John 15:16a I chose you and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit and that your fruit would remain
-1 Cor 3:14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
-Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
-Rom 14:23b whatever is not from faith is sin.
-James 4:17 If anyone knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.
Matt7: 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.’
*Zrim: that’s precisely what doing all things to the glory of God means to the neo-Cal, doing it in a superior way. Granted, admitting something that direct is gauche but it is the sub-text.
conclusion: re Zrim: all who have faith can’t help but do all things to the glory of God–it’s inevitable.
‘all who have faith’ in general,in a circumstance needs to be explained
note: Slander: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation
VV, your neo seems to wear off gradually the more we speak. What’s so neo about enjoying God’s gifts? What is it the neo thinks he’s improving upon?
You started by suggesting my problem is not understanding what “all” means in “all of life.” I’ve said that a believer can’t help but glorify God in all of life because faith is the means by which he does that, which would actually seem pretty expansive. IOW, from the mundane to the extraordinary whether poorly or mediocre or well, the believer is always glorifying God in ways the unbeliever simply can’t by definition. Isn’t that all-ish? But how that translates into Christian baking and Calvinist crunches isn’t clear. Instead of a “glorify God in all of life” ethos, what it seems more like is taking every opportunity to brandish one’s faith for everyone to see. How that squares with Matthew 6 I don’t know, but I’m not sure pietism has ever cared much about that text.
Zrim – no, your over-arching view of faith isn’t all-ish on a practical level. Are you saying Christians are incapable of sin? If a believer “can’t help but glorify God in all of life because of faith” then how does a believer sin? We sin because we are still in the flesh, and because our sanctification isn’t complete. So I can certainly bake a cake or perform crunches with the wrong motives and that is sinful and fails to glorify God. It is true that a Christian has the potential to please God in a way that the non-Christian does not, but that potential isn’t realized in every thought, word, and deed that a Christian performs because we are still in the flesh and still commit sin. That’s why we should consciously strive to honor God in all things and not simply assume it will happen because we are regenerate.
I don’t see how baking a cake to glorify God is “taking every opportunity to brandish one’s faith for everyone to see.” I don’t tell people I’m baking the cake to glorify God, I just do it. I don’t see how there is necessarily contradicts Matthew 6.
VV, right, not comprehensive enough because believers need endless specific lists on how to do all of life christianly. But what about the easy yoke?
Christians are still capable of sin. It’s why paleo 2kers can say neo-Cal calls for believers to transform the world are religious fantasies that have little regard for the realities of abiding sin. How is that in any conflict with saying believers glorify God through faith alone? Sinning doesn’t glorify God but faith does. Does faith disappear when believers sin?
Really? To hear you talk about baking cakes you sure make more out of than it is: motives, abilities, provisions, capacities. You don’t think It’s possible to brandish faith to God?
Christians are still capable of sin. It’s why paleo 2kers can say neo-Cal calls for believers to transform the world are religious fantasies that have little regard for the realities of abiding sin.
Perhaps that is true sometimes, but is it invariably true? Why is it a religious fantasy to think that Christians loving their neighbors will bring about transformation of some sort even if not a whole new world order. Maybe we should be wary of overstating things, but why is it a religious fantasy to think that if Church X loves its neighbors and starts a tutoring program, hospital, or whatever, transformation is no occurring.
IOW, it seems like you are confusing transformation with glorification and if glorification isn’t evident, neither is transformation.
How is that in any conflict with saying believers glorify God through faith alone? Sinning doesn’t glorify God but faith does. Does faith disappear when believers sin?
Can we not make a distinction between the judicial and the experiential, between the forensic and the process of sanctification. Faith doesn’t disappear entirely when believers sin, so believers in a forensic, judicial sense never fail to glorify God because they are clothed in the glorification that Christ gave to God via his active and passive obedience. However, from an experiential and sanctification perspective, believers can and do fail to glorify God when they sin. Why can’t both be true? It would seem to be required by the Westminster Standards.
Robert, because if HC 114 is right and “even the holiest among us is only making but the smallest beginning of obedience” then the idea that we’re transforming the world seems like a highly over realized sense of sanctification. Unless grace leaks from the fingertips of the redeemed transforming all they touch, perhaps doing good works for the sake of others in response to grace is just doing good works for the sake of others in response to grace? No, I’m not so confusing transformation with glorification as I’m saying why not talk about believers working to *preserve* rather than *transform*? Seems like an important difference.
Re your comment on the judicial and experiential, I like it, sure beats glorifying God through baking cakes.
Greg, perfect argument for Roman Catholic monasticism:
vv, I am a servant serving servers.
vv, you don’t seem to consider that marriage is “merely temporal.” Jesus says so.
So if marriage is for this age, what in hades do crunches have to do with the new heavens and new earth?
Robert, “Why is it a religious fantasy to think that Christians loving their neighbors will bring about transformation of some sort . . .”
Well, because the son of God loved his neighbors and they executed him.
Zrim, a followup question:
Heb 11 uses the phrase “by faith” adverbially. Various people from Abel through Abraham through the prophets acted in specific instances “by faith.” The writer then draws on those exemplars in chapter 12 to exhort his readers to set aside sin and run with endurance, submit to hardships as discipline, strive for peace and holiness, and see that no one falls short of obtaining God’s grace (interesting!).
In your comments, you seem to indicate that those who are “of faith” will inherently act “by faith”, almost as if it happens unconsciously.
But I have always read Heb 11 as speaking of believers who deliberately acted, hence are appropriate exemplars for the exhortations that follow.
Can you talk a bit more about your understanding of acting “by faith”?
Vae Vic, a followup question for you also:
Is baking a cake to the glory of God a good work a la WCF 16?
Jeff, I think it’s true that faith is something that is at work even when its holder isn’t. There are plenty of instances when we’re not conscious of our faith, but does that mean it’s not at work for us? I think you’d agree. But I do get your point, which I think is that there is something to be said for the exhortation of believers to act in accord with the faith they both possess and profess. And Hebrews seems to me to be speaking in manner consistent with that. I don’t think you mean to be saying that faith is only active when its holder is aware and working. And I’d think you’d agree that faith working for us when we aren’t aware is actually a very comforting notion (much like the Spirit constantly interceding on our behalf, especially at the lower and weaker points of the Christian life).
Zrim – Robert made the technical, theological point I was trying to make with the cake-baking/crunch-doing practical examples. You seem to be doing a sort of reverse Catholicism (dare I say EEEeeeeevangelical?) and waving the wand of justifying faith over sanctification. Saving faith is absolutely always accompanied by good works and obedience as we are reminded time and again throughout the Bible, especially the entire NT. What’s the point of the constant exhortations to obedience and good works if these automatically happen simply because we rest on Christ for our justification? The Christian life is a “continual and irreconcilable” war of Spirit against flesh as WCF 13.2 says, but it gives us the way to win that war in 14.2: “By this [saving] faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands…” In other words, Scripture shapes our decision-making and our actions as a means of defeating the lusts of the flesh and completing the process of sanctification. If obedience and good works are that important, shouldn’t they shape every aspect of our lives?
DGH – you unwittingly made my point. Marriage is temporal (from a human perspective), but God cares greatly about marriage and how we conduct ourselves in marriage. If something temporal like marriage isn’t important, why did Jesus repeatedly address it and why is it addressed multiples times throughout the NT and OT? Sure, marriage may be more important than crunches (though my wife might argue that doing crunches certainly helps to keep a marriage healthy), but God doesn’t discount any aspect of our lives simply because it is temporal. Again, take a look at what God says in Psalm 127:1 about building a house.
Jeff – that’s a good question. I would argue yes, but I can see the argument against. Cake baking isn’t commanded, but doing all deeds for the glory of God is. A good work done under the “pretence of good intention” would be something like establishing a casus belli from Scripture for patently unjust war, or killing an abortion doctor, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor, or something like that. Murder and stealing do not glorify God, and therefore cannot be good works. I think those are the *false* good works denounced by WCF 16, whereas something acceptable like baking a cake or doing crunches would be good works if done for the glory of God.
If obedience and good works are that important, shouldn’t they shape every aspect of our lives?
VV, I think the neo problem is trying to make conventional Protestantism meet the felt needs of moderns who, among other things, want to know how every aspect of their lives private and public “ought to be shaped.” They pine for spiritual relevancy and meaning for every nook and cranny of life. The problem is that to the extent it is the best articulation of biblical religion, conventional Prot’ism doesn’t have that set of modern assumptions in mind. You may be more a captive of culture than you realize, ironically enough. Comfortable and even complacent people are those that tend to pine for yards of meaning and relevancy. Yes, as has been said around here often enough, the Christian life can be summed up in one phrase–grateful obedience–but how that meets all the temporal needs of the “fat and happy (and white)” just isn’t all that clear to some of us.
Zrim – I’m going to quote Calvin here, only to show that this is not a “need of the moderns.” From the Institutes 3.7.2: “The Christian ought, indeed, to be so trained and disposed as to consider, that during his WHOLE LIFE he has to do with God. For this reason, as he will bring ALL THINGS to the disposal and estimate of God, so he will religiously direct his WHOLE MIND to Him. For he who has learned to look to God in EVERYTHING HE DOES, is at the same time diverted from all vain thoughts.” (emphasis mine) The context is clearly the daily life of a Christian, since the chapter is titled “A summary of the Christian life. Of self-denial.” Perhaps even stronger is John Owen in The Mortification of Sin, which is entirely about actively putting death to sin in our entire being, which calls for constant self-evaluation of all our thoughts and actions.
The point is Neo-Calvinism isn’t some recent phenomenon dreamed up by people “pining for spiritual relevancy.” The act of baking a cake doesn’t give meaning in itself, unless it is done with the intent and action of glorifying God. Or as Calvin would say, all life has to do with God. The point is that all of life has spiritual relevancy – even the most seemingly mundane – because He is sovereign over all and therefore all must be done to His glory. In order to do that, we must carefully examine our thoughts, attitudes, motivations, etc in every aspect of life. Instead of criticizing the “moderns” – and who can’t do that? – try to make your case from Scripture or historical theology.
VV, then why is it called NEO? Some sort of accommodating to modernity must be at play in ways the older expressions can’t satisfy. But I still think you’re reading even Calvin with modern lenses, mistaking the sovereignty of God over all of life with looking for religious significance in all of life. God may be sovereign over even the mundane things, but how you get from that to there being no meaning in the mundane unless consciously done with the intent to glorify God in the careful examination of thoughts, attitudes and motivations is just quizzical. Really, you have no category for proximate meaning? Unbelievers have no meaning in their lives since they can’t glorify God in whatever they do? They’d be surprised to hear that, and rightly so. Many sure act like they have meaning in their lives. Are you saying they’re just dreaming, putzing their lives away under the pretense of a meaningful life? That’s how neos (and their lesser cousins the evangelicals) tend to speak, as if their temporal lives are more or less hoaxes simply because they can’t draw straight lines from every square inch of provisional life to religious faith. It may make the cultural pietists feel good about themselves but I don’t think you guys are aware of how silly it comes across.
ps I’d rather engage your own thoughts instead of try to show how many books I’ve read and found own views in them. Feel free to continue it yourself though.
vv, actually, Jesus said marriage is temporary: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Mt. 22:30). This is God’s perspective.
So the good things here are not eternal. Don’t immanentize the eschaton.
vv, how can you play the slots and direct your whole mind to God at the same time?
Are you really that pietistic living in Vegas?
“They pine for spiritual relevancy and meaning for every nook and cranny of life.”
even at the risk of being ‘all CAPPED’ by gatekeeper cw..
Jesus, to believers: you were redeemed from your futile way of life 1 Pet 1:18 (every nook and cranny)
fu·tile: Having no useful result; ineffectual: pointless; unimportant; trifling
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man? (in every nook and cranny)
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.
DGH – of course Jesus said marriage is temporary. So is evangelism and church planting and confession of sin. That doesn’t mean any of those things are unimportant to God. With God there is no such thing as “temporal” – everything just is (Ecc 3:14-15). And I don’t know why you think I live in Vegas. I love it, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t live there, and I definitely don’t play slots when I visit.
Zrim – sure, there is proximate meaning of things for the unbelievers who do them. They can enjoy family time, marriages, children, the beauty of nature, life’s pleasures, etc. But they pass away and are gone and have no lasting ultimate worth. For those of us whose life is “hidden with Christ in God” we have the ability to glorify God, earn His pleasure and favor (both temporal and eternal), and gain heavenly rewards for our good works. In other words, the temporal done rightly translates into eternal blessing, whereas temporal done wrongly will be “burned” and he will “suffer loss” (1 Cor 3:14-15). So the temporal activities of our present lives matter greatly – the repeated teachings of Scripture indicate God’s desire for his moral law to permeate every aspect of our lives (Deut 6 & 11). God wants us to glorify Him in all that we do, not just the overtly spiritual activities, because they all have eternal significance.
I enjoy discussing these things, but when it comes to spiritual matters I won’t be persuaded without a Scriptural or at least historic theological argument. Believe me, I’ve been so dismantled in on-line “debates” before that I’ve changed my mind on things. But simply saying my arguments “look silly” is no way to do it. If I’m wrong and you can prove me wrong, then please do it – I ask that as a favor, not a taunt.
VV, amazing. Look again at what you say to Darryl about the temporality of marriage and ding him for suggesting marriage is “unimportant” (he’s not saying that), then you go on to tutor me on the vapors of proximate life. So are you saying these things are “unimportant” or just putting a needed eternal perspective on temporal life, i.e. worthy but also fleeting at the same time? It looks like the latter, which is what the point is over here. What exactly are you taking so much issue with again?
I’m not trying to change your mind (modernist alert).
Zrim – where we differ is that I believe a Christian should strive to honor glorify God in every aspect of their lives, and I don’t believe that comes automatically to Christians simply because they possess saving faith. In fact, true saving faith will develop a desire for obedience through the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus in everything I do – baking a cake, doing crunches, playing slots, etc – I weigh the activity, the motivation behind the activity, my gratitude, etc. in order to be obedient and strive to glorify God. It seems that you would say there’s no need for any of that because Christians naturally glorify God in all their actions.
In terms of temporal and eternal matters, I do believe even the most mundane tasks are reflected in eternity. If an unbeliever bakes a cake, they are only incurring God’s wrath because they cannot glorify Him in baking a cake. If a believer bakes a cake, they can either glorify God through right motivations, thankfulness, etc, or displease Him through selfishness, pride, ungratefulness, etc. Those believers that glorify Him will reap eternal rewards, those that do not glorify Him will not reap eternal rewards. So regardless of who bakes the cake, it has eternal significance, even though the activity itself is only temporal.
Dr. Hart brought up the marriage issue, not me. He is right that marriage is temporal, and I assume he would believe that though the institution itself is temporal, our conduct in regards to marriage has eternal significance. My point is that ALL temporal activities have significance, even the most mundane.
VV, this is where neo-Calvinism gets weird. Older Calvinism says that God’s wrath is incurred by both inherent and actual sin incurred by disobedience to the covenant of works. You say it’s by being unable to glorify God in common activity. You say you want arguments made in historical and biblical terms, so where do any confessional statements or biblical texts warrant your creative formulation here over the older formulation? Positively, you seem to suggest that a believer glorifies God by weighing all sorts of things including motivations in mundane tasks. Older Calvinism says it’s by obeying the law (albeit imperfectly). Those seem, again, like two different systems of thought. Older Calvinism seems much more succinct and clear on these questions, modern Calvinism much more creative and muddled.
If the highest human institution (marriage) is dissolved in eternity then how can “even the most mundane tasks are reflected in eternity”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“They pine for spiritual relevancy and meaning for every nook and cranny of life.”
testimony of the whole bible: the Lord establishes His purposes and has made everything for purpose.
re: marriage: one lived out in faith will be found to result in praise and glory and honor to Jesus at His revelation
you have not spoken of the Lord what is right, perhaps vae victis will pray for you, Zrim.
Ali, putting your point into parentheses of biblical text is lame.
Wherever you live, your state should keep you from driving. If you have to give all of that thought to everything you do, then you could run someone over in the time it takes you to parse motivations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vae Vic, Zrim, DGH, et al.: I am reading through Luther’s Treatise on Good Works and finding it challenging.
What Tweeters who block need to remember:
DGH – great point! Sounds very similar to this:
cw l’unificateur says: Ali, unificate.
Haha, ok. How ‘bout around THE gatekeeper – He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens.
Zrim asks: “If the highest human institution (marriage) is dissolved in eternity then how can “even the most mundane tasks are reflected in eternity”?”
Holiness and obedience (which are practically the same thing) are reflected in eternity. Even when practiced in institutions and entities that do not themselves persist into eternity,.
My primary motivation when I fix somebody’s computer, is to either bless the household of faith or display Christ in my honest, upright and quality services to them if they are not believers. Even the motive of monetary gain, which in itself is good and right, is so that it may be used in ways that honor and are pleasing to my Lord. Any other motivation is self exalting sin.
Do you really believe that God will not take into account at the judgement how a man treated his wife and children during his natural life in this age? Even though marriage and reproduction are no more? This is a principle that applies across the temporal board. I promise you. The “older Calvinism:” understood this.
Men over 35 should not let their heart show on any part of their clothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greg, “Do you really believe that God will not take into account at the judgement how a man treated his wife and children during his natural life in this age?”
Do you really think Christ’s imputed righteousness only applies to wives and children?
DGH – I know your reading comprehension is better than that. And to Greg’s point, he’s talking about sanctification, not justification.
Dr. Hart quotes me as saying: “Greg, “Do you really believe that God will not take into account at the judgement how a man treated his wife and children during his natural life in this age?”
And then responds with
Do you really think Christ’s imputed righteousness only applies to wives and children?”
Are you saying that you really didn’t understand my point? That’s an honest and serious question Darryl.
Greg, I really don’t understand your point because you seem to imply that someone saved is still going to have to account for their sins on judgment day. Huh? If that’s the case, then what does saving faith accomplish?
Even though: Job 41:11 “Who has given to Me that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine.
Yet: Proverbs 19:17 One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.
Eph 6: 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
Matt 16 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.
Hebrews 11: 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
(ps: also, best I can see ‘repay’ is often spoken of in the bible negatively about non-believers)
@ Ali and Greg:
So more work is needed here. Is Paul in Eph 6 and Jesus in Matt 16 saying that each person will receive what his works are due? Surely not, for then David would have no way to say “Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven.”
The key phrase that needs clarification here is “according to.” Unpack that…
Greg – I generally agree with you, but let me see if I can help you here a bit. There are two ways in which a believer’s works will be evaluated at the Last Judgment. In the first way – justification – Christians will be declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness, not due to works (e.g. how a man treats his family). However, to Jeff’s point, he will be judged according to his works. A better way to think about it may be “consistent with” his works – a man who produces good works as a result of his regeneration by the Holy Spirit will be declared righteous because he must also be justified. In other words, a man who is justified will inevitably produce (imperfect) good works through the work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore is declared righteous in a way that is consistent with those works, even though those works do not merit or earn that righteousness.
In the second way, Christians are judged according to their fruitfulness in this life. A man who abounds in good works will be rewarded more than the man who has produced virtually none. Calvin describes it as the difference between those in the front and back of the line to enter Heaven. This concept is clear from 1 Corinthians 3 and Matthew 25.
So DGH is correct that Christians might not have to “account” for their sins, but their good works will be evaluated and rewarded appropriately. Hence everything we do in this life does have eternal significance, and is exactly why we should strive for obedience and affection in worship.
My only point was that temporal life has eternal significance. Darryl knew that. (everybody else did too). He simply needs me to have as little credibility as possible so he can convince himself that what I tell him, especially about that bloody, blasphemous pornography he loves so much, need not be taken seriously.
Do you really believe that God will [attach no significance in eternity] to how a man treated his wife and children during his natural life in this age? Even though marriage and reproduction are no more? This is a principle that applies across the temporal board. I promise you. The “older Calvinism:” understood this.
Vae victis (@masonmandy) says: Hence everything we do in this life does have eternal significance
Tiribulus says: My only point was that temporal life has eternal significance.
and has value for/in the ‘temporal’
train yourself for godliness, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.
The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.
Tiribulus says: Do you really believe that God will not take into account at the judgement how a man treated his wife and children during his natural life in this age?
Vae victis (@masonmandy) says: Greg – I generally agree with you, but let me see if I can help you here a bit.
Also, thanks Greg. You said it clearly and is something to definitely agree with. Seems like a great kindness to encourage one another not to suffer loss.
If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss.
Greg – and there you lost me. We should strive to be obedient to God’s commandments, but you are condemning something that doesn’t violate God’s commandments. Again, where Zrim and Sean err on the side of quietism, you err on the side of fundamentalism. Obedience is important in every aspect of life, but only to what God commands, not to things that are matter of conscience.
…Christians are judged according to their fruitfulness in this life. A man who abounds in good works will be rewarded more than the man who has produced virtually none. Calvin describes it as the difference between those in the front and back of the line to enter Heaven.
Sounds similar to Horton once describing dispensationalism (and its “crown theology”) as simply sliding purgatory into heaven. Some Prot’s incentivize the faithful to eternal rewards in conjunction with Christ’s imputation, a form of Jesus plus works.
But, VV, isn’t the point of Mt 25 that those who do good works don’t even know they’re doing them? Where’s incentive? So even if I get eternal rewards for my temporal good works, great, but I’m not doing them in order to receive anything but only in light of something already received. That’s Reformed theology–grateful obedience.
Greg, you’re point was “temporal life has eternal significance”? Why didn’t you say so?
And while you’re saying it, why don’t you add a qualification or two? Like, Jesus’s temporal life has eternal significance for all sinners who trust in Jesus so that sinners won’t be judged on the basis of the way they treat wives and sons.
Zrim – it’s not Jesus plus works for our justification, which reconciles us to God on the basis of Christ’s righteousness and grants us access to His presence forever. Rather, it’s the Holy Spirit producing good works in us after our conversion and regeneration that gives us eternal rewards in heaven. What exactly those rewards are is a mystery – maybe the good works are rewards in themselves? Regardless, grateful obedience is a major motivation for glorifying God in this temporal life, but as we grow in our walk with Him our desire becomes obedience because it glorifies God, and because that is ultimately what we were created to do.
DARRYL, which areas of temporal life do not have any eternal significance?
D. G. Hart says: Greg, you’re point was “temporal life has eternal significance”? Why didn’t you say so?
Chapter XXXIII Of the Last Judgment
I. God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, 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.
II. The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.
III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen
“One of the prominent doctrines of the New Testament is the Doctrine of Rewards and the Judgment Seat of Christ. It is a doctrine often ignored or, when taught, it is misrepresented because of the term “judgment” that is used in translating the Greek text.”
Vae victis (@masonmandy) says: Rather, it’s the Holy Spirit producing good works in us after our conversion and regeneration that gives us eternal rewards in heaven.
Proverbs 19:17 One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, And He will repay him for his good deed.
lends to the Lord when He is the source, owner of everything? ridiculous.
just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”
WordPress glitch, so apologies if this double-posts.
Agreed, but there’s a crucial piece missing. Imputation is not only the ground of justification, but is also the ground of reward. Thus WCF 16:
V. …but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they [our good works] are good, they proceed from His Spirit, and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.
VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
I say this not because you have contradicted it, but because this aspect has not yet been articulated in your (or Greg’s or Ali’s) arguments.
Without that aspect, we easily lapse into the semi-Pelagianism of evangelicals, in which justification is by grace through faith, but sanctification is at our initiative with God’s responsive assistance; and in which rewards follow from the merit of the action rather than the merit of Christ.
Again, not suggesting that you disagree with the Confession, but the omission is notable (for all three of you). So far, your picture has been limited to imputation for justification and the work of the Spirit (or infusion) for sanctification.
Jeff – imputation is the basis for God’s acceptance of our good works – without being justified we could not hope to be rewarded for any work. However, I object to the idea that justification is the same as being rewarded for good works. Justification is the basis for the God looking upon them favorably at all, but they are not one and the same phenomenon. I think of it as two stages of the Final Judgment: the first is separating the elect from the reprobate. Then the elect – having already been declared righteous – are evaluated for their works and rewarded accordingly.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
The confession, as quoted by Jeff, as usual is spot on.
Let me ask DARRYL again please. Which areas of temporal life do not have any eternal significance?
Not sure what you are trying to get us to understand to help us Jeff.
So for now until understand what you are asking I’ll just say:
we don’t need again milk- for someone to teach us the elementary principles of the oracles of God -but we need solid food, for everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about then Christ, we press on to maturity, and this we will do, if God permits.
He says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen.
Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
Greg, These: “For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” 2 Cor 4:18.
You act like the distinction between the seen and unseen is not even in the Bible.
Ali, do you mean God is going to judge me according to my works?
VV: However, I object to the idea that justification is the same as being rewarded for good works.
I’m lost. Did someone say that?
Jeff – Quoting Zrim above: “Some Prot’s incentivize the faithful to eternal rewards in conjunction with Christ’s imputation, a form of Jesus plus works.”
VV, my point wasn’t that “justification is the same as being rewarded for good works.” It was that there is a problem with making the motivation for good works rewards plus Jesus, or if you like that Jesus gets you eternal life but you add to the overarching gift of eternal life some sort of extra rewards for good works. Motivation for good works should be Christ alone, as in out of grateful obedience for what he has done. And if one should find himself “at the end of the line getting into heaven” (tacky alert) because his good works aren’t fulsome enough, what does he have to lament? After all, better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked.
Zrim – I agree with all of what you say there – thanks for clarifying your earlier comment. I agree that our motivation shouldn’t be rewards in heaven. As I mentioned above, our motivation should be gratitude on a basic level, but really to glorify God through our obedience and good works.
D. G. Hart says: Ali, do you mean God is going to judge me according to my works?
oh dgh. Truth has not changed or moved or morphed since Mark Jones spoke it here. Still the same. Always will be.
I’ll have to help ya out with your question later Darryl. Out and on my phone now.
Ali, “oh, dgh”?
Ali, I had not realized the Mark Jones is an apostle (or a prophet).
Why would God need to justify our works after God justifies us, if our works are not the means by which God sets us apart? If the death of Christ is not enough to sanctify us, how many works does God need to enable us to do in order to set us apart for extra blessing?
John 5: 24 “ Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has the lasting life of the age to come and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life.
Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputations –Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really for good and God’s glory.
The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they are not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.
Mark Seifrid—In contrast to the puritans, Luther finds a radically different anthropology in Scripture There is no “intermediate state” in which we receive instruction but escape condemnation. The Law speaks even to us who are regenerate as fallen human beings. Being a Christian means again and again, in all the trials and temptations of life, hearing and believing the Gospel which overcomes the condemnation pronounced on us by the Law and by our own consciences in which that Law is written.
Mark Jones would say that Luther and Seifrid are not being “honest” –God is our Father. Parents will no doubt understand the joys that our children can bring to us in their obedience, even if their obedience falls short of what Christ would have offered to his own parents. God is not a hard task-master, reaping where he hasn’t sown . He remembers we are dust and treats us accordingly. As our Father, he accepts less than absolute perfection…The obedience we offer to God does not have to be sinless obedience or perfect obedience, but it must be sincere obedience.
Mark Jones–God rewards imperfect works, according to the riches of his grace, because he is our Father. (Even if the devils would perform good works, God would delight in these works, according to Charnock and Witsius). It is wrong-headed, I believe, to suppose that we exalt the grace of God by suggesting that the only righteousness pleasing to God is Christ’s righteousness. This is a radical form of substitution that would confuse any HONEST reader of the Scriptures.
Mark Jones—Are we allowed to pray the words of the Psalmist (Psalm. 18:20-24)? Or are these words only true of Christ?
The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord,
and have not wickedly departed from my God.
22 For all his rules were before me,
and his statutes I did not put away from me.
23 I was blameless before him,
and I kept myself from my guilt.
24 So the Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.
Mark Jones– in saying that God accepts our imperfect obedience, we must be careful not to bring this “acceptilatio” into the realm of justification but keep it in the realm of sanctification.
Joyce Meyer—If you stay in your faith, you are going to get paid. I am now living in my reward.
Lee Irons— The problem with this distinction is that congruous ex pacto merit becomes gracious when it is placed by way of contrast beneath condign merit as something less than full and real merit.
Fesko–“The resurrection transformation of the body is immediate, as Paul says it takes place in the twinkling of an eye. This immediacy therefore precludes a commonly assumed pattern of resurrection → final judgment → glorification
but instead demands that we recognize that resurrection and glorification are simultaneous events.”
Evil works are sins.
Luke 16:15— That which is highly esteemed among humans is abomination in the sight of God.
“Dead works are “anything and everything done by a person who is not justified before God”
Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God
How many good works can we neglect to do and still have assurance that we are not justified and sanctified by works?
Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Ali, perhaps this could help clarify:
What Catholics and evangelicals frequently have in common is the belief that blessedness follows good works as an effect from a cause.
Such a belief, couched in terms of rewards for good works, omits the crucial fact that our good works are viewed as good only on the merit of Christ imputed to us; outside of that, filthy rags.
Dr. Hart says: Greg, These: “For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” 2 Cor 4:18.
You act like the distinction between the seen and unseen is not even in the Bible.
No, I do not act like that.
That whole passage from the beginning of chapter 4 and into chapter 5 is dealing with the present physical body in contrast to the glorified one to come. (in a nutshell)
The general biblical principle is that we do not live FOR the things that are seen, that is, anything in this dying passing world. Instead and in contradistinction to those still dead in sin here, Christians are to commit all their use of and interaction with this present world to the one that is to come.
It’s a difference of perspective and priority. Every sin in the present age is the result of a God given desire and drive gone wrong and pursued for it’s own sake rather than for the honor and glory of Jesus Christ.
Believers practice the things that are seen, say marriage sex and family for instance, for the sake and to the glory of the eternal God who is not seen because … from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
Jeff Cagle says: the crucial fact that our good works are viewed as good only on the merit of Christ imputed to us; outside of that, filthy rags.
Amen Jeff. This seems like an “elementary principle” all believers in which all must be firmly grounded.( Not that we don’t remind ourselves every day, as we are forgetful people.)
John 6: 63a It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing
D. G. Hart says: Ali, “oh, dgh”?
-The ‘ oh’ was that you already know the answer.
D. G. Hart says: Ali, I had not realized the Mark Jones is an apostle (or a prophet).
-1 Corinthians 14:1Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 🙂
from Knowing Christ” by Mark Jones:
“As an incentive for you to read this book, consider Owen’s comment that beholding the glory of Christ is one of the greatest privileges and advancements that believers are capable of in this world, or that which is to come. It is that whereby they are gradually conformed unto it, and then fixed in the eternal enjoyment of it. For here in this life, beholding his glory, they are changed or transformed into the likeness of [Christ] (2 Cor. 3:18); and hereafter they shall be ‘forever like him’ , because they shall see him as he is’ (1 John 3:1-2)….
This is the life and reward of our souls.”
Greg, for like the millionth time, marriage won’t be in heaven. So it’s not permanent.
That means you qualify when you assert about the continuity of things in this world and the one to come.
Why is that so hard?
Then you have the problem of saying things that suggest my eternal state depends on what I do here — on good works. Qual i fy.
Ali, so Jones is not apostolic but Owen is.
That helps (not).
Can somebody please assist Dr. Hart for me? That is only slightly sarcastic and not even disrespectfully so,
At the moment I am not mentally up to composing yet another way to convey the principle I have been declaring on this page..
Jonathan Edwards still attracts and warms the hearts of many followers. It’s not so much his conservative attitude about slaves but the expansive prophetic view Edwards had about America’s progress into the future.
Jonathan Edwards—“Every vessel that is cast into this ocean of happiness is full, though there are some vessels far larger than others; and there shall be no such thing as envy in heaven….Not only higher degrees of glory in heaven, but heaven itself is in some respect given in reward for holiness, and good works of the saints, …The doctrine of justification by faith alone–does in no wise diminish the necessity of obedience. Man’s salvation is indissolubly connected with obedience, and damnation with the lack of obedience….Even in accepting us as entitled to life in our justification, God has respect to our obedience, as that on which the fitness of justification depends, so that our salvation does truly depend on it.”
Edwards—“We are really saved by perseverance…the perseverance which belongs to faith is one thing that is really a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…For, though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith, yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being implied in the first act.