Abhorring Henry Martyn

Last Sunday night we looked at 3 lessons from the life of Henry Martyn.

1. Being satisfied in God alone.
2. Concern for the souls of people.
3. Critical self-examination in a pursuit of holiness.

In light of the third lesson, here is a brief quote from Martyn:

Men frequently admire me, and I am pleased; but I abhor the pleasure I feel; Oh! did they but know that my root is rottenness!

I don't think Martyn was overly pious or had some low view of himself, rather, I think we generally have too high a view of ourselves. And again, this is all tied to having a clear view of who God is. Martyn's pursuit of holiness was intricately tied to his view of and satisfaction in God.

And finally, I still have the biography of Henry Martyn by George Smith for anyone who is interested. Smith was a prolific missions writer having biographies on William Carey, Alexander Duff (most famous Scottish missionary), Henry Martyn, as well as a brief history of missions. For anyone who would be interested in learning more about Martyn this would be a fantastic place to start, and, I might add, it is quite a rare.

A God-centred God?

Last week we looked a bit at The End for Which God Created the World - by Jonathan Edwards (for more on Edwards look here and here). What I want to do here is merely relay some of the info from our study together. We’ll consider first Edward’s philosophical reasons and then look at his scriptural argument. This post may seem a bit choppy and necessarily short (compared to the whole) and is no substitute for reading the real thing (you may need to register). There is an entire section on ultimate ends, final ends, etc., which is very helpful in the reading of the entire work. OK, one we go...

Philosophical Reasons [brackets are my words, otherwise it is Edward’s words]:

- If the creature gets its ALL from the Creator (entirely and perfectly), how is it possible that it should add anything God -- does God now become dependent upon his creation.

- God has respect to things according to their nature and proportions, he must necessarily have the greatest respect to himself. The moral rectitude of the disposition [to approve of what/who is best], inclination, or affection of God chiefly consists in a regard to himself, infinitely above his regard to all other beings; or, in other words, his holiness consists in this.

- If it be an infinitely amiable thing in God, that he should have a supreme regard to himself, then it is an amiable thing that he should act as having a chief regard to himself.

[If God regarded someone (their interests, needs, desires) more highly than himself, then he would not be God, that thing or person would be.]

- That a disposition in God, as an original property of his nature, to an emanation of his own infinite fulness, was what excited him to create the world; and so, that the emanation itself was aimed at by him as a last end of the creation.

- God did not love angels in the strictest sense, but in consequence of his intending to create them, and so having an idea of future existing angels. Therefore his love to them was not properly what excited him to intend to create them.

[Doesn’t this make him selfish?]
But if God be indeed so great, and so excellent, that all other beings are as nothing to him, and all other excellency be as nothing, and less than noting and vanity, in comparison to his; and God be omniscient and infallible, and perfectly knows that he is infinitely the most valuable being; then it is fit that his heart should be agreeable to this--which is indeed the true nature and proportion of things, and agreeable to this infallible and all-comprehending understanding which he has of them, and that perfectly clear light in which he views them--and that he should value himself infinitely more than his creatures.

[In short, part of God’s moral goodness is that he approves/esteems what is best. God, being God, is the best there is, so he must esteem himself above everything else.]

Scriptural Reasons:
God is the first and the last - the beginning and the end (Is 44.6, 48.12, Rev 1.8, 11, 17, 21.6, 22.13)
When God is so often spoken of as the last as well as the first, the end as well as the beginning, it is implied, that as he is the first, efficient cause and fountain, from whence all things originate; so, he is the last, final cause for which they are made; the final term to which they all tend in their ultimate issue.
See Rom 11.36, Col 1.16, Heb 2.10, Pro 16.4

God’s glory is an ultimate end in creation

1. The way in which God makes himself his end is in making his glory his end. - Is 48.11, Rom 11.36

2. The glory of God is spoken of as the end for which those parts of the moral world that are good were made - Is 60.21, 61.3; Is 43.1-7; eph 1.5

3. Goodness of the moral part of creation [previous one focused on the creation, this focuses on the works of that moral creation] - Phil 1.10-11; 1 Pet 4.11; faith - Rom 4.20; repentance - Josh 6.19; charity - 2 Cor 8.19; praise and thanksgiving - Luke 7.18, Ps 50.23 - the end of all religion is to glorify God. - 1 Cor 6.20

4. Men and women are required to seek God’s glory - 1 Cor 10.30, 1 Pet 4.11

5. The glory of God is the earnest desire and delight of God’s moral creation when they are rightly related to God. [ie - people in scripture expressing or asking that God be glorified] - Rom 11.36, 16.27; Gal 1.4-5; 2 Tim 4.18; 2 Pet 3.18; Jude 25; 1 Chron 16.28-29; Ps 115.1

6. Christ sought God’s glory as the highest end - John 7.18, 12.27-28, 17.1

7. God’s glory is the end of the work of redemption - [Christ’s prayer in John 12 shows that when he seeks his own glory and the glory of the Father, he seeks it as the end of the great work that he has come to do (see vs. 12.4-5)] - John 13.31-32 [just after Judas had left to go betray him] - Luke 2.14, [this song of the angels had to be based on what they knew of the purpose of Christ’s arrival on earth] - Phil 2.6-11; Eph 1.3ff; 2 Cor 4.14-15

8. The glory of God is the last end of his moral government -

God created the world for his name, to make his perfections known, and that he made it for his praise

God’s name is the object of his regard - 1 Sam 12.22; Ezk 20.9, 14, 22; Ezk 36.21-23; Is 48.9-10; the judgments God executes on the wicked are spoken of as being for his name’s sake - Ex 9.16; Neh 9.10

[He then goes on to explain how ‘the glory of God’, ‘the name of God’, and numerous other terms and phrases are all pointing to the same thing. So in concluding his work he says...]

The ultimate end of creation is not manifold, but one.

It may be looking at this one object from different angles or in a different light, but it is all bound up in the phrase - the glory of God.

The emanation and true external expression of God’s internal glory and fulness.
It is described in a variety of ways because of the difficulty we as humans have in understanding all that it means in merely one word or one phrase. It includes the exercise of his perfections, the manifestation of his internal glory, the communication of his fulness to the creature

The fulness of the Godhead is the fulness of his understanding, consisting in his knowledge; and the fulness of his will consisting in his virtue and happiness. And therefore, the external glory of God consists i the communication of these. The communication of his knowledge is chiefly in giving the knowledge of himself: for this is the knowledge in which the fulness of God’s understanding chiefly consists. And thus we see how the manifestation of God’s glory to created understandings, and their seeing and knowing it, is not distinct from an emanation or communication of God’s fulness, but clearly implied in it. Again, the communication of God’s virtue or holiness, is principally in communicating the love of himself. And thus we see how, not only the creature’s seeing and knowing God’s excellence, but also supremely esteeming and loving him, belongs to the communication of God’s fulness. And the communication of God’s joy and happiness, consists chiefly in communicating to the creature that happiness and joy which consists in rejoicing in God, and in his glorious excellency; for in such joy God’s own happiness does principally consist. And in these things, knowing God’s excellency, loving God for it, and rejoicing in it, and in the exercise and expression of these, consists God’s honour and praise.

[Because God’s joy is found in himself and pursuing his happiness, when we find our joy in him and his happiness that is supremely glorifying to him.

The focus in our salvation was and is God, not man. This answers many of the questions that may have been raised over the last weeks. The challenge is for us to be as God-centred as God is. Much more could be said, but I'll leave that to you to chat it over with your friends.]

The Fountain of our Faith: God or Man? (Part 6)

Well, certainly not the last word on the subject, but the last in this series (see previous posts: 1, 2, & 3, & 4 & 5).

Here all I really want to do is think about a few questions.

The first has to do with the will of God. This is simply to ask, if God wills or desires that everyone be saved then why isn’t everyone saved if God is choosing those who will be saved?The short answer is that a distinction must be made in the will of God so much so that we can rightly talk about two wills. One is God’s prescriptive will where he tells us what he desires. I know that God’s will for me is to be a faithful husband, father, and pastor. He does not want me to lie, steal, etc.

God also has a decretive will which is his will and purpose that will bring all to pass. This is also called his secret will. This is the will of God that we cannot know until it comes to pass. This is something of what James is getting at when he writes about how we should view the future and our intentions saying ‘If the Lord wills...’

So what does this mean for salvation and people being chosen for salvation? John Frame writes, ‘God’s will is sometimes thwarted because he wills it to be, because he has given one of his desires precedence over another...God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends.’ To say it another way, God is often pleased to ordain his own displeasure. A quick example can be seen in the death of Christ. God does not desire people to murder and betray, yet he purposed and willed that Christ would be betrayed and killed so that he would provide salvation.

If you want to read more on this (and before you ask any questions), I highly recommend John Piper’s article Are There Two Wills in God?

The second thing I want to consider as we close deals with the issue of prayer and evangelism.

Many will say that if God chooses who will be saved then it doesn’t matter what we do because it won’t change or have any effect on the outcome of things. Well, for one, that is ludicrous. To say that what I do doesn’t have any effect is to deny the obvious and contradict reality. Also, to say that I don’t need to evangelise because of election is to neglect clear instructions of scripture. That is to sin. To say that the doctrine of election encourages me to sin is silly. Nor I am told anywhere in scripture that I am to base my actions on the secret will of God, which I do not know. John Pipers writes, ‘The unknown purposes (or decrees) of God are not the rule of our conduct nor the grounds upon which we act, so the inscrutable operations of God are not the rule our ground of our action, but his revealed (prescriptive) will is. The rule for us in every case is the revealed will presented to our consciousness.’

One author reflects that if one says that election would keep us from evangelism, it would also keep us from eating:
If God has eternally decreed that you should live, what is the use of your breathing? If God has eternally decreed that you should talk, what is the use of your opening your mouth? If God has eternally decreed that you should reap a crop, what is the use of you sowing the seed? If God has eternally decreed that your stomach should contain food, what is the use of your eating?...In order to educate us, [God] demands that we should use the means, or go without the ends which depend upon them. There are plenty of fools who make the transcendental nature of eternity and of the relation of the eternal life of God to the time-life of man an excuse for neglecting prayer. But of all the many fools in the United States, there is not one absurd enough to make the same eternal decree an excuse for not chewing his food or for not voluntarily inflating his lungs.

J.I. Packer writes - So far from making evangelism pointless the sovereignty of God in grace is the one thing that prevents evangelism from being pointless. For it creates the possibility--indeed, the certainty--that evangelism will be fruitful. Were it not for the sovereign grace of God, evangelism would be the most futile and useless enterprise that the world has ever seen, and there would be no more complete waste of time under the sun than to preach the Christian gospel.

The doctrine of God’s sovereign grace is the only thing that gives up hope in our evangelism that people will indeed be saved.

On the side of prayer, if one does not believe in election then if he or she is to be consistent there should never be any prayers offered to God that people would be saved for this would be praying to God to do something that he is incapable of doing if it lies merely within the will of man to accept God. So, if you do not believe in election I would suggest that you stop praying for God to save people, but rather pray to people that they might accept God.

Here is one last link if you want to think about another question this might raise.

I hope this has been helpful and biblical. Let’s rejoice in the amazing grace of our great God!

The Fountain of our Faith: God or Man? (Part 5)

Why and how does anyone get saved if they are unable to exercise faith in their fallen condition? [see parts 1, 2, & 3, & 4] This post may be a bit longer than the others, but I trust it will be worth the time.


The answer that the bible gives is that people are saved by grace through faith, which is a gift given by God and rooted in election.

Here is the experience of some in the book of Acts:
Acts 13.48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

From this we see that believing is a consequence and not the cause of God’s election/choosing/appointing. It is also clear that it is a limited number who are ordained to life, otherwise the words ‘as many as’ would be pointless and meaningless. And, finally, we can see that everyone who was appointed will certainly believe as ALL who were appointed DID believe.

In Acts again we see that the heart of Lydia was opened by God so that she believed the message of the gospel Paul brought ( 16.14).

In John’s first epistle in chapter 5 verse 1 he writes, ‘Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.’ John uses a present tense verb meaning continuous ongoing action when he speaks of believing in Christ. He then uses what is called a perfect tense verb referring to being born of God. This means an action that took place in the past with present and ongoing effects. That’s to say they were born previous to believing, but the effect is sustained. So again we see that belief is an effect and not the cause of the new birth.

The apostle Peter speaks of those who are saved as being foreknown by God (1 Peter 1.1-2). This word does not speak merely of knowledge, but of a relationship. ‘To know’ in the scriptures means more than having information in your head. Adam knew Eve and a baby boy was the result! Some would say that ‘forelove’ would be a fair and adequate translation. To say that God foreknowing people means he looks down the corridor of time and sees who will choose him and he THEN elects them cannot be what this means. For one thing, this goes against all that we have looked at concerning the condition of man and his will. Also, this same word is used to refer to Christ in 1 Peter 1.20. This is just 18 verses away from Peter’s use of it in reference to Christians. If we are to be constant in our interpretation, if it means God looks ahead in time and sees who will choose him, then it would also mean that he looks ahead in time and realises that Christ is going to be the Messiah, though he hadn’t necessarily planned or intended that. Serious issues there friends.

We get the clearest picture from the apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus. First, we’ll consider some passages from the letters of Paul.

2Th. 2.13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Paul gives thanks for the Thessalonians because God chose them to be saved.

2Tim. 1.9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

This is, perhaps, one of the most explicit. It is according to God’s purpose and grace (not influenced by any outside source, determined only by himself) that salvation comes. Here we get a good picture into the extreme God-focus of God. God is the centre of everything, not man. Salvation is to be God-focused, not man-focused.

Again in 2 Timothy:
2Tim. 2.24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Repentance is something that God must grant, otherwise it will not happen.

And, lastly from Paul, Eph 1.3-5 -
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Here again we see the purpose of God’s will being the driving force in salvation.

A few passages from the life of Christ.

First, Matthew 11.20 and following. Here Christ denounces the cities that have rejected him. One would think this would be cause for sorrow and despair that no one is receiving Christ, yet his response is one of thanks to the Father because of his purpose in election and choosing who will be saved (vs. 25ff). And then, in the very next verse (28) he invites everyone to come to him for salvation. In these few verses we have a clear statement on election coupled with a free offer of the gospel to all people.

A second passage is from John 6. 37-65 (esp. 37-40, 44, 65). Christ speaks of three impossibilities here. It is impossible to come unless the Father draws (44, 65). It is impossible for someone who the Father calls not to come (37). It is impossible to be cast out or lost if you do come (37).

A few thoughts to close (this lengthy post). Does this mean that God shows favouritism? If by that you mean that some are chosen and others are not, yes. If by that you mean God chooses because of something in or about us, thus showing favouritism towards certain people, no.

Grace is sovereign. That is to say, it is optional in its exercise and extent. Although God is gracious in his eternal being, he need not be gracious toward or shower his grace upon anyone. If grace were at any time an obligation of God, it would cease to be grace. God’s grace, therefore, is distinguishing. He graciously saves some but not all, not based on anything present in the creature either possible or actual, foreseen or foreordained, but wholly according to his sovereign good pleasure.

It is only here that the glory of God’s grace is preserved. Listen (actually read) to the words of Berkouwer contrasting synergism and monergism.

[monergism - a divine blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given him. A grace working independently of any human cooperation. It is in contrast to synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the efforts of the human and the divine in regards to the regenerating process.]

Remember our goal in preserving the glory of God’s grace:
Berkouwer - in no form of synergism is it possible to escape the conclusion that man owes his salvation not solely to God but also to himself. Still more accurately, he may thank himself--by virtue of his decision to believe--that salvation actually and effetively becomes his in time and eternity. To be sure, synergism is constantly seeking to avoid this conclusion, and it is seldom expressed in so many words that salvation really depends partly on man. Nevertheless, this conclusion cannot in the long run be avoided and it is clear that we actually are confronted here with the real problem of synergism as it results in a certain amount of humon self-conceit.

R.C. Sproul says - loving a holy God is beyond our moral power. The only kind of God we can love by our sinful nature is an unholy god, an idol made by our own hands. Unless we are born of the Spirit of God, unless God sheds his holy love in our hearts, unless he stoops in his grace to change our hearts we will not love him. To love a holy God requires grace. Grace strong enough to pierce our hardened hearts and to awaken our moribund (approaching death or a final end) souls.

I will leave you with the words of William Guthrie, a Scottish Covenanter who in reference to his book The Christian’s Great Interest (from which this quote is taken) John Owen (the leading theologian in Britain in the 17th century, his works fill 23 500 page volumes) said ‘I have written several folios, but there is more divinity in this little book than in them all.’ He writes:

although none at all do cordially close with God in Christ Jesus, and acquiesce in that ransom found out by God, except only such as are elected and whose hearts the Lord sovereignly determines to that blessed choice; yet the Lord has left it as a duty upon people who hear this gospel, to close with His offer of salvation through Christ Jesus, as if it were in their power to do it; and the Lord, through these commands and exhortations conveys life and strength to the elect, and therein conveys the new heart unto them, which points kindly towards this new device of saving sinner, and towards Christ in His covenant relations; for it is the Lord’s mind, in these commands and invitations, to put people on some duty, with which He uses to concur for accomplishing that business between Him and them; so then, it is a coming on our part, and yet a drawing on His part; it is a drawing on His part and a running on our part; it is an approaching on our part, and yet a choosing and causing to approach on His part; it is a believing or receiving on our part and yet it is given us to believe.

One more post to go.

The Fountain of our Faith: God or Man? (Part 4)

The freedom of man’s will is our next topic following on from the previous posts (1, 2, & 3).

Here is the best definition that I have found on this subject - man’s free will means that all have the ability to choose as one pleases.

I think most everyone would be happy with that definition. It affirms choice and decision-making capabilities as well as the liberty to do what we like.

So why do we make the choices we do? It is the influence of our heart, desires, motives, as well as external circumstances that inform and persuade the will to choose as it does. To say it another way, the will chooses based upon the strongest motive at the moment - the strongest inclination of the heart or mind at the moment. Consequentially it is not entirely free, but rather serves the mind or heart, our desires. It is not, and cannot be, neutral. A neutral will would involve choice without desire which is like having an effect without any cause.

In one sense then, to say the will is free is not entirely accurate because it is always subservient to something else. But to define it as the ability to choose as one please, I think, takes those other things into account.

[If you would like to read a short more philosophical explanation you can look here]

Would a sinful human being ever be pleased, or his or her own accord, in and of him/herself to choose Christ? Would someone be happy to renounce their own self dependence in favour of surrendering everything they are to Christ and desiring the he increase and they decrease?

I think scripture clearly informs us that this would not be the case. Man left to himself will not, yea, cannot, indeed, does not wish, verily, would never be able to choose Christ, but he would be absolutely free in this decision.

A few quotes to close this post.

First, Martin Luther -
[T]hat is, a man void of the Spirit of God, does not evil against his will as by violence, or as if he were taken by the neck and forced to it, in the same way as a thief or cut-throat is dragged to punishment against his will; but he does it spontaneously, and with a desirous willingness. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own power, leave off, restrain, or change; but it goes on still desiring and craving. And even if he should be compelled by force to do any thing outwardly to the contrary, yet the craving will within remains averse to, and rises in indignation against that which forces or resists it.

Second, Sam Storms - author of this most helpful book -
But doesn’t God give each of us the opportunity to believe? Doesn’t he confront us with the gospel and say, “Believe in order that you may have life”? Yes, he does. But mankind always, invariably, inevitably, without pause, but no less willingly and voluntarily, says no. Note well. I am not saying that, when confronted with the gospel, a person cannot exercise his or her will. All of us have a will and we are all capable of exercising it in the making of choices. What I am saying is that, when confronted with the gospel, we cannot will well. We are not kept from believing against our wills.

The next question this raises? If man is so dead-set against God and would never choose him in and of himself, how in the world do people get saved?

I’m glad you asked...

The Fountain of our Faith: God or Man? (Part 3)

Picking up where we left off (part 1, part 2), what do the scriptures say about the condition of man? Is he able to choose Christ? Indeed, would he ever desire to choose Christ?

Let’s see...what does the bible say about man’s natural condition?

Man is blind - 2 Cor 4.1-6
Man is a slave - Rom 6.20, John 8.32-34
Man is immobile in coming to Christ - John 6.44
Man is dead - Eph 2.1
Man’s will is impotent - John 1.13, Rom 9.16
Man does not seek God - Rom 3.11
Man is an enemy of God - 5.10
Man’s mind is death - Rom 8.6
Man is at enmity with God - Rom 8.7
Man cannot please God - Rom 8.8
Man is not able to understand the things of God - 1 Cor 2.14

Again, for our purposes here I don’t think comment is necessary on these verses. They are explicit. What does the bible say about man’s ability to come to Christ? He cannot and will not come.

BUT, does not man have free will? Does this make humans robots? Why does it matter what anyone does then? Why are any held accountable for not doing something that they are unable to do? [Paul answers that last question in Romans 9.19-23]

YES, man does have free will, BUT we must define what we mean by free will. I trust with the passages above that we will agree that it cannot mean ‘the ability to choose Christ.’

More on free will next time.

The Fountain of our Faith: God or Man? (Part 2)

Last post we looked at Paul’s comparison of coming to Christ for salvation with the creative acts of God ‘in the beginning.’

In this post I want to answer 1 question and leave you with 1 question.

A brief preface to this post, perhaps to give a secondary reason for doing these posts (the first was to magnify the grace of God if you have forgotten already). I want us to think less highly about mankind (in many ways this is one of the biggest problems in talking with people, both Christian and non-Christian, they have too high of an opinion of man), and I want us to think more highly about God. For, indeed, we can never think too highly of God.

Now, the question to answer: Do commands in scripture imply the ability to fulfill them?

An initial human instinct may be to say, ‘Well, of course they do, otherwise why would God give them. It wouldn’t be fair for him to ask us to do something we can’t do, would it?” [footnote: this is perhaps the BIG question at the end of the day. I’m not going to deal with it here, but to think briefly about it: God did not sit around thinking ‘What can I command them to do that they are unable to do?’ Rather, he is supremely holy and cannot dwell with or tolerate sin. God’s holiness demands our perfection, irregardless if we have the ability to obtain it either through works or through faith borne out of ourselves. In his grace God provided a Redeemer in Jesus Christ and the question wasn’t ‘What is mankind capable of?’ but rather ‘What does mankind need?’ - end footnote]

That [a command implies ability] may seem logical, but is it biblical. If we think merely about the 10 commandments. Did God expect his people, indeed all people, to keep these. Absolutely. Has anyone been able to keep them? Has anyone even been close? Is there the possibility that someone down the road might keep them (these are rhetorical questions)?

Paul says that the law was added because of transgressions (Gal 3.19). So God adds a law demanding perfection to a people full of transgressions?

What about some other commands in scripture? Here are a few:

Deut. 10.16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

Jer. 4.4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD;
remove the foreskin of your hearts,
O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem;
lest my wrath go forth like fire,
and burn with none to quench it,
because of the evil of your deeds.”

Ezek. 18.31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?

Matt. 14.16 But Jesus said, “They need not go away; you give them something to eat.”

1Pet. 1.16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

Luke 7.13 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.”

John 11.43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.”

And you can add to that literally all of the commands of Christ to lame people to get up and walk, etc.

I don’t think anything really needs to be added to the reading of these passages. Clearly there are things asked here that cannot be done by the hearers.

To logically deduce that a command implies ability is to be unbiblical. Though I won’t do it here, it could probably be argued that the commands listed above, with all of the others given to us, at one level, are to help us see that we can’t do anything.

Now, we are thinking specifically related to the command to believe in Christ Jesus for salvation.

So, I leave you with this question. If we can’t affirm that a command implies ability, do the scriptures teach that man has the ability to choose Christ?

More to come...

The Fountain of our Faith: God or Man? (Part 1)

This is the first of what will be 4-6 posts on the issue of God’s grace in salvation. My goal, to magnify the grace of God, to make much of the glory of God’s grace which we can see in the dignity and excellency of the gift it bestows: salvation in Jesus; the degree of horror from which it delivers us: eternal punishment; the immeasurable unworthiness of those on whom it is lavished; the manner by which it was given: through the incarnation, humiliation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It is this grace, that in salvation leaves us with no room for boasting. We can not bring anything to the table or add anything to the salvation that God provides (Eph 2.8-9).

To begin, I want to consider Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4.

2Cor. 4.1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants* for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Paul here strikingly compares what happens in salvation with the creation of the world. Seeing the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ is just as easily done as creating light when there was only darkness. To see the beauty of Christ and desire Christ is to have something (faith) where there was once nothing. Or, in other words, something is created that was not there before. This begs the question of who possesses this creative power.

John Piper writes - This means that in the dark and troubled heart of unbelief, God does what he did in the dark and unformed creation at the beginning of our world. He said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. So he says to the blind and dark heart, “Let there be light,” and there is light in the heart of the sinner. In this light we see the glory of God in the face of Christ.

This creative act, just as creation itself, is something that is beyond the ability of man. For me to create light such that I see Christ’s beauty and desire to come to him for salvation is just as likely as me creating a new universe or world in the lounge this evening.

Listen to Paul’s explanation of how he got saved in Galatians 1.

Gal. 1.13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles...

It was the revealing of the Son. It was sight where there was blindness, light where darkness.

Well, more to come on this. Here are some questions we’ll look at in the coming posts:
- Does the command to believe upon Christ imply the ability?
- Does scripture teach that humans have the ability to, in and of themselves, to believe upon Christ?
- Does man have free will? If so, what does that mean?
- Why are people saved? How do people get saved?
- and many more, which if I listed them here would give too much away (as if any of it is really a secret, it’s all in the bible for any to see).

Anything he hits... he destroys!

Yep, more Rocky. I make no apologies though. If you're anything like me, then the discovery (finally!) of this wonderful, maximum-bombast version of the motivational classic 'Hearts On Fire' by Springsteen rip-off legend John Cafferty will be greeted with utter, unbridled delight. Forget the faded-out versions you already have on repeat down at the gym, this one takes you along the icy path, out of the reach of the hapless KGB minders, and straight up to the top of the mountain. Get this on your mp3 player and you'll have to literally tie yourself to your chair, such will be your desire to work out. Altogether now... DRAGOOOOOOOOOO!

Oh, and by the way folks, if you happen to be either specifically looking for old posts (you know who you are), or rather unspecifically at the loosest of ends, then just click on the 'archives' down the right hand column of this page. You'll find all the old posts there; and let me just say this is one rainbow that does have a pot of gold at the end.

Help, for those who care...

Before we get into the series of posts on 'The Fountain of Our Faith: God or Man?' I want to give some help to those who are still pursuing and hunting down the answers to the last competition, which carries the prize of a first American edition of William Taylor's 'The Scottish Pulpit.' The question had to do with the exegetical society of which Robert Murray M'Cheyne was a part. I was looking for the two books that had a copy or picture of their original charter document. There were a few attempts, but I feel that no one will be able to answer it (does that make it a legitimate offer? more on this in the coming posts).

So...here are your two EXTREMELY helpful clues.

1. One book is about Andrew Bonar and the other book is about M'Cheyne.

2. The Bonar book was published in the late 1800s and the M'Cheyne book in the last 5 years.

If you look up titles online and just throw them all at me until you get it right I may not look favourably upon that.

And one last thing, this will only go until this next Sunday, and I've been offered quite a nice prize myself in exchange for the book. So if no winner by Sunday, I'll take the current offer that is on the table. I'm not like God in that I can and do show favoritism:) More on that in the coming posts as well. Cheerio.

A phd in foosbol? You better believe it

They're handing out phds for pretty much anything these days, so I'm told. Matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see them offered on the back of my Ricicles box sometime soon (no purchase necessary, of course. Btw, does anyone know why this rule is always enforced? Does it mean I could insist upon a chance in the lottery without actually buying a ticket?). Don't believe me? (I'm now referring to the statement made pre-bracket). How's about these apples - the University of Birmingham is now seeking applications from any academically-minded charlatans who fancy doing a (fully funded, of course) thesis on the science of table football. 'Manipulate the competitive environment?' I could do that - just stick one of my socks in the goals. Or cut a big hole in the pitch, that'd do it. 'Enhance our understanding of the physiological correlates of winning and losing?' Done: winning = good, losing = bad. 'Determine the relationship between psychophysiological reactivity to competition and individual differences in dispositional competitiveness'. Easy - it's problematic, and demanding of further inquiry. Result.
It's a funny old game.