Friday, 28 January 2011
Monday, 24 January 2011
Providence
Dr Bruce Ware addressed about thirty people at LTS today on the doctrine of providence. In his helpful books 'God's Lesser Glory' and 'God's Greater Glory' he has first defended a Calvinist / Biblical view of providence against Open Theism, then put more positively the case for a Biblical portrayal of God's foreknowlege and sovereignty.
This was more or less the pattern he developed today and we are thankful to him for it.
Many thoughts were sparked off. For example, have you ever thought that the Arminian concept of God's 'simple foreknowledge' without divine foreordination, makes God effectively powerless with regard to the future? For if God can see the future (which of course he does), then it includes all of history and reality as it 'really' is - and it includes of course God's own acts. Therefore it cannot be changed. God's simple foreknowledge (including that on the basis of which Arminians allege God 'elects' those who will believe, to eternal life) leaves God unable to change the future (or the eternal present, as it is to him).
There was discussion about the 'asymmetrical' relation of God to good and evil, too. Romans 9:22,23 indicates that in relation to persons, distinguishing between those who are justified and those who are condemned, there is 'unequal ultimacy', in that God takes into account the acts of the condemned - there is an impersonal aspect to their 'being prepared' for destruction which leaves place for their own agency, while the grace of God which saves those destined for eternal life is personal - he 'has prepared beforehand for glory' those who will be saved. Yet clearly in both cases God is sovereign.
But our discussion was more about good or evil acts, not persons. One issue arising was: does God, or does he not, actually work in our choices, even the evil ones, or does he work in the good ones and then only lead us 'so far' along the evil track but leave us to make up our sinful mind? Is this a way to protect God from being the author of sin?
It is a complex subject but I suggest this is not the way to go. It hardly honours God to suggest he leaves us near the brink of a cliff, knowing it is extremely likely we will fall over (i.e. do wrong) rather than actually pushing us. The defence of God against being the author of evil must be found elsewere or we will be Arminians when it comes to sin and Calvinists when it comes to good works.
We risk denying God's immanence in all our thinking, willing and doing, if we suggest that in some part of our decision making processes he is not present. In him after all we live and move and have our being. He works in us to will and to work for his good pleasure(Phil 2:12,13). The Reformed principle of concursus is valuable and well worth preserving - God is at work and immanent in all things.
Must we not find our defence of God in the distinction between his being ontologically present but morally not the cause of sin? Not that it is something I can understand, but it seems safer than going down the route of God 'stopping short' in our evil actions but not in our good ones. Is there not sin in even the best of our actions anyway?
Which means, it also seems to me, that the distinction between libertarian and compatibilist freedom, though important(and compatibilism is still surely the correct view) becomes secondary; the real issue is whether God acually works in our choices or simply in persuading us and influencing our minds and our environment, whether for good or ill.
Further as the Westminster Confession (chapter III.i) says, it is not only true that God has ordained all that comes to pass, but that thereby the freedom of secondary causes is actually established. There is a certain determinism about compatibilism ('I do what my highest inclinations or strongest desires incline me to') if that is all there is in my decision-making process. But if God is there and is in my decisions, then I am not determined by what I most want, but am acting 'concurrently' with God. Thereby my freedom of action is established.
Moreover, God has ordained all things; yet how can there be any absolute certainty about anything (even sins) if God is not involved up to the last 'nano-second' of my decision making? How can God be absolutely sure of my final decision, albeit he has 'set the scene', and it may be 99.999% certain I will do what is 'expected', but so long as there is a fraction of a chance I may act differently, then nothing is certain. And God's ordination must extend to evil things as well as good. Surely that is what the story of Joseph is all about: Gen 45:4-8; 50:20. It is after all the acts rather than the inclinations of the brothers which is the focus here of God's foreordination.
It is no good being Arminian or 'open theist' as to our sins and Calvinist as to our good acts. We have no 'good' acts anyway! God is the ordainer of all things, though the author only of good, not of sin.
This was more or less the pattern he developed today and we are thankful to him for it.
Many thoughts were sparked off. For example, have you ever thought that the Arminian concept of God's 'simple foreknowledge' without divine foreordination, makes God effectively powerless with regard to the future? For if God can see the future (which of course he does), then it includes all of history and reality as it 'really' is - and it includes of course God's own acts. Therefore it cannot be changed. God's simple foreknowledge (including that on the basis of which Arminians allege God 'elects' those who will believe, to eternal life) leaves God unable to change the future (or the eternal present, as it is to him).
There was discussion about the 'asymmetrical' relation of God to good and evil, too. Romans 9:22,23 indicates that in relation to persons, distinguishing between those who are justified and those who are condemned, there is 'unequal ultimacy', in that God takes into account the acts of the condemned - there is an impersonal aspect to their 'being prepared' for destruction which leaves place for their own agency, while the grace of God which saves those destined for eternal life is personal - he 'has prepared beforehand for glory' those who will be saved. Yet clearly in both cases God is sovereign.
But our discussion was more about good or evil acts, not persons. One issue arising was: does God, or does he not, actually work in our choices, even the evil ones, or does he work in the good ones and then only lead us 'so far' along the evil track but leave us to make up our sinful mind? Is this a way to protect God from being the author of sin?
It is a complex subject but I suggest this is not the way to go. It hardly honours God to suggest he leaves us near the brink of a cliff, knowing it is extremely likely we will fall over (i.e. do wrong) rather than actually pushing us. The defence of God against being the author of evil must be found elsewere or we will be Arminians when it comes to sin and Calvinists when it comes to good works.
We risk denying God's immanence in all our thinking, willing and doing, if we suggest that in some part of our decision making processes he is not present. In him after all we live and move and have our being. He works in us to will and to work for his good pleasure(Phil 2:12,13). The Reformed principle of concursus is valuable and well worth preserving - God is at work and immanent in all things.
Must we not find our defence of God in the distinction between his being ontologically present but morally not the cause of sin? Not that it is something I can understand, but it seems safer than going down the route of God 'stopping short' in our evil actions but not in our good ones. Is there not sin in even the best of our actions anyway?
Which means, it also seems to me, that the distinction between libertarian and compatibilist freedom, though important(and compatibilism is still surely the correct view) becomes secondary; the real issue is whether God acually works in our choices or simply in persuading us and influencing our minds and our environment, whether for good or ill.
Further as the Westminster Confession (chapter III.i) says, it is not only true that God has ordained all that comes to pass, but that thereby the freedom of secondary causes is actually established. There is a certain determinism about compatibilism ('I do what my highest inclinations or strongest desires incline me to') if that is all there is in my decision-making process. But if God is there and is in my decisions, then I am not determined by what I most want, but am acting 'concurrently' with God. Thereby my freedom of action is established.
Moreover, God has ordained all things; yet how can there be any absolute certainty about anything (even sins) if God is not involved up to the last 'nano-second' of my decision making? How can God be absolutely sure of my final decision, albeit he has 'set the scene', and it may be 99.999% certain I will do what is 'expected', but so long as there is a fraction of a chance I may act differently, then nothing is certain. And God's ordination must extend to evil things as well as good. Surely that is what the story of Joseph is all about: Gen 45:4-8; 50:20. It is after all the acts rather than the inclinations of the brothers which is the focus here of God's foreordination.
It is no good being Arminian or 'open theist' as to our sins and Calvinist as to our good acts. We have no 'good' acts anyway! God is the ordainer of all things, though the author only of good, not of sin.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Commodity child
So Elton John is the'father' and David Furnish (largely unknown except for being the partner of Elton John) is the 'mother'. It is possible that Sir Elton was the biological father, apparently. A surrogate mother in California was paid a reputed £100,000, though it may have cost the happy couple up to £1m in fees and payments (but what is that to Sir Elton?) The child will be called Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John. Sounds like a firm of accountants.
The papers talk cooingly about the love in the home and how much the couple will care for the little chap who will be the most important person in the world to them. Well, any new purchase, especially at Christmas, is exciting for a time.
Apparently in 2009 the John-Furnish partnership tried to adopt a Ukrainian orphan called Lev. The Ukrainian authorities had the sense to say 'no'. Lev had a lucky escape.
Is no-one made to feel exceedingly sick by this latest transaction? Thankfully yes - a 'gay' journalist on the 'Daily Mail' called Andrew Pierce cries 'Why I'm repelled by their grotesque selfishness'. I couldn't have said it better myself, but being an evangelical Christian my utterance would be called a homophobic rant so I want to hide behind an echo of what Mr Pierce has said.
Pierce rightly asks why, in a case when because of his age (63) he would be very unlikely to be allowed to adopt a child, Elton is allowed by law to buy one. His suspicion is that Elton has simply acquired a son to satifiy his latest fixation.
Two rules apply to the birth of children, says Mr Pierce: Rule One is that by and large a child needs a loving mother and father (though he has no objection in principle to the right gay couple adopting - which is where he and I would part company). Rule Two is that a child needs to know where he comes from. "Just what is Elton going to say to him when he's a troubled 16 year old and asks 'Daddy, where did I come from?'"
How often too, will Elton 'be there' for his son - he is about to embark on a 26 concert tour of the U.S. and Europe?
Perhaps there is something extra annoying about the fact that this is Elton - a talented but 'petulant, spoilt and selfish' man according to Mr Pierce. It seems as if some very loose legislation and a lot of money can get you almost anything now - including a child. But do not our authorities always trumpet that the 'child's best interests' are what matters in any family law issue? Why are the principles that would apply in adoption not apparently applied in surrogacy? Or am I missing something?
But of course that would not deal with the matter of these 'parents' being homosexual - that, sadly, is not even an issue today.
Sir Elton and David Furnish are made in the image of God. They are showing that they feel a need to nurture - at least, looking on it charitably; it might be that they simply want to possess, though that would not make them different from many average, sinful, hererosexual couples. But the nurturing instinct is not to be exercised outside a heterosexual marriage - at least, not in normal circumstances. It is certainly not to be engineered outside the marital framework.
We have lost our way on the meaning of marriage; the meaning of gender; and the fact that children are a gift to be responsibly nurtured, not a commodity to be produced at will for anyone who can pay for one.
But let us pray for Zachary, and for his 'parents'. Maybe they will be brought to see something of the wonder of God's creativity. And their own lostness. Children are remarkably resilient. He may do wonderfully well in this dysfunctional home. Let us fervently hope so.
The papers talk cooingly about the love in the home and how much the couple will care for the little chap who will be the most important person in the world to them. Well, any new purchase, especially at Christmas, is exciting for a time.
Apparently in 2009 the John-Furnish partnership tried to adopt a Ukrainian orphan called Lev. The Ukrainian authorities had the sense to say 'no'. Lev had a lucky escape.
Is no-one made to feel exceedingly sick by this latest transaction? Thankfully yes - a 'gay' journalist on the 'Daily Mail' called Andrew Pierce cries 'Why I'm repelled by their grotesque selfishness'. I couldn't have said it better myself, but being an evangelical Christian my utterance would be called a homophobic rant so I want to hide behind an echo of what Mr Pierce has said.
Pierce rightly asks why, in a case when because of his age (63) he would be very unlikely to be allowed to adopt a child, Elton is allowed by law to buy one. His suspicion is that Elton has simply acquired a son to satifiy his latest fixation.
Two rules apply to the birth of children, says Mr Pierce: Rule One is that by and large a child needs a loving mother and father (though he has no objection in principle to the right gay couple adopting - which is where he and I would part company). Rule Two is that a child needs to know where he comes from. "Just what is Elton going to say to him when he's a troubled 16 year old and asks 'Daddy, where did I come from?'"
How often too, will Elton 'be there' for his son - he is about to embark on a 26 concert tour of the U.S. and Europe?
Perhaps there is something extra annoying about the fact that this is Elton - a talented but 'petulant, spoilt and selfish' man according to Mr Pierce. It seems as if some very loose legislation and a lot of money can get you almost anything now - including a child. But do not our authorities always trumpet that the 'child's best interests' are what matters in any family law issue? Why are the principles that would apply in adoption not apparently applied in surrogacy? Or am I missing something?
But of course that would not deal with the matter of these 'parents' being homosexual - that, sadly, is not even an issue today.
Sir Elton and David Furnish are made in the image of God. They are showing that they feel a need to nurture - at least, looking on it charitably; it might be that they simply want to possess, though that would not make them different from many average, sinful, hererosexual couples. But the nurturing instinct is not to be exercised outside a heterosexual marriage - at least, not in normal circumstances. It is certainly not to be engineered outside the marital framework.
We have lost our way on the meaning of marriage; the meaning of gender; and the fact that children are a gift to be responsibly nurtured, not a commodity to be produced at will for anyone who can pay for one.
But let us pray for Zachary, and for his 'parents'. Maybe they will be brought to see something of the wonder of God's creativity. And their own lostness. Children are remarkably resilient. He may do wonderfully well in this dysfunctional home. Let us fervently hope so.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Westminster Conference - what's the point?
It is two weeks since the Westminster Conference (formerly Euston Road, now Tottenham Court Road conference, shortly to become the Oxford Street Conference) and I really should have got something up before now.
It was good; I always enjoy going, though I do not go every year. I also enjoy the trips to some of the local bookshops and innumerable coffee shops, and meeting friends. It is all part of the experience.
The six papers were good; one on the English Reformation by Garry Williams; on Puritan views on Roman Catholicism from Guy Davies; on the KJV from David Gregson and on Puritan views of Repentance and Faith from Sam Waldron. Daniel Webber led us through the religion and politics of the 1910 Missionary conference and Malcolm Maclean winsomely introduced us to Andrew Bonar.
But what is the point of the Westminster conference? This was the question put to me in a discussion with one of the relatively few young (under 50) men there. Had there been no attendance from LTS there would have been hardly any 'young' men.
You can see his point. An active, zealous young minister has limited time and money for conferences. Early December is a busy time of year. What is going to attract the highly prioritised time and money he has available? Does a series of relatively unconnected lectures on historical theology (with a bias towards the Puritans) do the job?
Does he not want something more dynamic, practical, forward looking, (dare one say it) obviously relevant? Already it sounds like a plug for the Carey conference (which I do not go to every year either).
Whilst sympathising with my young friend, I would like to suggest some good reasons for persevering with the Westminster/Euston/ Tottenham Court Road/Oxford Sreet conference.
1. Not everything needs to be immediately relevant or applicable. Sermons are like this. You want something that will lead to practice, but it doesn't have to be today. The Word works differently. It is seminal. So are addresses like those at Westminster - at least, the better ones, and usually they are very well researched and carefully thought out by the speakers. Be prepared to listen well to things that do not seem immediately applicable to life; you will invariably find one or both of two things happening: (i) what did not seem to hold out any practical promise will suddenly prove to be surprisingly relevant; (2) seeds will be sown that will bear fruit later.
2. Papers such as those we heard are like windows on areas of history, church life and theology that we would not otherwise visit. Look at the conference not as a working visit but as a bit of a holiday. Take a look at some unfamiliar countryside. And some interesting, if maybe slightly quaint, stately homes. Listen and think. Question. In your head if not aloud (though there is little danger of getting involved in a debate - that art has long been lost).
3. In other words, don't be a slave to the immediate. There is a place for the hands on, pastorally relevant conference, no doubt. But there is a danger of imprisonment in the present as much as in the past, and we become slightly conceited about our ability to cope without a knowledge of church history and of great figures - and many not so great figures - of the past. There is so much back there that we do not know that is very relevant if we have patience to listen and learn.
And after all, there is always Costas and Caffe Nero nearby and Waterstones' second hand section a couple of hundred yards away. From 2011 I suppose it will be the opportunity for a spot of Christmas shopping in Oxford Street. Well, perhaps not...
Which is not to say that the Westminster Conference could not be improved. It could. But perhaps the biggest job is to sell it to a generation which is rapidly losing interest in what it stands for, and that would be a shame.
It was good; I always enjoy going, though I do not go every year. I also enjoy the trips to some of the local bookshops and innumerable coffee shops, and meeting friends. It is all part of the experience.
The six papers were good; one on the English Reformation by Garry Williams; on Puritan views on Roman Catholicism from Guy Davies; on the KJV from David Gregson and on Puritan views of Repentance and Faith from Sam Waldron. Daniel Webber led us through the religion and politics of the 1910 Missionary conference and Malcolm Maclean winsomely introduced us to Andrew Bonar.
But what is the point of the Westminster conference? This was the question put to me in a discussion with one of the relatively few young (under 50) men there. Had there been no attendance from LTS there would have been hardly any 'young' men.
You can see his point. An active, zealous young minister has limited time and money for conferences. Early December is a busy time of year. What is going to attract the highly prioritised time and money he has available? Does a series of relatively unconnected lectures on historical theology (with a bias towards the Puritans) do the job?
Does he not want something more dynamic, practical, forward looking, (dare one say it) obviously relevant? Already it sounds like a plug for the Carey conference (which I do not go to every year either).
Whilst sympathising with my young friend, I would like to suggest some good reasons for persevering with the Westminster/Euston/ Tottenham Court Road/Oxford Sreet conference.
1. Not everything needs to be immediately relevant or applicable. Sermons are like this. You want something that will lead to practice, but it doesn't have to be today. The Word works differently. It is seminal. So are addresses like those at Westminster - at least, the better ones, and usually they are very well researched and carefully thought out by the speakers. Be prepared to listen well to things that do not seem immediately applicable to life; you will invariably find one or both of two things happening: (i) what did not seem to hold out any practical promise will suddenly prove to be surprisingly relevant; (2) seeds will be sown that will bear fruit later.
2. Papers such as those we heard are like windows on areas of history, church life and theology that we would not otherwise visit. Look at the conference not as a working visit but as a bit of a holiday. Take a look at some unfamiliar countryside. And some interesting, if maybe slightly quaint, stately homes. Listen and think. Question. In your head if not aloud (though there is little danger of getting involved in a debate - that art has long been lost).
3. In other words, don't be a slave to the immediate. There is a place for the hands on, pastorally relevant conference, no doubt. But there is a danger of imprisonment in the present as much as in the past, and we become slightly conceited about our ability to cope without a knowledge of church history and of great figures - and many not so great figures - of the past. There is so much back there that we do not know that is very relevant if we have patience to listen and learn.
And after all, there is always Costas and Caffe Nero nearby and Waterstones' second hand section a couple of hundred yards away. From 2011 I suppose it will be the opportunity for a spot of Christmas shopping in Oxford Street. Well, perhaps not...
Which is not to say that the Westminster Conference could not be improved. It could. But perhaps the biggest job is to sell it to a generation which is rapidly losing interest in what it stands for, and that would be a shame.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
'Our Lord sprang from Judah'
From Hebrews 7:14, this phrase is not perhaps the most promising of texts for four sermons, but that is to calculate without the depth and scope of the preaching of Iain D. Campbell.
At the Reformation and Revival Fellowship Conference this week at Swanwick, Dr Campbell did what perhaps he does best (though one must not underestimate any of his many talents), and focussed on the Lord Jesus Christ through a lens provided by the Old Testament.
We were led first to the verse in Hebrews 7 then quickly to Genesis 38, recounting the sins of Judah against, and with, Tamar. Can't say I have ever heard this passage read and preached on at a conference before. But moving as he does effortlessly up and down the scales of biblical theology, Iain first showed us the sinfulness of God's covenant people, then the singularity of God's covenant purpose and then the sovereignty of God's covenant grace.
The second sermon was on Genesis 42-43, showing us the purposes of Joseph, Judah and God respectively. Joseph was testing his brothers; God tests us. Iain has had his own very real trials this summer but I was greatly impressed by his not mentioning his own afflictions in illustration of his point, though it would have been very much to the point. Many ministers today can't wait to thrust in a personal illustration; and we end up seeing more of the preacher than of Christ.
Judah's purpose was to be a pledge for his younger brother, and we were immediately taken to the cross, and Christ our surety. 'I shall lose none of those you have given me' (John 6:39).
God's purpose of course is for good, and we believe this when reason fails. Faith is reasonable, but sometimes faith has to fly solo and to places reason cannot go and cannot reach.
The third in this series was on Genesis 49, showing that the great characteristic of Judah is to be the one from whom the sceptre shall not depart, till it comes to 'him to whom it belongs' (however one interprets 'Shiloh'). Christ as prophet, priest and King was shown to us, especially the last, and how God's weakness is infinitely stronger than men.
Finally we were taken to Revelation 5, to the Lion of Judah. Christ the Lion roars in the proclamation of the gospel. We were reminded of Robert Bruce's rebuke to James VI of Scotland who chatted through a sermon - when the Lion of Judah roars in the preaching, it behoves all petty kings of the earth to remain silent.
This was a wonderful series.
We were also greatly helped, moved and encouraged by Faith Cook on John Bunyan and spiritual warfare and by Geoff Thomas making Brownlow North come alive in three dimensions.
The sermons should be availabe in due course on the RRF website www.reformationand revival.org.uk, and CDs can be ordered. Next year's conference is 21-23 November.
At the Reformation and Revival Fellowship Conference this week at Swanwick, Dr Campbell did what perhaps he does best (though one must not underestimate any of his many talents), and focussed on the Lord Jesus Christ through a lens provided by the Old Testament.
We were led first to the verse in Hebrews 7 then quickly to Genesis 38, recounting the sins of Judah against, and with, Tamar. Can't say I have ever heard this passage read and preached on at a conference before. But moving as he does effortlessly up and down the scales of biblical theology, Iain first showed us the sinfulness of God's covenant people, then the singularity of God's covenant purpose and then the sovereignty of God's covenant grace.
The second sermon was on Genesis 42-43, showing us the purposes of Joseph, Judah and God respectively. Joseph was testing his brothers; God tests us. Iain has had his own very real trials this summer but I was greatly impressed by his not mentioning his own afflictions in illustration of his point, though it would have been very much to the point. Many ministers today can't wait to thrust in a personal illustration; and we end up seeing more of the preacher than of Christ.
Judah's purpose was to be a pledge for his younger brother, and we were immediately taken to the cross, and Christ our surety. 'I shall lose none of those you have given me' (John 6:39).
God's purpose of course is for good, and we believe this when reason fails. Faith is reasonable, but sometimes faith has to fly solo and to places reason cannot go and cannot reach.
The third in this series was on Genesis 49, showing that the great characteristic of Judah is to be the one from whom the sceptre shall not depart, till it comes to 'him to whom it belongs' (however one interprets 'Shiloh'). Christ as prophet, priest and King was shown to us, especially the last, and how God's weakness is infinitely stronger than men.
Finally we were taken to Revelation 5, to the Lion of Judah. Christ the Lion roars in the proclamation of the gospel. We were reminded of Robert Bruce's rebuke to James VI of Scotland who chatted through a sermon - when the Lion of Judah roars in the preaching, it behoves all petty kings of the earth to remain silent.
This was a wonderful series.
We were also greatly helped, moved and encouraged by Faith Cook on John Bunyan and spiritual warfare and by Geoff Thomas making Brownlow North come alive in three dimensions.
The sermons should be availabe in due course on the RRF website www.reformationand revival.org.uk, and CDs can be ordered. Next year's conference is 21-23 November.
Saturday, 9 October 2010
Regeneration
Having just read the article of this title by Charles Hodge in 'Princeton vs. the New Divinity' (Banner of Truth, 2001) I have been struck again by the beauty, majesty, mystery and necessity of this wonderful work of God.
Hodge is arguing against a view of regeneraton that greatly reduces its radical nature and it impact on the sinner's life. It was this kind of view which was influential in the evangelism of such as Charles Finney. Hodge's arguments, which from an impatient 21st century viewpoint seem somewhat laboured, are nonetheless penetrating and weighty.
He insists that regeneration is not a 'physical' change in the substance of the soul, though there is in Calvinist orthodoxy the insistence that it is a real, immediate and direct work of the Holy Spirit producing a moral change. It is far more than mere moral persuasion on the mind. Behind this is a view of the depravity of man, something which characteristically Calvinists grasp more firmly than other evangelical traditions, and which the 'New Divinity' (and we might say modern evangelicalism generally,) has lost. Such a view of 'total' depravity means a monergistic work of God (i.e. God working alone) is essential, even though the soul becomes active in conversion, in repentance and faith. But the first work of giving new life has to be God's.
Hodge is also insistent that regeneration does not produce simply acts of holiness, but a holy disposition, or nature. Behind our acts, he argues, there is not just the substance of our soul (whatever that is) but a disposition to act in such and such a way. The heart that loves God is not made holy in the act of loving God, but has been made holy by a prior act of God and then it acts in a holy manner by loving God. Only if 'born anew' by the Spirit will the soul see God as lovely and as an object to be loved. No choice for God would ever be made without that prior, God- given disposition, which then controls in principle every act of the regenerate person.
How does God effect this new birth? There is mystery here which in a way we do not need to plumb. But if it is not a 'physical' change in the 'substance' of the soul then what is it? Perhaps we can think of what it means for the soul to be 'dead' in trespasses and sins. Unless it is dead it does not need to be made alive, yet 'made alive' is what we are told the soul is. 'Dead' is not a state so much as a relation to God. To be spiritually dead means to be under his wrath, turned out of his gracious presence, and potentially eternally punished in this existence.
To be made alive then would be a reversal of this. It is not a physical change so much as a moral one, a relational one. This is where the Scriptures point to our union with Christ, effected by the Spirit, as the source of our being born again. We are made alive together with him (Eph 2:5); we are born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3). It is this union which gives new life. Such union does not add anything new to the soul, and it certainly is more than a change of our actions; it is a renewal of our relationship with God, a renewal of our nature in Christ, so that our nature is now transformed in union with him and is conformed to his. This is the new life.
How could God stoop to do this to vile sinners? Grace. Election. Blood that cleanses from every sin. The sacrifice of Christ.
How wonderful is regeneration. How beautiful. How mysterious. How necessary.
Hodge is arguing against a view of regeneraton that greatly reduces its radical nature and it impact on the sinner's life. It was this kind of view which was influential in the evangelism of such as Charles Finney. Hodge's arguments, which from an impatient 21st century viewpoint seem somewhat laboured, are nonetheless penetrating and weighty.
He insists that regeneration is not a 'physical' change in the substance of the soul, though there is in Calvinist orthodoxy the insistence that it is a real, immediate and direct work of the Holy Spirit producing a moral change. It is far more than mere moral persuasion on the mind. Behind this is a view of the depravity of man, something which characteristically Calvinists grasp more firmly than other evangelical traditions, and which the 'New Divinity' (and we might say modern evangelicalism generally,) has lost. Such a view of 'total' depravity means a monergistic work of God (i.e. God working alone) is essential, even though the soul becomes active in conversion, in repentance and faith. But the first work of giving new life has to be God's.
Hodge is also insistent that regeneration does not produce simply acts of holiness, but a holy disposition, or nature. Behind our acts, he argues, there is not just the substance of our soul (whatever that is) but a disposition to act in such and such a way. The heart that loves God is not made holy in the act of loving God, but has been made holy by a prior act of God and then it acts in a holy manner by loving God. Only if 'born anew' by the Spirit will the soul see God as lovely and as an object to be loved. No choice for God would ever be made without that prior, God- given disposition, which then controls in principle every act of the regenerate person.
How does God effect this new birth? There is mystery here which in a way we do not need to plumb. But if it is not a 'physical' change in the 'substance' of the soul then what is it? Perhaps we can think of what it means for the soul to be 'dead' in trespasses and sins. Unless it is dead it does not need to be made alive, yet 'made alive' is what we are told the soul is. 'Dead' is not a state so much as a relation to God. To be spiritually dead means to be under his wrath, turned out of his gracious presence, and potentially eternally punished in this existence.
To be made alive then would be a reversal of this. It is not a physical change so much as a moral one, a relational one. This is where the Scriptures point to our union with Christ, effected by the Spirit, as the source of our being born again. We are made alive together with him (Eph 2:5); we are born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3). It is this union which gives new life. Such union does not add anything new to the soul, and it certainly is more than a change of our actions; it is a renewal of our relationship with God, a renewal of our nature in Christ, so that our nature is now transformed in union with him and is conformed to his. This is the new life.
How could God stoop to do this to vile sinners? Grace. Election. Blood that cleanses from every sin. The sacrifice of Christ.
How wonderful is regeneration. How beautiful. How mysterious. How necessary.
Pooh, Aldenham and Ashdown
We had a family outing this afternoon, a warm, dry autumn day, perfect for a country walk. Aldenham country park is in Elstree, situated near the Haberdashers Aske's School and it was their Open Day so there were lots of Posh Cars around and it was not the best day to get to Aldenham but we made it.
We took the boys around the Aldenham version of the Hundred Aker Wood - Eeyore's Gloomy Place, Wol's House, Pooh Corner, the Heffalump Trap , Christopher Robin's House and other places familiar to Pooh fans. As we were coming away from that part of the Park (for there is much else to enjoy at Aldenham) a lady standing near me on the bridge from which her husband and I had been playing Pooh sticks, pretending it was our children who were playing, asked me 'Is this where Winnie the Pooh was set? I mean, did the writer live here?'
I swallowed hard, fairly sure that the Pooh books had been written in the first half of the last century (I have since checked - it was the late 1920s) and said no, I think A.A. Milne lived in Sussex and the books were set in the Ashdown Forest (which I am pleased to say I have since ascertained was correct).
Now there is no reason why people should know that - but I was a bit taken aback that someone should think that Aldenham Country Park's version of the Pooh landscape might be the original one and pre-date the books - which was the implication of the lady's question.
But then we were near Elstree; perhaps the influence of film studios is more pervasive than one thinks. The possibilities are endless. Did Margaret Mitchell base 'Gone with the Wind' on the filmset? Did T.E.Lawrence's writings come first or David Lean's 'Lawrence of Arabia'? Pasternak's novel, or Omar Sharif as Doctor Zhivago with Julie Christie? But then - we can always visit the real Coronation Street in Manchester. Real? There must be an Albert Square somewhere. And a Walmington on Sea waiting to be inhabited by a Dad's Army.
As for theme parks - the slate quarries of North Wales where real men sweated blood were surely modelled on the Llechwedd Slate Quarry in Blaenau Ffestiniog. Perhaps the castle at Alton Towers is the real Camelot.
Is this the Disneyfication of history? Life and literature viewed through the lens of later attempts to capitalise on it and popularise it. There is a place in Florida, I'm told, where history lives and culture flourishes.
There is a lot to be said for the Bereans, isn't there? They checked the original (the Scriptures), 'to see if these things were so'(Acts 18:11). 'Ad fontes' - to the fount. Do not view Truth through any later lens. And certainly know which is which - the reality or the fake.
Pooh is only a story after all, but the tendency to confuse our Ashdowns with our Aldenhams is a rather characteristic 21st Century gaff. Blame Disney? I don't think so; each one of us has the responsibility for finding out what is true.
How wise of that lady to ask someone. That is not a bad place to begin.
We took the boys around the Aldenham version of the Hundred Aker Wood - Eeyore's Gloomy Place, Wol's House, Pooh Corner, the Heffalump Trap , Christopher Robin's House and other places familiar to Pooh fans. As we were coming away from that part of the Park (for there is much else to enjoy at Aldenham) a lady standing near me on the bridge from which her husband and I had been playing Pooh sticks, pretending it was our children who were playing, asked me 'Is this where Winnie the Pooh was set? I mean, did the writer live here?'
I swallowed hard, fairly sure that the Pooh books had been written in the first half of the last century (I have since checked - it was the late 1920s) and said no, I think A.A. Milne lived in Sussex and the books were set in the Ashdown Forest (which I am pleased to say I have since ascertained was correct).
Now there is no reason why people should know that - but I was a bit taken aback that someone should think that Aldenham Country Park's version of the Pooh landscape might be the original one and pre-date the books - which was the implication of the lady's question.
But then we were near Elstree; perhaps the influence of film studios is more pervasive than one thinks. The possibilities are endless. Did Margaret Mitchell base 'Gone with the Wind' on the filmset? Did T.E.Lawrence's writings come first or David Lean's 'Lawrence of Arabia'? Pasternak's novel, or Omar Sharif as Doctor Zhivago with Julie Christie? But then - we can always visit the real Coronation Street in Manchester. Real? There must be an Albert Square somewhere. And a Walmington on Sea waiting to be inhabited by a Dad's Army.
As for theme parks - the slate quarries of North Wales where real men sweated blood were surely modelled on the Llechwedd Slate Quarry in Blaenau Ffestiniog. Perhaps the castle at Alton Towers is the real Camelot.
Is this the Disneyfication of history? Life and literature viewed through the lens of later attempts to capitalise on it and popularise it. There is a place in Florida, I'm told, where history lives and culture flourishes.
There is a lot to be said for the Bereans, isn't there? They checked the original (the Scriptures), 'to see if these things were so'(Acts 18:11). 'Ad fontes' - to the fount. Do not view Truth through any later lens. And certainly know which is which - the reality or the fake.
Pooh is only a story after all, but the tendency to confuse our Ashdowns with our Aldenhams is a rather characteristic 21st Century gaff. Blame Disney? I don't think so; each one of us has the responsibility for finding out what is true.
How wise of that lady to ask someone. That is not a bad place to begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)