Musings on listening to a popular Christian radio host

Recently I was listening to a podcast of a nationally syndicated Christian radio program. The host, for whom I have no small amount of respect, was discussing the recent developments in the PCUSA and Anglican churches. If you did not know, these churches are apostatizing over matters of gender and Christian marriage.

This host asked when one knows whether to stay leave a denomination that openly condones moral behavior outside the parameters of traditional Christian (i.e., biblical) conduct. Many of the callers to this show echoed the sentiment that a denomination’s affirmation of sodomite activity was good cause to leave that church or communion. The host repeated often how much he found these questions “interesting” and “fascinating,” that he was after an “intelligent” answer to the question. He gave little pointers here and there of his tendency, but nevertheless avoided articulating an answer to the question. In fairness to the host, perhaps he did not consider it his responsibility to tell all his listeners what to do; it certainly seemed like he believed that in the cases outlined above, leaving the denomination was necessary.

What strikes me more than anything else is that this matter of gender confusion, the tolerance of and even ordination of openly unrepentant sodomites, is what finally warrants separation. The host of the radio program himself admitted that doctrinal deviance would have surely preceded a high-handed denial of biblical Christian morality. But the “straw that the breaks the camel’s back” in this instance is not the denial of justification by faith, not the denial that the Scriptures are without error, nor the denial of the substitutionary atonement of our Lord. It was not even the denial of our omniscient God’s knowledge of future events that ignites the fury of Christians. It took female bishops and a condoning of immoral acts. And surely such an ardent rebellion against God’s righteous law deserves the fury of Christians; do not get me wrong. I am struck that these matters of the ordination of crooked clergy and the church’s condoning of certain actions that God has promised to judge are more significant to people that the very doctrines that have presumptively saved them. This is what is being communicated (to me, at least) when the accidentals connected with the current controversy are able to incite action that mere doctrinal deviance did not. Somehow Christian unity was there was the gospel was being denied, but, once certain mores were denied, that unity was no longer there. I believe the moral outrage should have come a long time ago. And it is a sad indictment that it did not.

Jonathan Edwards on Google Books

If you are interested in Jonathan Edwards, Google Books is your friend (I invite you to visit my own google books library, or even subscribe to it via RSS).

First, you can find all ten volumes of Sereno Dwight’s Works of President Edwards, the third attempt ( after Williams and Parsons in 1806 and Austin in 1808 ) to compile his major works:

• Volume 1: Dwight’s biography, the Life of President Edwards, “Farewell Sermon,” Appendix
• Volume 2: Freedom of the Will, Original Sin
• Volume 3: The End for Which God Created the World, Nature of True Virtue, History of the Work of Redemption, Extraordinary Prayer, and the Distinguishing Marks of a Work of a Spirit of God.
• Volume 4: A Faithful Narrative of Surprising Conversions, Thoughts on the Revival, An Humble Inquiry (Qualifications for Communion), and Misrepresentations Corrected (Reply to Williams).
• Volume 5: Religious Affections, Justification by Faith Alone, Pressing into the Kingdom of God, Ruth’s Resolution, The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners, and The Excellency of Christ.
• Volume 6: (Table of Contents) Twenty sermons, and Practical Sermons
• Volume 7: (Table of Contents) Eight sermons and “Miscellanies” on “Theological Matters”
• Volume 8: (Table of Contents) Seventeen “occasional sermons” and “Miscellanies“
• Volume 9: Types of the Messiah, Notes on the Bible
• Volume 10: David Brainerd

Other public domain collections of Edwards’s works are also “published’ on Google Books (the Yale Works are not available in any way through Google Books):

• Cairns, Selections from Early American Authors
• G Fischer, Unpublished Essay of Edwards on the Trinity
• Gardiner, Selected Sermons (also here)
• Grosart, Unpublished Writings (also here)
  
• C Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Edwards: Selections from their Writings

In addition to this, several works important to Edwards himself and his times, that were either influential on Edwards or works to which he responded, are available.

• John Brine, Treatise on Various Subjects
• Charles Chauncy, Seasonable Thoughts (important work of a chief opponent to the revivals; see Some Thoughts and RA) (Another [better] reproduction is available at archive.org)
• Chauncy, Wonderful Narrative . . . The French Prophets
• Thomas Chubb, A Collection of Tracts (Chubb is an opponent in Freedom et al)
• Philip Dodderidge, Family Expositor (in part) (vol 2) (influential on Edwards’s interpretation of the Bible; see Blank Bible)
• Theophilus Gale, Court of the Gentiles, vol 3 (cited in “Miscellanies” and the Blank Bible)
• John Gill, Cause of God and Truth (cited in Freedom)
• Francis Hutchenson, Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue
• Henry More, Account of Virtue (influential in Puritan thought in general; Edwards likely read him in divinity school)
• Henry More, Divine Dialogues
• Thomas Shepard, Parable of Ten Virgins, vol 2 (cited in RA)
• Thomas Shepard, Works vol 1 vol 3
• John Smith, “The Shortness and Vanity of a Pharisaic Righteousness” (the longest citation in RA)
• Solomon Stoddard, The Doctrine of Instituted Churches (Edwards’s maternal grandfather who made an indelible mark on his thought)
• Solomon Stoddard, A Guide to Christ
• Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation (a prominent deist work)
• Isaac Watts, Freedom of Will in God and Creatures (opposed in Freedom) also here

Older studies about or related to Jonathan Edwards, now in the public domain, are also available for full view in Google Books.

• A V G Allen’s biography
• Day, Examination of Freedom of the Will
• Gardiner and Allen’s Retrospect
• Samuel Hopkin’s Life and Character of the Late, Reverend, Learned, and Pious Jonathan Edwards (also here)
• Middleton, Evangelical Biography
• E A Park, “Remarks of Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity” BibSac 1881
• W Walker, Ten New England Leaders (including chapters on Edwards, Chauncy, and Hopkins)
• W Walker, History of Congregationalism

A number of important books about Jonathan Edwards are also offered through Google’s “Limited Preview” option*, including:

• Perry Miller’s biography,
• Marsden’s biography,
• The Princeton Companion to Jonathan Edwards
• The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards
• Perry Miller’s Errand into the Wilderness
• Conrad Cherry’s study
• Gerald McDermott’s One Holy and Happy Society
• Lesser’s Annotated Bibliography

*If you wanted the four volume “Worcester” edition of Edwards’s works (first edited by Austin in 1808 as 8 vols), they are available, but only (at least from my searching) at archive.org. This edition has a scripture index.

• Volume 1 (also 84 MB pdf)
  
• Volume 2 (also 89 MB pdf)
  
• Volume 3 (also 78 MB pdf)
  
• Volume 4 (also 67 MB pdf)

________

*Google should not be used as a substitute for your careful reading and study of these materials in their complete form.

Modern Science is like religion

Modern Science is like religion. To become its devotee, you must first convert. Unless you were a child already catechized in the particulars of its system, Modern Science requires you to repent from your old ways of knowing and to embrace its dogmas. Most people who are followers of Modern Science accept her axioms with very little or no evidence—i.e., by faith. Most people cannot prove that the earth revolves around the sun, but they accept it by faith. They may, based on a series of previously determined assumptions and relatively established theories, deem reasonable the prevailing theory that the earth’s relative position in its orbit around the sun causes varying amounts of sunlight and warmth in a given day, but they cannot really empirically prove that it is so. How many of the general public have taken the steps to prove that man’s use of fossil fuels is causing an alarming increase of the surface temperature of the planet? No, they accept it by faith on the testimony of a consensus of scientists, who themselves serve like priests to mediate this creed to the populace. People believe in fantastic invisible powers and entities (beings), like gravity and atoms. They undergo government mandated catechesis in the important dogmas of the cult (the aforementioned priests decide which dogmas are important).

Modern science requires conversion, has priests, espouses a strict system of doctrine, and, most importantly, requires the steadfast faith of its adherents. Modern science is very much like religion.

Edwards on the gravity of depravity

In an age that collectively denies original sin,* I find I often need my imagination provoked to recall its perniciousness. I do not want merely to know that sin is bad, I want my affections to feel its weight. Jonathan Edwards provides a good response to those who would say that mankind is good, as their virtuous actions outnumber their sin, and so doing helps us grasp our heinous our iniquities are before God.

Therefore how absurd must it be for Christians to object, against the depravity of man’s nature, a greater number of innocent and kind actions, than of crimes; and to talk of a prevailing innocency, good nature, industry and cheerfulness of the greater part of mankind? Infinitely more absurd, than it would be to insist that the domestic of a prince was not a bad servant, because though sometimes be contemned and affronted his master to a great degree, yet he did not spit in his master’s face so often as he performed acts of service; or, than it would be to affirm, that his spouse was a good wife to him, because, although she committed adultery, and that with the slaves and scoundrels sometimes, yet she did not do this so often as she did the duties of a wife. These notions would be absurd, because the crimes are too heinous to be atoned for, by many honest actions of the servant or spouse of the prince; there being a vast disproportion between the merit of the one, and the ill-desert of the other: but in no measure so great, nay infinitely less than that between the demerit of our offenses against God and the value of our acts of obedience. (Original Sin, 1.3; Yale ed. 133)

________

*I am not sure how many evangelicals deny original sin these days, but if silence is any way of telling, it seems that the doctrine has fallen on hard times. Perhaps contemporary evangelicals struggle, as have many before them, with mankind being condemned for something Adam did. But, assuming they so cavil at our being condemned for the guilt of Adam’s first sin, it seems strange that contemporary evangelical articulations of the doctrine of soteriology at the same time are quite eager to impute to mankind (and Christians) the guilt for the sins of racial animosity and ecological damage.

Semi-weekly pithiness for March 12, 2008*

If we love not God because he is what he is, but only because he is profitable to us, in truth we love him not at all.

- Jonathan Edwards (Original Sin, Chapter 1, Section V [Yale ed., 144]) for March 12, 2008

*I may need to (re-)change the name of the theme of these posts to something like Semi-yearly pithiness.

Three reasons why Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18

Jesus’ words to the Apostle Peter in the Gospel according to Matthew are very familiar:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.

Many Protestants run away from understanding Peter as the “rock” in Matthew 16:18, largely because another prominent Christian church has used this interpretation as an illegitimate claim of spurious authority and so-called “apostolic succession.” But we must be fair with the text, even if it is sprawled across the dome of an important basilica in Rome.

This is going to be brief, but there three reasons why I became convinced some time ago that “rock” refers to Peter.

1. The striking pun on the words πετρος and πετρα. This is quite difficult to ignore. Jesus is equating the Greek moniker of Simon and the rock upon which the church is built. On this point, to quibble at case endings shows a misunderstanding of the way language works.
2. If Paul and John taught a strikingly similar version of this doctrine, then why should we object? 
   1. Ephesians 2:19-21: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.”
   2. Revelation 21:14: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”
3. If Jesus is the rock, then the passage’s metaphor becomes non-sensical. The image drawn is Jesus building upon himself. In this metaphor, Jesus is the builder, and certainly not the foundation as well.

I think what is meant here is that Peter the rock, as a kind of chief of all the apostles. The New Testament, especially the Gospels and Acts, portray Peter as the leader among the apostles. It is no accident that Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus first appeared to Peter–there called “Cephas” (just as it is significant that Jesus appeared last to Paul). As the leader of the apostles, Peter is the representative of them upon whom Christ says he will build his church. He was the first to make this great confession of the greatness of Christ’s person, and this witness to Christ will be foundational in the church Christ will build after Pentecost.

I have one more observation on this. That Peter is the “rock” does not in any way establish apostolic succession. In fact, on the contrary, it argues against it. The inference of an apostolic succession is that the authoritative ministry of the apostles continues. The meaning of the rock, similar to Paul’s metaphor in Ephesians 2:20, is one of a foundation for a building. This foundation, this base, the rock upon which the church is built, is only laid once. The rock or foundation does not continue to be laid as the structure is built. The rock is foundational, and then the church is built upon it. The apostles confessed Christ and were witnesses to his resurrection. Their unique ministry in the church is now over (cf. 1 Cor 15:8-10), as their peculiar revelatory ministry has provided a great foundation for the church and its faith, culminating in the inspiration and writing of the New Testament canon.

Is the doctrine of original sin important?

Jonathan Edwards thought the doctrine of original sin was important, and so he said in his preface to his book on the doctrine.

I look on the doctrine as of great importance; which everybody will doubtless own it is, if it be true. For, if the case be such indeed, that all mankind are by nature in a state of total ruin, both with respect to the moral evil they are subjects of, and the afflictive evil they are exposed t, the one as the consequence and punishment of the other, then doubtless the great salvation by Christ stands in direct relation to this ruin, as the remedy to the disease; and the whole gospel or doctrine of salvation, must suppose it; and all real belief, or true notion of that gospel, must be built upon it. Therefore, as I think the doctrine is most certainly both true and important, I hope, my attempting a vindication of it, will be candidly interpreted, and that what I have done towards its defense, will be impartially considered, by all that will give themselves the trouble to read the ensuing discourse. (pg 103 in the Yale ed.)

Note how Edwards argues the doctrine’s importance here; it is in its connection to the gospel. To abandon the doctrine of original sin, he argues, would necessarily result in a parallel abandonment of the doctrine of the cross.

Jonathan Edwards read John Gill

I am happy to count myself among those who still reap great fruit from the ministry of the Baptist pastor and theologian John Gill. And I was happy to find that in this respect I have a kindred spirit, at least to some degree, in Jonathan Edwards.

From Freedom of the Will, Part 4, Section 6 (p 374 in Yale’s Works):

I might also take notice of its having been observed, that the Arminians agree with Mr. Hobbes in many more things than the Calvinists.

To the words “Mr. Hobbes” in the above quote, Edwards adds a note referencing Gill’s The Cause of God and Truth, Being a Confutation of the Arguments from Reason Used by the Arminians; and Paricularly by Dr. Whitby, in His Discourse on the Five Points.

The Works of President Edwards With a Memoir of His Life By Jonathan Edwards, Sereno Edwards Dwight

Some hash found buried in the freezer

Podcast recommendation: The “NACOcast” podcast with Christopher Millard (RSS) is worth subscribing to. It’s somewhat long, but very insightful. I had never made the connection between Bernstein’s West Side Story and the Emporer concerto.

The Migne edition of the church fathers is a renowned older version of the church fathers in the languages. Because of age, many of the volumes are in the public domain and can be found on-line. You can find a nicely ordered index to the texts of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, and, if Latin fathers better suit your interest, you can find a helpful index of them as well. (HT: Aquilina)

Speaking of great resources for study of texts in the original languages, several weeks ago W. Hall Harris pointed out that the German Bibel Society has now made their texts of the Holy Scriptures available on-line. And Tzvee Zahavy recently posted some of his course materials for studying ancient Hebrew.

Thank you, First Baptist Church of Granite Falls, for your gracious hospitality this weekend!

Like the last few bars of Wagner’s Siegfried Idyll

T. S. Eliot:

“Esthetic sensibility must be extended into spiritual perception, and spiritual perception must be extended into esthetic sensibility and disciplined taste before we are qualified to pass judgment upon decadence or diabolism or nihilism in art.”

“There is an aspect in which we can see a religion as the whole way of life of a people, from birth to the grave, from morning to night and even in sleep, and that way of life is also its culture. And at the same time we must recognise that when this identification is complete, it means in actual societies both an inferior culture and an inferior religion.”

- Notes Toward the Definition of Culture (p. 103 in the 1949 ed. of Christian and Culture)

From the Martin dinner table

As we were eating our Sunday dinner, my three-year-old asked me, “Does chicken come from turkeys?”

The Public Reading of Scripture in the Early Church

In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul explicitly tells Timothy to read the Scripture publically in the early church:

Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

We see elsewhere that he did not want the reading limited to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but those connected with the dispensation of Christ as well (thereby putting those writings on par with the inspired texts of the Old Testament):

Colossians 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
1 Thessalonians 5:27 I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

The Apostle John likewise assumes that the book of Revelation will be read in the churches:

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.

We then see this patten continued into the liturgy of the primitive church.* Second Clement, an early Christian sermon, says, “So then, brothers and sisters, after the God of truth I am reading to you this appeal to pay attention to the things that have been written in order that you may save yourselves and also the one who is reading among you” (19.1).

Justin Martyr in the 150’s said that on Sundays, “the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” (1 Apology, 67).

The late 2d century Christian theologian Tertullian said, “We meet together in order to read the sacred texts.” He continues, “With the holy words we feed our faith, we arouse our hope, we confirm our confidence” (Apology 39). In another place he stresses why the public Scripture reading is so important: “The church unites the Law and the Prophets in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith.”**

Clement of Alexandria (c. 182-202) talks of early Christians in their worship, “always giving thanks in all things to God through righteous hearing and divine reading.” (Miscellanies 6.14.113.3)

Later, Theodore of Mopsuestia in the late 4th century said, “All of us, having come to faith in Christ the Lord from the nations, received the Scriptures from them and now enjoy them, reading them aloud in the churches and keeping them at home.” (Commentary on the Twelve Prophets***)

So it appears evident that throughout the first five centuries of the church, the Scriptures were, in accordance with the command of Paul, regularly read in the church’s public worship.

________

*See Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak vol 1, 3d ed (Abilene Christian University Press, 1999), 80-81; Idem., Early Christians Speak, vol 2 (ACU Press, 2002), 8;

**David Bercot, Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, (Hendrickson, 1998), 606

***Fathers of the Church 108; trans. Richard C. Hill; Washington, D. C.: Catholic University Press, 2004, 289.

A contrast worth considering

Fundamentalists should first skim this (exemplary, I think, of the state of things for “the movement”), and then, as a contrast (and as a way of “cooling off”), spend some time reading and thinking about the salient points in this.

Be content with this one thing

If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. - 1 Timothy 4:6

Put these things before the brothers, Paul says. I believe he refers to the warning about the false teachers and the correct doctrine that refutes their teaching in verses 1-5 of chapter four; the immediate context helps us best understand the referent to “these things.” Likewise, if we do what Paul tells Timothy to do–warn the believers about false teachers and teach them sound doctrine–we will be a good servant of Christ. By serving the church, Christ’s bride, the minister serves Christ, and serves him well. As much as we might shrink at refuting those who have apostasized, as much as we might pause before presenting the church strong teaching from the whole council of God, this is what it means to be a good minister of Christ.

And what better acclaim is there than that? To be thought of by Christ as a good minister, there is surely nothing better. So says John Calvin:

“Men often set before them some other aim than to approve themselves to Christ; many seek applause for their cleverness, eloquence or profound knowledge, and that is why they pay less attention to the basic necessities which are apt to produce less popular admiration. But Paul tells Timothy to be content with this one thing, that he should be a faithful minister of Christ And we should certainly regard this as far more honourable title than being called a thousand times over seraphic and subtle doctors. Let us remember therefore that it is the greatest honour than can befall a godly pastor to be accounted a good servant of Christ, so that during his whole ministry this should be his only aim. For those who have some other ambition may well succeed in winning men’s approval, but they will not please God. Thus not to be deprived of so great a blessing, let us learn to seek nothing else, to think nothing else so important, and indeed to think everything else relatively worthless. (Commentary on 1 Tim 4:6, p. 242)