You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May, 2007.
Here are a few articles I found in the Council of Trent’s statements on justification….
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
Jonathan Edwards’ personal narrative is an autobiographical sketch of his particular religious experiences. Edwards discusses many subjects, including his self deceptive affections during his unregenerate state, his spiritual delight in the excellency of Christ and the doctrines of the gospel, and the abhorrence of his own sin in light of God’s holiness. Some scholars of Edwards have regarded his famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, as a definitive statement upon his theological beliefs. According to these scholars, Edwards’ Christianity consisted chiefly in a fearful apprehension of God’s wrath, which was subsequently followed by guilt-driven moral reforms. What these scholars fail to understand is that Edwards’ theology must be understood within the framework of his other writings. Edwards’ personal narrative is a helpful commentary upon the multifaceted nature of his theological beliefs. Edwards not only discusses the holiness of God, the evil of sin, and the weighty burden of God’s wrath which lies upon the human race for their sin. Edwards also discusses the beauty of the gospel, the sweetness and excellency of Christ, and the glorious work of God’s grace within the souls of his elect. For instance, in one paragraph Edwards discusses his love for the doctrines of the gospel and comments that, “the way of salvation by Christ, has appeared in a general way, glorious and excellent, and most pleasant and beautiful.” His entire narrative is replete with statements of like nature. Here are some of the words which repeatedly surface within the narrative: love, enjoy, delight, pleasure, complacency, sweet, sweetness, beauty, joys, delights, pleasant, glorious, fulness, breathings, groanings, ineffable, amiable, etc. etc. Usually these words are used in connection with Christ, or Edwards’ affectionate experiences of Christ in the Scripture. Readers of Edwards must be ever mindful that his biblical understanding of God’s wrath was not disproportionately emphasized over and against his biblical understanding of God‘s grace in Christ. Indeed, Edwards believed that these two vital doctrines were inseparable, and that both revealed the majesty and greatness of God for the enjoyment of his people. Twenty-first century Christians live in a decaying climate of indifference, lukewarmness, and theological laziness. Jonathan Edwards teaches us that a biblical understanding of God’s holy wrath against sin, drives us to the ravishing experiences of God’s grace in His Son Jesus Christ. May we understand, apprehend, and feel the weight of God’s holy law in condemning us as unworthy sinners, deserving of nothing but eternal wrath. Yet let that drive us to an understanding, apprehension, and enjoyment of God’s satisfying grace in Jesus Christ to His people.
“Adam in his first estate was a perfect model of mankind in all their generations, and in him this love was perfected in regard of the habit. But Adam rent himself from his creator, rent all his posterity also one from another; whence it comes that every man is born with this principle in him, to love and seek himself only, and thus a man continueth till Christ comes and takes possession of the soul and infuseth another principle, love to God and our brother. And this latter having continual supply from Christ, as the head and root by which he is united, gets the predomining in the soul, so by little and little expels the former so that this love is the fruit of the new birth, and none can have it but the new creature. Now when this quality is formed in the souls of men, it works like the spirit upon dry bones [Ez. 37]. It gathers together the scattered bones, of perfect old man Adam, and knits them into one body again in Christ, whereby a man is become again a living soul.”
“Prayer is the solemn and religious offering up of devout acknowledgments and desires to God, or a sincere representation of holy affections, with a design to give unto God the glory due unto His name thereby, and to obtain favors, and both through the Mediator.”
“It is requisite to the decent performance of the duty [prayer], that some proper method be observed, not only that what is said be good, but that it be said in its proper place and time; and that we offer not anything to the glorious Majesty of heaven and earth, which is confused, impertinent, and indigested. Care must be taken, more than ever, that we not be rash with our mouth, nor hasty to utter any thing before God; that we say not what comes uppermost, nor use such repetitions as evidence not the fervency, but the barrenness and slightness of our spirits; but that the matters we are dealing with God about being of such vast importance, we observe a decorum in our words, that they be well chosen, well weighed, and well placed.”
“[In Prayer] I would advise that the sacred dialect be most used, and made familiar to us and others in our dealing about sacred things; that language Christian people are most accustomed to, most affected with, and will most readily agree to; and where the Scriptures are opened and explained to the people in the ministry of the Word, Scripture language will be most intelligible, and the sense of it best apprehended. This is sound speech that cannot be condemned. And those that are able to do it may do well to enlarge by way of descant or paraphrase upon the Scriptures they make use of; still speaking according to that rule, and comparing spiritual things with spiritual, that they may illustrate each other.”
This is the first post I’ve written in a number of weeks. Unfortunately, my busy schedule has hindered me from writing as much as I’d like too. More posts on Murray’s, Christian Baptism, will appear sometime within the next few weeks, and I attend to blog more frequently. This post is concerned with a subject I’ve thought and read about frequently throughout the past few years. The subject is Puritanism, both English and American, and the unfortunate attacks directed towards it by some secular scholars, whose revisionist understanding of Puritan life and thought is contradicted by the massive amount of historical information we have concerning the Puritans, including their own books and treatises. When I was a junior in high school, our English class read, The Scarlet Letter, a literary masterpiece, but an embarrassingly inaccurate portrayal of Puritan life and thought. We also read Edwards’ famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, a massive literary monument to the Biblical fidelity of Jonathan Edwards, and the particular genius of a man wholly devoted to the whole counsel of God. Although our teacher admired Edwards’ genius, she deplored his theological positions, and regarded him as a religious fanatic whose preaching ruined lives by, “appealing to guilt and fear as motivations for moral reform.” Because of the obvious hostility towards the Puritans set forth by some of my English and History professors, I decided to devote my senior project to studying American Puritanism, particularly Cotton Mather and the Salem Witch Trials. My findings were startling and suspicious to some of the teachers to whom I presented the project. My thesis was that Cotton Mather, and the American Puritans in general, must be understood within their particular historical context. Cotton Mather was not the villain that scholars have made him out to be. On the contrary, history reveals that Mather, although superstitious and overly zealous at times, was a man of God who genuinely desired to reform and purify his society from sin. Far from being a man of hatred, who persecuted the so called witches violently, Mather was a man of compassion and care, who genuinely desired the salvation of the sinful remnant of his society. Cotton Mather is only one example of how some revisionist historians have taken elements of truth, and exaggerated them to the point of preposterous assertions, and dishonest conclusions.
Next week, I will be taking an American literature survey class, in which we will read, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller. Before class begins, and we read Miller’s play, we are required to read a book called The Puritan Dilemma by Edmund Morgan. The book is basically a biography of John Winthrop, and an analysis of first wave American Puritanism. Morgan’s book begins by an open admittance to the fact that the Puritans have been misunderstood and repainted by revisionist historians throughout the centuries. Yet after telling the story of John Winthrop’s childhood, Morgan devotes a paragraph to explaining some the paradoxes inherent within Puritan theology. He lists five propositions in which he takes an element of truth, and distorts it to the advantage of his own particular presuppositions. After reading the paragraph, I consulted the Westminster Confession for clarification, and found that every one of Morgan’s propositions borders on complete dishonesty and revisionism. Keep in mind that Morgan is choosing some particular aspects of Puritan theology which he finds distasteful, and then comes to conclusions which simply aren’t true. The Westminster Confession of Faith stands as one of the most definitive and thorough expressions of Puritan and Reformed thought. That’s why the Confession, along with the actual writings of the Puritans themselves, are the best places to turn when faced with the kind of revisionism so commonly directed towards them. My burden is to understand and appreciate the Puritans as they really were. Their ardent zeal for Biblical orthodoxy, their unwavering stance against Rome and all other forms of heresy, their affectionate and Spirit-wrought piety, and above all their love for God and man- all compel Reformed Christians to understand Puritan life and thought as it truly was.
The following are Morgan’s five propositions, along with some statements from the Confession to clarify and contradict some of Morgan’s propositions.
1. Puritanism required that a man devote his whole life to seeking salvation but told him he was helpless to do anything but evil.
2. Puritanism required that he rest his whole hope in Christ but taught him that Christ would utterly reject him unless before he was born God had foreordained his salvation.
3. Puritanism required that man refrain from sin but told him he would sin anyhow.
4. Puritanism required that he reform the world in the image of God’s holy kingdom, but taught him that the evil of the world was incurable and inevitable.
5. Puritanism required that he work to the best of his ability at whatever task was set before him and partake of the good things that God had filled the world with, but told him he must enjoy his work and his pleasures only, as it were, absentmindedly, with his attention fixed on God.
Notice how Morgan takes an element of truth in each one of these propositions, exaggerates that truth, and then comes to conclusions which are obviously intended to construct a negative and unappealing idea of Puritan life and thought. Before citing the confession, a few words of clarification are necessary. First, the Puritans did indeed believe that man in his natural and sinful state, apart from the salvific work of God, was incapable of doing anything but evil. The will of the natural man is powerfully inclined to that which accords with his sinful nature, and everything he does, whether it be deemed good or evil in the opinion of others, is abominable to God. This is what the Puritans believed. Yet that does not lead us to the conclusion that the regenerate man is helpless to do anything but evil. And this is where Morgan goes wrong. Puritan and Reformed theology teaches us that the Spirit of God powerfully regenerates the hearts of God’s elect, enabling them, through His grace, to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. The Confession speaks for itself on this point. In response to Morgan’s first point, here is what the Confession states.
WCF, Chapter 10, Article 1
All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
In Morgan’s second proposition, the Biblical truth of unconditional election is distorted into a kind of repugnant theological teaching which claims that God refuses those who earnestly desire the salvation of their own souls. Within the proposition itself, note the close connection between man’s complete trust in Christ, and God’s refusal of that man unless he is elect. The truth of the matter is that the Puritans did indeed love, cherish, and teach the doctrine of unconditional election. Yet Morgan’s preposterous statement in this second proposition turns out to be nothing but a logical fallacy. The Puritans taught that the reprobate want nothing to do with God, and as mentioned earlier, only incline their wills to that which accords with their own nature. In that sense, sinful man is absolutely free to do as he pleases! Yet since his mind, will, and affections are in bondage to his own sin, he cannot be savingly united to Christ, nor does he desire to be. None who come to Christ in true faith and humble repentance are rejected by Him. Indeed, this true faith and humble repentance distinguish the sheep from the goats; the sheep resting their whole hope in Christ for salvation, the goats wanting nothing to do with Christ and refusing the free offer of the gospel to all who believe. Here’s one statement from the Confession which I found fitting in light of Morgan’s second proposition.
WCF, Chapter 18, Article 1:
Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes, and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed. .
Morgan’s third proposition is similar to his first. He states that Puritanism required that man abstain from sin but told him that he would sin anyhow. This is only a half truth. Puritanism did teach that regenerate man, through the power of the Spirit, mortify the sinful deeds of his flesh. Puritanism also taught that regenerate man would daily battle with the indwelling sin of his flesh until he entered the state of glorification, and worshiped Christ apart from the horrible burden of sin. Yet here’s where Morgan goes wrong in failing to state the truth of the matter: Puritanism also believed that the Christian life was a, “pilgrim’s progress from this world to that which is to come.” In other words, the Puritans understood regenerate man as daily growing in God’s grace, and progressively killing the sin of their flesh. Here is another statement of the Westminster Confession in light of Morgan’s third proposition.
WCF, Chapter 13, Articles 1 and 3
1. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
3. …In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying of the Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Morgan’s fourth proposition borders on blatant dishonesty. The Puritans taught that Christ’s disciples are responsible to fulfill the great commission, and are instruments of God in bringing true revival and awakening to the world around them. This awakening was understood to be a marvelous and surprising work of God in saving mass numbers of men and women from their own sin. And this is why this statement is so preposterous. Far from exuding this kind of pessimistic spirit of despair which Morgan arbitrarily places upon the Puritans, the Puritans were great optimists in their understanding of redemptive history, and the triumph of God’s kingdom. Many Puritans were postmillenialists, and refused to believe that the evil of the world was, “incurable and inevitable.” Obviously the Puritans believed that evil would continue to exist in the world, and that not every man had been chosen by God unto salvation. Yet their understanding of the future was characterized by a robust optimism which taught that the nations would be drawn to Christ, and that He would have dominion and glory for all eternity. Here is a statement from the WCF, in light of Morgan’s fourth proposition. I found this article particularly fitting, since it reveals the optimistic nature of Puritan thought, in expecting the Holy Spirit to effectually call God’s elect, and overcome all their enemies.
WCF, Chapter 8, Article 8
To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation, effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit, overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensations.
I found the last of Morgan’s propositions to be somewhat strange. He rightly claims that the Puritans believed in the necessity of labor, and the goodness of God’s creation, to appreciate and enjoy. Yet he then creates his own paradox by saying that the Puritans were to work and enjoy the creation absentmindedly, with their whole attention fixed upon God. I presume that by this statement, he pictures the Puritans as believing that every moment of every day must be spent in the active contemplation of God. This is a common misunderstanding of Puritan thought. It’s often claimed that the Puritans had a low view of sex, because of their belief that sex distracts mankind from the contemplation of God, and the exercise of true holiness. I’ve heard that from a high school teacher. Yet in reality, the Puritans had a very high view of sex, work, recreation, and other worldly enjoyments (in its truest sense) . They believed that work was forbidden on the Sabbath, but that labor and other common enjoyments (such as dining at an inn or tavern) were perfectly acceptable on every other day of the week. That’s why I’ve included portions from the Confession’s statement on the Sabbath.
WCF, Chapter 22, Articles 7 and 8
7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which from the beginning of the world to the ressurection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
8. The Sabbath is then , kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments, and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
I love the Puritans, because the Puritans loved God, and grounded their life and theology in the revelation of God in Scripture. I’m personally troubled when the Puritans are unjustly criticized, and when revisionist historians seek to make a mockery of their life and theology. The Puritans weren’t perfect, and they had their problems. Yet like a beautiful diamond set against the backdrop of a black surface, so the Puritan movement also stands as a beautiful monument to the grace of God in history, against the black backdrop of those who hate the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and have no part in His Kingdom.
Soli Deo Gloria.
“There are many ways to take God’s name in vain. We do it when we say “Praise the Lord!” or use some other Christian cliche without really meaning it. We do it when we slap God’s name on a T-shirt or bumper sticker and use it as a slogan to boost sales. We do it when we use His Word to make jokes or when we write Christian songs with trite lyrics. These are all serious violations of the third commandment, but the most subtle and perhaps the most common way we break it is by being careless in our worship. As we look at the church today, it is tempting to wonder whatever happened to God. There seems to be so little reverence and awe, so little trembling before his majesty. Instead, we take God lightly. David Wells calls this the “weightlessness of God.” Others have described it as the “trivialization of God.” Such a trivial view of God comes from trivial talk about Him. We do not recognize his true glory when we come into his presence for worship. Our thoughts wander when we pray. Our eyes pass over the pages of Scripture, but our minds are not open to God’s Word. And when we sing, our hearts are not in tune with our voices. We are like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who said, “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below; words without thoughts never to heaven go!” Our worship is casual, careless, and insincere, and in this way we dishonor God’s name.”
-Phillip Graham Ryken, Written in Stone
Question 111: Which is the third commandment?
Answer: The third commandment is, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain.
Question 112: What is required in the third commandment?
Answer: The third commandment requires, That the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the Word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and: Whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and
Answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Question 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable.
Questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
Question 114: What reasons are annexed to the third commandment?
Answer: The reasons annexed to the third commandment, in these words, The Lord thy God, and, For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain, are, because he is the Lord and our God, therefore his name is not to be profaned, or any way abused by us; especially because he will be so far from acquitting and sparing the transgressors of this commandment, as that he will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment, albeit many such escape the censures and punishments of men.
