On Communion with God - John Owen

It is true, there is not an immediate acting of faith upon
the Father, but by the Son. "He is the way, the truth, and the
life: no man comes unto the Father but by him," Joh 14: 6. He
is the merciful high priest over the house of God, by whom we
have access to the throne of grace: by him is our manuduction
unto the Father; by him we believe in God, l Pet. 1: 21. But
this is that I say, - When by and through Christ we have an
access unto the Father, we then behold his glory also, and see
his love that he peculiarly bears unto us, and act faith
thereon. We are then, I say, to eye it, to believe it, to
receive it, as in him; the issues and fruits thereof being
made out unto us through Christ alone. Though there be no
light for us but in the beams, yet we may by beams see the
sun, which is the fountain of it. Though all our refreshment
actually lie in the streams, yet by them we are led up unto
the fountain. Jesus Christ, in respect of the love of the
Father, is but the beam, the stream; wherein though actually
all our light, our refreshment lies, yet by him we are led to
the fountain, the sun of eternal love itself. Would believers
exercise themselves herein, they would find it a matter of no
small spiritual improvement in their walking with God.

Lloyd-Jones, the Reformed and Revival

Lloyd-Jones asks, "Why is it that men belonging to the Reformed tradition, of all traditions, have apparently lost interst in the question of revival? I have already given you one reason, which is the danger of becoming theoretical and intellectual in one's approach." This, I believe, is a dominant error in Reformed & Presbyterian circles. Despite pretexts to the contrary, we trust in our system and our own measures to accomplish whatever it is we are pursuing and allow "grace" to cover it. Sounds spiritual and sounds like it is trusting in God, but it is not.

"Secondly, I am sure that this phenomenon was due to the fact that so much energy in the last century had to be givn to the fight against Modernism (insert 'post-modernism' or becoming 'emergent', hip, or missional). The enemy was attacking along that particular line and all the energy of the orthodox was bent to quell him and to hold him back and to defeat him. Yes, but unconsciously they allowed this conflict to control their entire thinking, and apologetics became the cheif thing with them instead of a positive message. The same thing had happened in the early part of the 18th century. Rationalism and Deism had come in and the church became concerned about it. Why did they do? They set up the Boyle Lectures, Butler wrote his Analogy, and so on. They tried to stem the tide by answering the objections and dealing with the intellectual position. Do not misunderstand me; I am not arguing agains the value of apologetics altogether, but I am saying this, that a church which becomes governed by the apologetic interest is a church that is ceasing to function positively. The devil has got her, and she tends to be negative only and to fail to recognize the positive activity of the Holy Spirit. History shows that what Boyle lecturers and Bishop BUtler and others failed to do, God did by pouring out His Spirit upon men like Whitefield and Wesley.

"The third reason, I would say, is a natural dislike of too much emotion. The theological thinker tends to be distrustful of emotion. After all, he argues, other people can and do display emotion; but we are different. In a most subtle manner such a man develops a dislike of emotion that becomes unhealthy and wrong; he loses his balance, and becomes guilty of quenching the Spirit."

That God would raise up a few more Lloyd-Jones'.

Federal Vision, Rome, Revival and the Holy Spirit

Generally speaking, I buy into a more "Federal Vision" view of things. I think the covenant is preeminent and that the Bible puts a far greater stress on the Church and the sacraments than most Reformed and evangelicals allow. Some may disagree with my perceptions of the FV, but that is what I've gleaned in reading, listening, and interacting with some of them. Yet, a few years ago, there was a web site called "Reformed Catholicism", which is now "Prophezie". Now, I don't know what happened, but there seemed to be a shift in this gentleman's thinking from "Reformed Catholicism", which seemed sympathetic to "FV", to becoming "Prephezie", which seems to be against the Federal Vision stuff. Anyway, I mention this because when Kevin Johnson started critiquing Federal Vision theology, I think he was headed in the right direction, placing his emphasis on the Holy Spirit. In short, there are two visions of the Holy Spirit (Warfield's "The Plan of Salvation" is helpful at this point, which, although written for the "evangelical" position turned me more into a "sacerdotalist"). In my casual reading of the New Testament, I don't find the same spirit in the Apostles as I find many of the FV guys. By "spirit", I simply mean their own personal drive, disposition, or emphasis. There is a dynamic in Acts and through the Epistles that I find where the Holy Spirit is vibrant and alive and not merely an objective element within the covenant or merely working through "Church officers", the sacraments, etc. It is not simply in baptism and the Eucharist that I enjoy the Holy Spirit. Anyway, without dying the death of a thousand qualifications, I think D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones gets at the split that Kevin pointed out and that I see:

"The first thing I would mention is this. There has never been a revival in the Roman Catholic Church. That is a significant fact as a starting point. Individuals in that church have known and experienced what can be called revival, but the Church as such has never known revival. Why? I would say that the main explanation is this - it is a direct consequence of their whole doctrine of the Holy Spirit. They confine the Holy Spirit to the Church and the priesthood, and particularly the sacraments, and more particularly still to that of baptism. So, dealing with the Holy Spirit and His operations in that way, they leave no room for revival at all, and the result is that they never have revival."

He adds regarding the Anglican Church - "on the whole it is true to say that the Anglican Church has not known much about revival. There have been occasions when men in her ministry have undoubtedly been part and parcel of revival, and greatly used, as we shall see, but, looking at her history, there has been no such thing as a general revival in the Anglican Church...Now Why is this? Is it possible that there is something in her form of service that militates against the freedom of the operation of the Spirit?"

To get a more "Federal Vision" perspective, you can look for James Jordan & Peter Leithart's papers in "The Reconstruction of the Church".

Paul and Works

As Protestants, we almost oppose all mention of work and works. Grace is passive. It is something received and we do absolutely nothing to earn. This is true. Yet, when that grace does come upon us, it works. Or, perhaps better expressed, God works. It is God's grace and not a mere fluid that we receive. Twice in 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of his hard work.

1. 1 Co. 4.12 - "we labor, working with our own hands". Thistleton points out that this "signifies hard toil to the point of weariness or near exhaustion. Per Thistleton, it sounds like Paul worked in a "sweat shop" & was all too common, which annoyed some at Corinth. Would we go out to hear a "tinker" (Bunyan) or a man coming in from the sweat shops?

2. 1 Co. 15.10 - "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, thought it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me." Does God's grace toward you cause action and work or passivity? Is it an Oprah Winfrey sort of grace that merely allows you to say, "I'm not o.k., you're not o.k., but that's o.k."? The true grace of God that brings about salvation causes toiling and, what is more, teaches us to say 'no' to ungodliness & 'yes' to righteousness in this present age.

Am I under God's grace?

On Becoming Scum and Refuse for the Lord

A quick perusal of web sites and pastoral biographies on those sites, we often find this description: "God is exhibiting us [ministers] as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake...we are weak...we are in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things."

Sorry, that's not what we hear. Instead, we hear of their degrees, their sundry passions - motorcycles, UFC, bleaching the tips of their hair - and how they are every bit as worldly as the world. The last thing they want to be identified as and, what is worse, the last thing they think the world needs them to be identified as, is "the scum of the world and the refuse of all things."

I write this as I struggle with this. I was an open-air preacher and there are numerous reasons I stepped away - need for greater sanctification being preeminent - but there is also an entitlement mentality that I have. My father was productive, providing generously for the family. We weren't rich, rich, but I don't remember any desires going unmet, aside from a new car at 16. In my mind, I should continue to have that life. In some ways, it is a good thing. I do think it is good for Christians to be productive, diligent, and, yes, rich, but it is more the mentality or the spirit, not of the laity, but of the ministers that enter into the ministry with "lifestyle" expectations of their youth.

When Paul was called the Lord said, "I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." And Paul says, "I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I have received."

I thought abut this more as I was reading on Whitefield and Wesley. Wesley, on April 2, 1739, being called by God and Whitefield to the open-air wrote in his journal, "I submitted to become more vile, and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation." And Whitefield wrote on May 13, 1739, "But if this [field preaching and the free offer of the Gospel] is to be vile, Lord grant that I may be more vile. I know this foolishness of preaching is made instrumental to the conversion and edification of numbers. Ye Pharisees mock on, I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

That the Lord may be please to make ministers more vile.

Growth Under Whitefield's Ministry

Whitefield's Bristol endeavours grew apace. The young people's meeting which met at his sister's home each Sunday morning at 6 o'clock increased so rapidly that within five weeks it had brown from its original fifty to five thousand, and now met as a great open-air congregation on a near-by bowling green. The Societies were so crowded that, in one instance, Whitefield 'was obliged to go up by a ladder through the window', and in another it was necessary for him to 'stand and expound at the window, so that those in the yard, which was full, might hear.' One Society attempted to remedy matters by renting a public auditorium, Weaver's Hall, but of the first meeting there Whitefield said, 'I was almost faint before I could get in through the crowd.'

Whitefield, The Church, & Pharisees

I was not in England at the time, but if the ancestors of the Church of England are any indicator of what they were like, then it is no wonder that Whitefield (and others) were rejected vehemently by these men. More than that, I am amazed at the absurdity of so many of the laws and rules that governed the Church. Rules that are the mere traditions of men. Whitefield was oft opposed early on, because Chancellors would not let him preach without a license, so Whitefield preached outdoors and in "societies". This drew one chancellors ire. As Whitefield's popularity grew and the Chancellor called him in for a an interview.

Chancellor: I intend to stop your proceedings! I have sent for the Registrar here, Sir, to take down your answer. By what authority do you preach in the diocese of Bristol without a license?

Whitefield: I thought that custom had grown obsolete. Pray, Sir why did you not ask the Irish clergyman this question, who preached for you last Thursday?

Chancellor: That is nothing to you!

Then reading over part of the Ordination Office, and the canons forbidding ministers to preach in private houses (WHAT IN THE HELL IS THAT?), he asked, 'What do you say to these?'

Whitefield: I apprehend that these canons do not belong to professed ministers of the Church of England.

Chancellor: But they do!

Whitefield: There is a canon forbidding all clergymen to frequent taverns and play at cards! Why is not that put into execution?

Chancellor: Why does not somebody lodge a complaint? In such a case it would.

Whitefield: My principles may be known by all from my printed sermons. Why then am I taken particular notice of?

Chancellor: You preach false doctrine.

Whitefield: I cannot but preach the things I know, and am resolved to proceed as usual.

Chancellor: Observe his answer, Mr Registrar! (Then turning to Whitefield), I am resolved, Sir, if you preach or expound anywhere in this diocese till you have a license, I will first suspend, and then excommunicate you! What I do is in the name of the clergy and laity of Bristol!

(I would've responded...And what I do is in the name of Jesus and the laity of Bristol!)

Following this exchange Whitefield wrote, 'To show how little I regarded such threatenings, after I had joined in prayer for the Chancellor, I immediately went and expounded at Newgate, where God gave me great joy and wondrously pricked many to the heart, as though He would say, 'This is the way. Walk ye in it!'

Whitefield - After His First "Open Field" Sermon

"Blessed be God! I have now broken the ice! I believe I was never more acceptable to my Master than when I was standing to teach those hearers in the open fields. Some may censure me, but if I thus pleased men I should not be the servant of Christ."

Whitefield: Into the Fields

"[Whitefield] was moved by a love for these pitiable people: 'My bowels have long since yearned', he wrote at the time, 'toward the poor colliers, who are very numerous and as sheep having no shepherd.' And if he felt any qualms as to his action he dispelled them with the realization of the clear Scriptural precedent: 'I thought that I might be doing a service for my Creator, who had a mountain for his pulpit and the heavens for his sounding board; and who, when his Gospel was refused by the Jews, sent his servants into the highways and hedges.'"

Into the Open Air

"Open-air preaching is now so commonplace that it is difficult to realize how outlandish it seemed then. There had long been propaganda to the effect that any display of spiritual earnestness might lead to trouble - even to civil disorder - and the generality of Englishman believed it. Public opinion confined the clergyman to a narrow area of activity, and though this might include such things as drunkenness and gambling, it left no room for evangelistic fervour."

Somethings never change.

External Expressions

Burqas are an external expression of religion. Granted, it is oppressive and a false religion, but an external expression none-the-less. I like that Sarkozy understands that secularism is in conflict with Islam and understands there are external expressions of their faiths. Unfortunately, Christians who are into cutting, scarring and tattooing say something similar as these burqas, but since it is the oppression of paganism and their own culture, they can barely see it. Perhaps burqas will become culturally hip and Christian women can start wearing those. They can "redeem" the burqa.

External and Internal Religion

Following up on Whitefield's comment, I think it important to add this from John Williamson Nevins. I am a pietist. I can bleach my hair, but my roots will eventually show. Yet, amidst this, perhaps I am not as pietistic as I think, I think the Church and the Eucharist are central to piety. Like Whitefield, I can't buy an external Christ and an external Christianity, but one that is vibrant from within. With that preface, here is Nevins:

The whole conception that the externalization of the Christian life is something accidental only to the constitution of this life itself- a sort of mechanical machinery, to help it forward in an outward way-is exceedingly derogatory to the Church, and injurious in its bearings on religion. An outward Church is the necessary form of the new creation in Christ Jesus, in its very nature; and must continue to be so, not only through all time, but through all eternity likewise. Outward social worship, which implies, of course, forms for the purpose, is to be regarded as something essential to piety itself. A religion without externals, must ever be fantastic and false. The simple utterance of religious feeling, by which the spirit takes outward form, is needed, not for something beyond itself, but for the perfection of the feeling itself. Forms, in this sense, not as sundered from inward life, of course, but as embracing it, enter as a constituent element into the very life of Christianity. As a real, human, historical constitution in the world, the outward and the inward in the Church can never be divorced, without peril to all that is most precious in the Christian faith. We have no right to set the inward in opposition to the outward, the spiritual in opposition to the corporeal, in religion. The incarnation of the Son of God, as it is the principle, forms also the true measure and test, of all sound Christianity, in this view. To be real, the human, as such, and of course the divine also in human form, must ever externalize its inward life. All though, all feeling, every spiritual state, must take body, (in the way of word, or outward form of some sort,) in order to come at all to any true perfection in itself. This is the proper, deep sense of all liturgical services in religion. The necessity here affirmed is universal. The more intensely spiritual any state may be, the more irresistibly urgent will ever be found its tendency to clothe itself, and make itself complete, in a suitable external form. Away with the imagination, then, that externals in Christianity, (including the conception of the visible Church itself), are something accidental only to its true constitution, a cunningly framed device merely for advancing some interest foreign from themselves. To think of the Church, and of Christian worship, as a means simply to something else, is to dishonour religion itself in the most serious manner.

Eclectic in My Studies

I have been eclectic in my studying recently and way off track of my 2009 book reading agenda, but I have greatly enjoyed listening to Piper's biographies recently. Within that, he has me thinking about Jonathan Edwards and the way he studied the Scriptures. Well, in searching around I came across this, which I just might have to try. That is pretty sweet.

Doctrinal Difference

Starting to have some conflict with the clergy of the Church of England, Whitefield writes, "...sat up til near one in the morning with my honoured brother and fellow-labourer, John Wesley, in conference with two clergymen of the Church of England, and some other strong opposers of the doctrine of the New Birth. God enabled me, with great simplicity, to declare what He had done for my soul, which made them look upon me as a madman...I am fully convinced there is a fundamental difference between us and them. They believe only an outward Christ, we further believe that He must be inwardly formed in our hearts also."

Praying that Christ is fully formed in me.

George Whitefield on Faith

"Jesus Christ has begun and He will carry on, He will finish the good work in our souls. We have nothing to do but to lay hold on Him by faith, and to depend on Him for wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. Not but we must be workers together with Him; for a true faith in Jesus Christ will not suffer us to be idle. No, it is an active, lively restless principle; it fills the heart, so that it cannot be easy till it is doing something for Jesus Christ."

Thank God for the Great Cloud of Witnesses.

The Fruit of the Spirit vs the Fruit of the Flesh

The other day, I was praying and thinking through the "fruit of the Spirit". It is often claimed that the "fruit of the Spirit", like all fruit, takes time to bear, so we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves if we aren't bearing much of the Spirit's fruit. I remember being told this in college by a campus minister, because I was disappointed and frustrated with the fruit I was bearing. Now, let me say, there is definitely wisdom in this. There is definitely truth in this. I was in a state of repentance and desiring to serve the Lord, so there is an element where I was in the Spirit.

However, generally speaking, I don't believe Paul's purpose in talking about the "fruit of the Spirit" is to indicate that it takes time to produce said actions, although a partial truth. For example, how many of us will claim that it takes a long time of cultivation to produce the "fruit (works) of the flesh"? Does it really take that much effort to lie, be sexually immoral, etc.? No, it is the natural outcome of being in the flesh. It is our condition. And, so it is with the Spirit. Being in the Spirit is a state or condition that one is in. One can see or know if they are in the Spirit by the fruit they (and their community) are producing. IF they (you) are producing sexual immorality, lies, witch craft, orgies, drunkenness, etc., THEN don't rest easy and don't just tell yourself, "Oh, in due time I will be pure, truth-telling, joyful, etc." You are in the Flesh and not in the Spirit and we know that those who walk according to the flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

So, Paul's "fruit" analogy, I believe, is more akin to Christ's - a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit. You know them by their fruit. Are you in the Spirit? You know that by the fruit you are bearing.

So, what does this mean? For me, it kind of brings me back 14 years and wonder, how am I walking and am I making any progress in the Spirit? Why do I so often produce fleshly fruit? By the grace of God, it is leading me to repentance and the wonderful life of the Spirit. I have tasted of the Spirit recently and He is good. It is a good and joyful thing to walk in the Spirit. May God be pleased to have us walk more fully in the Spirit.

Why I Am Still Single

This sums up my ability at romance...

John Wesley on the Christian Life

On January 1, 1733, I preached before the University in St. Mary's church, on "the Circumcision of the Heart;" an account of which I gave in these words: "It is that habitual disposition of soul which, in the sacred writings, is termed' holiness; and which directly implies, the being cleansed from sin `from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit;' and, by consequence the being endued with those virtues which were in Christ Jesus the being so `renewed in the image of our mind,' as to be `perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect."' (Vol. V., p. 203.)  In the same sermon I observed, "`Love is the fulfilling of the law, the end of the commandment.' It is not only `the first and great' command, but all the commandments in one. `Whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise,' they are all comprised in this one word, love. In this is perfection, and glory, and happiness: The royal law of heaven and earth is this, `Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.' The one perfect good shall be your one ultimate end. One thing shall ye desire for its own sake, -- the fruition of Him who is all in all. One happiness shall ye propose to your souls, even an union with Him that made them, the having `fellowship with the Father and the Son,' the being `joined to the Lord in one spirit.' One design ye are to pursue to the end of time, --the enjoyment of God in time and in eternity. Desire other things so far as they tend to this; love the creature, as it leads to the Creator. But in every step you take, be this the glorious point that terminates your view. Let every affection, and thought and word, and action, be subordinate to this. Whatever ye desire or fear, whatever ye seek or shun, whatever ye think speak, or do, be it in order to your happiness in God, the sole end, as well as source, of your being.".

Justice & Good Works

Ex-major leaguer Mel Hall was sentenced to 45-years in prison for being convicted on three counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child.  Mel's attorney highlights the works righteous mentality of many.  About the sentencing he says, "For all the good this man has done in his life, it seems like this was an excessive verdict."  How confused is this man's sense of justice?

When a Culture Becomes Insane