The truth of hell should fill us with traumatic awe

 Twenty years ago the veteran evangelical theologian J. I. Packer gave an address on "Hell and Human Destiny" in Cardiff.  Packer set out the biblical teaching on hell and responded to the annihilationist teaching of John Stott as well as several other prominent evangelical Anglicans.  I heartily recommend that you listen to it.

One of the most helpful aspects of the address, given Rob Bell's explanation of the meaning of aionos, is that Packer discusses the meaning of the word at length and comments on its use in several NT texts.

The audio is available for download here

One of the most frequently read posts on this blog is an article of mine published by the Evangelical Magazine, "Hell: Separation from God's Presence?"

A few years I interviewed Robert Peterson of Covenant Seminary, who has written so helpfully on the doctrine of hell.  Here is an extract from the interview:

Why has there been a willingness by some evangelicals in the last one hundred years or so to accept and embrace annihilationalism?
 
Though some annihilationists insist that the Bible alone has motivated their rejection of the historic doctrine, others admit that emotional considerations have played a part. Without judging the motives of individuals, my opinion is that the intellectual and emotional climate of our times has more to do with the move away from some historic doctrines, including that of hell, than many realize.

In an increasingly pluralistic culture, it is politically incorrect to hold that people who do not trust Christ as Lord and Savior, will suffer everlasting torment in body and soul. But that is exactly what the Bible teaches. (For a recent defense of exclusivism, the view that one must hear and believe the gospel of Christ in this life to be saved, see, C. W. Morgan and R. A. Peterson, Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism (InterVarsity, 2008.)

Perhaps the candid response of one employee of an Evangelical publisher, when asked what she thought of a book featuring a debate between traditionalism and annihilationism, reflects the default mode of many: “I certainly hope that annihilationism is true!” It is not our place to hope that certain things are true with reference to the things of God. It is our place to humbly receive the Word that God has given. That means restraining our curiosity where the Word is silent. And that means believing and obeying God’s truth even if we don’t like it.

Two orthodox doctrines that became immediate targets for “liberated” human reason in the Enlightenment—original sin and eternal conscious punishment for the lost—are not my favorites. But the Word of God teaches them and so I am obligated to receive them as true and to live accordingly.

I am afraid that too many people today reach conclusions as to what they believe concerning the Christian faith on the basis of their feelings and desires rather than the teaching of Scripture. As J. I. Packer remarked some years ago, “If you want to see folk damned something is wrong with you!” Of course this is true, but Packer went on to say that some of God’s truth is hard and one such truth is the Bible’s teaching concerning eternal hell.

It seems to me that the hard words of D. A. Carson are correct: “Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the ‘hard lines’ of Scripture” (The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism [Zondervan, 1996], 536.). But the Lord requires nothing less of us than, by his grace, to be faithful.

In your experience what has been the status of the doctrine of hell among church members and in the thinking of those training to be pastors?
I have been active in local evangelical churches for forty years and in the training of pastors for thirty. Unfortunately, in my experience, the doctrine of hell has been neglected among church members and even in the thinking of those training to be pastors.


The words of Lesslie Newbigin are truer today than when he penned them in 1994: “It is one of the weaknesses of a great deal of contemporary Christianity that we do not speak of the last judgment and of the possibility of being finally lost” (“Confessing Christ in a Multi-Religion Society,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 12 [1994]: 130–31, quoted in Carson, The Gagging of God, 536).


Part of the blame should be placed at the feet of evangelical pastors, whom surveys show have been slow to teach and preach what the Bible says about hell. My study of hell in the mid-1990’s brought me to repentance because I was personally guilty of such neglect.


My experience has been that if we can bring hell to evangelicals’ minds and hearts, if we can move it from being a passive to an active doctrine, then they will begin to pray about their lost friends and loved ones as never before. That in turn motivates them to share the gospel as the Holy Spirit leads. And that produces fruit in terms of spiritual growth in the lives of the evangelists and salvation for some of those evangelized. 

How should the doctrine of hell be preached?

It should be preached by pastors who have a deep sense of Christ’s redeeming them from hell (see Sinclair B. Ferguson, “Pastoral Theology: The Preacher and Hell,” in Hell under Fire, 219–37). Such pastors must prayerfully, lovingly, and faithfully share the message of Jesus, the Redeemer of the world, and his apostles that those who die in their sins will suffer “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46), even “the punishment of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thess. 1:9). 

At times I have found it impossible not to weep as I speak of Christ suffering the pains of hell, of drinking the cup of God’s wrath for us, so that we do not have to do so. The Bible’s message of hell is a topic worthy of study, but in addition, it has to be something that moves us to action—to repentance, when we consider what our sins deserve; to prayer, out of compassion for the lost; to worship, when we consider what Christ endured to redeem us; and certainly, to witness, when we desire for others to know our great God and Savior.

Doomed to be Saved: The Problem of Universalism Today

From J. I. Packer:

If all people are, in the title of a 19th Century tract, 'Doomed to be Saved', then it follows that the decisiveness of decisions made in this life, and the urgency of evangelism here in this life, are undermined.  Other ways of loving your neighbour here in this life may now be considered as perhaps more important than seeking to win him or her to Christ.  And it is no accident that keenness on the social gospel, so-called, and universalist theology have gone hand in hand. (p. 171) 

This is a doctrine of salvation through, and out of, the state which the New Testament refers to in one place as 'perdition', in another place as 'eternal destruction', and in another as 'eternal punishment'.  It is an unqualified and unlimited optimism of grace.  Sin is a reality, hell is a reality: but God's grace is going to triumph in the end. (p. 176)

Collected Shorter Writings Vol. 1

Rob Bell, Hell, and the wisdom of Augustine

A couple of years ago I was chatting to a friend about the differences between online responses to theological debates and those found in print.  We were discussing the mud flung by N. T. Wright at the authors of Pierced For Our Transgressions.  By the time printed journals and evangelical newspapers had offered their comments and observations on that particular disturbance in the Force, the unrest about it in the blogosphere had well and truly come to an end.

Now it is Rob Bell's turn to trigger the sound of the air raid warning in much the same way as Steve Chalke did over penal substitution a few years back.  The doctrine under scrutiny has altered, but the reaction to it is very much along the same lines.  Whenever an article of orthodox Christian belief is questioned, challenged, or denied, whenever a well established biblical truth is "exposed" by a well known evangelical author or speaker as if all along we have been hoodwinked about what Jesus really meant, there is a twin response made by those seeking to defend the truth.

To begin with, aberrations from orthodoxy call for careful analysis, exposition and refutation.  The merits of an opposing position need to understood, fairly presented, and weighed.  Parts of an author's proposal need to be considered in the whole context of that work, or in other words, read in context.  This is all part and parcel of evaluation and refutation.  In the case of Rob Bell's Love Wins we have little to go on until the book has been published, read and digested.

Until then, despite all the noise, we will not have much to engage with.  What is he saying?  How is he interpreting Scripture?  What is he rejecting?  What conclusions has he drawn?  How will this affect the lives of those who embrace his teaching?  Provocative trailers aside, what is the substance of his position?  We will know much more when we have read the book.  I have read a few chapters of Love Wins, but I would like to read them in the context of the whole book.

Doubtless too there needs to be a frank look at the quality of the arguments, and the exposition of Scripture and logic that underpins them, aside from the personality and media image that accompanies them.  Bad and insubstantial arguments can travel a long way on the strength of the personality advocating them and not because of their inherent worth.

The second response offered when someone is moving away from orthodoxy and taking others with them, is the presentation of a clear statement, exposition, and defense of the particular truth under attack.  In addition to blog posts, articles, lectures and sermons appearing on the doctrine of hell it would not surprise me to see some new books and multi-author volumes too.  Not that we lack helpful resources.

For some time evangelicalism has adopted a culture of plausibility concerning the eternality and justice of hell, and has never come to terms with that fact that useful men can wreak havoc when they depart from sound doctrines.  However, we have not lacked men who have kept their nerve and refuted the arguments of the deniers of eternal punishment.

Fresh attacks on old truths, provided that they are of sufficient weight, do present us with an opportunity to look at the roots of a doctrine and our own precision and nuance in stating it.  We can always do a better job of articulating the truth, especially when our contemporary popular expositions of it are connected with the confessional and theological heritage of the church.

Finally, here is the wise counsel of Augustine on the benefits of heresies:

This predestination of the saints is certain and manifest; which necessity afterwards compelled me to defend more diligently and laboriously when I was discussing the subject in opposition to a certain new sect.  For I have learned that every separate heresy introduces into the Church its peculiar questions, which call for a more diligent defence of the Holy Scripture, than if no necessity of defence well and the e had arisen. 

For what was it that compelled me to defend, in that work of mine, with greater copiousness and fuller explanation those passages of the Scriptures in which predestination is set before us?  What, but the starting up of the Pelagians, who say that the grace of God is given to us according as we render ourselves deserving of it?

From On the Blessing of Perseverance, quoted by Calvin in De Aeterna Predestinatione Dei (1552).  The English translation by Henry Cole is found in Reformed Cofessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation Volume 1: 1523-1552 (compiled by James T. Dennison, Jr.), p. 706-7

The real absence of Jesus from the pages of the Old Testament

Now I want to remind you, although you fully knew it, 

that Jesus, 

who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, 

afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Jude 5 (ESV)

Most contemporary evangelicals adopt an approach to the doctrine of God in the Old Testament that is functionally modalist, or unitarian.  God is regarded as a person, with only a vague inkling, insufficient for its time, that within the Godhead there is a plurality of three distinct divine persons.

The Word of God and the Wisdom of God are taken to be personifications rather than persons, and the descriptions of the Spirit in personal terms (being grieved, instructing, and giving rest, see Neh. 9:20; Isa. 63:10, 14) are not given sufficient attention, even though they are every bit as important in establishing the personal nature and agency of the Spirit as the Pauline texts in 1 Cor. 2:13 and Eph. 4:30.  It is surely undeniable that in the Old Testament the work of the Spirit is the work of a divine person.

In the great Isaianic prophecies concerning the Messiah, who is he anointed with (11:1-3)?  Who sends the Messiah and the Spirit (42:1; 48:16; 61:1)?  Can we afford to think of this Spirit anointing in vague or impersonal terms when Isaiah also tells us that the Spirit give the people rest and that they grieved him in the wilderness (63:10-14)?

Is it not that case that Messianic Servant is described in terms reserved for deity ("high and lifted up" 52:13, see the use of this phrase in 6:1 and 57:15) whilst at the same time Isaiah tells us of his true and lowly humanity (49:1-7; 52:12-14; 53:2, 5, 9, 11 etc.)?

It may be more helpful to think of these great Isaianic prophecies as movie trailers for the gospels, giving us glimpses ahead of the release date, of the words and works of the principal actors in the drama of redemption.  The prophets were not telling a cryptic tale about the denouement of God's dealings with Israel, they were looking for the Christ, anointed with the Spirit and sent by God.  They had the privilege of projecting onto the screen the snapshots of revelation that foresignified Christ to come.

On the subject of Christ in the Old Testament here, again, is Irenaeus in Against Heresies:

For he who has brought in the end [of the law] has himself also brought in the beginning; and it is he who does himself say to Moses, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them;" it being customary from the beginning with the Word of God to ascend and descend for the purpose of saving those who were in afflication. (4.12.4)

But when he terms the disciples "the friends of God," he plainly declares himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion, because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became "the friend of God" [Jas. 2:23].  But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though he stood in need of it, for he was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," he says, "I am"), but that he in his goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it." (4.13.4)

In this manner, therefore, did they also see the Son of God as a man conversant with men, while they prophesied what was to happen, saying that he who was not come as yet was present, proclaiming also the impassible as subject to suffering, and declaring that he who was then in heaven had descended into the dust of death. (4.20.8)

And the Word spake to Moses, appearing before him "just as one might speak to his friend." (4.20.9)

However, it was not by means of visions alone which were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works, that he was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them he might prefigure and and show forth future events beforehand. (4.20.12)

The Gospel Coalition and Irenaeus on Christ in the OT (1)

Over at the Gospel Coalition site there is an essential starter kit for preaching Christ from the OT made up of resources by contemporary and modern authors.  It is worthwhile to turn back the clock to the second century and to look at Irenaeus of Lyon's essential starter kit for knowing Christ in the OT as he wrestled with the Gnostic heretics.

Throughout the following extracts from Irenaeus two foundational points are being made.

1.  With regard to revelation, it is impossible to know God aright unless he is revealed to us in and by the Son.  This foundational truth is not something that holds true from the time of the incarnation.

2.  The Son appears personally in the OT to reveal God, to reveal the gospel beforehand through the prophets, to be the object of faith, and to rescue his people.

As far as Irenaeus was concerned the OT patriarchs could not have penned a volume with the title The Jesus We Never Knew.

Here are some extracts from his magisterial work Against Heresies (from whence this blog derives its title):

Here [Psalm 110:1] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; he who gave him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to his all his enemies.  Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.

And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven" [Gen. 19:24].  For it here points out that the Son, who had been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness.

And this does declare the same truth [Psalm 45:6-7]...For the Spirit designates both of them by the name of God--both him who is anointed as Son, and him who does anoint, that is, the Father. (Book 3: Ch. 6: Sect. 1)

And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, "I am come down to deliver this people" [Ex. 3:14].  For it is he who descended and ascended for the salvation of men.  Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in himself. (3:6:2)

On John the Baptist's relationship to Christ and the OT prophets he wrote:

For all the other prophets preached the advent of the paternal Light, and desired to be worthy of seeing him whom they preached; but John did both announce [the advent] beforehand, in a like manner as did the others, and actually saw him when he came, and pointed him out, and persuaded many to believe on him, so that he did himself hold the place of both prophet and apostle. (3:11:3)

On the personal appearance of Christ in the OT Irenaeus says the following:

And the Word of God himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with his divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. (3:11:8)

Christ himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. (4:5:2)

[Abraham]...followed the Word of God, walking as a pilgrim with the Word, that he might [afterwards] have his abode with the Word. (4:5:2)

Since, therefore, Abraham was a prophet, and saw in the Spirit the day of the Lord's coming, and the dispensation of his suffering, through whom both he himself and all who, following the example of his faith, trust in God, should be saved, he rejoiced exceedingly.  The Lord, therefore, was not unknown to Abraham, whose day he desired to see; nor again was the Lord's Father, for he had learned from the Word of the Lord, and believed him. (4:5:5)

"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor the Father, save the Son, and those to whom the Son shall reveal him" [Matt. 11:27]. For "shall reveal" was not said with reference to the future alone, as if then [only] the Word had begun to manifest the Father when he was born of Mary, but it applies indifferently throughout all time. (4:6:7)

With reference to John 8:56 he wrote:

For not alone upon Abraham's account did he say these things, but also that he might point out how all who have known God from the beginning, and have foretold the advent of Christ, have received the revelation from the Son himself; who also in the last times was made visible and passible... (4:7:2)

And here are some more extracts:

Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving the Word, by imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying "I have surely seen the affliction of my people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them" [Exodus 3:7-8]. (4:7:4)

"For if you had believed Moses, you would also have believed me; for he wrote of me" [John 5:39-40] [saying this] no doubt, because the Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah, giving him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another, inquiring after Adam; at another, bringing down judgement upon the Sodomites; and again, when he became visible, and directs Jacob on his journey, and speaks with Moses from the bush.  And it would be endless to recount [the occasions] upon which the Son of God is shown forth by Moses. [4:10:1]

Family fun with John Calvin

I discovered today, whilst reading a very popular book on the atonement (it's on page 170), that James Arminius was in fact the son-in-law of John Calvin.  I also discovered that Theodore Beza was Calvin's son-in-law too.

Just imagine the fun the three of them must have had debating limited atonement.  I bet they teased him a lot, "Go on old boy tell us what you really think, stop messing about with all that ambiguous use of 'the world', and 'all'."  But I am sure that John just chuckled to himself and said "Wouldn't it be funny if several centuries from now people debated what I really thought about the matter."

Taking an anachronistic approach to questions of historical theology really isn't that funny.  But claiming that Arminius and Beza married Calvin's daughters (not that he had any) is frankly absurd.  I don't think that there was much by way of checking sources on those two claims.

An uneasy bed for a dying man's conscience

In his letter vindicating 'The Doctrine of Justification from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism', Robert Traill put forward four points tho recommend the Reformed doctrine of justification.  Consider what he had to say in his third point about it's suitability to the frame of mind necessary when we approach God:

Men may think and talk boldly of inherent righteousness, and of its worth and value; of good works, and frames and dispositions: but when men present themselves before the Lord, and have any discoveries of his glory, all things in themselves will disappear, and be looked upon as nothing. 

No man can stand before this holy Lord God, with any peace and comfort, unless he have God himself to stay upon.  His grace and mercy in Jesus Christ, can only preserve a man from being consumed.  Hence we see the difference betwixt mens (sic) frame in their disputes and doctrine about these points, and their own sense and pleadings with God in prayer. (p.269)

Traill's fourth recommendation is the litmus test of the death bed, that place where good works flee away and where a lifetime's sins of omission and commission are churned up in the memory.  Traill's observations are not only helpful in putting forward the need to rest and rely on Christ alone but also in spelling out the tawdry and unstable alternatives:

Consider how it is with the most holy and eminent saints when dying. Did you ever see or hear any boasting of their works and performances?  They may, and do own, to the praise of his grace, what they have been made to be, what they have helped to do or suffer for Christ's sake. 

But when they draw near to the awful tribunal, what else is in their eye and heart, but only free grace, ransoming blood, and a well ordered covenant in Christ the Surety?  They cannot bear to hear any make mention to them of their holiness, their own grace and attainments. 

In a word, the doctrine of conditions, qualifications, and rectoral government, and the distribution of rewards and punishments, according to the new law of grace, will make an uneasy bed to a dying man's conscience; and will leave him in a very bad condition at present, and in dread of worse, when he is feeling, in his last agonies, that, the wages of sin is death, if he cannot by faith add, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Christ Jesus our Lord. (p. 270-1)

Theology at high altitude

This post is a short addendum to the four previous ones on Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears' criticisms of the eternal generation of the Son (and procession of the Spirit).  Compare their words with those of W. G. T Shedd written in 1887.

Driscoll and Breshears

The whole attempt to define the eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided...God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations.  We should follow the command of the Bible: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" and refuse to speculate...begotten unavoidably implies a beginning of the one begotten.  That would certainly lend support to the the Arian heresy that the Son is a created being and not the Creator God.

For these reasons it is best to omit the creedal terms "begotten" and "proceeds" from our definition of the Trinity.  Our authority is not in creeds but in Scripture. We stand with the universal Trinitarian definition of the church to confess that God is one God, eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. (Doctrine, p. 27-28)

The following from W. G. T. Shedd shows us, at the very least, that there is nothing new about the proposal being put forward in Doctrine:

In some sections of Christendom, it has been contended that the doctrine of the Trinity should be received without any attempt to establish it's rationality and intrinsic necessity.  In this case, the tenets of eternal generation and procession have been regarded as going beyond the Scripture data, and if not positively rejected, have been thought to hinder rather than assist faith in three divine persons and one God.


But the history of opinions shows that such sections of the church have not proved to be the stongest defenders of the Scripture statement, nor the most successful in keeping clear of the Sabellian, Arian, or even Socinian departure from it.

"Introductory Essay" to Augustine's De Trinitate, in Philip Schaff [ed.], Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. III, p. 3 (Emphasis added)

The chief of sinners

Every believer's experience witnesses to this, that every one that believes on Jesus Christ, acts faith as the chief of sinners.  Every man that sees himself rightly, thinks so of himself, and therein thinks not amiss.  God only knows who is truly the greatest sinner, and every humbled sinner will think that he is the man.

Robert Traill, The Doctrine of Justification Vindicated, p. 262-3

We all preach justification by faith

One of the most basic lessons we need to learn about doctrinal errors is that they so often involve mutually exclusive interpretations of the same biblical and theological vocabulary used by the orthodox.  Before I illustrate this point it is worth teasing out some implications.

If a mutually exclusive interpretation of the word justification occurs, within the context of a shared ecclesiastical or para church basis of faith, then that body, organisation, institution or grouping has a verbal unity in appearance only.

There is no substantial agreement when parts of the whole mean different things by the set of words adopted as the standard for the whole.  On the surface you think that you are looking at unity.  But when you look more closely at what lies beneath you begin to realise that people really do mean very different things even when they have signed up to the same form of words.

An almost bizarre example of this doctrinal confusion is that of the Henry Sloane Coffin, pastor of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church and associate professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York:

In subscribing to the Westminster Confession of Faith Coffin did not believe that he was accepting the doctrines stated in the Confession.  Rather, as he later maintained, "The formula [of subscription] means to me that under the supreme authority of Christ I receive the Confession as setting forth in seventeenth century thought and language the principle doctrines which have grown out of and foster the religious experience of protestant evangelical Christians, and which it is my privilege to teach in the best thought and speech at my command for those to whom I minister." (Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy, p. 85-6)

When conflict arises between opposing parties because there are real differences of interpretation despite the presence of an agreed set of words the most helpful way forward can take two forms.

1.  You have to ask whether a particular interpretation is a clear departure from the intended meaning of the framers of the original document.

2.  It may be necessary to ask if the wording of the original document needs expanding, not to add any new truth, not to move on in a direction contrary to the original, but as the best way to clarify the true meaning of the original by identifying and rejecting new errors.

Extra words and a fuller confessional statement may be needed because the original words have been hijacked.  As Augustine pointed out long ago, "It is underneath these few words, therefore, which are thus set in order, that most heretics have endeavoured to conceal their poisons" (A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 1)

Whether the first or second of these routes is followed, and they are not mutually exclusive, they represent a desire to avoid the Humpty Dumpty syndrome:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

One of the effects of this kind of confusion over words is that it can make controversies drag on for much longer than they need to.  Another effect is to make the work of discernment by church members that much harder.  They hear sound words and need to discern whether those sound words are being used in unsound ways.

Here is Traill's assessment of this issue with regard to justification by faith alone:

That we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, is so plainly a New Testament truth, that no man pretending never so barely to the Christian name, denies it.  The Papists own it; and the Socinians, and Arminians, and all own it.  But how different are their senses of it?  

And indeed you cannot more speedily and certainly judge of the spirit of a man, than by his real inward sense of the phrase, (if you could reach it), A sinner is justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

Some say, that faith in Jesus Christ justifies as it is a work...as if it came in the room of perfect obedience, required by the law.  Some, that faith justifies, as it is informed and animated by charity.  So the Papists who plainly confound justification and sanctification.

Some say, that faith justifies, as it is a fulfilling of the condition of the new covenant...they will have this faith to justify, as it hath a principle and fitness in it to dispose to sincere obedience.

The plain old Protestant doctrine is, that the place of faith in justification is only that of a hand or instrument, receiving the righteousness of Christ, for which only we are justified.  So that though great scholars do often confound themselves and others, in their disputations about faith's justifying a sinner; every poor plain believer hath the marrow of this mystery feeding his heart; and he can readily tell you, that to be justified by faith, is to be justified by Christ's righteousness, apprehended by faith.

The Doctrine of Justification Vindicated, p. 259

Via media?

A pearl of theological wisdom from Robert Traill (1642-1716):

Usually such men that are for middle ways in points of doctrine, have a greater kindness for that extreme they go half-way to, than for that which they go half-way from.

A Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine concerning Justification and of its Preachers and Professors from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism, in a letter from the author to a minister in the country, p. 253

What is and isn't at stake in a theological street fight

In a theological street fight we all know that what is at stake is the truth.

That is why those concerned to defend orthodoxy seek to make clear that there is a Truth War (MacArthur), No Place For Truth (Wells), that some views are Beyond the Bounds (Piper/Taylor/Helseth), and so on.  Of course what is at stake is never, strictly speaking, the truth.  God's truth is not vulnerable to the well meant or malicious assaults of those in error, it is simply impervious to attack.  Even in the face of overwhelming numbers one can afford to say "contra mundum? -- so what?"

The reality of God, Christ, sin, salvation, heaven and hell are never affected by the denials and distortions of heretics, false teachers and the theologically clueless.  What is affected is not the reality of these things but their perception and reception by those who in the face of truth ought to be humble receivers and not arbitrators of what is doctrinally acceptable.  Ironically as much as those waving a long goodbye to orthodoxy often complain about conservatives playing the part of the doctrine police, that is in fact exactly what those in serious error are seeking to do.

Objectively the status of the truth never alters.  It cannot be moved, shaken, disturbed or overthrown.  Subjectively, in the minds of men, it will either be affirmed, believed, taught, proclaimed, defended, clarified and made the rich fuel of devotion, or else it will be denied, hated, misrepresented, slandered, attacked, and kicked around as if it were expendable.

Does this make a difference?  Knowing that truth endures, despite the folly of it's detractors, makes a real pastoral difference.  In the thick of controversy you can afford to whisper to yourself "Don't forget, the Lamb wins, the earth will be covered with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." 

On this subject consider the wise words of Bruce Ware with which he opened his fine polemic book God's Lesser Glory:

Divine providence as a reality is ever steady, stable, steadfast, sure and strong.  Would that this were true for divine providence the doctrine.  Divine providence as a doctrine is in great turmoil.  Theological earthquakes shake its foundation.  This is no time for the weak-kneed and spineless to traverse its volatile terrain.  

As goes the doctrine of divine providence, so go vast portions of our entire doctrine of God and with it our conception of God's glory.  But again, do not fear.  The glory of God as a reality is vast, boundless, infinite, splendour-filled and wondrous.  As such, the glory that is God's alone is absolutely unshaken and undiminished by human proposals that would seek to make finite what is infinite, bounded what is boundless, and humanlike what is, eternally and uniquely, God's own.

Yet, our conception of the glory of God will be shaped largely by our understandings of his nature, his perfections, his sovereignty, his wisdom, his knowledge, his moral holiness and goodness, and through all of this his providence...while the turmoil over how best to formulate the doctrine of divine providence affects not a whit the actual greatness and glory of God (he is who he eternally is regardless of what anyone says of him!), this turmoil has an enormous impact on Christian thought and life.  To get it wrong here is to create a thousand related problems, both theological and practical. (p. 13)

Choosing speakers well (part the first)

This is a follow up to yesterday's tongue in cheek post about why it appears that there aren't that many good preachers in the former British colonies now known to all as the United States of America.  Tongue in cheek because I know that there are plenty of good preachers, but that isn't necessarily reflected in the remarkably small pool of speakers from which Reformed conferences fish.  In actual fact there are several pools, reflecting different shades and networks of the Reformed and Calvinistic world, and some speakers move more naturally than others from pool to pool.

At its best this does reflect the fact that whilst all word ministers are gifts of grace to the church we recognise that God raises up some men and ministries to become particular blessings to the whole church.  These men may or may not be the ones invited to all the conferences, but it would be wrong to despise such gifts and to succumb to the tall poppy syndrome.  Furthermore, not all ministers of the word have the gifts for such events, but some do and we benefit a great deal from God's work in them and through them. 

At its worst it is hard to see how a celebrity preacher culture is any different to the myopic vision about Christian leaders grossly exhibited by the Corinthians.  As the Puritan Richard Baxter once said "I am a pen in the hand of God, and what praise is due to a pen?"  Here in old Blighty whilst there is often little risk of an over the top appreciation of conference speakers I do think that we have something to learn from some of our American cousins about open warm appreciation of preachers. 

I have been in enough conference planning meetings to know that there are several factors when it comes to selecting speakers.  No doubt there is the financial risk and fear of small numbers if we don't go for the big name who will draw a crowd.  The fact of the matter is that many conferences can make decisions because of financial pressures.  The logical long term effect of this is to reduce the pool of well known speakers even further and to perpetuate the idea that the already recognised big names are the only ones worth going for. 

I also know that some conferences deliberately seek to give both opportunities to younger ministers and exposure to a wider audience, or to introduce some speakers known to the organisers to a new constituency.  One of the blessings of the latter is the fostering of real catholicity.  All of this is good.  The problem lies in the fact that so often our choices are coloured by our own prejudices and preferences, our spiritual immaturity and climate, and we run the risk of feeding unworthy agendas and missing out on real blessings. 

Whether we like it or not the danger of ubiquitous conferences, live streamed and available to download, is that a blessing can swiftly become a curse.  I am glad to live in an age where online riches are so freely available, but the big name, big budget, big audience conference has fast become the main event.  For all the antipathy Calvinists may feel about liturgical church calendars we have one of our own, the para-church conference circuit.  Is that a fair point?  Look at the coverage given to the matter in the blogosphere.

Besides which there are probably far too many conferences anyway, and far too many that subtly undermine local churches even if they say that their mission is to serve 'The Church'.  A feat that is easy to do in the abstract but which bears almost no relation to honouring real churches apart from mega ones.

Justification and the Law of God

What did Jesus obey?  For whom did he obey it?

If you deny that law has any reference to Gentiles, are you not forced to conclude that Jesus neither kept it for their sake, nor is his obedience imputed to them for their justification.

All of which makes me wonder whether varies stripes of New Covenant theology have the capacity to unravel the doctrine of imputation.

Why aren't there many decent preachers in America?

Can anyone answer that question?

I mean, it's a big country, but if you look at the Reformed conference line ups the preaching pool is pretty small because the same names appear all the time.

A Time to Blog: 12 Things that God is teaching me

My God has a good and gracious purpose in all the pain and sorrow that I experience in this life.

1.  He is teaching me to put less and less confidence in myself, in what flesh and blood and human wisdom can do

2.  He is teaching me that here there is no continuing city and that I should seek the one that is to come whose Builder and Maker is God.

3.  He is teaching me to live with a much longer term vision than I often do, a longer term vision that is frequently suffocated by my sinful desires and the pressing in of the technological and rebellious world on my internal life

4.  He is teaching me that man should never live by listening to the evil whisperings of Satan, and that only the promises of the Word can drown out his lies

5.  He is teaching me that all things come not by chance but by his Fatherly hand

6.  He is teaching me that I have much to repent of

7.  He is teaching me that without Jesus Christ I can do nothing

8.  He is teaching me that he is gracious and compassionate, and that those being renewed in his image bear his likeness and imitate his ways

9.  He is teaching me that in his great compassion he knows my frame and remembers that I am dust

10.  He is teaching me that all that I have is really his and not mine, that he gives and he takes away, and that therefore I should bow my head before his sovereign greatness and worship him

11.  He is teaching me that the faithful prayers of his people are his ordained means of lifting up my soul when I am downcast

12.  He is teaching me that his grace is sufficient for me and that his power really is made perfect in weakness, even though I don't want to feel weak

And all these things he has been teaching me not while I have been sat at a desk, or in a lecture theatre, but while I have been watching the slow turning of the hands of a clock, when I have been staring into the dark in the early hours, and when I have been wrestling with my fears sat quietly by the side of a hospital bed.

Have I learned all these lessons?

Not yet

Thank you for praying for Kezia

Nine days ago Kezia had a brain tumour removed.  Today she is at home for the day.  The photo was taken an hour ago.  We hope that on Monday or Tuesday he will be discharged from Alder Hey.  To those of you who read this blog and have prayed for her she says "thank you."  The Lord is gracious and compassionate.

Kezia's operation

You will never find Jesus so precious as when the world is one vast howling wilderness. Then He is like a rose blooming in the midst of the desolation,

--a rock rising above the storm.

Robert Murray M'Cheyne

As a family we are profoundly thankful that Kezia's surgery on Thursday 13th January has been successful.  The tumour has been removed with only a tiny speck remaining on the hypothalamus (removing this would have done some damage and left Kezia with some further significant health problems).  

At this stage no further treatment is required and there will be an MRI scan in three months.  We also await further eye tests to assess whether the damage to her peripheral vision will have improved.  As the tumour has caused significant damage to her pituitary gland and stalk Kezia is on daily medication to replace these hormones and will also need daily injections of growth hormone.  There is also the matter of managing her diabetes insipidus (the other diabetes).  

When I left the hospital yesterday it was hard to believe that she was up and walking around, full of good humour, and dressed in her own clothes just six days after major surgery.  We are hopeful that she will return home much sooner than anticipated, indeed her surgeon is happy to send her home now but the endocrinologists have some more work to do.

Whilst this has been a severe trial for us as a family we continue to be deeply encouraged by the prayerfulness and practical care of God's people locally and internationally.  

Exodus Reloaded

From the archives...

You don’t usually need a TV guide to know what films are on over Christmas. Every year, without fail, there are some classic films that return to our screens. It just wouldn’t be Christmas without The Wizard of Oz, The Sound of Music, or It’s a Wonderful Life.

There are two seasonally shown films that strike a chord with the events recorded in the second chapter of Matthew’s gospel. They are The Great Escape and The Italian Job. The latter is that classic British movie with Michael Caine and Noel Coward, but starring three Mini Coopers. More recently another film with the same name, loosely based on the original, was released.

A remake rarely lives up to the original. That observation, however, does not hold true for Matthew chapter two. In fact we will miss Matthew’s point unless we see that the events surrounding the birth of Jesus are in fact a remake of Old Testament events that surpass the originals.

A lesson in history

The connections between the OT Matthew 1-2 are obvious if we take a bird’s eye view of these chapters. We start off with a lesson in history. Matthew shows us the fulfilment of a promise made to Abraham and the descent of the crown through the line of David (1:1-17). We need to know that Jesus is descended from this particular family, a royal family. Matthew tells us about the birth and infancy of Jesus in five sections. Each section has a passage from the OT that is being fulfilled. The sections are:

Matthew 1-2	OT passage
1:18-25	Isaiah 7:14 ‘all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet’ (v22)
2:1-12	Micah 5:2 (2 Sam 5:2) ‘for this is what the prophet has written’ (v5)
2:13-15	Hosea 11:1 ‘and so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet’ (v15)
2:16-18	Jeremiah 31:15 ‘then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled’ (v17)
2:19-23	‘So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene”.’ (v23)

With this overview in place we can focus in on some of the details.

The king who opposes God’s Son (Matt. 2:1-16)

When Matthew shows us what happened when the Magi met Herod we are witnessing a remake of the opening chapters of the book of Exodus.


The remake has some surprising reversals. For one thing the OT has consistently portrayed the magicians and wise men of the nations as the bad guys who always come second when they clash with God’s people. Witness the power encounter between the magicians of Pharaoh’s court and Moses and Aaron (Ex. 8:7,18). Fast forward to the time of Daniel and we see the same outcome (Dan. 2:1-16,25-28). Yet here in Matthew 2 the Magi have greater insight than the Jews. They are coming to worship the Christ. Herod, even with the knowledge he has of the Messiah’s birth, seeks to destroy him.

A further reversal of roles unfolds in Herod’s decree to slaughter all the male children in Bethlehem aged two and under (2:16). Whilst this may ring true to what we know of Herod’s character we are also meant to see in his attitude and actions an echo from the OT. Herod, king of the Jews, is playing the part of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. This takes us back to Exodus 1:15-22. Herod is doing what Pharaoh did in opposition to God and His people.

But there is more. Even though Matthew has five sections where the prophets, or the words of the OT are said to be fulfilled, these do not exhaust his OT references. Some of the connections are subtle. We have seen in the actions of Herod an echo of the actions of Pharaoh. We can also see a further reference behind the words in verses 19-20:

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead’. So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.

Compare Matthew’s account with the words of Exodus 4:19-21:

Now the LORD had said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to Egypt, for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead’. So Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt. And he took the staff of God in his hand.

In the original it was Moses who had to flee Egypt and was later told to return. In the remake it is the land of Israel, not Egypt, that they have to flee from, and the land of Israel that they are eventually told to return to. Everything has been reversed. Israel has become Egypt, and Herod has become Pharaoh.

This is a shock and a warning. This is a sign of judgement on Israel. This is also a sign of things to come. We see here the pattern of rejection for Jesus who will deliver His people. Indeed Moses the redeemer was rejected by Israel and welcomed by the nations (Ex. 2:1-22; Acts 7:35) foreshadowing what would happen when the true Redeemer would come. This is also a sign of hope. God is safeguarding the Saviour, just as he did with Moses.

Hunting down heretics this Christmas

I have acquired a helper.  In fact I told Kezia that I was going to train our new puppy to hunt down heretics, to which she replied "What's a heretic?"

So you see, I'm not so obsessed with heretics that my children have learned the Heretical alphabet (A is for Arian, Anthropomorphite and Anabaptist, B is for...) and know their Ebionites from their Samosatians.  The dog however is in training to track down anti-trinitarians of all descriptions, Nestorians and Eutychians.

Remember, a heretic is not for life but should be excommunicated after the second admonition.

Christmas had made the bitterest foes friends

The following is an extract from a poignant letter written by Private Frederick W. Heath about the Christmas Armistice in 1914:

Jumping up onto the parapet, a few of us advanced to meet the on-coming Germans. Out went the hands and tightened in the grip of friendship. Christmas had made the bitterest foes friends.

Here was no desire to kill, but just the wish of a few simple soldiers (and no one is quite so simple as a soldier) that on Christmas Day, at any rate, the force of fire should cease. We gave each other cigarettes and exchanged all manner of things. We wrote our names and addresses on the field service postcards, and exchanged them for German ones. We cut the buttons off our coats and took in exchange the Imperial Arms of Germany.

But the gift of gifts was Christmas pudding. The sight of it made the Germans' eyes grow wide with hungry wonder, and at the first bite of it they were our friends for ever. Given a sufficient quantity of Christmas puddings, every German in the trenches before ours would have surrendered. 

And so we stayed together for a while and talked, even though all the time there was a strained feeling of suspicion which rather spoilt this Christmas armistice. We could not help remembering that we were enemies, even though we had shaken hands. We dare not advance too near their trenches lest we saw too much, nor could the Germans come beyond the barbed wire which lay before ours. After we had chatted, we turned back to our respective trenches for breakfast. 

All through the day no shot was fired, and all we did was talk to each other and make confessions which, perhaps, were truer at that curious moment than in the normal times of war.

You can read the whole thing in The Independent

We Three Kings

From the archives

Matthew 1-2 tells the story of three kings.

These kings are not however the ones known in the West, from the eighth century on, as Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar. The visitors from the East were Magi, not kings. No, Matthew 1-2 tells the story of King David, King Herod and King Jesus. They are the three kings in the narrative.

King Herod may well be the king of Israel but he acts like Pharaoh king of Egypt. Joseph must flee Israel for Egypt, and later return there just as Moses did in Exodus 4. There is a great reversal theme in Matthew 2 as Israel and Egypt swap identities, and as we realise that Israel is a nation under judgment.

This reversal theme extends itself to the Magi. The wise men and magicians of the nations always come off badly in the Bible in comparison to God's people. Witness the court of Pharoah in Genesis 41 and the inability of the magicians to interpret his dream. It was God who gave Joseph the understanding of the dream. Fast forward to the contest between Moses, Aaron and the magicians, and the same story is told.

This unfavourable comparison continues with Daniel in Babylon. Again we see that God gives his people insight. The magicians, sorcerers and enchanters are unable to gain access to Nebuchadnezzar's undisclosed dream (Daniel 2:1-11). Daniel, however, seeks God and God, in his mercy, reveals the dream and the interpretation. No wonder that Daniel then confesses that to God belong wisdom and might, for:

he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding;
he reveals deep and hidden things;
he knows what is in the darkness,
and the light dwells with him.

What does this have to do with Matthew 2 and the Magi? The situation has now been reversed. The pattern established in Scripture has been turned on its head. We find Gentile magicians behaving like Israelites, and Israelites behaving like Gentiles. The Magi have more insight, more wisdom, and they come to worship Christ the King.

Thou who wast rich beyond all splendour

"His self emptying was not a single loss or bereavement,
but a growing poorer and poorer, 

until at last nothing was left him
but a piece of ground where he could weep 

and a cross whereon he could die." 

Abraham Kuyper

Jesus is both God and man, having two natures in one person.  Scripture emphasises this, in part, by telling us what he became, and in doing so also telling what he was before that.  The Shorter Catechism helpfully expresses this truth in the twenty first question and answer (emphasis added):

Q. 21. Who is the Redeemer of God’s elect?
A. The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.

2 Corinthians 8:9; Phil. 2:7; and John 1:14 lie behind the words of Maxentius (below), and the first of these verses lies behind the anecdote about the Welsh nineteenth century preacher David Morgan:

We do not confound the diversity of natures, howbeit we believe not what you affirm, that Christ was made God; but we believe that God was made Christ.  For he was not made rich when he was poor; but being rich, he was made poor, that he might make us rich.

He did not take the form of God when he was in the form of a servant; but being in the form of God, he took on him the form of a servant.  In like manner, he was not made the Word when he was flesh; but being the Word, he was made flesh. 

 On 23rd December 1858, David Morgan ministered at Pen-llwyn and his preaching had a marked prophetic quality:

In the middle of his sermon he startled his audience by suddenly exclaiming, 'If any of you tonight deny the deity of the Son, I have nothing better to tell you than what Morgan Howell, Newport, shouted on Lampeter bridge, "Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor. He became poor when He came to Bethlehem; tell me, when was He rich?"' 

This remark was utterly irrelevant to the preacher's subject matter, and no one could conjecture whence it came, and wither it went. The mystery was solved in the after-meeting, for among the converts were three Unitarians...whose presence in the service was quite accidental, and certainly unknown to the preacher.

The tumour is benign

We had a phonecall from Kezia's surgeon this afternoon to confirm that her tumour is benign.

We will return to Alder Hey on the 4th January for an MRI scan and a meeting with the surgeon to discuss the plan for the next step of sugery and treatment.

We are profoundly thankful and deeply touched that so many friends and churches have been praying for us around the UK and all over the world.

Kezia is fighting fit at the moment, eating heartily, talking constantly, and brimming over with energy.  The improvement in her general health is remarkable.  She has also adjusted very well to her daily regime of medication (tablets are easy to take when you can have them with Galaxy chocolate).

Christmas and the Providence of God

Yesterday morning I preached from Ruth 1 on the time when Christmas seemed to hang by a thread and how God by his providence was providing, upholding, governing and directing people, nature, and history in order to bring his Son into the world. 

We never preach in a vacuum.  The personal context is always significant as well as the experiential context of the congregation.

You can download it here

When the riddles are not resolved

God has called his children, this side of heaven, to live by faith and not by sight, to live looking for a city with enduring foundations, and to live by his promises and not by exhaustive explanations.

I found these reflections by Herman Bavinck, on the grace of God in the gospel and the providence of God in the world, really helpful:

In the case of the Christian, belief in God's providence is not a tenet of natural theology to which saving faith is later mechanically added.  Instead, it is saving faith that for the first time prompts us to believe wholeheartedly in God's providence in the world, to see its significance, and to experience its consoling power...the Christian has witnessed God's special providence at work in the cross of Christ and experienced it in the forgiving and regenerating grace of God, which has come to one's own heart.


And from the vantage point of this new and certain experience in one's own life, the Christian believer now surveys the whole of existence and the entire world and discovers in all things, not chance or fate, but the leading of God's fatherly hand.


Special revelation is distinct from general revelation, and a saving faith in the person of Christ is different from a general belief in God's government in the world.  It is above all by faith in Christ that believers are enabled -- in spite of the riddles that perplex them -- to cling to the conviction that the God who rules the world is the same loving and compassionate Father who in Christ forgave them all their sins, accepted them as his children, and will bequeath to them eternal blessedness.


In that case faith in God's providence is no illusion, but secure and certain; it rests on the revelation of God in Christ and carries within it the conviction that nature is subordinate and serviceable to grace, and the world [is likewise subject] to the kingdom of God.  

Thus, through all its tears and suffering, it looks forward with joy to the future.  Although the riddles are not resolved, faith in God's fatherly hand always again arises from the depths and even enables us to boast in afflictions.

Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 2: God and Creation, p. 594-5

To which I say, "Amen."

Why do they hate Aslan so? Polly Toynbee on the repugnancy of the atonement

 

One from the archives:

The columnist Polly Toynbee wrote an article in The Guardian on 5th December 2005 with the rather acerbic title “Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion.”

I will spare you the full extent of her invective against the Christian imagery found in C.S. Lewis' children's stories. But among her numerous thorny remarks the following stood out:

Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?

Perhaps the most obvious thing to say by way of explanation about her choice of adjective, is that it is indicative of a heart wedded to the wisdom of this passing age. It is as straightforward a statement of aversion and distaste at the very notion of a substitutionary atonement as one could wish to find. And yet, to those who hold to the presuppositions laid out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:8, it hardly comes as much of a surprise.

It stands in marked contrast to the expression of the regenerate heart that sees in the cross both the wisdom and power of God. Of all the great confessions of faith perhaps it is the Belgic Confession (Q. 26) that best verbalizes the sentiments of the regenerate mind:

If, then, we should seek for another mediator who would be favorably inclined toward us, whom could we find who loved us more than He who laid down His life for us, even while we were His enemies? And if we seek for one who has power and majesty, who is there that has so much of both as He who sits at the right hand of God and to whom hath been given all authority in heaven and on earth?

And what should we make of her question? Of course we did not ask Christ to die for us. None of us wanted him to. 

This is a point underlined, as it were in thick marker pen, time and again on the pages of the Bible. From Isaiah's description of Christ as despised and rejected by men (Isaiah 53:3) all the way to Paul's retrospective description of Christian believers as being ungodly and enemies toward God (Romans 5:6, 10). 

In the book of Judges there is the pattern of apostasy, oppression from enemies, and cries to God for relief from this misery. In his grace God raises up judges who save the people of God from the hands of their oppressors. Judges 13 seemingly opens with this same pattern. Israel has turned from God to their evil ways, and God has handed them over to the Philistines. But the pattern ends there. Just when we expect to hear a cry to God for relief and rescue there is nothing but silence. 

When the Angel of the Lord announces the birth of Samson, who will begin to save Israel from the Philistines, it is therefore clear that this is an act of sheer grace on God's part. God sent them a Savior, even though they did not ask him to. The span of time between the book of Judges and that column in The Guardian may have spread over several millenia, but chronology cannot cover up the similarities that exist. 

The very glory of the atonement is that Christ died for his enemies. We were not seeking after a Saviour from heaven, but running and hiding from the God who is really there. As Paul reminded the Colossians, it was for those who were hostile in their minds toward God that Christ hung on the cross. It was by that death that he made peace and effected reconciliation with God (Colossians 1:19-22). 

Like Polly Toynbee, I never asked him to do this. That he did it at all is all to the praise of his glorious grace.

Not by chance

Great providence of heaven--
What wonders shine
In its profound display
Of God's design:
It guards the dust of earth,
Commands the hosts above,
Fulfils the mighty plan

Of his great love

The kingdoms of this world
Lie in its hand;
See how they rise or fall
At its command
Through sorrow and distress,
Tempestuous storms that rage,
God's kingdom yet endures
From age to age

Its darkness dense is but
A radiant light;
Its oft-perplexing ways
Are ordered right.
Soon all its winding paths
Will end, and then the tale
Of wonder shall be told
Beyond the veil.

David Charles, 1762-1834;

Translated from the Welsh by Edmund Tudor Owen

Article 7: 

Of God's Providence 
in the Preservation and Government of the World

Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Confession of Faith 

(1823)

God, in his wise, holy, and righteous providence, 

upholds and governs 

all creatures and their actions. 

His providence extends over 

all places, 

all events, 

  all changes, 

    and all times. 

His providence, in its operation,
is full of eyes to behold, 

and
powerful to perform, 

and
makes all things work together for good 

to them
that love God. 

It overrules the sinful actions of men; 

nevertheless, 

it neither causes nor occasions the sinfulness of any of them.

An update on Kezia

Our youngest daughter Kezia (9) was diagnosed with a brain tumour on 24th November and underwent surgery on Thursday 2nd December.  The operation went well.  The tumour has been drained and decompressed and we will wait and see if this improves her eyesight (her peripheral vision has been damaged).  The surgeon will wait until the New Year before deciding on the exact procedure to remove the solid parts of the tumour.  Either way she will have long term health issues because the tumour has been affecting her pituitary gland and all those complex and delicate mechanisms that regulate thirst, water balance etc.  All being well Kezia will return home tomorrow.

Kezia is just remarkable.  She has not complained once and has taken all of this in her stride.  For us as parents there have been many tears and tremendous relief when we saw her in the recovery room.  We are profoundly grateful for the expertise, medical facilities and care at Alder Hey in Liverpool, and for the support of family and friends locally and from across the world. 

Above all we are profoundly thankful for the sustaining grace of God.  I cannot express this better than in the words of Q & A 26 of the Heidelberg Catechism:

That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who of nothing made heaven and earth with all that in them is, who likewise upholds, and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence, is for the sake of Christ, His Son, my God and my Father, in whom I so trust as to have no doubt that He will provide me with all things necessary for body and soul; and further, that whatever evil He sends upon me in this troubled life, He will turn to my good; for He is able to do it, being Almighty God, and willing also, being a faithful Father.

Martin

Truly, this doctrine brings immeasurable comfort to us

The Belgic Confession

Article 13

About the Providence of God

We believe that this Most High God, after He created all things, did not in the least hand them over to fate or the rule of fortune, but continually rules and governs them according to the precept of His sacrosanct will so that nothing may happen in this world apart from His decree and ordination. 


Neither is it possible to say that God is the author of or the guilty party in the evils that occur in this world. For both His power and goodness lie widely open as immeasurable and incomprehensible, and His work and proceedings are sacredly and justly determined and executed, although both the Devil and the wicked unjustly act. 


Truly, whatsoever He does, having exceeded human constraints, we do not wish to inquire about these things pryingly and beyond our constraints. In fact, on the contrary, we nevertheless humbly and reverently adore the hidden and just judgments of God. For it is enough for us, as disciples of Christ, to learn no more than that which He Himself teaches us in His Word, without transgressing the limits that we regard as lawful. 


Truly, this doctrine brings immeasurable comfort to us. For from it we know that nothing happens to us by fortune, but only all things by the will of our heavenly Father, Who truly keeps watch for us with fatherly care, having subjugated all things unto Himself so that not even a hair our head (which have all been numbered down to the individual one) can be plucked out, nor can the smallest chick fall to the ground, apart from the will of our Father. 


And so we thoroughly rest in this, acknowledging that God restrains the devils and all our enemies, just as curbed with whips, so that no one is strong enough to hurt us apart from His will and good permission.

Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples
   a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
    of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
And he will swallow up on this mountain
   the covering that is cast over all peoples,
    the veil that is spread over all nations.


  He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces,
   and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
    for the LORD has spoken.


Isaiah 25:6-8

Sovereign Ruler of the skies
Ever gracious, ever wise
All my times are in Thy hand
All events at thy command

He that formed me in the womb
He shall guide me to the tomb
All my times shall ever be
Ordered by his wise decree

Times of sickness, times of health
Times of poverty and wealth
Times of trial and of grief
Times of triumph and relief

Times the tempter's power to prove
Times to taste a Saviour's love
All must come, and last, and end.
As shall please my heavenly Friend.

Plagues and deaths around me fly.
Till he bids I cannot die:
Not a single shaft can hit
Til the God of love thinks fit.

O Thou gracious, wise and just
In Thy hands my life I trust
Thee, at all times, will I bless
Having Thee, I all possess

John Ryland