Articles Archives - Page 91 of 1241

John Owen’s Usage of Thomas Aquinas, Part 1

By Chris Whisonant — 2 months ago

Recently, Carl Trueman has stated the following: “I had a breakthrough on John Owen when I realized how often he cited Thomas Aquinas in his marginal notes in his texts. Struck me as odd.”With this in mind, I would like to begin looking through just how extensive this usage really is, since this is a topic that tends to be brought up often.As a bit of a preliminary, I have been utilizing the epub version of the 35 books of Owen available at monergism.org. This way, you can feel free to look for yourself and compare my results without cost. Secondly, I have attempted to compile my list using the Banner of Truth volume numbers (which were not part of the listing at monergism.org) as closely as I could match the book with the contents of the Banner of Truth editions. Finally, regarding how I determined whether Thomas was mentioned, I performed several searches such as searching for “Aquinas”, “Thomas”, and even “Angelic Doctor” (as Owen referred to him in only one work) and reviewing the context.Before I get to the content of the post below, I wish to provide a list of the 19 books out of the 35 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And to give you an idea of how long this blog series may be, from the other 16 books there are only 26 mentions of Thomas Aquinas (5 of which will be covered in this post). Finally, I would note that this does not count Owen’s “Biblical Theology” in the list. In that book, Aquinas is mentioned often and with sharp disagreement. I will have a post covering some of that book as well.Books With No Mention of Thomas AquinasChurch OfficersThe Excellency of ChristAn Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 6 – 8:1 – 10:39The Lord’s Supper Fully ConsideredOwen’s Works, Volume 01 – The Glory of ChristOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 1 – The Work Of The Holy Spirit In PrayerOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 2 – The Work of the Holy Spirit in RegenerationOwen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 2 – Evidences of FaithOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 1 – Mortification of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 2 – Of TemptationOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 3 – The Remainders of Indwelling Sin in BelieversOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 4 – The Forgiveness of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 1 – Apostasy from the GospelOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 2 – The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually MindedOwen’s Works, Volume 12 – A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and GraceOwen’s Works, Volume 13, Part 2 – Duties of Christian FellowshipOwen’s Works, Volume 15, Part 2 – Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and UnityOwen’s Works, Volume 16, Part 1 – The True Nature of a Gospel ChurchWalking Humbly With GodIn this first part, I want to look at some of the mentions of Thomas Aquinas (outside of the 7 volumes on Hebrews) where John Owen was including Thomas in a list of others who subscribed to a certain viewpoint on various doctrines. Let us take a brief look at this type of reference to Thomas.In “A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity” we find Owen saying that Aquinas was among those schoolmen who many Lutheran authors (with whom Owen agreed) were stating had an improper view of the satisfaction of Christ as it relates to pardon of sin. Owen even said that the belief of Aquinas opened a way for the Socinian error on the same matter:To the Reader: The Lutherans who have managed these controversies, as Tarnovius, Meisnerus, Calovius, Stegmannus, Martinius, Franzius, with all others of their way, have constantly maintained the same great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; and it hath well and solidly been of late asserted among ourselves on the same foundation. And as many of these authors do expressly blame some of the schoolmen, as Aquinas, Durandus, Biel, Tataretus, for granting a possibility of pardon without satisfaction, as opening a way to the Socinian error in this matter; so also they fear not to affirm, that the foregoing of this principle of God’s vindictive justice indispensably requiring the punishment of sin, doth not only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible. However, I suppose men ought to be wary how they censure the authors mentioned, as such who expose the cause they undertook to defend unto contempt; for greater, more able, and learned defenders, this truth hath not as yet found, nor doth stand in need of.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 1 – The Doctrine of Justification by Faith” we find Thomas also listed among others who held to a viewpoint with which Owen disagreed. It is of great note here is that Owen accuses Thomas of being so beholden to Aristotelian philosophy that they followed him even on their doctrine of justification. He said that Thomas ought to be no guide for us on the doctrine of justification.“General considerations: The Holy Ghost, in expressing the most eminent acts in our justification, especially as unto our believing, or the acting of that faith whereby we are justified, is pleased to make use of many metaphorical expressions. For any to use them now in the same way, and to the same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even ridiculous; but on what grounds? He that shall deny that there is more spiritual sense and experience conveyed by them into the hearts and minds of believers (which is the life and soul of teaching things practical), than in the most accurate philosophical expressions, is himself really ignorant of the whole truth in this matter. The propriety of such expressions belongs and is confined unto natural science; but spiritual truths are to be taught, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” God is wiser than man; and the Holy Ghost knows better what are the most expedient ways for the illumination of our minds with that knowledge of evangelical truths which it is our duty to have and attain, than the wisest of us all. And other knowledge of or skill in these things, than what is required of us in a way of duty, is not to be valued.It is, therefore, to no purpose to handle the mysteries of the gospel as if Hilcot and Bricot, Thomas and Gabriel, with all the Sententiarists, Summists, and Quodlibetarians of the old Roman peripatetical school, were to be raked out of their graves to be our guides. Especially will they be of no use unto us in this doctrine of justification. For whereas they pertinaciously adhered unto the philosophy of Aristotle, who knew nothing of any righteousness but what is a habit inherent in ourselves, and the acts of it, they wrested the whole doctrine of justification unto a compliance wherewithal.Next, we find in “Owen’s Works, Volume 11 – The Doctrine of the Saint’s Perseverance Explained and Confirmed” that Owen had some lengthy discussions in his Preface about beliefs that Thomas Bradwardin and Thomas Aquinas held to. It was only in this work that Owen referred to Thomas as the “Angelical Doctor” – as the context shows, he was not using this as a title with approval. Owen states that Bradwardin and many following him had tried to get multiple Popes to issue some sentence against the Pelagianism which was creeping into the Roman Church. Owen would summarize it by stating that “setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those, and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.” Basically, even though there were some “deviations” (such as implicit faith and the efficacy of the sacraments – i.e. baptism regenerated a person and made that person an actual believer, though possibly not one of the elect), there were some things that the current Pope, Innocent X, should have been able to use from those schoolmen which could be used to combat rising Pelagianism in the Church of Rome. The following 3 sections of quotations are all from the Preface and are all close to each other in the same discussion, but they are not consecutive.Preface to the Reader: With this earnestness, above three hundred years ago, did this profoundly learned man [Bradwardin] press the popes to a determination of these controversies against the Pelagians and their successors in his schools. The same suit hath ever since been continued by very many learned men (in every age) of the communion of the church of Rome, crying out for the papal definitive sentence against the Pelagian errors crept into their church; especially hath this outcry with supplication been renewed by the Dominican friars, ever since the Jesuits have so cunningly gilded over that Pelagian poison, and set it out as the best and most wholesome food for “”holy mother”” and her children. Yea, with such earnestness hath this been in the last age pursued by agents in the court of Rome, that (a congregation de auxiliis being purposely appointed) it was generally supposed one while that they would have prevailed in their suit, and have obtained a definitive sentence on their side against their adversaries. But through the just vengeance of God upon a pack of bloody, persecuting idolaters, giving them up more and more to the belief of lies, contrary almost to the expectation of all men, this very year, 1653, Pope Innocent X., who now wears the triple crown, conjured by the subtlety and dreadful interest of the Jesuits in all nations that as yet wonder after him, by a solemn bull, or papal consistorian determination, in the case of Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, hath turned the scales upon his first suppliants, and cast the cause on the Pelagian side. But of that whole business elsewhere.I shall not perplex the reader with the horrid names of Trombet, Hilcot, Bricot, Sychet, Tartaret, Brulifer, nor with their more horrid terms and expressions. Let the one Angelical Doctor [i.e., AQUINAS] answer for the rest of his companions.That this man, then (one of the great masters of the crew), abode by the principles of him before insisted on, may quickly be made evident by some few instances clearing his judgment herein.And this assertion of the Angelical Doctor is notably confirmed by Didacus Alvarez in his vindication of it from the exception of Medina, that we make use of habits when we will, and if men will make use of their habitual grace, they may persevere without relation to any after grace of God. Saith he, “Respondetur, habitibus quidem nos uti cum volumus, sed ut velimus illis uti, prærequiritur motio Dei efficax, præmovens liberum arbitrium, ut utatur habitu ad operandum, et operetur bonum, præsertim quando habitus sunt supernaturales; quia cum pertineant ad superiorem ordinem, habent specialem rationem, propter quam potentia mere naturalis non utitur eisdem habitibus, nisi speciali Dei auxilio moveatur,” Alvar. De Aux. lib. x. disput. 100. Though received graces are reckoned by him as supernatural habits, yet such as we act not by, nor with, but from new supplies from God.Having laid down this principle, Thomas proceeds to manifest that there is a special grace of perseverance bestowed by God on some, and that on whomsoever it is bestowed, they certainly and infallibly persevere to the end, pp. quest. 109, a. 10, c.; and Contra Gent. lib. iii. he proves this assertion from p. 6, 1 Pet. 5:10; Ps. 16.But, to spare the reader, I shall give you this man’s judgment, together with one of his followers, who hath had the happiness to clear his master’s mind above any that have undertaken the maintenance of his doctrine in that part now controverted in the church of Rome; and therein I shall manifest (what I formerly proposed) what beamings and irradiations of this truth do yet glide through that gross darkness which is spread upon the face of the Romish synagogue;—referring what I have farther to add on this head to the account which, God assisting, I shall ere long give of the present Jansenian controversies, in my considerations on Mr Biddle’s catechisms, a task by authority lately imposed on me.The second principle this learned schoolman insists on is, that this gift of perseverance is peculiar to the elect, or predestinate: Disput. 104, 1, Con. “”Donum perseverantiæ est proprium prædestinatorum, ut nulli alteri conveniat.”” And what he intends by “”prædestinati,”” he informs you according to the judgment of Austin and Thomas: “”Nomine prædestinationis ad gloriam, solum cam prædestinationem intelligunt (Augustinus et Thomas) qua electi ordinantur efficaciter, et transmittuntur ad vitam æternam; cujus effectus sunt vocatio, justificatio, et perseverantia in gratia usque ad finem.”” Not that (or such a) conditional predestination as is pendent in the air, and expectant of men’s good final deportment; but that which is the eternal, free fountain of all that grace whereof in time by Jesus Christ we are made partakers.And in the pursuit of this proposition, he farther proves at large that the perseverance given to the saints in Christ is not a supplement of helps and advantages, whereby they may preserve it if they will, but such as causes them on whom it is bestowed certainly and actually so to do; and that, in its efficacy and operation, it cannot depend on any free co-operation of our wills, all the good acts tending to our perseverance being fruits of that grace which is bestowed on us, according to the absolute unchangeable decree of the will of God.This, indeed, is common with this author and the rest of his associates (the Dominicans and present Jansenians) in these controversies, together with the residue of the Romanists, that having their judgments wrested by the abominable figments of implicit faith, and the efficacy of the sacraments of the new testament, conveying, and really exhibiting, the grace signified or sealed by them, they are enforced to grant that many may be, and are, regenerated and made true believers who are not predestinated, and that these cannot persevere, nor shall eventually be saved. Certain it is, that there is not any truth which that generation of men do receive and admit, but more or less it suffers in their hands, from that gross ignorance of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, the power whereof they are practically under. What the poor vassals and slaves will do upon the late bull of their holy father, casting them in sundry main concernments of their quarrel with their adversaries, is uncertain. Otherwise, setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those, and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.The above citations where Aquinas was listed among others by John Owen are all of the ones of that type outside of those in some of his volumes on Hebrews. As you can see above, there were three works of this type. In two of them, Owen was clearly opposed to Aquinas. And in the third example, Owen thought that Bradwardin and Aquinas could be useful only insofar as being able to help combat Pelagianism in the Roman Church.

Post Views: 45

John Owen’s Usage of Thomas Aquinas, Part 1

By Chris Whisonant — 2 months ago

Recently, Carl Trueman has stated the following: “I had a breakthrough on John Owen when I realized how often he cited Thomas Aquinas in his marginal notes in his texts. Struck me as odd.”With this in mind, I would like to begin looking through just how extensive this usage really is, since this is a topic that tends to be brought up often.As a bit of a preliminary, I have been utilizing the epub version of the books of Owen available at monergism.org along with comparing these with the Banner of Truth volumes (which yields 36 total books). This way, you can feel free to look for yourself and compare my results without cost. Secondly, I have attempted to compile my list using the Banner of Truth volume numbers (which were not part of the listing at monergism.org) as closely as I could match the book with the contents of the Banner of Truth editions. Finally, regarding how I determined whether Thomas was mentioned, I performed several searches such as searching for “Aquinas”, “Thomas”, and even “Angelic Doctor” (as Owen referred to him in only two works) and reviewing the context.Before I get to the content of the post below, I wish to provide a list of the 20 books out of the 36 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And to give you an idea of how long this blog series may be, from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas (5 of which will be covered in this post). Finally, I would note that this does not count Owen’s “Biblical Theology” in the list. In that book, Aquinas is mentioned often and with sharp disagreement. I will have a post covering some of that book as well.Books With No Mention of Thomas AquinasChurch OfficersThe Excellency of ChristAn Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 6 – 8:1 – 10:39The Lord’s Supper Fully ConsideredOwen’s Works, Volume 01 – The Glory of ChristOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 1 – The Work Of The Holy Spirit In PrayerOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 2 – The Work of the Holy Spirit in RegenerationOwen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 2 – Evidences of FaithOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 1 – Mortification of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 2 – Of TemptationOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 3 – The Remainders of Indwelling Sin in BelieversOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 4 – The Forgiveness of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 1 – Apostasy from the GospelOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 2 – The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually MindedOwen’s Works, Volume 09 – Sermons to the ChurchOwen’s Works, Volume 12 – A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and GraceOwen’s Works, Volume 13, Part 2 – Duties of Christian FellowshipOwen’s Works, Volume 15, Part 2 – Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and UnityOwen’s Works, Volume 16, Part 1 – The True Nature of a Gospel ChurchWalking Humbly With GodIn this first part, I want to look at some of the mentions of Thomas Aquinas (outside of the 7 volumes on Hebrews) where John Owen was including Thomas in a list of others who subscribed to a certain viewpoint on various doctrines. Let us take a brief look at this type of reference to Thomas.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 02, Part 3 – A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity” we find Owen saying that Aquinas was among those schoolmen who many Lutheran authors (with whom Owen agreed) were stating had an improper view of the satisfaction of Christ as it relates to pardon of sin. Owen even said that the belief of Aquinas opened a way for the Socinian error on the same matter:To the Reader: The Lutherans who have managed these controversies, as Tarnovius, Meisnerus, Calovius, Stegmannus, Martinius, Franzius, with all others of their way, have constantly maintained the same great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; and it hath well and solidly been of late asserted among ourselves on the same foundation. And as many of these authors do expressly blame some of the schoolmen, as Aquinas, Durandus, Biel, Tataretus, for granting a possibility of pardon without satisfaction, as opening a way to the Socinian error in this matter; so also they fear not to affirm, that the foregoing of this principle of God’s vindictive justice indispensably requiring the punishment of sin, doth not only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible. However, I suppose men ought to be wary how they censure the authors mentioned, as such who expose the cause they undertook to defend unto contempt; for greater, more able, and learned defenders, this truth hath not as yet found, nor doth stand in need of.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 1 – The Doctrine of Justification by Faith” we find Thomas also listed among others who held to a viewpoint with which Owen disagreed. It is of great note here is that Owen accuses Thomas of being so beholden to Aristotelian philosophy that they followed him even on their doctrine of justification. He said that Thomas ought to be no guide for us on the doctrine of justification.“General considerations: The Holy Ghost, in expressing the most eminent acts in our justification, especially as unto our believing, or the acting of that faith whereby we are justified, is pleased to make use of many metaphorical expressions. For any to use them now in the same way, and to the same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even ridiculous; but on what grounds? He that shall deny that there is more spiritual sense and experience conveyed by them into the hearts and minds of believers (which is the life and soul of teaching things practical), than in the most accurate philosophical expressions, is himself really ignorant of the whole truth in this matter. The propriety of such expressions belongs and is confined unto natural science; but spiritual truths are to be taught, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” God is wiser than man; and the Holy Ghost knows better what are the most expedient ways for the illumination of our minds with that knowledge of evangelical truths which it is our duty to have and attain, than the wisest of us all. And other knowledge of or skill in these things, than what is required of us in a way of duty, is not to be valued.It is, therefore, to no purpose to handle the mysteries of the gospel as if Hilcot and Bricot, Thomas and Gabriel, with all the Sententiarists, Summists, and Quodlibetarians of the old Roman peripatetical school, were to be raked out of their graves to be our guides. Especially will they be of no use unto us in this doctrine of justification. For whereas they pertinaciously adhered unto the philosophy of Aristotle, who knew nothing of any righteousness but what is a habit inherent in ourselves, and the acts of it, they wrested the whole doctrine of justification unto a compliance wherewithal.Next, we find in “Owen’s Works, Volume 11 – The Doctrine of the Saint’s Perseverance Explained and Confirmed” that Owen had some lengthy discussions in his Preface about beliefs that Thomas Bradwardin and Thomas Aquinas held to. It was only in this work and in Volume 14, on “True and False Religion” that Owen referred to Thomas as the “Angelical Doctor” – as the context shows, he was not using this as a title with approval. Owen states that Bradwardin and many following him had tried to get multiple Popes to issue some sentence against the Pelagianism which was creeping into the Roman Church. Owen would summarize it by stating that “setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those, and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.” Basically, even though there were some “deviations” (such as implicit faith and the efficacy of the sacraments – i.e. baptism regenerated a person and made that person an actual believer, though possibly not one of the elect), there were some things that the current Pope, Innocent X, should have been able to use from those schoolmen which could be used to combat rising Pelagianism in the Church of Rome. The following 3 sections of quotations are all from the Preface and are all close to each other in the same discussion, but they are not consecutive.Preface to the Reader: With this earnestness, above three hundred years ago, did this profoundly learned man [Bradwardin] press the popes to a determination of these controversies against the Pelagians and their successors in his schools. The same suit hath ever since been continued by very many learned men (in every age) of the communion of the church of Rome, crying out for the papal definitive sentence against the Pelagian errors crept into their church; especially hath this outcry with supplication been renewed by the Dominican friars, ever since the Jesuits have so cunningly gilded over that Pelagian poison, and set it out as the best and most wholesome food for “”holy mother”” and her children. Yea, with such earnestness hath this been in the last age pursued by agents in the court of Rome, that (a congregation de auxiliis being purposely appointed) it was generally supposed one while that they would have prevailed in their suit, and have obtained a definitive sentence on their side against their adversaries. But through the just vengeance of God upon a pack of bloody, persecuting idolaters, giving them up more and more to the belief of lies, contrary almost to the expectation of all men, this very year, 1653, Pope Innocent X., who now wears the triple crown, conjured by the subtlety and dreadful interest of the Jesuits in all nations that as yet wonder after him, by a solemn bull, or papal consistorian determination, in the case of Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, hath turned the scales upon his first suppliants, and cast the cause on the Pelagian side. But of that whole business elsewhere.I shall not perplex the reader with the horrid names of Trombet, Hilcot, Bricot, Sychet, Tartaret, Brulifer, nor with their more horrid terms and expressions. Let the one Angelical Doctor [i.e., AQUINAS] answer for the rest of his companions.That this man, then (one of the great masters of the crew), abode by the principles of him before insisted on, may quickly be made evident by some few instances clearing his judgment herein.And this assertion of the Angelical Doctor is notably confirmed by Didacus Alvarez in his vindication of it from the exception of Medina, that we make use of habits when we will, and if men will make use of their habitual grace, they may persevere without relation to any after grace of God. Saith he, “Respondetur, habitibus quidem nos uti cum volumus, sed ut velimus illis uti, prærequiritur motio Dei efficax, præmovens liberum arbitrium, ut utatur habitu ad operandum, et operetur bonum, præsertim quando habitus sunt supernaturales; quia cum pertineant ad superiorem ordinem, habent specialem rationem, propter quam potentia mere naturalis non utitur eisdem habitibus, nisi speciali Dei auxilio moveatur,” Alvar. De Aux. lib. x. disput. 100. Though received graces are reckoned by him as supernatural habits, yet such as we act not by, nor with, but from new supplies from God.Having laid down this principle, Thomas proceeds to manifest that there is a special grace of perseverance bestowed by God on some, and that on whomsoever it is bestowed, they certainly and infallibly persevere to the end, pp. quest. 109, a. 10, c.; and Contra Gent. lib. iii. he proves this assertion from p. 6, 1 Pet. 5:10; Ps. 16.But, to spare the reader, I shall give you this man’s judgment, together with one of his followers, who hath had the happiness to clear his master’s mind above any that have undertaken the maintenance of his doctrine in that part now controverted in the church of Rome; and therein I shall manifest (what I formerly proposed) what beamings and irradiations of this truth do yet glide through that gross darkness which is spread upon the face of the Romish synagogue;—referring what I have farther to add on this head to the account which, God assisting, I shall ere long give of the present Jansenian controversies, in my considerations on Mr Biddle’s catechisms, a task by authority lately imposed on me.The second principle this learned schoolman insists on is, that this gift of perseverance is peculiar to the elect, or predestinate: Disput. 104, 1, Con. “”Donum perseverantiæ est proprium prædestinatorum, ut nulli alteri conveniat.”” And what he intends by “”prædestinati,”” he informs you according to the judgment of Austin and Thomas: “”Nomine prædestinationis ad gloriam, solum cam prædestinationem intelligunt (Augustinus et Thomas) qua electi ordinantur efficaciter, et transmittuntur ad vitam æternam; cujus effectus sunt vocatio, justificatio, et perseverantia in gratia usque ad finem.”” Not that (or such a) conditional predestination as is pendent in the air, and expectant of men’s good final deportment; but that which is the eternal, free fountain of all that grace whereof in time by Jesus Christ we are made partakers.And in the pursuit of this proposition, he farther proves at large that the perseverance given to the saints in Christ is not a supplement of helps and advantages, whereby they may preserve it if they will, but such as causes them on whom it is bestowed certainly and actually so to do; and that, in its efficacy and operation, it cannot depend on any free co-operation of our wills, all the good acts tending to our perseverance being fruits of that grace which is bestowed on us, according to the absolute unchangeable decree of the will of God.This, indeed, is common with this author and the rest of his associates (the Dominicans and present Jansenians) in these controversies, together with the residue of the Romanists, that having their judgments wrested by the abominable figments of implicit faith, and the efficacy of the sacraments of the new testament, conveying, and really exhibiting, the grace signified or sealed by them, they are enforced to grant that many may be, and are, regenerated and made true believers who are not predestinated, and that these cannot persevere, nor shall eventually be saved. Certain it is, that there is not any truth which that generation of men do receive and admit, but more or less it suffers in their hands, from that gross ignorance of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, the power whereof they are practically under. What the poor vassals and slaves will do upon the late bull of their holy father, casting them in sundry main concernments of their quarrel with their adversaries, is uncertain. Otherwise, setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those, and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.The above citations where Aquinas was listed among others by John Owen are all of the ones of that type outside of those in some of his volumes on Hebrews. As you can see above, there were three works of this type. In two of them, Owen was clearly opposed to Aquinas. And in the third example, Owen thought that Bradwardin and Aquinas could be useful only insofar as being able to help combat Pelagianism in the Roman Church.

Post Views: 84

Does Hidden Sin Bring Physical Suffering?

By John Piper — 2 months ago

Audio Transcript

Welcome back to the podcast. If you’re reading the Navigators Bible Reading Plan with us in 2024, we read Psalm 22 together two weeks ago and then talked about the challenges it poses to understanding the cross of Christ. That was in APJ 2015.

Today we’re back in the Psalms, reading Psalm 31 together and then Psalm 32 tomorrow. Both psalms — Psalm 31 and 32 — carry the same internal dynamic that Sarah, a listener to the podcast, points out and is trying to figure out. Here’s what she wrote: “Pastor John, hello to you, and thank you and Tony both for this podcast.” You’re most welcome, Sarah! “As I read through the Psalms, I get an amazing picture of the emotional life of faith. I am thankful for such a vivid picture of what it means to be a believer and the spectrum of emotions that we feel, and how the psalmist shows us how to process these emotions.

“But then I come to places in the Psalms that are more jarring and foreign to me, namely, about the physical pain and physical release of sin and forgiveness. Obviously we must be careful not to equate all physical suffering with the direct guilt for one specific sin. But perhaps we need to be careful not to write off specific sins in our physical pains. This comes up specifically in Psalm 31:9–10 and Psalm 32:1–5.

“Can you explain these texts and talk about the physical consequences of our guilt, and the physical health and release that can come with forgiveness? I never hear solid Bible teachers, preachers, or theologians — or even Christian health gurus — connect hidden sin, the torment of guilt, and the release of forgiveness to our physical well-being. To what extent can we make this connection? And how have you seen this spiritual-physical link in your own ministry?”

I don’t have any doubt that Sarah is right, that we should take the Psalms seriously when they picture physical ailments as sometimes owing to unconfessed sin. Now, one of the reasons I say sometimes is because in John 9 Jesus’s disciples saw a blind man and asked, “‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him’” (John 9:2–3).

“We should take the Psalms seriously when they picture physical ailments as sometimes owing to unconfessed sin.”

So, I infer from that passage that we must be really careful not to assume that any given sickness or disability is owing to a particular sin — Sarah said that, and I just wanted to underline it — even though we know that all sickness and all disability is owing to the existence of sin in general. God subjected the world to futility, the whole world, all of our bodies and all the world (Romans 8:20). We all live in a fallen and disordered world. And all of us — no exceptions, all of us — suffer and die because of that fallen, disordered, condemned world, even when we have not done a specific sin to bring down on us a specific sickness.

Here’s something she didn’t mention that I think we need to put in as a careful qualification. Nor does the fact that Christ bore all our sins, absorbed all the wrath of God against us, and purchased our perfect, eternal healing forever — no disease, no tears, no crying, no pain — nor does any of that mean that God does not send sickness and hardship into our lives to discipline us as his children and to sanctify us. That’s not wrath. Jesus bore wrath — condemnation, judgment. That’s behind us. We don’t have that anymore. This is a fatherly discipline, a physician-like therapy. Remember Paul’s thorn in the flesh given to keep him from being conceited (2 Corinthians 12:7). And remember the painful discipline of Hebrews 12:3–11.

Now, with all of that in mind, nevertheless, we should not hesitate with Sarah to find true Christian experience in the Psalms that tell us physical miseries are sometimes owing to unconfessed sin. I see this in the Psalms, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes, in my own experience. I’ll mention that at the end, but let me stay with the word for a minute.

Disciplined for Sin

Psalm 31:9–10 — which you referred to, Tony — says,

Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress; my eye is wasted from grief; my soul and my body also.For my life is spent with sorrow, and my years with sighing;my strength fails because of my iniquity, and my bones waste away.

So, he traces his failing strength and his wasting bones back to his iniquity. Now, here’s a little catch in making the point that I want to make. He might be thinking of the totality of his life’s hardships and the general fallenness of his nature, because he says, “My years [are spent] with sighing,” not just a week, not just a day or a month. I’m going to be careful and not base my case on this particular example, though it might be so. It might be that he’s referring to a specific, limited sickness owing to specific sin. And there are clues to that in the context because of the parallel between bones wasting away, which turns up again over in Psalm 32. So, I just want to be careful.

There’s no doubt in my mind that we are dealing with a specific, unconfessed sin and its physical consequences in Psalm 32. So, looking back over his change of heart and his forgiveness, here’s what he says: “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed” — he’s just super happy at what has happened in his life — “is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit” (Psalm 32:1–2).

And now comes, in the psalm, his memory of that season when he had not confessed his sin. So, he goes on: “For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer” (Psalm 32:3–4).

And then he recalls his confession, his forgiveness, and his healing. He says, “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and you forgave the iniquity of my sin” (Psalm 32:5).

Clinging to Mercy

We see a similar situation in Psalm 107. Sarah didn’t refer to this one, but it has been as useful to me in pastoral counseling as any other text in this regard — of people who feel like they’ve sinned themselves out of God’s possible blessing. So, Psalm 107:17–21 says,

Some were fools through their sinful ways, and because of their iniquities suffered affliction;they loathed any kind of food, and they drew near to the gates of death.Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress.He sent out his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction.Let them thank the Lord for his steadfast love, for his wondrous works to the children of man!

Here’s one more text that I call “gutsy guilt” — or it’s the text that I have based this term “gutsy guilt” on. A truly godly person has sinned. They are sitting under the disciplinary darkness and misery that God has sent. But this godly person will not let go of the mercy of God — or we would say, today, on this side of the cross, he will not let go of the blood-bought justification that we have in Christ. And I’m thinking of Micah 7:8–9:

Rejoice not over me, O my enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness [that’s where he is right now], the Lord will be a light to me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me [not against me, but for me]. He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his vindication.

“Let none of us continue in sin, hiding it from others and refusing to confess it to God and forsake it.”

So, in view of those texts, very practically, I would say let none of us continue in sin, hiding it from others and refusing to confess it to God and forsake it. If we are truly the children of God, and we do that — that is, we fail to confess our sins — we should expect that such a season of falsehood and hypocrisy will bring down God’s disciplinary rod upon us. If he loves us, we should expect that discipline.

Gift of Misery

Now, I had a very good friend whom I caught in grievous sin. I was the one who saw it. And when I urged him — I mean, this was a serious marriage-destroying, ministry-destroying, life-destroying sin — to confess to those he sinned against, he denied it was true. He did this for about six weeks, and I watched his deceit and growing misery and physical deterioration.

And then, one night, he called me quite late and said, “We have to meet.” I called a few others, and we met. And we sat there, and as we sat there, he quoted Psalm 32:3–4: “When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer.”

So, the misery — his misery of those six weeks — was a gift. The misery and the physical pain was a gift. It saved his marriage. So, as Hebrews 12:11 says, “For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.”

Post Views: 72

The Pattern for a Husband’s Love

By TFL — 2 months ago

When it comes to the quality of their marriages, many husbands have become experts at comparing themselves to others. Christian husbands especially may be tempted to look at the way the world operates and think, “I am affectionate and faithful, a leader and a provider, as the Scriptures say I should be. I’m glad I’m getting it right!”

Post Views: 87

Don’t Turn Your Faith Into a Work

By Stephen Kneale — 2 months ago

Let’s not turn faith into a work but glory in the grace of God. Let us delight in the fact that it is all grounded in him, his sovereign choice, his willingness to submit to death on our behalf so that we – with no grounds for boasting in us as a result – might be saved. Making faith a work robs God of glory that should rightly and only belong to him.

It is straightforwardly true, according to scripture, that we have been saved by grace. Faith is the product of God’s grace towards us. Faith is the only mechanism God could use to save us by grace because it is the only means that doesn’t require any outward activity whatsoever. It seems obvious enough that faith cannot be a work.
Yet, that is precisely what some of us want to make it. We want to believe that we welled up within ourselves the ability to put our own faith, of our own volition, in Christ. The moment we believe this, we have made our faith a work. Let’s just look at Ephesians 2:1-10 to see how it is so.
you were dead in your trespasses and sins 2 in which you previously walked according to the ways of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit now working in the disobedient.[a] 3 We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children under wrath as the others were also. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love that he had for us,[b] 5 made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by grace! 6 He also raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might display the immeasurable riches of his grace through his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift— 9 not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time for us to do.
Paul is at pains to point out our deadness in trespasses and sins. As has often been pointed out, dead people don’t will anything. They don’t do anything and they don’t believe anything. They are dead. Paul, in the first three verses, impresses upon us our deadness that was evidenced by disobedience. However, v4 marks a turning point. He notes that God takes the initiative and makes us alive with Christ ‘even though we were dead in trespasses.’ Our deadness meant God had to take the initiative. It is this, Paul says in v5, means ‘you are saved by grace’.
Paul picks up this idea again in v8.
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 66

Groundhog Day. A critique of American culture.

By O. Palmer Robertson — 2 months ago

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Thursday, February 8, 2024
What’s wrong with this perspective on human life? People everywhere in America agree that a bad attitude in life brings bad results. But the biblical perspective strikes deeper into the fallen nature of humanity. Bad attitude embodies sin – sin against God the Creator, and Christ the Redeemer. The movie also communicates the idea that doing good things with a good attitude will bring good results. But no example by a fallen human being has the power to transform even one person to have a purified heart. Nothing short of the miraculous, creative work of God’s Holy Spirit has the capacity to change the nature of a single soul.

A marathon. All day long, every two and a half hours. The same old movie about Groundhog Day, which is celebrated in the USA every February 2. If the groundhog comes out of his hole and sees his shadow, this greatest of all prognosticators will have predicted six more weeks of winter.
If a major television network can run the same movie for over 12 hours straight, the message of this movie must capture the heartbeat of a major portion the American people. But what is the message? What is it in this movie that defines a heartbeat of American culture today?
The formula is very simple. Have a negative attitude toward all of life, and everything will go bad for you. Change your attitude and your actions to a positive perspective on all of life, and you will be a person filled with happiness and joy. You will live “happily ever after.”
A simple formula. Everyone can understand it immediately. Change your attitude and your accompanying actions, and you can have a happy, happy life.
So how does the formula play out? Despise your work, despise people, despise even God’s little creatures like a groundhog, and you will be miserable. Bill Murray, the lead actor, has been cast perfectly for this role. While looking miserable, he ignores a poor old street beggar. He scorns an old high school friend. He rudely turns down a nice lady’s offer of the best coffee she can produce. He mocks a small-town community’s joyful celebration.
But these bad attitudes foster grosser actions. He deceives an unsuspecting young woman by lying about their previous fictitious high school years together. He lures her into sexual immorality. He schemes and commits a bank robbery. He steals an automobile and leads small town police through a life-threatening high-speed chase.
In terms of openly and convincingly demonstrating that “out of the heart proceed the issues of life,” the movie does an excellent job. Bad attitude invariably leads to immoral conduct. Unintentionally the truth comes out. A bad heart leads to a miserable life. It even gets so bad that the main character makes many efforts to take his own life. He drives an automobile over a cliff, with the car landing upside down and bursting into a consuming ball of fire. He steps directly into the path of a moving truck. He leaps from the top of the highest building in town. He electrocutes himself in the bathtub. But he cannot succeed in destroying his life. Every morning he wakes up again on February 2nd.
Inadvertently the truth comes out once more, though in distorted form. Question 19 from the child’s catechism simply but profoundly asks: “Do you have a soul as well as a body?” Answer: “Yes, I have a soul that can never die.” You cannot kill your soul, no matter how hard you try.
The second half of the movie tells a different tale. What is this tale?
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 69

It’s a Trap!

By Jacob Crouch — 2 months ago

We are in a warfare that requires the prudent be on the lookout for evils to avoid. In your hearts, acknowledge the traps that are all around you. And if you really need to, say it out loud to shake you from your apathy and turn from the temptation.

When I was in college, it’s very likely that people thought I was a little weird. Around 2008, I started to really seek the Lord. I had been saved a few years before then, but around that time I had someone show me that I could read and understand the Bible for myself. I was soaking up everything and growing like a weed. I was also a little weird (still am?). Put those two things together and you get an interesting outcome. Here’s what I mean: I used to wear one white sock and one black sock to remind me that the flesh warred against the Spirit (Gal 6). I made a little Bible carrying pouch to wear on my belt and called it my “sheath” for carrying around my “sword” (Eph 5). And if you were walking by me on campus, sometimes you might hear me exclaim, “It’s a trap!”
As anyone who has sought the Lord will tell you, the more you see of God, the better you see yourself. Specifically, the more you see of your own insufficiency.
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 32

John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation

By Ron DiGiacomo — 2 months ago

MacArthur redefines fiducia by turning the volitional component of justifying faith into something other than child like receiving and resting in Christ for salvation. For MacArthur fiducia is not the disposition of trust in Christ (or to believe into Christ) but rather the work of bringing our righteous to Christ in deeds of forsaking, commitment and surrender.

In this post I addressed the aberrant view that justifying faith is assent alone apart from trusting in Christ. Therein I made a passing reference to another extreme view of faith – the “Lordship Salvation” gospel whose advocates not only define justifying faith without reference to the Reformed view of trust, but also add forsaking oneself, commitment of life and surrender to justifying faith, which in turn eclipses the gospel by confusing how one might appropriate Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel.
It is notable that John MacArthur, the most significant proponent of this view, does not subscribe to historical Reformed theology. In that respect, MacArthur is unchecked with respect to confessional theology in the Reformed tradition. Aside from having a baptistic ecclesiology and a dispensational view of the covenants, MacArthur has gotten the doctrines of justification and justifying faith wrong. I address those errors here.
Saving Faith According to John MacArthur:
Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith. (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 142)
By “saving faith” MacArthur means justifying faith. We may infer this because he is speaking of the faith that is tied to conversion. Accordingly, sanctifying or persevering faith is not in view. What is also noteworthy is MacArthur cites “forsaking oneself” as an essential element of justifying faith, which is radically different than how the Reformed tradition defines justifying faith:
Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. Westminster Larger Catechism, #72 What is justifying faith?
The most significant Confession in the history of the Protestant tradition defines the faith that justifies differently than MacArthur. At the heart of justifying faith is receiving and resting upon Christ, which is absent in MacArthur’s ordo salutis. Worse more, to add forsaking one’s life to the simplicity of faith is another gospel because it adds works to justifying faith. But not only does MacArthur add forsaking one’s life to faith, he also asserts that personal commitment is essential to justifying faith.
Commitment is the disputed element of faith around which the lordship controversy swirls. No-lordship theology denies that believing in Christ involves any element of personal commitment to Him. (Faith Works, The Gospel According To The Apostles, p. 43-44)
MacArthur contends that justifying faith, the faith that appropriates the benefits of Christ, entails “forsaking oneself” and “commitment.” It is not MacArthur but the Westminster Shorter Catechism that has it right when it states:
Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, he is offered in the gospel.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, #86 What is faith in Jesus Christ?)
It escapes MacArthur that personal commitment and forsaking one’s life are works of righteousness, which if done in faith are fruits of sanctification and not elements (or principal acts) of justifying faith. MacArthur seems to miss that justifying faith is merely an instrument by which the unrighteous lay hold of Christ’s righteousness. (Westminster Shorter Catechism #73)
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 46

On Yuval Noah Harari

By Bill Muehlenberg — 2 months ago

The 47-year-old author and speaker is about as bad as it gets when it comes to his pronouncements about who we are, where we should be heading, and how we should get there. Simply offering a number of quotes from him will give us a real good heads-up as to where he is coming from, and just how very toxic his thinking can be.

One does not need to be a “conspiracy theorist” to know that there are some pretty evil people out there, some pretty evil groups out there, and some pretty evil ideologies out there. Many of us know about the Great Reset, the World Economic Forum, and Klaus Schwab. They would have to be high up on the list of those promoting evil.
One very influential and famous adviser to them is the Israeli philosopher, historian, transhumanist, homosexual and atheist Yuval Noah Harari. The 47-year-old author and speaker is about as bad as it gets when it comes to his pronouncements about who we are, where we should be heading, and how we should get there.
Simply offering a number of quotes from him will give us a real good heads-up as to where he is coming from, and just how very toxic his thinking can be. Some months ago he had said this:
If you go back to the middle of the 20th century … and you think about building the future, then your building materials are those millions of people who are working hard in the factories, in the farms, the soldiers. You need them. You don’t have any kind of future without them. Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population, because the future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence bioengineering, Most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing which is useful, these technologies increasingly will make redundant and will make it possible to replace the people. https://francesleader.substack.com/p/yuval-harari-interview
And in his 2016 book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow he even speaks of a “useless class” of people: “In the twenty-first century we might witness the creation of a massive new unworking class: people devoid of any economic, political or even artistic value, who contribute nothing to the prosperity, power and glory of society. This ‘useless class’ will not be merely unemployed – it will be unemployable.”
Is he being merely descriptive or prescriptive here? Often in the name of saving humanity these folks will show their true colours as those who hate humans. And folks like this never seem to bother following their own advice. They want a massive cull in the human population, but for some reason they refuse to lead by example here.
And consider this video of him speaking that just recently came to light:
Many, maybe most legal systems are based on this ideal, this belief in human rights. But human rights are just like heaven, and like God–it’s just a fictional story that we’ve invented and spread around. It may be a very nice story. It may be a very attractive story. We want to believe it, but it’s just a story. It’s not reality. It’s not a biological reality. Just as jellyfish and woodpeckers and ostriches have no rights, homo sapiens have no rights also.” Take a human, cut him open, look inside. You find the blood and you find the heart and lungs and kidneys but you don’t find there any rights. The only place you find rights is in fictional stories humans have invented and spread around. And the same thing is also true in the political field. States and nations are also, like human rights, and like God, and like heaven, they too are just stories. A mountain is a reality. You can see it. You can touch it. You can even smell it. But Israel, or the United States, they are just stories. Very powerful stories. Stories we might want to believe very much. But still they are just stories. You can’t really see the United States. You cannot touch it. You cannot smell it. https://slaynews.com/news/wef-mastermind-human-rights-fiction-just-like-god/
He has been saying things like this for some time now. In his 2011 book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, he wrote:
According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created.’ They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be “equal.” The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a directly created soul, and that all people are equal before God. However if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation, souls, what does it mean that all people are created “equal”?
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 42

At Work in His Word

By Peter Mead — 2 months ago

What is God’s goal as he works in us through the Scriptures? 2 Tim. 3:17. The goal is clear: you will be complete or mature, thoroughly equipped for every good work. We know that God has good works for us in every stage of life. But how can we be ready for them? The answer is easy. Get your nose in the Bible and get the Bible into you, relationally, so that God’s work will be done in your life.

As we enter February, there will be many new year Bible reading plans that are fading away. Perhaps the challenge of a full work schedule, combined with dark mornings, drains the motivation to be in God’s Word. Or maybe the second half of Exodus and Leviticus is proving too great a challenge. Whatever the reason, many will settle into a rhythm marked more by guilt than regular enjoyment of the Bible.
It is hard to relate to a God we cannot see, hear, or touch. And while we know that the Bible is his glorious gift of communication to us, it can often feel distant and disconnected from our everyday lives. How can we find motivation for a relationship with God that has the Bible at the centre?
The critical issue is right in the question itself. Do we experience the Bible in the context of a relationship? Or have we let the relational aspect drain away, leaving the Bible as an optional tool or merely an interesting document for our fascination with religious history?
In 2 Timothy 3:14-17, Paul gives us a critical passage on the nature of Scripture. In these verses, Paul points to the role of Scripture in our salvation and our growth to maturity. In these verses, Paul clarifies what Scripture is and how it works in us. Let’s look again at these verses and remind ourselves that God lovingly works in us as we are in his Word. To put it differently, the Bible is not just a “past tense” book for our studies. It is a “present tense” gift for our relationship with God. God lovingly works (present tense) in us as we are in his Word and as his Word gets into us.
Entering into a relationship with God, 2 Tim. 3:14-15. As Paul wrote to Timothy to encourage him in the challenges he would face, he wanted him to remember where his ministry all started. It started by coming to know salvation in the first place. Timothy had learned and came to believe in the sacred writings of Scripture from his grandmother, his mother, and Paul himself. His Bible exposure taught him about the wonder of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Without the Bible, we would only be guessing about God, and our guesswork would never have led us into a relationship with him. God has taken the initiative in our salvation, revealing his character, plans, and great gift. There is no relationship with God if there were no Bible. But since there is, let us not lose the relational nature of our connection to him!
So, what is Scripture? 2 Tim. 3:16a. “All Scripture is God-breathed.” What a way to describe it! It comes from the very core of God’s being. He made sure that the authors wrote exactly what God wanted to be written. All Scripture, every last Word, was as he intended. On a human level, the Bible is astonishing – so many authors, different languages, different types of literature, and yet an incredibly coherent and consistent collection of documents. But the Bible is not written just on a human level – it is “God-breathed!” That means it is unique – no other book is in the same category. It also means it is a loving gift – God wanted it written for his people. It is a purposeful gift – God intended it to achieve something in us.
Based on what we know of God, what might we assume his Scriptures would do? Would God give us a mindless distraction to pass some time?
Read More
Related Posts: