When God sent his Son into the world, he sent him with a name — with many names, in fact. And in his mercy, God was pleased to inscribe assurance in nearly every syllable. Some of Jesus’s names do speak directly of his greatness, calling forth fearful awe. He is the Lord who commands creation, the King who rules the nations, the Judge who sifts men’s hearts, the Holy One who terrifies demons. But in line with the revelation of God’s name to Moses, so many of Jesus’s names testify to the glory of his grace.

For a certain kind of Christian, assurance of salvation can feel as fickle as a winter sun. Here and there, the sky shines blue and bright, filling the soul with light. Far more often, however, the days are mostly cloudy, the sun shadowed with uncertainty. And then sometimes, the sky goes gray for weeks on end, and the heart walks heavily under the darkness of doubt.
From the outside, such Christians may seem to bear much spiritual fruit: friends may mark the grace in their lives, accountability partners may encourage them, pastors may find no reason to question their faith. But for those under the clouds, even healthy fruit can look pale and sick. So even as they read their Bible, pray, gather with God’s people, witness, and confess their sins, they usually find some reason to wonder if they really belong to Christ.
How does assurance sink into the heart and psyche of those prone to second-guess? The Holy Spirit has many ways of nourishing confidence in his people — not least by teaching us to recognize the fruit he bears. But for the overly scrupulous among us, for whom personal holiness always seems uncertain, the Spirit also does more: he lifts our eyes above the clouds to show us God’s unchanging character.
Among the divine qualities he uses to nurture our assurance, we may find one surprising: God’s infinite commitment to his glory.
For the Sake of His Name
At first, God’s commitment to his glory may seem to weaken, not strengthen, a doubting Christian’s assurance. If God does everything “to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:14), for the fame of his name, what hope do we have — we who daily fall short of that glory, who often dishonor that name? We would need to find assurance elsewhere, it would seem.
Yet those who pay attention will find God’s zeal for his name running like a silver thread of hope through all the Scriptures. When Israel’s army fell before Ai, “What will you do for your great name?” was Joshua’s cry (Joshua 7:9). When the nation sinned by demanding a human king, Samuel assured the fearful, “The Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name’s sake” (1 Samuel 12:22). When, later, Israel teetered on the brink of exile, Jeremiah pleaded, “Do not spurn us, for your name’s sake” (Jeremiah 14:21). And when the nation languished in Babylon, Daniel grounded his bold prayers on “your name” (Daniel 9:19).
Again and again, the guilty people of God appeal not only to God’s mercy, but to his unflinching allegiance to his glory. Save us, restore us, keep us, defend us — and do it for the sake of your name! So what did they know about God’s name that we may not?
His People, Their God
First, they knew that God, in unspeakable mercy, had condescended to put his name upon his people (Numbers 6:27). By making a covenant with Israel — taking them as his people, pledging himself as their God — he wrapped up his glory with their good; he wove his fame together with their future.
The surrounding nations knew, as Daniel prayed, that “your city and your people are called by your name” (Daniel 9:19). And so, when God lifted up his people, he lifted up his name; when God helped his people, he hallowed his name. Through Israel’s welfare, he trumpeted his own worth, showing himself as the only living God in a world of lifeless idols.
No doubt, God’s name proved useless to those who presumed upon it, who chanted “The Lord! The Lord!” so they could keep sinning in safety (Jeremiah 7:8–15). When Israel’s unrepentant ran to God’s name for refuge, they found the door locked. But for the humble repentant, God’s name stood like the strongest tower (Proverbs 18:10). They might be sinful and unworthy in themselves, but God had given them his name.
Read More
Related Posts:

Ultimately, it is only when scientific investigation is directed and grounded upon Christian presuppositions that it is capable of achieving what it was designed by God to achieve. In contrast to secular science, Christian science always ends in doxology, for the God who gave us the means to study the world is the one to whom all glory rightly belongs. While Christianity and Science is certainly not a book for all, it is an excellent resource for those with a scholarly bent. I suspect its enduring significance will be manifest when debates concerning the relationship between science and Christianity are reignited in years to come.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the works of Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). Bavinck scholars in the likes of James Eglinton, Cameron Clausing, Nathaniel Sutanto, and Greg Parker have made significant contributions to the field, not only in their analysis of Bavinck’s theology, but also in providing contemporary translations of his works. Christianity and Scienceis one such translation, which we can be thankful to Sutanto, Eglinton and Brock for producing! I think the book is worth purchasing if only to read the 39 page ‘Editor’s Introduction’ which summarises Bavinck’s work and underscores its relevance for today.
At its heart, Christianity and Scienceshows the Christian foundations that lay beneath the study of science. Bavinck insists why they are necessary if the discipline of science is to flourish the way God intended it to. Bavinck intendedChristianity and Scienceto be read as a companion to Christian Worldview, which he wrote as a biblical response to modernity and the challenges facing believers at the turn of the 20th century (A new translation of this work was published by the aforementioned scholars in 2019!). Though I cannot comment on the quality of translation itself given my inability to read Dutch, the subject matter of Christianity and Scienceis as relevant today as when it was first penned.
The central thesis of Christianity and Scienceis that Christians have in Jesus Christ an anchor not only for salvation, but also truth itself. Bavinck writes: “The apostles of Jesus planted the banner of truth in that world of unbelief and superstition. After all, the Christian religion is not merely the religion of grace. It is also the religion of truth.” (p. 50)
By implication, science is not to be seen as a secular discipline to be undertaken in separation from theology. Rather, it is only because we bear the image of a loving God that we have the capacity to study the world using scientific methods. Yet, we live in a time when many continue to insist that faith and science are separate entities, with even many Christians treating them in such a way. Bavinck insists that this must not be so.
Science versus Christianity?
Today it is almost assumed that science and Christianity are in conflict. Many believe that science deals with facts, whereas Christianity deals with fiction. Science deals with objectivity, while Christianity deals with subjectivity. Science presents evidence, whereas Christianity demands faith. Bavinck destroys these false dichotomies and gets to the heart of the issue. According to Bavinck, faith and reason must be understood as two sides of the same coin.
Bavinck wrote in the shadow of Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859), in a socio-religious climate which saw naturalistic ‘science’ as the emancipator of man. Nevertheless, it would have been helpful if Bavinck had presented a theological and philosophical critique of Darwinian Evolution and its incompatibility with the Biblical creation account. After all, this is often the crux of the science-Christianity debate. Nevertheless, the principles and presuppositions presented in Christianity and Sciencecan certainly be applied to the evolution/creation debate.
While Bavinck never uses the term ‘scientism,’ this philosophy is the bullseye of his work. Scientism is the notion that ‘science alone can render truth about the world and reality.’ Yet, as apologist Frank Turek aptly put it: “Science doesn’t say anything — scientists do.” Therefore, when conflicts between science and Christianity appear, our instinct should not be to throw aside Scripture in pursuit of ‘science.’ Rather, we should analyse the arguments through the lens of God’s Word, recognising the theological implications of the issue at hand.
While scientism does not have the same momentum it had during the heyday of Richard Dawkins, many still hold to its erroneous presuppositions. The post-Christian, postmodern society in which we find ourselves continues to bear marks of its faulty presuppositions. In many ways, Bavinck’s critiques of scientific positivism — the 19th century dogma which argued all knowledge can be gained apart from supernatural revelation —can be applied to scientism today.
All science is conducted through the lens of a worldview, and Bavinck is adamant to emphasise this. He writes:
As such, by its very nature, each religious confession lays claim on the entire world. If each religion is accompanied by a certain view of the world and humanity, of nature and history—which it always is—then through this it binds the whole of a person’s life and also, specifically, [his] science. The degree and extent to which science is bound to these religious convictions can differ, but the principle is always the same.
Read More
Related Posts:

Leftism seeks to liberate us from all unchosen constraints and obligations, which includes our embodiment as men and women. It has effaced the differences between men and women and embraced the sexual revolution, which presumes that happiness, authenticity, and fulfillment are found through indulging our desires, especially our sexual impulses. But as intense as these desires may be, they are not the key to happiness, and their relentless pursuit damages the relationships in which we can best cultivate our happiness in this life. 

The arsonists have arrived at the inferno, radiating innocence and full of helpful suggestions for putting it out. That is to say, leftists have noticed that Americans feel increasingly alienated and lonely, and they are going to do something about it.  
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., has proudly announced the “National Strategy for Social Connection Act,” which “creates a federal office to combat the growing epidemic of American loneliness, develops anti-loneliness strategies, and fosters best practices to promote social connection.” No doubt this bureaucratic buddy program will reweave America’s frayed social fabric, which just needs more friendship-facilitating feds.
Murphy seems sincere, and some of his concerns, such as those regarding what the algorithm-driven world of social media does to children, are valid. But if he wants to confront the real sources of American loneliness, he should look in the mirror. Nothing has done more to destroy American families and communities than the sexual revolution, which Murphy and his party enthusiastically champion. Sexual liberation promised a good time, but it has turned out to be very lonely indeed. 
A lonely society is the predictable (and predicted) consequence of eroding the commitments and duties of the natural family. Broken relationships between men and women lead to broken communities and traumatized children. A culture that worships sexual freedom, even at the cost of killing babies in utero, makes isolation and despair inevitable among the living.  
Of course, community and family life break down in a culture that effaces the differences between men and women to the point of pretending that men can be women and women can be men. Under pressure from adult activists and panicked by the superstition that children are being born into the wrong bodies, Murphy and his party have even embraced the surgical and chemical sterilization and mutilation of children.  
Yes, there are other contributions to increasing loneliness and alienation: economic policies that place too much value on GDP growth over economic stability, bad housing policies, and immigration policies that allow drug cartels to control the southern border. But someone who is unwilling to face the broken promises and evil consequences of the sexual revolution does not really want to address “the spiritual crisis facing America today.” And so, Murphy quickly backtracked when his tweets about expanding the Democratic Party’s coalition were criticized for opening the possibility of compromise on social issues. 
Read More
Related Posts: