• New blog post: 2009-04-07 Tweets http://tinyurl.com/d85nwo 00:21:04
• ‘Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate’ = fail 08:47:51
• What does it say about your preaching if your congregants like the preaching of Joel Osteen? 09:38:25
• Finished Jonathan Edwards’ Charity and Its Fruits. This is one you want to read all the way through to Heaven is a World of Love. Maranatha. 19:19:46

• New blog post: 2009-03-31 Tweets http://tinyurl.com/d3ozcr 00:54:21
• Chap in the library typing sounds like he’s swatting flies. Let’s go easy on the keys pal. 09:33:34
• Looking for a good time? Read the names of John Bunyan’s works. Eg, Holy War and the Heavenly Foot-man 09:39:22
• Augustine: …Christ came into the world. He came, after all, insofar as he was man. Because insofar as he was God, he was always there. 10:00:02
• Received Amazon.com gift dollars from @mmaust for my b-day. Only thing cooler would have been an actual amazon. 12:49:30
• The more I tweet and the more I read Jonathan Edwards, the more I wish I could fit Edwards into a tweet. 19:03:01

Today’s my birthday, my twenty-fourth birthday: April Fool’s Day. I’ve done a few things in my twenty-four years of existence but when I compare myself to others before me, I fall short. Really short. When I pointed this out to my wife, she replied, “But did they know how to DJ?” If it’s either/or, I’ll leave djing behind in a heartbeat. Check these guy out; different times and places, I know, but seriously: check these guys out.

John Calvin

• By the age of twelve he was a bishop’s clerk. I was just a jerk.
• Soon after, he started college and began taking Latin from one of the greatest teachers of the language. I waited until my senior year of high school to take Latin I. I started college at eighteen.
• By age twenty he had been to two or three different universities and knew Greek. OK, so we’re about even on this point though I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to say I know Greek.
• At twenty-three his commentary on Seneca was published. Only things I’ve ever published are right here through WordPress.
• At twenty-four some thought him a heretic for being aligned with reformation-esque sentiment. He fled. Though I try to punk people out in a Reformation spirit, nobody listens and I needn’t flee.

John Gill

• By age ten he had read through the entire Greek New Testament and began teaching himself Hebrew.
• Mastered Latin classics by age eleven. At age eleven, I mastered my BB gun.
• Before his teens, local clergy would stop by and find out what little Johnny thought. Sunday School teachers told my parents what a brat I was.
• He was the first Baptist to develop a complete systematic theology and a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole Bible. I was probably the first toddler to poop on a church sidewalk.
• He was called Dr. Voluminous. Me? Not even a doctor.
• There was a saying in his day “As sure as John Gill is in the bookseller’s shop.” A saying based on me might be, “As sure as Drew is on his laptop.”

Jonathan Edwards

• At eleven he wrote a remarkable essay on spiders. By eleven, I had barely even killed one.
• Started at Yale not even thirteen years-old. Me: Marshall University, age eighteen.
• At twenty, he pastored a church in New York. At twenty, I hadn’t even been to New York, let alone a pastor.
• Around the age of twenty-three he wrote his rigorous and convicting Resolutions. I’m a slacker now twenty-four.

I Am What I Am

What do I take solace in on my birthday knowing that these Johns before me have accomplished way more than I by my age? Djing. Playing records on turntables. Nay!

Paul writes in1 Corinthians 15:10,

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

Twenty-four down? Twenty-four down. Let’s keep moving, working harder by God’s grace that is with us.

Why do we use the phrase “redemptive history“? Wasn’t redemption accomplished in that single act of Jesus offering himself upon the cross in our place? Yes and no, says, Jonathan Edwards in his 1739 sermon “A History of the Work of Redemption.” He notes that there are many parts or acts of redemption that make up what we call redemptive history. Therefore redemption has a history to it. Specifically, redemption has a history because it was first planned in eternity past, begun after the Fall, and its fruit will continue on into eternity future.

On this last aspect where one might expect the work of redemption to continue into eternity future, Edwards writes,

“The Work of Redemption is not an eternal work, that is, it is not a work always a-doing and never accomplished. But the fruits of this work are eternal fruits…[A]s God’s electing love and the covenant of redemption never had a beginning, so the fruits of this work that shall be after the end of the work never will have an end” (A Jonathan Edwards Reader, p. 130).

Why many parts?

My dad asked this question last week as we talked about the relation of the Testaments and the span of redemptive history. Why did God wait so long? My mind was immediately taken toGalatians 4:4 where Paul speaks about God sending for his son in “the fullness of time.” We must remember that what is a long time in our minds is perfect timing is God’s grand scheme of redemptive history. Still, we wonder why.

Edwards likens the many parts of redemptive history to the construction of a building:

“Like an house or temple that is building, first the workmen are sent forth, then the materials are gathered, then ground fitted, then foundation is laid, then the superstructure erected one part after another, till at length the topstone is laid. And all is finished. Now the Work of Redemption in that large sense that has been explained may be compared to such a building that is carrying on from the fall of man to the end of the world. God went about it immediately after the fall of man. Some things were done towards this building then, immediately as maybe hereafter shown; and so God has gone as it were getting materials and building ever since, and so will go on to the end of the world. And then the time shall come when the topstone shall be brought forth and all will appear complete and consummate” (A Jonathan Edwards Reader, 132).

This analogy, however, does not serve to explain why God did things this way. It just makes it more understandable, more reasonable when we think of redemptive history as a work in progress.

Still, why many parts?

God’s glory.

Edwards, as you may well be aware, argues thoroughly and compellingly for God’s glory as the end of all his works (cf. “The End for Which God Created the World”). Most importantly, this is the testimony of the Bible. Therefore, Edwards can conclude his sermon on the work of redemption by saying (n.b. read slowly),

“In all this God designed to accomplish the glory of the blessed Trinity in an exceeding degree. God had a design of glorifying himself from eternity, to glorify each person in the Godhead. The end must considered as first in the order of nature and then the means, and therefore we must conceive that God having proposed this end had then, as it were, the means to choose” (A Jonathan Edwards Reader, p. 135).

In my own words, God’s goal (his end) is to glorify himself. (Don’t worry: your joy in life is not opposed to God glorifying himself but included in it.) The goal is always first or primary. The way to accomplish the goal is secondary or subordinate. God has the right to choose how to accomplish his goal. He chose to do it in many parts. God’s timing like his plan is perfect. We therefore trust him.

A Jonathan Edwards Reader

The book I’ve quoted in this post is A Jonathan Edwards Reader published by Yale University Press. I ordered my copy from Westminster Seminary Bookstore for a class on Jonathan Edwards I’m taking this semester. Use the following referral link to check it out in the Westminster Bookstore (every click gets me closer to a free book): Jonathan Edwards Reader

Iain Murray’s summary of Edwards on free will in his biography Jonathan Edwards:

“If man is without the power to repent and turn to God, as the orthodox believed, how can he be held responsible for remaining in sin? If human inability were true, said the Arminians, then man is no longer a free agent, but acts under compulsion. Man is free, replies Edwards, in the sense that he has all natural faculties–mind, will, etc.–and this constitutes his responsibility. Man’s utter incapacity to do spiritual good does not arise out of a physical lack of faculties, but altogether out of the wrong moral disposition of those faculties. In this way he explains how man, though totally corrupt in his nature, is still a responsible free agent” (pp. 425-426, emphasis mine).

We sin because we like it.

Jonathan Edwards caused quite a hubbub with his congregation around the year 1749 after the death of the previous pastor, his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard who was “so great and eminent a divine” in Northampton. Edwards as the new pastor felt convicted to tweak the qualifications for full membership (i.e., taking the Lord’s Supper). Stoddard had led the church to practice an open communion, believing that the unbeliever could be converted in receiving the elements as had been his conversion experience. Edwards disagreed with such an open view of communion and attempted to lead the congregation back to what he considered a more biblical reception of the elements. But seeing as his grandfather was so well respected in not only the church but also in the community, Edwards was met with staunch opposition. Who do you think you are, Jonathan, to try and change what your sagacious grandfather had taught? He would eventually be relieved of his duties.

Edwards didn’t give up without a theological fight however. In 1749 he penned An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifications Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Christian Church. This was meant as a sort of tract for his opponents to read and see if they be not swayed to his understanding. It wasn’t especially well-received. Only about ten copies sold after it had been published and printed. People complained it was too difficult to understand (Edwards? Difficult to understand? Ha!). What was meant to assuage the debate and ill-will toward the humble preacher was largely brushed to the side in favor of siding blindly with his grandfather.

In the preface to An Humble Inquiry, Edwards makes a point concerning the adoption of another’s theological views which I believe should be well-heeded because much wholesale theological adoption takes place today. For example, without a doubt one of John Piper’s main effects on evangelicalism is the resurgence of Calvinism among my generation. Books have been written on this so-called “New Calvinism” (e.g., Young, Restless, Reformed). With such a rise in popularity of a theological persuasion comes the risk of its unexamined wholesale adoption. Do you believe in a limited atonement because the scriptural evidence leads you in that direction or because it’s the view of your favorite preacher and you like everything else he has to offer? If it’s the latter, Edwards has the following words of corrective caution to offer:

“I [Edwards] ought not to look on his [Stoddard's] principles as oracles, as though he could not miss it, as well as Nathan himself in his conjecture about building the house of God; nay, surely that I am, even to be commended, for examining his practice, and judging for myself; that it would ill become me, to do otherwise; that this would be no manifestation of humility, but rather show a baseness of spirit; that if I [be not] capable to judge for myself in these matters, I am by no means fit to open the mysteries of the gospel; that if I should believe his principles, because he advanced them, I should be guilty of making him an idol. Also he tells his and my flock, with all others, that it ill becomes them, so to indulge their ease, as to neglect examining of received principles and practices…”

Edwards in making a case for the reasonableness of differing with his grandfather over the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper gives a word of caution that should find wider application.

John Piper is not God. His principles are not oracles. He can miss it. The budding theologian is to be commended for judging and examining a man’s theology and searching the Scriptures. Further, it’s not humble to say, “I believe in a limited atonement because that’s what Piper holds to”; it’s base, it’s stupid, Edwards says. (Of course, none would admit that they believe something simply because a favorite theologian believes or teaches it; but, trust me, that temptation is always there and it happens far too often.) The temptation exists because it’s easier to import wholesale someone’s theology whom you respect than to formulate your own based on a careful exegesis of Scripture. Edwards, however, warns against such indulgence of ease and neglect of examination. Moreover, great theologians will almost certainly be against such a wholesale adoption of their theology without prior examination..

Edwards concludes as much when he writes later in the same paragraph:

“Thus, I think, he [Stoddard] sufficiently vindicates my conduct in the present case, and warns all with whom I am concerned, not to be at all displeased with me, or to find the least fault with me, merely because I examine for myself, have a judgment of my own, and am for practicing in some particulars different from him, how positive soever he was that his judgment and practice were right.”

You would be confused if you took away from this post the idea that we needn’t bother with (eminent) theologians. Notice that in this post we are learning from Edwards, examining what he says, and finding that it makes sense. It would be backwards for me to say, “Because Edwards was the greatest theologian born on American soil, we should adopt what he has to say on such and such a subject” and not encourage the comparison of his thought with Scripture. Edwards would not want this, nor, if I may be allowed to speak for Piper, would John Piper. Guard against therefore blind acceptance of any particular minutia of theology because so-and-so believes it. That so-and-so believes it may be a good starting point, but don’t end there.

By the way, I love Piper and am very grateful to God for his introducing me to Calvinism (and Edwards!) through his sermons and books. I often here Piper bashing; that is, bashing of John Piper. I trust this post will not come across as such. It just so happens that he, however so unfortunate, immediately comes to mind as one from whom one may liberally adopt theology blindly, as has been my personal temptation. Other examples would be Paige Patterson (especially at SEBTS), Oprah (ha!), and Rob Bell.

The above quotations of An Humble Inquiry are from A Jonathan Edwards Reader (Yale University Press) page 180.

Theology I (Dr. Keathley)

• The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

New Testament I (Dr. Black)

• Dr. & Mrs. Black share stories, pictures, and video from their work in the far away land of Ethiopia. I watched a blind man recite a large chunk of Matthew’s gospel in Amharic which he was able to memorize from cassette. Younger ones recite passages (not verses!) in exchange for a Bible. Why do I devote my time to that which will not last? Tears began to fill my eyes as this Scripture came to mind:“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:9-10).

  Yes, Amharic! Sing to Jesus for by his blood he has ransomed you, too!

Church History I (Dr. Hogg)

• I am amazed at how much Southern Baptist students care about the rise of the papacy and its sidekicks (indulgences, relics, supererogatory acts). Just checking what the grass is like on the other side of the fence? Looking for ammunition? Or plain ignorant? I have to admit that the questions intrigue me as well.

Baptist History (Dr. Harper)

• The 19th century Anti-Missions movement did not stem from unevangelistic hyper-Calvinism as one might conjecture, but from a concern that the organization of mission boards and societies was unbiblical. Baptists are building schools and the Anti-Missions folks are asking, Where is building schools in the Bible? A good example of not to suppose you understand where someone is coming from until you’ve got it from the horse’s mouth.

Miscellany

• Happy birthday, Jonathan Edwards (October 5, 1703).
• SEBTS chapel Q&A with President Akin. The question of worship style came up again. As my tenth grade science teacher used to say, “We think we don’t have answers, but what we really don’t have are questions.”
• I now understand the Southern Baptist denomination a little bit better thanks to Nathan Finn.

Hi Drew,

I understand when you say that we all deserve to go to hell. It put me in mind of a quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet (we studied it in High School): “..use every man after his deserts, then who should scape whipping?” Is that what you mean? So, if I understand you rightly, then the “grace” of God is like mercy. We are only “let off” our punishment because God chooses it. Is that so? It kinda makes sense if he is a loving God as we are told. I “Googled” Jonathan Edwards. He seems to have been quite the preacher. But he says God is an “angry” God and we can be liable to slide into hell at any time. Can I quote you from his “Sinner in the hands of an Angry God”. He says, referring to Deuteronomy chapter 32 verse 35

“That the reason why they are not fallen already and do not fall now is only that God’s appointed time is not come. For it is said, that when that due time, or appointed time comes, their foot shall slide. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost.”

This worries me a bit. What if God suddenly says, “Jack, the appointed time for you has come”. Would I be left to fall? Drew, I can tell you now, I don’t really fancy that prospect. I hadn’t realised that things were so urgent. I suppose the appointed time could be anytime, like today even. Drew, what must I do? I have read all your letters and you have probably already spelled it out. I’m sorry if I’m making you repeat yourself but this is more important than I had realised. In a nutshell, what must I do so that God doesn’t let me slip into hell?

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Jack

Sir Jack Whom I Email and Who Emails Back,

Jonathan Edwards was quite the preacher. The man prepared sermons on horseback and used and reused paper until there was no more room to write on it. Imagine what the cat could have done with a laptop and a blog!

It is a serious matter that Edwards writes of in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. First off, let me tell you (and not to divert the issue) that just as horrifically as Jonathan Edwards wrote of hell, he equally as vivid describes the wonders of heaven and being with God. He was a man that had a grasp on the seriousness and the majesty of God, and this perspective led him to understand more than most the gravitas with which God must be treated. We’re not talking about Santa Claus, or Gumby, or Mr. Rogers; this is the God of who created the heavens and the earth by his word through Jesus. This is the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the God of Edwards.

I’m glad you brought up Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God because in it Jonathan Edwards describes us being on a slippery slope. This is sin as we have talked about it. Our love of sin is destroying us. Furthermore, our sin makes a law breaker. We have broken God’s law. This can be plainly seen if we compare ourselves to the famous Ten Commandments:

1. Has God been foremost in my desiring, or is everything about me? I’m a lawbreaker.
2. Have I worshiped fake gods (sex, money, success, materialism, myself), and not the Creator of the universe? I’m a lawbreaker.
3. Have I taken God’s name in vain? Have I blasphemed against Jesus? I’m a lawbreaker.
4. Have I set aside a day to rest and worship God? (This should be everyday.) I’m a lawbreaker.
5. Have I honored my father and mother, or have I been disobedient? I’m a lawbreaker.
6. Have I murdered someone? Jesus stepped this one up and said that even if I have been so angry that I have hated my brother, I am guilty. I’m a lawbreaker.
7. Have I had sex with someone that I’m not married to? Jesus also stepped this one up and said that if I have lusted after a woman in my heart, I am guilty. I am a lawbreaker.
8. Have I lied? Guilty.
9. Have I wanted something so much that wasn’t mine (coveted)? I’m a lawbreaker.

I’m a lawbreaker and thereby guilty. In the New Testament it says that the Law was given so that we might see how much of a sinner (lawbreaker) we are and how much we are in need of rescuing; because what is the just thing for a judge to do to a lawbreaker but condemn? We are guilty.

You’ve heardJohn 3:16–”God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life?” This is the gospel: namely, that while we are guilty because we are lawbreakers, Jesus Christ has died for us to forgive our sins that upon repenting and placing our faith in him we can have our sins washed away and be cleansed and be righteous before God.

This is the gospel: God rescuing us in Jesus. Jesus is God in human form. Jesus took the penalty of our sin upon him and thereby canceled out the debt against us. All we have to do is turn to him in faith and repentance and God has promised that he would save us. “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord [Jesus] shall be saved.” The Bible is full of God’s promises towards us. He has rescued us! He has accepted our penalty in Jesus. If we turn away from our sinful lifestyle and trust in Jesus as the perfect sacrifice for our sins, God promises, that he will rescue us now, giving us abundant life and joy, and will rescue us when “that due time, or appointed time comes.” We then have nothing to fear for God is in control. We can trust that when God says our appointed time is up, everything will be OK even if it seems scary or painful.

Our appointed times could be any day or any moment that’s why its important to seek after God while he may be found. “Today is the day of salvation.” Don’t delay.

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (Matthew 13:44). Buy that field, Jack.

–drew

PS. What must you do? In real, practical terms: call out to God. Tell God how you feel. Tell him that you fear death and know that you are a lawbreaker guilty of breaking his law. There is no formula. Just heartfelt remorse at your sins and placing your faith in Jesus. “Jesus, I confess that I am a sinner and that I need you. I turn away from my sins and trust in you for forgiveness. Save me.”

Hey Drew,

It is interesting what you say. Am I right in thinking, then that those good people who are kind, pleasant, do lots of good deeds, respect the flag etc, etc won’t go to heaven unless they believe in Jesus? This sounds a bit harsh when they’ve spent their lives helping others and living good lives, only to find themselves rubbing shoulders with Pol Pot in hell? Do you think they know about this?

While we’re on the subject, what is heaven and hell? Someone once said we make our own heaven and hell on earth. Do you think that’s true?

Jack

Captain Jack,

Jesus is the means by which one enters heaven. We are not free to craft our own way into heaven mainly because heaven is God’s not ours. Similarly, the earth is his and everything in it (Psalm 24:1). Therefore, God sets the rules. Am I pleased with the concept of hell where sinners are punished for eternity? No, it’s a frightening thought; but I find great comfort in the fact that God has provided a way whereby sinners like myself can escape hell and enter into eternal communion with him. What a great God that rescues sinners!

What should be mine and your response to such a teaching as hell contained within the Bible and Jesus’ teachings? First, we should take God seriously and seek to live our lives according to how he has ordered. The earth is his. We are his creatures. Secondly, we should take sin seriously. Some have argued that it is unfair to punish sinners forever for the little bit of sin committed in a lifetime. It is argued that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. Jonathan Edwards has rightly pointed out that the punishment for sin doesn’t depend on the amount of sin committed or the duration of the sin committed, but, rather, the punishment reflects the one to whom the sin is an offense. What I mean is this: because is God infinitely beautiful, to be treasured, and holy (that is, without sin), sin is that infinitely grievous. We do not view sin the same way as God because frankly, sin pleases us; but to God, sin is a gross offense. We find Hell displeasing because we don’t fully understand the way in which sin is an offense to God. We are biased and insensitive.

Here are some fragmented, concluding thoughts:

Getting what’s fair means that each and everyone of us go to hell. Grace is getting what we don’t deserve. We should marvel that God choses to save anyone, because of our intense idolatry, rebellion, and suppression of his truth.

Furthermore, I believe that God is just which means that you and I can trust that he knows exactly what to do with every single person.

I would also like to add that no one goes to hell against their will. Remember, an earlier email, where we discussed that we are content in our sins.

Feel free to press this issue further if I’ve not engaged the issue to your satisfaction.

–drew

[Further reading: Eternal Punishment by Erwin Lutzer]

It’s not religion where all is revealed.

I have Jonathan Edwards in Religious Affections to thank for this quote–though it’s more than likely has its origin centuries before him. I think I find it more readily applicable at the present time in a different context: mystery and God (as opposed to discerning which affections are truly “gracious”).