Monthly Archives: December 2013

Great Allowances Are to be Made

Jonathan Edwards is a model of charity in theological disputes:

How far a wonderful and mysterious agency of God’s Spirit may so influence some men’s hearts, that their practice in this regard may be contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they profess that men are justified by their own righteousness — or how far they may believe the doctrine of justification by men’s own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it to themselves — or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary to their practice — or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others, or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main — or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning — or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it: whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it. How far these things may be, I will not determine, but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances. Though it is manifest from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal tendency.

From “Justification by Faith Alone.”

(by the way)

I love Edwards.  Reading him is like taking a guided tour through the mountains.   He pulls me along through the most rigorous logical theology, I’m huffing and puffing and sweating, and then he stops, and points off in the distance: “By the way…”

In Justification by Faith Alone, he has a section in which he is proving that “we are justified by faith only, without any manner of goodness of our own.”  This is because “the nature of things will not admit of it,” because of “the infinite guilt that the sinner is under till justified.”  Some argue against the infinite evil of sin like this:  if sin is infinitely evil because it is against an infinite God, then in the same way love to God must be infinitely good because it is toward an infinite God.  Edwards responds with a thick and technical line of reasoning.  I think I had to read it four times, and even now re-reading it a fifth time for the sake of this post I think I grasped it even better.  Our sin “is ill deserving in proportion to the distance there is between God and the creature; the greatness of the Object and the meanness of the subject, aggravates it.”  But the reverse is true with regard to our respect toward God: “it is worthless (and not worthy) in proportion to the meanness of the subject [us]… The unworthiness of sin or opposition to God rises and is great in proportion to the dignity of the object and inferiority of the subject; but on the contrary, the value of respect rises in proportion to the value of the subject.”  In other words, because God is so infinitely worthy of respect, the fact that we are so “mean,” or inferior in our ability to give Him the respect He is due, renders our respect of very little value at all.  Our disrespect, or sin, on the other hand, is “evil and heinous in proportion to the degree of what it denies in the Object, and as it were takes from it.”  He sums up: “Respect is valuable in proportion to the value of what is given to the object in that respect, which undoubtedly is great in proportion to the subject’s value, or worthiness of regard; because the subject in giving his respect, can give no more than himself: so far as he gives his respect, he gives himself to the object; and therefore his gift is of greater or lesser value in proportion to the value of himself.”

whew.  pass me a towel, Jon, please?

and then he drops this:

Hence (by the way) the love, honor, and obedience of Christ towards God, has infinite value, from the excellency and dignity of the person in whom these qualifications were inherent. The reason why we needed a person of infinite dignity to obey for us, was because of our infinite comparative meanness, who had disobeyed, whereby our disobedience was infinitely aggravated. We needed one, the worthiness of whose obedience might be answerable to the unworthiness of our disobedience, and therefore needed one who was as great and worthy as we were unworthy.

!!!!!

and then he just passes on to “Another objection…”

I am learning from Edwards to find as many Christ-oriented “by-the-ways” as I can: while I read, while I think, while I live.  Whenever I have worked hard to understand something better, or enjoyed something particularly intensely, or discovered some new thing, to then ask “and how does this relate to Jesus Christ, who He is, what He is like, and what He has done?”

“For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things to Whom be glory forever Amen!”

Review: Justification by Faith Alone

Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards

Also found in Banner of Truth Vol. 1

I stumbled upon this discourse while looking for something to read, providentially just after I had finished Fuller’s Gospel & Law, and had my mind thoroughly exercised with Edward’s theology of “Justification by Faith Alone.” This was originally a set of sermons he preached which had resulted in a great response from his congregation, and at their insistence he had them published.

He first goes to his typical great lengths to define what he means, first by “Justification,” “Faith”, and “Alone.” He clears away misunderstanding when talking about faith: calling it a “condition” of justification may be true, but not very clear; calling it the “instrument” of justification is liable to misunderstanding. In the end, he defines it from a couple directions. 1.) Faith is “that which renders it a meet and suitable thing, in the sight of God, that the believer, rather than others, should have this purchased benefit assigned to him.” 2.)It is suitable because “it is that in him which, on his part, makes up the union between him and Christ.” We are not justified as a reward for the virtue and excellency that is in faith, and Edwards goes to great lengths to explain why this is so.

Throughout the discourse, several related subjects are given thorough Edwardsian treatment, particularly as they relate to justifying faith. The infinite guilt of the sinner, how Paul’s reference to “the law” as distinct from faith cannot refer merely to the “ceremonial law,” and how the honor of the Mediator is at stake in this doctrine, are just a few.

I had never thought about “the honor of the authority of God,” but Edwards has, and he explains how it relates to justifying faith. He gives an exposition of how “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,” how the saints will have differing degrees of glory in heaven, yet each as full as they can be, and all on the basis of Christ’s righteousness not our own. He defines repentance and its relation to faith, explains how hatred of sin flows from justifying faith, and concludes with a model of Christian charity in theological controversy, even when the stakes are as high as this.

And much more!

Throughout he is Christ exalting, concerned that Christ be glorified and magnified, and not an ounce of glory that He is due be withheld due to faulty doctrinal thinking. Once again, my mind has been lifted to new heights in reflection on the glory of God, the grace of God, the love of God, the beauty and the excellency of Christ.

Highly recommended.

Review: A Divine and Supernatural Light…

…Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God, Shown to be both a Scriptural and Rational Doctrine by Jonathan Edwards

ed

Tasting that Honey is Sweet – a sense of the loveliness and beauty of God

I was primarily alerted to this sermon through John Piper’s God Is the Gospel, which makes reference to this work several times. It is a sermon preached in 1734 on Matthew 16:17 “Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” It can also be found in Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2

In the sermon, Edwards explains what he means by “divine and supernatural light.” It is not those things that man may understand naturally by his conscience or a sense of the wickedness of sin. Nor is it impressions made upon the imagination like “a visible lustre or brightness of any object.” It is not a discovery of any new truths not found in the word of God. Nor is it just being inwardly affected by religious things. This last point is made powerfully as he explains how a man can be affected by the sufferings of Jesus Christ “as by any other tragical story.” And even more so simply because of the “interest he conceives mankind to have in it.” Man can be affected with the ideas of heaven, as well as by “a romantic description of the pleasantness of fairy land.”

Divine and spiritual light, rather, is “a real sense and apprehension of the divine excellency of things revealed in the word of God… He does not merely rationally believe that God is glorious, but he has a sense of the gloriousness of God in his heart. There is not only a rational belief that God is holy, and that holiness is a good thing, but a sense of how amiable God is on account of the beauty of this divine attribute.” God made us capable of knowing in two distinct ways: “First, that which is merely notional… the other is, that which consists in the sense of the heart; as when the heart is sensible of pleasure and delight in the presence of the idea of it.” “There is a difference between having an opinion, that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of the loveliness and beauty of that holiness and grace.”

He explains that seeing this beauty causes a conviction of the truth of to arise, and puts in words what I have experienced, but have never been able to describe so well: “They believe the doctrines of God’s word to be divine, because they see a divine, and transcendent, and most evidently distinguishing glory in them; such a glory as, if clearly seen, does not leave room to doubt of their being of God, and not of men.”

He explains that this light is given immediately to the soul by God, not mediated through other means, thought other means may accompany it. For instance, the word of God “conveys to our minds these doctrines; it is the cause of a notion of them in our heads, but not of the sense of their divine excellency in our hearts.” That sense of divine excellency is given immediately, directly from God Himself.

“Reason’s work is to perceive truth and not excellency.  It is not ratiocination that gives men the perception of the beauty and amiableness of a countenance, though it may be many ways indirectly an advantage to it; yet it is no more reason that immediately perceives it, than it is reason that perceives the sweetness of honey: it depends on the sense of the heart, – Reason may determine that a countenance is beautiful to others, it may determine that honey is sweet to others; but it will never give me a perception of sweetness.”

He proves his points from scripture, and from reason, and then offers an “improvement” on the doctrine, aka “application.” 1. Reflect on the goodness of God! 2. Examine ourselves, and see “whether we have ever had this divine light let into our souls.” 3. Earnestly seek this spiritual light.

“The least glimpse of the glory of God in the face of Christ doth more exalt and ennoble the soul, than all the knowledge of those that have the greatest speculative understanding in divinity without grace.”

Amen, and amen. I highly recommend this sermon as a meditation on the revelation of the beauty of truth to the soul by the Spirit of God.

Not Every Effecting View

I am particularly sensitive to descriptions and analysis of false professions of faith, mainly because it was my own experience for 20 years of my life, and am also alert to its fearful possibility in others.  I am always looking for ways to sift through the true and the false, as nearly as possible.  When eternity is at stake, you must try to distinguish these things as closely as possible.  Edwards, as usual, is so insightful.

From A Divine and Supernatural Light by Jonathan Edwards, found in Banner of Truth vol. 2.

Not Mere Religious Insight or Affection
It is not every affecting view that men have of the things of religion that is this spiritual and divine light. Men by mere principles of nature are capable of being affected with things that have a special relation to religion as well as other things. A person by mere nature, for instance, may be liable to be affected with the story of Jesus Christ, and the sufferings he underwent, as well as by any other tragical story: he may be the more affected with it from the interest he conceives mankind to have in it: yea, he may be affected with it without believing it; as well as a man may be affected with what he reads in a romance, or sees acted in a stage play. He may be affected with a lively and eloquent description of many pleasant things that attend the state of the blessed in heaven, as well as his imagination be entertained by a romantic description of the pleasantness of fairy land, or the like. And that common belief of the truth of the things of religion, that persons may have from education or otherwise, may help forward their affection. We read in Scripture of many that were greatly affected with things of a religious nature, who yet are there represented as wholly graceless, and many of them very ill men. A person therefore may have affecting views of the things of religion, and yet be very destitute of spiritual light. Flesh and blood may be the author of this: one man may give another an affecting view of divine things with but common assistance: but God alone can give a spiritual discovery of them.