CHRiSTiAN SCHOLARSHiP?

I think Edwards would regard it as a massive abduction of scholarship that so many Christians do academic work with so little reference to God. If all the universe and everything in it exists by the design of an infinite, personal God, to make his manifold glory known and loved, then to treat any subject without reference to God's glory is not scholarship but insurrection.

EDWARDS [quote of the day]

The enjoyment of God is the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied. To go to heaven, to fully enjoy God, is infinitely better than the most pleasant accommodations here. Fathers and mothers, husbands, wives, or children, or the company of earthly friends, are but shadows; but God is the substance. These are but scattered beams; but God is the sun. These are but streams; but God is the fountain. These are but drops; but God is the ocean.

you must download and listen

Edwards said that being in the presence of God for all ages to come will give way to ever-increasing joy, knowledge, and love. Here, Sam Storms gives a talk on Edwards' thoughts on heaven and eternity. It's incredible.

But be careful. Listening to this sermon all the way through will likely make you a full-blooded charismatic.

on prayer

Every Christian needs a half hour of prayer each day, except when he is busy, then he needs an hour. [St Francis of Sales] 

Any concern too small to be turned into a prayer is too small to be made into a burden. [Corrie ten Boom]

Don't pray for lighter burdens. Pray for stronger backs. [Anonymous]

Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life. [Jonathan Edwards]

The one concern of the devil is to keep Christians from praying. He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work, and prayerless religion. He laughs at our toil, mocks at our wisdom, but trembles when we pray. [Samuel Chadwick]

Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness. [Martin Luther]

EDWARDSEAN TRiNiTARiANiSM [not for the young or faint of heart]

Jonathan Edwards' "Unpublished Essay on the Trinity" is beautifully baffling. It is a short, but tough read. Edwards also said that Trinity was within the reach of naked reason.

Hold on. Here we go.

Edwards surmised that if an eternal and divine being existed then that eternal and divine being must not only be perfect, but must also love, adore, and exult in perfection. So, there must be some sort of duplicity in the make-up of this divinity.

However, the reciprocity and reflexivity of that being loving itself could not be fully expressed or experienced with mere duality. The mutual nature of its personal adoration would be too linear and merely mutual. But what if there was more than a duplicity in this divine being? What if there was a Tri-Unity in this being? 

If a divine and eternal being exists, posits Edwards, then it must exist in a plurality of three. Its subsistence cannot be two, yet one - this would not accomplish its innate purposes [to love and adore perfection perfectly]. And its subsistence cannot be four, yet one - this quadality would be superfluous to its purposes.

Pretty fun, eh? I told this to one of my students today and they got it! I did have a board to draw on. Perhaps I just felt that after posting that video, I had to post something that stretched the brain a bit. It stretched mine to write it. 

"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all time and now and forever. Amen." [Jude 25]

the problem with the problem of evil?

Along with Tom Wright, Bart Ehrman is one of the world's leading New Testament scholars. Last year, NT Wright released his book on the problem of evil called Evil and the Justice of God. Wright provided fresh and biblical thoughts on the subject by including how terrorism, global disease, and relativistic postmodernism have brought it to the surface again. But now it's Bart's turn. His new book, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question - Why We Suffer, is due out this week. It should prove to be a provoking read.

What is interesting to me is that these men are two of the leading minds on the Bible and they cannot get over this issue. Regardless of what approach one takes on this, man is always left scratching his finite head. No one can put this behind them as resolved. The results are usually either haunting or humbling.

I don't know if this a good question or if it is daring or if I'm just thinking too much or what, but what does God think about the problem of evil? It is certainly not a "problem" to him like it is to us, is it? After praying, reading, and racking my brain thinking about this, the following two thoughts have often brought comfort.

First... The omnipotent, all-wise, all-knowing, omnibenevolent, and loving God of the universe and of the Bible does not sit on his throne and ponder the extent of his sovereignty. This is what it means to be God.

Second [and I stole this from somewhere in Edwards] and metaphorically speaking... "the sun is not the cause of cold and darkness."

I sure hope Bart's words will help to offer peace to those who are on the verge of being made spiritually impotent because of this fragile matter.

YHWH and PARMENiDES OF ELEA

Aristotle's Unmoved Mover concept likely had its roots in some of the thought of Parmenides of Elea [c. 515-450 BC]. Parmenides always spoke about the One, the unity that is hidden behind the diversity of our world of experience. He never ascribed to it relatability, but frequently spoke of it in terms of Being.

Jonathan Edwards thought deeply here as well. He said that we cannot think of God as a being because that would subliminally suggest that we or other things that have being are made of the same stuff. Edwards posited that God is "Being in general." In truth, to use the word "is" in the previous sentence is to begin to undefine the fact.

But back to Parminedes. He sought to delineate between what is, what truly is, and what seems to be. He thought that knowing this distinction was only available through reason. Leszek Kolakowski has commented on these ontologically gnostic ideas in Parmenides. Kolakowski says that for Parmenides,

what truly is cannot have been created, or that would mean that something comes from nothing, and that is impossible. Nor can it change, decay, or die: it is perfectly fulfilled and unchanging, with no beginning or end. Nor can it be said to "have been" or to be "going to be"; it simply is, beyond time, without time.... He means that Being is full and sufficient unto itself.

I'd like to point out a couple of things here. I would almost completely agree. However, it really is impossible for something to come from nothing, unless the Unity or Being causing the something is Divine, Wise, and wholly Good. Additionally, all his talk of Being and the essence of the One behind all we comprehend.... this is precisely how the God of the Bible defines and reveals Himself. That is the definition of YHWH in Exodus 3 - "I AM WHO I AM." This name comes directly from the Hebrew "to be" verb, hayah.

Lastly, there is more beauty in untainted Being than can be found anywhere. This is why the Michelangelo's statue of David is naked. David purely is. He just is. This is why trying to define affectionate relationships is so hard. They just are. And they're beautiful. So then, how much more excellent, radiant, right, and lovely is the Being that has never not been. "He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature and He upholds all things by the word of His power" [Heb 1.3].

JESUS in the OT

You should always have an eye for seeing Jesus in the Old Testament. Whether it be who He is or what He accomplished or some historical fact that was prophesied – “beginning with Moses and all the prophets” – He is “in all the Scriptures” [Lk 24.27]. For example,

He is the perfect high priest because His priesthood is forever [Heb 5-9]; He is the 2nd Adam, faithfully living in direct Sonship to God [Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15]; He is our glorious Boaz, faithfully redeeming us who don’t deserve it; He is the new Joshua, giving His people final rest [Heb 4]; He is the King of all kings, from Judah’s tribe and David’s line [Gen 49.10, 2 Sam 7.12-13, Rev 19.16]; etc.

This morning I was greatly helped regarding this by Mr Edwards in his “A History of the Work of Redemption.” Here, he says that....

The types of Christ were of three sorts: instituted, providential, and personal. The ordinance of sacrificing was the greatest of the instituted types; the redemption out of Egypt was the greatest of the providential; and David was the greatest of the personal ones. Hence, Christ is often called David in the prophecies of Scripture; as in Ezk 34.23-24.

He then listed some other texts. But when I sat back in my squeaky little chair, I realized that I was helped in two ways by his comments. First, those three distinctions seem like excellent parameters for Christocentric typology in the OT [without being an allegorization nut-job, of course]. Second, I started thinking deeply of David’s life. Edwards is right on target. Christ can flagrantly be seen all through David’s life in the Scriptures. David was from Jesse. He was a shepherd. He was anointed before his ministry/service [see “the Spirit” in 1 Sam 16.12-13]. He single-handedly defeated the enemy of God’s people. He was a king. He had kingdom covenant promises [2 Sam 7]. He was a warrior. And so much more.

The more I pondered and thought, the sweeter Jesus became to me. O Lord, show me Yourself in your word, in creation, in your Church, and by your Spirit. Amen.

SARAH and JONATHAN EDWARDS

When she was 13 years old, Sarah was noticed by Jonathan; he was 20. Here are Jonathan Edwards' words about Sarah at that time. This seems like a decent litmus test for what to look for in a spouse [guys who write like this and girls who act like this]. They were married nearly 4 years later...

They say there is a young lady in [New Haven] who is beloved of that almighty Being who made and rules the world, and that there are certain seasons, in which this Great Being, in some way or other invisible, comes to her and fills her mind with exceeding sweet delight, and that she hardly cares for anything, except to meditate on him; that she expects after a while to be received up where he is; to be raised up out of the world and caught up into heaven; being assured that he loves her too well to let her remain at a distance from him always. There she is to dwell with him, and to be ravished with his love and delight forever. Therefore, if you present all the world before her, with the richest of its treasures, she disregards it and cares not for it, and is unmindful of any pain or affliction. She has a strange sweetness in her mind, and singular purity in her affections; is most just and praiseworthy in all her conduct; and you could not persuade her to do any thing wrong or sinful, if you would give her all of the world, lest she should offend this Great Being. She is of a wonderful sweetness, calmness, and universal benevolence of mind; especially after this Great Being has manifested himself to her mind. She will sometimes go about from place to place, singing sweetly, and seems to be always full of joy and pleasure, and no one knows for what. She loves to be alone, walking in the fields and groves, and seems to have someone invisible always conversing with her.

LEARN TO HATE YOUR PRIDE

I have no idea what the rest of the sermon was about, but once when I was little, I remember my dad saying in one of his sermons that pride was the national religion of hell. Strong picture, eh? I also recall someone saying that below every virtue lies humility and below every vice hides pride. My good and dead friend Jonathan Edwards also has good words here:

Remember that pride is the worst viper that is in the heart, the greatest disturber of the soul’s peace and of sweet communion with Christ. It was the first sin committed and lies lowest in the foundation of Satan’s whole building, and is with the greatest difficulty rooted out, and is the most hidden, secret, and deceitful of all lusts, and often creeps insensibly into the midst of religion, even, sometimes, under the disguise of humility itself.