Finding the Lover of Your Soul in Jesus Christ

By Sylvia Ronnau 3/2/2017

     My heart beat to the sound of a metronome as I played a Chopin waltz. The rushing of the water from the shower sounded like a stream would during snow melt season. My husband, Fred, stepped out of the shower. It was my birthday, but I cared only about Fred and whether Wharton School of Business accepted him.

     I followed him and perched on the couch behind his shoulder and squinted to see if they had made the decision. Once I heard, “Yes!” I knew we had a new adventure on our hands. With a grin on my face, I changed into running gear and pulled my hair into a high ponytail. After giving my husband a huge hug, I began my run and then turned onto a busier lane in Menlo Park. It was wintertime, the birds were chirping songs of joy, and my heart sung to the melody of ecstasy. I ran into Palo Alto and took a right turn on University Avenue. Memories of my undergraduate years at Stanford University flooded my mind, good memories and sad memories of friendship, deceit, and pain. I pushed that aside as I ran towards the university and zipped up Stanford Avenue to the Dish. As I pushed my body uphill, I started to pant and panic at the same time. My heart raced, I could not breathe, and I felt nauseous. I quickly darted around the loop to home.

     No one was home. I just passed the bar exam and started a new job in a week. These new developments would change everything. In six months, we would be traipsing the streets of Philadelphia. Suddenly an intense fear gripped me, a fear that would not let go even once we arrived in Philadelphia. I had hit the new normal—panicky Sylvia.

What is the Meaning of the Cross?

By J. Warner Wallace 5/7/2014

     When I first became interested in examining the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, I really had no interest in Jesus as God. I was willing to survey and consider the wisdom of Jesus as an ancient sage, but nothing more. Once I was convinced these Gospel accounts were reliable, however, I knew I had to reconsider my naturalistic presuppositions. If Jesus truly rose from the grave, He was more than a wise sage. In those early months of my investigation, I eventually embraced “belief that”; I was convinced that the Gospels were telling me the truth about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But I still didn’t have “belief in” Jesus as Savior. In fact, I can remember asking my wife if she knew why Jesus had to die on the cross to as part of God’s plan of Salvation. Although she had grown up as a cultural Catholic, she was unable to provide an answer.

     I then began a second investigation; this time examining both the history and theology of the cross. Although the symbol of the cross appears in much pagan history prior to Jesus, the crucifixion cross described in the Gospels was a real, historical method of execution. As an instrument of death, the cross was detested by the Jews, so it became a stumbling block for them when considering Jesus. How could the Messiah be executed on a cross? The Greek and Roman Empire executed thousands of criminals and captives in this manner (Alexander the Great executed two thousand Tyrian captives on crosses after the fall of Tyre). This form of punishment was usually reserved for criminals guilty of such crimes as treason, desertion, robbery, piracy, and assassination. It continued to be used in the Roman Empire until the era of Constantine, when it was eventually abolished as an insult to Christianity.

     Even though I became convinced the Gospels accurately described Jesus’ death on the cross, I still had many questions. How could God allow this type of horrific death to occur to His only Son? Why did Jesus have to die on the cross in the first place? What did he do deserving this kind of death? The Bible provides a path to the answers as we trace how the authors used the word and described the cross as an instrument of our Salvation:

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

Why The Land Belongs To Israel

By Bruce K. Waltke 1994

     Joshua 14:1–5 Introduction. The introduction to the distribution of the territory west of the Jordan names the land, the administrators, the method, the tribes and the legal warrant. The Egyptians referred to this land as ‘Canaan’, the administrative term used here for the territory in view (see 21:2; 22:9).      The Lord ultimately directed the distribution by means of the lot (see Joshua 13:6), while Eleazar the priest, Joshua and the heads of the tribal clans (i.e. subtribal chiefs; see Joshua 21:1) mediated the decision and administered it. Eleazar is mentioned first because Joshua stood before him at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and asked him to consult the Urim and Thummim, instruments that gave ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers in response to specific inquiries (18:1–10; cf. Nu. 27:21).

     Here the nine-and-a-half western tribes are in view, not the two-and-a-half eastern tribes (cf. Joshua 13:8–13). In Israel the firstborn received a double blessing (Dt. 21:15–17). Jacob, however, the father of all the tribes, made an exception. He passed over Reuben, his firstborn by Leah, his unloved wife (Gn. 29:31–32), and gave the double portion instead to Joseph, the firstborn of his beloved Rachel. He did this by elevating Joseph’s two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to full tribal status along with his own sons Reuben and Simeon (Gn. 48:1–9). The Mosaic law later disallowed this practice. The Levites were again excluded. In Joshua 13:14 their spiritual heritage is emphasized; here their practical needs are met (cf. Nu. 18:21–32). No less a figure than Moses, elsewhere called ‘the servant of the LORD’ (Joshua 13:8; 14:7) and ‘man of God’ (Joshua 14:6), approved this procedure. The point is repeated several times (Joshua 2–3, 5). Since the clans followed Moses’ legislation perfectly, their claims were valid.

     Joshua 14:6–17:18 Early allotments at Gilgal: Judah and Joseph. Joshua 14:6–15 Caleb’s name means ‘Dog’ and may reflect the honoured status of this faithful and humble ‘servant of the LORD’ (Nu. 14:24). In the Amarna (c. 1350 BC) and the Lachish letters (586 BC) vassals use the term of themselves to express their loyalty to kings. The narrator refers to him as a Kenizzite because of his father (1 Chr. 4:13–15). His exceptional allotment is given first because his wholehearted commitment to the LORD — repeated three times for emphasis (Joshua 8–9, 14) — exemplified the way in which the tribes were to claim their land even against redoubtable foes (see Joshua 13:1–7). With that kind of faith the land had rest from war (Joshua 15; cf. Joshua 1:15; 11:23).

     After an introduction (Joshua 6a), Caleb’s story has three parts: his legal right based on faith and God’s word (Joshua 6b–9), his claim of it by faith and war (Joshua 10–12), and Joshua’s grant (Joshua 13–15).

     Caleb’s claim was based on God’s promise to give him and Joshua the land in connection with their faithfulness in the reconnaissance from Kadesh (Nu. 14:24, 30).   Because they believed the Lord.  Caleb’s conviction not to undermine the people’s morale won him life and an inheritance (see Nu. 13). The land he had walked upon at that time was not the city of Hebron itself or its immediate pasture - lands but the fields and villages around it (Joshua 13; see Joshua 21:11–12).

     God’s promise entailed that Caleb’s inheritance should not be determined by casting lots. Probably the men of Judah accompanied him to support his claim. His demand exemplifies the nature of the covenant with God. He was granted the right to the land in the first place because of his faith (Joshua 14:7–9) but now he must possess it by claiming it and driving out the mighty Anakites (Joshua 14:10–12; see Joshua 1:6–7; cf. Mt. 25:34). Christians inherit their salvation through Christ (Eph. 1:14; Col. 3:24; Heb. 9:15).

Ephesians 1:14 (ESV) 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Colossians 3:24 (ESV) 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.

Hebrews 9:15 (ESV) 15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

The Anakites, symbols of Israel’s formidable enemies, are mentioned at the end of Joshua’s battles (see Joshua 11:21–23) and now at the beginning of the distribution and Caleb’s determination to drive them out.  That Caleb might fully enjoy his inheritance,  God did not allow him to age during his thirty-eight years in the cruel desert (Joshua 14:11). The bodies of believers age, but not their spirits, and their bodies will be raised (2 Cor. 4:7–18).

     Saints with the bold faith of Caleb and Rahab are rewarded (Joshua 14:13–15), and the narrator goes out of his way to make the point (see Joshua 6:22–25). To ‘bless’ means to make potent, to reproduce and prevail (Gn. 22:17–18). Joshua, who himself was old, was making his eighty-five-year-old compatriot potent!

     Joshua 15:1–63 The narrator clearly states why he defines the tribal inheritances in such detail: it is to show that God keeps his promises (Joshua 21:43–45). These precise definitions of the tribes’ inheritances are a clear reminder that God fulfilled his promises to give his covenant people the land fit for kings. Joshua 15:1 harks back to Joshua 11:23.

     First, its boundaries are delineated: southern (Joshua 15:1–4), eastern (Joshua 15:5a), northern ( Joshua 15:5b–11) and western (Joshua 15:12). Allotment in Joshua 15:1 refers to the actual casting of the ‘lot’ (see 13:1–7). As an omen of Judah’s future greatness and leadership (Gn. 49:10; Jdg. 1:1–2; Jdg. 20:18), its allotment west of the Jordan is mentioned first (Joshua 15:2–12).

     Then Caleb’s inheritance (Joshua 15:13–19) is mentioned, again stressing how he dispossessed the former inhabitants to take possession of the gift as an example for others (see Joshua 14:6–15 and note similarity of Joshua 14:15 and Joshua 15:13). Caleb himself dispossessed the Anakites from Hebron, and he promised his daughter in marriage to a man of like faith who would take Debir (cf. 1 Sa. 17:25; 18:17). Othniel, his nephew (cf. Jdg. 1:13), won both the promised land and bride, as did Christ (cf. Eph. 5:25; Heb. 4:1–14). By boldly petitioning her father Caleb’s daughter won coveted springs of water (cf. Lk. 11:1–13). This story, vs Joshua 15:13–19, is not presented in chronological order. Caleb and Othniel took their cities as part of the campaign recorded in Joshua 10:36–39.

     Finally, the Canaanite towns included in the allotment were registered, town by town (cf. Dt. 6:10–11), according to Judah’s geography. First the Negev (Joshua 15:21–32), then the western foothills (Joshua 15 33–44) and the coastal plain to be inhabited by the Philistines (Joshua 15:45–47). Followed by the high hill country between Jerusalem and Hebron (Joshua 15:48–60), and the desert towards the Dead Sea (Joshua 15:61–62). These regions were further divided into eleven districts. Note how nearly every one ends with a total of the towns involved (Joshua 15:32, 36, 41, 43, 47, 51, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62).

     Joshua 15:63 Though Joshua had killed the king of Jerusalem (Joshua 10:1, Joshua 10:22–27), the Judeans could not dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem. In fact, however, the northern boundary of Judah (Joshua 15:8) ran along the southern slope of Jebus (ancient Jerusalem) and so did not include the city itself which belonged to Benjamin (see Joshua 18:16, 28; Jdg. 1:21).

Bruce K. Waltke, “Joshua,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 252–253.

By Gleason Archer Jr.

The Antiquity of the Human Race

      Since the first discoveries of the fossils and artifacts of prehistoric man back in the 1850s, the antiquity of the human race has provided a problem of reconciliation with the  Genesis record. According to modern estimates the so-called Swanscombe man (found in Kent, England), the Pithecanthropus (found in Java) and the Sinanthropus (found in Peking, China) lived anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. All of them show marked differences from Homo sapiens, to be sure, and some paleanthropologists have conceded that “the cranial and dental differences … appear to be as well marked as those which are commonly accepted as justifying a genetic distinction between the gorilla and the chimpanzee.”

      As for the Neanderthal man, commonly dated from 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, the same writer says: “The skeletal differences from Homo sapiens are of much the same order as those which have been accepted as valid evidence of specific distinction in other groups of primates.” These early anthropoids cannot be dismissed as mere apes in their mentality, for their remains are accompanied by stone implements, such as arrowheads and ax heads; and charred remains indicate strongly the use of fire for cooking purposes. Especially in the case of the Neanderthal deposits, there seems to be evidence of burial with adjacent implements as if there was some sort of belief in life after death (necessitating the use of such implements — or their spiritual counterpart — by the deceased). Some crude statuettes have likewise been discovered which may possibly have had cultic purposes, and some of the remarkable paintings discovered in some of the caves may have been of Neanderthal origin (although most were perhaps from a later age). The radiocarbon analysis of the more recent find indicates strongly an age of at least 50,000 years. The fluorine content of the bones of the Pithecanthropus erectus indicates that they were contemporaneous with the surrounding deposit in which they were found. The Zinjanthropus of Tanganyika is dated by the potassium-argon process as 1,750,000 years old, according to a report by L. S. B. Leakey.

      It is theoretically possible, of course, that later research may prove that all of these chronological estimates were based upon faulty methodology, and it may conceivably be that these earlier anthropoids will have to be dated as much more recent. On the other hand, it is most unlikely that they can be brought within the time span indicated by the genealogical lists of  Gen. 5 and  10. Either we must regard these lists as having no significance whatever as time indicators, or else we must reject these earlier humanlike species as being descended from Adam at all.

      Buswell states: “There is nothing in the Bible to indicate how long ago man was created.” This appears to be an overstatement, for even allowing the numerous gaps in the chronological tables given in  Gen. 5 and  Gen. 10 it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that a hundred times as many generations are omitted in these tables as are included in them. (And yet this is what a 200,000 B.C. date for Adam would amount to.) In the genealogy of the Lord Jesus given in  Matt. 1:2–17 there are only seven possible links missing as against a total of forty-two given (during the 2000 years between Abraham and Christ), or a ratio of one to six. This is slender ground upon which to build a theory that 1,980 generations were omitted from the list between Adam and Abraham, and only nineteen or twenty were given. It therefore seems a dubious option for one who holds to the accuracy of the  Genesis record to accept a date of 200,000 B.C. for Adam.

      The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible lists three possibilities for the genealogies of  Gen. 5 and  10.

      1. If they represent literal generations without any gaps, the total from Adam to the Flood comes out to 1,656 years, and the total from the Flood to the birth of Abraham about 290 years. This makes up a grand total of 1,946 years from Adam to Abraham. This interpretation is dubious, however, since no such grand total (long date) is given in the text itself, and since the grouping into ten predeluge and ten postdeluge generations is suspiciously similar to the schematized fourteen, fourteen, fourteen of  Matt. 1 (where demonstrably there are six or seven links missing). Moreover,  Luke 3:36 indicates that a Cainan, son of Arphaxad, is missing in  Gen. 10:24 (which states that Arphaxad was the “father” of Shelach, the son of Cainan according to  Luke 3 ).

      2. The genealogies record only the most prominent members of the ancestry of Abraham, omitting an undetermined number of links (although presumably not as many links as actually are named in the lists concerned). A variation of this view would construe the formula “A begat B” as meaning either B himself or some unnamed ancestor of B (perfectly allowable in Hebrew parlance, since grandfathers are occasionally said to have begotten their grandsons; at least Bilhah’s grandsons are spoken of as her sons in  1 Chron. 7:13 ). The ages of the patriarchs who lived several centuries (even 900 years or more) would be understood as the actual lifetime of the individuals named. This view would allow for a time span of possibly five or six thousand years between Adam and Abraham — depending upon how many links are omitted.

      Incidentally, there is some question whether Abraham was really Terah’s oldest son, even though he was mentioned first in  Gen. 11:26, where Terah is stated to have begotten all three sons when he was seventy — or at least he began fatherhood at that age. In  Gen. 11:27 it is stated that Terah begat Abraham, Nahor and Haran (who was apparently the eldest of the three sons). But since Terah died at the age of 205 according to  11:32, Abraham could not have been born until his father was 130, if he was only seventy-five at Terah’s decease — as suggested by  12:4. (While there is nothing in  Gen. 11 or  12 that states positively that Terah had died before Abraham left Haran, this is made quite explicit in  Acts 7:4. )

      3. Or else the names listed in  Genesis 5 represent an individual and his direct line by primogenitor — an interpretation which makes possible adding the entire lifetime figures almost end to end, thus coming out to a grand total of 8,227 years between the birth of Adam and the flood. For example, when Adam is said to have lived 930 years, this really means that Adam and his direct line were at the head of affairs for 930 years. At the end of this time they were superseded by the family of Seth, which remained in control through Seth’s main line for 912 years ( Gen. 5:8 ). Thus it would not have been until 1,842 years after Adam’s birth that the family of Enosh took over the leadership — and so on. One difficulty with this theory, however, is that Seth is the oldest surviving son of Adam to be mentioned, apart from the exiled Cain, and it is difficult to imagine by what other son Adam’s direct line would have descended before the allegedly collateral line of Seth took over.  This has been interesting, but it certainly has no bearing on what is true. The Bible is true and one day everyone will know it.

      On the whole, then, the second interpretation seems the most tenable of the three. (The first interpretation, of course, leaves insufficient room to account even for the attested history of Egypt, which doubtless goes back to at least 3500 years B.C., and that, too, necessarily after the flood.)

      To revert to the problem of the Pithecanthropus, the Swanscombe man, the Neanderthal and all the rest (possibly even the Cro-Magnon man, who is apparently to be classed as Homo sapiens, but whose remains seem to date back at least to 20,000 B.C.), it seems best to regard these races as all prior to Adam’s time, and not involved in the Adamic covenant. We must leave the question open, in view of the cultural remains, whether these pre-Adamite creatures had souls (or, to use the trichotomic terminology, spirits). But the clear implication of  Gen. 1:26 is that God was creating a qualitatively different being when he made Adam (for note that the word rendered “man” in  Gen. 1:26–27 is the Hebrew ʾAdam), a being who was uniquely fashioned in the image of God. Only Adam and his descendants were infused with the breath of God and a spiritual nature corresponding to God Himself.  Romans 5:12–21 demands that all mankind subsequent to Adam’s time, at least, must have been literally descended from him, since he entered into covenant relationship with God as the representative of the entire race of man. This indicates that there could have been no true genetic relationship between Adam (the first man created in the image of God) and the pre-Adamite races. However close the skeletal structure of the Cro-Magnon man (for example) may have been to Homo sapiens, this factor is scarcely relevant to the principal question of whether these cave men possessed a truly human soul or personality. They may have been exterminated by God for unknown reasons prior to the creation of the original parent of the present human race. Adam, then, was the first man created in the spiritual image of God, according to  Gen. 1:26–27, and there is no evidence from science to disprove it.

      After these preliminary questions relating to the confrontation between the first chapter of  Genesis and modern science, we are now in a position to proceed with the study of the remainder of the book in the chapter following.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

God and the Beginning of the Universe

By William Lane Craig

     The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning. The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time. Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction.

     The Fundamental Question

     From time immemorial men have turned their gaze toward the heavens and wondered. Both cosmology and philosophy trace their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contemplated the cosmos. According to Aristotle,

Books by William Lane Craig -

On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
On Guard for Students: A Thinker's Guide to the Christian Faith
Five Views on Apologetics
God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology
Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time
The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom
The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     36. Daniel, in exhorting Nebuchadnezzar to break off his sins by righteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor (Dan. 4:27), meant not to intimate, that righteousness and mercy are able to propitiate God and redeem from punishment (far be it from us to suppose that there ever was any other apolu'trosis (ransom) than the blood of Christ); but the breaking off referred to in that passage has reference to man rather than to God: as if he had said, O king, you have exercised an unjust and violent domination, you have oppressed the humble, spoiled the poor, treated your people harshly and unjustly; instead of unjust exaction, instead of violence and oppression, now practice mercy and justice. In like manner, Solomon says, that love covers a multitude of sins; not, however, with God, but among men. For the whole verse stands thus, "Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins," (Prov. 10:12). Here, after his manner, he contrasts the evils produced by hatred with the fruits of charity, in this sense, Those who hate are incessantly biting, carping at, upbraiding, lacerating each other, making every thing a fault; but those who love mutually conceal each other's faults, wink at many, forgive many: not that the one approves the vices of the other, but tolerates and cures by admonishing, rather than exasperates by assailing. That the passage is quoted by Peter (1 Pet. 4:8) in the same sense we cannot doubt, unless we would charge him with corrupting or craftily wresting Scripture. When it is said, that "by mercy and truth iniquity is purged," (Prov. 16:6), the meaning is, not that by them compensation is made to the Lord, so that he being thus satisfied remits the punishment which he would otherwise have exacted; but intimation is made after the familiar manner of Scripture, that those who, forsaking their vices and iniquities turn to the Lord in truth and piety, will find him propitious: as if he had said, that the wrath of God is calmed, and his judgment is at rest, whenever we rest from our wickedness. But, indeed, it is not the cause of pardon that is described, but rather the mode of true conversion; just as the Prophets frequently declare, that it is in vain for hypocrites to offer God fictitious rites instead of repentance, seeing his delight is in integrity and the duties of charity. [373] In like manner, also, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, commending kindness and humanity, reminds us, that "with such sacrifices God is well pleased," (Heb. 13:16). And indeed when Christ, rebuking the Pharisees because, intent merely on the outside of the cup and platter, they neglected purity of heart, enjoins them, in order that they may be clean in all respects, to give alms, does he exhort them to give satisfaction thereby? He only tells them what the kind of purity is which God requires. Of this mode of expression we have treated elsewhere (Mt. 23:25; Luke 11:39-41; see Calv. In Harm. Evang).

37. In regard to the passage in Luke (Luke 7:36, sq). no man of sober judgment, who reads the parable there employed by our Lord, will raise any controversy with us. The Pharisee thought that the Lord did not know the character of the woman whom he had so easily admitted to his presence. For he presumed that he would not have admitted her if he had known what kind of a sinner she was; and from this he inferred, that one who could be deceived in this way was not a prophet. Our Lord, to show that she was not a sinner, inasmuch as she had already been forgiven, spake this parable: "There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me, therefore, which of them will love him most?" The Pharisee answers: "I suppose that he to whom he forgave most." Then our Savior rejoins: "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much." By these words it is plain he does not make love the cause of forgiveness, but the proof of it. The similitude is borrowed from the case of a debtor, to whom a debt of five hundred pence had been forgiven. It is not said that the debt is forgiven because he loved much, but that he loved much because it was forgiven. The similitude ought to be applied in this way: You think this woman is a sinner; but you ought to have acknowledged her as not a sinner, in respect that her sins have been forgiven her. Her love ought to have been to you a proof of her having obtained forgiveness, that love being an expression of gratitude for the benefit received. It is an argument a posteriori, by which something is demonstrated by the results produced by it. Our Lord plainly attests the ground on which she had obtained forgiveness, when he says, "Thy faith has saved thee." By faith, therefore, we obtain forgiveness: by love we give thanks, and bear testimony to the loving-kindness of the Lord.

38. I am little moved by the numerous passages in the writings of the Fathers relating to satisfaction. I see indeed that some (I will frankly say almost all whose books are extant) have either erred in this matter, or spoken too roughly and harshly; but I cannot admit that they were so rude and unskillful as to write these passages in the sense in which they are read by our new satisfactionaries. Chrysostom somewhere says, "When mercy is implored interrogation ceases; when mercy is asked, judgment rages not; when mercy is sought, there is no room for punishment; where there is mercy, no question is asked; where there is mercy, the answer gives pardon," (Chrysos. Hom. 2 in Psal. 50). How much soever these words may be twisted, they can never be reconciled with the dogmas of the Schoolmen. In the book De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, which is attributed to Augustine, you read (cap. 54), "The satisfaction of repentance is to cut off the causes of sins, and not to indulge an entrance to their suggestions." From this it appears that the doctrine of satisfaction, said to be paid for sins committed, was every where derided in those ages; for here the only satisfaction referred to is caution, abstinence from sin for the future. I am unwilling to quote what Chrysostom says (Hom. 10 in Genes) that God requires nothing more of us than to confess our faults before him with tears, as similar sentiments abound both in his writings and those of others. Augustine indeed calls works of mercy remedies for obtaining forgiveness of sins (Enchir. ad Laur.); but lest any one should stumble at the expression, he himself, in another passage, obviates the difficulty. "The flesh of Christ," says he, "is the true and only sacrifice for sins--not only for those which are all effaced in baptism, but those into which we are afterwards betrayed through infirmity, and because of which the whole Church daily cries, Forgive us our debts,' (Mt. 6:12). And they are forgiven by that special sacrifice."

39. By satisfaction, however, they, for the most part, meant not compensation to be paid to God, but the public testimony, by which those who had been punished with excommunication, and wished again to be received into communion, assured the Church of their repentance. For those penitents were enjoined certain fasts and other things, by which they might prove that they were truly, and from the heart, weary of their former life, or rather might obliterate the remembrance of their past deeds: in this way they were said to give satisfaction, not to God, but to the Church. The same thing is expressed by Augustine in a passage in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium, cap. 65. [374] From that ancient custom the satisfactions and confessions now in use took their rise. It is indeed a viperish progeny, not even a vestige of the better form now remaining. I know that ancient writers sometimes speak harshly; nor do I deny, as I lately said, that they have perhaps erred; but dogmas, which were tainted with a few blemishes now that they have fallen into the unwashed hands of those men, are altogether defiled. And if we were to decide the contest by authority of the Fathers, what kind of Fathers are those whom they obtrude upon us? A great part of those, from whom Lombard their Coryphaeus framed his centos, are extracted from the absurd dreams of certain monks passing under the names of Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. On the present subject almost all his extracts are from the book of Augustine De Paenitentia, a book absurdly compiled by some rhapsodist, alike from good and bad authors--a book which indeed bears the name of Augustine, but which no person of the least learning would deign to acknowledge as his. Wishing to save my readers trouble, they will pardon me for not searching minutely into all their absurdities. For myself it were not very laborious, and might gain some applause, to give a complete exposure of dogmas which have hitherto been vaunted as mysteries; but as my object is to give useful instruction, I desist.

__________________________________________________________________

[326] The first definition is that of Gregory, and is contained Sentent. Lib. 4 Dist. 14, c. 1. The second, which is that of Ambrose, is given same place, and also Decret. Dist. 3, de Poenitentia C. Poenit. Prior. The third is Augustine's, as stated in the same place, and C. Poenit Poster. The fourth is from Ambrose, and is given Dist. 1, de Poenit C. Vera Poeitentia.

[327] French "Ces bons glosateurs;"--these worthy glossers.

[328] Latin, "Immensis voluminibus."--French, "Leur gros bobulaire de livres;"--their large lumbering books.

[329] Latin, "Mirum silentium."--French, "Il n'en est nulles nouuelles en leur quartier;"--there are no news in their quarter.

[330] Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 16, cap. 1; De poenit. Dist. 1; C. Perfecta Poenit.

[331] French, "Combien qu'ils n'estudient autre chose en toute leur vie que la Dialectique, que est l'art de definir et partir;"--although they study nought else during their whole life but Dialectics, which is the art of defining and dividing.

[332] Latin, "Secundam tabulam post naufragium."--French, "Une seconde planche, sur laquelle celui que estoit pour perir en lar mer, nage pour venir au port;"--a second plank on which he who was on the point of perishing in the sea swims to gain the harbour.

[333] Latin, "De saini umbra rixam."--French, "En un combat frivole;"--engaged in a frivolous combat.

[334] Luther (adv. Bullam Antichristi, Art. 6) shows that those who set down these three parts of repentance, speak neither according to Scripture nor the ancient Fathers.

[335] French, "Nous tournerons toujours en un même circuit"--we shall always revolve in the same circle.

[336] Mt. 11:28; Is. 59:1; Luke 4:18.

[337] Erasmus, in a letter to the Augustine Steuchus in 1531, while flattering, at the same time laughs at him, for thinking that the fifth chapter of Numbers sufficiently proves, in opposition to Luther, that auricular confession is of God.

[338] French, "N'est ce pas bien se jouer des Escritures, de les tourner en ceste facon?"--is it not indeed to make game of Scripture, to turn it in this fashion?

[339] The French is, "Car ce que Jesus Christ laisse aux Prestres de la loy, n'appartient en rien à ses vrais ministres;"--for that which Jesus Christ leaves to the Priests, belongs not in any respect to his true ministers.

[340] French, "Qu'ils voisent maintenant, et facent un bouclier de leur allegories;"--let them go now and make a buckler of their allegories,

[341] Augustin. Epist. 54.

[342] French, "Quoy que tous les advocats et procureurs du Pape, et tous les caphars qu'il a à louage gazouillent:"--whatever all the advocates and procurators of the Pope, and all the caphars whom he has in his pay may gabble.

[343] The French adds, "l'un des auteurs de l'Histoire Ecclesiastique;"--one of the authors of the Ecclesiastical History.

[344] Eccles Hist. Lib. 7 cap. 17, et Trepont. Hist. Lib. ix.

[345] Chrysost. Hom. 2 in Psal. 1.Serm. de poenit. et Confess. Hom. 5 De Incomprehensibili Dei. Nat. cont. Anomeos. Item, Hom. 4 de Lazaro.

[346] Latin, "Vetus interpres."--French, "Le translateur tant Grec qui Latin;"--the Greek as well as Latin translator.

[347] As to the form of repentance enjoined by the primitive Church for more flagrant offences, see Book 4 Chap 1 sec. 29.

[348] The French is, "Et que le Pasteur addressant sa parole à lui, l'asseure comme lui appliquant en particulier la doctrine generale;"--and when the Pastor, addressing his discourse to him, assures him as applying the general doctrine to him in particular.

[349] "C Omnis utriusque sexus;"--every one of both sexes. Innocent's decree is in the Lateran Council, De Summa Trinitate et Fide Cathol. It is also given Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 14, cap. 2, et Dist. 18. cap 2.

[350] The French is, "Mais comme les nautonniers fichans l'anchre au milieu de la mer, se reposent du trauail de leur navigation; ou comme un perlin lassé ou defaillant se sied au milieu de la voye pour reposer: en telle maniere ils prenoyent ce repos, combien qu'il ne leur fust suffisant;"--but as mariners casting anchor in the midst of the sea, repose from the toil of navigation; or as a pilgrim, weary or faint, sits down in the middle of the way to rest himself: in this way they took this rest, though it was not sufficient for them.

[351] "Tous ceux que nous lisons avoir obtenu de Christ la remission de leurs pechez, ne sont pas dits s'etre confessés à l'aureille de quelque Messire Jean;"--None of whom we read as having obtained the forgiveness of their sins from Christ, are said to have confessed in the ear of some Mess John.

[352] Latin simply, "ceremoniam." French, "la ceremonie de faire une croix sur le dos;"--the ceremony of making a cross upon the back

[353] French, "Car cela vaut autant comme si les prestres se faisoyent conterolleurs de Dieu;"--for that is as much as if the priests made themselves controllers of God.

[354] See on the subject of this section, Calv. ad Concil. Trident. Also Vera Ecclesiæ Reformandæ Ratio, Epist. ad Sadoletum. Epist. adversus Theologos Parisienses. De Scandalis. De Necessitate Reformandæ Ecclesiæ, Lib. 4.

[355] French, "une barbarie si vileine que rien plus;"--a barbarism so vile that nothing could be more so.

[356] See Lombard, Sent. Lib. 4 Dist 10, c. 4. C. Non suffcit. de Poenit. C. (middle of same Dist.) C. Nullus (same Dist). See also on the subject of satisfaction, infra, s. 29, and chap. 16 sec. 4.

[357] The French adds, "aumosnes;"--alms.

[358] Isa. 3:3; Rom. 5:8; Col. 2:14; Tit. 3:5.

[359] The French is, "Et ne faut pas qu'ils disent, que combien que les satisfactions en soyent moyens, neantmoins ce n'est pas en leur nom, mais au nom de Jesus Christ;"--and they must not say that though satisfactions are the means, nevertheless it is not in their name, but in the name of Jesus Christ.

[360] Latin, "Catechumenos."--French, "Ceux qui ne sont point encore baptisez;"--those who are not yet baptised.

[361] See on this Section, Book 2 chap 8 s 58, 59.

[362] The French adds, "Qui est le plus horrible peché devant Dieu;"--which is the most heinous sin in the sight of God.

[363] French, "Et quand ils voudront satisfaire pour plusieurs, ils en commettront encore davantage jusques à venir à un abysme sans fin. Je traite encore des plus justes;"--And when they would satisfy for several sins, they will commit still more, until they come at last to a bottomless abyss. I'm still speaking of the best.

[364] Isa 38:17; Isa44:22; Micah 7:19; PS 32:1>Ps. 32:1

[365] Job 14:17; Hos. 13:12; Jer. 22:1

[366] Rom 3:24; 1Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Tim 2:6

[367] The French adds, "Que nous appellons Rancon en Francois;"--which we call Ransom in French.

[368] See Calvin, ad Concil. Tridentini, Sess. cap. 1. ad 15

[369] For a full expositon of these passages, see infra, sec. 35-37.

[370] Job 5:17; Prov. 3:11; Heb. 12:5

[371] French, "Car l'alliance qu'il a une fois faite avec Jesus Christ et ses membres;"--For the covenant which he once made with Jesus Christ and his members.

[372] French, "Car combien les reprouvés souspirent ou grincent les dents sous les coups;"--For though the reprobate sigh or gnash their teeth under the strokes.

[373] French, "Integrité, pitié, droiture, et choses semblables;"--intregrity, pity, uprightness, and the like.

[374] It is quoted in the Decret. c. in Art. de Poenit. Dist. 1.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

RE: John 4

     In trying to understand the great power of words we cannot afford to overlook their spiritual nature. Spirit is unbodied, personal force. It is personal reality that can and often does work independently of physical or bodily forces. It can also work in conjunction with them. We can most clearly see spirit in our own selves as the force that belongs to thought, emotion and intention. In the biblical view, spirit reaches far beyond these—and beyond our limited understanding—and ultimately serves as the foundation of all reality. “God is spirit.” (Jn 4:24).

     The view of words as spiritual forces is common to both Scripture and pagan philosophers. Once, when his followers were struggling to understand him and were overemphasizing the material realm, Jesus said to them, “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (Jn 6:63). This meant that through his words Jesus imparted himself and in some measure conferred on those who received his words the powers of God’s sovereign rule. Through him they “have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:5). This imparted power is referred to in Jesus’ later explanation that “if you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (Jn 15:7).

     Plato, the great philosopher of ancient Greece, also spiritualized words by treating our thinking as an inner “conversation” that the soul holds with itself.[ Plato, Theaetetus ] In treating thought as a kind of language—as words, but as words hidden away in the nonphysical realm—he set a pattern that many thinkers have followed up to the present day.

     St. Augustine carried that tradition on, joining it to Christian thought, in saying that “he who thinks speaks in his heart.” He explicitly founded his view,[ Augustine: On the Trinity Books 8-15 (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) ] in part, on Gospel passages such as Matthew 9:2-4, where “some of the scribes said to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming’ ” (see also Lk 12:17).

     The word as a person’s speaking is therefore to be understood as a spiritual power—whether of ourselves, of God or of some other personal agency and whether for evil or for good. It is the power of the one who is speaking. It is precisely in this realm that God seeks for those who would worship him “in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:23). He desires truth in the “inward being” and will “teach me wisdom in my secret heart” (Ps 51:6).

     William Penn says, with a characteristically Quaker emphasis, For the more mental our worship, the more adequate to the nature of God; the more silent, the more suitable to the language of the spirit. Words are for others, not for ourselves: nor for God who hears not as bodies do; but as spirits should. If we would know this dialect we must learn of the divine principle in us. As we hear the dictates of that, so does God hear us. The Peace of Europe: The Fruits of Solitude and Other Writings (Classic Reprint)

     The word of God, when no further qualification is added, is his speaking, his communicating. When God speaks, he expresses his mind, his character and his purposes. Thus God is always present with his word.

     All expressions of God’s mind are “words” of God. This is true whether the specific means are external to the human mind (as in natural phenomena [Ps 19:1-4], other human beings, the incarnate Christ [the Logos] or the Bible) or internal to the human mind (in our own thoughts, intentions and feelings). God’s rule over all things, including the affairs of humankind, is carried out through his word, understood in this way.

Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God

By James Orr 1907

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER X | THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS (cont)

The alleged P element in  Judges is found in redactional notes, but chiefly in the alleged working over of an older narrative (so most think: not Wellhausen) in chaps,  20, 21:11 It is this section also (the story of the Levite and his concubine, and of the war with Benjamin, chaps.  19–21:14 ) which, in the eyes of the critics, lacks most clearly in credibility, though a historical kernel is sometimes recognised. Besides the unity argument, and linguistic phenomena thought to betray a later age (dependent on the assumption about P), stress is laid on the apparent exaggeration of numbers. Such exaggerations, assuming them to exist, may grow up in far less time than the critics allow, and may be pressed too far. Dr. Driver, in turn, exaggerates when he reads into the text that on the first two days of battle “not one of the 25,000+700 of the Benjamites fell.” We are hardly dealing here with head by head counts; besides, “fell,” “smitten,” “destroyed,” do not necessarily mean that every man was “slain.”

There seems to us no convincing ground, apart from the reasonings on D and P, for placing the Book of  Judges later than the period of the undivided kingdom. There is no trace of Jerusalem as capital, or of the temple. The expression “until the day of the captivity of the land” in chap.  18:30, is naturally the equivalent of “all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh” in ver.  31.5 It is precarious, at least, to build an argument for a later date on this verse alone.

2. A next example of critical procedure is afforded by the Books of  Samuel. Kautzsch here admits old and valuable sources — a “Saul-Source,” a “David-Source,” a “Jerusalem-Source,” dating from times immediately after Solomon, with, of course, later and less reliable, but still eighth century, narratives, and “redactional additions of various kinds,” some of them post-exilian. Dr. Driver also makes the work as a whole “pre-Deuteronomic.” A considerably different view is taken by Professor H. P. Smith. In his Commentary on  Samuel this critic distinguishes a work which he calls Sl, written soon after the death of Solomon, embracing a brief life of Saul, an account of David at the court of Saul and as outlaw, and a history of David’s reign. With this was united a second—divergent and theocratic—account, denoted by him Sm, which contained narratives of the early life and doings of Samuel, and of the early life, adventures, and part of the reign of David. This he supposes to have originated, with incorporation of older matter, “perhaps in or after the exile.” In details also the analysis is far from agreeing. There is tolerable agreement that chaps.  9–10:16, 11; 13:2–14:46 belong (mainly) to an old “Saul” source, which represents a different type of narrative from that in chaps.  7:2–17, 8; 10:17–25, 12; 15; but otherwise there are important differences. Dr. Driver, e.g., connects chaps.  1–4:1a, as a “somewhat later” introduction, with chaps.  4:1b–7:1; and divides this whole section from chaps.  7:2–17 (“of later origin”),  8, etc. — the “theocratic” story (= Sm). But H. P. Smith puts chaps.  1–3 into his (exilian) Sm story, and assigns to Sm also, from older sources, the other parts up to chap.  7.5 Dr. Kautzsch divides still more minutely, and in  2 Samuel makes a separate source (his “Jerusalem-Source”) of  2 Sam. 6; 9–20, which H. P. Smith, again, includes in his Sl. All, however, happily, make this long narrative quite early. The chief point is that H. P. Smith carries down to the exile a long narrative (Sm), beginning with  1 Sam. 1–6, which the others take to be at least not later (apart from redactional touchings) than the eighth century. But then in an Appendix Professor H. P. Smith has to contend against a new writer, Dr. M. Löhr (1898), who discards Sm for fragments inserted into Sl at different dates.

All this is bewildering enough; but, even with different sources, the attempt to break up the unity of the book, and establish for the different narrators opposite and irreconcilable points of view, is vastly overdone. The “theocratic” view is presumed to be a later gloss upon the history, and the earlier account, which is said to represent  Samuel as “the seer of a small town, respected as one who blesses the sacrifices and presides at the local festival, but known only as a clairvoyant, whose information concerning lost or strayed property is reliable,” is accepted as the really historical version. Thus  Samuel gets effectively stripped of any false glory a pious imagination has invested him with! It is, however, the imagination of the critic chiefly that is astray. Dr. Driver, who is not extreme here, divides chaps.  1–7:1 from what follows expressly on the ground that “hither to  Samuel has appeared only as a prophet; here (chap.  7 ff. ) he is represented as a ‘judge.’ ” Yet all these chapters, as shown above, Professor H. P. Smith gives to his “theocratic” narrator (Sm) — the same who represents  Samuel as a “judge.” The charge of “partisanship,” again, often brought against the “Saul” and “David” sources (both mostly included in H. P. Smith’s Sl) is fittingly dealt with by Dr. Kautzsch. “But the partisanship,” he says, “of the one source for Saul and of the other for David, which used to be so frequently asserted, cannot really be proved.… After all, it is by no means impossible for both sources to have come from one hand.”

The Books of  Samuel, it appears to us, may well be based on such nearly contemporary narratives as are referred to in  1 Chron. 29:29, and the date of their composition need not be carried much lower than where Ewald puts it, some twenty or thirty years after the death of Solomon.

3. We glance finally, briefly, at the Books of  Chronicles. These are, it is well known, the veritable bête noire of the critics. The Levitical proclivities and representations of this writer — only, however, be it said, in certain parts of his work, for in the greater portion of it the parallelism with the older texts is close — are a constant irritation to them. De Wette made the first vigorous onslaught on the credibility of  Chronicles; Graf returned to the charge with new arguments; and Wellhausen, from the standpoint of the post-exilian origin of the law, has elaborated the attack with unsparing scorn and severity. Yet unfairly — and unnecessarily. Let all be granted that can be fairly alleged of the Chronicler’s predominant Levitical interest, of his homiletical expansions, as, e.g., in the speech of Abijah ( 2 Chron. 13:4 ff. ), of his dropping the veil on the sins of David and Solomon, of his occasional exaggeration in numbers — whether his own or a copyist’s — the gravamen of the charge against him still lies in the assumption, wholly unfounded, as we believe, that the Levitical system was not in operation before the exile. If it was, there is no a priori objection to the representations of the Chronicler. On the other hand, the supposition of Wellhausen, that all the Chronicler’s elaborate descriptions, lists of names, details of arrangements, are pure inventions of his fancy, is weighted with the heaviest improbabilities, and cannot be reconciled with the integrity of the writer, which some are still anxious to uphold. We find it hard to imagine, for instance, how anyone can read the long and circumstantial account of Hezekiah’s great passover, or even the elaborate descriptions of David’s sanctuary arrangements, and not feel that the writer is reproducing bona fide — if in some places in his own fashion — documentary information that has come down to him. The critics, on the other hand, will allow him no other sources than our existing Books of  Samuel and  Kings — a view which not only his own references, but many phenomena in his book decidedly contradict — and set down all else to sheer wantonness of invention. The evidence points in a quite different direction — to the use of older sources dealing with these matters from the point of view of the temple, in which case his narratives afford a valuable positive corroboration of the results already obtained.

While, therefore, it is freely admitted that  Chronicles can only take secondary rank as a historical authority in comparison with  Samuel and  Kings, we have no reason to doubt the perfect good faith of its author, the value of much of his Levitical information, and, in general, the credibility of his book. In special points in which its accuracy has been impugned — as in the captivity of Manasseh in Babylon — discovery has brought to it valuable corroboration. Apart from the numbers, which, taken literally, are indeed in some cases “incredibly large,” Zöckler goes so far as to say that “the only nearly certain example of error on his part, arising, apparently, from geographical ignorance, is the explanation of the Tarshish ships of the Red Sea as being designed to trade to Tarshish” ( 2 Chron. 9:21; 20:36 ). Even in regard to the numbers he says: “If we except this one passage, all else of an erroneous nature in the text is most probably to be reduced to errors in copying, that either existed in his sources, or were introduced into his text.” That may be too unqualified also. Possibly, as Keil suggests, such excessive numbers as we have in  2 Chron. 13:3, 17, 800,000 fighting men for Israel, 400,000 for Judah, 500,000 of Israel slain, are, if not corrupt, meant to be taken only as round numerical expressions for the whole or half of the respective forces (cf.  2 Sam. 24:9 ). It is not to be overlooked, moreover, that sometimes it is  Chronicles that gives the smaller number (cf., e.g.,  1 Chron. 11:11, with  2 Sam. 23:8; 2 Chron 9:25, with  1 Kings 4:26 ), and in some cases the numbers are undeniably corrupt. On the whole there is abundant ground for the moderate and sensible judgment of an older critic like Bleek: “If we only possessed this work alone as an historical source for the times and circumstances treated of in the  Chronicles, the latter would in no way afford us a complete and exact picture of them; but, together with the other books, it gives us very valuable and important additions to the accounts of the latter, and a crowd of important details, which serve to make them complete both in general, and in special points.”

The Problem of the Old Testament

How Do We Know We Are Believers? | 2 Cor 13:5

By Dr. Sinclair Ferguson

     The issue that is being placed under the microscope of pastoral analysis here is then not how we become believers, but how do we know we are believers? This is a matter of self-awareness. It is a reflex act of faith, not its direct act. So any discussion of the topic must take place within the context of faith, never apart from it. There is no alternative route to the assurance of salvation, as if it were legitimate to ask, “Apart from route A (faith), will you take me along route B without faith?”

     This proper self-conscious awareness of genuine faith (i.e., that the individual is a true and not a false believer) develops within three dimensions.

     Grace and Faith

     Faith seeks understanding and is nourished through it. It is possible, of course, to have little knowledge and yet real assurance because faith has nourished itself richly on the knowledge it possesses. Correspondingly, it is possible to have much knowledge and little assurance if an individual responds disproportionately to the knowledge he or she possesses.

     In particular, assurance is nourished on a clear understanding of grace and especially of union with Christ and the justification, adoption, and regeneration that are ours freely in him.   ( Human Nature in Its Fourfold State )

     The chief enemies of the Christian’s assurance at this point are probably three.

     The first is our native tendency to drift from the fact that our salvation is all of grace, and even our active participation in its reception is both the fruit of grace and, although active, noncontributory to the salvation itself. It is all too possible to make some progress in growth and sanctification but then ever so subtly slip into thinking that “of course it was appropriate that God was gracious to me—he knew that I would become the growing Christian that I now am.”

     The second is a phenomenon we have met before in these pages: the difficulty some Christians have in believing that they are freely justified by the Father, who in his love sent his Son for them. They may have been nurtured in a womb of preaching that has portrayed Christ as one who by his sacrifice persuades a wrathful Father to pardon us, in view of what he (Christ) has done. When grace no longer reaches back into the very fountainhead, then deep and suspicious thoughts of God the Father develop, and assurance is not possible. To quote John Owen again:

     Few can carry up their hearts and minds to this height by faith, as to rest their souls in the love of the Father; they live below it, in the troublesome region of hopes and fears, storms and clouds. All here is serene and quiet. But how to attain to this pitch they know not. This is the will of God, that he may always be eyed as benign, kind, tender, loving, and unchangeable therein; and that peculiarly as the Father, as the great fountain and spring of all gracious communications and fruits of love. This is that which Christ came to reveal.   ( The Works of John Owen (16 Volume Set) )

     To fail here is, sadly, to lose hold of the harmony of the Trinity and to lose sight of the sheer grace of God in the gospel. God the Father is absolutely, completely, and totally to us what he reveals himself to be to us in Christ. ( See John 14:7 ) Understand this and sense the light it brings to the mind and affections, and faith strengthens while assurance is nourished.

     A third problem here that militates against the enjoyment of assurance is a failure to recognize that justification is both final and complete. It is final because it is the eschatological justification of the last day brought forward into the present day. It is complete because in justification we are counted as righteous before the Father as Christ himself, since the only righteousness with which we are righteous is Jesus Christ’s righteousness. When faith thus grasps the reality of this inheritance, then Christ himself looms large. This is the key to the enjoyment of assurance precisely because assurance is our assurance that he is a great Savior and that he is ours.

     Thus in gospel assurance Christ is central; indeed Christ is everything. Yet contrary to an entire trend in historical theological scholarship, this does not mean there is no place for the practical syllogism.

Excerpt from The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 31

3 For you are my rock and my fortress;
and for your name’s sake you lead me and guide me;
4 you take me out of the net they have hidden for me,
for you are my refuge.
5 Into your hand I commit my spirit;
you have redeemed me, O LORD, faithful God.

6 I hate those who pay regard to worthless idols,
but I trust in the LORD.
7 I will rejoice and be glad in your steadfast love,
because you have seen my affliction;
you have known the distress of my soul,
8 and you have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy;
you have set my feet in a broad place.

Contemporary Tolerance Is Intrinsically Intolerant

By Don Carson 2/26/12

     The notion of tolerance is changing, and with the new definitions the shape of tolerance itself has changed. Although a few things can be said in favor of the newer definition, the sad reality is that this new, contemporary tolerance is intrinsically intolerant. It is blind to its own shortcomings because it erroneously thinks it holds the moral high ground; it cannot be questioned because it has become part of the West's plausibility structure. Worse, this new tolerance is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. Even the good that it wishes to achieve is better accomplished in other ways.

     Let's begin with dictionaries. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the first meaning of the verb “to tolerate” is “To respect (others' beliefs, practices, etc.) without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing. 3. to put up with; to bear; as, he tolerates his brother-in-law. 4. in medicine, to have tolerance for (a specified drug, etc.).” Even the computer-based dictionary Encarta includes in its list “ACCEPT EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS to recognize other people's right to have different beliefs or practices without an attempt to suppress them.” So far so good: all these definitions are on the same page. When we turn to Encarta's treatment of the corresponding noun “tolerance,” however, a subtle change appears: “1. ACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS the accepting of the differing views of other people, e.g., in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views.”

     This shift from “accepting the existence of different views” to “acceptance of different views,” from recognizing other people's right to have different beliefs or practices to accepting the differing views of other people, is subtle in form, but massive in substance. To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another's position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we slide from the old tolerance to the new.

     Which Tolerance?

     The problem of what “tolerance” means is in fact more difficult than these few comments on dictionary entries might suggest. For in contemporary usage, both meanings continue in popular use, and often it is unclear what the speaker or writer means. For instance, “She is a very tolerant person”: does this mean she gladly puts up with a lot of opinions with which she disagrees, or that she thinks all opinions are equally valid? A Muslim cleric says, “We do not tolerate other religions”: does this mean that, according to this cleric, Muslims do not think that other religions should be permitted to exist, or that Muslims cannot agree that other religions are as valid as Islam? A Christian pastor declares, “Christians gladly tolerate other religions”: does this mean, according to the pastor, that Christians gladly insist that other religions have as much right to exist as Christianity does, or that Christians gladly assert that all religions are equally valid? “You Christians are so intolerant,” someone asserts: does this mean that Christians wish all positions contrary to their own were extirpated, or that Christians insist that Jesus is the only way to God? The former is patently untrue; the latter is certainly true (at least, if Christians are trying to be faithful to the Bible): Christians do think that Jesus is the only way to God. But does that make them intolerant? In the former sense of “intolerant,” not at all; the fact remains, however, that any sort of exclusive truth claim is widely viewed as a sign of gross intolerance. But the latter depends absolutely on the second meaning of “tolerance.”

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

March 14

For Thou exceedest all the fame
Our ears have ever heard;
How happy they who love Thy Name
And trust Thy faithful Word.