Required reading Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards (available from Amazon or free here) - Continue Part IV by reading Section V to VIII.
My summary Today we continue to witness Edwards answering objections from Arminians.
Section V answers the objection that if we are controlled by God in all we do then we are simply a machine and without virtue: 'As to that objection against the doctrine, which I have endeavoured to prove, that it makes men no more than mere machines; I would say, that notwithstanding this doctrine, man is entirely, perfectly, and unspeakably different from a mere machine, in that he has reason and understanding, and has a faculty of will, and is so capable of volition and choice; and in that his will is guided by the dictates or views of his understanding; and in that his external actions and behavior, and in many respects also his thoughts, and the exercises of his mind, are subject to his will; so that he has liberty to act according to his choice, and do what he pleases; and, by means of these things, is capable of moral habits and moral acts, such inclinations and actions, as, according to the common sense of mankind, are worthy of praise, esteem, love, and reward; or, on the contrary, of disesteem, detestation, indignation, and punishment.'
Section VI is a brief section defending the accusation that Calvinists are Stoics because they believe in Fate.
Section VII is a defense of the necessity of the divine will. The Arminian argues that Calvinists makes Fate rule God. Edwards says that 'It is no disadvantage or dishonour to a being, necessarily to act in the most excellent and happy manner, from the necessary perfection of his own nature. This argues no imperfection, inferiority, or dependence, nor any want of dignity, privilege, or ascendancy. It is not inconsistent with the absolute and most perfect sovereignty of God.'
Finally, Section VIII continues to defend the moral necessity of God by pointing out that there are differences in every choice that God makes. He is never faced, as the Arminians would like to suppose, with various objects of choice.
What grabbed me I continue to enjoy the power of Edwards' logic.
Today I loved how he threw the accusation that Calvinists are Stoics back in the face of the Arminians: 'And it is very remarkable, concerning Dr Whitby, that although he alleges the agreement of the Stoics with us, wherein he supposes they maintained the like doctrine with us, as an argument against the truth of our doctrine; yet this very Dr Whitby alleges the agreement of the Stoics with the Arminians, wherein he supposes they taught the same doctrine with them, as an argument for the truth of their doctrine. So that, when the Stoics agree with them, this (it seems) is a confirmation of their doctrine, and a confutation of ours, as showing that our opinions are contrary to the natural sense and common reason of mankind: nevertheless, when the Stoics agree with us, it argues no such thing in our favour; but, on the contrary, is a great argument against, us, and shows our doctrine to be heathenish. It is observed by some Calvinistic writers, that the Arminians symbolize with the Stoics in some of those doctrines wherein they are opposed by the Calvinists; particularly in their denying an original, innate, total corruption and depravity of heart; and in what they held of man’s ability to make himself truly virtuous and conformed to God; and in some other doctrines.'
All very well for Arminians to call us Stoics when we have a similarity in doctrine, but they should be honest and call themselves Stoics where they teach similar doctrine to the Stoics, particularly the inherent goodness of man.
Next week's reading Continue Part IV by reading Section IX to XI.
Now it's your turn Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
Required reading Thoughts on preaching by J. W. Alexander (Available from Amazon or free here) - Continue 'Letters to young ministers' by reading Letters 6 and 7.
My summary In Letter Six Alexander gives us examples of men who were laborious pastors as well as men of scholarship. The letter is actually quite a nice collection of mini biographies on puritan authors.
In Letter Seven Alexander encourages the practice of extemporaneous preaching.
What grabbed me At the end of the reading there was a great piece of advice about all preaching: 'Until you cease to regard the preaching of the word as in any sense a rhetorical exercise, it matters little whether you read or speak, or what method of preparation is adopted; you will be "as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal."'
I still remember at college 'practising' preaching. Such ideas really encourage the concept that preaching is simply a form of public speaking rather than speaking with the authority of the living God.
Next week's reading Continue 'Letters to young ministers' by reading Letters 8, 9 and 10. Now it's your turn Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
Required reading Prayer by John Bunyan (Available from Amazon or free here) - Read Chapters 4, 5 & 6.
My summary Today in Chapter 4 Bunyan answers questions and objections to his teachings on prayer: (i) I know not how to pray; (ii) I can scarce say anything when I try to pray; (iii) You seem to advocate another way of praying apart from the spirit; (iv) If I cannot use forms of prayer how can I teach my children to pray; (v) Jesus taught his disciples a form to pray yet you don't; (vi) Jesus told men to pray for the Spirit yet you say they cannot pray without the spirit; (vii) Would you really have none pray but those that are disciples of Christ?
Then in Chapter 5 Bunyan provides: (i) a word of information about obstructions to prayer; (ii) a word of encouragement to pray; (iii) a word of rebuke to those who don't pray, mock prayer by the spirit or blaspheme the Spirit.
What grabbed me If you thought Bunyan was hard on forms of prayers before, today he really came out punching: 'We ought to prompt one another to prayer, though we ought not to make forms of prayer for each other. To exhort to pray with Christian direction is one thing, and to make stinted forms for tying up the Spirit of God to them is another thing. The apostle gives Christians no form in which to pray, yet directs to prayer (Ephesians. 6.8; Romans. 15:30-32). Let no man therefore conclude, that because we may give instructions and directions to pray, therefore it is lawful to make forms of prayer for each other.'
Like one of readers commented last week, I think Bunyan is wrong to be so harsh on written forms of prayers.
I think the Bible encourages praying forms of prayers. For example it gives us 150 Psalms in the Old Testament and the Lord's prayer in the New Testament all of which can be prayed verbatim and still be prayed with the Spirit who wrote them.
I think we can pray in the Spirit with both forms of prayers AND extempore prayers.
Next week's reading Commence Section II (Throne of Grace) by reading the Introduction and Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 point 1 (There is a throne of grace).
Now it's your turn Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
Required reading City of God by Augustine (available from Amazon or free on the internet, here for example) - Continue Book 18 by reading Chapters 32 to 43. My summary Augustine continues his discussion of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ. Today he looks at Habakuk, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Interestingly, he includes prophecies from Esdras and the Books of Maccabees.
Then Augustine explains why he has been so careful to point out the prophetic wisdom of the Old Testament - it proves that prophetic authority in the city of God antedates prophecy in the city of man found in pagan philosophy. To make his case he contrasts Hebrew wisdom with Egyptian and Greek.
Then to finish today's reading Augustine makes much of the way the Septuagint was apparently written.
What grabbed me I thoroughly enjoyed the part of today's reading that drove home the superiority of the Old Testament to pagan literature.
Particularly how the pagans contradict one another in their writings whilst the Hebrew authors are of one accord: '...the philosophers themselves...do not seem to have had any other aim in their laborious pursuits than to discover how we should regulate our lives towards the attainment of happiness. How is it, then, that disciples have disagreed with teachers, and fellow-disciples with one another? Must it not be because they sought the answers to these questions as men relying on human senses and human powers of reasoning...It is to be noted that our authors do not disagree with one another in any way. Perish the thought! It is not for nothing that they provide the fixed and final canon of sacred literature. This agreement justifies the belief that when they wrote these books God was speaking to them or perhaps we should say through them.'
Such a large collection of authors and no contradictions? The Bible must be the word of an inerrant and infallible God.
Next week's reading Continue Book 18 by reading Chapters 44 to 54.
Now it's your turn Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
Required reading Life and Diary of David Brainerd by Jonathan Edwards (Available from Amazon or free here) - Read Part 8. My summary We've now come to the end of Brainerd's life. He is becoming increasingly sick and is diagnosed as terminally ill.
However, due to his success with the Indians, 'He was much visited...by many persons of considerable note and character, and by some of the first rank; who showed him uncommon respect, and appeared highly pleased and entertained with his conversation.'
Then as Brainerd draws closer and closer to death his thoughts appear to be more and more taken up with heaven and the glory with which he will soon give to God there. What grabbed me I liked what Brainerd said he was thankful for: 'I could not but feel some measure of gratitude to God at this time (wherein I was much exercised,) that he had always disposed me, in my ministry, to insist on the great doctrines of regeneration, the new creature, faith in Christ, progressive sanctification, supreme love to God, living entirely to the glory of God, being not our own, and the like. God thus helped me to see, the surest manner, from time to time, that these, and the like doctrines necessarily connected with them, are the only foundation of safety and salvation for perishing sinners; and that those divine dispositions, which are consonant hereto, are that holiness, "without which no man shall see the Lord." The exercise of these God-like tempers - wherein the soul acts in a kind of concert with God, and would be and do every thing that is pleasing to him-I saw, would stand by the soul in a dying hour; for God must, I think, deny himself, if he cast away his own image, even the soul that is one in desires with himself.'
Excellent statement!
Next week's reading Commence the second part of Brainerd's Journal by reading the Preface and Part I 'From AD 1745 June 19th to Nov 4th at Crossweeksung and forks of Delaware'. Now it's your turn Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
Required reading Bunyan's Holy War (Available from Amazon or free here) - Read Chapter 14.
My summary Today the town of Mansoul experiences their first assault from the Diabolian army.
But firstly, Mr Prywell finds out that Diabolus and his army are on the way and tells the people. The people respond by: (i) shutting the gates; (ii) searching out Diabolians within the city; (iii) shaming those harbouring Diabolians; (iv) commencing a fast; (v) sending petitions to Shaddai for help; (vi) thanking Mr Prywell for his raising the alarm.
The Diabolian army arrives and a series of attacks and attempts to win the city over with words is made, but to no avail.
Mansoul continues to defend itself and even executes and imprisons Diabolians found in the city.
What grabbed me What a benefit it was to have Mr Prywell in the town: 'Mr. Prywell was always a lover of Mansoul, a sober and judicious man, a man that is no tattler, nor raiser of false reports, but one that loves to look into the very bottom of matters, and talks nothing of news, but by very solid arguments.'
Not a gossip, but someone who is alert to what is happening, particularly when evil is about.
I wish every church had a Mr Prywell.
Next week's reading Read Chapter 15.
Now it's your turn Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
Required reading Practical Religion by JC Ryle (available from Amazon or free on the internet, here for example)- Read Chapter 17 (The great gathering). My summary Today we look at the 'Great Gathering' that will happen at the end.
Firstly we see that the gathering will happen when Christ returns and the Christians are taken to glory. Ryle tells us that the gathering will be great, wonderful and humbling.
Secondly Ryle explains why this gathering should be desired. It will be: (i) a state of things totally unlike our present condition; (ii) an assembly entirely of one mind; (iii) a meeting at which none shall be absent; (iv) a meeting without parting.
What grabbed me I thought Ryle's point about saints in heaven experiencing a humbling was well made: 'It will make an end of bigotry and narrow-mindedness forever. The Christians of one denomination will find themselves side by side with those of another denomination; if they would not tolerate them on earth, they will be obliged to tolerate them in heaven. Those Christians, who will neither pray together nor worship together now, will discover to their shame that they must praise together for all eternity. The very people who will not allow us to sit with them at the Lord's Table now, will be obliged to acknowledge us before our Master's face, and to let us sit down by their side. Never, will the world see such a complete overthrow of sectarianism, party spirit, unbrotherliness, religious jealousy, and religious pride. Finally, we will all be completely "clothed with humility."'
What a wonderful day it will be when Jesus sweeps away the divisions between Christians!
Next week's reading Read Chapter 18 (The great separation).
Now it's your turn Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
Required reading Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards (available from Amazon or free here) - Commence Part IV by reading Section I to IV.
My summary In Part IV Edwards continues to answer objections from Arminians.
Section I examines the argument that a man cannot be blamed for wickedness if he is caused to act wickedly - the cause alone is to blame. Edwards answer is that both the cause and the person are to blame, as they are both sinning: 'It is true a cause may be to blame for being the cause of vice: it may be wickedness in the cause that it produces wickedness. But it would imply a contradiction, to suppose that these two are the same individual wickedness. The wicked act of the cause in producing wickedness, is one wickedness; and the wickedness produced, if there be any produced, is another. And therefore the wickedness of the latter does not lie in the former, but is distinct from it; and the wickedness of both lies in the evil nature of the things which are wicked.'
Section II looks at the Arminian definition of action. Arminians claim that if we have no free will then there is only passivity, not action. Edwards answers that their definition of action is incorrect and they contradict themselves as they claim that their mind is passive to their will and yet the mind is said to act: 'And yet they hold, that the mind’s action is the effect of its own determination; yea, the mind’s free and voluntary determination, which is the same with free choice. So that action is the effect of something preceding, even a preceding act of choice: and consequently, in this effect, the mind is passive, subject to the power and action of the preceding cause, which is the foregoing choice, and therefore cannot be active. So that here we have this contradiction, that action is always the effect of foregoing choice, and therefore cannot be action; because it is passive to the power of that preceding causal choice; and the mind cannot be active and passive in the same thing, at the same time. '
Section III and IV are connected. Section III outlines the Arminian argument that common sense says if a man is forced to do something then we cannot praise or blame him. Edwards rebuts this in Section IV by showing that common sense shows we still praise a man when he is forced to do something good and we still blame a man when he is forced to do something bad: 'Whereas the reverse is true: men do not think a good act to be the less praiseworthy for the agent’s being much determined in it by a good inclination or a good motive, but the more.'
What grabbed me The argument that I liked a few sections ago came back again as a subpoint at the end of Section II: 'But, however strenuously it is maintained, that what is necessary cannot be properly called action, and that a necessary action is a contradiction, yet it is probable there are few Arminian divines, who, if thoroughly tried, would stand to these principles. They will allow, that God is, in the highest sense, an active being, and the highest fountain of life and action; and they would not probably deny, that those that are called God’s acts of righteousness, holiness, and faithfulness, are truly and properly God’s acts, and God is really a holy agent in them; and yet, I trust, they will not deny, that God necessarily acts justly and faithfully, and that it is impossible for Him to act unrighteously and unholy.'
Just because God is forced to be holy, that doesn't deny that his actions are holy.
Next week's reading Continue Part IV by reading Section V to VIII.
Now it's your turn Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
