Sunday, September 25, 2016

Liberty and Equality: Adducing the Protests

It takes a lot to have a great nation.  It doesn't take much to tear it down.  However, like God said to Baruch, seek not great things for yourself.  That can be said of and to a nation too.  You can easily go down as a nation, and we are.  It's been ugly to watch.

A Frenchman with great yearnings for his own country, its having been torn asunder, Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in 1831, taking extensive notes about what he saw.  Comparing what he observed with what he knew of France and its revolution, he wrote in 1835 to report his findings in his book called Democracy in America:
There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that spurs all men to wish to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the lesser to the rank of the greater. 
But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.
Men want all the benefits of liberty without the requirements.  Nicholas Capaldi and Gordon Lloyd write in Liberty and Equality in Political Economy (p. 73):
What is problematic for Tocqueville is that love of equality rather than love of liberty is the ruling passion of modernity. . . . Humans in modernity prefer equality in slavery to inequality in liberty.  In short, equality and not liberty is the default position of modernity.  Thus, liberty is in constant need of being defended and equality is in constant need of being moderated.
Most people in this country don't even understand the opportunity they have been given.  They are not satisfied with opportunity.  They want equality of outcome.  They really want even more than that, as I observe America now.

If you are white, I don't think you can just be angry with black people.  White people caused this. They took advantage of the depraved taste of equality that almost everyone possesses. They couldn't guarantee a better life though, so many black people now are left in a state of hopelessness, followed by anger.  We see the anger. The history of African Americans in America is that they were brought here against their will and since then they have been used as political pawns by evil opportunists who pose as their saviors.

Why obey the law if you can't have a better life when you do?  People see what they don't have and they don't see a path to get there except through some form of government assistance.   They think that violent protests and kneeling during the anthem will get them there. They think that because there are white people and select black leaders who tell them they are right.  The media also rewards the behavior.  It is a losing, totally losing proposition.   It is absolutely the wrong message.

You cannot succeed against natural law.  The path to success follows a natural progression.  You can't skip the steps to getting there.  No amount of tilting the playing field will help.

De Tocqueville was brutal in his observations about both African Americans and American Indians.  He hated slavery, but he believed that, even though assimilation was best for both, it mainly would not occur.   He assessed that neither were people "democratic" enough to live in a democracy. They just wouldn't.  He predicted the extinction of the Indians in America, because they would be too proud to assimilate.

If I project myself backwards to De Tocqueville's time, I don't share his pessimism, proceeding from his underlying Roman Catholicism, because I believe God's Word.  I don't take the Hillary Clinton's, her basket of deplorable and unredeemable, view of the world. People can change through conversion.  God intervenes in depraved hearts.  They stop lusting for equality and accept liberty. However, they will not change without moral absolutes or absolute truth, a true gospel, and then careful and plain biblical preaching, none of which are even accepted any more in the United States.

Booker T. Washington had a plan at the turn of the 20th Century that was rejected by African Americans in general and the United States as a whole, his plan founded on the laws of nature and nature's God.  If implemented, it would have succeeded.  A depraved taste of equality impelled the weak to bring the strong down to their level, which summarized the lying vanities of W. E. B. Dubois.

Kneeling at a national anthem and violent street protests are the less significant symptoms of a depraved taste of equality.  They are but pawn movements on the board of massive political demagoguery.  Joining them among many others is economic punishment targeting a very miniscule moderation of transgenderism.

When rewards and punishments are not tied to merit according to principles of natural law and the revealed law of God, the opposite, what some have called, "learned helplessness," results.  People stop trying to succeed.  They want it handed to them.

Some would say they don't want a hand out, but a hand up.  The need a hand up:  college tuition, free medical, child care, and subsidized housing.  These are hand. outs.  They are learned helplessness, helplessness that isn't liberty; helplessness that is slavery.

The future isn't bright for a nation that doesn't respect the law, that offers even foreign neighbors an equality that is a lie.  Then police say, "Take your hands out of your pockets so I can see them," and the suspect doesn't have to do that.  Police say, "Kneel down," and he doesn't.  They don't think any longer that there is any merit, any value to doing what police say.  'It won't help you to listen, to submit to authority' is a lie.  The lawbreakers see little path to success.

If you walk back the anthem protests, you end at non violent protests.  Someone is right to protest injustice.  Injustice is wrong.  You aren't right to protest justice, and we do not have evidence of systemic police injustice.  You can go to statistics to prove that.  It isn't even close.  A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black person than any cop killing an unarmed black person. No evidence exists of unique police violence based upon racial discrimination.  It's a bigger and deeper issue though.

Every police shooting, whether just or not, produces extraordinarily imbalanced amounts of media attention and coverage.  The stories are slanted toward the victims of the shooting.  The overarching narrative is a lie.  Let me tell you the result.  Police will back away and more people will die.  When someone calls for help, he won't get it.  The people who suffer those results will get no media attention or coverage.  They will still die and mostly in anonymity.  Their mothers will not become celebrities.  They will not speak at a party presidential convention.  It won't matter to those who are really taking advantage of this situation, which are the subject of an entirely different post.

A man paid millions of dollars as a backup quarterback claims to speak for the voiceless victims.  His message is false.  He's free to protest something.  He's free to pose as a significant thinker, but he is only another pawn.  He isn't bringing liberty or equality.  He is leading a movement that will not end well for anyone.  He is encouraged to tell his little lies while the big truth is forbidden on a state school campus. Liberty loses.

Equality provides the motivation in America now, not liberty.  You can see that liberty doesn't result from anthem protests.  It rewards lawbreakers.  More lawbreaking ensues and people lose their freedom.  Worse, they lose their lives.  Their lives don't matter to those feeding this depraved taste of equality.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Grace through the Word: the Lutheran and Reformed Doctrines Contrasted

A (relatively) short time ago, while working on other things, I was listening through the renowned Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodges's Systematic Theology. Within that work, he has the following discussion about his (Reformed) view of the power and efficacy of the Word and the Lutheran view of the matter.  By reproducing the quotation below, I am not agreeing with or endorsing Hodge or his theology.  However, I wanted to reproduce it unedited and unchanged, and see what readers of this blog had to say about the doctrines affirmed and denied on this subject by Hodge as a Reformed theologian in contradistinction to what the Lutherans affirm.  In particular, what caught my attention was the difference between his Reformed view of the power of the Word--namely, that the Spirit in His sovereignty at times uses the Word in a greater way than at other times--versus the Lutheran view that this is not the case.  What do you think is the Biblical, and, therefore, we trust, the view that ought to be believed and practiced in Baptist churches--the Reformed view, the Lutheran view, or neither?  Do you have any Baptist historical theology that relates to this question that you would like to put in the comment section?  I look forward to hearing your Biblical comments and thoughts on this question.

The quotation from Hodge:

The Office of the Word as a Means of Grace

Christians then do not refer the saving and the sanctifying power of the Scriptures to the moral power of the truths which they contain; or to the mere coöperation of the Spirit in a manner analogous to the way in which God coöperates with all second causes, but to the power of the Spirit as a divine Person acting with and by the truth, or without it, as in his sovereign pleasure He sees fit. Although light cannot restore sight to the blind, or heal the diseases of the organs of sight, it is nevertheless essential to every exercise of the power of vision. So the Word is essential to all holy exercises in the human soul.

In every act of vision there are three essential conditions: 1. An object. 2. Light. 3. An eye in a healthful or normal state. In all ordinary cases this is all that is necessary. But when the object to be seen has the attribute of beauty, a fourth condition is essential to its proper apprehension, namely, that the observer have æsthetic discernment or taste natural or acquired. Two men may view the same work of art. Both have the same object before them and the same light around them. Both see alike all that affects the organ of vision; but the one may see a beauty which the other fails to perceive; the same object therefore produces on them very different effects. The one it delights, elevates, and refines; the other it leaves unmoved if it does not disgust him. So when our blessed Lord was upon earth, the same person went about among the people; the same Word sounded in their ears; and the same acts of power and love were performed in their presence. The majority hated, derided, and finally crucified Him. Others saw in Him the glory of the only begotten Son of God full of grace and truth. These loved, adored, worshipped, and died for Him. Without the objective revelation of the person, doctrines, work, and character of Christ, this inward experience of his disciples had been impossible. But this outward revelation would have been, and in fact was to most of those concerned, utterly in vain, without the power of spiritual discernment. It is clear, therefore, what the office of the Word is, and what that of the Holy Spirit is in the work of sanctification. The Word presents the objects to be seen and the light by which we see; that is, it contains the truths by which the soul is sanctified, and it conveys to the mind the intellectual knowledge of those truths. Both these are essential. The work of the Spirit is with the soul. That by nature is spiritually dead; it must be quickened. It is blind; its eyes must be opened. It is hard; it must be softened. The gracious work of the Spirit is to impart life, to open the eyes, and to soften the heart. When this is done, and in proportion to the measure in which it is done, the Word exerts its sanctifying influence on the soul.

It is a clear doctrine of the Bible and fact of experience that the truth when spiritually discerned has this transforming power. Paul was full of pride, malignity, and contempt for Christ and his Gospel. When the Spirit opened his eyes to behold the glory of Christ, he instantly became a new man. The effect of that vision—not the miraculous vision of the person of the Son of God, but the spiritual apprehension of his divine majesty and love—lasted during the Apostle’s life, and will last to all eternity. The same Apostle, therefore, teaches us that it is by beholding the glory of Christ that we are transformed into his image, from glory to glory, by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Cor. 3:18.) Hence the Scriptures so constantly represent the heavenly state, as seeing God. It is the beatific vision of the divine glory, in all its brightness, in the person of the Son of God, that purifies, ennobles, and enraptures the soul; filling all its capacities of knowledge and happiness. It is thus that we are sanctified by the truth; it is by the spiritual discernment of the things of the Spirit, when He opens, or as Paul says, enlightens the eyes of our understanding. We thus learn how we must use the Scriptures in order to experience their sanctifying power. We must diligently search them that we may know the truths therein revealed; we must have those truths as much as possible ever before the mind; and we must pray earnestly and constantly that the Spirit may open our eyes that we may see wondrous things out of his law. It matters little to us how excellent or how powerful the truths of Scripture may be, if we do not know them. It matters little how well we may know them, if we do not think of them. And it matters little how much we think of them, if we cannot see them; and we cannot see them unless the Spirit opens the eyes of our heart.

We see too from this subject why the Bible represents it as the great duty of the ministry to hold forth the Word of life; by the manifestation of the truth to commend themselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. This is all they need do. They must preach the Word in season and out of season, whether men will hear, or whether they will forbear. They know that the Gospel which they preach is the power of God unto salvation, and that if it be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Cor. 4:4.) Paul may plant and Apollos water, but God only can give the increase.

Besides this general sanctifying power of the Word of God, when spiritually discerned, it is to be further remarked that it is the means of calling forth all holy thoughts, feelings, purposes, and acts. Even a regenerated soul without any truth before it, would be in blank darkness. It would be in the state of a regenerated infant; or in the state of an unborn infant in relation to the external world; having eyes and ears, but nothing to call its faculties of sight and hearing into exercise. It is obvious that we can have no rational feelings of gratitude, love, adoration and fear toward God, except in view of the truths revealed concerning Him in his Word. We can have no love or devotion to Christ, except so far as the manifestation of his character and work is accepted by us as true. We can have no faith except as founded on some revealed promise of God; no resignation or submission except in view of the wisdom and love of God and of his universal providence as revealed in the Scriptures; no joyful anticipation of future blessedness which is not founded on what the Gospel makes known of a future state of existence. The Bible, therefore, is essential to the conscious existence of the divine life in the soul and to all its rational exercises. The Christian can no more live without the Bible, than his body can live without food. The Word of God is milk and strong meat, it is as water to the thirsty, it is honey and the honeycomb.

The Lutheran Doctrine

This doctrine has already been briefly, and, perhaps, sufficiently discussed on a preceding page;1 it cannot, however, be properly overlooked in this connection. The Lutherans agree in words with Rationalists and Remonstrants, in referring the efficiency of the Word of God in the work of sanctification to the inherent power of the truth. But Rationalists attribute to it no more power than that which belongs to all moral truth; such truth is from its nature adapted to form the character and influence the conduct of rational creatures, and as the truths of the Bible are of the highest order and importance, they are willing to concede to them a proportionate degree of power. The Lutherans, on the other hand, teach,—First, that the power of the Word which is inherent and constant, and which belongs to it from its very nature as the Word of God, is supernatural and divine. Secondly, that its efficiency is not due to any influence of the Spirit, accompanying it at some times and not at others, but solely to its own inherent virtue. Thirdly, that its diversified effects are due not to the Word’s having more power at one time than at another; or to its being attended with a greater or less degree of the Spirit’s influence, but to the different ways in which it is received. Christ, it is said, healed those who had faith to be healed. He frequently said: “According to your faith be it unto you,” or “Thy faith hath saved thee.” It was not because there was more power in the person of Christ when the woman touched his garment, than at other times, that she was healed, but because of her faith. Fourthly, that the Spirit never operates savingly on the minds of men, except through and in the Word. Luther in the Smalcald Articles says: “Constanter tenendum est, Deum nemini Spiritum vel gratiam suam largiri nisi per verbum et cum verbo externo et præcedente, ut ita præmuniamus nos adversum enthusiastas, i.e., spiritus, qui jactitant se ante verbum et sine verbo Spiritum habere.”1 And in the Larger Catechism,2 he says: “In summa, quicquid Deus in nobis facit et operatur, tantum externis istius modi rebus et constitutionibus operari dignatur.” Luther went so far as to refer even the inspiration of the prophets to the “verbum vocale,” or external word.3

This divine power of the Word, however, is not, as before remarked, to be referred to the mere moral power of the truth. On this point the Lutheran theologians are perfectly explicit. Thus Quenstedt4 says: “Verbum Dei non agit solum persuasiones morales, proponendo nobis objectum amabile; sed vero, reali, divino et ineffabili influxu potentiæ suæ gratiosæ.” This influx of divine power, however, is not something occasional, giving the word a power at one time which it has not at another. It is something inherent and permanent. Quenstedt says:5 “Verbo Dei virtus divina non extrinsecus in ipso usu demum accedit, sed … in se et per se, intrinsice ex divina ordinatione et communicatione, efficacia et vi conversiva et regeneratrice præditum est, etiam ante et extra omnem usum.” And Hollaz6 says it has this power “propter mysticam verbi cum Spiritu Sancto unionem intimam et individuam.”

Professor Schmid, of Erlangen, in his “Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,” quotes from the leading Lutheran theologians their views on this subject. Hollaz, for example, says that this “vis divina” is inseparably conjoined with the Word; that the Word of God cannot be conceived of without the Spirit; that if the Holy Spirit could be separated from the Word, it would not be the Word of God, but the word of man. Quenstedt says that the action of the Word and of the Spirit is one and indivisible. Baier says:1 “Nempe eadem illa infinita virtus, quæ essentialiter, per se et independenter in Deo est, et per quam Deus homines illuminat et convertit, verbo communicata est: et tanquam verbo communicata, divina tamen, hic spectari debet.” A distinction, says Quenstedt, is to be made between the natural instruments, such as the staff of Moses, or rod of Aaron, which God uses to produce supernatural effects, and those, as the Word and sacraments, which are “sua essentia supernaturalia.… Illa indigent novo motu et elevatione nova ad effectum novum ultra propriam suam et naturalem virtutem producendum; hæc vero a prima institutione et productione sufficienti, hoc est, divina et summa vi ac efficacia prædita sunt, nec indigent nova et peculiari aliqua elevatione ultra efficaciam ordinariam, jamdum ipsis inditam ad producendum spiritualem effectum.”2 That the Word is not always efficacious is not because it is attended by greater power in one case than another, but because of the difference in the moral state of those to whom it is presented. On this point Quenstedt says, “Quanquam itaque effectus Verbi divini prædicati nonnunquam impediatur, efficacia tamen ipsa, seu virtus intrinseca a verbo tolli et separari non potest. Et ita per accidens fit inefficax, non potentiæ defectu, sed malitiæ motu, quo ejus operatio impeditur, quo minus effectum suum assequatur.”3 A piece of iron glowing with heat, if placed in contact with anything easily combustible, produces an immediate conflagration. If brought in contact with a rock, it produces little sensible effect. So the Word of God fraught with divine power, when presented to one mind regenerates, converts, and sanctifies, and when presented to another leaves it as it was, or only exasperates the evil of its nature. It is true these theologians say that the operation of the Word is not physical, as in the case of opium, poison, or fire; but moral, “illustrando mentem, commovendo voluntatem,” etc. Nevertheless the illustration holds as to the main point. The Word has an inherent, divine, and constant power. It produces different effects according to the subjective state of those on whom it acts. The Spirit acts neither on them nor on it more at one time than at another.


1. It is obvious that this peculiar theory has no support from Scripture. The Bible does indeed say that the Word of God is quick and powerful; that it is the wisdom of God and the power of God; and that it convinces, converts, and sanctifies. But so does the Bible say that Christ gave his Apostles power to work miracles; and that they went about communicating the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, healing the sick, and raising the dead. But the power was not in them. Peter was indignant at such an imputation. “Why look ye so earnestly on us,” he said to the people, “as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?” If the Apostles’ working miracles did not prove that the power was in them, the effects produced by the Word do not prove that the power is in it.

2. This doctrine is inconsistent with the constant representations of the Scriptures, which set forth the Spirit as attending the Word and giving it effect, sometimes more and sometimes less; working with and by the truth as He sees fit. It is inconsistent with the command to pray for the Spirit. Men are not accustomed to pray that God would give fire the power to burn or ice to cool. If the Spirit were always in mystical, indissoluble union with the Word, giving it inherent divine power, there would be no propriety in praying for his influence as the Apostles did, and as the Church in all ages has ever done, and continues to do.

3. This theory cuts us off from all intercourse with the Spirit and all dependence upon Him as a personal voluntary agent. He never comes; He never goes; He does not act at one time more than at another. He has imbued the Word with divine power, and sent it forth into the world. There his agency ends. God has given opium its narcotic power, and arsenic its power to corrode the stomach, and left them to men to use or to abuse as they see fit. Beyond giving them their properties, He has nothing to do with the effects which they produce. So the Spirit has nothing to do with the conviction, conversion, or sanctification of the people of God, or with illuminating, consoling, or guiding them, beyond once for all giving his Word divine power. There it is: men may use or neglect it as they please. The Spirit does not incline them to use it. He does not open their hearts, as He opened the heart of Lydia, to receive the Word. He does not enlighten their eyes to see wondrous things out of the law.

4. Lutherans do not attribute divine power to the visible words, or to the audible sounds uttered, but to the truth which these conventional signs are the means of communicating to the mind. They admit that this truth, although it has inherent in it divine power, never produces any supernatural or spiritual effect unless it is properly used. They admit also that this proper use includes the intellectual apprehension of its meaning, attention, and the purpose to believe and obey. Yet they believe in infant regeneration. But if infants are incapable of using the Word; and if the Spirit never operates except in the Word and by its use, how is it possible that infants can be regenerated. If, therefore, the Bible teaches that infants are regenerated and saved, it teaches that the Spirit operates not only with and by the Word, but also without it, when, how, and where He sees fit. If Christ healed only those who had faith to be healed, how did He heal infants, or raise the dead?

5. The theory in question is contrary to Scripture, in that it assumes that the reason why one man is saved and another not, is simply that one resists the supernatural power of the Word and another does not. Why the one resists, is referred to his own free will. Why the other does not resist, is referred not to any special influence, but to his own unbiased will. Our Lord, however, teaches that those only come to Him who are given to Him by the Father; that those come who besides the outward teaching of the Word, are inwardly taught and drawn of God. The Apostle teaches that salvation is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy. The Lutheran doctrine banishes, and is intended to banish, all sovereignty in the distribution of saving grace, from the dispensations of God. To those who believe that that sovereignty is indelibly impressed on the doctrines of the Bible and on the history of the Church and of the world, this objection is of itself sufficient. The common practical belief of Christians, whatever their theories may be, is that they are Christians not because they are better than other men; not because they coöperate with the common and sufficient grace given to all men; not because they yield to, while others resist the operation of the divine Word; but because God in his sovereign mercy made them willing in the day of his power; so that they are all disposed to say from the heart, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory.”

6. This Lutheran doctrine is inconsistent with the experience of believers individually and collectively. On the day of Pentecost, what fell upon the Apostles and the brethren assembled with them? It was no “verbum vocale;” no sound of words; and no new external revelation. The Spirit of God Himself, enlightened their minds and enabled them to remember and to understand all that Christ had taught, and they spoke every man, as the Spirit (not the Word) gave them utterance. Here was a clear manifestation of the Spirit’s acting directly on the minds of the Apostles. To say that the effects then exhibited were due to the divine power inherent in the words of Christ; and that they had resisted that power up to the day of Pentecost, and then yielded to its influence, is an incredible hypothesis. It will not account for the facts of the case. Besides, our Lord promised to send the Spirit after his ascension. He commanded the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they were imbued with power from on high. When the Spirit came they were instantly enlightened, endowed with plenary knowledge of the Gospel, and with miraculous gifts. How could the “verbum vocale” impart the gift of tongues, or the gift of healing. What according to the Lutheran theory is meant by being full of the Holy Ghost? or, by the indwelling of the Spirit? or, by the testimony of the Spirit? or, by the demonstration of the Spirit? or, by the unction of the Holy One which teaches all things? or, by the outpouring of the Spirit? In short, the whole Bible, and especially the evangelical history and the epistles of the New Testament, represents the Holy Spirit not as a power imprisoned in the truth, but as a personal, voluntary agent acting with the truth or without it, as He pleases. As such He has ever been regarded by the Church, and has ever exhibited himself in his dealings with the children of God.

7. Luther, glorious and lovely as he was—and he is certainly one of the grandest and most attractive figures in ecclesiastical history—was impulsive and apt to be driven to extremes.1 The enthusiasts of his age undervalued the Scriptures, pretending to private revelations, and direct spiritual impulses, communicating to them the knowledge of truths unrevealed in the Bible, and a rule of action higher than that of the written Word. This doctrine was a floodgate through which all manner of errors and extravagances poured forth among the people and threatened the overthrow of the Church and of society. Against these enthusiasts all the Reformers raised their voices, and Luther denounced them with characteristic vehemence. In opposition to their pretensions he took the ground that the Spirit never operated on the minds of men except through the Word and sacraments; and, as he held the conversion of sinners to be the greatest of all miracles, he was constrained to attribute divine power to the Word. He was not content to take the ground which the Church in general has taken, that while the Word and sacraments are the ordinary channels of the Spirit’s influence, He has left himself free to act with or without these or any other means, and when He makes new revelations to individuals they are authenticated to others by signs, and miracles, and divers gifts; and that in all cases, however authenticated, they are to be judged by the written Word as the only infallible rule of faith or practice; so that if an Apostle or an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel than that which we have received, he is to be pronounced accursed. (Gal. 1:8.) “We are of God:” said the Apostle John, “he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6.) The Scriptures teach that not only the Holy Spirit, but also other spirits good and evil have access to the minds of men, and more or less effectually control their operations. Directions, therefore, are given in the Bible to guide us in discriminating between the true and false.

The power of individual men, who appear in special junctures, over the faith and character of coming generations, is something portentous. Of such “world controllers,” at least in modern times, there are none to compare with Martin Luther, Ignatius Loyola, and John Wesley. Though so different from each other, each has left his impress upon millions of men. Our only security from the fallible or perverting influence of man, is in entire, unquestioning submission to the infallible Word of God.

1 See vol. ii. p. 656 f.
1 ii. viii. 3: Hase, Libri Symbolici, 1846, p. 331.
2 iv. 30; Hase, p. 540.
3 See Smalcald Articles, ii. viii. 10, 11: “Quare in hoc nobis est, constanter perseverandum, quod Deus non velit nobiscum aliter agere, nisi per vocale verbum et sacramenta, et quod, quidquid sine verbo et sacramentis jactatur, ut spiritus, sit ipse diabolus. Nam Deus etiam Mosi voluit apparere per rubum ardentem et vocale verbum. Et nullus prophets, sive Elias, sive Elisæus, Spiritum sine decalogo sive verbo vocali accepit.” Hase, p. 333.
4 Theologia Didactico-Polemica, I. iv. ii. quæst xvi. ἔχθεσις, 4; edit. Leipzig, 1715, p. 248.
5 Ibid. I. iv. ii. quæst. xvi. fontes solutionum, 7; p. 268.
6 Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum. iii. ii. 1, quæst. 4; edit. Leipzig, 1763, p. 992.
1 Compendium Thelogiæ Positivæ, Prolegg. II. xxxix. d; edit. Frankfort and Leipzig, 1739, p. 106.
2 Quenstedt, Theologia, I. iv. ii. quæst. xvi. ἔχθεσις, 7, ut supra, p. 249.
3 Ibid. quæst. xvi. 9.
1 No one knows Luther who has not read pretty faithfully the five octavo volumes of his letters, collected and edited by De Wette. These exhibit not only his power, fidelity, and courage, but also his gentleness, disinterestedness, and his childlike simplicity, as well as his joyousness and humour.

 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 476–485.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Another Take on This Year's Presidential Election

Take Two! Or Three or whatever.

I recently heard first and then read the transcript of someone saying this about the 2016 presidential election:
So, personally, I have to find a way to vote to support that which is closest to what is right. But that’s the only choice I’ve got. I can’t stand idly by and say everybody’s bad. I’ve got to say that’s worse, and I’ve got to act in that way, personally.
This person didn't say whom he was voting for, but I am asking you to predict what he means.  I think he meant something.  Later I heard him say and then later read him say something more specific.
If we go down the train we’re going, and if it continues that way and we get Hillary Clinton as President, and everything that is part of that whole platform that is against God, against the Scripture, everything that is not just criminal but immoral escalates and escalates and escalates, in no way does that hinder Christ building His church.
Don't google who said it, yet.   I think, greater than any other election, churches are seeing divisions right in their own churches over the differing desired outcomes, so that there is more tiptoeing than ever in order not to cause unnecessary disunity.  That first statement, I believe, reflects that.  Someone else wrote about that possibility, because it is actually being seen as a reality.

I encourage you to celebrate the unity in Christ that transcends political diversity, while remaining steadfast in opposing the deeds of darkness, and making no provision for the flesh. If Matthew and Simeon can share a table with Jesus, then you can share fellowship with someone who will vote for Trump. And when either Trump or Clinton wins, the church’s unity will still stand. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against her, neither can a Super PAC.

It's obvious that churches, evangelical ones especially, feel tremors of disunity over this election.  The country is divided like it hasn't been in a long, long time, and that even includes churches.  People want to be able to talk about their preferred candidate, but they're afraid they'll offend someone and some kind of fight will ensue.  Pastors don't want to be dealing with these problems.  They want to be doing actual ministry.  On the other hand, can't someone be free to express who he'll vote for at his own church without being pummeled for it?

I think the issues that relate to this election are worth talking about.  They can help someone grow.  I think we have to be careful, but I don't think we have to run away from the controversy.  It's a time where people might have to talk about things they wouldn't talk about otherwise.  Evangelism and discipleship don't have to stop.  It's an opportunity to learn principles of discernment.

OK, so those first two quotes came from John MacArthur after coming back to his church on August 21 in a question and answer time with Phil Johnson.  I believe he signals what he's going to do "personally," the word he uses, as if, however, he is giving others freedom to act otherwise.  Or maybe not.  If someone followed his basis given to vote, what would he do?

Monday, September 19, 2016

Revising the King James Version and Pleasing Absolutely No One

For the sake of this post, I'm calling people who use the King James Version, those who love the King James Version (TWLTKJV).  TWLTKJV aren't calling for an update of the KJV.  The only people I hear call for an update of the KJV are people who don't like the KJV (PWDLTKJV).  The people who want a contemporary translation don't care about the text translated into the King James Version. They are more concerned about whether people are going to understand what they are reading, rather than the textual issue.  If they really wanted something contemporary, that's already available anyway in numerous translations, including ones from at least a very similar text.

PWDLTKJV challenge TWLTKJV to make a new translation of the KJV.  They don't want a new translation of it.  They are fine with the present translation of it.  They love it.  They aren't looking for contemporary English.  They don't think it's a problem.  It's not a reason for either wrong beliefs or wrong practices with their people.

The issue of further modernization of the KJV comes from PWDLTKJV.  It's not that they want a new translation.  It's a trap issue.  They want to see if TWLTKJV really do think that the Bible was preserved in the English language and not in the original Hebrew and Greek.  They want to see if TWLTKJV really are loyal to a translation and not the very words that God inspired.

TWLTKJV think there is far more to a translation than what is the most understandable.  They think there should be some difficulty or reticence to "changing the Bible."  Men shouldn't be so free to change a translation of God's Word.  It's a bad precedent.  It's very common today regularly to keep coming out with this and that new translation, update after update, so that God's Word becomes very fungible.  If you don't like how it says it, you can just change it.  The Bible as a standard isn't something that should change easily.

PWDLTKJV and pressure to change it are those who already want to get people off of the KJV.  The NKJV translators for instance didn't accept the superiority of the TR.  They weren't TR believers. They were new translation people, not people sold on the TR.  They decided not even to use the identical text as the KJV and yet still call it the NKJV, which to TWLTKJV seems dishonest.  The NKJV translators were free not to use the identical text, but they get angry, I've found, when you question them about those changes.  They really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

PWDLTKJV wouldn't even use the text behind the KJV to translate into other languages.  They would use the critical text.  Yet, these are the people who say the KJV needs an update.  If they don't want that text in other languages, then why would they want it in English?  They don't.  All the momentum for an update KJV comes from PWDLTKJV.

The nature of scripture as God's Word is changeless.  God is changeless.  His Word is changeless. This popularity of changing doesn't fit the nature of God.

An acceptable modernization of the KJV would and should come from TWLTKJV.  It shouldn't come from people who don't care.  TWLTKJV don't want an update.

Just for discussion sake, let's say that TWLTKJV decided they wanted an update in more contemporary language, changing some of the words.  The churches would need to agree that they wanted it.  I'm talking about the churches of TWLTKJV are the ones to change it.  The church is the pillar and ground of the truth and it is from the church, the church of TWLTKJV that should spearhead the update.  If they don't want to do it, why should it be done?  They accept the KJV.  They aren't people, like PWDLTKJV who want to keep changing and changing and changing and updating and updating God's Word, like so much silly putty.

An update is not going to be done on the momentum of PWDLTKJV.  In the end, TWLTKJV will not be pleased by an update.  They don't want it.  They believe there are many good reasons not to change the KJV, ones that outweigh, even far outweigh those for changing.  PWDLTKJV will not be pleased with an update, because they aren't going to use the update either.  They don't care.  This is why the update isn't going to happen with the momentum, really fake momentum, of PWDLTKJV.  It's just an issue to be used, like propaganda, against TWLTKJV by PWDLTKJV.  I don't think they even expect TWLTKJV to change.  It's just another reason to keep mocking them, like the mainstream media mocks Republicans for similar superficial and propaganda-like reasons.

A better use of everyone's time, exponentially more important than pushing for an update of the KJV, is to dig into what the Bible says about it's own preservation and to study what God's people have believed about the preservation of scripture.  Everyone should get settled what scripture says about its own preservation and about the settled nature of scripture.  If men won't settle on what they believe about preservation, they aren't going to get the issue of the text or the translation right anyway, and I don't trust them.  No one should.

In the discussion we had here a few weeks back on the King James Version, Thomas Ross in the comment section made a good point that the Hebrews, the Jews, over millennia didn't suggest for an update of the Old Testament Hebrew text to make it more modern.  Men should consider why changing the Word of God is not an option.  I understand the issue of a translation isn't identical.  However, it is at least a similar issue.  The very Words matter. The text is a settled standard.  It shouldn't be updated, just like there isn't a call for the updating of the language of the U.S. Constitution, but even less so for scripture. Men should just study and explain the Bible, rather than talking constantly about updating.

The sacred nature of scripture should preclude it from so many changes.  It undermines trust in the Bible.  It turns the authority of God's Word upside down, subordinating it to the whims of men.

Added after comment 66 in the comment section:

Click on image to see easier and more clearly (better readability of the image).

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Interesting and Important Article in Jerusalem Post Regarding This Election

Before going back to read Thomas Ross's post below, there is this offering from the Jerusalem Post. It is actually heartening in many ways.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Keswick's Low View of Sin: in Keswick's Errors--an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 5 of 17

               While Keswick does warn about the evil of various sins, its advocates lead Christians to lower views of the sinfulness of man by promising those who still possess the sinful flesh “victory over all known sin.”[1]  The Keswick downgrade of human sinfulness follows the teaching of Broadlands and its successor Conventions[2] and the emphasis of Hannah W. Smith on attaining carefree happiness and freedom from feelings of guilt, while standing in in continuity with Pentecostalism.[3]  Scripture teaches that no believer short of glory loves God will all his heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37-38), is inwardly perfect, even as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), or perfectly obeys other similar commandments.  A believer’s obedience to some commands, such as:  “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom” (Colossians 3:16), or “sin not” (1 Corinthians 15:34), is imperfect but progressive.  Likewise, believers can be commanded to do more of what they are already doing to some extent (1 Thessalonians 5:11).  Consequently, for a believer to affirm, with Keswick, that the “cleansing work [of] . . . the Spirit . . . to remove . . . sin . . . is as thorough as His revealing work . . . [to] reveal sin”[4] he must either suppress the Spirit’s testimony that some sins are truly sin or suppress the Spirit’s testimony to his failure to meet the Divine standard of absolute sinless perfection.[5]  The child of God can greatly rejoice that he has the privilege of drawing near to God and the power from the Holy Spirit to walk in uprightness before his Father in genuine, glorious, and progressively growing victory over sin.  Regretably, his closeness to God is hindered if, through Keswick teaching, he denys that his real failure to entirely conform to commands such as Matthew 22:37-38 or 5:48 is indeed sin.  Such failures should be known, consciously acknowledged, guarded against, and hated as sin. Murray astutely notes:
While Keswick stresses the gravity of sin, there is still an underestimation of the consequences for the believer of remaining indwelling sin[.] .  .  . Going hand in hand with this failure is a corresponding preoccupation with what it calls known sin, apparent in its definition that “the normal Christian life is one of uniform sustained victory over known sin” (pg. 84; cf. pg. 99 [of Barabas, So Great Salvation]).  If sin still dwells in the believer, if there is still the tendency to sin, if corruption has not been eradicated, all of which Keswick admits, then we ought to be always conscious of that sin.  It is not by any means a virtue to say, as Evan Hopkins says, that we need not be “conscious of that tendency” (p. 50). . . . Indwelling sin is still sin and the believer ought always to be conscious of it as such.  To fail to be conscious of it amounts either to hypocrisy or self-deception.  To have sin in us and not to be conscious of it is itself grave sin; it is culpable ignorance or culpable ignoring.  As long as sin remains there cannot be freedom from conscious sin, for the simple reason that in the person who is sensitive to the gravity of sin and to the demands of holiness this sin that remains is always reflected in consciousness.  Again, indwelling sin is defiling and it defiles the holiest of the believer’s thoughts, words, and actions.  The specifically deliberate and volitional is never immune to the defilement which proceeds from the corrupt nature and that is why the most sanctified of saints are oftentimes most acutely aware of their sinfulness just when by the power of Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit they are engaged in the holiest of their undertakings. . . . [Indeed,] Keswick[’s] . . . liabilities . . . are related to or stem from failure to take adequate account of the implications of the presence of sin in the believer and of the effects which must follow in his consciousness.  This reflects a defective view of holiness and of its demands, which, in turn, gravely . . . impair[s] its effectiveness as a convention “for the promotion of scriptural holiness” (p. 30, [Barabas]).[6]
Similarly, Hovey writes:
[Those who] assume that God has promised to deliver them now from all sin, if they believe aright . . . [who teach] “Holiness through Faith” . . . [teach that] there is a Christian, in distinction from a divine, an angelic, or even an Adamic perfection, and [use as a proof-text that] “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” . . . But according to this view the standard of holiness is a fluctuating one, and for aught we can see some of the followers of Christ, who have bound their fellow-Christians to the rack or the stake for what was believed to be the mortal sin of heresy, may have been acting at the time “up to the given measure of light upon their duty,” and were therefore free from sin.  The error in this view is a very dangerous one.  Faith in Christ does not, as a matter of fact, render every act which partakes of it holy.  Faith in Christ is acceptable to God, not because it makes the conduct of the believer in this life sinless, but because it unites the soul with Christ who has suffered for [him]. . . . Rahab and Samson had faith, but they were not free from sin.  And of one thing at least we may be sure—that the Scriptures nowhere teach that “whatsoever is of faith is not sin.”[7]
Keswick overvaluation of carefree happiness and freedom from guilty feelings[8] is connected with Keswick’s denial of the Biblical truth that the fact of sin should always remain in the believer’s consciousness.  John Murray notes:
The representatives of Keswick have a passionate concern for deliverance from the oppressing consciousness of sin and the dissatisfaction arising from this consciousness.  Every person who has his eye upon the goal of redemption must be aware of the oppression which sin involves and must long for deliverance from it.  But we must beware of the tendency to complacency which is the snare of perfectionism.  As long as sin remains we must have the consciousness of it and the ensuing dissatisfaction.  The more sanctified the believer becomes the more acute becomes his conviction of the sinfulness that is his, the more he loathes it and reproaches himself for it.  Here again one feels the passion for freedom from the oppressing consciousness of sin, so characteristic of Keswick leaders, betrays a lack of appreciation of what the presence of sin ought to mean in the consciousness of the believer.[9]
Christians should not aim for or be satisfied with anything less than the literal perfection set before them by the holy character of the triune God and the incarnate Son.  They ought to strive for genuine perfection in dependence upon Christ, rather then resting satisfied with the Keswick downgrade of perfection, understanding that their journey of sanctification will not reach its final goal short of glory.  Indeed, when a saint sees his failure to conform to God’s own standard of holiness as set before him in the Person of Christ, he is able to more humbly and closely walk after the Spirit (Romans 7:14-8:4).  Biblical sanctification has a deeper view of the sinfulness of sin than does the Keswick theology, leading Scriptural and non-Keswick piety to a deeper repentance for and hatred of sin, and a greater glorification of and glorying in Jesus Christ, than is possible for the adherent of Keswick (Luke 14:11).  The believer should repent, not only of his known sins, but also of his unknown sins, for the corruption of his heart, for the imputation of Adam’s sin to himself,[10] and for the corruption that adheres to even his holiest works, committing himself to his infinitely precious High Priest who bears the inquity even of his holy things (Exodus 28:38).
               Contrary to Keswick practice, a Biblical Christian spirituality recognizes that not only one’s individual and willful sins in thought, word, and deed are ungodly and require repentance, but also unintentional sin, and even the corruption within one’s best and holiest deeds, needs to be recognized and repented of.  Consequently, Biblical piety contributes to a deeper hatred and repentance for sin, and a greater joy in the glorious righteousness of Christ wrought out for the believer on account of His free grace and love, than does Keswick doctrine.  Contrast, for example, the too-shallow view of sin promited by Keswick founder Hannah W. Smith with the spirituality elucidated in the following quote by Robert Hawker:
[M]y soul[,] thou needest not to look abroad into another’s heart to see iniquity; for at home, in thine own, a voice may be heard continually proclaiming it. Renewed as thou art by grace, still thou feelest the workings of corrupt nature: and though, as the apostle said, “with thy mind thou thyself servest the law of God, yet with thy flesh the law of sin,” Romans 7:25. Pause over the solemn subject, and observe the working of a body of sin and death, which is virtually all sin: “the carnal mind, (the apostle saith) is enmity against God,” Romans 8:7; not only an enemy, but in enmity: so that the very nature is so; it is averse, naturally averse to God, and is everlastingly rising in opposition to his holy law. And this not only (as some have supposed, but all men, if they would confess the truth, find to the contrary) before a work of grace hath passed upon the soul, but after. Else wherefore doth the apostle say, “the  flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would?” Galatians 5:17. He saith this to the regenerate, to the [saints] at large. And consequently this conflict is after grace hath been manifested to the soul, and not before. A sinner unawakened may indeed feel at times compunctions of conscience, and be alarmed at what will be the consequence of his sins: but these are only the alarms of conscience, not the workings of grace: and for the most part, these alarms are but momentary. His affections are all on the side of sin. His soul still remains “dead in trespasses and sins;” and he himself, like a dead fish, swims down the stream of sin uninterrupted, without resistance, and without concern. But when a child of God is renewed, and the soul, that was before dead in trespasses and sins, becomes quickened and regenerated; then it is that the conflict between the renewed part in grace, and the unrenewed part in nature, begins, and never ends but with life. My soul, hath the Lord taught thee this, made thee sensible of it, and caused thee to groan under it? Dost thou find this heart of thine rebelling against God; cold to divine things, but warm to natural enjoyments; framing excuses to keep thee from sweet communion with the Lord; and even in the moment of communion, running with a swarm of vain thoughts, that “like the flies in the ointment of the apothecary causeth it to send forth an ill savour”? Are these in thy daily, hourly, experience? . . . Oh! precious, precious Jesus! how increasingly dear, under this view of a nature so totally corrupt, art thou to my poor soul! What but the eternal and unceasing efficacy of thy blood and righteousness could give my soul the smallest confidence, when I find that I still carry about with me such a body of sin and death? Let those who know not the plague of their own heart, talk of natural goodness; sure I am, there is nothing of the kind in me. “I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” And were it not, dearest Lord, for the holiness of thy person, blood, and righteousness, the very sins which mingle up with all I say or do, yea, even in prayer, would seal my condemnation. Lamb of God! it is the everlasting merit of thy atonement and intercession, thy blood sprinkled upon my person and offering, by which alone the justice of God is restrained and satisfied, and that it breaks not forth in devouring fire, as upon the sacrifice of old, to consume me upon my very knees! Blessed, blessed forever be God for Jesus Christ![11]
               Compare also the words of John Owen:
[Believers] weigh their own righteousness in the balance, and find it wanting; and this two ways: —

1.) In general, and upon the whole of the matter, at their first setting themselves before God. . . . This the saints renounce; they have no confidence in the flesh: they know that all they can do, all that the law can do, which is weak through the flesh, will not avail them. . . . This they bear in their minds daily, this they fill their thoughts withal, that upon the account of what they have done, can do, ever shall do, they cannot be accepted with God, or justified thereby. This keeps their souls humble, full of a sense of their own vileness, all their days.

2.) In particular. They daily weigh all their particular actions in the balance, and find them wanting, as to any such completeness as, upon their own account, to be accepted with God.

“Oh!” says a saint, “if I had nothing to commend me unto God but this prayer, this duty, this conquest of a temptation, wherein I myself see so many failings, so much imperfection, could I appear with any boldness before him? Shall I, then, piece up a garment of righteousness out of my best duties? Ah! it is all as a defiled cloth,” Isaiah 64:6.

These thoughts accompany them in all their duties, in their best and most choice performances: —

“Lord, what am I in my best estate? How little suitableness unto thy holiness is in my best duties! O spare me, in reference to the best thing that ever I did in my life!” Nehemiah 13:22.

When a man who lives upon convictions has got some enlargements in duties, some conquest over a sin or temptation, he hugs himself, like Micah when he had got a Levite to be his priest: now surely it shall be well with him, now God will bless him: his heart is now at ease; he has peace in what he has done. But he who has communion with Christ, when he is highest in duties of sanctification and holiness, is clearest in the apprehension of his own unprofitableness, and rejects every thought that might arise in his heart of setting his peace in them, or upon them. He says to his soul, “Do these things seem something to thee? Alas! thou hast to do with an infinitely righteous God, who looks through and through all that vanity, which thou art but little acquainted withal; and should he deal with thee according to thy best works, thou must perish.”

3.) They approve of, value, and rejoice in, this righteousness, for their acceptation, which the Lord Jesus has wrought out and provided for them; this being discovered to them, they approve of it with all their hearts, and rest in it. Isaiah 45:24, “Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength.” This is their voice and language, when once the righteousness of God in Christ is made known unto them: “Here is righteousness indeed; here have I rest for my soul. Like the merchant man in the gospel (Matthew 13:45,46) that finds the pearl of price, I had been searching up and down; I looked this and that way for help, but it was far away; I spent my strength for that which was not bread: here is that, indeed, which makes me rich for ever!” When first the righteousness of Christ, for acceptation with God, is revealed to a poor laboring soul, that has fought for rest and has found none, he is surprised and amazed, and is not able to contain himself: and such a one always in his heart approves this righteousness . . . [a]s full of infinite wisdom . . . as full of grace. He knows that sin had shut up the whole way of grace towards him; and whereas God aims at nothing so much as the manifestation of his grace, he was utterly cut short of it. Now, to have a complete righteousness provided, and yet abundance of grace manifested, exceedingly delights the soul; —to have God’s dealing with his person all grace, and dealing with his righteousness all justice, takes up his thoughts.[12]
Indeed, since Hannah W. Smith and many advocates of Keswick who followerd her rejected justification by imputed righteousness, not only was their view of sin too low, but their valuation of Christ’s cross and righteousness were similarly blighted.

See here for this entire study.

[1]              Pg. 20, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[2]              Victory over all known sin” was the stated aim of the Broadlands Convention (pg. 21, The Keswick Story:  The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck).
[3]              Pg. 235, A Theology of the Holy Spirit:  The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, F. D. Bruner.
[4]              Pg. 55, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[5]              Baptist seminary professor Alvah Hovey noted:
[Those who] claim to be saved from conscious transgression . . . lower the standard of holiness prescribed by the law of God, until it agrees with their own experience. . . . [T]he requirements of the divine law are so comprehensive and spiritual that no man can test his inward life by that law, without perceiving that he is a transgressor.  If he fails to meet the exact, the utmost demands of that law, as set before him in the Scriptures, he is not saved from conscious transgression.  When, for example, he is commanded to be holy, because God is holy, the standard is one of absolute moral perfection; and, measuring himself and others by it, he will see that the words of Christ are profoundly true, ‘There is none good but one, that is, God;’ as if Christ had said to the young ruler [of Matthew 19:16-22], ‘By comparing yourself with any man, however upright and devout, you compare yourself with one who is morally imperfect, with a sinner; while the only true standard or right character for man is the holy character of God.’  The same result will be reached, if he tests himself by the two great commands of the law:  ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;’ and, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’  For what is it to love God with all the heart, and soul, and mind?  It is to love him as purely and intensely and constantly as a being of the same capacity, but without the least taint of evil in the heart to weaken, cloud, or interrupt the ardors of holy affection, could love him.  It is to love him with the whole force of the soul, undiminished by the least remnant of selfishness. . . . [T]he law of God, as set forth in the Bible, require[s] of all a life without sin; for it commands them to be perfect or holy, while it brings forward the character of God as the standard of holiness. . . . And there is no greater absurdity in religion than to suppose that the standard of holiness has been lowered for the servants of Christ. (pgs. 59-62, 125, Doctrine of the Higher Christian Life Compared With the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures, by Alvah Hovey)
[6]              Pgs. 283, 286, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 4, a review of So Great Salvation, Barabas.  Italics in original.
[7]              Pgs. 108-110, Doctrine of the Higher Christian Life Compared With the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures, by Alvah Hovey.
[8]              See, e. g., Hannah W. Smith’s paradigmatic Keswick classic, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life.
[9]              Pg. 286, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 4, a review of So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[10]             E. g., Psalm 51:5-6 records David’s lament over his sin in Adam.  On the Biblical basis for repenting of original sin, see pgs. 267-285, Sermons to the Natural Man, William G. T. Shedd (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1871); pgs. 39-42, The Works of David Clarkson, David Clarkson, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864) & pgs. 292-313, Vol. 3, Ibid; pgs. 324-376, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Goodwin, Vol. 10 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865).
[11]       May 10, The Poor Man’s Morning and Evening Portions, Robert Hawker.
[12]             Chapter 8, “How the Saints Hold Communion with Christ as to their Acceptation with God,” in Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, John Owen.