Works of Jonathan Edwards - Vol. 26 - Catalogues of Books

So the last volume in the Yale edition of the Works of Jonathan Edwards is slightly and very interestingly different - it's called a "Catalogue of Books" and really is just that - a catalogue. Yale describe it as;

"A notebook he kept of books of interest, especially titles he hoped to acquire, and entries from his “Account Book” a ledger in which he noted books loaned to family, parishioners, and fellow clergy".

Why on earth would a book like this be interesting to anyone but someone with a bibliophile bent?

1. It's interesting historically.

The editorial notes that the "Catalogue" affords us an expansive and insightful insight into eighteenth century America and the books available to Christians there. It notes that the colonials depended on developments across the Atlantic in Britain. Jonathan Edwards apparently was an avid newspaper reader. The editorial notes;

"Edwards abiding interest in "signs of the times" meant that he was an indefatigable source collector. Newspapers were one important source on the progress of God's Kingdom".

That last statement gripped me. Nowadays many Christians read newspapers to get glum about the state of the world. Jonathan Edwards read newspapers to "see if I could not find some news favorable to the interest of religion in the world". I love that!

2. It's interesting theologically.

Jonathan Edwards is recognised by most as a theological and spiritual hero. This volume is an incredible and exciting insight into what drove and what interested him.

The editorial notes;

"Edwards was firmly grounded in the Reformed scholasticism of his forebears. Like his father and grandfather he read what Cotton Mather called; "Good old Puritan Divinity".

I found this an interesting insight into Edwards working day;

"Despite his position as sole pastor to perhaps thirteen hundred people, Edwards tried to spend around thirteen hours a day alone in his study".

I wonder how many modern pastors manage that. How we may ask? The editorial says;

"He attempted to do this by minimizing pastoral visits except in emergencies - he judged himself better suited to the contemplative life - and even by skipping dinner with his family on many occasions. Bible study and sermon preparation occupied most of his time but he also added steadily to his "Miscellanies" and other notebooks".

I particularly identified with this comment in the editorial;

"Over the next three decades Edwards notebooks would increasingly reflect his omnivorous reading as he searched for intellectual allies and antagonists, sometimes copying long extracts from his latest book acquisition".

3. It is Stirring Spiritually.

I have frequently found myself personally struggling with my love for books and my desire for more of the Presence of God and more spiritual encounters. I love reading, I love studying, I love building a theological library - but then I see men and women of God like Rob Rufus who speak of having an encounter with the manifest Presence of God every day and I hunger for that so much! I feel such a spiritual pgymy in comparison! And a volume like this shows me that it does not have to be an opposing war - books in fact should testify of the amazing spiritual encounters and journeys that are available in the Christian life. And any books that do not are not worth reading.

Gone are the days when we had to choose between "Word and Spirit" - as Terry Virgo says in this wonderful video, we can have both!

Terry Virgo: Being Reformed and Charismatic from Jubilee Church on Vimeo.

Question and Answer Session with Don Carson and John Piper!!

On Thursday, April 23, 2009, at Park Community Church in Chicago, IL, the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School hosted an evening of free lectures and discussion with Dr. John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church and Dr. D. A. Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. The event began at 7:00pm and concluded around 10:00pm. Titled “The Pastor as Scholar, and the Scholar as Pastor: Reflections on Life and Ministry with John Piper and D.A. Carson”, the evening featured hour-long lectures by Drs. Piper and Carson that offered reflection of a theological and personal nature on the work of the pastor and the scholar, respectively.

The Question and Answer session was of amazing quality and I just couldn't resist transcribing it for future reference and reflection;

Q: Before we start I just want to say one book I would commend for those of you who are very interested in everything we have talked about is Doug Sweeney's upcoming book from Intervarsity Press; "Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word". Dr Sweeney sparked a lot of my thought on this topic which is why I proposed this event and I would commend it to you - it's coming out soon. The Henry Centre booth has fliers on it and Doug will get your heart fired up either for theological pastoral ministry or scholarly ministry. Look for that book in days to come.

Because you both questioned the use of "scholar" in the event title, I wanted to say what I was thinking in regard to that title and have you respond. In the past it seems to me that theology was done for the church. There is certainly and always will be a place for high-level theology - theology among the experts. But it seems to me that in the past Augustine and Luther and Calvin and Edwards and Warfield - many others we could name - the Puritans thought of themselves as theologians of the highest level and it was for the church. So they weren't writing books to be smart in the way you spoke about a few minutes ago - Dr Carson. They were writing to build up the church and draw lost people to the beauty of the Christian faith in the way you write about Dr Piper.

What I was thinking about when I proposed about was that you can substitute "theologian" for "scholar" and you can again add that tag line for the church. Is that something that makes sense and helps clarify the two callings?

John Piper: Erm ... no. (*laughter*). Because they are different levels at which you can do that. I mean if you take Jonathan Edwards's "Nature of True Virtue" - it was written for the sake of the church but I doubt that any lay people have got anything from it at all! So that is what I mean by different levels. You take his "Religious Affections" and that is another level. Both are powerful books but one is talking about "consent to being" - what in the world is "consent to being"?! He is operating at a cutting edge, philosophical, response level. So I think that is okay to do that. I think there should be people who are able to do that!

Not me! I am going to do "Religious Affections" level! So the reason that didn't help me would be that if you asked me are you one of those I would have had to make distinctions again.

Don Carson: I think there is another factor that is being left out. On many occasions in the history of the church the most learned person around not only in the church but also in the entire society was the pastor! Until the explosion of knowledge in the latter half of the Enlightenment - they were thinkers who learnt so many things on so many fronts. The pastor was an exegete but was also studying some biology. They were the most knowledgable people around and one of the reasons you have so many unconverted people that wanted to be pastors was because this was the path to learning!

Eventually the place of learning was not in the pastoral ministry but in the university. It was a secular approach to knowledge and the pastor became someone working in a narrower sphere and then you had the break-up of the great evangelical institutions as such that you have more and more people getting their Bible training in minor Bible institutions and the whole life of the church for 100 years was less and less well treated in a North American context with some remarkable exceptions in 1947 and so forth. Trinity for all of it's strengths started as a seminary in 1961. John was right to say that there was a generation there that was the transitional generation that was far more lonely.

There were not many of these front-rank thinkers along. They weren't there. In the 1950's the number of front-rank evangelical commentaries around written in English was pathetic - there was almost nothing there! F F Bruce and that was about it! He had written a few. After F F Bruce, you could only say F F Bruce! There was nothing there! People look back with nostalgia to the great days of F F Bruce! "Where is a scholar standing head and shoulders above like F F Bruce?!". I will tell you why there is no one standing head and shoulders like head and shoulders like him because there was no one else to stand above! (*laughter*).

He was a great scholar in many ways but there was no competition! Today there are many who have the capacity of an F F Bruce because of an F F Bruce! Do you see? So for all of the fact that there is decline in the West and all kinds of moral areas which is true - nevertheless in the area of biblical, theological scholarship - which is mixed and compromised and all the rest - but there is great grounds for encouragement! Huge things for which to be thankful! There are massive areas coming but there will be Christians who will address it and that is wonderful!

So I don't think those issues; "Who is a pastor?" and "Who is a scholar?" - have been turning on one thing like writing for the church. I think it turns on a lot of things. Sociological and art history and so on.

Q: Edwards's "A Divine and a Supernatural Light" - or "Heaven is a World of Love" and many other sermons are some of the richest sermons you could find. Some of the most richest, most beautiful I think and I guess you might agree. He obviously has a brilliant mind and I am not saying we should all go and be like him and write like him. But he is doing theological work in those sermons in a way that I wonder if many pastors can't try to do. Not to try and be smart or get degrees to try and look good but to push their minds and challenge themselves and do that kind of theology for the church. And to have academic theologians who write high-level theology and engage in their own conversations but who also in a very Edwardsian way write for the church as well. Does that make more sense? Is that the kind of thing we can emulate?

John Piper: Amen. That sounds like agreement. I love that. Do that as much as you can do it. Grow in your capacity to learn Greek if you can and Hebrew and be as meditative as you can on 2nd Corinthians 4:4-6 as you can. Edwards was able to do that because he could look at that. "The god of this age has blinded the eyes ... to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God".

He saw that. And he saw worlds of implication! That's what I want! I want people to see that. It does take a breadth of awareness of other parts of Scripture as you read it and it also takes an unusual penetrative mind - so that every word has light of gospel of glory of Christ who is ... in every one of those words you have to see through and the more theological you are, the more vast the worlds are of those words!

We want meditative reflecting, long-staring at the words-type thinkers! So thinking is what I am after if I am trying to beget thinkers as theological pastors. Take a text and think deeply about it! It helps if you can go through the Greek and Hebrew and other Scripture. Go deep and penetrate through and put it all back together in a synthetic way and do the divine and supernatural light sermon. Yes. The answer is yes. (*laughter*).

Don Carson: Yes. But! (*laughter*). There is a sense in which I agree entirely but the "but" is that we are not all Jonathan Edwards and people who simply try to emulate him and will eventually try to build a systematic theology out of each word will then lose what the local text actually says. It's methadologically flawed. They think they are doing what Edwards says but they don't have his skills. So you want at the same time as well even though we want people to be thinkers and theologians and so forth. How can you say three minutes worth and I am restricted to one sentence? (*laughter*).

John Piper: I don't think it was that way with the last sentence. (*laughter*).

Q: My final question for you and then we will go to texting Q and A. Let's focus on the pastor for a moment - if a pastor heard your talks and synthesised them and caught the vision about tonight and what we were talking about Edwards and an Edwardsian kind of theological rich ministry - how can a young pastor act on this kind of vision and how can a pastor who is already situated, perhaps middle-aged and doesn't have the opportunity to get that kind of thing - how can those two groups catch the vision and embody it?

John Piper: The two groups again?

Q: Young guy training for ministry and older pastor.

Don Carson: At the risk of being a smart alec -

Read a great deal less on the internet and a great deal more of books. Now don't misunderstand. I am not knocking the internet. In the Gospel Coalition we just pushed a big thing there and it is a wonderful tool. But it is such a scrappy environment. You are not learning to think - unless you are downloading entire books from the internet and reading them on the screen and I have no objection to that.

I have a Kindle too and I can read St Augustine on my Kindle! But at the same time there is a way of collecting little bits and pieces here and there that don't train you to think well. In that connection you have to read and re-read the Bible but it has to be read within the context of the church and of historical theology. Believe it or not some other people have studied these texts before you! It is worth finding out what they have to say as well! You don't have to re-invent everything! You must become informed by how others before you have wrestled with these things and they become your teachers.

In the context of pastoral ministry, reserve time in the study not just for preparing for the next sermon but for reading. You have to block out time for that. If you are going to be a technical scholar then you have to reserve time for learning and reading and thinking. You have to reserve time and not just sacrifice everything to the urgent demand of the next email.

John Piper: Number one -

When you go to school, don't choose classes. Choose teachers. Find the teachers who do it and model it best and take as many classes as you can. It doesn't matter what they teach. I would say that about college and I would say that about seminary. Don't take classes. Take teachers. Ask around - find out who is the thinker and modeller.

Number two -

Not only don't use the internet as much as books but read fewer books and read them with pencil in hand and very slowly and underline and write questions in the margin and say "No it doesn't agree with chapter two" and then go to chapter two and argue! Get inside and argue with a book.

Number three -

Find a group of men - this may be for the pastors out there who love to do this with you. Get together and read critically some book like that. Read Mortimer Adler; "How to Read a Book". No matter what age you are - if you haven't read that book - it is sixty years old as a book and it will show you how to read a book. Most people don't know how to read and I would venture to say most people in this room don't know how to read.

Reading is an unbelievably non-passive, active affair when you do it!

We have been taught by teachers assigning us 12 books in a class not to read. We have been taught not to read! We think moving through passages is reading. It is not reading. Interacting so you can re-state an author's thought and reconstruct his argument to his satisfaction and give reasons so they are kinds of reasons you can give. "He was inadequate in the way he described" - "He was incomplete" - "He was illogical" - "He drew wrong inferences". There are kinds of ways you can interact.

Do the same thing then with the Bible. Learn how to think. Think and observe. Observe what's there and think rightly about it. Wherever you can find someone to train you to do that - do it! Isaac Watts was mainly known for hymns but he wrote a piece on logic. Why would that be? Because you cannot understand the theology you build the hymns on unless you think rightly. The poet and the logician.

Q: We have just a few minutes for texting questions. I am going to get them up here and read them to you both. "What are some of the biggest issues you think the church and evangelical scholars will have to face in the next 20 years?". Let's do a lightning round and do quick answers if we can.

John Piper: Islam. Christology. Is Jesus the only way? That's where I would start.

Don Carson: Continuing challenges in epistomology. How do you know the truth? The place for revelation and understanding that.

John Piper: You are doing a big two-volume thing on Scripture. Even though he was instrumental a generation ago to write serious things on the authority and inspiration of the Scripture, it needs to be done again because of how many people in new ways challenge the authority of Scripture. Every generation needs it's big book on that. That will be there for 20 years to come.

Don Carson: We are not yet through the debates on justification and the exact place of substitutionary atonement in the structure of biblical thought. That one comes again in every generation too. You have to keep re-doing that one. After that the doctrine of God. One of the most neglected doctrines I think in the evangelical world is the doctrine of God. We haven't spent enough time thinking that through holistically.

John Piper: Clusters of family issues in relation to public life and whether you will be allowed without going to jail to stand up in your pulpit and say that homosexuality is sin or to spank your children or to say that my wife should submit to me. This whole cluster of practical family things will become volatile more than they are now. You see what's happening in Canada and in Sweden and other places and we will be there. I have told people - "I will be in jail rather than say it's not right to spank your children". I will go to jail! I will not, not preach that in order to stay out of jail! I will not even use the phrase; "So-called" gay marriage without putting the phrase; "So-called" in front of it.

It frustrates me that we have brought the phrase! There is no such thing as "so-called" gay marriage! It doesn't exist in the universe! Why evangelicals would start using the term is a sell-out! Stick the word; "So-called" in front of it every time you you say it! (*applause*). That would be called hate speech. It will be worthy of imprisonment around the corner.

Don Carson: And related to that are pastoral/theological/personal definitions of what "tolerance" is. That is tied to historical issues and there are some differences on what tolerance would be. But it is also tied to what the church's relationship to culture would be. There is a nest of issues related to that when we are being painted into a corner. Being called intolerant in an intolerant way! People don't see how stupid that is! Nevertheless that is happening and it has to be addressed.

John Piper: I think the explosion of contemporary worship and contemporary worship forms - and our church would feel that way to most people are very rock-orientated. Almost everywhere in the world now we have the same songs whether or not the ethos generally associated with that on a Sunday morning can sustain the gravitas of the glory of God over the long haul. Whether it can hold it! It is possible! There are contemporary worship songs that draw out my heart into the bigness of God in the most marvellous way. But there is a kind of low-brow, hip, cool, family, chatty way of doing worship today and the question is if that becomes more and more prevelant then what becomes of the majesty of God in this?

It is very difficult to maintain a sense of the majesty of God when everything about the service is chummy. And close and warm and touchy and feely. Something has got to break there and I pray what will happen is that all the best of contemporary worship music and all the best of God will move into just forms of people your age will feel that sooner rather than later and won't over-react against contemporary and go all hymns and all organ and do it all old again. We have got to find a way so there is a weightiness and a seriousness about it and it responds then to what the Word will say and who He is and hell really signifies and how glorious the Cross is.

Those realities don't fit in talk shows! If you try to do your talk show as you welcome people and make it as street-like as possible then realities will not fit there! They get so dumbed down that the weight of hell and the horror of judgement and the glory of the Cross is lost. People lose their capacity to awe.

Don Carson: May I add a foot-note? A sentence?

John Piper: You are asking me? Yes you may! I am 63 after all!

Don Carson: You have got to respect your elders after all! I agree with that 100%. I think practically in the local church those who are responsible for worship can ask themselves is not just what is "orthodox" but what is "best" amongst that which is individually acceptable. But learn to choose what is best not what passes a mere orthodoxy test. That will change everything! Then start looking around for certain writers!

Two weeks ago I was in England and I sat down again with Stuart Townend and Keith Getty and his wife. Keith and his wife unbelievably spent part of their honeymoon in our home - how stupid can you get?! Neverthless they did! You know what these people do everytime we get together at some of these things? They sit down and ask questions like; "What doctrines are we not hitting adequately in our hymns? What should the tone be?". There are people out there doing this right now!

The Stuart Townends and the Keith Getty's are a cut above all the other contemporary hymn writers and pray for more of those! There are some people making the right move and I am encouraged by that!

Q: Alright - that was quick and deep!

John Piper: May I encourage you to exercise authority?! Over us!? (*laughter*).

Q: Can we do one last question?

John Piper: You may! (*laughter*).

Q: Okay, that wasn't a good exercise of authority! He cannot, not exercise authority okay! Last question and then we will close. All things being equal outside of scholarship - does scholarship bring a deeper intimacy and love for God in those who lack scholarship? It's a good question to close on. Does scholarship bring a deeper intimacy and love for God than those who lack scholarship?

John Piper: All things being equal - if scholarship means right thinking and right observation then the answer is clearly "Yes".

Don Carson: Exactly! But if scholarship means something like being an academic without reference to whether your subject matter is right and your disciplines are right and your focus is right, then the answer is that it can be deceptive and lead you straight to hell.

Q: Amen. Let's applaud our speakers.

What Song of Solomon Has to Teach Us!!

One of the fascinating conversations I had on my recent visit to Bristol to see my dad was regarding one of our favourite books in the Bible - the Song of Solomon. It was provoked because I brought him C H Spurgeon's sermons on this wonderful book entitled; "The Most Holy Place". I've argued before what my position is on this glorious book - so don't need to repeat that at length. Suffice to say that I couldn't be further removed from C J Mahaney's odd views and tend to stand in the more traditional historical view that first and foremost this book (like Christian marriage) is a picture of Christ and His Bride - the Church.

What my dad and I were discussing and unpacking was what teaching a biblical approach to this book can and will do for the Church. Some of the historical divines said this of the Song of Solomon:

"This is spoken in the person of the Church, or of the faithful soul inflamed with the desire of Christ, whom she loves". (from the Geneva 1599 Bible Notes)

"It treats of Christ and his Church, in their most glorious, lively, and lovely actions, to wit, his care of, and his love unto his Church, and that in its most eminent degree; and also, of her love to him". - James Durham (1622 Puritan) who incidentally C H Spurgeon described as "that master of masters".

On Song of Solomon 2:1 - "If these are the words of the Well-beloved,—and I have no doubt that they are —then it may be suggested by some that here we have the Savior praising himself; and it is true; but in no unworthy sense, for well may he praise himself since no one else can do it as it should be done" - C H Spurgeon.

And finally the great Jonathan Edwards said;

"The name by which Solomon calls this song confirms to me that it is more than an ordinary love song and that it was designed for a divine song and of divine authority for we read in 1 Kings 4:32 that Solomon's songs were "a thousand and five". This he called the "Song of songs". That is the most excellent of his songs ... because it was a song of the most excellent subject treating of the love, union and communion between Christ and His spouse of which marriage and conjugal love was but a shadow. These are the most excellent lovers and their love the most excellent love".

More recently theological scholars have said:

"The Song is more than a canonical sex manual as some recent treatments have implied" - Tremper Longman.

So what does holding this biblical view do for our Christian lives?

1. It Increases Affections for God.

As a single man I confess I have tried reading the Song of Solomon with Mahaney's interpretation in mind and I have felt nothing than a grudging resentment that I am not married. Whereas when you allow the Spirit-inspired words that are "profitable for teaching" to sink into your heart then they cannot help but provoke feelings of awe and wonder. For example;

"Your love is better than wine, your oils have a pleasing fragrance, your Name is like purified oil ...".

And then the Bridegroom Himself actually speaks ... to us! To me!

"To Me, My darling ...". (GOD calls ME darling!?!?). "Your cheeks are lovely ... My beloved ... My beloved ... how beautiful you are My darling! How beautiful you are!".

How can we but respond?

2. It inflames Worship to God.

Get this widget Track details eSnips Social DNA

I'm not sure you can sing a beautiful song like "Draw Me Close to You" (which is one among many songs of intimacy I love) without touching the passion of God for us. Pete Day's recent blog post is a vital foundational grace truth - that condemnation MUST be removed. Because while we tolerate condemnation in our lives then we never will quite believe that God is so passionately for us. How long should we bear guilt!? Not for a MOMENT! Why? Because once it's gone - our worship will rise like a fragrant incense!

Song of Solomon itself expresses something of the response that should be the Church's;

"Listen! My beloved! Behold He is coming! Climbing on the mountains! Leaping on the hills! ... My beloved is mine and I am His!"

And by contrast something of the heartache that should characterise us when His manifest Presence is not felt among us personally or corporately;

"I sought Him whom my soul loves; I sought Him but did not find Him, I must arise now and go about the city ... I must seek Him whom my soul loves".

3. It Revives Marriage between Husband and Wife.

Let me say again that I do applaud C J Mahaney's heart to infuse a God-honouring passion back into Christian marriages. I just wish he hadn't tried to impose his views to twist Scripture to try and back up what he was saying. That wasn't necessary. And I wouldn't limit Song of Solomon either to purely representing Christ and His Bride (as perhaps some of the Puritans tried). Because Christian marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ and His Bride - but it is that which will last for eternity!

For example Ephesians 5:31; "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church". And slightly earlier in Ephesians 5:22; "Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is also the head of the church, He Himself being the Saviour of the Body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be to their husbands in everything".

It's my observation as a single guy that most Christian men have stopped there in their theology and experience - nodding and agreeing with Wayne Grudem. But Sam Storms says quite rightly;

"Headship is a responsibility - not a right".

It is my conviction that if I were ever to be married - I would not dare try and expect my wife to submit until I had fulfilled the next verse;

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her ... so husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself".

Maybe if more husbands loved their wives "as Christ" then it wouldn't be such a controversy expecting wives to "submit"!

So it's my prayer that the Song of Solomon is rightfully claimed back! I have to confess something - I've always hated a lot of "couples" teaching you hear that goes on in the Church. I will fully admit I am bitter and jealous of those who are married. What an awesome blessing! I would love to share my life with someone! And much of the teaching that you hear makes me ... frankly want to puke. I am sure they love each other but it doesn't help me being single hearing them wax eloquent. Oddly enough though since encountering Rob and Glenda Rufus I have benefited so much in gaining a more godly attitude about marriage. I love watching a couple who have been married faithfully for 30+ years - still totally in love with each other. I hope Rob and Glenda share some of their wisdom soon about marriage in book form.

On that note Rob Rufus spoke recently about the Song (and wonderfully he agrees with myself and most of church history!). It's an awesome place to finish my meandering thoughts - because it is a testimony of how the Song of Solomon (rightfully preached) saved 30 of his soldier collegues!

"I am a bit passionate about this! Here is the mystery of the Bridegroom and the Bride! I have deliberately left out some passages because some of you would blush. These passages were written by the Holy Spirit and you are not as holy as the Holy Spirit as He expresses intimacy and you can't handle it. In the military where atheists become Christians on the Angolan border, and they usually read pornography books - so one night I opened the Song of Solomon and they all usually want to borrow each others books. I put my candle on and I read the parts which I can't read to you because you are saved people. I read it to them because they were reading pornography so they could cope with it but you are Christians and you are holy and you can't! I didn't tell them it was the Bible and hid it below my sleeping bag! And they said; "Wow what book is that - can I read it after you?". I said "Yes it is the Bible!". I wish I had captured on video their faces! They said "No!". Suddenly they all wanted to read the Bible and they realised that the Bible had been mis-represented by Christians!

30 of those swearing blaspheming troops got saved and many of them are still going on with Christ today! I wasn't a Christian - I was a son! And I showed them that this is the mystery of God and His Bride! I told them "Don't go to church to check this out because you won't see it - you will see no passion or heavenly romance". Song of Solomon chapter 1:1;"Let him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth for your love is better than wine ... let him bring me into his chambers". That is the King to the Bride!

Go down to (v12); "My lover is to me ... how beautiful you are my darling oh how beautiful". Then the church says back; "How handsome you are my lover!". This is church - Sunday morning! "Oh how handsome you are". All through the week I have been encountering your love, all through the busy week I have been concious of heaven! 2:3; "Like an apple tree ... I delight to sit in His shade .. His banner over me is love". The prophetic word God spoke to us today! "I am faint with love". How many of you have felt FAINT with love for Jesus? "I charge you by the gazelles ... do not awaken love .... here He comes! (Jesus!) bounding over the hills ... Arise my darling!" - talking to the church!".

We All Want to Be More Like God!

I've been thinking about the whole issue of sanctification and the question of "Already but not yet" and I've been wondering whether a lot of our disagreements as Christians particularly with this issue of grace are linked to a question of method. The great unifying factor is that essentially we all want to become more Christ-like in our behaviour, we all hate sin and it's presence in our lives and essentially we all want sin out! Where we disagree is the best way to actually reach that purpose.

I've had the benefit of trying a lot of methods as well which helps to add some validity (I hope) to what I am trying to say and argue. For instance I have 'done' the accountability groups thing and am well aware of their aim but am not convinced as to their usefulness. Last night at work I was re-reading John Piper and Justin Taylor's "A God-Entranced Vision of All Things". And I was intrigued to find three quotes in the chapters that all present slightly different perspectives on how to attempt to combat sin. Here they are;

1. The Quote I Liked.

"Many Christians think stoicism is a good antidote to sensuality. It isn't. It is hopelessly weak and ineffective. And the reason that it fails is that the power of sin comes from the promise of pleasure and is meant to be defeated by the superior promise of pleasure in God, not by the power of the human will. Willpower religion, when it succeeds, gets glory for the will. It produces legalists not lovers".

John Piper - "Chapter 1 - A God-Entranced Vision of All Things: Why We Need Jonathan Edwards - 300 Years Later" - (p29).

2. The Quote I Hated.

"As practices the spiritual disciplines are first about doing and then about being. The spiritual disciplines are right doing that leads to right being".

Donald Whitney - "Chapter 5 - Pursuing a Passion for God through Spiritual Disciplines" - (p110).

3. The Quote I Couldn't Believe.

"When I am violently beset with temptation or cannot rid myself of evil thoughts, to do some sum in arithmetic or geometry or some other study, which necessarily engages all my thoughts and unavoidably keeps them from wandering".

Jonathan Edwards quoted in Noel Piper - "Chapter 3 - Sarah Edwards: Jonathan's Home and Haven" - (p59).

John Piper's quote makes perfect sense. Sin is fun and it offers pleasure. Let's not deceive ourselves. The lie is that it will satisfy and of course it does not. Donald Whitney's quote seems to me to be a perversion of true gospel power. The gospel is about right BELIEVING first and then right DOING will follow. Frankly Whitney's quote seems to illustrate my 20 to 30 years of legalism. Trying to read my Bible and pray legalistically every day. And it doesn't work. And if it does work then it will foster pride because my doing accomplished something.

Jonathan Edwards on the other hand ... wow.

There's a technique I haven't tried before - doing maths in my head to try and get rid of lustful thoughts!

Convicted of Righteousness - a good thing?

There's a very interesting discussion going on over at Mark Heath's website; "Word and Spirit". Interestingly enough he has pulled a verse up for examination that until last October caused me enormous guilt problems and then at "Glory and Grace" in Hong Kong, I saw it in a new light and then caused me wonderful joy! The verse is John 16:8-11;

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged".

So at my home church - New Covenant Church in Dunstable - when things were taking a slightly sour cessationist downturn, this verse was regularly used to brow-beat the people of God into showing that the Holy Spirit is given mainly to "CONVICT"! Not to do fun, exciting things like distribute spiritual gifts. And the dangerous mix of Old and New Covenant law and grace was then subtly applied to suggest that if we were not humbly desperately feeling bad about our sin then the Holy Spirit was not really and truly at work within us. Seriously. I have an old church magazine in my possession where the editorial said that the gift of tongues is a SELFISH gift (well if it's selfish to want to build yourself up in the faith by talking in tongues and following the example of the apostle Paul - then gimme more!)

Anyway - so as I said I never really liked this verse until I heard Rob Rufus preach and expound it in his sermon on the Holy Spirit, the Sunday after "Glory and Grace" on the 28th October. He showed that while part of the role of the Holy Spirit is to show the world that they are sinners and need a Saviour - the part of His role towards us is to actually show us and convict us that we ARE righteous and that we HAVE the imputed righteousness of God! Rob asked the question - if we have received "all the fullness of Christ", why would the Holy Spirit come and point out gaps where we need to add works to Christ's finished work? That would suggest that the Cross was somehow defective - and it got us in but hasn't finished us off. And that is blasphemous.

So with that mixed history with this verse I was interested to read Mark's post; "Convicted of Righteousness" and see that he too has been visiting commentaries and examining what this verse means. Typically of Mark's careful scholarship and love of reading he examines commentaries which was helpful - only I was disappointed with Don Carson's usually honest examination of the text. Apparantly Carson thought that the verse had something to do with; "the Spirit is simply continuing an important aspect of the ministry of Jesus, confronting and challenging religious hypocrisy". Hmm ... not convinced!

I left an inital comment mainly because I have been reading Jonathan Edwards "Notes on Scripture" - my new Christmas present! - and was excited to see how similar some of Jonathan Edwards conclusions on law and grace are to Rob Rufus's. So I left a comment with a quote of Edwards I found on Galatians 5:18 that I posted a few days ago. My good friend Julie left a concise and helpful comment too saying;

"Keeping that in mind the interpretation you bring up would make no sense, but that the job of the Holy Spirit is to convince believers of their righteousness in Jesus would be very consistent with the rest of Scripture in the New Covenant".

This is important - it's not so much a case of finding the writer or teacher that best supports your view but examining the explanation that is most consistent with the New Covenant! Julie also had a vital comment on how we view sin in New Covenant life;

"I think you have given a rather old covenant definition of sin, thinking it is primarily bad behaviour. New covenenant definition of sin is unbelief (which could lead to bad behaviour), concerning what we believe about God and how righteousness is obtained".

Last night I was continuing to read Jonathan Edwards and was thrilled to find his exact comment on the verse in question and Edwards wrote this;

"On John 16:8-11;

And when the Comforter has come, He will convince the world of sin, of righteousness, of judgement. He shall convict the world of sin as men must be convinced of their guilt in order to receive Christ. That is the reason that sin and guilt lie upon them because they believe not on Christ and their rejecting Christ above all things enhances their guilt".

(Here it is:)

“Of righteousness” - that is He will convict them of the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness of the way of REMOVING guilt by Him. Christ finished His work as priest, or what He did for the removing of guilt by His ascending into heaven, His entering into the holiest of all with His own blood to make intercession for us and thereby GAVE EVIDENCE TO THE WORLD THAT WHAT HE HAD DONE WAS ENOUGH”.

That is such good news! Evidence has been given to the world by the fact that Jesus Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father and poured out the Holy Spirit that what He has done is ENOUGH! The Cross of Jesus Christ is entirely 100% sufficient! There is not a gap left to be filled by "our works". Our works can do NOTHING! Our acts achieve NOTHING with the Father! God is only ever and always interested in the perfect righteousness of His Son! Only that - ONLY that will give us bold access to the Father! So yes in a sense my former church was partially right. The Holy Spirit isn't just about tongues and prophecy. His key work is to come into us as a Spirit of sonship and give us assurance that we are accepted in the beloved and He will convict us when doubt and fear set in that we are sons and that Christ's righteousness is accepted - God the just is satisfied!

Okay - I am getting excitable and shouting. Deep breaths! ...

Jonathan Edwards on the Reality of the Spirit

Another quote from the great Jonathan Edwards and his "Notes on Scripture". Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones - while professing a great respect for the Puritans of the 17th century said that he preferred Jonathan Edwards because he felt that Edwards was more "experimental" in his theology than John Owen, Thomas Goodwin and so on. Reading a quote like this makes it clear why Dr Lloyd-Jones felt so.

Edwards was commenting on Hebrews 6:4-6.

"Tis not probable that they should have the Holy Ghost dwelling in them with respect to His miraculous influences and not feel anything of the power of it in their souls.

When the Holy Ghost was given them, they felt His Presence not only outwardly but inwardly, not only in their understanding but also affections.

They experienced the powers of the age to come, that is of the invisible world, felt the powers of the invisible agents of that world upon their minds. Tis certain none exercised miraculous gifts without extrordinary influence of the Spirit of God to convince their judgement".

Now ... it's been a while since I have mentioned the whole issue of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For those who have been following this blog for a while - you will know that my church history brought about a personal and wider interest in this whole issue. Briefly - my home church was traditionally charismatic - but maintained a healthy balance between Word and Spirit (although I realise now that there was a dangerous mix also of law and grace). We were involved deeply with the Dales Bible Weeks and went to the Downs Bible Weeks before setting up our own Bible Week.

Church was an EXCITING place to be! Even I remember that as a child. I still remember when it was a communion service the pastor and elders would simply sit down and wait for the Holy Spirit to move throughout the congregation and inspire prophetic words or tongues. I found it almost nerve-wracking wondering what would happen. There was frequently times of testimony after the church had been away to the Bible Weeks where Ern Baxter was often the main speaker - and it was guaranteed that you would hear people testifying to how they had been baptised in the Holy Spirit.

Then everything changed. And not for the better. The key moment seemed to be when the senior pastor brought out a booklet announcing that he had decided to change his mind on the baptism of the Spirit. He had taught that it was a distinct experience that Jesus Christ poured out on believers. Now he was teaching that it was something that happened automatically and non-experientially at conversion. The trouble was that this happened in 1997. Just before he brought out that booklet I had gone to university and heard a sermon asking "Had I received when I believed?".

I became a Christian 10 years before in 1987 at a church crusade in Dunstable called; "Life with Purpose". An evangelist called Don Summers had preached a message and I was convicted and knew I had not come to a personal encounter with Jesus Christ Himself. However I never received "anyone" in experience and in power. It was a cerebral decision and there was no accompanying experience other than fear - because I had to go up the front to respond! So hearing this sermon at university convinced me and I went up the front again and had hands laid on me and received the baptism of the Spirit in power. About a week later I started speaking with tongues in the shower - of all places!

So when I read this booklet I was incredibly disturbed and upset. I was being told by a pastor I had the most respect for that what happened to me was not real. I knew from my experience that it most certainly WAS real! But I went to the Scripture and began looking through books to try and find out what was going on. I have John Piper to thank for putting me onto Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I read his message to the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors: "A Passion for Christ-Exalting Power" and learned it wasn't just mad charismatics who believed in this! Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones had preached a series of sermons on John 1 which was later put into an outstanding book called "Joy Unspeakable".

Dr Lloyd-Jones persuaded me - and no one has ever even come close to "un-persuading" me. One of the key issues for me is this - the original Jonathan Edwards quote.

"Tis not probable that they should have the Holy Ghost dwelling in them with respect to His miraculous influences and not feel anything of the power of it in their souls".

How can it be? The Bible describes the baptism of the Holy Spirit in such glorious terms. I wouldn't be quite as definitive as many Pentecostals in insisting that the baptism of the Spirit ALWAYS has to be accompanied by the gift of tongues - but I certainly do think that the book of Acts suggests that something outward will happen at this event - whether it be tongues, prophesying, a word of knowledge, visions. I realise that many of those teachers (such as my former pastor) who deny this insist and take pride in the fact that they are "men of the Word". But it just simply doesn't tie up for me.

HOW can this EVER be an event that is NON-experiential?!

I will close with one of my favourite Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones quotes where he addresses such men who teach this;

"There is nothing, I am convinced, that so ‘quenches’ the Spirit as the teaching which identifies the baptism of the Holy Ghost with regeneration. But it is a very commonly held teaching today, indeed it has been the popular view for many years. It is said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is ‘nonexperimental’, that it happens to every one at regeneration.

So we say, ‘Ah well, I am already baptized with the Spirit; it happened when I was born again, at my conversion; there is nothing for me to seek, I have got it all’. Got it all? Well, if you have ‘got it all’, I simply ask in the Name of God, why are you as you are? If you have ‘got it all’, why are you so unlike the Apostles, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians?".

Sounds Familiar?? On Sonship.

Being a person of extremes - it's usually no secret to anyone who comes within a 10 mile radius of the people that I love and the people that I ... well, don't. So I am also aware that my enthusiastic love of Rob Rufus and his ministry from Hong Kong will be no secret to anyone - whatever their opinions on Rob himself and the varied opinions on whether Rob has taken grace "too far" or not. Well I was at work last night and was reading a book (I won't tell you what it was until you have read the quote). Read it, and consider how similar it is to Rob himself and other grace teachers such as Terry Virgo and then see who said it.

It's a quote inspired by Galatians 5:18: "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" and here it is:

"Laws aren't made for children and for intimate and dear friends but for servants. A being under law in the more ordinary use of the expression among the apostles was inconsistent with liberty.

Why is it said; "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law" and what is the connection between being led by the Spirit and not being under the law? The connection consists in two things:

1. As this evidences their not being under law.

Their being led by the Spirit is an evidence of their being in Christ who has fulfilled the law and delivered them from it ... children aren't under law as servants.

2. It renders them not proper subjects of the law.

A being led by the Spirit is a thing that causes that alteration with respect to them that renders them unapt to be subjects of law.

a. By their having the Spirit given them, they are advanced to that state that they don't agree with a state of subjection to the law (2 Corinthians 3:17).

Being sons it is suitable that they should be dealt with after another manner - to hold them under law is to treat them as servants (2 Corinthians 2:6, 7); "thou art no more a servant but a son".

b. The Spirit of Christ in Christians or spirit of adoption actuating and leading is a principle that supercedes the law and sets them ABOVE the law. The law obliges to no other things but what the Spirit inclines to and is sufficient for ...

The Spirit is better than the letter.

They that have the Spirit of Christ in them have the law written in their hearts according to God's promise. The Spirit of Christ is superior to the law and sets a person above subjection to the law because it is a principle that is superior to a legal principle.

The Spirit of adoption evidences to them their being the children of God and begets that trust and assurance that renders them incapable of a legal principle (Romans 8:15-16).

Note this point in particular!:

"If a person has not that legal principle or principle of fear, he has not that principle that the law which exacts obedience was made to influence and work upon and therefore is not a proper subject of law because being destitute of that principle, the law takes no hold of him for it finds no principle in him to take hold by.

A being led by the Spirit of the Son of God as a spirit of adoption is inconsistent with a state of bondage, as sonship is inconsistent with servitude".

I hope that quote is understandable to everyone. What is being said is that fear (the legal principle that was the law's strength) and the Spirit of adoption is totally and utterly inconsistent. It sounds too good to be true but essentially the argument is this - if we are sons then we are co-heirs with Jesus Christ and therefore we are above the law. I can hear heresy-alarms going off straight away! But it's there in the Bible - we are no more servants but sons!

You may have probably guessed that the author of this quote is indeed Jonathan Edwards and the quote itself is taken from my new "Notes on Scripture". But what particularly interested me and excited me was the paralell between this comment and the sermon of Rob's I've been transcribing for him: "Sonship vs Christianity". Rob spent a lot of time showing that "fear" (or as Jonathan Edwards called it; the legal principle) is the power of law. He said this;

"Sons have a spirit from the Father in them so they will never fear again. What is the fear? The fear that the Father will abandon me because I've sinned and made mistakes ... the fear that the Father is not able to supply me with what I need because I am not good enough and I am not holy enough so I will be rejected. Sons are led by a spirit that will never put them in fear again!

The whole purpose of the law was to point out your faults, point out how wrong you were, point out what you should be doing and that you will be judged and rejected by God under that law ... the Holy Spirit didn't come to replace that and just carry on making you feel bad - no! The Holy Spirit came to totally remove the law and to show you that you are a son and that if you live in the Spirit not circumstances ... then you are walking in a spirit that will never make you a slave to fear again!".

How awesomely similar is that? My whole point in juxta-posing these two quotes is not to find a defence for Rob Rufus. Rob is merely preaching a message. My excitement is that Jonathan Edwards read this Scripture hundreds of years ago and came to the same revelation that Rob has come to. That the law attempted to exact obedience by fear - fear of consequences if it was not kept to the letter. But we now who are in the New Covenant have received a Spirit of adoption. We are SONS!

What earthly father would run his household using fear to exact obedience? What earthly father would use the threat that if he was not obeyed then he would "disfellowship" the son from his household? It just wouldn't happen surely. Just so with our heavenly Daddy! Now we are sons, we have His Spirit within us crying out "Abba!" and He too will NOT use fear to attempt to exact obedience. Later on in the quote, Jonathan Edwards goes on to say that the Father wants obedience from a joyful and willing heart. Let me repeat one of the first things Edwards said because I love it so much;

"Laws aren't made for children and for intimate and dear friends but for servants ... the Spirit is better than the letter ... A being led by the Spirit of the Son of God as a spirit of adoption is inconsistent with a state of bondage, as sonship is inconsistent with servitude".

My AWESOME Christmas Present!!

This Christmas I found myself utterly blessed beyond words at the love and care of my family. We had a wonderful Boxing Day together and I wish it could have been longer only I had to come back to work. However in particular my Mum and Dad came up utterly trumps at the present they blessed me with. It's a Bowen family tradition that we make "wish lists" in the months leading up to Christmas to give my large family a range of ideas about what we would ideally like for Christmas! It's my habit to usually try and put a complete range of ideas - from the ridiculously expensive (that I never expect to get) to the dirt cheap - and one of the ridiculously expensive ideas that I asked for was Jonathan Edwards "Notes on Scripture" book - Volume 15 in the Yale edition.

My mum brought out my final present on Boxing Day and gave it to me. I discerned in the Spirit that it was a glory-filled hardback book - but NEVER dreamed it would be my hearts desire! I was thrilled therefore to open it and find it was! My parents are wonderful! As were all the other kind and generous presents my family gave me. One of the most quirky was probably my lovely sister and brother-in-law's present - a Gollum cookie jar! But back to Edwards.

Some may remember that when Pete and I visited the Evangelical Library last year - I spent the majority of my time reading the "Notes on Scripture" and seeking Edwards opinion particularly on the Song of Solomon and how it compared to C J Mahaney's rather odd views expressed in "Sex, Romance and the Glory of God". I fell in love with the book then and the Bible-saturated thoughts of Jonathan Edwards so it has been an awesome joy to begin reading. Here's some background to what the book actually is about. The Editor wrote;

"A young Jonathan Edwards penned the following private resolution in the closing months of 1722 ... "Resolved: to study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly and frequently as that I may find and plainly perceive myself to grow in knowledge of the same".

Edwards was honest enough to see through any pride he had and noted at one point in his "Diary";

"... he chided himself for having "lost that relish of the Scriptures" that he had known earlier".

So these three volumes that I am now blessed enough to have - "Notes on Scripture" and the two "Blank Bibles" - are no mere academic volumes. They come from the personal pen of a man who desired to know the Scriptures for through them he would know his God better. They are books that when read - one cannot help but catch something of that passion.

Here is how the Editors describe concisely what "Notes on Scripture";

"Notes on Scripture" (is a) biblical commentary that includes more than five hundred numbered entries ... the last entry in the series - No. 507 - was written approximately two years before his death in 1758 and is a lengthy comparison between Canticles and Psalm 45 ... "Notes on Scripture" is a private working notebook in which Edwards recorded exegetical ideas, took notes on his reading and developed select theological themes ... At first glance "Notes on Scripture" appears to have little organizational coherence or thematic integration. Edwards made no attempt to survey all parts of Scripture; the entries move randomly among the books of the Bible.

"Notes on Scripture" documents his consuming interest in typology, a traditional method of biblical interpretation that links the Old and New Testament ... "Notes on Scripture" represents only a portion of Edwards extensive exegetical writings, for through the years he also wrote entries interpreting the Bible in several other manuscripts".

So there are some more general introductory statements by the editor as to the purpose of "Notes on Scripture". Let me comment on some more specific and direct statements. One of my favourite Books of the Bible (hence the reason why I defend it so vigorously against people such as C J Mahaney) is of course the Song of Solomon. The editoral comment states;

"He (Edwards) rejected the suggestion that Canticles was "an ordinary love song" by treating the affection between the biblical lovers as a "shadow of the love, union and communion" between Christ and the Church (No. 147) and by linking typologically the spouse in the Song of Solomon and the "tents of Kedar" (SoS 1:5) with the Church (No. 458)".

It should be noted of course that Edwards did not compile the "Notes on Scripture" primarily as his own writings alone. He did read widely and used such reading to aid his insights into Scripture. The editorial team at Yale write;

"Edwards' reading was a primary element in his method of study. In "Notes on Scripture" he cited forty different identifiable sources. More than a hundred entries include quoted or paraphrased materials for which Edwards lists a source ... "Notes on Scripture" situates Edwards firmly in the exegetical world of the eighteenth century. The variety of the sources in "Notes on Scripture" is instructive in other ways as well ... the sources Edwards used are impressive for the scope of their subject matter, the variety of ancient references and the sophistication of the linguistic arguments. They are filled with Latin, Greek and Hebrew citations, many of which he entered into "Notes on Scripture".

The picture shows the original manuscripts. As with the "Blank Bible" Edwards constructed them himself. There is an interesting note that he made to himself for future construction;

If I live to make another book of this sort, to observe to cut the gashes for the stitching in deeper and not so near to the joinings of the stitch, that the book may open more freely and fully. And let the sheets be divided into twice so small divisions, and starch no paper in a paper cover for that makes it crack. And if that don't do try next stitching the backs of all the divisions of sheets to a slip of leather and sew the cover over the leather".

The editors conclude that "Notes on Scripture" provides a fresh view of a critical component in the intellectual and theological world view of Edwards. It essentially explains and provides a context to the massive writings of Jonathan Edwards and I hope in the coming days and weeks to provide some quotes! Oh that present pastors and teachers, apostles and prophets would have the same vision - to commit the revelations and anointings to paper thus preserving it for generations to come.

Which Gospel Are We Preaching (and Believing)?

I got back into transcribing with a vengance last night! The motivator was two-fold. While I was at the gym I was watching quite a prolonged interview with Sir Alex Ferguson - the manager of Manchester United Football Club. I remember being in a pub watching Ferguson's triumph in 1999 when Manchester United won the treble and yet has his vision and focused waned? Never. He is over 60 and still as focused as ever for triumph and glory. Secondly at the beginning of my night shift I watched a documentary about the famous "Belle de Jour" and the subsequent TV programme "Diary of a Call Girl". I didn't realise that the whole phenomenon of that series evolved from an anonymous woman blogging about her experiences with men. I was stunned by the popularity of the following of her blog.

And I reflected - do we not carry a far more glorious vision that Alex Ferguson ever could? This is not just about kicking a ball full of air around a pitch! Do we not have FAR more to talk about than a call girl in London? This is not just about reflecting on the emptiness of meaningless sex! We have experienced the revelation of the glory of the New Covenant! We are recipients of the grace and the glory of God! We have felt His touch upon our lives! We have heard the Holy Spirit within us testifying with our spirits (when we take the time to listen) that we ARE children of God! So I felt suitably chastisted that I have let problems at work and problems with my health silence me. Begone doubt! Begone fear!

Where am I in terms of blogging Rob Rufus? I've finished writing up his remarkable sermon: "The Administration Of Healing Authority" and have almost finished typing it up and have got into writing out; "The Blood - Substance or Shadow?". Rob said something before he had even got into the bulk of his message on the blood of Christ that gripped my attention. Here it is;

"Then He (Jesus Christ) said; "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers and cast out devils".

By the way - the statement about lepers caught my attention. If we are to take this statement as a command from Jesus Christ then where are the lepers requiring cleansing? Not many around these days. So I wondered whether the lepers of our day could be those people afflicted with AIDS and HIV. I've watched another friend of mine going through the agonising procedure of having to book into a clinic on Thursday to see whether he is positive or negative. It breaks my heart. I've said before that I am getting to know more and more people with AIDS. Would any of them dream of walking into churches to ask for healing? Never in a million years. That's wrong surely! That demonstrates that the church is disobeying this command of Jesus! I stand to be corrected - would someone with AIDS be welcome in your church? Tell me about it! (Actually having said that - I know of at least two churches I would go to if I ever suffered with AIDS - here and here).

I digress - back to Rob;

"Yet sadly and tragically for the last 100's of years much of the church has not been preaching the gospel of the Kingdom. It has been preaching the gospel of salvation. There is a big difference. The gospel of the Kingdom includes the gospel of salvation but it is much more. The gospel of salvation is primarily focused on going to heaven. The gospel of the Kingdom is primarily focused on bringing heaven into the earth realm.

So we must not confuse our assignment with our destiny. Our destiny is to go to heaven. Our assignment is to bring heaven to earth".

When I get swallowed up in despair and frustration at the experiences at work then surely I am forgetting my assignment? I went to see a staff support counsellor yesterday because it was recommended by human resources. The counsellor was busy telling me that my feelings of anger and frustration are all valid feelings and should be channelled. I just came out with the same sense of unease I've always had when I have gone to see counsellors before about self-harm and various other things. These feelings are not matching up (in my book) with bringing heaven to earth! The difference this time is that I am NOT going to get condemned about why I am not matching up to my assignment at the moment! The difference this time is that I want to learn and grow and become more like Christ changing from glory to glory until people in the said work place cannot help but speak about how their evil gossip and malicious slanders and lies don't see to have an effect anymore because like Jonathan Edwards - I long to have this description made of me;

"I never saw the least symptoms of displeasure in his countenance the whole week but heappeared like a man of God, whose happiness was out of the reach of hisenemies and whose treasure was not only a future but a present good… even to the astonishment of many who could not be at rest without his dismission."

Jonathan Edwards on the Gospel

This is taken from the "Jonathan Edwards Blank Bible - Volume 2". Jonathan Edwards was commenting on Matthew 11:5;

"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them".

Edwards writes;

"By the "poor" here, seems pretty evidently to be the poor in spirit. In the last effect here mentioned, "the poor are evangelized", the manner of speaking and connection of the words leads us to suppose that there is the like relation and opposition between the benefit and character of the subject of that benefit, as in the foregoing effects mentioned, such as between receiving sight and blindness and being raised up and death.

The word "are evangelized" implies not only being the subject of the preaching of the gospel or the telling the good news, but a being encouraged, refreshed and revived and made joyful and happy by it.

And between such a benefit and a being poor in spirit, of a broken heart, or heart mourning, humbled, being wretched, miserable and undone in his own eyes and despairing in the world and in himself. I say, a being evangelized in the sense mentioned has a like relation to such a qualification of the subject as sight has to blindness, light to darkness, walking to lameness, life to death.

The poor being evangelized is the last effect mentioned, it being that which crowns all, representing the main thing which Jesus came into the world for, the blessed effect that He had respect to in all that He said and did and the great thing of which the other things here mentioned were but types and representations".

It is a vital reminder that the preaching of the Gospel does not come in "word alone". Surely it seems that the Word of God expects a complete life transformation! Have we lost something of the radical transformation that the Gospel brings? I fear it's a definite danger here in the Western world. Even Edwards spoke of the "joy unspeakable" that we should expect from true Gospel impartation.

Rob Rufus Resources!!

There's a couple of resources I wanted to point out coming out from City Church International in Hong Kong. Rob and Glenda Rufus have just returned from South Africa where they took part in a "Word and Spirit Conference" together with Dr Michael Eaton - the well-known theologian and author. Here are the sessions;

Session 1 - Michael Eaton

Session 2 - Michael Eaton

Session 3 - Rob Rufus

Session 4 - Rob Rufus

The second resource I wanted to mention was entitled "The Rob Rufus Blank Bible". Regular readers may remember my fascination and excitement with the Jonathan Edwards Blank Bible. I first mentioned it back in 2006, took some notes from the fellow volume; "Notes on Scripture" at the Evangelical Library last year and finally brought the two volumes of the "Blank Bible" in February!

It was while I was spending time reading the "Blank Bible" that I suddenly got a vision. I have been so impressed with the way that Jonathan Edwards worked through the Word of God writing his own notes on Scripture that I decided it would be an awesome resource to do the same thing with Rob Rufus's preaching and teaching (and ultimately other true grace teachers). I saw a vision of an awesome resource where anyone can access notes and help and insight on any verse of the Word of God.

I have waited some months since having the vision because I wanted to gather together Rob Rufus's commentary on as many verses as possible before I launched the project - obviously it being a work in progress. I should point out I have sent the hard copies of this to Rob and Ryan Rufus for their approval. So here it is;

"The Grace and Glory Blank Bible".

As I say it is my ultimate dream to add other grace and glory teachers such as Bill Johnson as it grows. May it be an added help to growing in our love and appreciation for the Word of God and more importantly God Himself in relationship.