The Vision (11.18.16): Spiritual Depression

Image:  David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981)

Note:  Devotion taken from conclusion of last Sunday's sermon on Ecclesiastes 2:12-26.

Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun (Ecclesiastes 2:20).

There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God (Ecclesiastes 2:24).

This week I went back and read the opening chapters to the classic devotional work by David Martyn Lloyd-Jones titled Spiritual Depression:  Its Causes and Cures (Eerdmans, 1965).  Lloyd-Jones was the longtime pastor at Westminster Chapel in downtown London.  He had been a medical doctor before he was called into the ministry, so he understood both the physical and spiritual aspects of what he called “spiritual depression.”

In the book he cites five causes of spiritual depression:

1.  Temperament.

He notes:  “There is a type of person who is particularly prone to spiritual depression” (pp. 16-17).  He suggests these persons are often introverts who are prone to unhealthy introspection rather than healthy self-examination.

2.  Physical condition.

Among these he lists “tiredness, overstrain, illness, any form of illness” (p. 19).

He adds:  “The greatest and the best Christians when they are physically weak are more prone to an attack of spiritual depression than at any other time….” (p. 19).

3.  Reaction.

Lloyd-Jones warns that we are often prone to spiritual depression as a reaction “after great blessing” or “after some unusual and exceptional experience” (p. 19).

4.  The devil.

Spiritual depression comes as the result of spiritual attack.  This is “the one and only cause” (p. 19).

5.  Unbelief.

He calls this “the ultimate cause” for without it “even the devil could do nothing” (p. 20).

Lloyd-Jones’ offers this remedy for spiritual depression:  “We must take ourselves in hand” (p. 20).  “We must talk to ourselves rather than letting ‘ourselves’ talk to us” (p. 20)!  “The main art in spiritual living is to know how to handle yourself” (21).

Lest we think Lloyd-Jones was some kind of self-help guru, he also clearly says that the true foundation for overcoming spiritual depression is grasping the doctrine of justification by grace through faith.

He describes counseling with persons who have said to him, “I am not good enough,” noting that this sounds modest, but it is “a lie of the devil and a denial of the faith.”  Of course you’re not good enough!  No one is good enough!  “The essence of Christian salvation is to say that He is good enough and that I am in Him!” (p. 34).

Nevertheless, Lloyd-Jones also concludes that going through spiritual depression, including feeling miserable and wretched, is necessary for the Christian.  He says, “You must be made miserable before you can know true Christian joy” (p. 28).  He calls the experience of this misery or despair “the essential preliminary to joy” (p. 28).

It is said that when John Calvin was dying, while in a moment of intense suffering, he said:  “Thou bruisest me, O Lord, but it amply sufficeth me, that it is thy hand” (as in Bridges, Ecclesiastes, p. 41).

I don’t know why Solomon fell into this slough of despond.  His life line out of his despair seems to have come when he sat down to do something as mundane as eating a meal and it struck him, “This also I saw that it was from the hand of God” (Ecclesiastes 2:24b).

He came to understand:  Yes, my labor is and would be meaningless apart from Christ.  But my life is made meaningful because of Christ.

At the close of each message in the Ecclesiastes sermon series, I have been trying to find some fitting parallel to the New Testament. The one that came to mind to place alongside this passage were these words from Jesus recorded in Matthew:

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Six Arguments Against the Apocrypha

We are continuing our series at CRBC through the Second London Baptist Confession (1689).  On Sunday November 6 I led a Bible Study on Canon and Apocrypha from chapter one, paragraph three of the confession.

I concluded by offering the following six arguments against the inclusion of the Apocrypha within the canon of Scripture:

1. It was rejected by the Jews, the guardians of God’s oracles (Romans 3:2), as Scripture.

2. It was not written and preserved in the language of the Old Testament (either Hebrew or Aramaic).

3. It is not always historically reliable and cannot be considered infallible.

4. It makes use of fiction, false information, and pseudonyms.

5. It is never directly cited as Scripture in the New Testament.

6. It was and is not universally recognized by believers as inspired.

JTR

Word Magazine # 62: Sermon Review: Ending of Mark.PartThree: Internal Evidence

WM # 62 continues my review of the 2012 sermon by Pastor Carey Hardy on the ending of Mark.  WM # 60 dealt with preliminary issues, WM # 61 with external arguments.  With this episode we turn to Hardy’s internal arguments against the authenticity of the Longer Ending (LE) of Mark 16:9-20.  He has a three pronged attack:  vocabulary, style, and content.

I.  Vocabulary Arguments:

Hardy begins by noting there are 15 words in the LE that do not occur elsewhere in Mark.

Response:

1.  This number is deceiving, because some words are necessarily unique due to the narrative context.  Examples:  “the eleven” (v. 15); “snakes” (v. 18); and “deadly poison” (v. 18).

2.  Also, some of the supposedly unique words in the LE appear in a related form elsewhere in the Gospel.  Examples:

The verb “to go” [poreuomai] appears three times in the LE (vv. 10, 12, 15) and nowhere else in Mark.  However, it appears in a compounded form multiple times in Mark.  The verb “to go out” [ekporeuomai] appears eleven times and the “to go into” [eisporeuomai] appears eight times.

Likewise, the verb “to accompany” [parakaloutho] appears only in Mark 16:17, but the related verb “to follow” [akoloutho] appears sixteen times in the rest of Mark.

3.  Any analysis of vocabulary in the LE must compare the passage to others in Mark of similar size.

Lunn does this in his book The Original Ending of Mark (see pp. 120-127).

If one does this he finds other passages in Mark with similar rates of unique words.  So, Lunn finds:

Prologue (Mark 2:1-11):  17 words

The parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1-11):  19 words

Apocalyptic Discourse (Mark 13:14-23):  15 words

Anointing at Bethany (Mark 14:1-9):  20 words

With regard to the verb “to go” [poreuomai]:  Again, it may only appear in its uncompounded from in the LE but it is used in compounded forms multiple times in Mark.  Furthermore, when we compare the other Gospels and Acts we find a similar pattern.

II.  Style Arguments:

These include:

1.  Challenges related to the connection/transition between 16:8-9.

Why does an abrupt masculine pronoun appear in v. 9 after the appearance of the women in v. 8?

Response:

I note Lunn’s discussion of “participant reference” in Mark and point out that this construction is actually consistent with Markan style (see Lunn pp. 174-180).

2.  Description of Mary Magdalene in 16:9.

Why do we have a further description of Mary in 16:9 when she has already appeared in Mark, including in 16:1?

Response:

I note Lunn’s discussion (pp. 140-141).  Lunn cites possible parallels between vv. 1-8 and vv. 9-20, which would include a parallel reference to Mary in vv. 1, 9. He also suggests that such “delayed descriptions” are actually typical of Biblical narrative.

3.  The use of the conjuction kai:

Response:

 Same arguments regarding vocabulary apply.

4.  Some claim the LE has a “prosaic style” versus the “graphic style” of the rest of Mark.

Response:

This judgment in subjective.

III.  Content Arguments:

1.   There no fulfillment of the references to Jesus’ appearances to his disciples in Galilee in the LE (see Mark 14:28; 16:7).

Response:

I note we might assume Mark implicitly understood that his readers would understand that one of the resurrection appearances in the LE was set in Galilee.

Lunn appeals to the possibility of “telescoping” (see pp. 319-325), but I am less inclined to adopt this due to the challenges it brings to upholding the historical reliability and infallibility of Scripture.

Again, we moderns cannot always grasp the literary method of ancient authors.  I also draw a comparison to Acts where it is said Paul will stand before Caesar (see Acts 25:10-12; 27:24) but the book ends without ever narrating this in detail.

Finally, those who hold that Mark ends at 16:8 likewise have no explanation for the Galilee predictions and, what is worse, assume a narrative with NO resurrection appearances.

2.  The LE as a summary of the endings of various other Gospels.

Response:

This view accepts the modern historical-critical view of a lack of essential unity in the Christian tradition.

It fails to explain why the LE does not, in fact, provide detailed literary or content parallels to the other Gospels if it is merely a spurious scribal creation.

It does not consider the possibility that Luke might have borrowed from Mark 16:12-23 in order to construct the Emmaus Road narrative in Luke 24.

The LE makes use of general Greek terms (v. 20) not limited to other NT authors (like Paul).

3. The supposed harshness of Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples in 16:14.

Response:

But, it this rebuke any worse than that given to Peter in Mark 8:33?

Does not Matthew 28:17 also say that some disciples doubted?

Is not the language here (“unbelief” and “hardness of heart”) distinctly Markan?

4.  The sign references in 16:17-18, especially snake handling and drinking poison, are out of place for Mark.

Response:

This is addressed to the apostles (see vv. 14 “the eleven” and v. 15 “And he said unto them [the eleven]”) and is actually a key passage in support of the cessationist view, which limits such signs to the apostles and the apostolic age.

The laying of hands on the sick was done by Jesus (see Mark 5:23; 6:5; 8:23, 25) and naturally done by the apostles and their associates (like Paul in Acts 28 and possibly Ananias in Acts 9).

The reference to serpents and poison is not a “bizarre promise” but a pledge of providential protection.

Lamar Williamson in his commentary on Mark:  “Taken seriously, however, these verses promise that those who give themselves to costly, self-denying announcement of the gospel in the world today will find their faithfulness confirmed in tangible ways” (as cited in Lunn, p. 355, n. 57).

IV.  Conclusions:

The argument against the LE based on internal evidence is not convincing.

Seven problems with those who reject the LE based on “Internal Evidence”:

1.   Their arguments are often subjective.

2. Their arguments are often circular, based on their presupposition that the LE is not authentic.

3.  They often fail to compare the LE to passages of similar size in Mark.

4.  They often fail to compare the LE to similar patterns in the other Gospels.

5.  They are reliant on a small sample writing size.

6.  They do not consider the possibility of authorial variation in writing style.

7.  They do not consider the possibility of the LE’s use of Christian sources and common traditions to account for variation.

JTR

The Vision (11.11.16): That which is crooked cannot be made straight

Note:  Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Ecclesiastes 1:12--2:11.

Ecclesiastes 1:15 That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. 16 I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. 17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. 18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

In v. 15 we have a remarkable inspired assessment of man in his unregenerate state.  This is the unsparingly realistic, Biblical view of man:  “That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.”  It states two corresponding truths.

First, there is something in unregenerate man that is warped, and it cannot be straightened out through his own efforts or the efforts of others.  The Puritan Thomas Boston wrote a book titled “The Crook in the Lot” reflecting on the afflictions endured by sinful men.  Another writer said, “Nothing but the cross of Christ makes other crosses straight” (as in Bridges, Ecclesiastes, p. 22).

This crookedness in humanity is a reality that the person with a secular, progressive spirit so often chooses to ignore.  He denies the reality of man’s original sin and thinks unregenerate men are inherently good.  He just needs a better environment, better nurture, and all will naturally improve.  He does not acknowledge that there is something crooked in man that cannot be straightened.

Second, the things that unregenerate men lack spiritually speaking are as numerous as the sand on the seashore or the stars in the sky.  They cannot be numbered.  They cannot be accurately accounted, diagnosed, described, or comprehended.

 

Solomon even reflects on the internal communion he experienced in his own internal counsels (v. 16).  He knew he was in position of privilege.  He had come “to great estate.”  His wisdom and knowledge surpassed those who had come before him.

In particular he came to be a great student of anthropology, the condition of man (v. 17a).  He came especially to know man’s capacity to understand wisdom (living to glory God and to be a blessing to man) but also “madness and folly.”  The latter is another term frequently repeated in this book.  Man can live with the sanity of wisdom or the insanity of folly.

Peter Barnes observes, “We seem to have something in common with the angels and something in common with the cockroach.  So here we are, with eternity and madness in our hearts” (Both Sides Now, p. 3).

Solomon proceeds to offer the conclusion that even this spiritual insight gained was but “a vexation of spirit” (v. 17b).

He explains in a beautiful piece of Hebrew poetry in synonymous parallelism (v. 18):  Increase of wisdom results in increase of grief; increase of knowledge results in increase of sorrow.

Here is a spiritual truth:  An awakened conscience and the stirring of spiritual life in a man actually bring with it a special misery and grief that he did not have before.  Ignorance is, at least temporally, bliss.  Before a man is converted he does not understand God’s holiness.  He does not understand his crookedness, his sin.  He does not know of God’s wrath and the justice that awaits.  He is like a man walking around with terminal cancer but who never goes to the doctor, doesn’t know he has the illness, and thinks he is just fine, oblivious to the fact that suffering and death soon awaits him.

Knowledge brings misery.  But it also sends us to Christ for relief.  Charles Bridges in his commentary on this passage asks:  “Is not, then, the lowest condition in godliness far happier and far safer than the highest ground of earthly prosperity?” (p. 35).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (11.4.16): The Eye Is Not Satisfied

Note:  Devotion taken from last Sunday morning's sermon on Ecclesiasties 1:4-11.

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing (Ecclesiastes 1:8).

In this verse Solomon describe man’s insatiable (unsatisfied) sensory appetite for the things of the natural world.  It is expressed in two statements:  “the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.”

How immediately we can resonate with this in the digital age, where at the click of a mouse we can bring any site foul or fair before our eyes.  We can hear nearly any speech, listen to nearly any song, in nearly any genre, in nearly any language.  But what is becoming the distinguishing mark of this generation?  Boredom.  When the envelope has been pushed to the extreme the result is not satisfaction but dissatisfaction and the craving for more.  I once heard a man say that if he had a choice between food and hi-speed internet he’d take the internet.

We are acutely aware of this now, but it was just as true in Solomon’s day.  It was true when there was no television, when there was no video, and no audio recordings in any form.  It is just as true for the Amish who live without electricity as it is for the man who can’t live without his Facebook.  Man has an insatiable hunger for what he can experience through his senses.

It was in attacking this stronghold that John wrote:

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

What a difficult battle it is!  When Bunyan wrote his allegory called The Holy War about the battle for the town of Mansoul as Emmanuel retakes it from the clutches of the wicked Diabolos, he describe how important was the defense of the five entrances into the place, including:  eye-gate, ear-gate, mouth-gate, nose-gate, and feel-gate.

Indeed, how weak and vulnerable is man in his unregenerate state before the onslaughts of Satan!  The description is bleak.  But where is the gospel in this?

I believe it is there in pointing us to our need for Christ.  To those whose eyes were never satisfied and whose ears were never filled, Jesus said:  “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).

There is nothing new under the sun.  Man’s need of Christ is the same in the twenty-first century as it was in the tenth century BC when Solomon lived and in the first century AD when Jesus himself walked the earth.  He is the only one who can satisfy.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Melito of Sardis on the OT Canon

Note:  I preached a sermon on the Canon of Scripture last Sunday afternoon in the 1689 confession series.  As I told a friend today, I’ve had “canon on the brain” this week.  Here are some notes on Melito of Sardis’ definition of the Christian OT canon:

Melito of Sardis’ list of the OT canon:

Melito of Sardis (d. c. AD 190) was an influential early Church Father. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius cites Polycrates of Ephesus’ description of Melito as “the eunuch, who lived entirely in the Holy Spirit, who lies in Sardis, waiting for the visitation from heaven when he will rise from the dead” (E. H., V.xxiv). Eusebius also offers his own sketch of Melito, including a catalogue of his writings (see IV.xxvi).

Here he cites Melito’s letter to a man named Onesimus in which he discusses the Old Testament books accepted by Christians, with regard to his six volume work called the Extracts (Eklogai). Here are the OT books as he lists them in this letter:

The five books of Moses:  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy,

Joshua, the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth,

Four books of Kingdoms [1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings], two books of Chronicles,

The Psalms of David,

The Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job,

The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve in a single book,

Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra

Some point of interest in this list:

1.  The book of Esther is not mentioned.

2.  The book of Lamentations is not mentioned, but it is likely included with Jeremiah.

3.  The book of Nehemiah is not mentioned, but it might have been included with Ezra.

4.  The ordering shows the influence of the LXX. For example:  Ruth is listed with the historical works and Chronicles is listed with Kingdoms rather than at the end with a grouping of “the writings” in the tri-partite Hebrew Bible ordering.

5.  The listing is distinctive, however, in that it does not include the apocryphal books.  The one exception could be the Wisdom of Solomon, but it might be that the phrase “The Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom” simply refers to the book of Proverbs.

Conclusions:

1. This list shows that the early Christians accepted the OT as part of the Christian Scriptures, contra Marcion.

2. Melito’s OT canon excluded the apocryphal works of the LXX, showing that at least some early Christians rejected these works as canonical and, instead, received the same books as those of the Hebrew Bible.

3. Melito’s OT canon also gives evidence that there was still some apparent controversy about which books were canonical, especially with regard to the book of Esther.

JTR

Book Note: Peter Barnes, "Both Sides Now: Ecclesiastes and the Human Condition"

Note:  A pastor friend who stayed the night at our house last month gave me this book as hospitality gift.  I took it as a kind providence, since he did not know I was considering preaching through Ecclesiastes. I read the book last week and thought I’d offer a brief note on it.

Peter Barnes, Both Sides Now:  Ecclesiastes and the Human Condition (Banner of Truth, 2004):  104 pp.

Barnes is a Presbyterian pastor in Sydney, Australia.  I’ve enjoyed reading a couple of other Banner works by Barnes, including his booklet on abortion “Open Your Mouth for the Dumb” and the short books, The Milk of the Word:  An Introduction to the Christian Faith (1985), and  A Handful of Pebbles:  Theological Liberalism and the Church (2008). He has also written John Calvin:  Man of God’s Word, Written and Preached (2011), but I have not yet read that one.

Both Sides Now is not a commentary on the book of Ecclesiastes.  It does not provide a chapter by chapter or verse by verse exposition of the text.  Rather, it is a collection of devotional thoughts and reflections on various themes drawn from the Old Testament wisdom book.

Barnes is an engaging writer whose prose frequently offers memorable and aphoristic lines.  Examples:

We seem to have something in common with the angels and something in common with the cockroach.  So here we are, with eternity and madness in our hearts (p. 3).

The more we are gratified, the less we are satisfied (p. 13).

Before we confront the issue of life after death, we need to ask whether there is life before death (p. 94).

We cannot know everything, but we can know life in Christ (p. 104).

The book is also filled with various anecdotes, quotations, and biographical snippets.  Barnes draws not just from theologians and Christian circles but also from pop culture.  So, we not only read quotes from Augustine, Pascal, and Kierkegaard but we also learn about the tragic death of Eric Clapton’s three year old child inspiring the song “Tears in Heaven” and the last words of Frank Sinatra (not “I did it my way” but “I am losing”) (see pp. 83, 87). The book’s title is taken from a line in a Joni Mitchell song, “I’ve looked at life from both sides now” (cited at the beginning and end of the work, see pp. 1, 103-104).  Certainly the varied references show the breadth of the author’s reading.  If anything might be said in criticism, the book sometimes seems to lose its focus in the heaping up of these anecdotes.  Still, the preacher in search of a fitting illustration might well find it a treasure trove.

The “both sides now” of the title is the realization of a repeated theme in Ecclesiastes that human beings have both eternity and madness in their hearts.  Barnes effectively points the reader to Christ as the solution to this inner conflict.

I commend it as a devotional work and a homiletical resource.  It is brief, easy to read and understand, and could readily be digested in a day or two.  The preacher who takes Ecclesiastes as his subject will find it a helpful work to supplement his study of exegetical commentaries.

Just one more criticism:  Bible citations are from the ESV. I would have preferred a translation based on the traditional text.  I won’t hold that, however, against it.

JTR  

Cessationism and Consistent Confessionalism

Here are some notes adapted from the closing to last Sunday afternoon’s sermon on Cessationism from our series through the 1689 Baptist Confession:

There has been an ongoing challenge throughout the history of the church to the sufficiency of Scripture from those who crave extra-Biblical experiences.  As Solomon puts it, “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecc 1:9).

In the early church there was a movement known as Montanism led by a charismatic self-proclaimed prophet named Montanus.  His followers considered themselves “the enlightened ones.”  Eusebius records it was boasted that Montanus was “the Paraclete” and that two women of his sect named Priscilla and Maximilla were “the prophetesses of Montanus.”  Eusebius’ own assessment was that they were “like poisonous reptiles” (see E. H., V.xiv).

In medieval times there were the self-proclaimed mystics.

During the Reformation period, Luther was opposed by a group of men known as “the Zwickau prophets” who claimed to be led by visions and dreams.  In an encounter with Luther, they pleaded, “The Spirit, Dr. Luther!  The Spirit!”  To which Luther replied, “I slap your spirit on the snout!” [as cited in J. P. Thackway, “Lessons from the Charismatic Movement” Bible League Quarterly (No. 467, Oct-Dec 2016):  p. 451].

In the post-Reformation period men like John Bunyan and John Owen opposed the excesses of the Society of Friends or the “Quakers,” as they were called for their frenzied movements while supposedly seized by the Spirit.  Before there were the “holy rollers” there were the Quakers and the Shakers!

In our own day, we have the modern charismatic movement, whose influence is widely felt even in conservative and evangelical churches, especially through so-called “third wave” worship music. “Contemporary” worship has become the norm and churches guided by the Regulative Principle the exception to the rule. Many have embraced soteriological Calvinism, claim to be “Reformed,” but say they are “open yet cautious” to charismatic expressions. They do not grasp, however, the fundamental contradiction in this kind of stance, given the closing words of chapter one "Of the Holy Scriptures" in the confession: “which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.” Clearly the confession takes a cessationist position. Mixing continuationism with Reformed theology is like mixing oil and water. You cannot be confessional and continuationist. The framers of the confession clearly saw cessationism as essential to the defense of the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture.

JTR    

The Vision (10.30.16): Vanity of Vanities

Image: Fall leaves, North Garden, Virginia, October 2016

Note:  Devotion taken from last Sunday morning's opening sermon in the Ecclesiastes series.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:2).

Ecclesiastes 1:2 offers an inspired, albeit bleak, assessment of human life.  Five times in this verse, we see the use of the word “vanity.”  It is a favorite word in this book as a whole, appearing again and again, nearly 40 times.

The Hebrew word for “vanity” is hebel.  It is also used for wind or breath.  So, it means something that it light, of little substance, and of brief duration (see Currid, Ecclesiastes:  A Quest for Meaning? pp. 15-16).  The OT name “Abel” comes from this word, and Abel lived a brief life, cut short by his own brother.

He uses it here in a superlative sense, as also in the Holy of Holies (the holiest place), or the Song of Songs (the best of songs).  But here, vanity of vanities, or most meaningless of the meaningless, most fleeting of the fleeting, emptiest of the empty.  When he says, “all is vanity” he is saying that life is meaningless, life is purposeless.

It recalls that great line from Shakespeare’s MacBeth:

Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The Australian Pastor Peter Barnes in his little book on Ecclesiastes, captures the natural despair that many feel when he writes:

We are constantly being exhorted to make a difference, but the reality is that the world hardly seems much different because we have heeded the alarm clock, eaten breakfast, said good-bye to the family, boarded the train [got in the car], put in our eight hours’ work, returned home, all in order to flop down in front of the television set.  There is activity and apparent change, but no sense of getting anywhere.  The world at large remains much the same (Both Sides Now, pp. 9-10).

Vanity of vanities; all is vanity!

This book is going to tell us about what life is like apart from Christ.  It is going to tell us about sin, sinful longings, and sinful attitudes with the precision of a Puritan divine. “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Ecclesiastes 7:29).  But it is also going to point us toward a Redeemer.  He is the “one man among a thousand” (Ecclesiastes 7:28) who gives meaning and purpose to our lives.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Book Note: Gordon H. Clark, "God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics"

Note:  I've had this book on my shelf for a while.  I finally picked it up and read it last week, as I'm continuing to preach through chapter one in the Baptist Confession.

Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (The Trinity Foundation, 1982):  212 pp.

This book is a collection of various essays and papers on the doctrine of Scripture from the Reformed Presbyterian philosopher Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985).

The essays are largely written against the backdrop of the mid to late twentieth century “battle for the Bible.” The forward is by Harold Lindsell.  There are various jabs at and warnings against liberal and Neo-Orthodox views on Biblical inspiration (see especially, “The Concept of Biblical Authority,” pp. 127-155).  Several of the essays also reflect Clark’s conflict with Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til and his disciples (see especially “The Bible as Truth,” pp. 24-38).  For Clark the truth of Scripture is propositional, comprehensible, and logical.  [Aside:  For a podcast offering a Van Tilian reflection on this controversy, listen to this episode of the Reformed Forum.  For a Clarkian perspective on this controversy see this article and this one].

The essays also provide some interesting insights into Clark’s hopes for the Evangelical Theological Society, of which he was a founding member, and his vision of it as a bulwark against liberalism (see especially “The Evangelical Theological Society Tomorrow,” pp. 51-63).  One wonders how Clark would assess the contemporary construal of inerrancy within evangelical academic circles and the state of that society today.

The closing article is titled, “The Reformed Faith and the Westminster Confession” (pp. 186-198).  In it Clark calls the first chapter of the confession on Scripture “a continental divide,” “the great divide between two types of religion” (p. 187).  On one side, with the denial of Biblical authority, is “naturalism, secularism, or humanism” (p. 187).  On the other is faithful, Biblical Christianity.  Even here, however, the waters divide into two streams that generally seem to flow in the same direction. The weaker of the two may accept Biblical infallibility and be “broadly evangelical” even though it rejects other details of the confession.  Sadly, it often flows through “stony ground” and oozes “through swamps” (p. 196).  The superior of the two is that of confessional Christianity which is “identified with the doctrines of the great Reformers” (p. 196).

He closes by noting three convictions he believes are reflected in the Westminster Confession:

First, our forefathers were convinced, the Westminster Confession asserts, and the Bible teaches that God has given us a written revelation.  This revelation is truth…..

Second, our forefathers were convinced and the Reformed Faith asserts that this truth can be known.  God has created us in his image with the intellectual and logical powers of understanding.  He has addressed to men an intelligible revelation and he expects us to read it, to grasp its meaning, and to believe it.  God is not totally other, nor is logic a human invention that distorts God’s statements…..

Third, the Reformers believed that God’s revelation can be formulated accurately.  They were not enamored of ambiguity; they did not identify piety with a confused mind.  They wanted to proclaim truth with the greatest possible clarity.  And so ought we (p. 197).

This summary also, of course, conveniently encapsulates some of Clark’s own distinctive theological convictions.

JTR