Training in Righteousness
Other places I blog

 

Search
Stats

web stats

Find Me On Twitter
Sunday
Jan242010

Heart Aflame, January 25th - Psalm 11:4-7

He observes the sons of men; his eyes examine them.  Nothing is hidden from God, and, therefore, men will be obliged to render up to him an account of all that they have done.  If God reigns in heaven, and if his throne is erected there, it follows that he must necessarily attend to the affairs of men, in order one day to sit in judgment upon them.  Epicurus, and such like him as would persuade themselves that God is idle, and indulges in repose in heaven, may be said rather to spread for him a couch on which to sleep, than to erect for him a throne of judgment.  But it is the glory of our faith that God, the Creator of the world, does not disregard or abandon the order which he himself at first established.  And when he suspends his judgment for a time, it becomes us to lean upon this one truth - that he beholds from heaven; just as we now see David contenting himself with this consolatory consideration alone, that God rules over mankind, observes whatever is transacted in the world, although his knowledge, and the exercise of his jurisdiction, are not at first sight apparent.

He approves the righteous, but hates the wicked.  God so inquires into the cause of every man as to distinguish between the righteous and the unrighteous, and in such a way as shows that he is not an idle spectator.  God hates those who are set upon the infliction of injuries, and upon doing mischief.  As he has ordained mutual intercourse between men, so he would have us to maintain it inviolable.  In order, therefore, to preserve this his own sacred and appointed order, he must be the enemy of the wicked, who wrong and are troublesome to others.  There is also here contrasted God's hatred of the wicked, and wicked men's love of iniquity, to teach us that those who please and flatter themselves in their mischievous practices gain nothing by such flatteries, and only deceive themselves.

For the Lord is righteous, he loves justice.  God graciously exercises a special care over the upright and the sincere, takes them under his protection, and keeps them i perfect safety.  All those who, deending pon the grace of God, sincerely follow after righteousness, shall be safe under his protection

 

Wednesday
Jan202010

Discipline

Discipline
by George Herbert

THROW away thy rod,
Throw away thy wrath :
                 O my God,
Take the gentle path.

For my hearts desire
Unto thine is bent :
                 I aspire
To a full consent.

Nor a word or look
I affect to own,
                 But by book,
And thy book alone.

Though I fail, I weep :
Though I halt in pace,
                 Yet I creep
To the throne of grace.

Then let wrath remove ;
Love will do the deed :
                 For with love
Stonie hearts will bleed.

Love is swift of foot ;
Love's a man of warre,
                 And can shoot,
And can hit from farre.

Who can scape his bow ?
That which wrought on thee,
                 Brought thee low,
Needs must work on me.

Throw away thy rod ;
Though man frailties hath,
                 Thou art God :
Throw away thy wrath.

 

Tuesday
Jan192010

Pronounciation conundrums

Rebecca, in addition to providing information about coyotes, posed the question as to the proper way to say the word "coyote." You must read the post and the comments; it's quite interesting.

That post led me to this question:  what is the proper way to say the word that describes a winding body of water that is similar to a river, but smaller?  I say the word "creek."  When I moved here to Southern Ontario, I was stunned to find people saying "crick" all over the place.

Anyone know what the history of that word is?

Tuesday
Jan192010

The Irish Articles

In my reading of Crawford Gribben's The Irish Puritans, I read about a confession of which I was unfamiliar, The Irish Articles.

These articles were the work of James Ussher who was the dominant Irish Puritan of his day.  They were written as somewhat of a reaction against the English Thirty-nine Articles, which the Irish Protestants saw as somewhat insufficient:

For decades previously, dissatisfcation with the doctrinal basis of the Church of England had been a standard feature of Puritan complaints.  The English confession of faith - the Thirty-nine Articles - had been passed by the English convocation in 1562 and had been confirmed as the faith of the English church by Parliament in 1571.  It was a good confession, as far as it went.  The gospel was clearly presented.  Scripture was given a high place (Article 6).  Nevertheless, the Puritans felt, rightly or wrongly, that the articles were often deliberately ambiguous, and history seems to have confirmed their judgment.  The wording of the articles has frequently allowed conflicting groups to appeal for support to their often rather vague statements.

To answer these claims of ambiguity, other articles, The Lambeth Articles were drawn up, but were never adopted, and the King (James I at the time) in 1604 refused to make them an official statement of  Anglican theology.  In Ireland, prior to the Thirty-nine Articles, the doctrinal foundations of Protestantism were even more unclear.   Gribben says:

Their more basic contents allowed the accommodation of a wider range of theological opinions of the Irish church - which ranged from Puritans who had been excluded from the English and Scottish churches to neo-Catholic conservatives who still used the Latin Prayer Book.  A growing awareness that these articles simply were not good enough, and a recognition of their failure state clearly the issues separating the Irish Protestants from the Roman Catholics, led to the negotiation of a new doctrinal basis when the convocation of the Irish church met in 1615.

Doctrine is important.  Sometimes, we don't see that, but as is obvious from the situation of this early Irish church, it was very crucial that the doctrinal points dividing Anglican, Puritan, and Catholic views be clearly stated.  It was essential in determining what kind of faith would be promulgated by Irish Protestant Church.

Ussher was seen as a Puritan.  His influence in the articles is clearly seen, as Gribben points out, in the fact that the Irish articles boldly declare that the Pope was a "man of sin, foretold in the holy Scriptures whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and abolish with the brightness of his coming" (article 80).   Gribben states:  "Ussher's life of study was grounded upon his enduring hostility to the false claims of Roman Catholicism."   The articles were the work of one who wanted to clearly define exactly what a Christian Protestant was.  It is unavoidable, I think, that documents such as confessions and creeds will come across as a reaction against something.  Is that not why many of them were drawn up?  To answer false teaching?  These articles were no different.

I find all of this quite interesting, because many of the problems that Ireland has seen in her history have revolved around religious questions.  Ireland saw Catholic forces, English forces, and Irish forces all compete against one another.  Just because one was Irish did not make him a Catholic; and just because one was Protestant, it did not make him English.  It was quite a complicated situation. 

Gribben ends this chapter with an ominous comment:

This was the glory of Ussher's reformed church.  Emphatically Puritan, rigorously scholastic, but charitable to weaker consciences, nothing was to stand in the way of its evangelization of Ireland - nothing, that it, but the interference of English Protestants.

Monday
Jan182010

Logic and the person in the pew

I'm reading a chapter called "The Situational Perspective - Logic as a Tool of Theology," in John Frame's The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.  While this doesn't teach logic per se, it does examine why logical thought and theology are not contradictory. As a hermeutical tool, logic is invaluable.  Frame says this:

So in theology, logical deductions set forth the meaning of Scripture.  "Stealing is wrong; embezzling is stealing; therefore embezzling is wrong.  That is kind of a "moral syllogism" common to ethical reasoning.

When it is used rightly, logical deduction adds nothing to Scripture.  It merely sets forth what is there.

Logic, then, is not above Scripture, but it simply provides the tools to explain Scripture.

I don't claim to know logic very well.  I am reading about Aristotle in another book, and I am working my way through this book, and while I probably don't understand everything perfectly, I'm learning a lot about how to think just from reading this book.  I'm also finding out how difficult it is to "summarize" logic.  When I try to summarize what I've learned, I can't do it in a concise manner.  Frame uses lots of analogies; I am a person who needs analogies.  Analogies don't lend themselves well to summarizing.  Frame is quite good at it, because I am able to understand what he is saying for the most part, and I do not have a mind that finds it easy to think in a logical manner.

Something Frame says really that really piqued my interest, and I found myself nodding:

Most people in the pews have not studied logic, and they will not be able to subject their pastors' sermons to formal logical scrutiny.  Yet all rational people, I think, have what we earlier called a "sense" of implication and consistency.  They may not recognize in every case when they are being given an invalid argument or an inconsistent position.  But when logical fallacies are prominent in a sermon, many in the congregation will feel uneasy about it.  They will not find it adquately persuasive.  Even if they cannot pin down what the problem is, they will sense that a problem exists.  Thus, for their sake, and indeed for the sake of truth itself - God's noncontradictory truth - we must make much greater efforts than are now common among theologians to be logical.

I must admit to having sat in sermons (not my pastor, actually) and thought, "Something is not right about this."   I know others have had similar experiences.  Are we looking for things to be logical, though, when we sit down to a sermon?  Sometimes, I think we sit down expecting to be made to feel something.  I think the feeling needs to come after the premises have been adequately expressed, and that takes a logical train of thought.