Sancification by Faith

Thursday, 8 February

Yesterday the weather was exceedingly stormy and only had eight out at the Prayer Meeting. At night brought the Class to a close. Spoke on holy living and, in finishing, pressed upon them the necessity of starting out upon the way of life. In preparing for this last meeting, through Dr. Hodge's way of presenting the Truth got an insight into the doctrine of the believer's union to Christ which has been a great comfort and help to me. I see that I have been attempting the sanctification of my soul in the strength of my own endeavours and I have miserably failed, just because I did not realise that the same helpless looking to Christ which is necessary to justification is just as necessary to sanctification. I seem to have caught sight of new power here, and to have come to see that the rising of the old nature within me is not mine, but pertains to sin which dwelleth in me and which I hate (Romans 7:20) and therefore that the guilt of it is not mine unless yielded to. (Murray, Iain H., Diary of Kenneth MacRae, Banner of Truth Trust, 1980, pg. 179-180)

I was struck in reading the above tonight. I have often had cause to think the thought in bold above myself, and yet as I read it I realised that I had again fallen into the same trap. It is so easy to become self-reliant as one seeks to walk as a Christian.

I sometimes find that at the very times I ought to fly to God for aid, i.e. when I particularly feel my sin, on the contrary I am loath to come to Him for fear that I come merely out of hypocrisy for forgiveness of sins of which I have repented previously. In these instances I find myself trying my hardest to please God in my own strength before I again feel I can come before Him without hypocrisy.

It is thus again a timely reminder to me "that the same helpless looking to Christ which is necessary to justification is just as necessary to sanctification". Equally it is good to remember the story of Luther who when the Devil came accusing him with a list of sins added to the list before writing over them all "Paid in full by Jesus Christ". We must remember that Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

These are things that we all know, but we (or I at any rate) so easily forget. It is therefore good to be reminded of them anew.

When Satan tempts me to despair,

And tells me of the guilt within,

Upward I look, and see Him there

Who made an end of all my sin.

Charitie Lees De Chenez

15 Peaks Challenge

I had had the desire to complete the Welsh 3000’s (the 15 Peaks over 3000 feet in Wales) in 24 hours for a couple of years. I had intended to complete the challenge last year but had not been up to it. However, this year, both myself and Dafydd felt in pretty good shape and determined that the challenge would indeed be completed.

1. Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) – 0355

We started walking from Llanberis at around 0000 on Friday (3rd) morning. In Llanberis a fairly thick fog limited visibility, but as we gained altitude we managed to leave this behind, though unfortunately the stars were still blotted out by the clouds above us. The walk passed fairly uneventfully with the only other creatures out being bats and sheep whose eyes looked very spooky in the torchlight.

We didn’t particularly strain ourselves on the ascent and reached the summit at around 0210. We stood at the summit a while and noticed another head lamp below us. As it began to get closer we heard voices as well – voices which seemed to indicate gladness at our presence because we marked out the location of the summit for them! Eventually two other intrepid explorers emerged from the mist, who then informed us that they were on the last leg of the famous 3 peaks challenge and had come up from the Miner’s Track that starts in Pen y Pass. After having congratulated them and wished them all the best for their return to Hastings, Dafydd took a picture for them and they went on their way again.

The challenge officially starts from the top of Yr Wyddfa and we had set our starting time at 0400, which meant we had almost two hours to wile away (not wanting to take on a slippery Crib Goch in the dark). We wandered down to the deserted Snowdon Summit Café and sat down in an alcove. Most of the next two hours was spent in trying to work out how to use the flash on my brother’s camera, something we failed to do and which we later came to regret.

At around 0350 we decided that to wander over the summit again and after having snapped a couple of pictures we started the walk officially at about 0355 – the race was now on to complete the 15 Peaks in Wales over 3000 feet in 24 hours.

2. Crib y Ddysgl (Garnedd Ugain) – 0420

A quick and uneventfull stroll along the ridge brought us to Crib y Ddysgl bringing up our second peak of the day. I was feeling very fresh at this point and was setting a good pace. The only slightly awkward part of this section was ensuring that we left the Llanberis path at the right point to follow the ridge to Crib y Ddysgl. In the mist we could have easily missed this and ending up traipsing back down to Llanberis. However, there is a boulder that clearly marks the way and we had no difficulty in following the ridge along to Crib y Ddysgl.

3. Crib Goch – 0530

From Crib y Ddysgl we came to probably the most dangerous part of the walk. Even in dry and sunny weather Crib Goch is not particularly safe, but in wet and misty weather as on this morning it is very dangerous. On one occasion I found myself edging out onto a ledge to my left with a sheer drop below wondering why I was doing this.

The last time I went across Crib Goch it was both dry and packed with day walkers; this time it was wet and absolutely deserted. While the wetness made it more treacherous, the isolation simply made it seem somewhat less safe than it seems when one is surrounded by other people – particularly when the other people are clearly less adept than oneself. In this situation one feels that surely if someone is going to fall off it will be one of these people - when one is on one's own, however, there is not such comfort.

We eventually and somewhat surprisingly reached the summit, though we didn’t realise this until we had begun descending fairly steeply – the summit of crib goch is notoriously difficult to identify – and I was very relieved to see a faint path to the left down the scree onto some grassy banks which led down to the road. Eventually we reached the road and turned left to reach the Snowdon Sherpa carpark where we were to meet my dad. At about 0700 we wandered into the carpark, by which time my boots were filled with water (and this was the first time that I severely regretted failing to waterproof my boots before the walk).

4. Elider Fawr – 0950

It was getting on towards 0800 before we took the plunge again and went out into what was by now a torrential downpour to make our way up Elider Fawr. After an initial wrong turning we got onto the right track and began to make headway up towards the summit.

Of the whole day this was probably the mountain I least enjoyed. My feet were soaking and it was about this point that I really began to feel the effects of not have slept since 0800 on the previous morning. I felt almost nauseous all the way up and the wet blistering feet didn’t help, but eventually after what seemed an interminable length of time we finally saw the summit cairn. But there is still no rest for the wicked and no sooner had we rested momentarily than it was time to conquer the next summit – Y Garn.

5. Y Garn – 1115

Though both of us had been up Y Garn several times previously neither of us had ever approached it from Elider Fawr before. I’m not sure if it was covering new territory that enlivened me but at about this point my tiredness suddenly slipped away and by the time we were approaching Y Garn I was feeling fresh and lively.

We realised that we had to skirt round Foel Goch prior to the ascent of Y Garn, and in the mist we were careful to avoid ascending what we though was probably Foel Goch and when later we came to a path stretching upwards we attacked it with vigour. However, on reaching the summit we quickly realised that this was certainly not Y Garn, but was in fact Foel Goch. This was somewhat annoying as it had needlessly added additional ascent to our journey, but we were not especially perturbed by this and continued along the grassy ridge to where the path began to ascend the slopes of Y Garn, continuing then to the summit.

6. Glyder Fawr – 1235

From the Y Garn summit onwards the walk was on territory that we both knew very well which did make me feel slightly better and almost as if to encourage our new found optimism the low cloud began to clear as we headed down to Llyn y Cwn. From Llyn y Cwn we went up the steep scree to the left and after about 20 minutes slog came out onto the plateau which gently rises up to the peak of Glyder Fawr, to the peak of which we simply followed the excellently bountiful cairns.

7. Glyder Fach – 1320

We then proceeded on towards Glyder Fach along a path that was again clearly marked by cairns. We ignored completely the enchanting Castell y Gwynt, which though an exhilarating climb, would have been an unnecessary delay as at only 50 feet prominence it is only classified as a Nuttall (and only just a Nuttall at that!). The real goal, instead, was just beyond it.

Glyder Fach is always a nuisance to reach, particularly from Glyder Fawr. It isn’t so much that it is tiring as that there are just so many rocks to climb over and every time one imagines the summit is near one sees another pile of rocks ahead. However, eventually what we knew was the summit came in sight, confirmed by the sight of the famous “canon” to the right of it. After a clamber to the top we were infuriated to find that the camera battery had gone flat – no doubt as a result of our persistent messing with the flash earlier that morning. I proceeded to attempt to take some photos on my phone, but was also thwarted in this because it wanted a memory stick or something and I didn’t know how to change the settings.

8. Tryfan – 1445

Next up was one the most distinctive mountains in all of Snowdonia. Though the smallest of the 3000s it is perhaps the only mountain that involves pretty serious scrambling to reach the summit no matter from which direction one approaches. Prior to ascent though we had a choice, either go over the famous bristly ridge or skirt round bristly ridge to the right to join the path later. In the end we took the latter route.

The sun was out in force by this point and we ascended to the top without much incident, though there were one or two points when we were clambering up ledges with large drops to the side when I was extremely thankful that the sun had now dried the rocks.

My mind wandered back to the last time I had attempted to ascend Tryfan. We had come up the north face, but at a certain point (which now we realised must have only been a few feet from the summit) decided to turn back due to excessive ice, which we were not prepared for with no crampons or ice axes. We turned back only to find that the worst was yet to come.

Now the north face of Tryfan, which we had ascended, is a difficult scramble, which virtually merges into climbing at some points, and while this is fine when one is ascending it becomes much harder on the descent. Added to this we seemed to find ourselves descending a particularly difficult section and on several occasions we were faced with two equally daunting options for descent, neither of which we would have taken ordinarily but that we were forced to take now. On one occasion I remember we had to slide down a narrow ledge, and it was at this point my hiking bag started to push me off the ledge, I remember thinking that I’d better just go for it so allowed myself to fall grabbing on the way down a hand hold and swinging myself to safety – rather daunting though, nonetheless! Equally at one point we were left with two impossible descent routes as options and so had to edge along the mountain until we found a more reasonable descent – which thankfully happened to lead to a nice scree and than grass slope which no longer presented a danger.

Anyway there were no such problems this time and we descended by the west face and found what must be one of the easiest ways possible down Tryfan. How glad we were though to see my dad in the car park below and be given the chance to restock on fluids and change soaked socks.

9. Pen Yr Ole Wen – 1820

From the carpark below, Pen Yr Ole Wen seemed daunting. I had used all my blister plasters trying to patch my feet up and the last thing I wanted to do was ascend the undoubted beast that is Pen Yr Ole Wen. There had been some discussion, with no resolution, as to whether the South or the East ridge would be more appropriate but at this juncture we both unanimously agreed that the East ridge, rather than the dreaded South ridge was appropriate. Though longer, the east ridge is considerably easier and at this stage we were both unwilling to face the South. So we started from the bottom of Pen Yr Ole Wen at around 1700 and we were up in under 1 hr 20 minutes, which we felt was a good time. It was interesting that from this moment on a new freshness came upon us. I had expected the ascent of Pen Yr Ole Wen to be a real difficulty but actually I found myself more energised than at any previous point. As I came to the top I met and spoke to an old 15 peaks veteran, who gave some heartening encouragement that further helped the way forward. Furthering the extra empowerment was also the fact that by this point the weather was quite marvellous with brilliant views all around.

10. Carnedd Dafydd – 1850

An uneventful stroll over to Carnedd Dafydd followed, with the wind picking up a bit but marvellous sunshine still spread across the mountains. The sun glistening on the sea in the distance was quite stupendous.

11. Yr Elen – 2010

Perhaps the most annoying part of this walk Yr Elen does somewhat ruin the flow because in order to reach it one has to go completely out of ones way. On the ridge towards Carnedd Llewelyn and Yr Elen the wind really started to pick up, but to look back and see first Carnedd Dafydd and then Pen Yr Ole Wen in the distance really showed how far we’d come providing a pick-up.

We had almost reached the top of Carnedd Llewelyn when we veered off to take in Yr Elen. However, it is a quite brilliant mountain with it’s plateau offering superb 360 degree views.

12. Carnedd Llewelyn – 2040

Annoyingly we then had to take in what we had already done in order to get up Carnedd Llewelyn – it is annoying but unfortunately there is no way around it. But at this point we really started to feel it was almost finished. Certainly the last three would be no challenge and anything that may be a strain on the legs was now behind us.

13. Foel Grach – 2110

As we got past the last of the rocks that mark Carnedd Llewelyn we looked at the watch and realised that it was 2100, this gave us just under and hour to complete the challenge in 18 hours. As this seemed a reasonable goal and as it would give us added motivation we set this as the target and proceeded at a fairly vigorous speed to complete these final three mountains.

14. Garnedd Uchaf – 2125

Garnedd Uchaf scarcely seems to count as a mountain, having a prominence of only just over the 30 meters required for it to be classified as a Hewitt, indeed many people do exclude it entirely from the walk they call the “14 Peaks”. However, it is the list and it is scarcely much of a diversion to include it in the walk so it seems reasonable to do so.

15. Foel-Fras – 2150

Now for the final mountain! As with the previous two no great excursion was required to reach this as the grassy slope is fairly gradual. We thus could afford to put on as much speed as our blistered feet and battered legs could muster to reach it just inside the 18 hour mark. What a relief, high-fives were exchanged and then we had the gruelling walk back to Abergwyngregan to come!

Abergwyngregan 1140

Walking back from a completed challenge is always a rather unpleasant experience. This part of the walk almost seems pointless and all energy seems to zap away. As it is purely a psychological phenomena one would imagine that it should be fairly easy to combat. For example, I’m pretty certain that had Drum also been included on our walk then I could have walked along to it perfectly cheerfully, but the deflation of walking miles that don’t seem to count is hard to fight against.

I must confess that it was shortly after the walk back began I really began to crack under the sleep deprivation (almost 40 hours by the time we got back to the car) and physical exhaustion (I had found it very difficult to eat and thereby restock carbohydrates during the day).

I think I first noticed the effects when I stopped to urinate and noticed a badge with a cartoon face on the floor, however on closer inspection this turned out to be a stone. At the time I scarcely thought anything of this and merely put it down to poor light playing tricks on my eyes. However, a little later on I noticed a woven bag by the path that had a golden coloured handle and a picture of a chicken on it. It seemed an odd place to leave it and, hesitant to touch it, I kicked it. Only to realise that it was in fact a stone, but the strange thing was that even when I bent down and examined it closely it still looked like a bag, I concluded that someone had painted it. Then just next to the bag I noticed a stone with the moss arranged into a face – wow, I thought, they’ve done a few of these! Then as I stood up to catch up with Dafydd I realised that every stone I looked at had a face. `I’m starting to go ga ga,' I thought to myself and caught up with Dafydd telling him about it and asking him to make sure I didn’t wander off on my own.

Then the fun really began, huge dolphins on the hillside, clowns in the bushes, I saw things everywhere. Though at the same time I was perfectly rational about it and realised that they obviously weren’t real and that I was imagining it. Though once or twice I was fooled when I was determined I could see some tents with a car parked outside that simply weren’t there!

The joy of eventually turning the corner round the mountain above us (Foel Dduarth I think) to see the headlights of the car waiting to pick us up the the valley below! We quickly made speed down though the gorse, ignoring the prickles, to get to the car where we could finally relax.

We did this walk to raise money for a charity that has greatly benifited my brother over the years, you can donate online if you so wish here: http://www.justgiving.com/benjaminlowery/

Trust in God

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba. Genesis 22:1-19

How often has this story been quoted, by those with no inkling of what real trust or faith in God is, to demonstrate God’s cruelty and Abraham’s inhumanity. How can it be right, they ask, to worship and obey a God who in nothing other than cruel and capricious whim demands human sacrifice?

Leaving aside the question of whether or it would be possible for the creation to be capable of greater good than the creator, those who claim that such a God is not worthy of worship may well be right: Why would we wish to worship a God who is simply a manifestation of the greatest human vices coupled with omnipotence?

Yet those who make this objection miss the point of this account in Genesis 22. It is precisely because Abraham did not have this view of God that he so willingly obeys God here. Here, perhaps more than anywhere else in the Bible, is simple trust and childlike faith portrayed. Abraham obeys God not out of fear of an impulsive God, but out of love for, and trust in, a kind God. First in foremost in Abraham’s mind was the truth that would be expressed by Paul 2000 years later (Romans 8:28) “that all things work together for good to them that love God.” That this is no idle imposition on Abraham’s thoughts is demonstrated by the word of the writer to the Hebrews, who said in the Spirit, (Hebrews 11:17-19) “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”

Obedience motivated by morbid fear has never been pleasing to God: Rather he asks for trust. Trust as that of Job, who said (Job 13:15), “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him”; Trust that says with Luther, “I would run into Christ's arms if he had a drawn sword in his hands.” For it is trust that knows, though all outward circumstances seem opposed to it, that God is good and that (Psalm 103:17) “unto them that do Him fear God's mercy never ends.”

This is why the writer to the Hebrews calls this an act of faith, not merely an act of obedience. For in this acts Abraham so fully demonstrates trust in God – Abraham is willing to obey God because he knows that God is (Exodus 34:6) “merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.” Abraham knows that God has both Abraham and Isaac’s best interests in view, and he is marvelously vindicated in this view when God spares Isaac and Abraham recieves Isaac again, as it were, from the dead (Hebrews 11:19). Not only this but God then pronounces a blessing on Abraham, “I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”

We should with Abraham, take comfort in the absolute sovereignty of God – and with Abraham trust in God (Psalm 136:2) “for his mercy endureth for ever.” And most of all let us remember that what God did not expect Abraham to finally carry through, he was Himself willing to fulfil when we gave His Son for those who had reviled Him.

Yea, so truly for us careth,

That His Son, all we’ve done, as our offering beareth;

As our Lamb Who, dying for us,

Bears our load, and to God, doeth in peace restore us.

Paul Gerhardt

A look back on 2008

I found this quiz here.

Remembering 2008

A good book I read

Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad - I don't know how I lived for 20 years without reading this, but it is one of the greatest books ever!

A great film/movie I watched

Changeling - the best film of 2008 in my opinion.

A new place I visited

I went Gleann Nibheis (Glen Nevis) for the first time and climbed Beinn Nibheis (Ben Nevis) for the first time - I had a great time. Four of us went up on Friday 18th July and camped at the foot of Beinn Nibheis. On Saturday we went up, and then on Sunday we went An Gearasdan (Fort William) and attended the Free Presbyterian church. They were very friendly and we went to the minister's family's house for dinner, tea and then for supper after the evening service. We came back home on Monday the 21st July.

A discovery I made

Paedobaptism is true!

An inspiring verse or quote I read

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C. S. Lewis. The quote is from Mere Christianity but it actually came properly to my attention in The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue.

A new skill I acquired

I've improved my mountain skills... don't know if that counts as a new skill.

A lesson I learned

Never EVER go up a mountain in jeans!

A moment I will always remember

Climbing up Tryfan at five in the morning to see the sunrise on 16th of February. I've never had such as incredible feeling, the views were breathtaking! Below are some pictures.

Meditations on the Christmas Story

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.” Luke 2:8-18

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.” Matthew 2:1-11

I have been struck over this Christmas period by the wonderfully Catholic nature of the Christmas Story. In a time and culture which saw salvation as exclusively for Jews the Christmas Story widely proclaimed that salvation was for all men everywhere, regardless of class or race.

I would draw your attention to two of the key incidents in the story.

Firstly, I would point to the Shepherds on the hills outside Bethlehem. The story is related to us in Luke 2:8-18, here we find men of relatively poor, maybe even despised, occupation. That God should choose to tell these men of the good news of the birth of Jesus Christ shows quite clearly that before God riches or social status avail nothing. Rather the Bible teaches that all men are undeserving whether rich or poor, and God comes to each purely by his grace and goodness.

Secondly I would direct your attention to the story of the wise men from the east, recorded for us in Matthew 2. Though not actually a part of the nativity scene – it appears they arrived in Bethlehem around two years later – they are generally also remembered as part of the Christmas Story. These are antithetical to the Shepherds in many ways. Firstly it would appear these are Gentiles, a marvellous prophecy of the bringing in of the Gentiles in Christ. Secondly it would appear from their ability to travel such a great distance and from their gifts that these were also men of wealth. How many Christians have despised men of wealth because of passages such as Matthew 19:24, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” They have failed, however, to read what out Lord says next, (verse 26) “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” Certainly a love of riches is incompatible with Christianity (Luke 18:22), but as these men demonstrate (as well as people such as Philemon) possession of riches alone does not keep one from heaven.

Here then we find in the birth of Christ, polar opposites, great extremes brought together and resolved in Christ: the rich, the poor; the Jew, the Gentile. Truly spoke Paul when he said, (Colossians 3:11) “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”

Political Compass

Above is my "political compass", according to http://www.politicalcompass.org/. It's an interesting test and worth having a look at. It seemed to sum me up fairly well as I came out roughly were I expected: slightly to the left and on the more libertarian side.

The Bandwagon

Everybody else seems to be actually putting these things in posts and as I think I started the stream that has been hitting the blogosphere (out of my group of acquaintances) I though I'd better do it too!

The definition at mypersonality.info of an ENTP says, "ENTPs are logical, innovative, curious and downright inventive. They see possibilities for improvement everywhere and possess the ability to understand complex concepts. ENTPs are introspective and carefree nonconformists. They often neglect the more common areas of life while pursuing new solutions. ENTPs can be good conversationalists and exciting company."

Which sounds okay, but I'm not sure about this from socionics.com, "ENTps are far from angels. Don't be fooled by their clumsiness, spaced-out behaviour and over-friendliness. Behind it all is a very cold rational mind, motivated by a starvation for attention. So, if an ENTp is friendly and nice to you: a) they want you to like them; b) they also need something else from you... ENTps are great masters of tricks and deceits, often more than ESTps, and what's more they do it in a very skilful manner. ENTps are masters of arrangement and sharp psychoanalysts, able to foresee exactly how others can react to a situation. They can turn the whole world against you, if you are not careful. ENTps also have the unique ability to make a deal with their conscience. They can successfully justify almost any wrong doing, thus ensuring that they will sleep well at night."

That makes my sound like a bit of a scoundrel! Though I think socionics.com is somewhat tongue and cheek so I'm not too worried!

Psalm 102:1-12

To this my prayer O listen, LORD!
And let my cry for help reach You.
In day of grief hide not Your face.
Your list'ning ear toward me O bend;
The day I call, Your answer send,

For all my days go up in smoke,
And like a hearth my bones are burned.
Like grass my heart is crushed and dried;
I daily food forgotten leave;
My skin and bones together cleave.

With sighs and groans my frame resounds.
I'm like a desert pelican,
Or like an owl in ruined wastes.
I lie awake, as on the roof
A sparrow stands, alone, aloof.

All day my foes their taunts repeat;
Those filled with anger curse my name.
I food with tears and ashes mix,
For You on me in anger frown;
You raised me up to throw me down.

An ev'ning shadow are my days;
Like grass I wither soon away.
But You, Jehovah, sit enthroned
Forever; Your memorial
Abides through generations all.

From The Book of Psalms for Singing

Contraception and Children

There are usually two approaches to the issue of contraception and family planning among Christians. On the one hand there is the view that makes full use of methods of family planning in order to limit the number of children that they have to a number the parents desire, be it two, four or whatever. On the other extreme is the view that to use any form of non-natural contraception is wrong and unbiblical. I propose to demonstrate that the emphasis of both of the positions is essentially unbiblical and propose a third middle position.

I will first make one important observation, and that is that the position that forbids all contraception has the advantage of having the full weight of Church History on its side. The Roman Catholic teaching on the issue is well known; I will merely satisfy myself with pointing to the historic Reformed teaching on the subject.

Historical Overview

Calvin says in his Commentary on Genesis and on 38:10:

I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime.

Luther said on the same passage:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.

The Westminster Annotations 1657 (commissioned by the Westminster Assembly) say of the same passage:

There is a seminal vital virtue, which perishes if the seed is spilled; and by doing this to hinder the begetting of a living child, is the first degree of murder that can be committed, and the next unto it is the marring of conception, when it is made, and causing of abortion: now such acts are noted in the scripture as horrible crimes, because, otherwise many might commit them, and not know the evil of them.

The equivalent Dutch annotations ordered by the Synod of Dordrect said of the same passage:

This was even as much, as if he had (in a manner) pulled forth the fruit out of the mother’s womb, and destroyed it.

It was not until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 that the Church ever recognised any contraception as legitimate, Article 15 of that conference reading thus:

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

It is thus plain to see that the historic Reformed community have viewed contraception as completely unjustifiable, and have plainly condemned it.

Criticism – Historic View

As a Christian particularly aware of the catholicity of the church I hesitate to differ from the historic consensus. However, the principle must be held in mind that while we must only interpret the Bible with reference to the historic teaching of the Church, we must nonetheless only interpret the Bible, and not lay burdens on believers where the teaching of the Church appears to have been interpolation on the text. This was after all the cry of the Reformation, Sola Scriptura. Not the poor imitation that has been made by many “evangelicals” who take historic Church teaching out of the equation, but still Sola Scriptura nonetheless.

There are two main reasons for my criticism of the historic view of the church. I will outline these below:

1) Firstly, the primary biblical text used in defence of this position is the passage in Genesis 38:9-10:

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

This is (to my knowledge) the only text that opponents of contraception argue specifically forbids the contraceptive act. However, though I am reluctant to depart from such luminaries as Calvin, Luther, the Synod of Dordt, and the Westminster Assembly, I cannot view this as anything other than an interpolation into the meaning of the text. For it seems plain from the text, though we are not specifically told, that the sin of Onan was that he refused to raise up seed to his brother, Er. Certainly Onan was sinning, and sinning grievously, by refusing to raise up seed to his brother for we find that this Levirate marriage custom was continued into the Mosaic law, and in Deuteronomy 25:9 we find the punishment thus:

Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

In the light of this, and the fact that the text does strongly imply that Onan’s sin was refusing to raise seed to his brother, saying that he “he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother,” it seems that the only grounds for saying that Onan’s contraceptive act was sinful in itself would be if that were already presumed to be sinful on other grounds. Now as this is the primary proof text such argumentation seems somewhat akin to that logical fallacy known as Begging the Question.

I do not pretend that this is the only text put forward against contraception, but the others do not directly oppose contraception per se, but rather a certain attitude towards children. I will use these texts later in defending my own position.

2) This position assumes a certain view of sex that is essentially unbiblical. The tacit assumption is that the reason for sex is procreation. Indeed I have often heard this said, “God only made sex fun because otherwise we’d be extinct.” In brief, the only outright argument against contraception is one that assumes that physical intimacy within marriage is not a worthy thing in and of itself.

Now I have not the slightest doubt that the Reformers and many today who are against contraception would flatly deny that they hold this view of sex. In this I do not doubt their sincerity, but nonetheless, I maintain that the position they take can only be logically defended from this position, and thus assumes such a position, whether or not the adherent consciously maintains such a position.

That this position grew up out of a view that physical intimacy was not a worthy pursuit apart from procreation is evident when we come the Church Fathers:

Clement of Alexandria in his Stromaties 3.58

If a man marries in order to have children he ought to practice self-control. He ought not to have a sexual desire even for his wife, to whom he has a duty to show Christian love. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will. We have learned not "to pay attention to physical desires," "walking decorously as in the light of day" – that is, in Christ and the shining conduct of the Lord’s way – "not in drunken carousing, sexual promiscuity, or jealous quarreling."

Jerome Against Jovinianus 1.20 says:

Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children… the truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean.

And then goes on to say, 1.49:

Hence Xystus in his Sentences tells us that He who too ardently loves his own wife is an adulterer. It is disgraceful to love another man's wife at all, or one's own too much. A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not with passion. Let a man govern his voluptuous impulses, and not rush headlong into intercourse.

Equally Augustine said, amongst other things, City of God 14.16:

What friend of wisdom and holy joys, who, being married, but knowing, as the apostle says, how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the disease of desire, as the Gentiles who know not God, would not prefer, if this were possible, to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust, but should be actuated by his volition, in the same way as his other members serve him for their respective ends?

Thus it can be easily seen from what background the Reformers views on contraception originated, and though they most certainly refuted these excessive views they still maintained the social stigma of contraception, and imposed this in their interpretation of Genesis 38, which exegesis it seems necessary to say, though with great reluctance, was wrong.

Let me for a moment positively put forward the biblical view of physical intimacy within marriage. Primarily it is necessary to observe that the marriage bond is a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church. This is demonstrated by an vast number of scriptures, I will satisfy myself in pointing to one, Ephesians 5:31-32:

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Now, can it be said that that bond which most fully shows forth this unity, the physical intimacy shared by a man and his wife, is not a noble and good cause for its own sake. This truth must be kept in mind, or else all who cannot have children, or who are old are then made to feel like their intimacy in worthless. But, no! The unity is the unity of Christ and the Church; it is worthy in and of itself, quite apart from its use for procreation.


Criticism – Modern View

Nevertheless, the prevalent view among many today is equally damaging as the views of many of those saints who we call the Fathers, which we have cited above. Namely, the view that it is acceptable to use contraception as a normal means by which we choose when to have children or when not to have children purely on the basis of perceived economic or social benefits.

For the scriptures are plain, and in many places, that children are a blessing, and that abundance of seed, far from an annoyance or a difficulty, is a gift from God. Has this not always been the promise of God? When God promised to bless Abraham it was to say that his seed would be a great multitude, saying (Genesis 22:7) “In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” Though it be allowed that this was not his direct children, it still shows how God blesses people by providing them with children. For the Bible specifically says in another place that (Psalm 127:3) “children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.”

There are many more places where children are spoken of as a blessing. Solomon says, (Proverbs 17:6) “Children's children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.” God says to Israel, (Deuteronomy 7:14) “Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you.”

So when people are granted children it is a blessing. But is it right to limit these blessings? The action itself is perhaps not wrong, but one must severely question a society where there is a design to limit the extent to which God may bless with children. Contrary to this the Bible speaks of large numbers of children as a blessing. The Bible speaks of how (1 Chronicles 25:5) “God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters.” Indeed we are specifically told of children that (Psalm 127:5) “Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.” While the next psalm again says of God’s blessing, (Psalm 128:3) “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.”

It seems without doubt therefore that children, indeed many children, are a blessing from God. Therefore, the notion that we ought, as part of the normal course of life, to limit these blessing for our convenience is completely against the general tenor of the word of God, which never speaks of children as mere economic or social burdens.

Conclusion

In conclusion it seems that both of the common views are fraught with problems. The historic view because, while acceptable in much of its practice, makes the issue one of sex rather than of our attitude to children. This can lead to precisely the same problems as the more modern view, for it effectually says that it is fine to limit the number of children one has as long as one accomplishes this by abstinence, rather than contraception. This is tantamount to saying, “family planning is fine, as long as you don’t have any fun while you’re doing it!” In this case the issue is missed, it is precisely an attitude towards children as something you “order by number” that is the problem, not sex.

It seems a balance between the two views is required. Certainly there does not seem to be a biblical prohibition of contraception per se. However, it seems to be that it ought not to be used routinely, only at such times when a husband and wife prayerfully and hesitantly decide that they must limit the number of children they have. An example of when this may be necessary would be if the wife’s health breaks down, and she genuinely cannot cope with or sustain more children. Still, it seems that this ought to be within the parameters of viewing many children as being ordinarily a blessing.

By way of disclaimer, I am not insensitive enough to suggest that those couples who, for one reason or another, cannot have children, or can only have a limited number, are in any way unblessed, any more than a couple who have less money than another couple are less blessed. But this in no way should diminish from the fact that one way God blesses is by giving children, this is the clear teaching of scripture.

Finally, it is important to remember that as believers God also promises to bring out His Church from our seed. For he promises to establish his covenant with our children also (Genesis 9:9, 17:19, Acts 2:39, Acts 16:31), this is most certainly part of this blessing of God in giving children.

Euthanasia High Court Challenge

I received an email this morning from Care not Killing. I have reproduced it below for prayer.

_______________________________________________

A woman with multiple sclerosis is staging a High Court challenge to clarify the law on assisted suicide.

Care Not Killing welcomes a full airing of the arguments, but warns that legalising assisted suicide would put vulnerable people at risk and make them susceptible to exploitation and abuse - a view upheld by the House of Lords vote on the Joffe Bill in 2006.

Dignity in Dying campaigner Debbie Purdy has progressive multiple sclerosis. She may at some stage wish to receive assisted suicide and wants her husband Omar to be immune from prosecution in the UK should he accompany her to Dignitas, the Swiss assisted suicide clinic. Her campaign bears striking similarities to that of the late Diane Pretty.

According to Dignity in Dying, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Debbie's concerns are centred around quality of life and dignity issues:

What worries me the most about my disease is that it is degenerative...I don't want to be forced to make a decision about the end of my life before I am ready to stop enjoying it. I want to wait until the last minute to decide if I can bear the facing pain and indignity I am facing.

Speaking in reaction to the news of the hearing, Care Not Killing's campaign director Dr Saunders said:

We need to be very clear on what has been agreed here. The High Court Judges have simply granted permission for Debbie Purdy to have a full hearing in court but have made it very clear that they are not giving her any grounds for optimism that her arguments will succeed.

We welcome this opportunity to revisit the arguments and are confident that the court will find that, in order to protect vulnerable people from exploitation, the current law should be upheld.

Assisting in another's suicide is a criminal offence which carries a sentence of up to 14 years imprisonment. The law is very clear on this matter and should not be changed. Changing it to allow assisted suicide would place vulnerable people – the sick, elderly, depressed and disabled – under pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. Vulnerable people often feel that they constitute a financial or emotional burden to others and the so-called 'right to die' can so easily become the duty to die. Once a person has been 'helped to die' it is often very difficult to know whether there has been subtle coercion involved from someone who has an interest in a person's death.

Requests like this are thankfully extremely rare and hard cases make bad law. We must not legislate for exceptions and the House of Lords for this reason in 2006 quite rightly rejected Lord Joffe's assisted dying bill. There are over 70,000 people in Britain with multiple sclerosis at present and only a very small number ever request assisted suicide. These requests are virtually never persistent if patients' physical, emotional and spiritual needs are properly addressed. Our key priority must therefore be to make the very best palliative care more widely accessible and to get rid of the postcode lottery of care that currently exists in Britain.

We are concerned about Mrs Purdy's expressed fear of choking to death or experiencing excruciating pain because with good palliative care these fears are quite groundless with multiple sclerosis. The public is being misled over this. There have been great advances in the management of multiple sclerosis which have benefited patients and now mean that many with the disease live an almost normal lifespan. Mrs Purdy has had MS for 13 years already and may have many more years still to live. It is also not at all clear, given the type of illness she has, that she would ever need assistance to end her life, should she be determined to do so. This case has to be seen therefore in the wider context of an ongoing campaign by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, to change the law.

The key issue here remains whether the law should be changed for the very small number of people who press for assisted suicide. Our view is that in order to protect others from exploitation it should not be.

Free Offer Equivocation

The Free Offer of the Gospel is not a term with which I have the slightest problem. That the Gospel is an offer and that it is also a free offer, I have not the slightest problem in asserting. Indeed this terminology is specifically used in the Westminster Confession 7.3, “the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved.” However, sadly, I must number myself as an opponent of the Free Offer of the Gospel as it was defended by John Murray, et al, at the Fifteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1948).

I also have no problem when proponents of the Free Offer of Gospel speak of the two wills of God. For they are quite right that there is a Decretive or Secret Will of God and a Prescriptive or Revealed Will of God.

The problem is what they do with these wills. For at this point some dazzling equivocation is performed by proponents of the Free Offer whereby though they say that God has two distinct wills they in effect become one and the same.

To those who oppose the Free Offer when the term Prescriptive Will is used it means precisely what it sounds like. That is that which God has commanded, whereby we may please him. The Prescriptive Will of God means nothing more than that “duty God requires of man” (Westminster Shorter Catechism A. 2). This is the revealed will of God by command for all men to follow. This is to be sharply distinguished from the Dectretive Will of God which is secret and to do with his purposes in the world. Yes, there is a sense in which God both desires the salvation of some while also desiring their reprobation, but this is well understood by the fact that they are two types of desires. The one is His revealed command whereby we may please him, the other is the will which it has pleased Him to perform.

However, proponents of the Free Offer take these two wills and essentially make them the same kind of will, producing a paradox (which many of them seem to view as part of the proof in itself!). They do this saying, “Again, the expression "God desires," in the formula that crystallizes the crux of the question, is intended to notify not at all the "seeming" attitude of God but a real attitude, a real disposition of lovingkindness inherent in the free offer to all, in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed result to be achieved by compliance with the overture proffered and the invitation given” (From the General Assembly report (1948) submitted by Arthur W. Kuschke Jr., John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse). In this they have already assumed their equivocation: Namely that God Wills or God Desires always means the same type of will or desire even if one is only a seeming will or desire. On the contrary, to those who oppose the Free Offer God does not only seem to desire that all men repent, he really does desire this, but only in the sense that God has made it known that this is the only way whereby men may please him.

Proponents of the Free Offer usually do not even countenance this meaning to the word desire and thus they equivocate by subtly changing the meaning so that they demonstrate from premises that all parties would be happy with that God has two desires which are essentially the same type of desire and that therefore contradict. This equivocation becomes particularly noticeable when they quote the reformers and confessions in support of their case.

A Snapshot of my Life

Recently I have been fairly active on my blog - by my standards at any rate. I've posted on various subjects, but I thought today I'd just mention what I've been doing...

I began at college/university, whatever you wish to call it, again on Thursday. Which was nice, as it's a day off from work - for those who do not know I work as a Trainee Quantity Surveyor and do a degree day-release.

Aside from that I've been working every week from 0900 - 1730, with various things related to Quantity Surveying.

Beyond this I've recently had to pay out quite a lot on my car. I've just had to spend about £230 getting a service (for a Proton Wira) and I've now got to pay to get it through the MOT on the 7th October. Added to this my cambelt is reaching the time of replacement and that will probably set me back a further £140! Cars really are awfully pricey things to run, aren't they?!

As a snapshot of my reading life, I'm currently reading The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy and Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification by Alister E. McGrath.

What else...

Hopefully once I've got this rather expensive month (Car-wise) out of the way I will return to my singing teacher to get my DipABRSM out of the way....

... I'm running out of even vaguely interesting things in my life...

... I'll be going up to Arbroath again on October 17th for the youth weekend conference of the Free Church (Continuing)...

... Oh and I think I might start keeping a diary, that would be fun, wouldnt it? I could even post (or even keep) it on here! Though I'm not sure if that would interest anyone...

... anyway, till next time!

True...?

cartoon from http://www.cartoonchurch.com

Rev. Charles Alexander in an Unusual Place

Sometimes we find things in the most unexpected places. Such an experience happened to me last night. As I was reading through The Diary of James Morrison by Professor G. N. M. Collins, the last thing I expected to find was a reference to the former minister of my father and grandparents, Rev. Charles Alexander of Liverpool.

However, to my surprise as I turned onto page 118 what should I find but the following:

'Where ignorance holds sway unbelief reigns also. Mr Alexander of Liverpool made a statement in our pulpit when he was here a few years ago that continued with me: "Of all the evils that have plagued us of late years, nothing has been more threatening than the unbelief, the positive heathenism that has entered our homes and our lives in temporals and spirituals everywhere."'

Corpus Clock

Today the Corpus Clock will be unveiled by Prof Stephen Hawking today at Corpus Christi College Cambridge. Designed by Dr. John Taylor it will be the largest largest Grasshopper escapement clock in the world. The youtube.com video is below:

Bays of Harris, Sheet Music

I spent ages searching for this, it's a good tune so to help others I've uploaded it! Though if you have a copy of the new Christian Hymns you'll find, in my view, a better arrangement there.

The Declaration of God in the Resurrection

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." - Psalm 2:7-8

This Psalm refers to when God raised Christ up from the dead, declaring thereby, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." That this is what the Psalm refers to is proved by Acts 13:33, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The attestation of God to the fact that Jesus Christ is the "only begotten" Son of God (John 3:16) is found throughout the Gospels.

"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3:17

"And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." - Luke 9:35

However, the Sonship of Christ is supremely set forth in the resurrection. I think that perhaps he sometimes forget what the resurrection was: the resounding declaration of God, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

It is certainly true that the Kings of the earth take council against the Lord's "anointed one", or Messiah. But yet against this God firmly declares in raising "the anointed one" from the dead that "HE is the Son of God" and declares him "Begotten". Of course this does not mean that Christ was in anyway not the begotten Son of God prior to his resurrection, for he says that even before he was sent he was the "only begotten Son" (John 3:16). Rather it means that in the raising of Christ from the dead, God declared in the world that Jesus Christ was Begotten. As Paul says, "And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4).

The sure decree I will declare:

The Lord hath said to me,

Thou art mine only Son; this day

I have begotten thee.

Ask of me, and for heritage
the heathen I'll make thine;
And, for possession, I to thee
will give earth's utmost line.

Thou shalt, as with a weighty rod
of iron, break them all;
And, as a potter's sherd, thou shalt
them dash in pieces small.

Now therefore, kings, be wise; be taught,
ye judges of the earth:
Serve God in fear, and see that ye
join trembling with your mirth.

Kiss ye the Son, lest in his ire
ye perish from the way,
If once his wrath begin to burn:
blessed all that on him stay.

Psalm 2:7-12, Scottish Psalter 1650

Conspiracy

This quote is from Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (pg. 288-289, Picador, 1990). I posted it on a forum I frequent so as I'd searched for it and typed it up I thought I might as well share it here as well. I think the point is fairly clear!

He threw open the shutters dramatically and pointed. At the corner of the narrow street and the broad avenue, stood a little wooden kiosk, where, presumably, lottery tickets were sold.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “I invite you to go and measure that kiosk. You will see that the length of the counter is one hundred and forty-nine centimetres - in other words, one hundred-billionth of the distance between the earth and the sun. The height at the rear, one hundred and sixty-six centimetres, divided by the width of the window, fifty-six, centimetres, is 3.14. The height at the front is nineteen decimetres, equal, in other words, to the number of years of the Greek lunar cycle. The sum of the heights of the two front corners and the two rear corners is one hundred and ninety times two plus one hundred and sixty-six times two, which equals seven hundred and thirty-two, the date of the victory at Poitiers. The thickness of the counter is 3.10 centimetres, and the width of the cornice of the window is 8.8 centimetres. Replacing the numbers before the decimals by the corresponding letters of the alphabet, we obtain C for ten H for eight, or C₁₀H₈, which is the formula for naphthalene.”

“Fantastic,” I said. “Did you get all these measurements?”

No,” Agliè said. “They were done on another kiosk, by a certain Jean-Pierre Adam. But I would assume that all lottery kiosks have more or less the same dimensions. With numbers you can do anything you like. Suppose I have the sacred number 9 and I want to get the number 1314, date of the execution of Jacques de Molay - a date dear to anyone who, like me, professes devotion to the Templar tradition of knighthood. What can I do? I multiply nine by one hundred and forty-six, the fateful day of the destruction of Carthage. How did arrive at this? I divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by two, by three, et cetera, until I found a satisfying date. I could also have divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by 6.28, the double of 3.14, and I would have got two hundred and nine. That is the year Attalus I, king of Pergamon, ascended the throne. You see?”

Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins

Any proclamation of the gospel must begin with the joyful tidings that God has raised Jesus Christ from the dead, which joyful tidings David prophesied 1000 years previously by the Spirit, (Psalm 16:10) "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

It must be confessed that no man can be convinced of the truth of the gospel unless he first by quickened by the Spirit of God, (1 Corinthians 2:13-14) "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." However, it was not without reason that Christ appeared to over 500 people after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6), rather it was to establish clear historical evidence that he had in fact been raised from the dead, for "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" may truth be known (Deuteronomy 17:6, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19).

For this reason it is important that we defend the gospel account of the resurrection in this way, as a real historical event. I am far from agreeing with everything N. T. Wright has written, particularly regarding the New Perspective on Paul, and I do not concur with everything he says in the article I direct you to now. However, he makes an excellent case for the resurrection as a historical event and it is good to hear our brother's thoughts.

Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins is taken from a lecture given in 2002 when N. T. Wright was Canon of Westminster (he is now Bishop of Durham).

End of the World

The world will end on Wednesday with the first Large Hadron Collider beam, which will create a black hole that will destroy the world.

I will be out on the streets, dressed in pink and waving my "Don't let me die a Calvinist!" banner! See you there!

Idolatry and the Eastern Church

The use of icons by both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church is well known. I have transcribed the relevant section of The Longer Catechism of the Eastern Church as it is found in Volume 2 of Philip Schaff's The Creeds of Christendom.

After each question I offer I brief critique of each answer:

Question 517: What is forbidden, then, by the second commandment?

Answer: We are forbidden to bow down to graven images or idols, as to supposed deities, or as to the likenesses of false gods.

It is important to note the qualifier inserted into the text here "as to supposed deities". It is, perhaps, from this that the thoughts of the proceeding answers flow. The Second Commandments actually says "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." The qualifier that it is only when we suppose the idols themselves to be deities that this is a sin is absent. Rather the commandment makes a blanket prohibition of bowing or serving images.

Question 518: Are we not hereby forbidden to have any sacred representations whatever?

Answer: By no means. This very plainly appears from hence, that the same Moses through whom God gave the commandment against graven images, received at the same time from God an order to place in the tabernacle, or movable temple of the Israelites, sacred representations of Cherubim in gold, and to place them, too, in that inner part of the temple to which people turned for their worship of God.

Their point must here be granted that God does not in the Second Commandment forbid the making of images of any sacred subject. Rather his command is that we do not bow to, or serve, them. His command runs thus, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Now if we take this to be a complete prohibition we must grant that God then commanded Moses to break this commandment in making the representations of the Cherubim (Exodus 25:18).

Nonetheless, the extension that the Eastern Orthodox take from this, that we may therefore bow to images also is quite without reason. For we must note that the purpose of the images of the Cherubim was most certainly not for veneration. Indeed the cherubim were placed in the holiest place into which only the high priest could go once a year (Exodus 30:10, Leviticus 16:34, Hebrews 9:7). Thus we can scarcely conclude that it any sense these cherubim were to be a visible aid to worship. On the contrary the command is absolute "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them," and there is no example, in the Bible, of anybody ever, with God's blessing, bowing to an object.

Question 519: Why is this example worthy of remark for the Orthodox Christian Church?

Answer: Because it illustrates her use of holy icons.

It must surely be plain that the cherubim on no way illustrate the Eastern Orthodox Church's use of icons. Above this is clearly demonstrated.

Question 520: What is an icon?

Answer: The word is Greek, and means an image or representation. In the Orthodox Church this name designates sacred representations of our Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, his immaculate Mother, and his saints.

Question 521: Is the use of holy icons agreeable to the second commandment?

Answer: It would then, and then only, be otherwise, if any one were to make gods of them; but it is not in the least contrary to this commandment to honor icons as sacred representations, and to use them for the religious remembrance of God's works and of his saints; for when thus used icons are books, written with the forms of persons and things instead of letters.

Again we point to the complete prohibition of God, which the example of the Cherubim does nothing to lessen, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

Question 522: What disposition of mind should we have when we reverence the icons?

Answer: While we look on them with out eyes, we should mentally look to God and to the saints, who are represented on them.

To this we respond that in this they ask an impossible task of those for whom they are responsible. If the worshipper has his eyes fixed on the invisible God then of what use is the image? However, if he consciously venerates the physical object then surely it is extremely difficult for him to look mentally to God alone. Indeed God himself issues this warning to us, marking our propensity to idolatry, saying that for this very reason "ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire" (Deuteronomy 4:15). God specifically says that they saw no image because it may have given the Israelites cause to turn to idolatry (Deuteronomy 4:16-19). Thus to suggest that it is possible to look upon an image, let alone to venerate images, without falling into idolatry is contradicted by the very words of God Himself.

Therefore there seems to be absolutely no basis whatsoever for the icons of the Eastern Orthodox Church, indeed the practice seems to be expressly forbidden in scripture.

The classic text defending the veneration of images is John of Damascus' Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images, sometime soon I will try to write a full response to the arguments put forward there.