Lost Pages

Who does not see, when he reads the history of the Church of Christ, repeated proofs that the best of men can err? The early fathers were zealous according to their knowledge, and ready to die for Christ. But many of them countenanced monasticism, and nearly all sowed the seeds of  many superstitions. The Reformers were honoured instruments in the hand of God for reviving the cause of truth on earth. Yet hardly one of them can be named who did not make some great mistake. Martin Luther held pertinaciously the doctrine of consubstantiation. Melancthon was often timid and undecided. Calvin permitted Servetus to be burned. Cranmer recanted and fell away for a time from his first faith. Jewell subscribed to Popish doctrines  for fear of death. Hooper disturbed the Church of England by over scrupulosity about vestments. The Puritans, in after times, denounced toleration as Abaddon and Apollyon. Wesley and Toplady, last century, abused each other in the most shameful language. Irvin...

Just finished reading the short book  Thinking it through  by Martin Salter. The book is very helpful in helping us to think clearly about issues. Here are some very helpful observations I picked up from it: 1 . A helpful tool for processing questions is the "six honest serving men":  who  is the authority;  why  are they the best person to speak on the question;  how  do they come to their conclusions;  what  exactly is the question for consideration;  where , geographically and culturally, is the question being discussed; and,  when , historically, are we thinking about the question?  2 . The challenge of sound thinking is determining which authority (or combination of authorities) is best placed to inform a particular decision. We all appeal to some authority; the question is whether that's a good call or not. 

Theologian John Frame in his excellent large book The Doctrine of the Christian Life presents an approach to ethics that has been very useful to me in how I analyse difficult moral questions. Frame says that "ethical judgement involves the application of a norm   to a situation by a person" .  When we have a problem there are three pieces of information we need to reach an informed ethical judgement : the situation, the Word of God, and person with the problem. These are summarised in the triangle of ethics below The situational perspective  examines the situation or problems. It asks, "what are the best means of means of accomplishing God's purposes?". That is, how can we take the present situation and change it so that more of God's purposes are achieved? Here we explore the consequences of our actions. We ask, "if we do this, will it enhance the glory of God?". Will it please God in the end?

Four helpful questions that may be helpful in thinking critically on national issues, especially economic / political issues: 1. What does that mean? 2. How will it be implemented or enforced? 3. Is it voluntary or mandatory? 4. Who is going to pay for it; and, can we even afford it? I have found that asking these questions on any issue has helped me zone in on where I may be missing key information. At the minimum, one perhaps should not support any policy without carefully thinking through the above questions.The biggest danger in formulating a coherent and sound position is information. Finding answers to the above allows to properly interrogate the issue and bring in other sets of information that helps us reach a fuller picture.

God made the world for the sake of mankind. If you can't see this, you are little different from an animal. Who looks up at heaven except human beings? Who admires the sun, the stars, and all God's works, except human beings? Who cultivates the earth and reaps its fruits? Who navigates the sea? Who has the fish, birds and beasts in his power - who except human beings? Therefore God made everything for mankind, because all things are given over into mankind's use. The philosopher's saw this correctly, but they did not see what follows - that God created mankind for himself. Since God set about for humanity's sake so great a work as the creation of the world, and since gave humanity's sake so great a work as the creation of the world, and since He gave humanity so much honour and power that it was supreme in the world, it was necessary in consequence, and a duty, that humanity would acknowledge God as the Author of such great blessings - He Who created mankind, ...

Each human carries within the mark of coming death. That mortality bears witness to human sinfulness. It declares to all that You rebuff the proud. - Augustine of Hippo (Source : Confessions )

When it comes to these sorts of questions I like to remind my students of a simple—-but often overlooked—-fact: of all the gospels in early Christianity, only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are dated to the first century. Sure, there are minority attempts to put books like the Gospel of Thomas in the first century—-but such attempts have not been well received by biblical scholars. Thus, if we really want to know what Jesus was like, our best bet is to rely on books that were at least written during the time period when eyewitnesses were still alive. And only four gospels meet that standard. From Michael Kruger's excellent piece - The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus’ ‘Wife’ . 

The difference between the knowledge of believers and unbelievers is not so much a difference in the matter of their knowledge but in the manner of knowing. Unbelievers, some of them, know more about God, his perfections, and his will, than many believers do; but they know nothing as they ought, nothing in a right manner, nothing spiritually and savingly, nothing with a holy and heavenly light. The excellence of a believer is not that he has a large grasp of things, but that what he does grasp, which may be very little, he sees it in the light of the Spirit of God, in a saving, soul-transforming light; and this is that which gives us communion with God. - John Owen ( Source : Overcoming Sin and Temptation )

Many times … people don’t have a clue as to what exactly they would do about the most pressing problems of their own city if they were mayor, or concerning the greatest difficulty facing their state if they were governor. They would probably be quite hesitant if asked how, precisely, they would solve the greatest national crises if they were president, but they have no hesitation whatsoever in venturing to declare how they would solve what may be the single most troubling cosmic religious problem if they were God. - Thomas Morris ( Source : Making Sense of It All )

When we read the Bible through the lens of any single genre, agenda, or need, distortion will result. It is critical to grasp the Scriptures' narrative unity to resist our culture's counterstories, but we need not reduce the Scriptures to a single genre to grasp its One Story. God gave us stories indeed, but he also gave us proverbs, poetry, law, exhortation, prophesy, lament, riddle, letters, visions, genealogies, and prayers. Man lives by every word that proceeds from God's mouth. All Scripture makes us wise unto salvation. We need to say, with the apostle Paul, that "we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word" Leslie Leyland Fields on the dangers of reading the Bible only as a Story. She notes the new "bible as story" movement has often resorted to imposing their own narrative on the biblical narrative. It is a timely warning. By all means let us get a grasp of the broad outlin...

Louis René Beres has written a powerful article here on the moral bankruptcy of democracy. He observes : "Democratic institutions are always reflections of a far deeper truth. This still-hidden truth lies in the society’s accumulating inventory of private agonies and collective discontents. No institutionalized pattern of democracy can ever rise above the severely limited ambitions, insights, and capacities of its citizens. In short, it is not for elections to cast light in dark places. Let us be candid. We the people inhabit a withering national landscape of crass consumption, incessant imitativeness, and dreary profanity. Bored by the banality of everyday life and beaten down by the struggle to avoid despair in a nation of stark polarities, Americans will grasp apprehensively for any convenient lifeline of hope".

This recent BBC article on human rights starts off very well and then becomes confused. I think he would have been better to simply say : Inherent conception of human rights requires an objective moral standard i.e. moral law giver (God). Since the moral law giver is under dispute then we can't universally speak of human rights. This is a well understood position among many moral theorists anyway. The issue therefore is not whether human rights exist or not, but whether those who hold onto them do so consistently. And of course, it follows that unless you believe in God, you can't believe inherent human rights. Precisely for the reasons he has stated. The notion of progressively evolving your way to an agreed objective "rights" standard fails because the conception of rights demands not just appropriate objective comparisons at time "t" but also "t + 1". In other words, moral comparisons must be consistent across time periods. We are not ju...