Charnock begins his first discourse using Psalm 14:1 as his text: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
He breaks the first half of the verse into its three components.
1) The fool--this denotes a wicked man. Folly in Hebrew thought is a moral designation, not chiefly an intellectual characterization, although certainly a fool's thoughts are often intellectually substandard. The word is related to the Hebrew for used-up, dry and barren, lifeless, like a plant that's lost its sap. The fool not so much lacks reason as abuses it.
2) Says in his heart--his thoughts expressed secretly and not openly. The fool wishes God were not, he hopes there is no God. Again, this is not so much a matter of rationality but of volition, and brings to mind Paul's declaration in Romans 1 that the wicked will not acknowledge and submit to the truth of God and will not give him his rightful due. I have read contemporary (meaning 21st century) atheists express something very similar. They don't want the universe to be that way, meaning that they like or prefer the universe without God.
3) There is no God--here meaning God as judge and ruler, God in his providence. The fool is not actually denying that God exists (more on this point later), but that God rules this world and will hold all to account. The fool does not want to be accountable to anyone; he wishes to do as he pleases, without consequence, or at least without divine consequence.
We'll take up the second half of this verse tomorrow.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Ground Rules
As guidelines for the forthcoming study:
1. I accept the Old and New Testament Scriptures as inspired and inerrant. Charnock makes frequent use of them (of course) and their character will not be impugned here.
2. Since we're considering the existence and attributes of God, it helps to know which God we're discussing. Unashamedly parroting the Westminster Confession of Faith, I affirm that "there is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." Much of this will be fleshed out, so to speak, in the forthcoming weeks and months. But I want to establish up front we're not talking about the philosopher's nebulous First Cause, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
3. Constructive comments and sincere questions are welcome, but this is not a debate forum. Obstreperous trollery will not be permitted. My blog, my call.
4. I reserve the right to interrupt (briefly) this study in the event something needing a comment catches my attention.
1. I accept the Old and New Testament Scriptures as inspired and inerrant. Charnock makes frequent use of them (of course) and their character will not be impugned here.
2. Since we're considering the existence and attributes of God, it helps to know which God we're discussing. Unashamedly parroting the Westminster Confession of Faith, I affirm that "there is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." Much of this will be fleshed out, so to speak, in the forthcoming weeks and months. But I want to establish up front we're not talking about the philosopher's nebulous First Cause, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
3. Constructive comments and sincere questions are welcome, but this is not a debate forum. Obstreperous trollery will not be permitted. My blog, my call.
4. I reserve the right to interrupt (briefly) this study in the event something needing a comment catches my attention.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Stephen Charnock's "The Existence and Attributes of God"
Credit Mr. Radcliffe with one thing: He motivated me finally to act on longstanding plans to blog my way through this remarkable Puritan work of theology, largely because the first two discourses of this work deal directly with atheism. To the best of my knowledge, Charnock's work has never been answered, but that is likely because few atheists are aware of it. Perhaps my efforts here may change that (I doubt it).
Who was Stephen Charnock? He was a 17th-century English Puritan divine, meaning a theologian and pastor. Born in 1628, he lived through one of the most tumultuous periods in England's history--its Civil War, temporary experiment with republican government, the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, and the arduous religious conflict that accompanied all that. He had a relationship to the Cromwells in that he served in Ireland as the chaplain to Henry Cromwell, son of the Lord Protector. Not surprisingly, then, the restoration of the monarchy and the religious reaction against Puritanism brought a reversal of fortune for Charnock. He was a victim of the outworkings of the infamous Act of Uniformity passed by a reactionary Parliament after Charles II came to the throne; many worthy men of God lost their livelihoods because they could not in good conscience acquiesce to the anti-Puritan measure. Charnock died at the relatively young age of 52 and did not live to see the religious freedom for Nonconformists gained in the Glorious Revolution that deposed the despotic James II. But he left behind a treasure-trove of theological and spiritual writings, mostly published posthumously; the work we are about to consider is perhaps his magnum opus. Charnock is frequently numbered among the better-known Puritan and Independent greats such as John Owen and Richard Baxter.
The forthcoming journey will be long but eminently worthwhile and, I trust, beneficial to anyone else who wishes to join me. Tomorrow's post will lay out some working rules for our future efforts.
Who was Stephen Charnock? He was a 17th-century English Puritan divine, meaning a theologian and pastor. Born in 1628, he lived through one of the most tumultuous periods in England's history--its Civil War, temporary experiment with republican government, the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, and the arduous religious conflict that accompanied all that. He had a relationship to the Cromwells in that he served in Ireland as the chaplain to Henry Cromwell, son of the Lord Protector. Not surprisingly, then, the restoration of the monarchy and the religious reaction against Puritanism brought a reversal of fortune for Charnock. He was a victim of the outworkings of the infamous Act of Uniformity passed by a reactionary Parliament after Charles II came to the throne; many worthy men of God lost their livelihoods because they could not in good conscience acquiesce to the anti-Puritan measure. Charnock died at the relatively young age of 52 and did not live to see the religious freedom for Nonconformists gained in the Glorious Revolution that deposed the despotic James II. But he left behind a treasure-trove of theological and spiritual writings, mostly published posthumously; the work we are about to consider is perhaps his magnum opus. Charnock is frequently numbered among the better-known Puritan and Independent greats such as John Owen and Richard Baxter.
The forthcoming journey will be long but eminently worthwhile and, I trust, beneficial to anyone else who wishes to join me. Tomorrow's post will lay out some working rules for our future efforts.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Daniel Radcliffe Explains It All for Us
The Parade magazine for today contains, as its cover story, a featured interview of the English actor Daniel Radcliffe, of titular Harry Potter film fame. Mr. Radcliffe is an engaging enough young man, but I have to wonder about the wisdom of asking him questions that produce answers such as this, speaking of his upbringing:
And the interview leaves it at that. Perhaps it would be more fair to Mr. Radcliffe to give him the benefit of the doubt, that a more complete, thoughtful, and probing interview would allow him to develop some of these thoughts. But as provided, they're vapid to the point of absurdity. They certainly reveal a terrible deficiency in his education or (to place blame on his parents) home environment.
Perhaps in a future post I'll take a stab at replying to his statements, but for the moment I wish to ponder the folly we regularly engage in by supplying a platform for celebrities to expound on matters of great import. Do not mistake me. Mr. Radcliffe is entitled to his opinions and to express them when asked. But he is an actor. His thoughts on religion or philosophy or human complexity carry no more weight than those of the mailman, the supermarket cashier, or any number of otherwise anonymous persons who have not starred in a $7.7 billion movie franchise. Yet here he is given space provided in a national publication distributed to hundreds of thousands of American households to make unchallenged statements such as "religion leaves no room for human complexity" as if this is an unassailable truth.
Of course, he's only the latest example of this unhappy aspect of Western pop culture. We regularly hear from all sorts of celebrities pronouncing on the great issues of our times, and typically their expressed thoughts are no better developed than this. And yet the media eat it up and regurgitate it all for the consumption of the rest of us. A most unpalatable intellectual and spiritual diet.
There was never [religious] faith in the house. I think of myself as being
Jewish and Irish, despite the fact that I'm English. My dad [Ulster Protestant]
believes in God, I think. I'm not sure if my mom [Jewish, English] does. I
don't. I have a problem with religion or anything that says, "We have all the
answers," because there's no such thing as "the answers." We're complex. We
change our minds on issues all the time. Religion leaves no room for human
complexity.
And the interview leaves it at that. Perhaps it would be more fair to Mr. Radcliffe to give him the benefit of the doubt, that a more complete, thoughtful, and probing interview would allow him to develop some of these thoughts. But as provided, they're vapid to the point of absurdity. They certainly reveal a terrible deficiency in his education or (to place blame on his parents) home environment.
Perhaps in a future post I'll take a stab at replying to his statements, but for the moment I wish to ponder the folly we regularly engage in by supplying a platform for celebrities to expound on matters of great import. Do not mistake me. Mr. Radcliffe is entitled to his opinions and to express them when asked. But he is an actor. His thoughts on religion or philosophy or human complexity carry no more weight than those of the mailman, the supermarket cashier, or any number of otherwise anonymous persons who have not starred in a $7.7 billion movie franchise. Yet here he is given space provided in a national publication distributed to hundreds of thousands of American households to make unchallenged statements such as "religion leaves no room for human complexity" as if this is an unassailable truth.
Of course, he's only the latest example of this unhappy aspect of Western pop culture. We regularly hear from all sorts of celebrities pronouncing on the great issues of our times, and typically their expressed thoughts are no better developed than this. And yet the media eat it up and regurgitate it all for the consumption of the rest of us. A most unpalatable intellectual and spiritual diet.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Stuck on Stupid
Okay, that's a bit harsh. Blame it on frustration.
Last night while meandering through the Internet I somewhat lazily clicked on an article about a certain pop music figure's new tattoo of an image of Jesus. Aside from obscuring the glaring truth that none of us really knows for certain what Jesus looked like beyond a bare sketch (first century Palestinian Jew, around thirty years old during his active ministry, wore a beard) the article wasn't all that memorable. But as I scrolled through the comments I came across the latest transgression in a recurring Internet meme: some anonymous yahoo ridiculing all the concern about a "mythical figure" from a "made-up book." And he wasn't talking about the pop music icon.
No, I didn't reply, although I might have if the site hadn't required a Facebook or Twitter registration. But if I had it undoubtedly would have done absolutely no good at all. For all its ballyhooed benefits in "education" and "knowledge provision" the Internet is also a slough of perpetuated ignorance. What this guy alleged--that Jesus is an ahistorical figure, and the New Testament has the same value as history as the Harry Potter series--is pure nonsense. No serious academic historian doubts the historicity of Jesus. Plenty of critics may call into question various aspects of the New Testament writings but that these books actually refer to a person who really lived in Roman Judea and the Galilee is beyond dispute. Yet there is a small vocal group that feeds upon itself trying to keep this lame idea alive. It is enough to make one despair of mankind's basic rationality.
And then I remember Paul's letter to the Romans, the first chapter, and I am reminded just how desperate is the motivation to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Last night while meandering through the Internet I somewhat lazily clicked on an article about a certain pop music figure's new tattoo of an image of Jesus. Aside from obscuring the glaring truth that none of us really knows for certain what Jesus looked like beyond a bare sketch (first century Palestinian Jew, around thirty years old during his active ministry, wore a beard) the article wasn't all that memorable. But as I scrolled through the comments I came across the latest transgression in a recurring Internet meme: some anonymous yahoo ridiculing all the concern about a "mythical figure" from a "made-up book." And he wasn't talking about the pop music icon.
No, I didn't reply, although I might have if the site hadn't required a Facebook or Twitter registration. But if I had it undoubtedly would have done absolutely no good at all. For all its ballyhooed benefits in "education" and "knowledge provision" the Internet is also a slough of perpetuated ignorance. What this guy alleged--that Jesus is an ahistorical figure, and the New Testament has the same value as history as the Harry Potter series--is pure nonsense. No serious academic historian doubts the historicity of Jesus. Plenty of critics may call into question various aspects of the New Testament writings but that these books actually refer to a person who really lived in Roman Judea and the Galilee is beyond dispute. Yet there is a small vocal group that feeds upon itself trying to keep this lame idea alive. It is enough to make one despair of mankind's basic rationality.
And then I remember Paul's letter to the Romans, the first chapter, and I am reminded just how desperate is the motivation to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Michigan State 33, Georgia 30 in Triple Overtime
Please forgive a personal indulgence but, hey, it's my blog, so I guess I can personally indulge.
My alma mater just came up victorious in its consolation bowl* and gave the Big Ten its lone victory against the SEC today. The whole story is here: http://www.freep.com/article/20120102/SPORTS07/120102032/Michigan-State-33-Georgia-30-3-OT-Spartans-win-Outback-Bowl-blocked-kick?odyssey=tabtopnewstextFRONTPAGE
No more excuses, now. Next year it's the Rose Bowl or bust. Unless it's the BSC Championship...
*Thanks to stupid Wisconsin and the stupid BSC Selection Committee.
My alma mater just came up victorious in its consolation bowl* and gave the Big Ten its lone victory against the SEC today. The whole story is here: http://www.freep.com/article/20120102/SPORTS07/120102032/Michigan-State-33-Georgia-30-3-OT-Spartans-win-Outback-Bowl-blocked-kick?odyssey=tabtopnewstextFRONTPAGE
No more excuses, now. Next year it's the Rose Bowl or bust. Unless it's the BSC Championship...
*Thanks to stupid Wisconsin and the stupid BSC Selection Committee.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Year, New Run at Regular Blogging
Well, we'll see how long it lasts this time, anyway.
Today's Washington Post sports section contains a very interesting column by Sally Jenkins about the media phenomenon of hating on Tim Tebow, the current mostly-successful quarterback of the Denver Broncos and a confessed evangelical Christian who makes no effort to hide his faith, mostly by deeds but sometimes by words. She uses as examples the boorish (a polite term) behavior of the so-called comedian Bill Maher and a radio personality named Bill Press. Both of these gentlemen (I use the term loosely) have employed ugly language recently in referring to Mr. Tebow and his professed religion. Ms. Jenkins calls them to task for it, wondering why it's any skin off their noses that Tebow is an admitted Christian, and more or less tells people to back off.
While I generally appreciate Ms. Jenkins's comments they only go so far toward the truth behind the Tebow-hating. At its root is the sinner's rebellion against God, specifically as it expresses itself in hatred for God's Anointed. Jesus told us to remember that if they hate those who bear the name of Christ, they hated him first. And Paul teaches that the faithful Christian will always be loathed by the world, because he is the smell of death to them--he reminds them that death comes and there will be an accounting, and the sinner hates being accountable to God.
It is no good trying to accommodate the "cultured despisers." One way or another they will still hate and they will excuse themselves in the doing of it.
Today's Washington Post sports section contains a very interesting column by Sally Jenkins about the media phenomenon of hating on Tim Tebow, the current mostly-successful quarterback of the Denver Broncos and a confessed evangelical Christian who makes no effort to hide his faith, mostly by deeds but sometimes by words. She uses as examples the boorish (a polite term) behavior of the so-called comedian Bill Maher and a radio personality named Bill Press. Both of these gentlemen (I use the term loosely) have employed ugly language recently in referring to Mr. Tebow and his professed religion. Ms. Jenkins calls them to task for it, wondering why it's any skin off their noses that Tebow is an admitted Christian, and more or less tells people to back off.
While I generally appreciate Ms. Jenkins's comments they only go so far toward the truth behind the Tebow-hating. At its root is the sinner's rebellion against God, specifically as it expresses itself in hatred for God's Anointed. Jesus told us to remember that if they hate those who bear the name of Christ, they hated him first. And Paul teaches that the faithful Christian will always be loathed by the world, because he is the smell of death to them--he reminds them that death comes and there will be an accounting, and the sinner hates being accountable to God.
It is no good trying to accommodate the "cultured despisers." One way or another they will still hate and they will excuse themselves in the doing of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
