Take Thought....

In his blog Pure Church, Thabiti Anyabwile agues for no pictures of God. Period. I agree and am glad to see the post. It is not a popular position. Or, rather, people hardly think about it. But now that we are taking a second look at Calvinism (which had largely gone out of style) lets look again at this issue. J.I. Packer actually quotes John Calvin.

The likeness of things in heaven (sun, moon, stars), and in earth (people, animals, birds, insects), and in the sea (fish, mammals, crustaceans), is precisely not a likeness of their Creator. "A true image of God," wrote Calvin, "is not to be found in all the world; and hence... His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form.... Therefore, to devise any image of God is itself impious; because by this corruption His majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is."

The point here is not just that an image represents God as having a body and parts, whereas in reality he has neither. If this were the only ground of objection to images, representations of Christ would be blameless. But the point really goes much deeper. The heart of the objection to pictures and images is that they inevitably conceal most, if not all, of the truth about the personal nature and character of the divine Being whom they represent.

To illustrate: Aaron made a golden calf (that is, a bull-image). It was meant as a visible symbol of Jehovah, the mighty God who had brought Israel out of Egypt. No doubt the image was thought to honor him, as being a fitting symbol of his great strength. But it is not hard to see that such a symbol in fact insults him, for what idea of his moral character, his righteousness, goodness and patience could one gather from looking at a statue of him as a bull? Thus Aaron's image hid Jehovah's glory.

In a similar way, the pathos of the crucifix obscures the glory of Christ, for it hides the fact of his deity, his victory on the cross, and his present kingdom. It displays his human weakness, but it conceals his divine strength; it depicts the reality of his pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of his joy and his power. In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy of most of all because of what it fails to display. And so are all other visible representations of deity.

Whatever we may think of religious art from a cultural standpoint, we should not look to pictures of God to show us his glory and move us to worship; for his glory is precisely what such pictures can never show us. And this is why God added to the second commandment a reference to himself as "jealous" to avenge himself on those who disobey him: for God's "jealousy" in the Bible is his zeal to maintain his own glory, which is jeopardized when images are used in worship.

In Isaiah 40:18, after vividly declaring God's immeasurable greatness, the Scripture asks us: "To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare to him?" The question does not expect an answer, only a chastened silence. Its purpose is to remind us that it is as absurd as it is impious to think that an image modeled, as images must be, upon some creature could be an acceptable likeness of the Creator.

Feelings

Measure not God's love and favor by your own feelings. The sun shines as clearly in the darkest day as it does in the brightest. The difference is not in the sun, but in some clouds which hinder the manifestation of the light thereof.

Sibbes, Richard

When brethren dwell in sweet unity....

Doug Wilson came to speak at the Desiring God Conference in Minneapolis last weekend. Here is his gracious thanks for the invitation.

Thanks in a Bundle
Topic: Shameless Appeals

The Desiring God 2009 conference ended yesterday, and last night a special roundtable discussion on eschatology was held at Bethlehem Baptist. The whole time has been wonderful, and I wanted to state publicly what a privilege it was to be invited to participate, and I wanted to thank John Piper in particular. As you might guess, he took some heat for issuing the invitation, but throughout has been a model of fair-mindedness, an example for how accurate and respectful disagreement should be conducted, and a most gracious host. The other speakers were gracious and kind as well -- Marvin Olasky, Mark Talbot, Sam Storms, Julius Kim -- and Nancy and I enjoyed warm fellowship throughout the conference. Jim Hamilton was the premill representative in the round table discussion last night, and it was a pleasure getting to meet him as well. I urge you to check out their talks at the conference web site. I wanted to thanks some of the Desiring God and Bethlehem people that I met on this trip -- Joe Rigney, Scott Anderson, Tim Tomlinson, and David Mathis. There is a lot going on here, so I am sure you know there are many others that I have to thank in a bundle.

Ian Murray says somewhere, I think in Revival and Revivalism, that one of the hallmarks of a work of God is an evangelical catholicity. That demeanor is very much in evidence here and, as one of the presbyterians involved in it, I also wanted to acknowledge that the leadership in this particular area is coming from the baptists. But of course, thanks to God for all of it.

Living by principle.

Living by principle means we will not live purely pragmatically. In 1866 Hudson Taylor felt the need for quarters in the city of Hang-chow. They found an ideal place but the owner, sensing their urgency, drove a hard bargain -- one beyond their means.

Now in the words of his son Dr. Howard Taylor: "Sunday, however, intervened--putting a stop as far as the missionaries were concerned to business transactions--and to the surprise of the landlord he saw no more of his would-be tenants. But though they had nothing to say to him apparently, they had much to lay before the Lord. The day was given to prayer, and when on Monday morning his decision was asked it was much more favourable.

"'They must have other houses in view,' he said to himself. 'If I am not careful I shall lose good tenants.'

"With surprising alacrity, after this, he came to terms, so that by Tuesday evening the necessary documents were signed and sealed." ----

God blessed Hudson Taylor's resolve to live by principle.

Thou Shalt Not Slander...

The Westminster Confession of Faith discusses at great length, with precise Biblical support, the ten commandments and what is both forbidden and commanded in each one. If you think there is a commandment that you are not regularly breaking, just read the Confession. The ninth commandment, for example, forbids "misconstructing intentions, words, and actions." In other words, when we do not know someone's intention, we must not jump to conclusions. If there is any jumping to do, Paul tells us in I Cor. that love "believes all things"; that is, love puts the BEST construction on others words and actions and thoughts.

Where does that put the so-called hate crimes? Doesn't such legislation call for prosecution based on someone's intentions? Such legislation is immoral.

Get Creation magazine

The ministry that produces Creation magazine, CMI, recently got this letter:

Dear CMI,

I cannot express my gratitude in words. I became a Christian three years ago after struggling with thoughts of suicide due to my atheistic beliefs.

Your ministry truly saved my life.

I was raised in a secular home, and surrounded by atheistic propaganda from an early age, whether it be from school or the media. Unsurprisingly, I became an atheist at the age of 12.

As the years passed and I truly tried to understand the world around me, I discovered a horrifying truth that had been hidden from me, hidden from everyone.

This is the reason I am writing this letter, as even in your excellent articles on atheism, you do not truly reveal the extent to which the atheists deceive everyone, even themselves.

As the years passed and I truly tried to understand the world around me, I discovered a horrifying truth that had been hidden from me, hidden from everyone.

Atheists often say that they can truly live a happy, fulfilling life. Yet this is a lie, a deception which damns millions of souls to darkness.

While you revealed much in your articles, you have not destroyed the root.

Simply put, atheism destroys the possibility of personal identity, choice, and objective and subjective meaning.

Atheism inescapably leads to naturalism, and from naturalism follows atheism’s great skeleton which its followers try to keep hidden; determinism.

Determinism is inescapable if one is a naturalist, as all that exists is material and has come about by purely natural processes.

This means then, that the mind of man, our greatest treasure, is reducible to material bound by physical laws; namely, our thoughts, feelings, and actions are reducible to reactions of chemicals in the brain.

Few people realize, then, that this destroys all that makes us human. Namely; if our thoughts, feelings, and actions are simply chemical reactions in the brain, those reactions are simply the by-products of prior reactions forming an unbreakable chain which leads to the very beginning of the universe.

This means then, that whatever we do, we do because we have to. We cannot do anything other than what we do, it simply isn’t possible.

All actions are the result of prior actions in an unbreakable chain. We are no different than a cog in a watch or a falling domino.

… atheism is utterly horrific! Sadly, most atheists are unaware of these things! I believe if they truly understood the consequences of what they believed, they would reconsider their position.

There is no difference between the embrace of a loving husband and the violence of a vicious rapist, the actions of a doctor trying to save a life and the mass murderer who kills at whim, the actions of our greatest leaders and the inaction of a lazy sluggard.

Both are totally the same in atheism.

Objective meaning is non-existent, and subjective meaning is incoherent! Would we say the action of a robot picking up a glass bottle has any meaning, value, or significance? Of course not! It’s simply doing what it has to! It can do nothing else!

In what sense can an atheist say that he as a person truly exists? The material which composes our body is recycled every seven years, and our consciousness seems to cease every time we go to bed. So in what sense is the mass of matter that wakes up in the morning the same person as the one who went to bed the night before?

As you can see, atheism is utterly horrific! Sadly, most atheists are unaware of these things! I believe if they truly understood the consequences of what they believed, they would reconsider their position.

I know I did,

God bless.

Justin S., United States

As fresh as the day he was brought into the light of God's gospel

To the very last days of his life, John Calvin remained deeply thankful for God's grace in converting him. Here is an excerpt from his last will and testament (1564):

"I have no other defense or refuge for salvation than His gratuitous adoption, on which alone my salvation depends. With my whole soul I embrace the mercy which He has exercised towards me through Jesus Christ, atoning for my sins with the merits of His death and passion, that in this way He might satisfy for all my crimes and faults, and blot them from His remembrance. I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat. I likewise declare, that, according to the measure of grace and goodness which the Lord hath employed towards me, I have endeavored, both in my sermons and also in my writings and commentaries, to preach His Word purely and chastely, and faithfully to interpret His sacred Scriptures."

Now here is a questions: To what extend did his incredible fruitfulness stem from his cultivating a deep thankfulness for salvation?

And another question: Could someone get converted simply by reading your last will and testament?