Limited Atonement
What flows from the total depravity of man and the unconditional election of God is an atonement that is limited to those whom Christ has chosen. If Christ has come into the world to save every individual without exception, then the Person whom we worship is a defeated Savior. If indeed God has purposed to atone for the sins of all without exception, and not just the many He has elected, He is unsuccessful in His attempt at this endeavor. Spurgeon is just as passionate about this truth then all of the others. He believes that the purpose in Christ’s death and resurrection was to save the Lord’s people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) and accomplished perfection for those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). Jesus’ crucifixion did not make salvation possible, it actualized salvation, made it a reality for His people. And if it is a reality and will bring about the obedience of faith and not all believe, then the extent of the atonement must be limited to the elect.
Spurgeon interprets Isaiah 53:10 along these same lines. When the Scriptures speak of the Messiah “seeing His seed” and “justifying many,” it is not speaking of general possibilities. “Shalls” and “Wills” actualize it and make it a certainty. The purpose for which Christ came was certain and fixed: to redeem His own and actualize it, not to open the possibility for men to actualize it by their ultimate self-determination. This bold preacher was not afraid of being called a Calvinist for supporting such a truth either: “I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.”[1]
Key to Spurgeon’s gospel call and evangelical witness was to have this in mind. Confidence in the gospel and in the atonement of Christ in actually saving and not ultimately depending on the determination of man was central to belief in the saving working of God. We do not know who is elect, who is atoned for, or what the precise extent of the atonement is. What we do know is that Christ will save those who call upon His name, and thus going into all the world and teaching those things which have been commanded (Matthew 28:18-20) is necessary. In fact, if the opposite position is held that Christ died for everyone, consistency calls for little, if any comfort.
“The limit of it is just this: He hath died for sinners; whoever in this congregation inwardly and sorrowfully knows himself to be a sinner, Christ died for him; whoever seeks Christ, shall know Christ died for him; for our sense of need of Christ, and our seeking after Christ, are infallible proofs that Christ died for us…The Arminian says Christ died for him; and then, poor man, he has but small consolation therefore, for he says, ‘Ah! Christ died for me; that does not prove much. It only proves I may be saved if I mind what I am after. I may perhaps forget myself; I may run into sin and I may perish…But the man who receives the Bible as it is, he says, ‘Christ died for me, then my eternal life is sure. I know,’ says he, ‘that Christ can not be punished in a man’s stead, and the man be punished afterwards.’”[2]
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 4—“The Death of Christ” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 219.
[2]Ibid, 219.
Monday, May 3
The Calvinistic Thought Behind the Evangelistic Practice of C. H. Spurgeon--Part Two
Unconditional Election
Because men are dead in their trespasses and sins due of the Fall and cannot believe due to their sinful hearts, it logically follows that if one is to be saved, it does not happen haphazardly. If one is to choose the Christ of the Scriptures, such a choice must come from God ultimately, not man. This truth is manifest in the Bible, and not just a logical inference. “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain…” (John 15:16).
The fact that this election is unconditional or not based on anything in man, seen or foreseen (including future decisions of faith) is evident in Romans 9:11, 16: “for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger’…So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Spurgeon argued that such passages demonstrated the absoluteness of this election:
“If men can not be justified by the works of the law, it seems to us pretty clear that they can not be elected by the works of the law…Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. ‘But,’ say others, ‘God elected them on the foresight of their faith.’ Now, God gives faith, therefore he could not have elected them on account of faith, which he foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a shilling; that I elected him to have the shilling, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense…Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from him. Therefore it can not have caused him to elect men, because it is his gift.”[1]
The implications of such a reality are clear to Spurgeon. This doctrine may frighten some, but it should embolden Christians for one and humble man since they have nothing to offer to God—even their faith is a result of the eternal purpose of God.
“But, I say, take courage, take hope, O thou sinner, that there is election. So far from dispiriting and discouraging thee, it is a very hopeful and joyous thing that there is an election. What if I told thee perhaps none can be saved, none are ordained to eternal life, wouldst thou not tremble and fold thy hands in hopelessness, and say, ‘Then how can I be saved, since none are elect?’…What though there is an allotted number, yet it is true that all who seek belong to that number.”[2]
Unconditional election was not a hindrance to the gospel calls of Spurgeon by any means. Instead he saw that belief was still a necessary requisite for salvation and those that were to believe would be the elect. God moves in and through the calls for trust in the Messiah to work His purposes and effectually call His elect. To this preacher, there was no reason to abandon the theological truth of election, thinking that it may cause some to be apathetic. On the contrary, this doctrine sent Spurgeon to show the complete failure of man, even with regard to decisions, and show the complete sovereignty of God, even as it relates to calling a people for His own treasured possession. By doing so, those who are truly elect will indeed see their sin as an abomination and turn to the Redeemer for forgiveness.
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 2—“Election” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 77.
[2]Ibid, 86.
Because men are dead in their trespasses and sins due of the Fall and cannot believe due to their sinful hearts, it logically follows that if one is to be saved, it does not happen haphazardly. If one is to choose the Christ of the Scriptures, such a choice must come from God ultimately, not man. This truth is manifest in the Bible, and not just a logical inference. “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain…” (John 15:16).
The fact that this election is unconditional or not based on anything in man, seen or foreseen (including future decisions of faith) is evident in Romans 9:11, 16: “for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger’…So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Spurgeon argued that such passages demonstrated the absoluteness of this election:
“If men can not be justified by the works of the law, it seems to us pretty clear that they can not be elected by the works of the law…Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. ‘But,’ say others, ‘God elected them on the foresight of their faith.’ Now, God gives faith, therefore he could not have elected them on account of faith, which he foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a shilling; that I elected him to have the shilling, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense…Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from him. Therefore it can not have caused him to elect men, because it is his gift.”[1]
The implications of such a reality are clear to Spurgeon. This doctrine may frighten some, but it should embolden Christians for one and humble man since they have nothing to offer to God—even their faith is a result of the eternal purpose of God.
“But, I say, take courage, take hope, O thou sinner, that there is election. So far from dispiriting and discouraging thee, it is a very hopeful and joyous thing that there is an election. What if I told thee perhaps none can be saved, none are ordained to eternal life, wouldst thou not tremble and fold thy hands in hopelessness, and say, ‘Then how can I be saved, since none are elect?’…What though there is an allotted number, yet it is true that all who seek belong to that number.”[2]
Unconditional election was not a hindrance to the gospel calls of Spurgeon by any means. Instead he saw that belief was still a necessary requisite for salvation and those that were to believe would be the elect. God moves in and through the calls for trust in the Messiah to work His purposes and effectually call His elect. To this preacher, there was no reason to abandon the theological truth of election, thinking that it may cause some to be apathetic. On the contrary, this doctrine sent Spurgeon to show the complete failure of man, even with regard to decisions, and show the complete sovereignty of God, even as it relates to calling a people for His own treasured possession. By doing so, those who are truly elect will indeed see their sin as an abomination and turn to the Redeemer for forgiveness.
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 2—“Election” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 77.
[2]Ibid, 86.
The Calvinistic Thought Behind the Evangelistic Practice of C. H. Spurgeon--Part One
A man known by many to be “the prince of preachers” lived his life after conversion for the sake of the gospel. Without reservation, C. H. Spurgeon bid men and women to come to Christ alone for salvation from sin and death into the joy of heaven, and he did so with a theological robust framework bent to the doctrines of grace that he found in the Scriptures. Apart from the theological underpinnings of man’s utter depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, Spurgeon saw attempts at evangelism and discipleship not only to be hampered, but futile. While many may question how one can preach these doctrines otherwise known as the “Five Points of Calvinism” and still be centered on the conversion of the heathen, the inconsistency of one’s belief as it relates to one’s practice is laid on the side of those holding to the ultimate self-determination of man. And this fact is argued cogently by Spurgeon.
The nineteenth century English preacher preached eloquently. The voice and pen of Spurgeon was unrivaled in his day. To be sure, if anyone could draw a crowd, it was this man. After humble beginnings, thousands attended his sermons every week by the time of his death, and many more read his published works. Yet for all of his artistic metaphors, all of his logical arguments, all of his articulate, fluid speech, Spurgeon was confident that he could not persuade the unbeliever to believe. He was convinced that he could only be the instrument in God’s bringing many persons to faith. Winning souls to faith is a miracle that cannot be wrought by the most lucid sermon, or the most fervent study of anyone. One’s intellectual capacity, background, geographic location, or propensities cannot bring about trust in the Redeemer, either. The trees of missions and evangelism find their nutrients from the roots of the sovereignty of God, not the abilities of man. Far from being an isolated ideological construction, Spurgeon saw that thinking properly about God and man encourages the fainthearted, humbles the proud, and glorifies Jesus. For this end he toiled, to bring about the obedience of faith for the unbeliever, and to bring about confidence and motivation for the believer.
Man's Depravity
Throughout his sermons and writings, Spurgeon opined that man’s natural state inhibits him from seeking Christ and believing the gospel. Because of man’s original sin of falling in Adam it is not only difficult to believe, it is impossible apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Man is totally depraved—that is, all of his capacities, the will included, have been aversely affected by the Fall—and is subject to condemnation. The preacher saw in the Scriptures language like men being “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and having “hearts of stone” (Ezekiel 36:26) needed to be replaced by hearts of flesh. These hearts of stone cannot come to Christ, “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8 [emphasis mine]).
Indeed, Paul’s language of sinners being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1, 5) is consistent with the words of Jesus: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). This reality, far from discouraging Spurgeon, propelled him into gospel ministry and soul-winning:
“Our object is to turn the world upside down; or, in other words, that where sin abounded grace may much more abound. We are aiming at a miracle: it is well to settle that at the commencement. Some brethren think that they ought to lower their note to the spiritual ability of the hearer; but this is a mistake…I command men in the name of Jesus to repent and believe the gospel, though I know they can do nothing of the kind apart from the grace of God; for I am not sent to work according to what my private reason might suggest, but according to the orders of my Lord and Master. Ours is the miraculous method which comes of the endowment of the Spirit of God, who bids His ministers perform wonders in the name of the holy child Jesus. We are sent to say to blind eyes, ‘See,’ to deaf ears, ‘Hear,’ to dead hearts, ‘Live,’ and even to Lazarus rotting in that grave, wherein, by this time, he stinketh—‘Lazarus, come forth.’ Dare we do this? We shall be wise to begin with the conviction that we are utterly powerless for this unless our Master has sent us, and is with us. But if He that sent us is with us, all things are possible to him that believeth.”[1]
The command of Jesus to go forth and preach the gospel was enough for Spurgeon to desire to evangelize, believing that God would be with him to the very end (Matthew 28:20). Although “they can do nothing of the kind apart from the grace of God,” the words spoken by him in sharing the gospel he saw to be the means that would fulfill the end of salvation of those whom God has chosen. It is for this reason that he speaks of the “miraculous method which comes of the endowment of the Spirit of God.” In speaking specifically to his students, Spurgeon makes this manifest as well, saying that we should take great care in communicating the gospel well.[2] Even though men are powerless to believe, the Spirit has infinite power to raise both the physically dead and the spiritually dead.
“We cannot raise the dead…It is true that we by ourselves cannot bring the dead hearts of our scholars to palpitate with spiritual life, but a Paul or an Apollos would have been equally as powerless. Need this fact discourage us? Does it not rather direct us to our true power by shutting us out from our own fancied might?”[3]
The preacher or evangelist or missionary, then, has a task which is not dependent on eloquence or the intelligence or the will-power of the unbeliever, but rather on the Almighty hand of God, who works through means to accomplish His ends.
[1]C. H. Spurgeon., The Soul-Winner: Or, How to Lead Sinners to the Saviour (Fleming H. Revell Company: New York, NY), 160-161.
[2]C. H. Spurgeon., Lectures to my Students (Christian Focus Publications, Ltd.), 242.
[3]C. H. Spurgeon., The Soul-Winner; Or, How to Lead Sinners to the Saviour (Fleming H. Revell Company: New York, NY), 141-142.
The nineteenth century English preacher preached eloquently. The voice and pen of Spurgeon was unrivaled in his day. To be sure, if anyone could draw a crowd, it was this man. After humble beginnings, thousands attended his sermons every week by the time of his death, and many more read his published works. Yet for all of his artistic metaphors, all of his logical arguments, all of his articulate, fluid speech, Spurgeon was confident that he could not persuade the unbeliever to believe. He was convinced that he could only be the instrument in God’s bringing many persons to faith. Winning souls to faith is a miracle that cannot be wrought by the most lucid sermon, or the most fervent study of anyone. One’s intellectual capacity, background, geographic location, or propensities cannot bring about trust in the Redeemer, either. The trees of missions and evangelism find their nutrients from the roots of the sovereignty of God, not the abilities of man. Far from being an isolated ideological construction, Spurgeon saw that thinking properly about God and man encourages the fainthearted, humbles the proud, and glorifies Jesus. For this end he toiled, to bring about the obedience of faith for the unbeliever, and to bring about confidence and motivation for the believer.
Man's Depravity
Throughout his sermons and writings, Spurgeon opined that man’s natural state inhibits him from seeking Christ and believing the gospel. Because of man’s original sin of falling in Adam it is not only difficult to believe, it is impossible apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Man is totally depraved—that is, all of his capacities, the will included, have been aversely affected by the Fall—and is subject to condemnation. The preacher saw in the Scriptures language like men being “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and having “hearts of stone” (Ezekiel 36:26) needed to be replaced by hearts of flesh. These hearts of stone cannot come to Christ, “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8 [emphasis mine]).
Indeed, Paul’s language of sinners being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1, 5) is consistent with the words of Jesus: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). This reality, far from discouraging Spurgeon, propelled him into gospel ministry and soul-winning:
“Our object is to turn the world upside down; or, in other words, that where sin abounded grace may much more abound. We are aiming at a miracle: it is well to settle that at the commencement. Some brethren think that they ought to lower their note to the spiritual ability of the hearer; but this is a mistake…I command men in the name of Jesus to repent and believe the gospel, though I know they can do nothing of the kind apart from the grace of God; for I am not sent to work according to what my private reason might suggest, but according to the orders of my Lord and Master. Ours is the miraculous method which comes of the endowment of the Spirit of God, who bids His ministers perform wonders in the name of the holy child Jesus. We are sent to say to blind eyes, ‘See,’ to deaf ears, ‘Hear,’ to dead hearts, ‘Live,’ and even to Lazarus rotting in that grave, wherein, by this time, he stinketh—‘Lazarus, come forth.’ Dare we do this? We shall be wise to begin with the conviction that we are utterly powerless for this unless our Master has sent us, and is with us. But if He that sent us is with us, all things are possible to him that believeth.”[1]
The command of Jesus to go forth and preach the gospel was enough for Spurgeon to desire to evangelize, believing that God would be with him to the very end (Matthew 28:20). Although “they can do nothing of the kind apart from the grace of God,” the words spoken by him in sharing the gospel he saw to be the means that would fulfill the end of salvation of those whom God has chosen. It is for this reason that he speaks of the “miraculous method which comes of the endowment of the Spirit of God.” In speaking specifically to his students, Spurgeon makes this manifest as well, saying that we should take great care in communicating the gospel well.[2] Even though men are powerless to believe, the Spirit has infinite power to raise both the physically dead and the spiritually dead.
“We cannot raise the dead…It is true that we by ourselves cannot bring the dead hearts of our scholars to palpitate with spiritual life, but a Paul or an Apollos would have been equally as powerless. Need this fact discourage us? Does it not rather direct us to our true power by shutting us out from our own fancied might?”[3]
The preacher or evangelist or missionary, then, has a task which is not dependent on eloquence or the intelligence or the will-power of the unbeliever, but rather on the Almighty hand of God, who works through means to accomplish His ends.
[1]C. H. Spurgeon., The Soul-Winner: Or, How to Lead Sinners to the Saviour (Fleming H. Revell Company: New York, NY), 160-161.
[2]C. H. Spurgeon., Lectures to my Students (Christian Focus Publications, Ltd.), 242.
[3]C. H. Spurgeon., The Soul-Winner; Or, How to Lead Sinners to the Saviour (Fleming H. Revell Company: New York, NY), 141-142.
Bertrand Russell's Atheism Part Two
Secondly, Russell takes on the natural law argument which states that nature behaves in a uniform fashion, not a random one; scientific analysis and observation lends itself to assuming certain laws like that of thermodynamics and gravity and motion that could not be got over through chance. Instead these laws presuppose a Lawgiver, namely God. Reasoning in such a manner to Russell demonstrated certain fallacies that were conducive to proving atheism. He first indicated that the existence of these laws was more or less the existence of statistical averages that emerge from chance, the prime example of this fact being the movement and behavior of the atoms which are random, not orderly. Yet, he later contradicts himself while combating the idea of free will theism saying that while atoms are somewhat random, the visible movement of atoms as played out in motion demonstrate "old laws" that show a necessary action based on physics, not a free one based on the will of the individual. This verifies the inconsistency in Russell's argumentation.
Also, the basis of such an argument sets up a false dichotomy between natural laws, and laws given by humans, says Russell. Judicial laws presuppose a human lawgiver because they concern the human sphere. Natural laws on the other hand are mere descriptions of how things happen. At the same time, this descriptor language could be applied to human laws as well. If one commits a certain reaction like murder, one will get a certain reaction, like the death penalty; it is a mere description of what happens. So the issue for Russell then is semantics because while the laws of motion, for instance, describe what will occur when an object is put into motion, the law still presuppose not a random chain of events, but instead one that is based upon an orderly world. Otherwise, there is no need to speak of physics or make inquiries into the subject if perchance the actions of the universe have no basis. The whole process of observing and inferring logical constructions from the experience and perception indicated becomes a fruitless project if those logical constructions are random and not orderly and binding, for then their probability is even less certain. But to Russell, the possibility still is more likely that these so-called laws are random events rather than ordered processes handed down from a Lawgiver. Once again, he seems to be inferring things that are not based on his own system of logical analysis.
Finally, Russell reasons that such a position demonstrates the holes in the logic of the believer. For if one says that there is a reason God gives laws, which almost inevitably Christians would say, then a law must exist outside of the divine edict, hence such a divine edict is ultimate, not the lawgiver Himself. This fails to bend the debate toward his side as well. For the Christian maintains that the greates end to the law is the glorification of God, which is the truest expression of what is right and beautiful. Thus, God Himself becomes the ultimate reality and the ultimate expression of goodness. Right and wrong are based upon what honors Him most and what runs counter to His character. Thus, Russell has insufficiently caused doubt based on his supposed rebuttal of the natural law argument.
[1] Bertrand Russell., Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon and Schuster, Inc.: New York, NY), 39.
Also, the basis of such an argument sets up a false dichotomy between natural laws, and laws given by humans, says Russell. Judicial laws presuppose a human lawgiver because they concern the human sphere. Natural laws on the other hand are mere descriptions of how things happen. At the same time, this descriptor language could be applied to human laws as well. If one commits a certain reaction like murder, one will get a certain reaction, like the death penalty; it is a mere description of what happens. So the issue for Russell then is semantics because while the laws of motion, for instance, describe what will occur when an object is put into motion, the law still presuppose not a random chain of events, but instead one that is based upon an orderly world. Otherwise, there is no need to speak of physics or make inquiries into the subject if perchance the actions of the universe have no basis. The whole process of observing and inferring logical constructions from the experience and perception indicated becomes a fruitless project if those logical constructions are random and not orderly and binding, for then their probability is even less certain. But to Russell, the possibility still is more likely that these so-called laws are random events rather than ordered processes handed down from a Lawgiver. Once again, he seems to be inferring things that are not based on his own system of logical analysis.
Finally, Russell reasons that such a position demonstrates the holes in the logic of the believer. For if one says that there is a reason God gives laws, which almost inevitably Christians would say, then a law must exist outside of the divine edict, hence such a divine edict is ultimate, not the lawgiver Himself. This fails to bend the debate toward his side as well. For the Christian maintains that the greates end to the law is the glorification of God, which is the truest expression of what is right and beautiful. Thus, God Himself becomes the ultimate reality and the ultimate expression of goodness. Right and wrong are based upon what honors Him most and what runs counter to His character. Thus, Russell has insufficiently caused doubt based on his supposed rebuttal of the natural law argument.
[1] Bertrand Russell., Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon and Schuster, Inc.: New York, NY), 39.
Tuesday, January 5
Discovering the Gospel Afresh for the New Year
A great way to start the new year is to remember where we came from and where we are going so that we keep our eyes fixed on Jesus the author and perfector of our faith." John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress does exactly that, so I have found it to be a yearly tradition to read his allegory and discover the gospel afresh. By doing so the trials and temptations of life fall in the backdrop of the glorious message of God's forgiveness of sinners in Christ every year. And with many new sorrows and joys coming to me and to you every new year, this may be a helpful excerpt:
"Here then is a righteousness that Christ, as God, as man, as God-man, has no need of, with reference to himself, and therefore he can spare it; a justifying righteousness that he for himself wanteth not, and therefore he giveth it away, hence 'tis called the 'gift of righteousness.' This righteousness, since Christ Jesus the Lord has made himself under the Law, must be given away; for the Law doth not only bind him that its under it to do justly, but to use charity...And thus, Christiana, and Mercy, and the rest of you that are here, doth your pardon come by deed, or by the work of another man. Your Lord Christ is he that has worked, and has given away what he wrought for to the next poor beggar he meets.
But again, in order to pardon by deed, there must something be paid to God as a price, as well as something prepared to cover us withal. Sin has delivered us up to the just curse of a righteous law; now from this curse we must be justified by way of redemption, a price being paid for the harms we have done, and this is by the blood of your Lord, who came and stood in your place and stead, and died your death for your transgressions. Thus has he ransomed you from your transgressions by blood, and covered your polluted and deformed souls with righteousness. For the sake of which, God passeth by you, and will not hurt you when he comes to judge the world."
(John Bunyan in Pilgrims Progress, page 184, 185)
"Here then is a righteousness that Christ, as God, as man, as God-man, has no need of, with reference to himself, and therefore he can spare it; a justifying righteousness that he for himself wanteth not, and therefore he giveth it away, hence 'tis called the 'gift of righteousness.' This righteousness, since Christ Jesus the Lord has made himself under the Law, must be given away; for the Law doth not only bind him that its under it to do justly, but to use charity...And thus, Christiana, and Mercy, and the rest of you that are here, doth your pardon come by deed, or by the work of another man. Your Lord Christ is he that has worked, and has given away what he wrought for to the next poor beggar he meets.
But again, in order to pardon by deed, there must something be paid to God as a price, as well as something prepared to cover us withal. Sin has delivered us up to the just curse of a righteous law; now from this curse we must be justified by way of redemption, a price being paid for the harms we have done, and this is by the blood of your Lord, who came and stood in your place and stead, and died your death for your transgressions. Thus has he ransomed you from your transgressions by blood, and covered your polluted and deformed souls with righteousness. For the sake of which, God passeth by you, and will not hurt you when he comes to judge the world."
(John Bunyan in Pilgrims Progress, page 184, 185)
Wednesday, December 30
Bertrand Russell's Atheism Part One
If indeed truth propositions and reality can only be perceived through the logical constructions of the physical world as manifest in and through experience, the existence of God seems unrealistic at best to Russell. To the atheistic philosopher the reasons to embrace the existence of God do not follow the principles of logic and do not seem to be true to human experience or inferences upon such experience. Russell tackles the theistic reasons for the existence of God in many of his books and essays, the most famous of which is his essay that was originally given as a lecture to the National Secular Society in 1927. In his work, he speaks on "the first cause argument" as well as those stemming from natural law, design, morals, and evidences from the history of Christianity.
To begin, combats the idea that theists, most notably Thomas Aquinas, firmly grasp as a logical construction that is valid based on sense experience. That is, as Russell explains, "everything that we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause, you give the name God." This is a weak argument that lacks credence because it naturally begs the question, "Who caused God?" If everything has a cause, God must have a cause as well, says Russell.
But this is an insufficient way of looking at the theistic viewpoint. Frederick Copleston posed the first cause argument in more explainable terms to Lord Russell in a debate hosted by the BBC on January 28, 1948. In this debate, Russell reasserted his viewpoint that he does not find it necessary that the universe had a cause, and if there was a ground, Russell would listen to it. Copelston replied, "The series of events is either caused or its not caused. If it is caused there must obviously be a cause outside the series. If it's not caused, then it's sufficient to itself. And if it's sufficient to itself, then it is what I call, necessary. But it can't be necessary, since each member is contingent, and we've agreed that the total is no reality apart from the members. Therefore, it can't be necessary...the statement, 'the world is simply there and is inexplicable' can't beget out of logical analysis."
Ironically, Copleston seems to be more analytic than the founder of analytic philosophy.
[1]Bertrand Russell., Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon and Schuster, Inc.: New York, NY), 6.
[1] Frederick C. Copelston, Bertrand Russell, Frederick C. Copelston vs. Bertrand Russel. BBC Third Programme Recording (1948), part 2 [on-line]; accessed 18 November 2009; available from http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS219US220&q=bertrand%20russell%20atheism%20debate&um=1&ie=UTF8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS219US220&q=bertrand+russell+atheism+debate&um=1&ie=UTF8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv&qvid=bertrand+russell+atheism+debate&vid=-570402838020470563
To begin, combats the idea that theists, most notably Thomas Aquinas, firmly grasp as a logical construction that is valid based on sense experience. That is, as Russell explains, "everything that we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause, you give the name God." This is a weak argument that lacks credence because it naturally begs the question, "Who caused God?" If everything has a cause, God must have a cause as well, says Russell.
But this is an insufficient way of looking at the theistic viewpoint. Frederick Copleston posed the first cause argument in more explainable terms to Lord Russell in a debate hosted by the BBC on January 28, 1948. In this debate, Russell reasserted his viewpoint that he does not find it necessary that the universe had a cause, and if there was a ground, Russell would listen to it. Copelston replied, "The series of events is either caused or its not caused. If it is caused there must obviously be a cause outside the series. If it's not caused, then it's sufficient to itself. And if it's sufficient to itself, then it is what I call, necessary. But it can't be necessary, since each member is contingent, and we've agreed that the total is no reality apart from the members. Therefore, it can't be necessary...the statement, 'the world is simply there and is inexplicable' can't beget out of logical analysis."
Ironically, Copleston seems to be more analytic than the founder of analytic philosophy.
[1]Bertrand Russell., Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon and Schuster, Inc.: New York, NY), 6.
[1] Frederick C. Copelston, Bertrand Russell, Frederick C. Copelston vs. Bertrand Russel. BBC Third Programme Recording (1948), part 2 [on-line]; accessed 18 November 2009; available from http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS219US220&q=bertrand%20russell%20atheism%20debate&um=1&ie=UTF8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS219US220&q=bertrand+russell+atheism+debate&um=1&ie=UTF8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv&qvid=bertrand+russell+atheism+debate&vid=-570402838020470563
Christmas and New Years Hope and Promise
"The glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together"
Isaiah 40:5
"We anticipate the happy day when the whole world shall be converted to Christ; when the gods of the heathen shall be cast to the moles and the bats; when Romanism shall be exploded, and the crescent of Mohammed shall wane, never again to cast its baleful rays upon the nations; when kings shall bow down before the Prince of Peace, and all naitons sahl call their Redeemer blessed. Some despair of this. They look upon the world as a vessel breaking up and going to pieces, never to float again. We know that the world and all that is therein is one day to be burnt up, and afterwards we look for new heavens and for a new earth; but we cannot read our Bibles without the conviction that:
Jesus shall reign where'er the sun
Does his successive journeys run.
We are not discouraged by the length of His delays; we are not disheartened by the long period which He allots to the church in which to struggle with little success and much defeat. We believe that God will never suffer this world, which has once seen Christ's blood shed upon it, to be always the devil's stronghold. Christ came hither to deliver this world from the detested sway of the powers of darkness. What a shout shall that be when men and angels shall unite to cry, 'Hallelujah, hallelujah, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth'! What a satisfaction will it be in that day to have had a share in the fight, to have helped to break the arrows of the bow, and to have aided in winning the victory for our Lord! Happy are they who trust themselves with this conquering Lord, and who fight side by side with Him, doing their little in His name and by His strength! How unhappy are those on the side of evil! It is a losing side, and it is a matter wherein to lose is to lose and to be lost for ever. On whose side are you?"
(Charles Spurgeon, Morning and Evening [Evening Devotion] December 24)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)