Brooke Fraser – “Nothing But the Blood of Jesus”
January 30, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Another song by Brooke Fraser (Hillsong). May you continually experience the forgiving grace of our Lord Jesus! What other hope do we have?
Sieger Köder, “God’s Bride”
January 30, 2009 § Leave a Comment
About 14 years ago I walked into a bookstore in Ingolstadt, Germany, and for the first time encountered the art of Sieger Köder. I was immediately attracted to his work, so much so that I bought a huge calendar with Köder’s artistry. Here is one of his wonderful paintings.
Hugo Simberg, “The Wounded Angel”
January 29, 2009 § 4 Comments
My friend and colleague here at Andrews University John Markovic recently pointed me to the following painting by Hugo Simberg. It somehow rattled me and I can’t get it out of my mind. I find it quite surreal, actually. What is your take on it?
Charnock on “Practical Atheism”
January 29, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Some of you are familiar with my fondness for Puritan theology. At its best, Puritanism presents a vision of the Christian life that combines intellectual depth and fierce devotion. It has a big God worthy of worship, is deeply serious about human sinfulness, and yet is profusive about the stupendous scope of God’s grace.
Just the other day I grappled with the words written by Stephen Charnock (1628-1680). He was a Puritan theologian whose massive work The Existence and Attributes of God was published posthumously in 1682. What a work! Just read the following found in the section “Practical Atheism” on page 93:
Every sin invades the rights of God, and strips him of one or other of his perfections. It is such a vilifying of God as if he were not God; as if he were not the supreme Creator and Benefactor of the world; as if we had not our being from him; as if the air we breathed in, the food we lived by, were our own by right of supremacy, not of donation… Sin implies that God is unworthy of a being. Every sin is a kind of cursing God in the heart; an aim at the destruction of the being of God; not actually, but virtually; not in the intention of every sinner, but in the nature of every sin. That affection which excites a man to break His law, would excite him to annihilate his being if it were in his power. A man in every sin aims to set up his own will as his rule, and his own glory as the end of his actions against the will and glory of God; and could a sinner attain his end, God would be destroyed.
John Piper Is Bad – And So Are YOU!
January 28, 2009 § Leave a Comment
This is what I call solid theology… Michael Jackson notwithstanding.
-
Edwards – What the Devil Would Never Do
January 28, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Jonathan Edwards was continually trying to refine his understanding of true conversion and revival. At the end of his The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God he provides the following summary of what Satan would certainly NOT induce us towards:
There are some of these things the Devil would not do if he could. Thus, he would not awaken the conscience, and make men sensible of their miserable state by nature, by reason of sin, and sensible of their great need of a Saviour: and he would not confirm men in a belief that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Saviour of sinners, or raise men’s value and esteem of him: he would not beget in men’s minds an opinion of the necessity, usefulness and truth of the Holy Scriptures, or incline them to hearken to them, or make much use of them; nor would he go about to show men the truth, in things that concern their souls’ interest; to undeceive them, and lead them out of darkness into light, and give them a view of things as they are indeed. And there are other things that the Devil neither can nor will do: he will not give men a spirit of divine love, or Christian humility and poverty of spirit; nor could he if he would. He can’t give those things which he has not himself; these things are as contrary as possible to his nature…
