Uffdah! Another lame April Fool’s Day gag!

RSS readers won’t get it. Click here to see what you missed.

The following quote is taken from the farewell address of Lemuel Haynes on 24 May, 1818 to the congregation he had served for thirty years.

All gospel ministers know experimentally, in some degree, “the terror of the Lord” and are led to “persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11). The man who does not appreciate the worth of souls and is not greatly affected with their dangerous situation is not qualified for the sacred office. It was the saying of a pious minister who would arise at midnight for prayer, “How can I rest, how can I sleep, when so many of my congregation are exposed every moment to drop in hell!”

—Thabiti Anyabwile, The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors (Crossway, 2007), 56.

The preceding quote applies, of course, to pastors. If a man is not burdened for the souls of his flock, he is not qualified to be their shepherd. But let’s apply this principle more broadly. The Lord Jesus has sent each of us into the world with an assignment: to preach the gospel and make disciples. This is the office to which we are all ordained when we ourselves become disciples. If we are not burdened for the souls around us who are “exposed every moment to drop into hell,” are we worthy of that office?

This Monday, I promised a post on music and legalism. This is it.

I listen to quite an eclectic variety of music. This caused offense to a certain legalist I know, and so, since I’m better in writing than in person, and since I can write without being rudely interrupted, you are now the recipients of this post.

My favorite music, which I’m convinced is nearest thing on earth to what will be played in heaven, is from the late baroque period. Handel and Bach will no doubt head up celestial music department. If you disagree, well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re going to feel awfully silly when (or should I say if?) you get there and learn the truth. But that’s only a narrow slice of my listening range. A quick glance at my mp3 library yields the following names:

Pérotin Claudio Monteverdi Heinrich Schütz J. S. Bach G. F. Handel Antonio Vivaldi Ludwig van Beethoven Johannes Brahms Edvard Grieg Jean Sibelius P. I. Tchaikovsky Giuseppi Verdi Belá Bartók Aaron Copland Ennio Morricone Maurice Ravel Joaquín Rodrigo John Williams Christopher Parkening Yo-Yo Ma Andrea Bocelli Charlotte Church Enrico Caruso

José Carreras Josh Groban Mario Lanza Milva Plácido Domingo Sissel Dean Martin Harry Connick, Jr. Mills Brothers Nat King Cole Perry Como Tony Bennett B. B. King Count Basie Louis Armstrong Ray Charles Wynton Marsalis Lyle Lovett Marty Robbins Dwight Yoakam Tennessee Ernie Ford Gene Autry George Jones

Gordon Lightfoot Hank Snow Hank Williams Jimmie Dale Gilmore Johnny Cash Randy Travis Roy Clark Slim Whitman Dillards Chet Atkins Don McLean Elvis Presley Jimmy Buffet Neil Young Simon & Garfunkel Stray Cats Beatles Huey Lewis Beach Boys Fabulous Thunderbirds Steve Miller Band Three Dog Night ZZ Top

That’s just a partial listing of the classical and pop sections, without going into the religious end.

You’ll notice I don’t say Christian music, but religious (or sacred). That is because I object to the separation of the sacred and secular. All things are under the lordship of Jesus Christ, and no exceptions; but only redeemed souls are Christian. Things and activities are not Christian. Under the umbrella of the lordship of Christ exist both the secular and religious. Both exist for the glory of God.

Here is where the legalist said, “There is no way secular music glorifies God,” to which I am inclined to answer that everything and everyone glorifies God, but not necessarily in a positive way. But I know what he means. He is thinking that only specifically religious expressions can glorify God in a positive way. For the person who is determined that this is true, it’s nearly impossible to convince them otherwise; so I’m not going to try. I’m just going to proceed as though, as any reasonable person knows, it is not. After all, if we are going to forbid secular music, are we also going to forbid all other forms of secular media? What about movies? I don’t know how many times I could stand watching Fireproof! Should our wall hangings be limited to Thomas Kinkade and the like? God help us! But that is where this thinking leads us.

What I am going to do is answer this question: Are there any limitations on what we should listen to? Yes, absolutely, and before I’m finished, you might think I’m a legalist; but I think I can avoid that charge.

My legalist friend was annoyed at my secular listening habits, but what really caused his apoplexy was my “double standard”: I hold religious music to a different standard than secular music. I hold this double standard for both lyrics and music. What follows will be an attempt to explain my basis for judging these things. It is not my intention to lay out any rules, but only to offer for your consideration my attempts at being a discerning listener. I am going to deal first with lyrical content, and then with musical composition.

On Monday . . .

. . . a few scenes from next week’s program:

The Cathedrals
Marty Robbins

In other news, after a week’s absence, I’ve returned to posting On the Web links.

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. (Psalme 122:1 Geneva Bible)

Belonging to Jesus

O Heavenly Father.

Teach me to see
that if Christ has pacified thee and
            satisfied divine justice
      he can also deliver me from my sins;
   that Christ does not desire me, now justified,
      to live in self-confidence in my own strength,
      but gives me the law of the spirit of life
      to enable me to obey thee;
   that the spirit and his power are mine
      by resting on Christ’s death;
   that the spirit of life within answers to
      the law without;
   that if I sin not I should thank thee for it;
   that if I sin I should be humbled daily under it;
   that I should mourn for sin more than other
         men do,
      for when I see I shall die because of sin,
         that makes me mourn;
      when I see that sin caused Christ’s death,
         that makes me mourn;
   that sanctification is the evidence of reconciliation,
      proving that faith has truly apprehended Christ;
Thou hast taught me
   that faith is nothing else than receiving thy
      kindness;
   that it is an adherence to Christ, a resting on him,
      love clinging to him as a branch to a tree,
      to seek life and vigor to him.
I thank thee for showing me the vast difference
   between knowing things by reason,
   and knowing them by the spirit of faith.
By reason I see a thing is so;
   by faith I know it is as it is.
I have seen thee by reason and have not
   been amazed,
I have seen thee as thou art in thy Son and have
   been ravished to behold thee.
I bless thee that I am thine in my Savior,
   Jesus.

—from The Valley of Vision, Arthur Bennett, editor (Banner of Truth Trust, 2002).

Psalme 119:105–112
(Geneva Bible)
Nun.
105 Thy worde is a lanterne vnto my feete, and a light vnto my path.
106 I haue sworne and will performe it, that I will keepe thy righteous iudgements.
107 I am very sore afflicted: O Lord, quicken me according to thy word.
108 O Lord, I beseeche thee accept the free offerings of my mouth, and teach mee thy iudgements.
109 My soule is continually in mine hande: yet doe I not forget thy Lawe.
110 The wicked haue layed a snare for mee: but I swarued not from thy precepts.
111 Thy testimonies haue I taken as an heritage for euer: for they are the ioy of mine heart.
112 I haue applied mine heart to fulfill thy statutes alway, euen vnto the ende.

Sermons Albert Mohler Alistair Begg Bret Capranica David Legge

David Strain John MacArthur John Piper Mark Loughridge Michael Beasley Paul Lamey

Paul W. Martin Phil Johnson Phillip M. Way R.C. Sproul Steve Weaver Thabiti Abyabwile

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the conclusion to a post began last Friday. I suggest you read that first, if you haven’t already, as this will make even less sense if you don’t than it will if you do.

As I concluded, or rather, didn’t conclude, last week, I have a double standard when judging music. I have one standard for secular music, and one for religious, or sacred, music. This double standard is applied to both music and lyrics. As you read, I ask you to remember my penultimate sentence last time: “It is not my intention to lay out any rules, but only to offer for your consideration my attempts at being a discerning listener.”

Lyrics

It goes without saying that blasphemous or obscene lyrics have no place in a Christian’s music library. It goes without

Tangent 1:
Until someone can make good sense of Days of Elijah, I won’t sing it. Until I actually “hear the brush of angel’s wings,” I’ll not say I do. And if the words “yes lord yes lord yes yes lord yes lord yes lord yes yes lord yes lord yes lord yes yes lord amen” ever cross my lips, I hope someone has the good sense to put me away where I can’t hurt myself.

saying because such things are repulsive to those who love God. Christians don’t need to be told that, because it just comes naturally. But that’s as much law as I’m willing to state on lyrics in general. But here comes my double standard. Religious lyrics must be true and reverent. Theology must be accurate. If you’re going to sing about God, get it right. Secular music can be less precise. It can even be silly. In fact, a lot of the secular music I listen to is silly. But I will not tolerate silliness in singing about or to God.

Music

I don’t believe music is neutral. I think those who insist it is are being obtuse, and I’d like to come to their house and lullaby their children to sleep with a few numbers by John Phillip Sousa. Music arouses an emotional response. A lullaby produces a different reaction than a military march. Do we really need this explained to us? If we acknowledge that different types of music arouse different emotions, we must also acknowledge that some music will arouse bad emotions. Can we really believe that heavy metal, punk, and emo (or who-knows-what is the newest fad of the angst-filled) have no connection to the messed up minds of those who listen to them? Of course they do. But as you saw in the partial play list previously presented , I don’t come from the Bill Gothard school of Piano Onlyism. And I don’t want to make a list of good vs. bad music, not even if I could do so infallibly. Some of these things are obvious, some less obvious, but each of us have to discern them for ourselves, and humbly remember our own fallibility.

Music should fit the lyrics. Some music is happy, some is sad. Some is sober, some frivolous. The accompaniment for a joyful song like “Wonderful Grace of Jesus” would not be appropriate for a somber hymn such as “O Sacred Head, Now Wounded.” That would be absurd in the extreme, and irreverent. An inappropriate tune can be as bad as silly lyrics. It can destroy the message of the song. Now we come again to my double standard. With secular music, sometimes the inappropriateness of the tune adds to the entertainment value. This is, of course, entirely subjective, and reflects my weird sense of humor. I think it’s hilarious to hear Marty Robbins singing “Knee-deep in the Blues.” The happy tune and smiling face (on video) juxtaposed onto the lyrics, “My life just don’t seem worth livin’, and it’s been this way for years,” just cracks me up. In general, melody should match lyrics. Even in secular music, it makes no sense otherwise. But an occasional departure from the rule can be harmless and fun.

Now my double standard gets serious. Some musical forms which may be good for secular music are inappropriate

Tangent 2:
I don’t believe all music that is acceptable in general is appropriate for a worship service. I wouldn’t invite the late Satchmo to play “Shadrach” on Sunday morning. But that’s whole ’nother subject.

for sacred music. Some forms are just too entertainment-oriented. They cannot be taken seriously. I’m not going to name what they might be. That would take us down a side-road that I don’t care to travel just now. I would rather just suggest the principle to you and let you think it through on your own. If I did make a list, it would include some genres of which I’m unsure. For example, I tend to think Jazz is generally not fitted for sacred music. I’m convinced that some sub-genres of Jazz are definitely wrong for it. On the other hand, Louis Armstrong singing “Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego” seems just perfect. So I’m not claiming to have developed an exact science, nor do I even want to.

The “Rules”

I’ve made two rules for myself: First, enjoy the music. God has given talent to believers and unbelievers alike. The display of those talents brings glory to him, and so should bring joy to me. Second, don’t listen promiscuously. I rarely just turn on the radio and listen to whatever plays. That includes “Christian” radio. Maybe especially “Christian” radio. In the age of the mp3, it’s easier than ever to exercise control over our listening. When I buy a CD, I load only the tracks I want onto my hard drive, and forget the rest. When I download music, I seldom buy complete albums. There are many artists in my library who are only represented by one, two, or a handful of tracks.

I think we can all agree on those two rules. How we each apply them to our own practice will vary, and we ought to be humble and charitable toward one another. And that is that. I don’t think I dare say much more without risking becoming the legalist who inspired me to write on this topic in the first place.

I’m a bit short of time today, have been for the past week, so I’m not prepared for the scheduled Theology Proper post today. This post by Tim Challies got me thinking about the fact that many Christians seem to do an awful lot of hand-wringing over the state of the world and the behavior of pagans. Thinking of that brought Psalm 2 to mind. Read Tim’s post, read Psalm 2, and consider how our knowledge of God and his sovereign rule should affect our thinking on these things.

Psalm 2

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

On hearing the words “canon addition,” we are likely to think of the addition of books, such as the apocrypha, to the Bible. We might think of the canonization of tradition by Roman Catholicism. R. C. Sproul writes of the claims of characters like Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts of receiving “words of knowledge,” alleged supernatural revelation from God, and laments the credulity of people who swallow these claims apparently without thought. We might look critically on such people, wondering how they can be so foolish. But many of those who ridicule such gullibility fall for a subtler form of the same kind of canon addition. Sproul writes:

   But it gets more subtle. We hear respected Christian leaders claiming that God has “spoken to them” and given special guidance and instructions upon which they are duty bound and to act and obey. They are careful to note that that this divine speech was not in audible form and there is a disclaimer that this is not a new “revelation.” yet the message which is “laid on the heart” is so clear and powerful that to disobey is to disobey the voice of God. I am not speaking here of the work of the Holy Spirit by which he illuminates the text of scripture in such a sharp manner as to bring us under conviction or direct our paths. But here the Spirit works in the Word and through the Word. I am speaking of the speaking of the Spirit that men claim is working apart from the Word and in addition to the Word.
   Through such claims are more often that not attended by the disclaimer that they are not revelation, the way they function is as revelation so that the distinction between them and bona fide revelation is, in actuality, a distinction without a difference.

—R. C. Sproul, Scripture Alone (P&R Publishing Company, 2005), 60.

Bishop Daniel Alexander Payne (1811–1893) was a free black, born in Charleston, South Carolina during the height of slavery. He joined the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) in 1841, and in 1852 was, against his wishes, elected bishop of the New England Conference. His passion was for an educated church, beginning with the man in the pulpit. Thabiti Anyabwile writes, “In [Payne’s] view, an undereducated and ill-prepared minister was a scandal and affliction upon black churches.” (The Faithful Preacher, Part Two, Bishop Daniel A. Payne: A Vision for an Educated Pastorate)

   At the General conference of 1852, Daniel Payne received from Bishop Morris Brown a last-minute request to provide the opening address. Payne proved “instant in season, out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2) as he selected 2 Corinthians 2:16 and the theme “Who is Sufficient for These Things?” perhaps the text indicated Payne’s four-year-long resistance to and fear of being chosen as a bishop, but it also provided a short outline for a preacher’s calling as Payne saw it. First the preacher is to preach the gospel. That vocation did not consist of “loud declamation or vociferous talking” or “whooping, stamping and beating the Bible and the desk” or seeing who “halooes the loudest and speaks the longest.” Preaching the gospel, according to Payne, required acquainting man with the holy God of heaven, with man’s just condemnation, with his need for the savior, and with the necessity of repentance and faith. Second, a faithful minister cultivates maturity in the flock and thereby “train[s] them for usefulness and for heaven.” Third, a good pastor disciplines and governs the church. This difficult duty requires the pastor “to make his flock intimately acquainted with the doctrines of the Christian Church, instruct them in the principles of Church government, reprove them for negligence and sin, admonish them of their duties and obligations, and then try and expel the obstinate, so as to keep the Church as pure as human wisdom, diligence and zeal, under divine guidance, can make it.”
   Payne could rightly ask along with the apostle Paul, “who is sufficient for these things?” These tasks—preaching the gospel, cultivating Christian maturity in the congregation, and exercising biblical church discipline—were only possible by fusing an educated mind with true Christian experience and piety while depending wholly on the sufficiency of God. The one who is sufficient for the life and work of the ministry is the one who “lives the life of faith and prayer” and who seeks to fill “his head [with] all knowledge and his heart with all holiness” in pursuit of his Lord.

—Thabiti Anyabwile, The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors (Crossway, 2007), 81–82.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. —Romans 12:26–27

In their efforts to promote their agenda, advocates of homosexuality have gone to incredible lengths to convince us that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. It should surprise no one that most simply write off the Scriptural prohibitions as part of the larger fiction of the Bible. We should expect that. Harder to believe are the claims of those who attempt to manipulate Scripture to support their claims, and normalize homosexuality within the church. Addressing one of the more audacious examples of this Scripture-twisting, John MacArthur writes:

. . . homosexual advocates argue that Paul is speaking [in Romans 1:26–27] of an individual’s sexual orientation (rather than the created order) when he uses the term “nature.” Thus, for homosexuals, “their relationships cannot be described as ‘unnatural’, since they are perfectly natural to them” [it is alleged by some that Paul is not condemning homosexuality, but homosexual acts committed by heterosexuals]. However, such far-fetched interpretations are easily refuted (both from the context in Romans and from the way kata physin [natural] and para physin [unnatural] were used in ancient times). Moreover, the thought of “sexual orientation” would have been completely foreign to Paul, and represents an anachronistic attempt to read modern conventions into the biblical text.

So then, we have no liberty to interpret the noun “nature” as meaning “my” nature, or the adjective “natural” as meaning “what seems natural to me”. On the contrary, physis (“natural”) means God’s created order. To act “against nature” means to violate the order which God has established, whereas to act “according to nature” means to behave “in accordance with the intention of the Creator”. Moreover, the intention of the Creator means his original intention. What this was Genesis tells us and Jesus confirmed. . . . God created humankind male and female; God instituted marriage as a heterosexual union; and what God has thus united, we have no liberty to separate. [Stott, Romans 78. Internal citation from C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegelical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975) 1:125.]

—John MacArthur, “God’s Word on Homosexuality,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall 2008): 167–168.

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. (Psalme 122:1 Geneva Bible)

HYMN 25 (L. M.)
A vision of the Lamb. Rev. v. 6—9.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

All mortal vanities, begone,
Nor tempt my eyes, nor tire my ears;
Behold, amidst th’ eternal throne,
A vision of the Lamb appears.

[Glory his fleecy robe adorns,
Mark’d with the bloody death he bore;
Seven are his eyes, and seven his horns,
To speak his wisdom and his power.

Lo! he receives a sealed book
From him that sits upon the throne;
Jesus, my Lord, prevails to look
On dark decrees and things unknown.]

All the assembling saints around
Fall worshipping before the Lamb,
And in new songs of gospel sound
Address their honours to his name.

[The joy, the shout, the harmony,
Flies o’er the everlasting hills
“Worthy art thou alone,” they cry,
“To read the book, to loose the seals.”]

Our voices join the heav’nly strain,
And with transporting pleasure sing—
“Worthy the Lamb that once was slain,
To be our Teacher and our King!”

His words of prophecy reveal
Eternal counsels, deep designs;
His grace and vengeance shall fulfil
The peaceful and the dreadful lines.

Thou hast redeem’d our souls from hell
With thine invaluable blood;
And wretches that did once rebel
Are now made fav’rites of their God.

Worthy for ever is the Lord,
That died for treasons not his own,
By ev’ry tongue to be ador’d,
And dwell upon his Father’s throne!

—from The Psalms & Hymns of Isaac Watts. Hymns and Spiritual Songs. Book I: Collected from the Holy Scriptures

Psalme 119:113–120
(Geneva Bible)
Samech.
113 I hate vaine inuentions: but thy Lawe doe I loue.
114 Thou art my refuge and shield, and I trust in thy worde.
115 Away from mee, yee wicked: for I will keepe the commandements of my God.
116 Stablish me according to thy promise, that I may liue, and disappoint me not of mine hope.
117 Stay thou mee, and I shall be safe, and I will delite continually in thy statutes.
118 Thou hast troden downe all them that depart from thy statutes: for their deceit is vaine.
119 Thou hast taken away all ye wicked of the earth like drosse: therefore I loue thy testimonies.
120 My flesh trembleth for feare of thee, and I am afraide of thy iudgements.

Sermons Albert Mohler Alistair Begg Bret Capranica David Legge

David Strain John MacArthur John Piper Mark Loughridge Michael Beasley Paul Lamey

Paul W. Martin Phil Johnson Phillip M. Way R.C. Sproul Steve Weaver Thabiti Abyabwile

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:13)

Think of it: an entire letter written for the single purpose of enabling its recipients to know that they have eternal life. Five chapters written so that we may know that our sins are forgiven, that we are justified before God, and our salvation is secure. One hundred and five verses written so that we may know. Other than salvation itself, can there be a greater gift?

Sometimes the best we can do in describing God is to describe what he is not.

   When we say God is a Spirit, it is to be understood by way of negation. There are two ways of knowing or describing God: by way of affirmation, affirming that of him in a way of eminency, which is excellent in the creature, as when we say God is wise, good; the other, by way of negation, when we remove from God in our conceptions what is tainted with imperfection in the creature. The first ascribes to him whatsoever is excellent; the other separates from him whatsoever is imperfect. The first is like a limning, which adds one colour to another to make a comely picture; the other is like a carving, which pares and cuts away whatsoever is superfluous, to make a complete statue. This way of negation is more easy; we better understand what God is not, than what he is; and most of our knowledge of God is by this way; as when we say God is infinite, immense, immutable, they are negatives; he hath no limits, is confined to no place, admits of no change. When we remove from him what is inconsistent with his being, we do more strongly assert his being, and know more of him when we elevate him above all, and above our own capacity. And when we say God is a Spirit, it is a negation; he is not a body, he consists not of various parts, extended one without and beyond another. He is not a spirit, so as our souls are, to be the form of any body; a spirit, not as angels and souls are, but infinitely higher. We call him so, because, in regard of our weakness, we have, not any other term of excellency to express or conceive of him by; we transfer it to God in honour, because spirit is the highest excellency in our nature: yet we must apprehend God above any spirit, since his nature is so great that he cannot be declared by human speech, perceived by human sense, or conceived by human understanding.

—Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Baker, 2005), 1:181–182

   2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
   19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

This is a classic text expounding the reason for our confidence in the Bible as the Word of God.

While many people depend on their own experiences as a foundation for knowledge and wisdom, we have something far better on which to place our confidence. John MacArthur writes:

made more sure. This translation could indicate that the eyewitness account of Christ’s majesty at the Transfiguration confirmed the Scriptures. However the Gr. word order is crucial in that it does not say that. It says, “And we have more sure the prophetic word.” That original arrangement of the sentence supports the interpretation that Peter is ranking Scripture over experience. The prophetic word (Scripture) is more complete, more permanent, and more authoritative than the experience of anyone. More specifically, the Word of God is a more reliable verification of the teachings about the person, atonement, and second coming of Christ than even the genuine first hand experiences of the apostles themselves. [The MacArthur Study Bible, underlining added]

Scripture is “more sure” because its origin is not the mind of man, but of God. It is therefore, unlike our subjective experience, objectively true.

one’s own interpretation. The Gr. word for “interpretation” has the idea of a “loosing,” as if to say no Scripture is the result of any human being privately, “untying” and “loosing” the truth. Peter’s point is not so much about how to interpret Scripture, but rather how Scripture originated, and what its source was. The false prophets untied and loosed their own ideas. But no part of God’s revelation was unveiled or revealed from a human source or out of the prophet’s unaided understanding (see v. 21). [ibid.]

A very short answer to a very important question:

. . . who is sufficient to preach the gospel of Christ and govern the church that he has purchased with his own blood? Who is sufficient to train his host of the Lord and to lead it from earth to heaven? Who is sufficient to guide it through this war against principalities and powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places, against all the hosts of earth and hell, and place it triumphant upon the shining plains of glory? Who is sufficient? I answer, the man who makes Christ the model of his own Christian and ministerial character. This man, and he alone, is sufficient for these things.

—Daniel A. Payne, cited in Thabiti Anyabwile, The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors (Crossway, 2007), 88–89.

Evolution. 3.5 million homeless. Global warming. Listen to the mainstream media, and you will believe these are facts. Yet there is no evidence to support any of them, and much to the contrary. How, and why, do unsupported assertions become “facts,” receiving nearly universal acceptance? The answer has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with agenda. Some special interest group wants to achieve a certain end, and so the “facts” necessary to support their goals are simply manufactured. A sympathetic media plays along, and voilà, “truth” is born. For example, the “gay gene”:

   On July 15, 1993, National Public Radio (i.e., NPR) reported a new study that was due to be released the next day. The tenor of the report suggested that someone had finally discovered a gene that causes homosexuality. NPR added a few quiet caveats at the end of their report, ignored by most listeners. The next day, the Wall Street Journal headlined their report, “Research Points toward a Gay Gene.” the subtitle says “Normal Variation,” affirming the opinion of the article’s author that homosexuality was a normal variation of human behavior. At the bottom of the last paragraph on the last page, deep within the paper, a geneticist offered his opinions that this gene might only be associated with homosexuality and not the cause of it. Regardless, for most of the world the discovery had been made and now the political wheels began to turn (leading to the push for protection of civil rights, laws against discrimination, civil unions, gay marriage, etc.).

. . .

   All of the above research did not “discover” a gay gene, although many have suggested that. However, these studies that suggest some biological cause for homosexuality significantly influenced public perceptions. As Yarhouse [Mark A. Yarhouse, “Homosexuality, Ethics, and Identity Synthesis,” Christian Bioethics 10 (2004):241.] points out “The more people believe that homosexuality was a biological ‘given,’ the more likely they were to support a variety of issues deemed important to some in the gay community (e.g., ordination of practicing gay, lesbian, or bisexual clergy; gay rights legislation, etc.)”

—Michael A.Grisanti, “Cultural and Medical Myths about Homosexuality,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall 2008): 176, 185.

I’ll be blunt: There is not a single clear-thinking Christian who finds the words of John MacArthur, Tim Challies, et. al. on filthy preaching controversial at all. The issues are clear, and the truth is plain. I’ll be even more blunt: It seems to me that those who have read MacArthur’s posts and still don’t get it (or feign confusion on the matter) are being willfully obtuse. I might have more to say about this next week, but until then, take an hour to listen to Phil Johnson:

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. (Psalme 122:1 Geneva Bible)

HYMN XVI
Manna hoarded. Ex. xvi. 20.
by John Newton (1725–1807)

THE manna favor’d Israel’s meat,
   Was gather’d day by day;
When all the host was serv’d, the heat
   Melted the rest away.

In vain to hoard it up they try’d,
   Against to-morrow came;
It then bred worms and putrify’d
   And prov’d their sin and shame.

’Twas daily bread and would not keep,
   But must be still renew’d;
Faith should not want a hoard or heap
   But trust the Lord for food.

The truths by which the soul is fed
   Must thus be had afresh;
For notions resting in the head,
   Will only feed the flesh.

However true, they have no life,
   Or unction to impart;
They breed the worms of pride and strife,
   But cannot cheer the heart.

Nor can the best experience past,
   The life of faith maintain;
The brightest hope will faint as last,
   Unless supply’d again.

Dear Lord, while we in pray’r are found,
   Do thou the Manna give;
Oh! Let it fall on all around,
   That we may eat and live.

—from Olney Hymns. Book I: On select Passages of Scripture.

Psalme 119:121–128
(Geneva Bible)
Ain.
121 I haue executed iudgement and iustice: leaue me not to mine oppressours.
122 Answere for thy seruant in that, which is good, and let not the proude oppresse me.
123 Mine eyes haue failed in waiting for thy saluation, and for thy iust promise.
124 Deale with thy seruant according to thy mercie, and teache me thy statutes.
125 I am thy seruant: graunt mee therefore vnderstanding, that I may knowe thy testimonies.
126 It is time for thee Lord to worke: for they haue destroyed thy Lawe.
127 Therefore loue I thy commandements aboue golde, yea, aboue most fine golde.
128 Therefore I esteeme all thy precepts most iust, and hate all false wayes.

Sermons Albert Mohler Alistair Begg Bret Capranica David Legge

David Strain John MacArthur John Piper Mark Loughridge Michael Beasley Paul Lamey

Paul W. Martin Phil Johnson Phillip M. Way R.C. Sproul Steve Weaver Thabiti Abyabwile

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

And he began to teach them in parables . . .

Dave went out one day to shop for new books. He had heard of a new bookstore in town that, it was said, carried classic works of enduring truth, as well as up-to-date publications that were especially relevant to the issues of the current times. That, he thought, was certainly a good thing, and so many people had recommended the new store to him in such superlative terms that he anticipated his first visit there with great excitement.

When he arrived at the store, he found the parking lot packed. Upon entering the store, he quickly saw the reason for the crowd. A popular author was seated at a table off to one side, signing books. A long line of eager autograph-seekers stretched through the store. Finding a gap in the line, he excused himself and passed through to browse the aisles.

What he found caught him by surprise. On one side was a magazine rack filled with glossy publications, their content ranging from merely trivial to grotesquely crass. Magazines covers flashed feature articles with such titles as “Hot Wives of the Bible” and “He Likes It Dirty.” On the other side, a large display of NEW RELEASES! carried titles like Sugar and Spice and Naughty Is Nice, and Holy Harlotry. Appalled, he nearly turned and left the store. But, wanting to give it a fair chance, he pressed on past the first racks.

Towards the back of the store, he was encouraged to find some truly good material. Works of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, and many other heroes of church history; Bible commentaries and systematic theologies; stacks of MacArthur Study Bibles. Surrounded by such riches, he began to feel better. Maybe the place isn’t so bad, he thought.

After a browsing a while longer, he selected a couple of good books and headed up to the checkout. On the way, he remembered the book signing. He made his way to that side of the store, where he found the prominent display of the author’s new book: Ecclesiastes 9:10: 101 Dirty Jokes You Can Tell in Church.* Crestfallen, he put his books back on the shelf and left the store. Outside, he was approached by another shopper.

“Quite a store, isn’t it?”

“Yeah, you can say that again,” Dave replied, a trace of disgust in his voice.

“You don’t like it?” the other asked.

“Well, no, I guess not. In fact, I was quite appalled at some of the stuff they sell. Disgusted, to tell the truth. They should be ashamed! I won’t be coming back.”

“Oh, I see; not quite up with the times, are you? This is a different generation. We’ve got to meet them where they are, you know. If we’re going to reach today’s culture, we’ve got to speak their language and address the issues that concern them.”

Disgusted, and in no mood to argue with a fool, Dave just shook his head and turned to leave. About that time, another gentleman strolled up, an older fellow this time.

“I couldn’t help overhearing your conversation. Let me tell you, I share your concerns. I don’t approve of some of the stuff they sell. But look at all the good books they carry. They’re doing some good.”

“Good or not,” replied Dave, “I hope they’ll either take out the trash, or close their doors.”

The older man replied, “Well, that’s a rather harsh reaction, isn’t it? You don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater!”

With some considerable effort, Dave bridled his tongue, and with as much patience as he could muster, said, “Would you come with me? I want to show you something.” The man consented, and they drove away.

Their destination was another bookstore. Browsing the aisles they found works of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, and many other heroes of church history; Bible commentaries and systematic theologies; stacks of MacArthur Study Bibles. They drove to another store, where they found works of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, and many other heroes of church history; Bible commentaries and systematic theologies; stacks of MacArthur Study Bibles. And on they went, visiting two more stores in the city, where they found . . . works of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, and many other heroes of church history; Bible commentaries and systematic theologies; stacks of MacArthur Study Bibles.

Arriving back in the new bookstore’s parking lot, Dave turned to his companion. “Now, about that baby . . .”

* A popular pastor has actually told such a joke repeatedly.

Forever, O Lord,
   Your word is settled in heaven.
                    —Psalm 119:89

It seems, these days, that there is not a lot we can count on. The stock market is down, our investments are failing, and the (American) President and Congress seem intent on making sure our economy is entirely devastated. We can no longer count on the Constitution to protect us from tyranny. Marriages are failing and families are falling apart all around us. The very definition of “family” can no longer be assumed. The (nominal) Church makes little pretense any more of believing the God of the Bible.

In spite of the bleak circumstances in which we live, we have a sure foundation that will not fail. C. H. Spurgeon wrote,

   “For ever, Oh Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” The strain is more joyful, for experience has given the sweet singer a comfortable knowledge of the word of the Lord, and this makes a glad theme. After tossing about on the sea of trouble the Psalmist here leaps to shore and stands upon a rock. Jehovah’s word is not fickle nor uncertain; it is settled, determined, fixed, sure, immovable. Man’s teachings change so often that there is never time for them to be settled; but the Lord’s word is from of old the same, and will remain unchanged eternally. Some men are never happier than when they are unsettling everything and everybody; but Gods mind is not with them. The power and glory of heaven have confirmed each sentence which the mouth of the Lord has spoken, and so confirmed it that to all eternity it must stand the same,—settled in heaven, where nothing can reach it. In the former section David’s soul fainted, but here the good man looks out of self and perceives that the Lord fainteth not, neither is weary, neither is there any failure in his word.
   The verse takes the form of an ascription of praise: the faithfulness and immutability of God are fit themes for holy song, and when we are tired with gazing upon the shifting scene of this life, the thought of the immutable promise fills our mouth with singing. God’s purposes, promises, and precepts are all settled in his own mind, and none of them shall be disturbed. Covenant settlements will not be removed, however unsettled the thoughts of men may become; lets us therefore settle it in our minds that we abide in the faith of our Jehovah as long as we have any being.

—Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Hendrickson, 1988), 3:314.

The grass withers, the flower fades,
   But the word of our God stands forever.
                              —Isaiah 40:8

The Second Commandment forbids the making of images of God (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8). Among the reasons for this prohibition is the fact that it is impossible to create an accurate representation of God. Charnock wrote:

   It is impossible to fashion any image of God. If our more capacious souls cannot grasp his nature, our weaker sense cannot frame his image; it is more possible, of the two, to comprehend him in our minds, than to frame him in an image to our sense. He inhabits inaccessible light; as it is impossible for the eye of man to see him, it is impossible for the art of man to paint him upon walls, and carve him out of wood. None knows him but himself, none can describe him but himself. Can we draw a figure of our own souls, and express that part of ourselves, wherein we are most like God? Can we extend this to any bodily figure, and divide it into parts? How can we deal so with the original copy, whence the first draught of our souls were taken, and which is infinitely more spiritual than men or angels? No corporal thing can represent spiritual substance; there is no proportion in nature between them. God is simple, infinite, immense, eternal, invisible, incorruptible being; a statue is a compounded, finite, limited, temporal, visible and corruptible body. God is a living spirit; but a statue nor sees, nor hears, nor perceives anything. But suppose God had a body, it is impossible to mold an image of it in the true glory of that body; can the statue of an excellent monarch represent the majesty of his countenance, though made by the skillfullest workman in the world? If God had a body in some measure suited to his excellency, were it possible for man to make an image of him, who cannot picture light, heat, motion, magnitude, and dazzling property of the sun? The excellence of any corporeal nature of the least creature, the temper, instinct, artifice, are beyond the power of a carving tool; much more is God.

—Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Baker Books, 2005), 193.

From the “Nothing New under the Sun” file comes this quote by Bishop Daniel A. Payne, from a sermon preached in 1859.

   The moral character of the minister of Jesus, then must be so elevated that he will be an example to believers:
   a. In his words. This has reference to both his speech inside the pulpit and outside of it. No foolishness, no arrogant sayings, no ludicrous antidotes, no filthy comparisons, no vulgarity, no obscene epithets, no blasphemous expressions should ever come from his lips—darkening, confusing, disgracing the text he has undertaken to expound. The doctrine, the pure doctrine—the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth—should ever be his utterances, both inside the pulpit and outside of it. In the sanctuary and in the parlor, the lips of the righteous man must speak wisdom, and his tongue must talk of judgment, so that every word and all his words shall be “like apple of gold in pictures of silver” (Prov. 25:11).
   The moral character of the minister of Jesus must be elevated, so he will be an example of the believer.
   b. In conversation, i.e., in conduct. Oh, how careful we should walk before God and man! Rudeness in behavior disgraces the minister’s character, for it lowers the dignity of the Christian ministry. So does buffoonery, especially pulpit buffoonery, in which some men seem to pride themselves. I have seen such men whom people fond of fun would just as soon pay twenty-five cents to hear as see a clown perform in the circus.

—Daniel A. Payne, cited in Thabiti Anyabwile, The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors (Crossway, 2007), 92.

Homosexual “marriage” is clearly against God’s design (nature) and God’s command (Scripture). No homosexual relationship can fulfill God’s intention for this human relationship. Irvin Busenitz (Professor of Bible and Old Testament, TMS), in the latest issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal, explains why this is, looking at Biblical marriage from the reproductive perspective, the one man/one woman perspective, the complementary perspective, the analogical perspective, and the role/relationship perspective. You can probably guess, without any clues, what each of those perspectives addresses, with the possible exception of one: the analogical perspective. If you have no idea what that is about, you’re not alone; I confess that I had never thought of this angle on homosexuality before, even though it is really quite obvious. Busenitz explains:

   Marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church. Ephesians 5 quotes the creation account , providing a direct link between the two passages. Paul unmistakably notes that marriage is meant to teach, through the one-flesh union, the relationship of Christ and His church (Eph. 5:29–32).
   Because of this incredible bond and the picture it depicts, it is no surprise that same-sex marriage is at the forefront of the attack against marriage. same-sex marriage simply cannot picture the biblical truths that Scripture so vividly paints for marriage. For a couple of reasons, homosexual partnerships are incapable of representing this truth. First, a partnership between two men or two women cannot replicate the essence of marriage in the Scriptures, which is always between a man and a woman. Secondly, homosexuality can never illustrate the spiritual union between Christ and His Bride, the church. Christ is not engaged to be married to Christ; the church is not awaiting marriage to itself. The analogy is absolutely devoid of any meaning if homosexuality is brought into the equation.

—Irvin A. Busenitz, “Marriage and Homosexuality: Toward a Biblical Understanding,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall 2008): 212–213.

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. (Psalme 122:1 Geneva Bible)

PETITIONARY HYMNS
POEM XIV.
Augustus Toplady (1740–1778)

SUPREME High Priest, the pilgrim’s light,
   My heart for thee prepare,
Thine image stamp, and deeply write
   Thy superscription there.

Ah! let my forehead bear thy seal,
   My arm thy badge retain,
My heart the inward witness feel
   That I am born again!

Thy peace, O Saviour, shed abroad,
   That every want supplies:
Then from its guilt my soul renew’d,
   Shall, phœnix like, arise.

Into thy humble mansion come.
   Set up thy dwelling here:
Possess my heart, and leave no room
   For sin to harbour there.

Ah! give me, Lord, the single eye,
   Which aims at nought but thee:
I fain would live, and yet not I—
   Let Jesus live in me.

Like Noah’s dove, no rest I find
   But in thy ark of peace;
Thy cross the balance of my mind,
   Thy wounds my hiding-place.

In vain the tempter spreads the snare,
   If thou my keeper art:
Get thee behind me, God is near,
   My Saviour takes my part!

On him my spirit I recline,
   Who put my nature on;
His light shall in my darkness shine,
   And guide me to his throne.

O that the penetrating sight,
   And eagle’s eye were mine
Undazzled at the boundless light
   I’d see his glory shine!

Ev’n now , by faith, I see him live
   To crown the conquering few;
Nor let me linger here, but strive
   To gain the prize in view.

Add, Saviour, to the eagle’s eye,
   The clove’s aspiring wing,
To bear me upwards to the sky,
   Thy praises there to sing!

—The Complete Works of Augustus Toplady (Sprinkle Publications, 1987).

Psalme 119:129–136
(Geneva Bible)
Pe.
129 Thy testimonies are wonderfull: therefore doeth my soule keepe them.
130 The entrance into thy wordes sheweth light, and giueth vnderstanding to the simple.
131 I opened my mouth and panted, because I loued thy commandements.
132 Looke vpon mee and bee mercifull vnto me, as thou vsest to doe vnto those that loue thy Name.
133 Direct my steppes in thy worde, and let none iniquitie haue dominion ouer me.
134 Deliuer mee from the oppression of men, and I will keepe thy precepts.
135 Shew the light of thy countenance vpon thy seruant, and teache me thy statutes.
136 Mine eyes gush out with riuers of water, because they keepe not thy Lawe.

Sermons Albert Mohler Alistair Begg Bret Capranica David Legge

David Strain John MacArthur John Piper Mark Loughridge Michael Beasley Paul Lamey

Paul W. Martin Phil Johnson Phillip M. Way R.C. Sproul Steve Weaver Thabiti Abyabwile

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sorry, no real blogging going on here today. I just have one announcement. June 1st will mark two milestones for the Thirsty Theologian this year. It will mark the 4th anniversary of the blog, and the end of one year of daily blogging. I’m only making note of this today because that will also be time for my biennial facelift, and I’ve decided to go ahead with one of my planned changes today.

I’m doing away with the On the Web blog that you’ve seen in the sidebar, and replacing it with a bit of javascript that will bring you my “shared items” from my Google Reader. What that will mean to you is a simpler format, no excerpts or commentary from me, and no way for you to comment. The latter will make little difference, since few of you used that feature anyway. It will also mean that links will be limited to whatever comes through the RSS feeds I subscribe to. Speaking of RSS, those of you who have subscribed to On the Web through an RSS reader will want to subscribe to the new feed here (this will only effect On the Web subscribers. The Thirsty Theologian feed will remain the same). What this will mean to me is one-click linking, which means lots of time saved. I wish I had thought of this four years ago!

Now that I’ve mentioned the upcoming facelift, don’t get too excited (yes, I heard your heart-rates increase). The new look will be dramatically different while remaining almost entirely the same. Now might be a good time to tell me what you don’t like about the current design. Maybe I’ll take your complaints into consideration. Or maybe not. It’s not like I get paid to do this, after all.

I also doubt I’ll continue the daily blogging regimen after day 365. We shall see.

Your word is a lamp to my feet
   And a light to my path.
                —Psalm 119:105

Proverbs 4:19 reads, “The way of the wicked is like darkness; / They do not know over what they stumble.” But we have the lamp of God’s Word to illumine our way. Spurgeon wrote:

   “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet.” We are walkers through the city of this world, and we are often called to go out into its darkness; let us never venture there without the light-giving word, lest we slip with our feet. Each man should use the word of God personally, practically, and habitually, that he may see his way and what lies in it. When darkness settles down upon all around me, the word of the Lord, like a flaming torch, reveals my way. Having no fixed lamps in eastern towns, in old time each passenger carried a lantern that he might not fall into one of the open sewers or stumble over heaps of ordure which defiled the road. This is a true picture of our path through this dark world; we should not know the way, or how to walk in it, if the Scripture, like a blazing flambeau, did not reveal it. One of the most practical benefits of Holy Writ is guidance in the acts of daily life; it is not sent to astound us with its brilliance, but to guide us by its instruction. It is true the head needs illumination, but even more the feet need direction, else head and feet may both fall into a ditch. Happy is the man who personally appropriates God’s Word, and practically uses it as his comfort and counsellor,—a lamp to his own feet. “And a light unto my path.” It is a lamp by night, a light by day, and a delight at all times. David guided his own steps by it, and also saw the difficulties of his road by its beams. He who walks in darkness is sure, sooner or later, to stumble; while he who walks by the light of day, or by the lamp of night, stumbleth not, but keeps his uprightness. Ignorance is painful on practical subjects; it breeds indecision and suspense, and these are uncomfortable: the word of God, by imparting heavenly knowledge, leads to decision, and when that is followed by determined resolution, as in this case, it brings with it great restfulness of heart.

—Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Hendrickson, 1988), 3:342.

Here’s a real mind-bender for you:
Stephen Charnock on the Eternity of God.

   God is without beginning. “In the beginning” God created the world (Gen. i. 1) God was then before the beginning of it; and what point can be set wherein God began, if he were before the beginning created things? God was without beginning, though all other things had time and beginning from him. As unity is before all numbers, so is God before all his creatures, Abraham called upon the name of the everlasting God (Gen. xxi. 33) the eternal God.—It is opposed to the heathen gods, which were but of yesterday, new coined, and so new; but the eternal God was before the world was made. In that sense it is to be understood; “The mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the command of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Rom. xvi. 26). The gospel is not preached by the command of a new and temporary god, but of that God that was before all ages: though the manifestation of it be in time, yet the purpose and resolve of it was from eternity. If there were decrees before the foundation of the world, there was a Decreer before the foundation of the world. Before the foundation of the world he loved Christ as a Mediator; a fore-ordination of him was before the foundation of the world (John xvii. 24); a choice of men, and therefore a Chooser before the foundation of the world (Eph. i. 4); a grace given in Christ before the world began (2 Tim i. 9), and therefore a Donor of that grace. From those places, saith Crellius, it appears that God was before the foundation of the world, but they do not assert an absolute eternity; but to be before all creatures is equivalent to his being from eternity. Time began with the foundation of the world; but God, being before time, could have no beginning in time. Before the beginning of the creation, and the beginning of time, there could be nothing but eternity; nothing that was uncreated, that is, nothing but what was without beginning. To be in time is to have a beginning; to be before all time is never to have a beginning, but always to be; for as between the Creator and creatures there is no medium, so between time and eternity there is no medium. It is as easily deduced that he that was before all creatures is eternal, as he that made all creatures is God. If he had a beginning, he must have it from another, or from himself; if from another, that from whom he received his being would be better than he, so more a God than he. He cannot be a God that is not supreme; he cannot be supreme that owes his being to the power of another. He would not be said only to have immortality as he is (1 Tim. vi. 16), if he had it dependent on another; nor could he have a beginning from himself; if he had given beginning to himself, then he was once nothing; there was a time when he was not; if he was not, how could he be the Cause of himself? It is impossible for any to give a beginning and being to itself: if it acts it must exist, and so exist before it existed. A thing would exist as a cause before it existed as an effect. He that is not, cannot be the cause that he is; if, therefore, God does exist, and hath not his being from another, he must exist from eternity. Therefore, when we say God is of and from himself, we mean not that God gave being to himself; but it is negatively to be understood that he hath no cause of existence without himself. Whatsoever number of millions and millions of years we can imagine before the creation of the world, yet God was infinitely before those; he is therefore called the “Ancient Of Days” (Dan. vii. 9), as being before all days and time, and eminently containing in himself all times and ages. Though, indeed, God cannot properly be called ancient, that will testify that he is decaying, and shortly will not be; no more than he can be called young, which would signify that he was not long before. All created things are new and fresh; but no creature can find out any beginning of God: it is impossible that there should be any beginning of him.

—Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Baker Books, 2005), 1:281–282

Did you get that?

It is impossible for any to give a beginning and being to itself: if it acts it must exist, and so exist before it existed. A thing would exist as a cause before it existed as an effect. He that is not, cannot be the cause that he is; if, therefore, God does exist, and hath not his being from another, he must exist from eternity.

Some good words for the church, the family, and parents of daughters in particular:

   There are also your daughters. They ought to be the objects of your special regard. To educate them in such a manner as to render them fit to do Christian work is the highest duty of the church herself. She can perform none higher, none more beneficial for the community. And whenever a young woman of talents and piety is found, who has aptness for teaching and who is desirous to qualify herself thoroughly for such a work but has not the means to meet the expenses, this church ought to undertake to educate her. Perhaps there is no greater power in a given community than that of educated women. I use the term in its broadest, highest sense, by which I do not mean a smattering, or even excellence in music, instrumental and vocal, in drawing and painting; nor do I mean a mere classical or scientific and mathematical training. But I do mean a Christian education, that which draws our head and heart toward the Cross, and after consecrating them to the cross sends the individuals from beneath the cross with the spirit of him who died upon it, sending them abroad well fitted for Christian usefulness, a moral, a spiritual power, molding and coloring the community, and preparing it for a nobler and higher state of existence in that world where change never comes, unless it be a change from the good to the better and from the better to the best.
   The past, the dark past is gone—I hope forever gone. It was a time when ignorance sat in high places and ruled, when vice was as respected as virtue. The present and the future demands a different spirit and different conduct. The almighty fiat has gone forth. “Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Dan. 12:4). Hence the future demands educated women in order that there may be educated wives, and consequently educated mothers who will give to the race a training entirely and essentially different from the past. In other words, the future demands wives and mothers who will, like Susannah Wesley, convert the homestead into a schoolhouse, and that schoolhouse into the church where young immortals shall be trained for their heavenward flight. The wants of the race demand such women to descend into the South as educators, to assist in correcting the religious errors of the freedmen and to bridle their wild enthusiasm. These religious errors, the wild enthusiasm of the freedmen, are results of the slavery that had been operating on them and their forefathers for nearly 250 years and cannot be removed in a day, nor by one man, nor by one kind of human agency. The Deity does not operate upon humanity in that fashion. He applies a multitude of instrumentalities and different agencies to civilize and Christianize a race. But of these none are more potent than the educated wife, the educated mother, the educated school-mistress, but educated under the Cross and in the spirit of him who died upon the cross.

—Daniel A. Payne, cited in Thabiti Anyabwile, The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors (Crossway, 2007), 109–110.