September Photos

Just a few of my favorites from this month.
Drowning insecurities with the beauty of design.

Old Books.

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why - the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook - even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united - united with each other and against earlier and later ages - by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century - the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?" - lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

~C.S. Lewis from his intoduction to Athanasius' 'On The Incarnation.'

Doctrine.

"But the Gospel is not only news. It is first news, and then it is doctrine. Doctrine means teaching, explaining, clarifying. Doctrine is part of the gospel because news can't be just declared by the mouth of a herald - it has to be understood in the mind of the hearer. If the town crier says, "Amnesty is herewith published by the mercy of your Sovereign," someone will ask, "what does 'amnesty' mean?" There will be many questions when the news is announced, "What is the price that has been paid?" "How have we dishonored the King?" When the gospel is proclaimed, it must be explained. ...Unintelligible news is not even new, let alone good.

Gospel doctrine matters because the good news is so full and rich and wonderful that it must be opened like a treasure chest, and all its treasures brought out for the enjoyment of the world. Doctrine is the description of these treasures. Doctrine describes their true value and why they are so valuable. Doctrine guards the diamonds of the Gospel from being discarded as mere crystals. Doctrine protects the treasures of the Gospel from the pirates who don't like the diamonds but who make their living trading them for other stones. Doctrine polishes the old gems buried at the bottom of the chest. It puts the jewels of the Gospel truth in order on the scarlet tapestry of history so each is see in its most beautiful place.

And all the while, doctrine does this with its head bowed in wonder that it should be allowed to touch the things of God. It whispers praise and thanks as it deals with the diamonds of the King. ... and on its knees Gospel doctrine knows it serves the herald. The Gospel is not mainly about being explained. Explanation is necessary, but it is not primary. A love letter must be intelligible, but the grammar and logic are not the point.

The Gospel is good news. Doctrine serves that."

From John Piper's book 'God is the Gospel'.



"Among certain Christians it has become quite the fashion to cry down creed and cry up experience as the only true test of Christianity. The expression "Not creed, but Christ" (taken, I believe, from a poem by John Oxenham) has been widely accepted as the very voice of truth and given a place alongside of the writings of prophets and apostles. When I first heard the words they sounded good. One got from them the idea that the advocates of the no-creed creed had found a precious secret that the rest of us had missed; that they had managed to cut right through the verbiage of historic Christianity and come direct to Christ without bothering about doctrine. And the words appeared to honor our Lord more perfectly by focusing attention upon Him alone and not upon mere words. But is this true? I think not. Now I have a lot of sympathy for the no-creed creedalists for I realize that they are protesting the substitution of a dead creed for a living Christ; and in this I join them wholeheartedly. But this antithesis need not exist; there is no reason for our creeds being dead just as there is no reason for our faith being dead. James tells us that there is such a thing as dead faith, but we do not reject all faith for that reason. Now the truth is that creed is implicit in every thought, word or act of the Christian life. It is altogether impossible to come to Christ without knowing at least something about Him; and what we know about Him is what we believe about Him; and what we believe about Him is our Christian creed. Otherwise stated, since our creed is what we believe, it is impossible to believe on Christ and have no creed."

From A.W. Tozer's book 'That Incredible Christian'.

A Matthew Henry Moment

And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. ~Genesis XIX, 15-17


Observe,

1. With what a gracious violence Lot was brought out of Sodom, v. 16. It seems, though he did not make a jest of the warning given, as his sons-in-law did, yet he lingered, he trifled, he did not make so much haste as the case required. Thus many that are under some convictions about the misery of their spiritual state, and the necessity of a change, yet defer that needful work, and foolishly linger. Lot did so, and it might have been fatal to him it the angels had not laid hold of his hand, and brought him forth, and saved him with fear, Jude 23. Herein it is said, The Lord was merciful to him; otherwise he might justly have left him to perish, since he was so loth to depart. Note, (1.) The salvation of the most righteous men must be attributed to God's mercy, not to their own merit. We are saved by grace. (2.) God's power also must be acknowledged in the bringing of souls out of a sinful state. If God had not brought us forth, we had never come forth. (3.) If God had not been merciful to us, our lingering had been our ruin.

2. With what a gracious vehemence he was urged to make the best of his way, when he was brought forth, v. 17. (1.) He must still apprehend himself in danger of being consumed, and be quickened by the law of self-preservation to flee for his life. Note, A holy fear and trembling are found necessary to the working out of our salvation. (2.) He must therefore mind his business with the utmost care and diligence. He must not hanker after Sodom: Look not behind thee. He must not loiter by the way: Stay not in the plain; for it would all be made one dead sea. He must not take up short of the place of refuge appointed him: Escape to the mountain. Such as these are the commands given to those who through grace are delivered out of a sinful state. [1.] Return not to sin and Satan, for that is looking back to Sodom. [2.] Rest not in self and the world, for that is staying in the plain. And, [3.] Reach towards Christ and heaven, for that is escaping to the mountain, short of which we must not take up.

Some Newer Work

Some of my favorites from this summer. I need to post more photos.

Book Review - 'The Cross'

The Cross: God’s Way of Salvation
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Crossway Books, 1986, 224 pages, $12 (paperback)


Few books have impacted me emotionally as “The Cross” by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. The first 100 pages flew by me late one Wednesday night leaving behind a small, broken man on the floor crying out in worship and thanksgiving. Page by page Mr. Lloyd-Jones, like a jeweler examining a diamond in the light, shows the reader different beautiful facets of the cross – that antinomy of the terrible and beautiful together. In this brief outline, I’ve decided to let Lloyd-Jones’ own words do most of the work to show the beauty and message of this book.

The book begins by explaining that the cross is what the apostles gloried in, and how Jesus’ life and teaching make no sense preached apart from the shadow of the cross.

“Now at the risk of being misunderstood I will put it like this: It is not primarily the teaching of our Lord. I say that, of course, because there are so many today who think that this is Christianity. They say, ‘What we need is Jesus’ teaching. He is the greatest religious genius of all times. He is above all philosophers. Let us have a look at His teaching, at the Sermon on the Mount and so on. That is what we want.’ ‘What the world needs today,’ they say, ‘is a dose of the Sermon on the Mount; a does of his ethical teaching. We must preach this to people and teach them how to live.” But according to the apostle, Paul, this is not their first need. And I will go further. If you only preach the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, not only do you not solve the problem of mankind, but in a sense you aggravate it. You are preaching nothing but utter condemnation, because nobody can ever carry it out. So they did not preach His teaching. Paul does not say, ‘God forbid that I should glory, save in the Sermon on the Mount’ or ‘God forbid that I should glory save in the ethical teaching of Jesus’. He does not say that. It was not the teaching of Christ, nor the example of Christ either. What they preached was His death on the cross and the meaning of that event.” pp. 20-21

We see in Proverbs 17:15 that anyone who justifies a wicked man is an abomination to God, but later in Romans 4:5 we find Paul glorying that God has done that very thing – justified the wicked! How do we unlock these two contradictory statements? The cross is the key. A large and wonderful portion of this work is dedicated to the question posed to Spurgeon’s listeners 100 years prior, ‘How can a holy and just God forgive sinners without becoming an abomination to Himself?’

“No, we do not understand the righteousness of God. That is why modern man does not believe in the blood of the cross. He does not know what righteousness is. He does not know what justice is or what law is. He does not believe in discipline, and his world is becoming a hell for that reason. But God is righteous, he is the law giver, he is holy, he is of so pure a countenance that he cannot even look upon sin; and God cannot pretend that he has not seen it. God sees sin. He sees everything. He must punish sin. His own holy nature insists upon it and he has told us abundantly that he is going to do so. So here is the problem. Man is a guilty sinner, God is a holy God. How can the two be brought together? The answer is the cross of Christ.

…So what was happening on the cross was that God himself was laying your sins and mine upon his dearly beloved Son, and he paid the penalty of our guilt and our transgressions. “For he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2Cor. 5:21). “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). That is what the Father did. What did the son do? He was passive as a lamb, he did not grumble, he did not complain. He took it all upon him. He allowed it to happen. He surrendered himself deliberately and freely.

“Who gave himself for (on behalf of) our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father” (Galatians 1:4). But still more wonderfully, in Galatians 2:20, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” pp. 32-33

The book is also a call for examination, echoing Paul’s own exhortation in 1st Cor. 13:5 to examine and test ourselves to make sure of our calling and election.

'The word 'glory' at once tells us at once that the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is the test of every one of us. It is the test of our profession of Christianity. It is the test of our church membership, indeed, of our whole position and profession. There is no more subtle test of our understanding than our attitude to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, the cross passes judgment on us all, immediately and of necessity. You cannot remain neutral in the presence of the cross. It has always divided mankind and still does. And what the apostle says is that there are ultimately only two positions with respect to it. The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is either an offense to us or else it is the thing above everything else in which we glory.

My dear friends, there never can be a more important question than this: what does the cross do to you? Where do you find yourself as you think of it and face it? It is one of these two, it is either an offense or else you glory in it. Are we all clear about our position? Do we know exactly where we stand? There are some perhaps saying, 'Well quite certainly it is not an offense, to me, but I am afraid I cannot say I glory in it.' Well, my friend, you are in an impossible position. There are only two positions - offense or glory. As we value our immortal souls, let us examine the matter, let us look into it, let us see what the apostle has got to tell us here, and elsewhere in his writings, about these two positions, in order that we may know for sure." pp. 41-42

The book goes on to discuss the power of the cross whereby it was (and is) the means of the devil’s defeat, the amazing regeneratory strength of the cross whereby filthy, vile sinners can have peace with God, and the infinite worth of the cross whereby the Son of God gave up his very communion with His Father to save those who hated him. At the same time, Lloyd-Jones glories in his admission that there is SO much more to that great cross than we will ever know.

Although considered one of the greatest preachers of the 20th century, surprisingly very few people outside the theological academy know of this great man and his writings. I am partial to think we can attribute this to peddling shallow, superficial and some down right worthless books in an attempt to simplify and “dumb down” truth in an effort to reach our increasingly dim church members. There are several deeply theological authors who are very readable and accessible to people of all walks of life, and Lloyd-Jones is one of them – Spurgeon also coming immediately to mind.

A concise work from a man not usually known for brevity (he has a 14 volume commentary on Romans!), I would (and will) recommend this book to all my friends, saved or lost. It’s a priceless work on the most important subject.

Piper Paints People-Pictures

Listening through these has been such a blessing to me in the past few weeks. I thoroughly recommend you burn a few of them and listen in your car or while doing some busy work. They are all very well done (save the MLJ one), but I especially hope you'll do some right-click save-as on this one, and this one, this one, and definitely this one. I've been very encouraged hearing about the lives, faith, doctrines and actions of these men. Praise the Lord for his faithfulness to raise up prophets in every generation.