found in his 'experiencing the presence of God'
32..I have often been surprised at the judgment men form in regard to the prospective usefulness of young men preparing for the
33 ministry. even professors (note: in seminaries) are very apt , i see to deceive themselves on this subject. if a young man is a good scholar, a fine writer and makes good progress in biblical interpretation, they have strong hopes for him. these professors must know in many cases that these young men cannot pray - that they have no fervency, no power in prayer, no spirit of wrestling, of agonizing and prevailing with God. yet they are expecting them, because of their intellects, to make their marks in the ministry and to be highly useful.
for my part, i expect no such thing of this class of men. i have infinitely more hope for the usefulness of a man who, AT ANY COST, will keep up daily fellowship with God, who is yearning for and struggling after the highest possible spiritual attainment, who will not live without daily persistence in prayer and being clothed with power from on high.
churches, presbyteries, associations and whoever licenses young men for the ministry are often very faulty in this respect. they will spend hours in informing themselves of the intellectual culture of the candidates, but scarcely as many minutes in ascertaining their heart culture - what they know of the power of Christ to save from sin, what they know of the power of prayer and whether and to what extent they are clothed with power from on high to win souls to Christ. the whole proceedings on such occasions leave the impression that human learning is preferred to spiritual fervency. Oh, that it were different and that we were all agreed, practically, now and forever, to hold fast to the promise of Christ and never to think of ourselves or anybody else as fit for the great work of the church until we have received a rich outpouring of power from on high!
i beg of my brothers in Christ and especially my younger brothers in Christ, not to think these things were written in the spirit of reproach. i beg the churches, i beg the seminaries, to receive a word of exhortation from an old man who has had some experience in these things and one whose heart mourns and is weighed down because of the shortcomings of the church, the ministers and the seminaries on this subject. fellow believers, i implore you to consider this matter more thoroughly, to wake up and take it to heart. DO
34 NOT REST until this subject of the outpouring of power from on high is brought forward into its proper place. do not rest until it takes the prominent and practical position in the view of the whole church that Christ intended it should.
note: EVERY PASTOR, beyond continual, private, begging/prevailing prayer for all men should be continually PRAYing WITH each sheep to whom he has been sent by the Good/Great Shepherd, Jesus, to care for spiritually. this shepherding includes ministering the word and modeling Christ continually to all men, but primarily to the people under his care. until he sees people as Jesus sees them he will not have begun to minister.
the apostles said, 'it is not reason that we should leave the word of god and serve tables...but we will give ourselves CONTINUALLY TO PRAYER AND TO THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD'. acts 6.2,4
'but when (Jesus) saw the multitudes, He was MOVED WITH COMPASSION ON them,
because they were DISTRESSED (ie. like a sheep caught by her wool, who the more she tried to tear free became held fast and torn by the thorns) and CAST DOWN (ie. when a sheep falls down they are helpless, they cannot get up unless someone helps them), as sheep having no shepherd. pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He will send forth LABOURers into His harvest. matthew 9.36
...if you don't have such, YOU become such (man or woman, boy or girl who knows and obeys Jesus) to those all around you crying out..or just stunnedandhopeless, in great spiritual/physical need because they have no jesus-in-the-flesh to care for them.
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Thursday, May 5, 2016
5.3.2016 TO ALL THE PROVERBS 31.10-31 WOMEN IN MY FAMILY, past, present and future....from my dear, departed mother and her foremothers to mikaela and allegra all our mothers to come until Jesus returns
who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
the heart of her husband does safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
she will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
she seeks wool and flax and works willingly with her hands.
she is like the merchants' ships; she brings her food from afar.
she rises also while it is yet night, and gives meat to her household and a portion to her maidens.
she considers a field and buys it: with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
she girds her loins with strength and strengthens her arms.
she perceives that her merchandise is good: her candle goes not out by night.
she lays her hands to the spindle and her hands hold the distaff.
she stretches out her hand to the poor; yes, she reaches forth her hands to the needy.
she is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
she makes herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
her husband is known IN THE GATES, when he sits among the elders of the land.
she makes fine linen and sells it and delivers girdles unto the merchant.
strength and honor are her clothing and she shall rejoice in time to come.
she opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
she looks well to the ways of her household and eats not the bread of idleness.
her children arise up and call her blessed; her husband also and he praises her.
many daughters have done virtuously, but you excel them all.
favor is deceitful and beauty is vain: but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised.
give her of the fruit of her hands and let her own works praise her IN THE GATES.
truly, the hand that rocks the cradle RULES the world.
we hear, 'Christianity oppresses women by making them submit to their husbands!'
the Bible does say, 'Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord', but it also instructs, 'Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it' (Ephesians 5.22,25). a man who understands that Jesus Christ sacrificed His life's blood for the Church will likewise love his wife sacrificially and passionately. he will honor her, respect her, protect, love and cherish her as much as he does his own body, as he is instructed to do (Ephesians 5.28). he will never say or do anything to harm or demean her. it is in this atmosphere of love and security that a godly wife willingly submits herself to the protective arms of her husband. she does this not because he is better than she is, but simply because this is God's order for His creation.
a godless world rejects the God-given formula to make marriage work. it thinks it knows best and suffers the heartbreaking consequences of destroyed marriages and ruined lives. the Christian ideal of marriage is not one of an authoritarian and chauvinistic male holding his cringing wife in submission like an obedient dog. it's the very opposite. while most of the great religions treat women as inferior to men, the Bible gives them a place of dignity, honor and unspeakable worth, expressed so evidently in proverbs 31.
the heart of her husband does safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
she will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
she seeks wool and flax and works willingly with her hands.
she is like the merchants' ships; she brings her food from afar.
she rises also while it is yet night, and gives meat to her household and a portion to her maidens.
she considers a field and buys it: with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
she girds her loins with strength and strengthens her arms.
she perceives that her merchandise is good: her candle goes not out by night.
she lays her hands to the spindle and her hands hold the distaff.
she stretches out her hand to the poor; yes, she reaches forth her hands to the needy.
she is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
she makes herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
her husband is known IN THE GATES, when he sits among the elders of the land.
she makes fine linen and sells it and delivers girdles unto the merchant.
strength and honor are her clothing and she shall rejoice in time to come.
she opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
she looks well to the ways of her household and eats not the bread of idleness.
her children arise up and call her blessed; her husband also and he praises her.
many daughters have done virtuously, but you excel them all.
favor is deceitful and beauty is vain: but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised.
give her of the fruit of her hands and let her own works praise her IN THE GATES.
truly, the hand that rocks the cradle RULES the world.
we hear, 'Christianity oppresses women by making them submit to their husbands!'
the Bible does say, 'Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord', but it also instructs, 'Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it' (Ephesians 5.22,25). a man who understands that Jesus Christ sacrificed His life's blood for the Church will likewise love his wife sacrificially and passionately. he will honor her, respect her, protect, love and cherish her as much as he does his own body, as he is instructed to do (Ephesians 5.28). he will never say or do anything to harm or demean her. it is in this atmosphere of love and security that a godly wife willingly submits herself to the protective arms of her husband. she does this not because he is better than she is, but simply because this is God's order for His creation.
a godless world rejects the God-given formula to make marriage work. it thinks it knows best and suffers the heartbreaking consequences of destroyed marriages and ruined lives. the Christian ideal of marriage is not one of an authoritarian and chauvinistic male holding his cringing wife in submission like an obedient dog. it's the very opposite. while most of the great religions treat women as inferior to men, the Bible gives them a place of dignity, honor and unspeakable worth, expressed so evidently in proverbs 31.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
5.3.2016 THE NATURE OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM (1965) by rousas j. rushdoony
6 to the colonists, as to the barons who wrested Magna Carta from king john, english liberty meant feudalism in essence, LOCALISM AS AGAINST CENTRALISM, CONTRACTUAL GOVERNMENT AS AGAINST ABSOLUTISM. almost at once, the colonies gravitated to localism and contractualism. thie charters with the english crown were FEUDAL CONTRACTS and there was no relationship between colonies and crown except in terms of these charters. although the crown was often arbitrary and sought to be absolutistic, the legal basis remained FEUDAL. each colony was thus an independent state, with its own independent civil structure, under a feudal lord, represented in the colony by the royal governor.
7 ..the 13 colonies were free and independent states under their feudal lord, George III they were not under parliament but had their own legislative bodies and their internally independent structures. the colonies had the right and power to issue their own money, a right which parliament sought to destroy...
..the actions of parliament here and in other issues constituted an invasion of the colonies and the actions of George III A VIOLATION OF HIS FEUDAL RESPONSIBILITIES. the declaration of independence accordingly never mentioned the british parliament; they had no legal relationship thereto and had no need to declare themselves independent of an authority they had never been subject to.
8 the Declaration did cite the royal acts which rendered the king's feudal lordship over the colonies null and void. not the colonies but the king had rebelled against the prevailing law and order. legality was thus on the side of the colonists. as the Declaration stated it, 'the history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states'...they were not in rebellion against the idea of a ruler, but against 'a tyrant,...unfit to be the ruler of a free people...
the purpose of the Constitution was thus not to create a strong central government, but, creating a federal union only sufficiently strong to maintain their unity, to thereupon limit it severely in order to prevent any future rise of centralism. the Constitution accordingly makes 80 grants of power to the federal government while levying 115 prohibitions against it. to the federal legislative authority, there are 20 grants of power and 70 restraints. in addition, the express powers doctrine, implicit in the Constitution, is firmly spelled out in Amendments IX and X as a further check on the federal government.
in Amendment XI, the states asserted their further independence of federal jurisdiction.
but it would be a serious error to assert that the alternative to federal sovereignty is State Rights. important as
9 the states are, they are not the basic unit of the American system. the basic unit is clearly and without question THE COUNTY; significantly, one of the first steps towards independence was taken by mecklenberg County, North Carolina, may 31, 1775, in order to prevent a legal vacuum.
we have already noted that the county had certain powers with reference to religion. more important, in other areas the county had full jurisdiction and these areas constitute the essence of civil government.
first, the PROPERTY TAX remained in the hands of the county, which had early established its jurisdiction. the people of an area thus controlled their tax assessor and their county supervisors, so that the taxing power was not beyond their jurisdiction. when the power to tax leaves the county, tyranny will then begin in the united states. socialism or communism will be only a step away. the people of a county will be helpless as their property is taxed to the point of expropriation (def. take possession of, especially for public use)...
one of the central reasons for the Constitution was the failure of the Confederation because of its inability to tax, its Congress being dependent on the grants of the several states. while certain powers were removed from the United States of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution, the central extension of power was the power to tax. this was circumscribed in two ways: first, debt paper money was barred, Congress and the states being limited to hard money and Congress being limited to coining money, regulating its value and fixing the standard of weights and measures (Article 1, Section 8). this power was moreover restricted to congress, not to a central bank. since debt paper money and inflation are forms of taxation, this was a severe limitation upon the powers of Congress, which had previously issued debt paper money, as had the states. second, 'no Capitation, or other direct tax' on the citizens, 'unless in
10 proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken' and 'no tax or duty...on articles exported from any state' (Article I Section 9), was permitted. taxes were essentially 'Duties, Imposts and Excises' whose purpose was 'to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States' (Article I, Section 8). 'general welfare' was clearly not intended to men aid to individuals and Madison so stated it in the Federalist. (no. 41, p. 268f, edward mead earle edition, new york: modern library, 1936)
second, CRIMINAL LAW was and is county law in essence. this was an important safeguard against tyranny and against the political use of criminal law. law enforcement officers, including judges, were and are officers of the county, in the main or of its constituent units. as T. Robert Ingram has pointed out, not too many years ago executions were also held at the county seat. police power and criminal law are thus matters of local jurisdiction in the american system. this makes possible, on the moral decline of the community, a slack enforcement of law and order, but, more than that, it is the basic ingredient of liberty in the American legal system, of self government in both church and state. it is local authority; it is self-government. it means truly that which the jury system requires, trials by one's peers.
third, CIVIL LAW is also county law to a great degree, enforced by local courts and by locally elected officials. the american citizen is thus for the most part under county government rather than state and federal government. his basic instruments of civil government are local, residing in the county and the county is his historic line of defense against the encroachments of state and federal governments. in early America, town and county elections were properly regarded as more important than state and federal elections, and property qualifications more strict on the local level. the county was the heart of the protestant feudal restoration,
11 and the growth of state and especially federal power was as much distrusted as the growth of royal power and then royal absolutism had been hated and distrusted in an earlier era.
the county is currently under assault from United Nations, federal, state and metropolitan planners. (see E.G.Grace" what is metropolitan government?, lost angeles, 1958; Jo Hindman: terrible 1313 revisited, caldwell, idaho: caxton press, 1963.
..the first major assault on LOCALISM came very early and it came from the states. the Constitution, in establishing the Electoral College, made it the exact numerical counterpart of congress, with one elector for each congressional district and two at large for the two senators. the constitutional convention did not presume to order the states to follow the congressional districts strictly, with an elector named from each district, but it certainly suggested this by the exact coincidence of structure.
it was assumed in the proceedings of the convention that prominent and able men from each congressional district and from the state at large, would be elected or appointed as electors, and, to retain their independence and integrity, the electors could not be a 'Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States' (Article II, Section 1).
for some years, a variety of methods were used and electors often had a measure of independence as well as ties to the local district. in 1836, however, the general ticket was used in every state except south carolina (where election by the legislature continued until 1860) and rarely since then has there been a departure from the general ticket
state politicians had come to recognize the power inherent in the general ticket. instead of binding each elector to the vote of the congressional district, with only the two at large bound to the state vote, the general ticket took the
12 power from the congressional district, the local unit and gave it to the state. as a result, while every congressional district in a state except those of the large urban center may vote for one candidate, their votes are nullified by the slim majority given by the urban vote and ALL electoral votes can go to the other candidate.
the state politicians were not alone in recognizing the power inherent in the general ticket. minority groups quickly recognized that it gave them the balance of power between the two parties. the first group to make use of this power was the Abolitionist movement. slavery had previously been a source of tension but had been very far from dominating federal politics. now the picture changed rapidly. a few thousand abolitionists , for example, in new your state could, by throwing their vote to one party or another, decide the outcome of an election.
14 ..some other aspects of american history which clearly distinguished the American system then from what it is today. important among these was the attitude towards PROPERTY and SUFFRAGE.
the question of a federal requirement of property for suffrage was earnestly raised at the Convention by several men. Gouverneur morris objected to the rule of numbers alone as against property, stating, 'not liberty, property is the main object of society'. Rutledge agreed: 'property is the primary object of society and in fixing a ratio, ought not to be excluded from the estimate. butler held that 'Property is the only just measure of representation. James Wilson clearly disagreed: 'property is not the sole nor the primary end of government ans society; the improvement of the human mind is the most noble...
Madison held that such a federal measure would establish class hostility in the United States while evading the fact that 'landed possessions were no certain evidence of real wealth', many landowners being deeply in debt. benjamin franklin pointed out several objections to the property qualification, warning, 'remember, the scripture requires in rulers that they should be men hating covetousness'. dickinson opposed the qualification, since a constitutional statement would not be complete and yet would limit congress 'from supplying the omissions. moreover, 'the best defense lay in the freeholders who were to elect the legislature. whilst this source should remain pure, the public interest would be safe. if it ever should be corrupt, no little expedients would repel the danger. a federal requirement of property was thus defeated and the matter left in the hands of the states and counties.
madison was not certain exactly what the answer to the problem of qualified suffrage was, but he felt 'the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty'. he foresaw the time when, unlike the situation in his day, many voters would be property-less workingmen who would become 'the tools of opulence and ambition'. the result would be a european style aristocracy. Gouveneur Morris feared the same thing: 'unless you establish a qualification of property, we shall have an aristocracy. the demand for a property qualification was thus as a preventative to aristocracy or oligarchy, the plunder of the people by the rich few in the name of the masses. much later, a master politician stated what was necessary for the triumph of an oligarchy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared;
'now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government.
property qualifications, of varying degrees, existed on the state level. they tended to be even more strict on the local and county level. they tended to be even more strict on the local and county level, where the property tax was involved. to give voting rights over property to non-propertied men was seen as destructive of law and order. since, cooper stated, 'the governments of towns and villages, for instance, are almost entirely directed to the regulation of property and to the control of local interests, suffrage should be restricted to the propertied, who have a stake in the issues involved. in some areas today, separate ballots exist for property owners, who alone can vote on bond issues and like measures. the mainspring of many conservative movements of the 1950s and 1960s is the revolt of property owners against equalitarian and confiscatory measures.
the issue with respect to property was perhaps most sharply stated in 1843 by karl marx. it should be noted that his references to 'the state' mean thereby, except in reference to american states, the modern secular state.
16 the state is the intermediary between man and his freedom. as Christ is the intermediary whom the christian burdens with his divinity and all his religious ties, so the state is the intermediary whom man burdens with his entire non-divinity and his complete absence of ties.
the political triumph of man over religion shares all the advantages and disadvantages of political triumph generally. thus, for example, the state annuls private property: man proclaims politically that private property: man proclaims politically that private property is abolished as soon as he abolishes the property qualification for the vote, as has been done in several american states...is not private property as an idea abolished when the non-owner becomes legislator for the owner? the property qualification for the vote is the ultimate political form of the recognition of private property.
some points of very great importance are here asserted or implied. first, as the state grows in its power, it 'emancipates itself from religion' and professes 'no religion except its own statehood. this secular state accordingly becomes man's 'intermediary' or mediator and man's savior. the state becomes the road to paradise regained and the source of man's salvation. the secular state is thus inevitably a messianic order. second, 'the state annuls private property'. 'the state can be a free state without the man in it being a free man'. it is certainly significant that in the united states today there is increasing reference to our status as 'a free nation' and less to our heritage as a free people, free individuals. for the state to be free, requires us to ask, free from whom? (note: and 'free to do what?') the state wants to be free, not only from foreign powers, but, most commonly of all, from bondage to its own people. to free itself, the state must enslave its citizens. to do this, it must, first, secularize itself and the people and, second, annul private property, since both christianity and property give the citizenry an independence of the state and keep the state strictly limited.
third, marx pointed out, 'private property as an idea' is 'abolished when the non-owner becomes legislator for the owner'. how long would christianity last as an institution if unbelievers could vote in churches. will non-owners respect
17 property to any greater degree? the answer is the steady confiscation of wealth, property and income through taxation. as of june, 1963, federal, state and local civilian taxation. as of june 1963, federal, state and local civilian workers exceeded 12 million, with another 28 million receiving welfare in one form or another. federal executive civilian employees numbered 2,353,054; legislative, 22,853; judicial, 4,900; for a total of 2,380,807. the total revenue of federal, state and local civil governments exceeded $150 billions a year. since one in seven persons is a welfare beneficiary, the burden of this taxation falls heavily on the responsible citizenry. the rise of statism coincides with the decline of faith, of private property and of responsibility. and to speed its rise to power, the state must further erode these things and is hence by nature hostile to them.
in no other area has so radical a change taken place form the early years of the United States as in EDUCATION. the 'public school' movement, or statist education, did not exist until the 1830s. statist education began as a subversive movement and its bitter, savage struggle has not yet been written. the essentials of the drive which produced statist education are clearly seen in horace mann (1796-18590, 'the Father of the Common Schools.' first and foremost, mann was a unitarian. new england unitarianism was in the forefront of the battle for statist education. for mann, unitarianism was true christianity and, with humorless zeal, he fought for his holy faith. the direction of U thought had been very early charted by william ellery channing. according to phillips, for channing, 'the secular organization of society usually takes the place of Divine Society on earth, historically the christian church and itself becomes the agent of God's salvation'. channing moved towards 'the divinization of the national state', stating in 1812 'that government is a divine institution'. the biblical position is that civil government is divinely ordained or instituted but definitely not itself divine; indeed, biblical faith is at war with such a position. but channing, by 1830, held to 'a completely univocal community, with all human and divine sanctions.
18 for channing, according to phillips, 'man's salvation, then, is to be worked out not on the basis of membership in the mystical body of Christ, but citizenship in the glorious race of mankind. for theodore parker, another unitarian leader, the true church was the great invisible Church of Mankind, to be revealed through america. O.B Frothingham subsequently (1872) affirmed 'the religion of humanity' and his hopes in 'the new paradise' to be brought in by the sate. in view of this very extensive Unitarian movement, it is not surprising that its members and friends saw the old christian school as backward and incapable of dealing with the basic issues of the times. true education had to be concerned with LIBERTY and the order of man's liberty was the STATE. this horace mann affirmed fervently. the responsiblity of the church was libertarian rather than salvationist, and freedom was institutional, ie. statist in nature. as a result education was properly the province of the state...
..the conversion of america's education into an instument
19 of statism was the most important step into socialism which a society can ever take, for to socialize the child is a far more radical step than to socialize income, monetary wealth or property. it was therefor precisely what the beards termed it, 'the educational revolution, that mann effected.
20 the concept of 'emocratic' or statist education has waged war, not only against the christian faith, but against the family as well. very early, by the 1860s california made criticism of a teacher by a 'parent, guardian or other person..in the presence or hearing of a pupil thereof,...a misdemeanor'.
...it should be remembered that the family was once the primary educational institution. as late as 1883, a parental guide book, faced with the spread of state schools, urged, 'parents will do wisely, wherever it is possible, to carry on the work of elementary instruction at home'. in the 1950s, when highly qualified parents did this and did it ably, they were haled into courts. statist education is intolerant increasingly of any rivalry.
21 but, in recent years, a steady revolt against statist education has been developing..this has been the one area where the advance of statism has been turned into a retreat. the threat, however, of a major offensive is very real. state, federal and united Nation agencies seek control over EVERY kind of school, statist and non-statist, in the name of 'humanity'. the necessary implication is too seldom faced by americans: THE NEED TO ATTACK BY ADVOCATING THE OUTRIGHT ABOLITION OF ALL STATIST SCHOOLS AS INIMICAL TO LIBERTY. unfortunately, the only county so to move, prince edward county, virginia, did so in 1958 for a reason other than the issue of statism, ie. the US fourth circuit of appeals order for desegregation of the county's high schools. there is reason to believe, however, that the heyday of the 'public' school is ended and that free schools will eventually supplanting it, although not without struggle. but it needs to be remembered that statist and secular education was not a part of the american system for the first two centuries of its history, including its first 40 years under the Constitution and, even then, was viewed for some time as a radical and dangerous innovation.
22 ..the transition from the older to the current situation can best be analyzed by briefly examining kansas city in 1909. in autumn, when thousands were unemployed, the Helping Hand Institute set up rock quarrying and breaking operations, with the rock sold to the city for road work. the help thus provided was insufficient to meet the emergency. wealthy citizens, led by william volker, worked to create the first municipal Department of Public Welfare, april 4, 1910. this public agency, however, was still supported by private funds, vulker fudsn so that it was still, as in the past, a case of organized private charity meeting all needs and problems. this department set up a loan agency for the needy, confronted the problems of prostgitution and immorality and sought to coordinate the work of private agencies, such as the Helping Hand Institute and the Provident Association and to meet needs no covered by existing private agencies. after volker left the department in april, 1911, it became in fact a MUNICIPAL agency and politicians like thomas j. pendergast recognized its potentiality as AN INSTRUMENT OF POLITICAL POWER. volker himself 'learned that government and politics are inseparable, by definition; that political charity is not charity at all'. he observed in 1919, when the last member of the independent board, leroy halbert, was ousted by 'the machine-dominated City Council', 'i've learned something about government...government must be restricted to those activities which can be entrusted to the worst citizens, not the best'.
other cities very rapidly followed kansas city in establishing departments of public welfare; states and then the federal government, quickly followed suit. the tremendous potentialities for political power were widely recognized. NOT CHARITY BUT POWER is the primary function of statist welfare. the attempts of various agencies in recent years to move faster than the public demand, and then to create by propaganda that public demand, is motivated by a lust for power, not by a regard for human welfare. charity is a by product: there must be enough, like bread and circuses, to keep the masses happy, but the foremost goal is power, power to be gods and to manipulate men and society, to indulge the whims of megalomania in the name of benevolence.
23 and with this goes a re-writing of history. it is not surprising that some college students are beginning to report unfortunately with credulity, that they are taught that, after the 1929 economic depression, hungry mobs went rampaging in the streets and people dropped to the sidewalks of America in the last stages of hunger.
it is clear cut that a second American Revolution has taken place. in the words of garet garrett's title, The Revolution Was, ans it is now trying to extirpate the citizen's memory of the first revolution. this second revolution is a kind of return to europe, to 'the house of bondage', a rebellion against liberty and its responsibilities. it is not surprising that it has gone hand in hand with either a debuking of or ignorance concerning the American Revolution and its background, for the restoration of that first revolution and its extension, there must first be a return to a christian faith, a faith that not the state but Christ is the Savior and Mediator, and, second, a return to the protestant restoration of feudalism, to the centrality and importance of the local unit, the county and its elements.
7 ..the 13 colonies were free and independent states under their feudal lord, George III they were not under parliament but had their own legislative bodies and their internally independent structures. the colonies had the right and power to issue their own money, a right which parliament sought to destroy...
..the actions of parliament here and in other issues constituted an invasion of the colonies and the actions of George III A VIOLATION OF HIS FEUDAL RESPONSIBILITIES. the declaration of independence accordingly never mentioned the british parliament; they had no legal relationship thereto and had no need to declare themselves independent of an authority they had never been subject to.
8 the Declaration did cite the royal acts which rendered the king's feudal lordship over the colonies null and void. not the colonies but the king had rebelled against the prevailing law and order. legality was thus on the side of the colonists. as the Declaration stated it, 'the history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states'...they were not in rebellion against the idea of a ruler, but against 'a tyrant,...unfit to be the ruler of a free people...
the purpose of the Constitution was thus not to create a strong central government, but, creating a federal union only sufficiently strong to maintain their unity, to thereupon limit it severely in order to prevent any future rise of centralism. the Constitution accordingly makes 80 grants of power to the federal government while levying 115 prohibitions against it. to the federal legislative authority, there are 20 grants of power and 70 restraints. in addition, the express powers doctrine, implicit in the Constitution, is firmly spelled out in Amendments IX and X as a further check on the federal government.
in Amendment XI, the states asserted their further independence of federal jurisdiction.
but it would be a serious error to assert that the alternative to federal sovereignty is State Rights. important as
9 the states are, they are not the basic unit of the American system. the basic unit is clearly and without question THE COUNTY; significantly, one of the first steps towards independence was taken by mecklenberg County, North Carolina, may 31, 1775, in order to prevent a legal vacuum.
we have already noted that the county had certain powers with reference to religion. more important, in other areas the county had full jurisdiction and these areas constitute the essence of civil government.
first, the PROPERTY TAX remained in the hands of the county, which had early established its jurisdiction. the people of an area thus controlled their tax assessor and their county supervisors, so that the taxing power was not beyond their jurisdiction. when the power to tax leaves the county, tyranny will then begin in the united states. socialism or communism will be only a step away. the people of a county will be helpless as their property is taxed to the point of expropriation (def. take possession of, especially for public use)...
one of the central reasons for the Constitution was the failure of the Confederation because of its inability to tax, its Congress being dependent on the grants of the several states. while certain powers were removed from the United States of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution, the central extension of power was the power to tax. this was circumscribed in two ways: first, debt paper money was barred, Congress and the states being limited to hard money and Congress being limited to coining money, regulating its value and fixing the standard of weights and measures (Article 1, Section 8). this power was moreover restricted to congress, not to a central bank. since debt paper money and inflation are forms of taxation, this was a severe limitation upon the powers of Congress, which had previously issued debt paper money, as had the states. second, 'no Capitation, or other direct tax' on the citizens, 'unless in
10 proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken' and 'no tax or duty...on articles exported from any state' (Article I Section 9), was permitted. taxes were essentially 'Duties, Imposts and Excises' whose purpose was 'to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States' (Article I, Section 8). 'general welfare' was clearly not intended to men aid to individuals and Madison so stated it in the Federalist. (no. 41, p. 268f, edward mead earle edition, new york: modern library, 1936)
second, CRIMINAL LAW was and is county law in essence. this was an important safeguard against tyranny and against the political use of criminal law. law enforcement officers, including judges, were and are officers of the county, in the main or of its constituent units. as T. Robert Ingram has pointed out, not too many years ago executions were also held at the county seat. police power and criminal law are thus matters of local jurisdiction in the american system. this makes possible, on the moral decline of the community, a slack enforcement of law and order, but, more than that, it is the basic ingredient of liberty in the American legal system, of self government in both church and state. it is local authority; it is self-government. it means truly that which the jury system requires, trials by one's peers.
third, CIVIL LAW is also county law to a great degree, enforced by local courts and by locally elected officials. the american citizen is thus for the most part under county government rather than state and federal government. his basic instruments of civil government are local, residing in the county and the county is his historic line of defense against the encroachments of state and federal governments. in early America, town and county elections were properly regarded as more important than state and federal elections, and property qualifications more strict on the local level. the county was the heart of the protestant feudal restoration,
11 and the growth of state and especially federal power was as much distrusted as the growth of royal power and then royal absolutism had been hated and distrusted in an earlier era.
the county is currently under assault from United Nations, federal, state and metropolitan planners. (see E.G.Grace" what is metropolitan government?, lost angeles, 1958; Jo Hindman: terrible 1313 revisited, caldwell, idaho: caxton press, 1963.
..the first major assault on LOCALISM came very early and it came from the states. the Constitution, in establishing the Electoral College, made it the exact numerical counterpart of congress, with one elector for each congressional district and two at large for the two senators. the constitutional convention did not presume to order the states to follow the congressional districts strictly, with an elector named from each district, but it certainly suggested this by the exact coincidence of structure.
it was assumed in the proceedings of the convention that prominent and able men from each congressional district and from the state at large, would be elected or appointed as electors, and, to retain their independence and integrity, the electors could not be a 'Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States' (Article II, Section 1).
for some years, a variety of methods were used and electors often had a measure of independence as well as ties to the local district. in 1836, however, the general ticket was used in every state except south carolina (where election by the legislature continued until 1860) and rarely since then has there been a departure from the general ticket
state politicians had come to recognize the power inherent in the general ticket. instead of binding each elector to the vote of the congressional district, with only the two at large bound to the state vote, the general ticket took the
12 power from the congressional district, the local unit and gave it to the state. as a result, while every congressional district in a state except those of the large urban center may vote for one candidate, their votes are nullified by the slim majority given by the urban vote and ALL electoral votes can go to the other candidate.
the state politicians were not alone in recognizing the power inherent in the general ticket. minority groups quickly recognized that it gave them the balance of power between the two parties. the first group to make use of this power was the Abolitionist movement. slavery had previously been a source of tension but had been very far from dominating federal politics. now the picture changed rapidly. a few thousand abolitionists , for example, in new your state could, by throwing their vote to one party or another, decide the outcome of an election.
14 ..some other aspects of american history which clearly distinguished the American system then from what it is today. important among these was the attitude towards PROPERTY and SUFFRAGE.
the question of a federal requirement of property for suffrage was earnestly raised at the Convention by several men. Gouverneur morris objected to the rule of numbers alone as against property, stating, 'not liberty, property is the main object of society'. Rutledge agreed: 'property is the primary object of society and in fixing a ratio, ought not to be excluded from the estimate. butler held that 'Property is the only just measure of representation. James Wilson clearly disagreed: 'property is not the sole nor the primary end of government ans society; the improvement of the human mind is the most noble...
Madison held that such a federal measure would establish class hostility in the United States while evading the fact that 'landed possessions were no certain evidence of real wealth', many landowners being deeply in debt. benjamin franklin pointed out several objections to the property qualification, warning, 'remember, the scripture requires in rulers that they should be men hating covetousness'. dickinson opposed the qualification, since a constitutional statement would not be complete and yet would limit congress 'from supplying the omissions. moreover, 'the best defense lay in the freeholders who were to elect the legislature. whilst this source should remain pure, the public interest would be safe. if it ever should be corrupt, no little expedients would repel the danger. a federal requirement of property was thus defeated and the matter left in the hands of the states and counties.
madison was not certain exactly what the answer to the problem of qualified suffrage was, but he felt 'the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty'. he foresaw the time when, unlike the situation in his day, many voters would be property-less workingmen who would become 'the tools of opulence and ambition'. the result would be a european style aristocracy. Gouveneur Morris feared the same thing: 'unless you establish a qualification of property, we shall have an aristocracy. the demand for a property qualification was thus as a preventative to aristocracy or oligarchy, the plunder of the people by the rich few in the name of the masses. much later, a master politician stated what was necessary for the triumph of an oligarchy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared;
'now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government.
property qualifications, of varying degrees, existed on the state level. they tended to be even more strict on the local and county level. they tended to be even more strict on the local and county level, where the property tax was involved. to give voting rights over property to non-propertied men was seen as destructive of law and order. since, cooper stated, 'the governments of towns and villages, for instance, are almost entirely directed to the regulation of property and to the control of local interests, suffrage should be restricted to the propertied, who have a stake in the issues involved. in some areas today, separate ballots exist for property owners, who alone can vote on bond issues and like measures. the mainspring of many conservative movements of the 1950s and 1960s is the revolt of property owners against equalitarian and confiscatory measures.
the issue with respect to property was perhaps most sharply stated in 1843 by karl marx. it should be noted that his references to 'the state' mean thereby, except in reference to american states, the modern secular state.
16 the state is the intermediary between man and his freedom. as Christ is the intermediary whom the christian burdens with his divinity and all his religious ties, so the state is the intermediary whom man burdens with his entire non-divinity and his complete absence of ties.
the political triumph of man over religion shares all the advantages and disadvantages of political triumph generally. thus, for example, the state annuls private property: man proclaims politically that private property: man proclaims politically that private property is abolished as soon as he abolishes the property qualification for the vote, as has been done in several american states...is not private property as an idea abolished when the non-owner becomes legislator for the owner? the property qualification for the vote is the ultimate political form of the recognition of private property.
some points of very great importance are here asserted or implied. first, as the state grows in its power, it 'emancipates itself from religion' and professes 'no religion except its own statehood. this secular state accordingly becomes man's 'intermediary' or mediator and man's savior. the state becomes the road to paradise regained and the source of man's salvation. the secular state is thus inevitably a messianic order. second, 'the state annuls private property'. 'the state can be a free state without the man in it being a free man'. it is certainly significant that in the united states today there is increasing reference to our status as 'a free nation' and less to our heritage as a free people, free individuals. for the state to be free, requires us to ask, free from whom? (note: and 'free to do what?') the state wants to be free, not only from foreign powers, but, most commonly of all, from bondage to its own people. to free itself, the state must enslave its citizens. to do this, it must, first, secularize itself and the people and, second, annul private property, since both christianity and property give the citizenry an independence of the state and keep the state strictly limited.
third, marx pointed out, 'private property as an idea' is 'abolished when the non-owner becomes legislator for the owner'. how long would christianity last as an institution if unbelievers could vote in churches. will non-owners respect
17 property to any greater degree? the answer is the steady confiscation of wealth, property and income through taxation. as of june, 1963, federal, state and local civilian taxation. as of june 1963, federal, state and local civilian workers exceeded 12 million, with another 28 million receiving welfare in one form or another. federal executive civilian employees numbered 2,353,054; legislative, 22,853; judicial, 4,900; for a total of 2,380,807. the total revenue of federal, state and local civil governments exceeded $150 billions a year. since one in seven persons is a welfare beneficiary, the burden of this taxation falls heavily on the responsible citizenry. the rise of statism coincides with the decline of faith, of private property and of responsibility. and to speed its rise to power, the state must further erode these things and is hence by nature hostile to them.
in no other area has so radical a change taken place form the early years of the United States as in EDUCATION. the 'public school' movement, or statist education, did not exist until the 1830s. statist education began as a subversive movement and its bitter, savage struggle has not yet been written. the essentials of the drive which produced statist education are clearly seen in horace mann (1796-18590, 'the Father of the Common Schools.' first and foremost, mann was a unitarian. new england unitarianism was in the forefront of the battle for statist education. for mann, unitarianism was true christianity and, with humorless zeal, he fought for his holy faith. the direction of U thought had been very early charted by william ellery channing. according to phillips, for channing, 'the secular organization of society usually takes the place of Divine Society on earth, historically the christian church and itself becomes the agent of God's salvation'. channing moved towards 'the divinization of the national state', stating in 1812 'that government is a divine institution'. the biblical position is that civil government is divinely ordained or instituted but definitely not itself divine; indeed, biblical faith is at war with such a position. but channing, by 1830, held to 'a completely univocal community, with all human and divine sanctions.
18 for channing, according to phillips, 'man's salvation, then, is to be worked out not on the basis of membership in the mystical body of Christ, but citizenship in the glorious race of mankind. for theodore parker, another unitarian leader, the true church was the great invisible Church of Mankind, to be revealed through america. O.B Frothingham subsequently (1872) affirmed 'the religion of humanity' and his hopes in 'the new paradise' to be brought in by the sate. in view of this very extensive Unitarian movement, it is not surprising that its members and friends saw the old christian school as backward and incapable of dealing with the basic issues of the times. true education had to be concerned with LIBERTY and the order of man's liberty was the STATE. this horace mann affirmed fervently. the responsiblity of the church was libertarian rather than salvationist, and freedom was institutional, ie. statist in nature. as a result education was properly the province of the state...
..the conversion of america's education into an instument
19 of statism was the most important step into socialism which a society can ever take, for to socialize the child is a far more radical step than to socialize income, monetary wealth or property. it was therefor precisely what the beards termed it, 'the educational revolution, that mann effected.
20 the concept of 'emocratic' or statist education has waged war, not only against the christian faith, but against the family as well. very early, by the 1860s california made criticism of a teacher by a 'parent, guardian or other person..in the presence or hearing of a pupil thereof,...a misdemeanor'.
...it should be remembered that the family was once the primary educational institution. as late as 1883, a parental guide book, faced with the spread of state schools, urged, 'parents will do wisely, wherever it is possible, to carry on the work of elementary instruction at home'. in the 1950s, when highly qualified parents did this and did it ably, they were haled into courts. statist education is intolerant increasingly of any rivalry.
21 but, in recent years, a steady revolt against statist education has been developing..this has been the one area where the advance of statism has been turned into a retreat. the threat, however, of a major offensive is very real. state, federal and united Nation agencies seek control over EVERY kind of school, statist and non-statist, in the name of 'humanity'. the necessary implication is too seldom faced by americans: THE NEED TO ATTACK BY ADVOCATING THE OUTRIGHT ABOLITION OF ALL STATIST SCHOOLS AS INIMICAL TO LIBERTY. unfortunately, the only county so to move, prince edward county, virginia, did so in 1958 for a reason other than the issue of statism, ie. the US fourth circuit of appeals order for desegregation of the county's high schools. there is reason to believe, however, that the heyday of the 'public' school is ended and that free schools will eventually supplanting it, although not without struggle. but it needs to be remembered that statist and secular education was not a part of the american system for the first two centuries of its history, including its first 40 years under the Constitution and, even then, was viewed for some time as a radical and dangerous innovation.
22 ..the transition from the older to the current situation can best be analyzed by briefly examining kansas city in 1909. in autumn, when thousands were unemployed, the Helping Hand Institute set up rock quarrying and breaking operations, with the rock sold to the city for road work. the help thus provided was insufficient to meet the emergency. wealthy citizens, led by william volker, worked to create the first municipal Department of Public Welfare, april 4, 1910. this public agency, however, was still supported by private funds, vulker fudsn so that it was still, as in the past, a case of organized private charity meeting all needs and problems. this department set up a loan agency for the needy, confronted the problems of prostgitution and immorality and sought to coordinate the work of private agencies, such as the Helping Hand Institute and the Provident Association and to meet needs no covered by existing private agencies. after volker left the department in april, 1911, it became in fact a MUNICIPAL agency and politicians like thomas j. pendergast recognized its potentiality as AN INSTRUMENT OF POLITICAL POWER. volker himself 'learned that government and politics are inseparable, by definition; that political charity is not charity at all'. he observed in 1919, when the last member of the independent board, leroy halbert, was ousted by 'the machine-dominated City Council', 'i've learned something about government...government must be restricted to those activities which can be entrusted to the worst citizens, not the best'.
other cities very rapidly followed kansas city in establishing departments of public welfare; states and then the federal government, quickly followed suit. the tremendous potentialities for political power were widely recognized. NOT CHARITY BUT POWER is the primary function of statist welfare. the attempts of various agencies in recent years to move faster than the public demand, and then to create by propaganda that public demand, is motivated by a lust for power, not by a regard for human welfare. charity is a by product: there must be enough, like bread and circuses, to keep the masses happy, but the foremost goal is power, power to be gods and to manipulate men and society, to indulge the whims of megalomania in the name of benevolence.
23 and with this goes a re-writing of history. it is not surprising that some college students are beginning to report unfortunately with credulity, that they are taught that, after the 1929 economic depression, hungry mobs went rampaging in the streets and people dropped to the sidewalks of America in the last stages of hunger.
it is clear cut that a second American Revolution has taken place. in the words of garet garrett's title, The Revolution Was, ans it is now trying to extirpate the citizen's memory of the first revolution. this second revolution is a kind of return to europe, to 'the house of bondage', a rebellion against liberty and its responsibilities. it is not surprising that it has gone hand in hand with either a debuking of or ignorance concerning the American Revolution and its background, for the restoration of that first revolution and its extension, there must first be a return to a christian faith, a faith that not the state but Christ is the Savior and Mediator, and, second, a return to the protestant restoration of feudalism, to the centrality and importance of the local unit, the county and its elements.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
4.28.2016 Finney on WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO OVERCOME THE WORLD?
taken from charles finney's 'experiencing the presence of God
112 in the pages that follow, i intend to answer 4 questions:
what does it mean to overcome the world?
who overcomes the world?
why do they overcome?
how do they overcome?
first, what does it mean..it means to GET ABOVE THE SPIRIT OF COVETEOUSNESS that possesses the people of the world. the spirit of the world is the spirit of covetousness. it is a greediness after the things of the world. some worldly individuals covet one thing and some another, but all worldly men and women are living in the spirit of covetousness. this spirit has supreme possession of their minds.
now, the first thing in overcoming the world is overcoming..covetousness. the person who has not risen above this spirit of bustling and scrambling after what this world offers has by no means overcome it.
overcoming the world means NOT BEING ENGROSSED IN IT. when a person has overcome the world, his thoughts are no longer engrossed in worldly things. a person certainly does not overcome the world unless he gets above being absorbed and swallowed up by its concerns.
now, we all know how extremely engrossed worldly individuals are in some for of worldly pursuit. one is perhaps swallowed up by study, another by politics, a third by making money and a
113 fourth by fashion and pleasure. but each in his chosen way makes earthly concerns his all-engrossing purpose.
the person who wants to gain the victory over the world must overcome not only one form of its pursuits, but every form. he must overcome the world itself, along with all that it uses to allure the human heart.
overcoming the world also implies OVERCOMING THE FEAR OF THE WORLD. it is a sad fact that most people and indeed all worldly people , HAVE MUCH REGARD FOR PUBLIC OPINION. they dare not follow their consciences when doing so would incur the frown of society. one man is afraid that his business would suffer if his course were to run counter to public opinion. another man fears that standing up for the truth will injure his reputation. oddly enough, he imagines that advocating an unpopular truth would diminish his good influence - as if a man could exert a good influence without maintaining the truth.
great multitudes, it must be admitted, are under this influence of fearing the world. yet some, perhaps many, are not aware of this fact. if they could thoroughly investigate the reasons for their backwardness in duty, they would find fear of the world among the foremost. their fear of the world's displeasure is so much stronger than their fear of God's displeasure that they are completely enslaved by it.
who does not know that some ministers DARE NOT PREACH (note: and regarding all believers, SPEAK.. TRUTH)..., even if it is very important, lest they offend someone whose good opinion they are seeking? perhaps the community where a certain minister lives has a weak economy and the favor of some of its rich men seems indispensable to its very survival. hence, the terror of these rich men is continually before the minister's eyes when he prepares a sermon or preaches or is called to take a stand in favor of any cause that may be unpopular with those who possess more wealth than piety. Oh, this bondage to man! many gospel ministers are so troubled by it that their cowardly policy is virtually to renounce Christ and serve the world. overcoming the world means to thoroughly subdue this slavery to men.
in addition, overcoming thee world implies OVERCOMING A STATE OF WORLDLY ANXIETY. you know that there is a state of great worry and anxiety that is common and almost universal among worldly individuals. this is perfectly natural if the HEART SET ON OBTAINING WORLDLY GOOD. such a heart has not learned to receive all good from the hand of a great Father and to trust Him to give or withhold with His own unerring wisdom. but the one who loves the world is the enemy of God; he can never have this childlike trust in the Father or the peace of soul that it imparts.
therefore, worldly individuals are almost incessantly in a fever of anxiety lest their worldly schemes should fail. sometimes they get momentary relief when everything seems to go well, but some mishap is sure to befall them at some point soon afterward. scarcely a day passes that does not bring with it some gnawing anxiety. such men are like 'the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt' (isaiah 57.20). however the man who gets above the world gets above this STATE OF CEASELESS AND DESTRUCTIVE ANXIETY.
there is a worldly spirit and there is also a heavenly spirit. one or the other exists in the heart of every man and controls his whole being. those who are under the control of the world have not, of course, overcome the world. no man overcomes the world until his heart is permeated with the spirit of heaven.
victory over the world implies that we cease to be enslaved to the spirit of the world in any of its forms. one form that the spirit of the world assumes is being ENSLAVED TO THE CUSTOMS AND FASHIONS OF THE DAY. it is amazing to see what a goddess Fashion becomes. no heathen goddess was ever worshiped with costlier offerings or more devout homage. and surely no heathen deity since the world began has had more universal patronage. where will you go to find the worldly man or woman who does not hasten to worship at Fashion's shrine? but overcoming the world implies that the spell of this goddess is broken.
those who have overcome the world are no longer anxious either to secure its favor or to avert its frown. to them, the good or bad opinion of the world is a small matter. 'with me, said paul, it is a very small thing that i should be judged...of man's judgment (I cor. 4.3) this is true of every real christian. his concern is to secure the approval of god; his chief interest is to commend himself to God and
115 to his own conscience. (see acts 24.16) no man has overcome the world unless he has attained this state of mind.
almost no feature of christian character is more striking or more decisive that INDIFFERENCE TO THE WORLD'S OPINIONS. since i have been in the ministry, i have been blessed with the acquaintance of some men who were particularly distinguished by this quality. i am thinking of one man especially. he seemed to have the least possible inclination to secure the applause of men or to avoid their censure. it seemed to be of no consequence to him to commend himself to men. for him, it was enough if he might please God.
therefore, i was sure to find him in everlasting war against sin - all sin - however popular, however entrenched by custom, however sustained by wealth or public opinion. yet he always opposed sin with a most remarkable spirit - a spirit of inflexible decision and yet of great mellowness and tenderness. while he was saying the most severe things in the most decided language, i often saw big tears rolling down his cheeks.
it is wonderful that most men never complained of his having a bad spirit. as much as they dreaded his rebuke and writhed under his strong and daring exposures of wickedness, they could never say that he did not have a good spirit. this spirit was a most beautiful and striking example of his having overcome the world.
those who are not dead to the world as this man was have not escaped its bondage. the victorious christian is in a state where he is no longer in bondage to man. he is bound only to serve god.
112 in the pages that follow, i intend to answer 4 questions:
what does it mean to overcome the world?
who overcomes the world?
why do they overcome?
how do they overcome?
first, what does it mean..it means to GET ABOVE THE SPIRIT OF COVETEOUSNESS that possesses the people of the world. the spirit of the world is the spirit of covetousness. it is a greediness after the things of the world. some worldly individuals covet one thing and some another, but all worldly men and women are living in the spirit of covetousness. this spirit has supreme possession of their minds.
now, the first thing in overcoming the world is overcoming..covetousness. the person who has not risen above this spirit of bustling and scrambling after what this world offers has by no means overcome it.
overcoming the world means NOT BEING ENGROSSED IN IT. when a person has overcome the world, his thoughts are no longer engrossed in worldly things. a person certainly does not overcome the world unless he gets above being absorbed and swallowed up by its concerns.
now, we all know how extremely engrossed worldly individuals are in some for of worldly pursuit. one is perhaps swallowed up by study, another by politics, a third by making money and a
113 fourth by fashion and pleasure. but each in his chosen way makes earthly concerns his all-engrossing purpose.
the person who wants to gain the victory over the world must overcome not only one form of its pursuits, but every form. he must overcome the world itself, along with all that it uses to allure the human heart.
overcoming the world also implies OVERCOMING THE FEAR OF THE WORLD. it is a sad fact that most people and indeed all worldly people , HAVE MUCH REGARD FOR PUBLIC OPINION. they dare not follow their consciences when doing so would incur the frown of society. one man is afraid that his business would suffer if his course were to run counter to public opinion. another man fears that standing up for the truth will injure his reputation. oddly enough, he imagines that advocating an unpopular truth would diminish his good influence - as if a man could exert a good influence without maintaining the truth.
great multitudes, it must be admitted, are under this influence of fearing the world. yet some, perhaps many, are not aware of this fact. if they could thoroughly investigate the reasons for their backwardness in duty, they would find fear of the world among the foremost. their fear of the world's displeasure is so much stronger than their fear of God's displeasure that they are completely enslaved by it.
who does not know that some ministers DARE NOT PREACH (note: and regarding all believers, SPEAK.. TRUTH)..., even if it is very important, lest they offend someone whose good opinion they are seeking? perhaps the community where a certain minister lives has a weak economy and the favor of some of its rich men seems indispensable to its very survival. hence, the terror of these rich men is continually before the minister's eyes when he prepares a sermon or preaches or is called to take a stand in favor of any cause that may be unpopular with those who possess more wealth than piety. Oh, this bondage to man! many gospel ministers are so troubled by it that their cowardly policy is virtually to renounce Christ and serve the world. overcoming the world means to thoroughly subdue this slavery to men.
in addition, overcoming thee world implies OVERCOMING A STATE OF WORLDLY ANXIETY. you know that there is a state of great worry and anxiety that is common and almost universal among worldly individuals. this is perfectly natural if the HEART SET ON OBTAINING WORLDLY GOOD. such a heart has not learned to receive all good from the hand of a great Father and to trust Him to give or withhold with His own unerring wisdom. but the one who loves the world is the enemy of God; he can never have this childlike trust in the Father or the peace of soul that it imparts.
therefore, worldly individuals are almost incessantly in a fever of anxiety lest their worldly schemes should fail. sometimes they get momentary relief when everything seems to go well, but some mishap is sure to befall them at some point soon afterward. scarcely a day passes that does not bring with it some gnawing anxiety. such men are like 'the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt' (isaiah 57.20). however the man who gets above the world gets above this STATE OF CEASELESS AND DESTRUCTIVE ANXIETY.
there is a worldly spirit and there is also a heavenly spirit. one or the other exists in the heart of every man and controls his whole being. those who are under the control of the world have not, of course, overcome the world. no man overcomes the world until his heart is permeated with the spirit of heaven.
victory over the world implies that we cease to be enslaved to the spirit of the world in any of its forms. one form that the spirit of the world assumes is being ENSLAVED TO THE CUSTOMS AND FASHIONS OF THE DAY. it is amazing to see what a goddess Fashion becomes. no heathen goddess was ever worshiped with costlier offerings or more devout homage. and surely no heathen deity since the world began has had more universal patronage. where will you go to find the worldly man or woman who does not hasten to worship at Fashion's shrine? but overcoming the world implies that the spell of this goddess is broken.
those who have overcome the world are no longer anxious either to secure its favor or to avert its frown. to them, the good or bad opinion of the world is a small matter. 'with me, said paul, it is a very small thing that i should be judged...of man's judgment (I cor. 4.3) this is true of every real christian. his concern is to secure the approval of god; his chief interest is to commend himself to God and
115 to his own conscience. (see acts 24.16) no man has overcome the world unless he has attained this state of mind.
almost no feature of christian character is more striking or more decisive that INDIFFERENCE TO THE WORLD'S OPINIONS. since i have been in the ministry, i have been blessed with the acquaintance of some men who were particularly distinguished by this quality. i am thinking of one man especially. he seemed to have the least possible inclination to secure the applause of men or to avoid their censure. it seemed to be of no consequence to him to commend himself to men. for him, it was enough if he might please God.
therefore, i was sure to find him in everlasting war against sin - all sin - however popular, however entrenched by custom, however sustained by wealth or public opinion. yet he always opposed sin with a most remarkable spirit - a spirit of inflexible decision and yet of great mellowness and tenderness. while he was saying the most severe things in the most decided language, i often saw big tears rolling down his cheeks.
it is wonderful that most men never complained of his having a bad spirit. as much as they dreaded his rebuke and writhed under his strong and daring exposures of wickedness, they could never say that he did not have a good spirit. this spirit was a most beautiful and striking example of his having overcome the world.
those who are not dead to the world as this man was have not escaped its bondage. the victorious christian is in a state where he is no longer in bondage to man. he is bound only to serve god.
Friday, April 22, 2016
4.22.2016 Finney on PREVAILING PRAYER
taken from chapter 6 of Power from on High by charles finney
35 PREVAILING PRAYER IS THAT WHICH GETS AN ANSWER. saying prayers is not offering prevailing prayer. the effectiveness of prayer does not depend so much on quantity as on quolity. i do not know how better to approach this subject than by relating a fact of my own experience before i was converted....
i do not remember ever having attended a prayer meeting until after i began the study of law. then, for the first time, i lived in a neighborhood where there was weekly pryer meeting. i had neither known, heard nor seen much of religion; hence, i had no definite opinions about it. partly from curiosity and partly from an uneasiness of mind on the subject, which i could not well define, i began to attend that prayer meeting. about the same time, i bought the first bible that i ever owned and i began to read it. i listened to the prayers that i heard offered in those prayer meetings with all the attention that i could give to prayers so cold and formal. in every prayer, they prayed for the gift and outpouring of the Holy spirit. both in their prayers and in their remarks, which were occasionally interspersed, they acknowledged that they did not prevail with God. this was most evident and almost made me a skeptic.
seeing me so frequently in their prayer meeting, the leader, on one occasion, asked me if i wanted them to pray for me. 'no, I replied. 'I suppose that I need to be prayed for, but your prayers are not answered. you confess it yourselves'. i then expressed my astonishment at this fact, in view of what the Bible said about the effectiveness
36 of prayer. indeed, for some time my mind was much perplexed and in doubt in view of Christ's teaching on the subject of prayer and the obvious facts before me from week to week in this prayer meeting. was Christ a divine teacher? did He actually teach what the Gospels attributed to Him? did He mean what He said? did prayer really avail to obtain blessings from God? if so, what was i to make of what i witnessed from week to week and month to month in that prayer meeting? were they real Christians? was what I heard real prayer in the Bible sense? was it such prayer as Christ had promised to answer? here i found the solution.
i became convinced that they were under a delusion, that they did not prevail because they had no right to prevail. they did not comply with the conditions on which god had promised to hear prayer. their prayers were just the kind God had promised not to answer. it was evident they were overlooking the fact that they were in danger of praying themselves into skepticism in regard to the value of prayer.
in reading my Bible, I noticed many revealed conditions of having our prayers answered. i will explain these conditions..
FAITH IN GOD AS THE ONE WHO ANSWERS PRAYER is one condition. this, it is plain, INVOLVES THE EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING WHAT WE ASK.
ANOTHER DECLARED CONDITION IS ASKING ACCORDING TO THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD. this plainly implies asking not only for such things as God is willing to grant, but also asking in such a state of mind as God can accept...
it is plain that SINCERITY is a condition of prevailing with God. take for an example, form the Lord's Prayer, the phrase 'Your kingdom come (matt. 6.10). sincerity IN OFFERING THIS PETITION IMPLIES THE WHOLE HEART AND LIFE DEVOTION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE BUILDING UP OF THIS KINGDOM. it implies the sincere and thorough consecration of all that we have and all that we are to this end. to utter this petition in any other state of mind involves hypocrisy and is an abomination.
37 so is the case in the next petition, 'Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven' (v10). God has not promised to hear this petition unless it is sincerely offered. but SINCERITY IMPLIES A STATE OF MIND THAT ACCEPTS THE WHOLE REVEALED WILL OF GOD, SO FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, AS IT IS ACCEPTED IN HEAVEN. IT IMPLIES A LOVING, CONFIDING, UNIVERSAL OBEDIENCE TO THE WHOLE KNOWN WILL OF GOD, whether that will is revealed in His Word, by His Spirit, or in His providence. it implies that we hold ourselves and all that we have and are, as absolutely and wholeheartedly at god's disposal as do the inhabitants of heaven. if we fall short of this and withhold anything whatsoever from God, we 'regard iniquity in (our heart(s)' (ps. 66.18) and God will not hear us.
SINCERITY IN OFFERING THIS PETITION IMPLIES A STATE OF ENTIRE AND UNIVERSAL CONSECRATION TO GOD. ANYTHING SHORT OF THIS IS WITHHOLDING FROM GOD THAT WHICH IS HIS DUE. IT IS TURNING AWAY OUR EARS FROM HEARING THE LAW. but what do the Scriptures say? 'one who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination' (prov. 28.9). do professed christians understand this?
WHAT IS TRUE OF OFFERING THESE TWO PETITIONS IS TRUE OF ALL PRAYER. DO CHRISTIANS TAKE THIS TO HEART? DO THEY CONSIDER THAT ALL PROFESSED PRAYER IS AN ABOMINATION IF IT IS NOT OFFERED IN A STATE OF ENTIRE CONSECRATION OF ALL THAT WE HAVE AND ARE TO GOD? if we do not offer ourselves and all that we have as we pray, if we are not in a state of mind that sincerely accepts and, so far as we know, perfectly conforms to the whole will of God, our prayer is an abomination. how greatly profane is the use very frequently made of the Lord's Prayer, both in public and in private. to hear men and women chatter through the Lord's Prayer, 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven (matt. 6.10), while their lives are anything but conformed to the known will of God, is shocking and revolting. to hear men pray 'Your kingdom come' while it is most evident that they are making little or no sacrifice or effort to promote this kingdom, forces the conviction of barefaced hypocrisy. such is not prevailing prayer.
UNSELFISHNESS is a condition of prevailing prayer. 'you ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your plrasures' (james 4.3).
38 another condition of prevailing prayer is A CONSCIENCE VOID OF OFFENSE TOWARD GOD AND MAN.
for if our heart (conscience) condemns us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things. beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. and whhatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. I john 3.20-22
here tow things are made plain: first, that to prevail with God we must keep a conscience void of offense and second, we must keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.
A PURE HEART is also a condition of prevailing prayer. 'if i regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me ps. 66.18.
ALL DUE CONFESSION AND RESTITUTION TO GOD AND MAN is another condition of prevailing prayer. 'he who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy. prov. 28.13
CLEAN HANDS is another condition. 'i will wash my hands in innocence; so i will go about your altar, O Lord'. psalm 26.6 i desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. I tim. 2.8
the SETTLING OF DISPUTES AND ANIMOSITIES AMONG BELIEVERS is a condition. therefore if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go your way. first be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift. matt. 5.23-4
HUMILITY is another condition of prevailing prayer. 'God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble james 4.6.
REMOVING (note: HEART IDOLS...the text says,) the stumbling blocks is another condition.
'son of man, these men have set up their idols in their hearts and put before them that which causes them to stumble into iniquity. should i let Myself be inquired of at all by them?; ezekiel 14.3
39 A FORGIVING SPIRIT is a condition. 'and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. matt. 6.12. 'but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses' (v. 15).
the exercise of A TRUTHFUL SPIRIT is a condition. 'behold, you desire truth in the inward parts. ps. 51.6. if the heart is not in a truthful state, if it is not entirely sincere and unselfish, we regard iniquity in our hearts; therefore the Lord will not hear us.
PRAYING IN THE NAME OF CHRIST is a condition of prevailing prayer (john 14.13-4)
THE INSPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT is another condition. all truly prevailing prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
for we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. now He who searches the hearts knows what the mid of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. rom. 8.26-7
this is the true spirit of prayer. this is being led by the Spirit in prayer. it is the only really prevailing prayer. do professed christians really understand this? do they believe that unless they live and walk in the Spirit, unless they are taught how to pray by the intercession of the Spirit in them, they cannot prevail with God?
FERVENCY is a condition. a prayer, to be prevailing, must be fervent. confess your trespasses to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much (james 5.16).
PERSEVERANCE OR PERSISTENCE IN PRAYER is often a condition of prevailing with God. see the cases of jacob, daniel, elijah, the syrophenician woman, the parable of the unjust judge and the teaching of the bible generally.
TRAVAIL OF SOUL is often a condition of prevailing prayer. as soon as Zion was in labor, she gave birth to her children (isa. 66.8) paul said, 'my little children, for whom i labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you (gal. 4.19).this implies that he had travailed in birth for them
40 before they were converted. indeed, travail of soul in prayer is the only real revival prayer. if anyone does not know what this is, he does not understand the sprit of prayer. he is not in a revival stae. he does not understand the passage already quoted - romans 8.26-7. until he understands this agonizing prayer, he does not know the real secret of revival power.
another condition of prevailing prayer is THE CONSISTENT USE OF MEANS (RESOURCES SUCH AS MONEY, ENERGY, TIME) TO OBTAIN THE OBJECT PRAYED FOR . means should be used if they are within our reach and are known by us to be necessary to obtain the end. to pray for a revival of religion, but outside of the meeting they were as silent as death on the subject and did not open their mouths to those around them. they continued this inconsistency until a prominent sinner in the community administered to them in my presence a terrible rebuke. he expressed just what i deeply felt. he rose and with the utmost solemnity and tearfulness said. 'christian people, what can you mean? you continue to pray in these meetings for a revival of religion. you often exhort each other here to wake up and use means to promote a revival. you assure each other and assure us who are unrepentant, that we are on the way to hell and i believe it. you also insist that if you would wake up and use the appropriate means, there would be a revival and we would be converted. you tell us of our great danger and that our souls are worth more than all worlds and yet you keep busy in your comparatively trifling activities and use no such means. we have no revival and our souls are not saved.'
here he broke down and fell, sobbing, back into his seat. this rebuke fell heavily upon that prayer meeting, as i will ever remember. it did them good; for it was not long before the members of that prayer meeting broke down and we had a revival. i was present in the first meeting in which the revival spirit was evident. oh, how changed was the tone of their prayers, confessions and supplications i remarked,
41 in returning home, to a friend, 'what a change has come over these christians. this must be the beginning of a revival'.
yes, a wonderful change comes over all the meetings whenever the christian people are revived. then their confessions mean something. they mean reformation and restitution. they mean work. the mean the use of means. they mean the opening of their pockets, their hearts and their hands and the devotion of all their powers to the promotion of the work.
another condition of prevailing PRAYER is THAT it IS SPECIFIC. it is offered for a definite object. we cannot prevail for everything at once. in all the cases recorded in the bible in which prayer was answered, it is noteworthy that the petitioner PRAYED FOR A DEFINITE OBJECT.
another condition of prevailing prayer is that WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY IN PRAYER, that we make no false pretenses - in short, that WE ARE ENTIRELY CHILDLIKE AND SINCERE,SPEAKING OUT OF THE HEART, SAYING NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN WE MEAN, FEEL AND BELIEVE.
another condition is BEING WATCHFUL in your prayers (I peter 4.7) as well as PRAYING IN THE HOLY SPIRIT (jude 20). by this i mean guarding against everything that can quench or grieve the Spirit of God in our hearts. also, i mean watching for the answer in a state of mind that will diligently use all necessary means, at any expense and add entreaty to entreaty.
when the fallow ground is thoroughly broken up in the hearts of christians, when they have confessed ansd made restitution -if the work is thorough and honest - they will naturally and inevitably fulfill the conditions and will prevail in prayer. but it cannot be too distinctly understood that no others will. what we commonly hear in prayer and conference meetings is not prevailing prayer. it is often astonishing and lamentable to witness the delusions that prevail on the subject. who has witnessed real revivals of religion and has not been struck with the change that comes over the whole spirit and manner of the prayers of really revived christians?
i do not think i ever could have been converted if i had not discovered the solution to the question, why is it that so much that is called prayer is not answered?
'
35 PREVAILING PRAYER IS THAT WHICH GETS AN ANSWER. saying prayers is not offering prevailing prayer. the effectiveness of prayer does not depend so much on quantity as on quolity. i do not know how better to approach this subject than by relating a fact of my own experience before i was converted....
i do not remember ever having attended a prayer meeting until after i began the study of law. then, for the first time, i lived in a neighborhood where there was weekly pryer meeting. i had neither known, heard nor seen much of religion; hence, i had no definite opinions about it. partly from curiosity and partly from an uneasiness of mind on the subject, which i could not well define, i began to attend that prayer meeting. about the same time, i bought the first bible that i ever owned and i began to read it. i listened to the prayers that i heard offered in those prayer meetings with all the attention that i could give to prayers so cold and formal. in every prayer, they prayed for the gift and outpouring of the Holy spirit. both in their prayers and in their remarks, which were occasionally interspersed, they acknowledged that they did not prevail with God. this was most evident and almost made me a skeptic.
seeing me so frequently in their prayer meeting, the leader, on one occasion, asked me if i wanted them to pray for me. 'no, I replied. 'I suppose that I need to be prayed for, but your prayers are not answered. you confess it yourselves'. i then expressed my astonishment at this fact, in view of what the Bible said about the effectiveness
36 of prayer. indeed, for some time my mind was much perplexed and in doubt in view of Christ's teaching on the subject of prayer and the obvious facts before me from week to week in this prayer meeting. was Christ a divine teacher? did He actually teach what the Gospels attributed to Him? did He mean what He said? did prayer really avail to obtain blessings from God? if so, what was i to make of what i witnessed from week to week and month to month in that prayer meeting? were they real Christians? was what I heard real prayer in the Bible sense? was it such prayer as Christ had promised to answer? here i found the solution.
i became convinced that they were under a delusion, that they did not prevail because they had no right to prevail. they did not comply with the conditions on which god had promised to hear prayer. their prayers were just the kind God had promised not to answer. it was evident they were overlooking the fact that they were in danger of praying themselves into skepticism in regard to the value of prayer.
in reading my Bible, I noticed many revealed conditions of having our prayers answered. i will explain these conditions..
FAITH IN GOD AS THE ONE WHO ANSWERS PRAYER is one condition. this, it is plain, INVOLVES THE EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING WHAT WE ASK.
ANOTHER DECLARED CONDITION IS ASKING ACCORDING TO THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD. this plainly implies asking not only for such things as God is willing to grant, but also asking in such a state of mind as God can accept...
it is plain that SINCERITY is a condition of prevailing with God. take for an example, form the Lord's Prayer, the phrase 'Your kingdom come (matt. 6.10). sincerity IN OFFERING THIS PETITION IMPLIES THE WHOLE HEART AND LIFE DEVOTION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE BUILDING UP OF THIS KINGDOM. it implies the sincere and thorough consecration of all that we have and all that we are to this end. to utter this petition in any other state of mind involves hypocrisy and is an abomination.
37 so is the case in the next petition, 'Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven' (v10). God has not promised to hear this petition unless it is sincerely offered. but SINCERITY IMPLIES A STATE OF MIND THAT ACCEPTS THE WHOLE REVEALED WILL OF GOD, SO FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, AS IT IS ACCEPTED IN HEAVEN. IT IMPLIES A LOVING, CONFIDING, UNIVERSAL OBEDIENCE TO THE WHOLE KNOWN WILL OF GOD, whether that will is revealed in His Word, by His Spirit, or in His providence. it implies that we hold ourselves and all that we have and are, as absolutely and wholeheartedly at god's disposal as do the inhabitants of heaven. if we fall short of this and withhold anything whatsoever from God, we 'regard iniquity in (our heart(s)' (ps. 66.18) and God will not hear us.
SINCERITY IN OFFERING THIS PETITION IMPLIES A STATE OF ENTIRE AND UNIVERSAL CONSECRATION TO GOD. ANYTHING SHORT OF THIS IS WITHHOLDING FROM GOD THAT WHICH IS HIS DUE. IT IS TURNING AWAY OUR EARS FROM HEARING THE LAW. but what do the Scriptures say? 'one who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination' (prov. 28.9). do professed christians understand this?
WHAT IS TRUE OF OFFERING THESE TWO PETITIONS IS TRUE OF ALL PRAYER. DO CHRISTIANS TAKE THIS TO HEART? DO THEY CONSIDER THAT ALL PROFESSED PRAYER IS AN ABOMINATION IF IT IS NOT OFFERED IN A STATE OF ENTIRE CONSECRATION OF ALL THAT WE HAVE AND ARE TO GOD? if we do not offer ourselves and all that we have as we pray, if we are not in a state of mind that sincerely accepts and, so far as we know, perfectly conforms to the whole will of God, our prayer is an abomination. how greatly profane is the use very frequently made of the Lord's Prayer, both in public and in private. to hear men and women chatter through the Lord's Prayer, 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven (matt. 6.10), while their lives are anything but conformed to the known will of God, is shocking and revolting. to hear men pray 'Your kingdom come' while it is most evident that they are making little or no sacrifice or effort to promote this kingdom, forces the conviction of barefaced hypocrisy. such is not prevailing prayer.
UNSELFISHNESS is a condition of prevailing prayer. 'you ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your plrasures' (james 4.3).
38 another condition of prevailing prayer is A CONSCIENCE VOID OF OFFENSE TOWARD GOD AND MAN.
for if our heart (conscience) condemns us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things. beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. and whhatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. I john 3.20-22
here tow things are made plain: first, that to prevail with God we must keep a conscience void of offense and second, we must keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.
A PURE HEART is also a condition of prevailing prayer. 'if i regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me ps. 66.18.
ALL DUE CONFESSION AND RESTITUTION TO GOD AND MAN is another condition of prevailing prayer. 'he who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy. prov. 28.13
CLEAN HANDS is another condition. 'i will wash my hands in innocence; so i will go about your altar, O Lord'. psalm 26.6 i desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. I tim. 2.8
the SETTLING OF DISPUTES AND ANIMOSITIES AMONG BELIEVERS is a condition. therefore if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go your way. first be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift. matt. 5.23-4
HUMILITY is another condition of prevailing prayer. 'God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble james 4.6.
REMOVING (note: HEART IDOLS...the text says,) the stumbling blocks is another condition.
'son of man, these men have set up their idols in their hearts and put before them that which causes them to stumble into iniquity. should i let Myself be inquired of at all by them?; ezekiel 14.3
39 A FORGIVING SPIRIT is a condition. 'and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. matt. 6.12. 'but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses' (v. 15).
the exercise of A TRUTHFUL SPIRIT is a condition. 'behold, you desire truth in the inward parts. ps. 51.6. if the heart is not in a truthful state, if it is not entirely sincere and unselfish, we regard iniquity in our hearts; therefore the Lord will not hear us.
PRAYING IN THE NAME OF CHRIST is a condition of prevailing prayer (john 14.13-4)
THE INSPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT is another condition. all truly prevailing prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
for we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. now He who searches the hearts knows what the mid of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. rom. 8.26-7
this is the true spirit of prayer. this is being led by the Spirit in prayer. it is the only really prevailing prayer. do professed christians really understand this? do they believe that unless they live and walk in the Spirit, unless they are taught how to pray by the intercession of the Spirit in them, they cannot prevail with God?
FERVENCY is a condition. a prayer, to be prevailing, must be fervent. confess your trespasses to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much (james 5.16).
PERSEVERANCE OR PERSISTENCE IN PRAYER is often a condition of prevailing with God. see the cases of jacob, daniel, elijah, the syrophenician woman, the parable of the unjust judge and the teaching of the bible generally.
TRAVAIL OF SOUL is often a condition of prevailing prayer. as soon as Zion was in labor, she gave birth to her children (isa. 66.8) paul said, 'my little children, for whom i labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you (gal. 4.19).this implies that he had travailed in birth for them
40 before they were converted. indeed, travail of soul in prayer is the only real revival prayer. if anyone does not know what this is, he does not understand the sprit of prayer. he is not in a revival stae. he does not understand the passage already quoted - romans 8.26-7. until he understands this agonizing prayer, he does not know the real secret of revival power.
another condition of prevailing prayer is THE CONSISTENT USE OF MEANS (RESOURCES SUCH AS MONEY, ENERGY, TIME) TO OBTAIN THE OBJECT PRAYED FOR . means should be used if they are within our reach and are known by us to be necessary to obtain the end. to pray for a revival of religion, but outside of the meeting they were as silent as death on the subject and did not open their mouths to those around them. they continued this inconsistency until a prominent sinner in the community administered to them in my presence a terrible rebuke. he expressed just what i deeply felt. he rose and with the utmost solemnity and tearfulness said. 'christian people, what can you mean? you continue to pray in these meetings for a revival of religion. you often exhort each other here to wake up and use means to promote a revival. you assure each other and assure us who are unrepentant, that we are on the way to hell and i believe it. you also insist that if you would wake up and use the appropriate means, there would be a revival and we would be converted. you tell us of our great danger and that our souls are worth more than all worlds and yet you keep busy in your comparatively trifling activities and use no such means. we have no revival and our souls are not saved.'
here he broke down and fell, sobbing, back into his seat. this rebuke fell heavily upon that prayer meeting, as i will ever remember. it did them good; for it was not long before the members of that prayer meeting broke down and we had a revival. i was present in the first meeting in which the revival spirit was evident. oh, how changed was the tone of their prayers, confessions and supplications i remarked,
41 in returning home, to a friend, 'what a change has come over these christians. this must be the beginning of a revival'.
yes, a wonderful change comes over all the meetings whenever the christian people are revived. then their confessions mean something. they mean reformation and restitution. they mean work. the mean the use of means. they mean the opening of their pockets, their hearts and their hands and the devotion of all their powers to the promotion of the work.
another condition of prevailing PRAYER is THAT it IS SPECIFIC. it is offered for a definite object. we cannot prevail for everything at once. in all the cases recorded in the bible in which prayer was answered, it is noteworthy that the petitioner PRAYED FOR A DEFINITE OBJECT.
another condition of prevailing prayer is that WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY IN PRAYER, that we make no false pretenses - in short, that WE ARE ENTIRELY CHILDLIKE AND SINCERE,SPEAKING OUT OF THE HEART, SAYING NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN WE MEAN, FEEL AND BELIEVE.
another condition is BEING WATCHFUL in your prayers (I peter 4.7) as well as PRAYING IN THE HOLY SPIRIT (jude 20). by this i mean guarding against everything that can quench or grieve the Spirit of God in our hearts. also, i mean watching for the answer in a state of mind that will diligently use all necessary means, at any expense and add entreaty to entreaty.
when the fallow ground is thoroughly broken up in the hearts of christians, when they have confessed ansd made restitution -if the work is thorough and honest - they will naturally and inevitably fulfill the conditions and will prevail in prayer. but it cannot be too distinctly understood that no others will. what we commonly hear in prayer and conference meetings is not prevailing prayer. it is often astonishing and lamentable to witness the delusions that prevail on the subject. who has witnessed real revivals of religion and has not been struck with the change that comes over the whole spirit and manner of the prayers of really revived christians?
i do not think i ever could have been converted if i had not discovered the solution to the question, why is it that so much that is called prayer is not answered?
'
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
4.19.2016 Finney on, HOW TO OVER COME SIN (this and entries above (unless otherwise noted, starting here 'FINNEY ON' entries from 4 books are all taken from Experiencing the Presence of God by Charles Finney (consists of 4 books)
taken from POWER FROM ON HIGH by charles finney, chapter 10, the first of 4 books in experiencing the presence of God, all by the same author
69 in every period of my ministerial life, i have found many professed christians in a miserable state of bondage, either to the world, the flesh or the devil. but surely this is no christian state, for the apostle has distinctly said, 'sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace (romans 6.14). in all my christian life, i have been pained to find so many christians living in the legal bondage described in the 7th chapter of romans - a life of sinning, resolving to reform and falling again.
..i notice that dr. chalmers, in his lectures on romans, expressly maintains that justification is by faith but sanctification is by works. some 25 years ago, i think, a prominent professor of theology in new england maintained in substance the same doctrine.
70 in my early christian life, i was very nearly misled by 1 of president edwards's RESOLUTIONs.
it was, in substance, that when he had fallen into any sin, he would trace it back to its source and then fight and pray against it with all his might until he subdued it. this, it will be perceived, is directing the attention to the overt act of sin, its source or occasions. resolving and fighting against it fastens the attention on the sin and its source and diverts the attention entirely from Christ.
now it is important to say right here that all such efforts are worse than useless and often result in delusion. first, it is losing sight of what really constitutes sin and second, it is overlooking the only practicable away to avoi8d it. in this way, the outward act or habit may be overcome and avoided, but that which really constitutes the sin is left untouched. sin is not external but internal. it is not a muscular act; it is not the decision that causes the muscular action; it is not an involuntary feeling or desire. it is a voluntary act or state of mind. sin is nothing else than the voluntary, ultimate preference or state of committal to self-pleasing out of which the decisions, outward actions, purposes, intentions and all the things that are commonly called sin proceed.
now, what is resolved against in this religion of resolutions and efforts to suppress sinful habits and form holy habits? 'LOVE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW' (rom. 13.10). but do we produce love by resolution? do we eradicate selfishness by resolution? no, indeed. we may suppress this or that expression or manifestation of selfishness by resolving not to do this or that and by praying and struggling against it. we may resolve upon an outward obedience and work ourselves up to the letter of an obedience to God's commandments. but to eradicate selfishness from the heart by resolution is an absurdity. so, the effort to obey the commandments of
god in spirit - in other words, to attempt to love as the law of god requires - by force of resolution is an absurdity.
there are many who maintain that sin consists in the desires. be it so, do we control our desires by force of resolution? we may
71 abstain from the gratification of a particular desire by the force of resolution. we may go further and abstain from the gratification of desire generally in the outward life. but this is not to obtain the love of god, which constitutes obedience. if we become secluded monks, lock ourselves in a sell and crucify all our desires and appetites so far as their indulgence is concerned, we have only avoided certain forms of sin; but the root that really constitutes sin is not touched. our resolution has not secured love, which is the only real obedience to god. all our battling with sin in the outward life by the force of resolution only ends in making us whitened sepulchers (matt. 23.27). all our battling with desire by the force of resolution is of no avail. in all this, however successful the effort to suppress sin may be in the outward life or in the inward desire, it will only end in delusion, for we cannot love by force of resolution.
all such efforts to overcome sin are utterly futile and as unscriptural as they are futile. the bible expressly teaches us that SIN IS OVERCOME BY FAITH IN CHRIST: '(He) became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption (I cor. 1.30). '(He is) the way, the truth and the life (john 14.6) christians are said to have their hearts purified by faith (acts 15.9). in acts 26.18, it is affirmed that the saints are sanctified by faith in Christ. and in romans 9.31-2, it is affirmed that the jews did not attain righteousness 'because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law'.
the doctrine of the bible is that Christ saves His people from sin through faith, that Christ's Spirit is received by faith to dwell in the heart. it is faith that works by love (gal. 5.6). love is brought about and sustained by faith. by faith, christians overcome the world, the flesh and the devil. it is by faith that they 'quench all the fiery darts of the evil one' (eph. 6.16RV). it is by faith that they 'put on Christ (gal. 3.27) and 'put off the old man with his deeds' (col. 3.9). it is by faith that they fight 'the good fight (I tim. 6.12), and not by resolution.
it is 'by faith (we stand' (II cor. 1.24); by resolution we fall. 'this is the victory that has overcome the world; our faith' (I john 5.4).
72 it is by faith that the flesh is kept under and carnal desires are subdued. the fact is that it is simply by faith that we receive the Spirit of Christ to work in us 'both to will and to do (according to) His good pleasure' (phil. 2.13) He pours His own love in our hearts and thereby kindles ours (see romans 5.5).
every victory over sin is by faith in Christ. whenever the mind is diverted from Christ by resolving and fighting against sin, whether we are aware of it or not, we are acting in our own strength; we are rejecting the help of Christ and are under a vain delusion. nothing but the life and energy of the Spirit of Christ within us can save us from sin and trust is the uniform and universal condition of the working of this saving energy within us.
how long will this fact be at least practically overlooked by the teachers of religion? how deeply rooted in the heart of man is self-righteousness and self-dependence? it is rooted so deeply that one of the hardest lessons for the human heart to learn is to renounce self-dependence and trust wholly in Christ. when we open the door by implicit trust, He enters in and takes up His abode with us and in us. by pouring out his love, He quickens our whole souls into harmony with Himself and in this way -and in this way alone - He purifies our hearts through faith. He sustains our wills in the attitude of devotion. He quickens and regulates our affections, desires, appetites and passions and becomes our sanctification. very much of the teaching that we hear...is so misleading as to render the hearing or reading of such instruction almost too painful to be endured. such instruction will inevitably produce delusion, discouragement and a practical rejection of Christ as He is presented in the Gospel.
how unfortunate is the blindness that bewilders the soul that is longing for deliverance from the power of sin! i have sometimes listened to legalistic teaching on this subject until i felt as if i would scream. it is astonishing sometimes to hear christian men object to the teaching that i have here set forth - that it leaves us in a
73 passive state to be saved without our own activity. what darkness is involved in this objection! the bible teaches that by trusting in Christ, we receive an inward influence that stimulates and directs our activity. it teaches that by faith we receive His purifying influence into the very center of our beings. through and by His truth revealed directly to the soul, He quickens our whole inward beings into the attitude of loving obedience. this is the way and the only practicable way, to overcome sin.
but someone may say, 'doesn't the apostle exhort us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, because it is god who works in us, both to will and to do for His good pleasure? and is not this an exhortation to do what you condemn here?' by no means. paul said in philippians 2.12-3,
therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is god who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
there is no exhortation to work by force of resolution, but through and by the in-working of God. paul had taught the philippians while he was present with them; but now, in his absence, he exhorted them to work out their own salvation, not by resolution but by the inward operation of God. this is precisely the doctrine of this chapter. paul often taught the church that Christ in the heart is our sanctification and that this influence is to be received by faith. he taught this too often to be guilty in this passage of teaching that our sanctification is to be worked out by resolution and efforts to suppress sinful habits and form holy ones.
this passage of scripture happily recognizes both the diving and human agency in the work of sanctification. god works in us to will and to do; and we, accepting by faith His in-working, will and do according to His good pleasure. faith itself is an active and not a passive state. a passive holiness is impossible and absurd. let no one say
74 that when we exhort people to trust wholly in Christ, we teach that anyone should be or can be passive in receiving and cooperating with the divine influence within. this influence is moral and not physical. it is persuasion and not force. it influences the free will and , consequently, does this by truth and not by force.
oh, that it could be understood that the whole of spiritual life that is in any man is received directly from the Spirit of Christ by faith, as the branch receives its life from the vine! away with this religion of resolutions! it is a snare of death. away with this effort to make the life holy while the heart does not have in it the love of god! oh, that we would learn to look directly at Christ through the Gospel and so embrace Him by an act of loving trust that our whole beings would be in harmony with His state of mind. this, and this alone, is sanctification.
69 in every period of my ministerial life, i have found many professed christians in a miserable state of bondage, either to the world, the flesh or the devil. but surely this is no christian state, for the apostle has distinctly said, 'sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace (romans 6.14). in all my christian life, i have been pained to find so many christians living in the legal bondage described in the 7th chapter of romans - a life of sinning, resolving to reform and falling again.
..i notice that dr. chalmers, in his lectures on romans, expressly maintains that justification is by faith but sanctification is by works. some 25 years ago, i think, a prominent professor of theology in new england maintained in substance the same doctrine.
70 in my early christian life, i was very nearly misled by 1 of president edwards's RESOLUTIONs.
it was, in substance, that when he had fallen into any sin, he would trace it back to its source and then fight and pray against it with all his might until he subdued it. this, it will be perceived, is directing the attention to the overt act of sin, its source or occasions. resolving and fighting against it fastens the attention on the sin and its source and diverts the attention entirely from Christ.
now it is important to say right here that all such efforts are worse than useless and often result in delusion. first, it is losing sight of what really constitutes sin and second, it is overlooking the only practicable away to avoi8d it. in this way, the outward act or habit may be overcome and avoided, but that which really constitutes the sin is left untouched. sin is not external but internal. it is not a muscular act; it is not the decision that causes the muscular action; it is not an involuntary feeling or desire. it is a voluntary act or state of mind. sin is nothing else than the voluntary, ultimate preference or state of committal to self-pleasing out of which the decisions, outward actions, purposes, intentions and all the things that are commonly called sin proceed.
now, what is resolved against in this religion of resolutions and efforts to suppress sinful habits and form holy habits? 'LOVE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW' (rom. 13.10). but do we produce love by resolution? do we eradicate selfishness by resolution? no, indeed. we may suppress this or that expression or manifestation of selfishness by resolving not to do this or that and by praying and struggling against it. we may resolve upon an outward obedience and work ourselves up to the letter of an obedience to God's commandments. but to eradicate selfishness from the heart by resolution is an absurdity. so, the effort to obey the commandments of
god in spirit - in other words, to attempt to love as the law of god requires - by force of resolution is an absurdity.
there are many who maintain that sin consists in the desires. be it so, do we control our desires by force of resolution? we may
71 abstain from the gratification of a particular desire by the force of resolution. we may go further and abstain from the gratification of desire generally in the outward life. but this is not to obtain the love of god, which constitutes obedience. if we become secluded monks, lock ourselves in a sell and crucify all our desires and appetites so far as their indulgence is concerned, we have only avoided certain forms of sin; but the root that really constitutes sin is not touched. our resolution has not secured love, which is the only real obedience to god. all our battling with sin in the outward life by the force of resolution only ends in making us whitened sepulchers (matt. 23.27). all our battling with desire by the force of resolution is of no avail. in all this, however successful the effort to suppress sin may be in the outward life or in the inward desire, it will only end in delusion, for we cannot love by force of resolution.
all such efforts to overcome sin are utterly futile and as unscriptural as they are futile. the bible expressly teaches us that SIN IS OVERCOME BY FAITH IN CHRIST: '(He) became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption (I cor. 1.30). '(He is) the way, the truth and the life (john 14.6) christians are said to have their hearts purified by faith (acts 15.9). in acts 26.18, it is affirmed that the saints are sanctified by faith in Christ. and in romans 9.31-2, it is affirmed that the jews did not attain righteousness 'because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law'.
the doctrine of the bible is that Christ saves His people from sin through faith, that Christ's Spirit is received by faith to dwell in the heart. it is faith that works by love (gal. 5.6). love is brought about and sustained by faith. by faith, christians overcome the world, the flesh and the devil. it is by faith that they 'quench all the fiery darts of the evil one' (eph. 6.16RV). it is by faith that they 'put on Christ (gal. 3.27) and 'put off the old man with his deeds' (col. 3.9). it is by faith that they fight 'the good fight (I tim. 6.12), and not by resolution.
it is 'by faith (we stand' (II cor. 1.24); by resolution we fall. 'this is the victory that has overcome the world; our faith' (I john 5.4).
72 it is by faith that the flesh is kept under and carnal desires are subdued. the fact is that it is simply by faith that we receive the Spirit of Christ to work in us 'both to will and to do (according to) His good pleasure' (phil. 2.13) He pours His own love in our hearts and thereby kindles ours (see romans 5.5).
every victory over sin is by faith in Christ. whenever the mind is diverted from Christ by resolving and fighting against sin, whether we are aware of it or not, we are acting in our own strength; we are rejecting the help of Christ and are under a vain delusion. nothing but the life and energy of the Spirit of Christ within us can save us from sin and trust is the uniform and universal condition of the working of this saving energy within us.
how long will this fact be at least practically overlooked by the teachers of religion? how deeply rooted in the heart of man is self-righteousness and self-dependence? it is rooted so deeply that one of the hardest lessons for the human heart to learn is to renounce self-dependence and trust wholly in Christ. when we open the door by implicit trust, He enters in and takes up His abode with us and in us. by pouring out his love, He quickens our whole souls into harmony with Himself and in this way -and in this way alone - He purifies our hearts through faith. He sustains our wills in the attitude of devotion. He quickens and regulates our affections, desires, appetites and passions and becomes our sanctification. very much of the teaching that we hear...is so misleading as to render the hearing or reading of such instruction almost too painful to be endured. such instruction will inevitably produce delusion, discouragement and a practical rejection of Christ as He is presented in the Gospel.
how unfortunate is the blindness that bewilders the soul that is longing for deliverance from the power of sin! i have sometimes listened to legalistic teaching on this subject until i felt as if i would scream. it is astonishing sometimes to hear christian men object to the teaching that i have here set forth - that it leaves us in a
73 passive state to be saved without our own activity. what darkness is involved in this objection! the bible teaches that by trusting in Christ, we receive an inward influence that stimulates and directs our activity. it teaches that by faith we receive His purifying influence into the very center of our beings. through and by His truth revealed directly to the soul, He quickens our whole inward beings into the attitude of loving obedience. this is the way and the only practicable way, to overcome sin.
but someone may say, 'doesn't the apostle exhort us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, because it is god who works in us, both to will and to do for His good pleasure? and is not this an exhortation to do what you condemn here?' by no means. paul said in philippians 2.12-3,
therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is god who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
there is no exhortation to work by force of resolution, but through and by the in-working of God. paul had taught the philippians while he was present with them; but now, in his absence, he exhorted them to work out their own salvation, not by resolution but by the inward operation of God. this is precisely the doctrine of this chapter. paul often taught the church that Christ in the heart is our sanctification and that this influence is to be received by faith. he taught this too often to be guilty in this passage of teaching that our sanctification is to be worked out by resolution and efforts to suppress sinful habits and form holy ones.
this passage of scripture happily recognizes both the diving and human agency in the work of sanctification. god works in us to will and to do; and we, accepting by faith His in-working, will and do according to His good pleasure. faith itself is an active and not a passive state. a passive holiness is impossible and absurd. let no one say
74 that when we exhort people to trust wholly in Christ, we teach that anyone should be or can be passive in receiving and cooperating with the divine influence within. this influence is moral and not physical. it is persuasion and not force. it influences the free will and , consequently, does this by truth and not by force.
oh, that it could be understood that the whole of spiritual life that is in any man is received directly from the Spirit of Christ by faith, as the branch receives its life from the vine! away with this religion of resolutions! it is a snare of death. away with this effort to make the life holy while the heart does not have in it the love of god! oh, that we would learn to look directly at Christ through the Gospel and so embrace Him by an act of loving trust that our whole beings would be in harmony with His state of mind. this, and this alone, is sanctification.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
REVOLT AGAINST REASON by arnold lunn (1951 update on 'flight from reason')
introduction
..20 years ago when i wrote The Flight from Reason the attack upon reason was still camouflaged and the behaviourists, extentialists and logical positivists had not yet crowded the old fashioned Victorian rationalists off the centre of the stage. these later manifestations of irrationalism have one thing in common, the tacit abandonment of all attempt at reasoned refutation of christianity...
chapter 1 - in search of definitions
3 the success and enduring influence of any systematic construction of truth, writes archbishop Trench, depends as much on an exact terminology as upon close and deep thinking itself. 'terms, says Whewall, record discoveries...hardly any original thought assume their proper importance in the mind of their inventors until aptly selected words and phrases have nailed themdown and held them fast.
it is equally true that the success and enduring influence of a systematic construction of falsehood depends very largely on INEXACT terminology. both the advance of materialism in the 19th century and the retreat from christianity were accelerated by the fact that the orthodox were outmanoervred in the battle of words. the christians imperilled the whole campaign when they conceded by implication that those who rejected christianity had the right to describe themselves as 'rationalists'.
the concise oxford dictionary offers a definition of rationalism with which no christian can quarrel:
'Rationalism, n., practice of explaining the supernatural in religion in a way consonant with reason or of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion as elsewhere; theory that reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge (opp. empiricism, sensationalism).
rationalism owes much of its success not only to its name, but also to the folly of christians who should never have described their opponents as rationalists, thus labelling themselves by implication as anti-rational. the question at issue is not whether reason is to be preferred to unreason, but whether.
4 the theistic or atheistic conception of the universe is the more rationa, in other words whether the theists are right. equally michievous in it s influence is the misuse of the word 'science'. and the readiness of too many christians to admit the reality of the alleged conflict between science and religion.
'science' is derived from the latin scientia, which means knowledge and in the middle ages 'science' covered all forms of knowledge, supernatural and natural, but even if the word be used in its modern popular and inexact sense and restricted to the knowledge of nature, there is no justification for the loos talk about the conflict between religion and science. on the contrary, it is as true as in bacon's time that 'a little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's mind to religion'.
..the acquiescence of christians in an inexact and inadequate terminology - inadequate because 'no words and phrases have nailed and held fast' the distinction between scientists as such and the sect of scientists who rejected the supernatural - had disastrous results. on the other hand, thousands rejected christianity because they had been misled into accepting the reality of the alleged conflict between
5 the science which they equated with the truth and the religion which, so they were assured, could not be reconciled with science.
6 no argument is possible, as st. thomas aquinas fully realised, until you and your opponent have discovered a common premis.
7 'faith is not common to the believer and the sceptic and therefore reason, which from its very nature is impersonal and objective, must be the starting point of rational apologetics. it may be true that no man has ever been wholly convinced by reason, but the operative word is 'wholly', for the discovery that christianity can be defended without invoking the appeal to faith has often been the first and decisive factor in the return to the Faith.
it is arguable how far men can be converted by sound arguments, but it is certain that they can be perverted by unsound arguments...
8 it is not, of course, reason which creates the spiritual appetite of which st. augustine speaks, that disquiet of the heart until it finds rest in Him who made it...and it is not reason which convinces a hungry man that he needs food, but reason guides us in the choice of food and helps us to distinguish between nourishing food and poison, be that food physical or spiritual.
..'for the mystic especially it is important that theology should flourish and good theologians abound, for in the guidance which objective theology supplies lies the mystic's sole certainty of escaping self-illusion'.
gerson, perhaps the greatest religious writer and preacher of the 14th century, 'notes acutely as a matter that can be observed every day, the contemplative's temptation to be his own guide...' and also 'how often false mysticism and a certain looseness about sex morality go together', as for instance in the case of the beghards, whose doctrines were condemned at the general council of vienna in 1311.
the beghards maintained that man, even in this life, can attain to perfection. when he reaches this stage, he need neither pray nor fast, for his spirit has achieved such complete dominion over his senses that he can freely yield to the desires of his body. once a man has reached this stage he is emancipated from human authority or from the authority of the church. 'where there is the spirit of God there is liberty and the practice of the virtues is a mark of the imperfect man: the perfect soul
9 emancipated itself from the virtues...whoever kisses a woman unless led by sexual impulse sins mortally, while no sexual act is sinful if it is done from a sexual motive; such acts are especially free from blame if they are yielding to temptation'.
the beghards were the precursors of the antinomians (a person who maintains that christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel; 1635-45; plural of antinomus opponent of the moral law
chapter 2 - the birth of rationalism
11 humanly speaking, there might never have been a christian philosophy but for greece. in europe there is no philosophy which is not derived directly or indirectly from greece, even marxism, for marx's debt to hegel is no greater than hegel's debt to greek philosophy, but though there was no hebrew equvalent of aristotle or plato, the hebrew prophets were at home in a realm to which the greek philosophers did not attain. to the prophet God was revealed. to the greek, god could only be inferred as a conclusion at the end of a chain of syllogisms. the contrast between isaiah and plato is a contrast between vision and inference. the essence of religion for the jew was that it was revealed. the greek demanded not that religion should be revealed, but that religion should be explained. 'the jews, said st. paul, require a sign and the greeks seek after wisdom.
now there is a place in religion not only for the prophet, but also for the philosopher, not only for experience, but also for rational inference. st. thomas aquinas realised that no argument is possible until a common premise has been discovered with one's opponent. the prophet never tries to find a common premise, for the prophet is not interested in argument.
the essential contrast between the hellenic and the judaic outlook was the contrast between a people with a passion for hearing both sides of a case fully stated and a people whose only interest in other people's views was to refute them.
plato seldom gave complete victory to one side in the dialogues. he seemed more concerned to understand the different approaches to a controversial issue than to defend a particular thesis. herodotus and thucydides are at pains to give either in direct speech or in narrative the views of both contending parties.
christianity owes an immense debt to hellenism, for the art of rational apologetics was a discovery of the greeks. 'come now and let us reason together saith the Lord, but though isaiah records this invitation there is no record of the invitation being accepted, as indeed sir ronald storrs pointed out in the story
12 of his own experiences in palestine. the greek was and the hebrew was not, prepared 'to reason together' and a whole world of thought and feeling separates, 'thus saith the Lord' from a socratic dialogue.
it is indeed with a shock of surprise that one comes across st. peter's 'be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a REASON of the hope that is in you.
logon peri, 'a rational account' is a fragment of greek feeling embedded in a judaic epistle, for this good classical phrase, almost identical as dr. selwyn points out, with a phrase in plato, is almost without parallel in the new testament.
so far at least as the west is concerned, aristotle may be described as the father of natural theology, that is of the theology which relies for its doctrines on reason alone, unaided by revelation. his system of physics compelled belief in a prime mover who was Himself unmoved and though aristotle's god is very different from the christian God, it would be difficult to exaggerate the influence of aristotle's natural theology on st. thomas aquinas.
many of the rational arguments for the existence of god which are still used by modern theologians can be found in the works of the stoics. stocism was founded about 300 BC jby zeno, who was born in cyprus and who taught in athens. Z's thesis which cicero quotes, is still valid agianst materialistic evolution...'nothing that is devoid of life and reason can give birth to a rational being'. elsewhere in the same book cicero makes balbus reject the argument that
13 the universe has originated by chance. 'balbus compares the man who believes that the universe came together by chance to a man who was prepared to believe that if a large quantity of each letter of the alphabet were thrown on the ground they might fall by chance in such an order as to form the Annals of Ennius. marcus aurelius, perhaps the greatest of the stoics, anticipates the great argument from design: 'can order, he asks, subsisting in yourself be consistent with disorder in the All?
christian rationalism had its root in greece. greek rationalsm..began by replacing the traditional religion of greece and then itself became a religion, a religion which found its ultimate expression in Logos worship, 'in the deification of Intelligence as the supreme cosmic principle.
chapter 3 - the uncertain frontier
17 whether or not st. thomas aquinas succeeded in proving the existence of God by pure reason is a question of opinion, but it is a question of fact that a vast gulf separates st. thomas ..from luther who..was intemperate in his abuse of rationalism...
(note: 2 observations..i have a real respect for the reasoning and thinking of Lunn and for him as a man but in this book 1. i cannot square what he writes of Luther here with the reality of how much what i have read of him..let alone the life he lived, has SPOKEN GOD into my life and makes me yearn for the God who reveals Himself in the Bible...to be like Him and to obey Him. 2. all men are wicked. Luther was very clear about the fact that he (i would say, like all men romans 3.10f) was a wretched sinner. also the best of men can be exposed as such by a close mining of his words and of his life. as a result i skip a good deal in this book. just because i am not perfect does not mean that God cannot say and do good through even me..martin luther and arnold lunn, etc.)
chapter 7 - the pedigree of modern science
62..it is true that the scientific movement began in greece, but also true that it would not be easy to decide whether greek thought had on the balance a greater influence in stimulating or in retarding scientific research. the decisive advance of science began when science liberated itself from teleology and the teleological outlook did not begin with the mediaeval theologians. plato and aristotle were teleologists and the greek bias in favour of the deductive as opposed to inductive reasoning was certainly one of the influences responsible for the stagnation of science in the middle ages.
a deductive or a priori reasoner deduces either from truths universally admitted or from truths deduced from truths universally
63 ..admitted, their necessary consequences. thus st. thomas aquinas, starting from the universally admitted truth that 'it is certain and obvious to our senses that some things are in motion', proceeds to deduce the existence of God.
inductive or a posteriori reasoning is the attempt to discover the existence of a general law from its observed consequences.
astronomers observed that certain planets did, in point of fact, move in elliptic orbits. they inferred by inductive reasoning that the movement of these particular planets was a consequence of a general law that all planets move in elliptic orbits. induction will thus often create a strong presumption in favour of a general law, the proof of which depends on deduction or on mathematical processes. from the fact that certain planets move in elliptic orbits, it is impossible to infer with certainty that all planets move in such orbits. observation must be supplemented by mathematics in order to achieve exact proof.
the deductive approach to truth is usually preferred by the philosopher, the inductive by the scientist. i shall describe those who prefer the deductive approach as apriorists and those who rely on inductive reason and experiment as empiricists.
the contrast between the mediaeval and the modern outlook may be illustrated by galileo's retort to sarsi. sarsi maintained that motion invariably produced heat and in support of this theory he quoted a statement, which he had seen in print (and which he therefore assumed to be infallible), that the babylonians cooked eggs by whirling them in a sling. G made the obvious reply that it would be perfectly easy to test the truth of this statement by repeating the experiment. S, we may be sure, had never thought of that, for the very idea of appealing from authority to experiment and form a priori reasoning to empiricism was foreign to the mediaeval mind.
G, like the modern scientists, was mainly interested in the 'how', the mediaevalist in the 'why of phenomena. in other words, the mediaevalist was a teleologist. teleology is the
64 doctrine of final ends rather than of efficient causes. the teleologist explains phenomena, not by trying to discover how things work, but by attempting to show why things are. to the mediaeval thinker the 'why' of natural phenomena was solved once you had discovered their usefulness to man.
nature is the work of God and since God made man only a little lower than the angels, it was reasonable to deduce that nature has been created purely for the benefit of man. from this assumption the scholastics deduced that the best method of understanding nature was to interpret nature with reference to man's eternal destiny.
ruskin was in the direct descent from the great mediaeval teleologists. his 'geology', if indeed it can be described as such is gloriously mediaeval in outlook. mountains, for R, were not the inevitable result of certain physical changes on the surface of the earth. no, they are appointed to fulfil 'three great offices', which he proceeds to describe in detail, 'in order to preserve the health and increase the happiness of mankind'. nor is their arrangement haphazard. the great peaks are set back on a vast alpine plateau. they 'are not allowed' - a telelogical phrase - to come to the edge of this plateau for fear lest the stones and snow slides from their slopes should fall on inhabited ground and cause death and destruction'. 'it is hardly necessary to point our, adds R, the perfect wisdom and kindness of this arrangement as a provision for the safety of the inhabitants of the high mountain regions. st. thomas G himself might have concluded, as R concludes, 'now that such a structure is the best and wisest possible is indeed a sufficient reason for its existence and to many people it may seem useless to question further respecting its origin.
65 teleology such as R's can only retard the advance of science, but though teleology is associated with deductive reasoning it would be absurd to suggest that deductive and a priori reasoning is of no value in science. all that we are entitled to affirm is that the value of induction increases in proportion as science comes down to earth. the propositions of euclid, to cite a classic examaple, are concerned with pure abstractions, with timeless truths which are eternally valid for tthe only kind of space with which E is concerned. it might well be that euclidean space only exists in the mind of God and the E's propositions are not true of our space, for our space it would seem is not euclidean. it is possible that some of E's theorens may have originated in observation or experiment, but E never strengthens his argument by the appeal to experiment or by the faintest suspicion of
..20 years ago when i wrote The Flight from Reason the attack upon reason was still camouflaged and the behaviourists, extentialists and logical positivists had not yet crowded the old fashioned Victorian rationalists off the centre of the stage. these later manifestations of irrationalism have one thing in common, the tacit abandonment of all attempt at reasoned refutation of christianity...
chapter 1 - in search of definitions
3 the success and enduring influence of any systematic construction of truth, writes archbishop Trench, depends as much on an exact terminology as upon close and deep thinking itself. 'terms, says Whewall, record discoveries...hardly any original thought assume their proper importance in the mind of their inventors until aptly selected words and phrases have nailed themdown and held them fast.
it is equally true that the success and enduring influence of a systematic construction of falsehood depends very largely on INEXACT terminology. both the advance of materialism in the 19th century and the retreat from christianity were accelerated by the fact that the orthodox were outmanoervred in the battle of words. the christians imperilled the whole campaign when they conceded by implication that those who rejected christianity had the right to describe themselves as 'rationalists'.
the concise oxford dictionary offers a definition of rationalism with which no christian can quarrel:
'Rationalism, n., practice of explaining the supernatural in religion in a way consonant with reason or of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion as elsewhere; theory that reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge (opp. empiricism, sensationalism).
rationalism owes much of its success not only to its name, but also to the folly of christians who should never have described their opponents as rationalists, thus labelling themselves by implication as anti-rational. the question at issue is not whether reason is to be preferred to unreason, but whether.
4 the theistic or atheistic conception of the universe is the more rationa, in other words whether the theists are right. equally michievous in it s influence is the misuse of the word 'science'. and the readiness of too many christians to admit the reality of the alleged conflict between science and religion.
'science' is derived from the latin scientia, which means knowledge and in the middle ages 'science' covered all forms of knowledge, supernatural and natural, but even if the word be used in its modern popular and inexact sense and restricted to the knowledge of nature, there is no justification for the loos talk about the conflict between religion and science. on the contrary, it is as true as in bacon's time that 'a little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's mind to religion'.
..the acquiescence of christians in an inexact and inadequate terminology - inadequate because 'no words and phrases have nailed and held fast' the distinction between scientists as such and the sect of scientists who rejected the supernatural - had disastrous results. on the other hand, thousands rejected christianity because they had been misled into accepting the reality of the alleged conflict between
5 the science which they equated with the truth and the religion which, so they were assured, could not be reconciled with science.
6 no argument is possible, as st. thomas aquinas fully realised, until you and your opponent have discovered a common premis.
7 'faith is not common to the believer and the sceptic and therefore reason, which from its very nature is impersonal and objective, must be the starting point of rational apologetics. it may be true that no man has ever been wholly convinced by reason, but the operative word is 'wholly', for the discovery that christianity can be defended without invoking the appeal to faith has often been the first and decisive factor in the return to the Faith.
it is arguable how far men can be converted by sound arguments, but it is certain that they can be perverted by unsound arguments...
8 it is not, of course, reason which creates the spiritual appetite of which st. augustine speaks, that disquiet of the heart until it finds rest in Him who made it...and it is not reason which convinces a hungry man that he needs food, but reason guides us in the choice of food and helps us to distinguish between nourishing food and poison, be that food physical or spiritual.
..'for the mystic especially it is important that theology should flourish and good theologians abound, for in the guidance which objective theology supplies lies the mystic's sole certainty of escaping self-illusion'.
gerson, perhaps the greatest religious writer and preacher of the 14th century, 'notes acutely as a matter that can be observed every day, the contemplative's temptation to be his own guide...' and also 'how often false mysticism and a certain looseness about sex morality go together', as for instance in the case of the beghards, whose doctrines were condemned at the general council of vienna in 1311.
the beghards maintained that man, even in this life, can attain to perfection. when he reaches this stage, he need neither pray nor fast, for his spirit has achieved such complete dominion over his senses that he can freely yield to the desires of his body. once a man has reached this stage he is emancipated from human authority or from the authority of the church. 'where there is the spirit of God there is liberty and the practice of the virtues is a mark of the imperfect man: the perfect soul
9 emancipated itself from the virtues...whoever kisses a woman unless led by sexual impulse sins mortally, while no sexual act is sinful if it is done from a sexual motive; such acts are especially free from blame if they are yielding to temptation'.
the beghards were the precursors of the antinomians (a person who maintains that christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel; 1635-45; plural of antinomus opponent of the moral law
chapter 2 - the birth of rationalism
11 humanly speaking, there might never have been a christian philosophy but for greece. in europe there is no philosophy which is not derived directly or indirectly from greece, even marxism, for marx's debt to hegel is no greater than hegel's debt to greek philosophy, but though there was no hebrew equvalent of aristotle or plato, the hebrew prophets were at home in a realm to which the greek philosophers did not attain. to the prophet God was revealed. to the greek, god could only be inferred as a conclusion at the end of a chain of syllogisms. the contrast between isaiah and plato is a contrast between vision and inference. the essence of religion for the jew was that it was revealed. the greek demanded not that religion should be revealed, but that religion should be explained. 'the jews, said st. paul, require a sign and the greeks seek after wisdom.
now there is a place in religion not only for the prophet, but also for the philosopher, not only for experience, but also for rational inference. st. thomas aquinas realised that no argument is possible until a common premise has been discovered with one's opponent. the prophet never tries to find a common premise, for the prophet is not interested in argument.
the essential contrast between the hellenic and the judaic outlook was the contrast between a people with a passion for hearing both sides of a case fully stated and a people whose only interest in other people's views was to refute them.
plato seldom gave complete victory to one side in the dialogues. he seemed more concerned to understand the different approaches to a controversial issue than to defend a particular thesis. herodotus and thucydides are at pains to give either in direct speech or in narrative the views of both contending parties.
christianity owes an immense debt to hellenism, for the art of rational apologetics was a discovery of the greeks. 'come now and let us reason together saith the Lord, but though isaiah records this invitation there is no record of the invitation being accepted, as indeed sir ronald storrs pointed out in the story
12 of his own experiences in palestine. the greek was and the hebrew was not, prepared 'to reason together' and a whole world of thought and feeling separates, 'thus saith the Lord' from a socratic dialogue.
it is indeed with a shock of surprise that one comes across st. peter's 'be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a REASON of the hope that is in you.
logon peri, 'a rational account' is a fragment of greek feeling embedded in a judaic epistle, for this good classical phrase, almost identical as dr. selwyn points out, with a phrase in plato, is almost without parallel in the new testament.
so far at least as the west is concerned, aristotle may be described as the father of natural theology, that is of the theology which relies for its doctrines on reason alone, unaided by revelation. his system of physics compelled belief in a prime mover who was Himself unmoved and though aristotle's god is very different from the christian God, it would be difficult to exaggerate the influence of aristotle's natural theology on st. thomas aquinas.
many of the rational arguments for the existence of god which are still used by modern theologians can be found in the works of the stoics. stocism was founded about 300 BC jby zeno, who was born in cyprus and who taught in athens. Z's thesis which cicero quotes, is still valid agianst materialistic evolution...'nothing that is devoid of life and reason can give birth to a rational being'. elsewhere in the same book cicero makes balbus reject the argument that
13 the universe has originated by chance. 'balbus compares the man who believes that the universe came together by chance to a man who was prepared to believe that if a large quantity of each letter of the alphabet were thrown on the ground they might fall by chance in such an order as to form the Annals of Ennius. marcus aurelius, perhaps the greatest of the stoics, anticipates the great argument from design: 'can order, he asks, subsisting in yourself be consistent with disorder in the All?
christian rationalism had its root in greece. greek rationalsm..began by replacing the traditional religion of greece and then itself became a religion, a religion which found its ultimate expression in Logos worship, 'in the deification of Intelligence as the supreme cosmic principle.
chapter 3 - the uncertain frontier
17 whether or not st. thomas aquinas succeeded in proving the existence of God by pure reason is a question of opinion, but it is a question of fact that a vast gulf separates st. thomas ..from luther who..was intemperate in his abuse of rationalism...
(note: 2 observations..i have a real respect for the reasoning and thinking of Lunn and for him as a man but in this book 1. i cannot square what he writes of Luther here with the reality of how much what i have read of him..let alone the life he lived, has SPOKEN GOD into my life and makes me yearn for the God who reveals Himself in the Bible...to be like Him and to obey Him. 2. all men are wicked. Luther was very clear about the fact that he (i would say, like all men romans 3.10f) was a wretched sinner. also the best of men can be exposed as such by a close mining of his words and of his life. as a result i skip a good deal in this book. just because i am not perfect does not mean that God cannot say and do good through even me..martin luther and arnold lunn, etc.)
chapter 7 - the pedigree of modern science
62..it is true that the scientific movement began in greece, but also true that it would not be easy to decide whether greek thought had on the balance a greater influence in stimulating or in retarding scientific research. the decisive advance of science began when science liberated itself from teleology and the teleological outlook did not begin with the mediaeval theologians. plato and aristotle were teleologists and the greek bias in favour of the deductive as opposed to inductive reasoning was certainly one of the influences responsible for the stagnation of science in the middle ages.
a deductive or a priori reasoner deduces either from truths universally admitted or from truths deduced from truths universally
63 ..admitted, their necessary consequences. thus st. thomas aquinas, starting from the universally admitted truth that 'it is certain and obvious to our senses that some things are in motion', proceeds to deduce the existence of God.
inductive or a posteriori reasoning is the attempt to discover the existence of a general law from its observed consequences.
astronomers observed that certain planets did, in point of fact, move in elliptic orbits. they inferred by inductive reasoning that the movement of these particular planets was a consequence of a general law that all planets move in elliptic orbits. induction will thus often create a strong presumption in favour of a general law, the proof of which depends on deduction or on mathematical processes. from the fact that certain planets move in elliptic orbits, it is impossible to infer with certainty that all planets move in such orbits. observation must be supplemented by mathematics in order to achieve exact proof.
the deductive approach to truth is usually preferred by the philosopher, the inductive by the scientist. i shall describe those who prefer the deductive approach as apriorists and those who rely on inductive reason and experiment as empiricists.
the contrast between the mediaeval and the modern outlook may be illustrated by galileo's retort to sarsi. sarsi maintained that motion invariably produced heat and in support of this theory he quoted a statement, which he had seen in print (and which he therefore assumed to be infallible), that the babylonians cooked eggs by whirling them in a sling. G made the obvious reply that it would be perfectly easy to test the truth of this statement by repeating the experiment. S, we may be sure, had never thought of that, for the very idea of appealing from authority to experiment and form a priori reasoning to empiricism was foreign to the mediaeval mind.
G, like the modern scientists, was mainly interested in the 'how', the mediaevalist in the 'why of phenomena. in other words, the mediaevalist was a teleologist. teleology is the
64 doctrine of final ends rather than of efficient causes. the teleologist explains phenomena, not by trying to discover how things work, but by attempting to show why things are. to the mediaeval thinker the 'why' of natural phenomena was solved once you had discovered their usefulness to man.
nature is the work of God and since God made man only a little lower than the angels, it was reasonable to deduce that nature has been created purely for the benefit of man. from this assumption the scholastics deduced that the best method of understanding nature was to interpret nature with reference to man's eternal destiny.
ruskin was in the direct descent from the great mediaeval teleologists. his 'geology', if indeed it can be described as such is gloriously mediaeval in outlook. mountains, for R, were not the inevitable result of certain physical changes on the surface of the earth. no, they are appointed to fulfil 'three great offices', which he proceeds to describe in detail, 'in order to preserve the health and increase the happiness of mankind'. nor is their arrangement haphazard. the great peaks are set back on a vast alpine plateau. they 'are not allowed' - a telelogical phrase - to come to the edge of this plateau for fear lest the stones and snow slides from their slopes should fall on inhabited ground and cause death and destruction'. 'it is hardly necessary to point our, adds R, the perfect wisdom and kindness of this arrangement as a provision for the safety of the inhabitants of the high mountain regions. st. thomas G himself might have concluded, as R concludes, 'now that such a structure is the best and wisest possible is indeed a sufficient reason for its existence and to many people it may seem useless to question further respecting its origin.
65 teleology such as R's can only retard the advance of science, but though teleology is associated with deductive reasoning it would be absurd to suggest that deductive and a priori reasoning is of no value in science. all that we are entitled to affirm is that the value of induction increases in proportion as science comes down to earth. the propositions of euclid, to cite a classic examaple, are concerned with pure abstractions, with timeless truths which are eternally valid for tthe only kind of space with which E is concerned. it might well be that euclidean space only exists in the mind of God and the E's propositions are not true of our space, for our space it would seem is not euclidean. it is possible that some of E's theorens may have originated in observation or experiment, but E never strengthens his argument by the appeal to experiment or by the faintest suspicion of
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)