The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Secular Art

Therefore, it seems logical to me, that if you agree that there is an imbalance, and you have repeatedly stated that you do, it would seem necessary, in order to bring things back into balance, to begin to stress that which has been neglected.

acts2027 I have truly enjoyed this thread and the discussion of what “some” of the Puritans taught and preached. I do however take exception with the way you are viewing, that is what you believe, are the totality of the Puritans preaching/emphasis style.

When one emphasizes one area, as you state above, then the other areas will go “less” attended and be underemphasized. Though you may correct “the one area”, "later" the others then will need correcting and you will constantly be on a titter totter of attempting to explain the whole counsel of God. Thus, it is best to keep things “balanced” throughout.

Expository preaching is a balanced way of presenting the “whole counsel of God.” The preacher will emphasize what the “verses” say and not his own “personal agenda.” I believe the Scripture was written, as such, to bring us constant, balanced, doctrinal, and heart searching truths on a continual basis—thus a Scriptural balance.

Ministers preach for the “long term” if they are doing it right. As Bickel, states in his book, Light and Heat, Puritan View of the Pulpit, Preachers are charged with preaching a message already given and not creating one. The preacher is not called and sent by God to make a quick sale, but to deliver a message. In other words, they preach not to have “short term” balance, but rather “continual balance.” I like what Spurgeon, often referred to as the Puritan that was born a 100 years too late, states, make no mistake here; we shall not watch our congregations to make our cue from it, but we shall keep our eye on the infallible Word, and preach according to its instructions.

As a matter a fact Spurgeon himself addresses how we are to deal with “unbalance” in believers lives. Far from doing it from the pulpit he states,

If we should be faithful as stewards, we must not neglect any one of the family, not neglect any portion of the estate….This is to be done not only by [color:#FF0000]personal talk, but by personal prayer. We ought thus to beat the bounds of our parish, and go round and round our congregations, forgetting none, despairing of none, bearing all upon our hearts before the Lord.

I do not see the “Prince of Preaching” changing the emphasis of his sermons?

The Puritan system had three prominent features:

1. Doctrinally, Puritanism proclaimed a broad and vigorous Calvinism;

2. Experimentally, the system offered a warm and contagious devotional kind of Christianity;

3. Evangelically, it heralded a tender, aggressive, and impassioned message of substitutionary satisfaction.

Their preaching centered on:

1. A Scriptural Message—The preaching of the Puritans was a scriptural evangel. Biblical phrases are seen woven in and out of their sermons and works. The Puritans understood God to be the only One who could convince, convict, convert, and comfort the sinner through the Word. Their task as messengers was to communicate that Word by teaching and applying its whole counsel to the hearers. Preachers were to declare God’s mind and heart as set forth in the passage chosen so that the Holy Spirit, who did not work in a vacuum, would use the revealed truth to enable a lost soul to come to Christ. God’s message was their method.

2. A Doctrinal Message—Not only was the Puritan message Scriptural it was doctrinal. They articulated doctrinal principles by distinguishing things that differed. When they talked about sin, they compared it to a glorious heaven that was ruled by a holy God. One can clearly see the doctrines of the general call and the effectual call in the clucking of the chickens in John Bunyan’s, Pilgrim’s Progress.

3. A Symmetrical Message—The Puritan’s message contained the “whole counsel of God.” The Puritans were not squeamish in letting a passage say what it meant for fear of not getting a response from the audience. If the text said that salvation was difficult and a rare thing, that one must strive in one’s quest to reach God, the Puritan would let it stand as written. On the other hand, if a text said that he who believes has life, they let that passage speak in all its freeness and gospel glory. The Puritans had a beautiful symmetry in the proclamation of the gospel.

4.An Applicable Message—The Puritans always desired to insure that messages were applied “rightly.” Joseph Alleine before ever addressing what true conversion was, addressed what it was not. Alleine presently 10 marks of an unconverted man and, then to insure no one missed the point, he revealed 12 marks of an unregenerate heart (An Alarm to the Unconverted).

5. A Message of a Whole Christ to the Whole Man—The concept of Christ being preached as a prophet, priest, and king was a hallmark of the Puritan era. Therefore, one observes no attempt on the part of the Puritan divines to offer Christ as a Saviour from the penalty of sin while deliberately ignoring His claims as a sovereign and the Lord and His demands that one forsake the love and practice of sin. As Alleine states, once again, The unsound convert takes Christ in halves. He is all for the salvation of Christ, but he is not for sanctification. He is all for the privileges, but does not appropriate the person of Christ. He divides the offices and the benefits of Christ. This is an error in foundation. Of course, there is much more that could be said. I have attempted to reveal only some of their emphasis in their great preaching. I would suggest reading Bickle’s book, as he is very detailed including many of the Puritan’s own quotes on their own practices.

IMHO the emphasis of Puritan Preaching is not a point of argument, but one of the proper education.

I agree with you, and I agree with acts2027, but one question comes to my mind now, and this may just be inexpierence talking, but whatever the case may be, [color:blue]how do you go about bring a balance back when there already seems to be an imbalance?</font color=blue> [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/confused.gif" alt="confused" title="confused[/img]

That was so simple and yet so hard. Prolly why I didn't think about it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bingo.gif" alt="bingo" title="bingo[/img] Then again, sometimes the most obvious answers are the hardest to find.

Joe:<br><br>I've "enjoyed" it too, sort of. I wondered how long it would be before you guys ganged up on me [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]. You make some good points and I don't have time to go into all of your points right now, but I would simply remind both you and Pilgrim that neither of you have yet addressed the point I made in my last post directly and so I will restate it again here:<br><br>"I don't believe that my characterization of the ministry of the men that I have pointed to, and I purposely did not include all "of the older writers" because some of them were just as much in error as the men of this day, is inaccurate with respect to their desire to correct the deadness of the church of their day, and their approach to do so as I have described it, because they themselves in their writings stated it clearly and plainly, as did the editors who put together their works. See the preface to Owens' works on the Holy Spirit and Edwards and Philpots letters to friends and fellow pastors, etc. So, sorry, that arguement just doesn't wash. Would you care to address the arguement I made, and these men themselves made in their letters and writings and their editors made directly?"<br><br>Briefly, what you and Pilgrim seem to be saying is that you are agreeing to disagree with me, and these men, about the correct way to reinstate balance into an out of balance situation. Thats ok if you want to disagree, but lets not attribute the problem to my error or poor manner of presenting it unless you are willing to disagree with the men I have stated and their editors, because I am perfectly capable of bringing those references to the discussion given enough time. <br><br>Peace, and I love and respect you both, I just don't agree with you and I don't think the men I have cited would either.<br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry<br><br>

1. The truth was stated in the other post and thus I will not recant. Here I Stand (heard that one before [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img])

2. Even if what you assert is true concerning “some” of the Puritans at specific times in their ministry, it is no proof that this was the “norm” for their ministry. Additionally, by your own admission you “do not” agree with everything the Puritans wrote. Though they may be right on many/most things they are not omniscient. I see a healthy balance not only in the "experience" issue of the Puritans, but in the other areas as well.

3. The Preface to Owen’s work, The Holy Spirit has “no statements” regarding this issue? (Banner of Truth, 1998, maybe you have a different edition than I).

4. Why don't you give the Author, book, and page of specific examples you are speaking about so we may examine their context.

WILLIAM GOUGE said:

[color:blue] It is God's word that does convert, quicken, comfort, and build up, or, on the other side, wound and beat down. What is the reason that there was so great an alteration made by the ministry of Christ and his disciples, by the apostles and others after them, indeed, by Luther, and other ministers of reformed churches? They did not preach traditions of elders like the scribes; nor men's inventions like the Roman Catholics do. They preached the pure word of God. The more purely God's word is preached, the more deeply it pierces and the more kindly it works.

Lloyd-Jones said:

[color:blue]Preaching, the Puritans said, “is the exposition of the Word of God.” They even said that, in faithful preaching, God himself is preaching, and that if a man is giving a true exposition of Scripture, God is speaking because it is God’s Word, and not the word of man.

To the Puritans, explaining doctrine was not vain, academic self-indulgence, but an integral part of Biblical preaching:

This is essential in (the Puritans’) view of preaching. They were always out to find a doctrine, and doctrine is to be found in the Word. You do not impose doctrine on the Word. You do not start with doctrine and then find a text to fit it. You start with the Word and then find the doctrine in the text. You then produced reasons which justified your finding this doctrine and then you referred to other Scriptures which taught the same doctrine and confirmed the idea, the doctrine, that you claimed to discover in your text . . . They never failed to do this.

Packer states:

[color:blue]The Puritan preacher regarded himself as the mouthpiece of God and the servant of His words. He must speak ‘as the oracle of God.’ His task, therefore, was not information, fastening on to Scripture text meanings they do not bear, nor was it juxtaposition, using his text as a peg on which to hang some homily unrelated to it. The preacher’s task was precisely, exposition, extracting from his texts what God had encased within them.

The Puritan method of ‘opening’ a text was first to explain it in its context; next, to extract from the text one or more doctrinal observations embodying its substances, and then to amplify, illustrate, and conform form other Scriptures the truths thus derived; and finally, to draw out their practical implications for the hearers.

Richard Baxter, the importance of theology was based in the conviction that a proper understanding of God would allow for a proper understanding of everything else:

[color:blue]. . . it is a grand error, and of dangerous consequence in Christian academics . . . that they study the creature before the Redeemer, and set themselves to physics, and metaphysics, and mathematics, before they set themselves to theology; whereas, no man that hath not the vitals of theology, is capable of going beyond a fool in philosophy. Theology must be the foundation, and lead the way of all our studies.

Joe:<br><br>As I said, I will bring forth my references as I have time. <br><br>My point is that you may disagree with me of couse, but it would be nice not to be misrepresented in my views as erroneous, or singular, imbalanced and so. I simply have an opinion which may be different than yours and I believe I have some support for it from some of God's most distinguished servants. Of course they may have had views that differ from other truely Godly men of the faith without being wrong or imbalanced and I think we should be cautious about how we label others views on these things. <br><br>I'm not asking anyone to "recant" as if some error had been committed, I'm simply asking for a little room to have a different opinion and I believe that history will bear me out. Is that too much to ask?<br><br>Grace,<br><br>Gerry

With respect to my points on the qualitative aspects of preaching and how some of the formost of the churches saints specifically took upon them, in the course of a balanced ministry overall, to address an imbalance that existed I offer the following from Owen on the Holy Spirit Vol 3:

1.
“The work, as we may gather from various allusions in it, was written in
opposition to the rationalism of the early Socinians, especially as
represented by Crellius; to the mysticism of the Quakers, a sect which had
grown into notoriety within thirty years before the publication of this
work; and to the irreligion of a time when the derision of all true piety was
the passport to royal favor.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 2, Preferatory Note, by the editor William H. Gould

Note the specific statement of opposition to “:rationalism” and “irreligion and derisioin of all true piety as a passport to royal favor”

2.
“Against such fanaticism it was
natural that a reaction should ensue, and certain divines pandered to the
blind prejudice of the times succeeding the Restoration, by sarcastic
invective against all that was evangelical in the creed of the Puritans and
vital in personal godliness. Samuel Parker, in his infamous subserviency to
the malice of the Court against dissent, and even against the common
interests of Protestantism, distinguished himself in this assault upon the
doctrines of grace and the distinctive principles of the Christian faith.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg.2, Preferatory Note, by the editor William H. Gould

Note the specific statement dealing with certain divines antagonistic to distinctive principles of the Christian faith.

3.
“In 1678, Dr. Clagett, preacher to the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn,
and one of his Majesty’s chaplains in ordinary, in “A Discourse
concerning the Operation of the Holy Spirit,” etc., attempted “a
confutation of some part of Dr. Owen’s work on that subject.” Mr. John
Humfrey, in his “Peaceable Disquisitions,” having animadverted on the
spirit in which Clagett had dealt with Owen, Clagett published another
volume, and promised a third on the opinions of the Fathers respecting the
points at issue. The manuscript of this last volume was lost in a fire which
consumed the house of a friend with whom it had been lodged. Henry
Stebbing published, in 1719, an abridgment of the first two volumes. The
principles of the work are not evangelical; a tone of cold pedantry
pervades it; and the author seems as much influenced by a desire to differ
from Owen as to discover the truth in regard to the points on which they
differed.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 3, Preferatory Note, by the editor William H. Gould

Note the specific reference to “a tone of Cold pedantry” in the attempted refutation of Owen’s work.

4.
“The THIRD BOOK is occupied with the subject of regeneration as the
especial work of the Spirit; it is shown not to consist in baptism merely,
or external reformation, or enthusiastic raptures,”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 4, Preferatory Note, by the editor William H. Gould

Note the specific reference to regeneration “not to consist in baptism merely, or external reformation”

So much for the analysis of Mr. Gould, the points made by the author himself, which are in his own preface to the book, follow and are even more to the point:

1.
“For although all that diligence, in the use of
outward means, necessary to the attainment of the knowledge of any other
useful truth, be indispensably required in the pursuit of an acquaintance
with these things also, yet if, moreover, there be not an addition of
spiritual ways and means, suited in their own nature, and appointed of
God, unto the receiving of supernatural light and the understanding of the
deep things of God, our labor about them will in a great measure be but
fruitless and unprofitable: for although the letter of the Scripture and the
sense of the propositions are equally exposed to the reason of all mankind,
yet the real spiritual knowledge of the things themselves is not
communicated unto any but by the especial operation of the Holy Spirit.
Nor is any considerable degree of insight into the doctrine of the mysteries
of them attainable but by a due waiting on Him who alone giveth “the
Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of them;” for “the things
of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God,” and they to whom by him
they are revealed.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 6, To The Readers, by the author, John Owen.

Owen makes this point repeatedly, stressing the futility of the rational mind apart from the work of the spirit in his preface and then makes this statement toward the end of his work concerning the aspersions cast on those who content for the operations of the Spirit of God:


2.
“The oppositions unto all that we believe and maintain herein are of two
sorts: — First, Such as consist in particular exceptions against and
objections unto each particular work of the Spirit, whether in the
communication of gifts or the operation of grace. Secondly, Such as consist
in reflections cast on the whole work ascribed unto him in general. Those
of the first sort will all of them fall under consideration in their proper
places, where we treat of those especial actings of the Spirit whereunto
they are opposed.”

“The other sort, at least the principal of them,wherewith some make the greatest noise in the world, may be here briefly spoken unto:--
The first and chief pretense of this nature is, that all those who plead for
the effectual operations of the Holy Spirit in the illumination of the minds
of men, the reparation of their natures, the sanctification of their persons,
and their endowment with spiritual gifts, are therein and thereby enemies
to reason, and impugn the use of it in religion, or at least allow it not that
place and exercise therein which is its due. Hence, some of those who are
otherwise minded affirm that it is cast on them as a reproach that they are
rational divines; although, so far as I can discern, if it be so, it is as Hierom
was beaten by an angel for being a Ciceronian (in the judgment of some),
very undeservedly. But the grounds whereon this charge should be made
good have not as yet been made to appear; neither hath it been evinced
that anything is ascribed by us unto the efficacy of God’s grace in the least
derogatory unto reason, its use, or any duty of man depending thereon.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 11, To The Readers, by the author, John Owen.


Note how Owen makes the point that those who contend openly for the mandatory nature of the Operations of the spirit are labeled as enemies to reason.

I will present statements from Edwards and Philpots and Bunyans Works as time affords, since you have asked for them, suspecting that you will reject what these men have themselves clearly stated, but praying that you will consider what I say.

Respectfully,

Gerry

acts2027,<br><br>Ok, I went to the 16 volume work and took down volume #3 (originally I went and just looked at my paperback…). Your quotes are there, but…<br><br>I think I see the problem—Mis-Owenology. <br><br><ul>First, these are William Goold’s, the editor’s comments, and not Owen’s. This is merely a “brief” summary of the whole. IMHO Owen believed in preaching the whole counsel of God within the framework I laid out earlier and similarly to what Perkin's states below.<br><br>Second, and more to the point, the problem is that you are NOT looking at quotes in "context". <br><br>Lastly, when you get further into the material, you will see that Owen is addressing something far removed from what you are thinking.[/LIST] In these quotes, clearly "some" were attacking the doctrine of the Holy Spirit openly (active) and contending against the faith of the Church. He was not attempting to correct imbalanced teaching or preaching by some pastors in varied congregations (passive). Did you notice, in several of your examples, that “particular” individuals and not “entire” congregations were being addressed (consistent with how the Spurgeon quote, I posted earlier, stated it should be done)? Did you notice that parts of the work appeared posthumously (it would be kind of hard to preach this way, though some would probably improve their preaching [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img])? Did you notice that these were “not” all spoken texts, but written texts--thus they were not given in a church setting? IMHO, since these were misunderstood, out of context, they do not support your view.<br><br>If this is what you are going to offer in the way of substantive proof against what I have already (1) quoted “from” some of the Puritans themselves, and (2) quoted “about” the Puritans (of which you formally stated I made several good points, which you did not refute) then I do not see where more quotes by Edwards, Philpot, or Bunyan will matter. Thus, this would conclude the matter IMHO. <br><br>But, just so there will be no misunderstanding, the Puritans preached for the most part “rightly.” Samuel Perkins in his book, The Art of Prophesying, said there were four great principles that should guide and govern the preacher:<br><br><ul> 1. To read the text distinctly out of the canonical Scriptures.<br><br>2. To give the sense and understanding of it, being read, by the Scripture itself (the exposition “must be” Scriptural—comparing Scripture with Scripture).<br><br>3. To collect a few profitable points of doctrine out of the natural sense.<br><br>4. To apply the doctrines, rightly collected, to the life and manner of men in simple and plain speech.[/LIST] I fail to see him saying he would emphasize one part of “truth” for the sake of another. (quote, from The Puritans, Lloyd-Jones).<br><br>May God Bless,

Joe:<br><br>You're not reading my posts. <br><br>First, I specifically said that I would bring forward what these men and their editors said. I have done that and you fault me for quoting their editors rather than the men themselves.<br><br>Second, when I do quote Owen, in the second part of the same post, you don't bother to remove your hastily made criticism, you just go on to state that I am misrepresenting Owen without any substantiation of your claim. I disagree, I think I am saying exactly what he said and saying very well. I have read he whole volume and I think you are accusing me of attacking the use of reason just as Owen's statement says that his detractors were accusing him of attacking reason, when, in fact he did no such thing, but rather spoke to it's limitations without the operations of the Holy Spirit.<br><br>Third, I'm not surprised that you don't want to hear what Philpot, Edwards and Bunyan had to say on the subject because in many respects they were more outspoken than Owen.<br><br>Fourth, if you don't want to see the evidence and want to close the matter, fine, that will save me a lot of work, but I would have to wonder if you just don't want to see what makes you uncomfortable.<br><br>Fifth, by the way Joe, have you ever experienced what the older authors, some of them, described as divine enlargement? Could you describe it from your own experience and explain to a fellow believer how the Lord had blessed you with this experience as referred to in the scriptures? Philpot does in one of his sermons, do you want to know what that sermon is called and where you can find it so you can read it and then critique it like you seem to want to critique me? How about John Gill, he too spoke of this divine enlargement? Can you point to anyone today who is preaching in a "balanced way" about this issue of scripture?<br><br>In His Grace, <br><br>Gerry

[color:red] if you don't want to see the evidence and want to close the matter, fine, that will save me a lot of work, but I would have to wonder if you just don't want to see what makes you uncomfortable.

It does not make me [color:red]uncomfortable, but what you assert is [color:red]scriptural imbalance and therefore [color:red]objectionable. Pilgrim advised you earlier:

[color:blue]So, please don't take offense at my words of caution as they are only intended to preserve that biblical balance and prevent any unnecessary confusion on the part of some. There is a wide variety of individuals who read these messages and thus we must be prudent in our presentations, especially when it is a truth most needed. A pastor has a great advantage when he is preaching to his congregation for his audience is mainly one which will hear him several times per week, week after week, month after month. Thus the maintaining of that balance is much easier done than it is here.

Thus, no more posts are "desired" as you will cause confusion, as already shown in your previous posts. And yes, I have read Philpot's DIVINE ENLARGEMENT AND SPIRITUAL OBEDIENCE. And yes, there are plenty of preachers preaching the way the Puritans ascribed in my examples, but not under-valuing parts of scriptural application, so that other parts may be over-emphasized. You may desire to attend one of their churches and experience "the enlarging " of your own heart to the glory of God alone, for apparently, your heart is not yet wide enough to "fully embrace" what the majority of Puritans wrote, preached, and exampled (as demonstrated by the numerous examples and applications in previous posts).

May God Have Mercy,

Just out of curiosity Thredice did you get your original question answered satisfactorily?

Music<br><br>These are my thoughts from a previous post on the subject of music. It may or may not be helpful, but it is my two bits!

Excellent thoughts Troy. That helped out quite a bit. It's just good to hear that listening to certain types of music is not wrong, but also from some of the other comments made by others; I realize that I should not be listening to anything that would draw me away from the Savior...and I realize there are cases when I do that very thing.<br><br>I tell ya...freedom in Christ is wonderful, but it's a tightrope walk sometimes....Peace.