The Blog of Hobbes

I read the following quote on Thabiti Anyabwile’s blog. I don’t think I’ve read a better quotation on prayer for a long time, perhaps except this one.

This, then, is the prayer of faith: to ask God to accomplish what He has promised in His Word. That promise is the only ground for our confidence in asking. Such confidence is not “worked up” from within our emotional life; rather, it is given and supported by what God has said in Scripture.

Truly ‘righteous’ men and women of faith know the value of their heavenly Father’s promises. They go to Him, as children do to a loving human father. They know that if they can say to an earthly father, ‘But, father, you promised…,’ they can both persist in asking and be confident that he will keep his word. How much more our heavenly Father, who has given His Son for our salvation! We have no other grounds of confidence that He hears our prayers. We need none.

Such appeal to God’s promises constitutes what John Calvin, following Turtullian, calls ‘legitimate prayer.’

Some Christians find this disappointing. It seems to remove the mystique from the prayer of faith. Are we not tying down our faith to ask only for what God already has promised? But such disappointment reveals a spiritual malaise: would we rather devise our own spirituality (preferably spectacular) than God’s (frequently modest)?

The struggles we sometimes experience in prayer, then, are often part of the process by which God gradually brings us to ask for only what He has promised to give. The struggle is not our wrestling to bring Him to give us what we desire, but our wrestling with His Word until we are illuminated and subdued by it, saying, ‘Not my will, but Your will be done.’ Then, as Calvin again says, we learn ‘not to ask for more than God allows.’

This is why true prayer can never be divorced from real holiness. The prayer of faith can be made only by the ‘righteous’ man whose life is being more and more aligned with the covenant grace and purposes of God. In the realm of prayer, too (since it is a microcosm of the whole of the Christian life), faith (prayer to the covenant Lord) without works (obedience to the covenant Lord) is dead.

From Sinclair Ferguson, In Christ Alone: Living the Gospel Centered Life (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust), pp. 146-147.

Machen, speaking about choosing a pastor:

Such and such a man, it is said, is a brilliant preacher. But what is the content of his preaching? Is his preaching full of the gospel of Christ? The answer is often evasive. The preacher in question, it is said, is of good standing in the Church, and he has never denied the doctrines of grace. Therefore, it is urged, he should be called to the pastorate. But shall we be satisfied with such negative assurances? Shall we be satisfied with the preachers who merely “do not deny” the Cross of Christ? God grant that such satisfaction may be broken down! The people are perishing under the ministrations of those who “do not deny” the Cross of Christ. Surely something more than that is needed. God send us ministers who, instead of merely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be on fire with the Cross, whose whole life shall be one burning sacrifice of gratitude to the blessed Saviour who loved them and gave Himself for them!

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 1923), p176.

One of the lessons I have learned while seeking a new church is the importance of examining the theological foundations that underlie its life and practice. Towards this end, it is essential that we consider the “statement of faith” that should contain explicit statements either affirming or denying certain theological propositions, and which all members should affirm and protect.

Without a commitment to such a statement, the church will be exposed to all sorts of theological nonsense, and will have no basis for disciplining those who hold to false and heretical beliefs. And, as Machen says, merely “not denying” a key doctrine provides no assurance that that truth plays any role in the life and practice of the church. Therefore, such assurances are worthless.

I would be very concerned if I were forced to guess or infer the theological foundations of a particular church due to a lack of doctrinal clarity and commitment.

…a large part of the New Testament is polemic; the enunciation of evangelical truth was occasioned by the errors which had arisen in the churches. So it will always be, on account of the fundamental laws of the human mind… There may have been a day when there could be propagation of Christianity without defence. But such a day at any rate is passed… In such times of crisis, God has always saved the Church. But He has always saved it not by theological pacifists, but by sturdy contenders for the truth.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 1923), p174.

Machen’s book is good stuff. He tends to ramble on a particular topic a bit too much, saying the same things in many different ways. But, using variations of the same argument, he is able to reinforce his points in a way that a more concise argument could not. To drive a nail into a doctrinal coffin sometimes requires a few bangs of the theological hammer, I guess.

Have you ever had the experience where you give greater devotion to the practice of prayer, only to find yourself becoming more impatient, irritable, and uncharitable? Or, when you tried to live for God alone, in all compartments of your life, only to find yourself more riddled with sin than ever before?

Well, don’t worry. Such godly practices have not caused this decent into ungodliness. You are simply seeing yourself as you truly are.

You’re welcome.

It is true that historic Christianity is in conflict at many points with the collectivism of the present day; it does emphasize, against the claims of society, the worth of the individual soul. It provides for the individual a refuge from all the fluctuating currents of human opinion, a secret place of meditation where a man can come alone into the presence of God. It does give a man courage to stand, if need be, against the world; it resolutely refuses to make of the individual a mere means to an end, a mere element in the composition of society. It rejects altogether any means of salvation which deals with men in a mass; it brings the individual face to face with his God. In that sense, it is true that Christianity is individualistic and not social.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 1923), p153.

As Machen points out, Christianity is not only individualistic. If one suffers, all suffer. If one rejoices, all rejoice with them. All are joined to every part of the body by what each joint supplies. But, at the end of it all, we are presented before the judgement seat of God, not in a group hug, but alone.

Check this out at Triablogue.

Highlight:

SH: There’s a lot of bigotry directed at cannibals. Almost as bad as the hate-speech about headhunters. But we need to cut through the prejudicial stereotypes and learn to distinguish between loving and unloving cannibalism.

ML: How do you define loving cannibalism?

SH: Using a general anesthetic before you stick the fork in. I suppose a local anesthetic would do for a snack.