.jpg)
Such Lessons
"Blessed is the man you chasten, O Lord--the man You teach from your law." Psalm 94:12
All the chastening in the world, without divine teaching--will never make a man blessed. That man who finds correction attended with instruction, and lashing with lessoning--is a happy man.
If God, by the affliction which is upon you, shall teach you:
how to loathe sin more, and
how to trample upon the world more, and
how to walk with God more
--then your afflictions are blessed.
If God shall teach you by afflictions:
how to die to sin more, and
how to die to your relations more,
and how to die to your self more
--then your afflictions are blessed.
If God shall teach you by afflictions:
how to live to Christ more,
how to lift up Christ more, and
how to long for Christ more
--then your afflictions are blessed.
If God shall teach you by afflictions:
how to mind heaven more,
how to live in heaven more, and
how to be fit for heaven more
--then your afflictions are blessed.
If God by afflictions shall teach:
your proud heart how to lie more low,
your hard heart how to grow more tender,
your censorious heart how to grow more kind,
your carnal heart how to grow more spiritual,
your froward heart how to grow more quiet
--then your afflictions are blessed.
When God teaches your thoughts as well as your brains, your heart as well as your head, any of these lessons--then your afflictions are blessed.
Where God loves--He afflicts in love. And wherever God afflicts in love, there He will, sooner or later, teach His people such lessons as shall do them good to all eternity!
~Thomas Brooks
2 comments:
Andrew, I apologize for responding to you here, but for some reason Wes closed the combox while I was typing my reply to you. So here it is:
@Andrew: The number I had in mind was higher:
Wes White says:
January 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM
Archie,
Yes, that list is available. Here are the men who investigated
Meyers:
The investigating committee includes TE Stephen Estock, TE Andrew Vander Maas, RE David Yates, TE Dr. Will Barker, TE Ryan Laughlin, TE Dr. David Chapman, TE Dr. Bob Burns, TE Mark Ryan, and RE Dr. Jay Wippold.
Burns, Yates, and Ryan actually investigated whether Meyers was aggrieved by the reports.
• Archie says:
January 10, 2011 at 9:23 PM
At least 5 out of 9 of that list teach Seminary students…
A majority of seminary profs made up the committee that investigated Meyers and concluded there was no strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Meyers.
Concerning the make up of the MO Pres:
• Elliott P. says:
January 11, 2011 at 5:31 AM
The CTS website and the PCA ministerial directory should answer the question pretty quickly about which professors are members of MOP. I would put the number around 33%, roughly.
• Dean B says:
January 11, 2011 at 6:27 AM
Wow 33% teach at Covenant. That provides insight why Rayburn would include MOP in the following statement, ““I was recently in St. Louis, and the men in Missouri Presbytery and at Covenant Seminary are fit to be tied.”
Covenant Seminary and the members of MOP are the same.
• Elliott P. says:
January 11, 2011 at 6:32 AM
Dean, you’re reading that backwards. 30-40 percent of CTS faculty are members of MOP; MOP is NOT 30% made up of CTS faculty. That percent would be much lower.
So I misspoke. Covenant Seminary professors made up a majority of the committee that investigated and cleared Meyers and do not make up a majority of the Presbytery.
I did not mean to impugn the entire MO Presbytery, just the members of investigative committee and every other member of the Presbytery that voted in favor of the committee's report.
You also wrote: "MO Presbytery case is being brought before the SJC." When is the SJC expected to hear it? Is there a date?
Finally, my understanding of the SJC's ruling in the Siouxlands case is a bit different. I think the SJC's decision was a major setback (see http://tinyurl.com/4y97jgt). While I initially shared your take that things weren't really as bad as they seemed, I think the SJC made it much harder to rid the church of FV theology. The SJC reasoned:
"During presbytery’s consideration of this matter, TE Moon specifically denied that he held the heterodox views alleged by the Overture. Following his denial, Presbytery allowed, and TE Moon answered, questions for clarification and concern from the floor. After a motion to close debate Presbytery found that “having hear [sic] testimony from TE Moon, we deem TE Moon’s testimony a satisfactory explanation concerning the report and find no strong presumption of guilt in TE Moon related to the report."
Couldn't the same reasoning be used in the Meyers case? Didn't Meyers specifically deny that he held heterodox views? The SJC also stated:
"Against this reasoning stand TE Moon’s express and specific denials of the heterodoxy alleged in the Overture, and his affirmations of orthodoxy. The only question, then, is with respect to TE Moon’s credibility. The Standing Judicial Commission must defer to Presbytery’s judgment, unless there is a finding of “clear error” (BCO 39-3(3)). Nothing in the Record supports such a finding. Presbytery exercised its jurisdiction with respect to the theological questions at issue."
Doesn't Meyers paradoxically affirm orthodoxy out of one side of his mouth while denying it with another? Couldn't the SJC similarly find that the MOP "exercised its jurisdiction with respect to the theological questions at issue"? Couldn't the SJC conclude in Meyer's case that they “must defer to Presbytery’s judgment, unless there is a finding of ‘clear error’”? The SJC should have recognized the “clear error” rests in Moon’s positive defense of Lawrence including his admissions that Lawrence’s views are his own. Yet, unbelievably, the SJC argued that the Complainants were guilty of a number of non sequiturs in their reasoning.
Whether you want to argue the Siouxlands case was decided on procedural grounds while ignoring the evidence (evidence which the SJC wrongly claimed did not follow), the SCJ in their ruling did turned a blind eye to the spread of FV theology.
Post a Comment