What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?

The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come,[1] and to drive them to Christ;[2] or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable,[3] and under the curse thereof.[4]

Click to read more ...

CD Review: Indelible Grace V

Wake Thy Slumbering Children

The church has a glorious heritage in the hymns of those saint who went before us, and I’d hate for all that that richness to be lost as generations pass and music styles change. That’s why I appreciate the work of Indelible Grace Music, known for putting old hymns to new music in order

to rekindle a love of hymns and to invite many who would never associate rich passion with hymns to actually read the words.

The most recently released CD from Indelible Grace is Indelible Grace V: Wake Thy Slumbering Children. It’s a collection that reminds me, oddly enough, of a gray-haired lady who sings and accompanies herself on her guitar at my dad’s country church. I suppose that’s because the songs are not too polished, a little down-home bluesy, and genuine. What you get here, most of all, is truth and sincerity, and that’s a really fine thing.

My favorite songs?

• Go to Dark Gethsemane, Sandra McCracken. This hymn by James Montgomery has poetic words that beg to be revived, and the simple gentleness of this rendition seems exactly right for them.
• In the Hours, Emily DeLoach. Bluesy, with a little black gospel sound, and more quality poetry, this time by Helen L. Parmlee.
  
• Beneath the Cross of Jesus, Derek Webb and Sandra McCracken. A perfect example of how a familiar hymn with familiar words can takes on fresh meaning with new music.

My nitpicks, which are small, but I’ll mention them anyway.

• Face to Face is set to music in a minor key. Minor keys are perfect for words of lament, but when we behold Jesus face to face, it will be a glorious time, a time of rejoicing, and this music seems like a poor fit.
  
• Slow can be good, but there are a couple of pieces that do seem go overboard in the slow department.
• I’d like to throw in a few changing dynamics, too, so there is more variation throughout the multiple verses of a few songs.
  

A Question on God's Immutability

and a grammar question, too.

 

My email inbox can be a fun place, so I’m letting you in on the fun by responding to one piece of mail right here on the blog. I have two reasons for doing it that way. First, the questions and responses might be of general interest; and second, I could use my readers’ help.

 

Here goes. From the email, first question: 

I read your post regarding God’s immutability that you posted on Sept 27, 2005:  http://theologica.worldmagblog.com/theologica/archives/2005/09/gods_immutabili_1.html

This link no longer works, but you’ll find what is essentially the same post here: God’s Immutability. 

You stated, “And while it seems certain that he does not feel emotions in exactly the same way we do, we still need to take seriously the statements of scripture that show him exercising love or joy or anger or wrath.” 

Since I posted on Theologica, I’ve gone through all the posts on God’s attributes and  revised them, and that statement is one of the places I changed things. I changed the word exercising to manifesting because, after some thought, I decided it more accurately describes what scripture intends to express when it talks about God rejoicing or being grieved, etc.

Recently, I’ve been trying to find verses that show God is completely content with Himself and does not need us for His joy. You stated that you knew of verses that illustrate Him exercising His joy; have you ever seen any verses that demonstrate the concept I’ve been searching for? 

This question touches on the subject of God’s impassibility, along with his immutability, independence and asceity (or self-existence). I think it is right to say that God is not dependent on us for his joy, or anything else, for that matter. He is independent, so if he expresses joy, this expression of joy is willingly initiated by him and is not caused by his creatures or his creation.

 

Moreover, God has always existed and will always exist in constant fullness or perfection, so it would be wrong for us to think that our existence or our actions have in any way added to his joy or any other of his affections.

 

If I were going to support that from scripture, here are some of the texts I’d use:

 

Acts 17:24-25:

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 

In other words, everything comes from God. He is not dependent on us for anything, and anything would include his own feelings or emotions, or, more precisely, his affections. God is the source of all things, including his own joy.

 

Romans 11:36

For from him and through him and to him are all things.

This comes right after a statement saying that no one can be God’s counselor or give anything to him. We are unable to actually give anything to God because everything flows the other way. Everything originates within him, is worked by him, and flows back to him. When God rejoices over his people, his joy comes from within himself and he independently wills his expression of it.

 

At the same time, we can glean from what scripture says about God’s activities in his creation that the constant fullness of his affections is manifested differently according to the nature of specific events in history. Confusing? Yep, but we only really know emotions as they exist for us as dependent, changing, finite creatures. I suppose this is another one of those things that we just have to file under the incomprehensibility of God.

 

I welcome additional responses to this question. What would you add? What would you disagree with and why?

 

Now the second question, and here’s where I really need extra help:

Off topic, but also recently, heh, I’ve been trying to improve my grammar skills. I’ve checked out multiple books from the library, and I have learned a lot, but at the same time, I’m left with many questions that these books fail to answer….I was wondering if you know of any grammar books that go into extreme depth, or grammar books that you find helpful.

I’m going to have to admit that what grammar I know I learned from my mother’s constant correction and my own constant reading, not from grammar books or lessons. Mostly, I just do whatever feels, looks, or sounds right to me, and figure that’ll be good enough.

 

If I have a question, I look it up in The Chicago Manual of Style, which is a family favorite.

 

What help can you give to someone who wants to learn grammar? What books would you suggest?