"An Epistle to the Reverend Mr. George Whitfield" by Charles Wesley

The following is Charles Wesley's poem "An Epistle to the Reverend Mr. George Whitfield". Wesley wrote this as a reflection on the separation of fellowship he and his brother John had from Whitfield, stemming from their debates on salvation and the sovereignty of God. Separation in a sinful world is often inevhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifitable. But nothing is so beautiful as the restoration of fellowship (Psalm 133; 2 Cor. 2:5-11, 7:8-11).

Those who wish to learn more about the relationship between Whitfield and the Wesley's can check out this article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1993/issue38/3834.html

**************************************

Come on, my Whitfield! (since the strife is past
And friends at first are friends again at last,)
Our hands, and hearts, and counsels let us join
In mutual league, to' advance the work Divine,
Our one contention now, our single aim,
To pluck poor souls as brands out of the flame;
To spread the victory of that bloody Cross,
And gasp our latest breath in the Redeemer's cause.

Too long, alas! we gave to Satan place,
When party-zeal put on an angel's face;
Too long we listen'd to the cozening fiend,
Whose trumpet sounded, "For the faith contend!"
With hasty blindfold rage, in error's night,
How did we with our fellow-soldiers fight!
We could not then our Father's children know,
But each mistook his brother for his foe.
"Foes to the truth, can you in conscience spare?
"Tear them, (the tempter cried,) in pieces, tear!"
So thick the darkness, so confused the noise,
We took the stranger's for the Shepherd's voice;
Rash nature waved the controversial sword,
On fire to fight the battles of the Lord;
Fraternal love from every breast was driven,
And bleeding charity return'd to heaven.

The Saviour saw our strife with pitying eye,
And cast a look that made the shadows fly:
Soon as the day-spring in His presence shone,
We found the two fierce armies were but one;
Common our hope, and family, and name,
Our arms, our Captain, and our crown the same;
Enlisted all beneath Immanuel's sign,
And purchased every soul with precious blood Divine.

The let us cordially again embrace,
Nor e'er infringe the league of gospel-grace;
Let us in Jesus' name to battle go,
And turn our arms against the common foe;
Fight side by side beneath our Captain's eye,
Chase the Philistines, on their shoulders fly,
And, more than conquerors, in the harness die.

For whether I am born to "blush above,"
On earth suspicious of electing love,
Or you, o'erwhelm'd with honourable shame,
To shout the universal Saviour's name,
It matters not; if, all our conflicts past,
Before the great white throne we meet at last:
Our only care, while sojourning below,
Our real faith by real love to show:
To blast the aliens' hope, and let them see
How friends of jarring sentiments agree:
Not in a party's narrow banks confined,
Not by a sameness of opinions join'd,
But cemented with the Redeemer's blood,
And bound together in the heart of God.

Can we forget from whence our union came,
When first we simply met in Jesus' name?
The name mysterious of the God Unknown,
Whose secret love allured, and drew us on
Through a long, lonely, legal wilderness,
To find the promised land of gospel peace.
True yokefellows, we then agreed to draw
The' intolerable burden of the law;
And jointly labouring on with zealous strife,
Strengthen'd each other's hands to work for life;
To turn against the world our steady face,
And, valiant for the truth, enjoy disgrace.

Then, when we served our God through fear alone,
Our views, our studies, and our hearts were one;
No smallest difference damp'd the social flame:
In Moses' school we thought, and spake the same:
And must we, now in Christ, with shame confess,
Our love was greater when our light was less?
When darkly through a glass with servile awe,
We first the spiritual commandment saw,
Could we not then, our mutual love to show,
Through fire and water for each other go?
We could:- we did:- In a strange land I stood,
And beckon'd thee to cross the' Atlantic flood:
With true affection wing'd, thy ready mind
Left country, fame, and ease, and friends behind;
And, eager all heaven's counsels to explore,
Flew through the watery world and grasp'd the shore.

Nor did I linger, at my friend's desire,
To tempt the furnace, and abide the fire:
When suddenly sent forth, from the highways
I call'd poor outcasts to the feast of grace;
Urged to pursue the work by thee begun,
Through good and ill report I still rush'd on,
Nor felt the fire of popular applause,
Nor fear'd the torturing flame in such a glorious cause.

Ah! wherefore did we ever seem to part,
Or clash in sentiment, while one in heart?
What dire device did the old Serpent find,
To put asunder those whom God had join'd?
From folly and self-love opinion rose,
To sever friends who never yet were foes;
To baffle and divert our noblest aim,
Confound our pride, and cover us with shame;
To make us blush beneath her short-lived power,
and glad the world with one triumphant hour.

But lo! the snare is broke, the captive's freed,
By faith on all the hostile powers we tread,
And crush through Jesus' strength the Serpent's head.
Jesus hath cast the cursed Accuser down,
Hath rooted up the tares by Satan sown:
Kindled anew the never-dying flame,
And re-baptized our souls into His name.
Soon as the virtue of His name we feel,
The storm of strife subsides, the sea is still,
All nature bows to His benign command,
And two are one in His almighty hand.
One in His hand, O may we still remain,
Fast bound with love's indissoluble chain;
(That adamant which time and death defies,
That golden chain which draws us to the skies!)
His love the tie that binds us to His throne,
His love the bond that perfects us in one;
His love, (let all the ground of friendship see,)
His only love constrains our hearts to' agree,
And gives the rivet of Eternity!

On the Death of Don Cornelius

The apparent suicide of Don Cornelius is a sad thing, to say the least. Soul Train wasn't of interest to me, but I remember it coming on TV every Saturday afternoon after American Bandstand when I was a kid. Very little has been said in the articles I looked at about the fact that this was a suicide. Perhaps it's a reflection of the degenerate state of our culture, or perhaps it is just considered inappropriate, or too early, to comment much on that aspect. But it's amazing how common something like suicide is among the famous, or maybe moreso among the formerly famous. I can't say whether Don Cornelius was a Christian, of course. But it is certain that whatever the case was, he wasn't looking to Christ as his source of salvation. There was at least a serious failure in the realm of sanctification, or he never would have considered suicide. When this life is all you have, though, and especially if you think you've screwed that up, then it's easy to see why some consider suicide an option. But this sets out in sharp contrast the difference between the righteous and the unrighteous, the children of God and the children of the Devil. It's easy for the righteous to envy the unrighteous in their momentary pleasures. For a brief time, and with a limited view, they can fool most anybody into thinking that they hold time in their hands, and that their prosperity will follow them forever. But they fade like the beauty of the flower, as Scripture says, and meet the same end as everyone else. The wealthy, the famous, the talented - they aren't all they seem. We do ourselves well to refrain from thinking too much of celebrities.

Ex Cathedra

There's something really troubling about the fact that some 150 Evangelical leaders, who promote studying God's Word for onesself and who present themselves as the opposite of Roman Catholicism's hierarchical approach, think they need to get together en masse and declare which candidate all other Evangelicals need to vote for. What makes less sense is that no list of the names of those participating in the meeting has been released. What's that all about? It would be fairly simple to put a list together and post it on the Web. If you won't do that, then why should anybody listen to you? I suppose Evangelicals can forget about that "using your own brain" stuff. The College of Cardinals has spoken.

Foundations That Can't Be Destroyed

"If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3) Many a preacher has used this verse as a rallying cry to the faithful, calling on God's people to rise up to action, in fear that the wicked may destroy God's work. And it has been useful to stir up emotion, and, no doubt in some cases, to bring about genuine diligence in the service of the Lord for His glory and for the blessing of His Church. But I think this is a misreading and therefore a misapplication of the verse. There is a quote that begins in verse 1 with the phrase "Flee as a bird to your mountain," and the question is: where does the quote end? I would suggest that it ends after the phrase "what can the righteous do". The speaker, whom the writer David is hearing and responding to, has lost sight of the all-seeing, all-directing, loving and sovereign Lord, in whom David trusts. Should I flee to the mountain? Should I fear when the wicked bends his bow? No. The foundations can't be destroyed. The Lord and Maker of the universe is in control of all things, including the wicked acts of wicked men. God will bless the righteous, but the wicked he will bring down in judgment. Rather than being used to stir up fear, this psalm is meant to give us comfort when we seem to be surrounded by evil, when we are tempted to believe there is no hope.

A Short Defense of Infant Baptism

In an email dialogue tonight, a friend asked me to articulate a defense of infant baptism. A better defense would have been longer, but I threw this together rather quickly, brevity being key. I believe it gets to the core, and does a decent job explaining why we believe infant baptism is consistent with the teaching of Scripture.

***********************************************

God's way of relating to man is through His Covenant. The Covenant takes many forms throughout Scripture, which is something I won't get into right now. But we see in the Old Testament that the Covenant included not just believers, but also their children. In the Old Testament, the sign of the Covenant was circumcision. That's why God required Abraham, the recipient of God's covenant promises, to circumcise not only himself, but also his sons, his male servants, and their sons. They were all in God's covenant under Abraham's headship, so they had to receive the sign that they were in the covenant. The New Testament makes it clear that circumcision is no longer something to be practiced, because the Old Covenant (or Testament - the words are interchangeable) is over. A new sign has been instituted, though, and that is baptism. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. Lest we think that children are no longer in the covenant, and recipients of the covenant promises, Peter says in Acts 2:39, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And in the same breath, in verse 38, he commands all to be baptized. Rather than excluding children, he seems to very clearly include them. And in that context of his sermon, it's clear he is talking about the Abrahamic Covenant. Colossians 2:11-12 seem to associate circumcision and baptism together - the circumcision of Christ, in which the body is put off, is the burial and resurrection of baptism.

One argument to consider is this: Hebrews 8:6 refers to the New Covenant as being a better covenant than the Old Covenant. How can it be a better covenant if children are excluded from it?

The baptist will say there are no infant baptisms in Scripture. But we would say that's irrelevant. There are three household baptisms mentioned in the NT: the Philippian jailer's household (Acts 16), the household of Lydia (also Acts 16), and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16). The implication of the word "household" is such that if infants were present, they would be included, as the whole household was baptized, none excluded. Also, while there are changes from the OT to the NT, there are lots of things that aren't changed. And we are offered no evidence in the NT to suggest that children are no longer in the covenant, and therefore aren't supposed to receive the covenant sign. Quite the contrary. To put it succinctly, God doesn't have to repeat Himself. And if he wants us to stop doing something, he always makes it clear. He nowhere says, "the covenant sign is only for those who are old enough to clearly and verbally articulate faith in me, and consent verbally to the covenant sign." That wasn't required in the OT, and so unless He tells us otherwise, we can safely assume that it isn't required in the NT.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Saw "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" this evening. Enjoyed it. A couple of thoughts below (and some spoilers).


1.) Some have said it's better than the first one. I can't say I agree with that. But it was a good film.

2.) The most negative thing I have to say about it is that there was some measure of innuendo - some playing around with the notion of an unhealthy emotional relationship between Holmes and Watson, and other innuendo besides. Most of it came near the beginning of the film, but there were other moments throughout. It was a bit much, and enough to distract me from much of the rest of the good in the film. Many who watch this film probably won't be as attuned to such things; I'm not sure that's necessarily good. It's been a bigger trend with Hollywood of late, and one I wish they would lay off of.

3.) Good action scenes.

4.) The acting was great, as one would expect.

5.) The portrayal of Moriarty was fantastic. A wonderful and convincing bad guy, a perfect mixture of the psychotic and the genius.

6.) It's PG13, but there are things I wouldn't want my 13 year old to see if I had kids. Older teens, maybe, but not younger teens. For details, parents can always consult the parental advisory section on IMDB.com.

Our Native Narcissism

When a person has any sort of ongoing illness or disease, they think everyone else should be as conscious of it as they are. Everyone in the world should be in their awareness walk fundraiser. When we have a close relative or friend dealing with a particular culture issue that affects them personally, why everyone else doesn't see it to be as important as we do is baffling to us. Those obsessed with Christian counseling see everything in terms of Christian counseling, and those who believe being "missional" is central to the church don't understand how we can't see what a radically important thing it is. Hands don't think feet are really needed, and feet don't get eyes. Our thing is always the only indispensable one. And in all of this, it never occurs to us that we aren't God.