— John Stott
The Cross of Christ

John Calvin

O LORD, my heart is not lifted up;
my eyes are not raised too high;
I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvelous for me.
But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child is my soul within me.
O Israel, hope in the LORD
from this time forth and forevermore.
(Psalm 131 ESV)

The picture here is a lovely and comforting one. David acknowledges the absolute brain cramp that can accompany trying to understand the Sovereign God of Heaven and Earth. Even that phrase, the Sovereign God of Heaven and Earth, sounds the alarm:  mere mortals need not tread here! And well it should. He is beyond understanding. To quote Spurgeon: “As well might a gnat seek to drink in the ocean, as a finite creature to comprehend the Eternal God. A God whom we could understand would be no God. If we could grasp Him, He could not be infinite. If we could understand Him, He could not be divine.”

And yet….

We are told by our Lord Jesus, “and this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) The Apostle Paul urges us to , “ to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.” (Colossians 1:10 )   Seek me and you will find me, declares the Lord (Jer.29:13) and yet  ”it is the glory of God to conceal things…” (Prov. 25:2)

The Puritan writer Thomas Manton says it well:

“We know God but as men born blind know the fire: they know that there is such a thing as fire, for they feel it warm them, but what it is they know not.  So, that there is a God we know, but what He is we know little, and indeed we can never search Him out to perfection; a finite creature can never fully comprehend that which is infinite.”

We are to seek to know the unknowable. That should promote a bit of humility.

In his wonderful book Wishful Thinking: A Seeker’s ABC, Frederick Buechner writes the following about theology:

“Theology is the study of God and his ways. For all we know, dung beetles may study man and his ways and call it humanology. If so, we would probably be more touched and amused than irritated. One hopes that God feels likewise.”

One of the criticisms leveled at those in the Reformed camp is that there tends to be a scholastic arrogance that oozes from their pores. A little over the top but not far from the mark. Eliot Grudem, a pastor at Mars Hill in Seattle, wrote an article called “Elect or Elite? Why Arrogance Has No Place in Reformed Theology” in which he addressed this issue. In the article he quoted J.I. Packer from his introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ:

“To Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners.”

That includes me. And you. There is no room for boasting and even if tempted to do so we should boast in nothing but the cross of Christ! (Gal. 6:14)  Christian men of scholarship should be oozing nothing but humility.

In reading Calvin’s Institutes (Kindle Edition) I was encouraged by a part of his discourse on the subject of “election” in which he cautions us to remember our limits.

“The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored. For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear.” (1)

He continues:

“… the moment we go beyond the bounds of the word we are out of the course, in darkness, and must every now and then stumble, go astray, and fall. Let it, therefore, be our first principle that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than that which is expounded by the word of God, is no less infatuated than to walk where there is no path, or to seek light in darkness. Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant in a matter in which ignorance is learning. Rather let us willingly abstain from the search after knowledge, to which it is both foolish as well as perilous, and even fatal to aspire. If an unrestrained imagination urges us, our proper course is to oppose it with these words, “It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory,” (Prov. 25:27).

These are words worth heeding. They are words that admit the limitations of finite men in the face of an infinite God. They are words that call for the sure boundaries of revealed scripture and boundaries upon the curiosity driven by pride in knowledge.
Now Calvin insists that we do not keep from people what can be known about the subject and, indeed,  to do so would be to deprive the saints. Yet, his call for humility is unmistakable. Wisely he states:

“Let us, I say, allow the Christian to unlock his mind and ears to all the words of God which are addressed to him, provided he do it with this moderation – viz. that whenever the Lord shuts his sacred mouth, he also desist from inquiry. The best rule of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads, but also when he makes an end of teaching, to cease also from wishing to be wise.”

John Chrysostom said that a comprehended God is no God at all. The Sovereign God of Heaven and Earth is, without question, incomprehensible. Even so, He has chosen to reveal Himself to us in nature, in scripture and in the face of Jesus Christ. May we press on to know Him. May we with humility seek  to know His character and understand His ways and may we extend much grace to our fellow travelers who seek the same, knowing that it is a wonder that we understand anything at all.

(1) All quotes from : Calvin, John; Beveridge, Henry (2011-01-26). Institutes Of The Christian Religion (pp. 607-609). Kindle Edition.

The Institutes is made up of four books, each with a multitude of chapters. The first book is called “Of the Knowledge of God the Creator.”  God is first revealed as a creator (prior to revelation as redeemer) and man is the creation in relationship with which he most clearly reveals His character.  For Calvin, no true understanding of man can be arrived at without first contemplating “the face of God.” It is only in light of His glory that we understand the realities of our own humanity.

The difficulty we face is the corruption of our humanity by sin and so we settle for far less than the true knowledge of God. That we have “fallen short of the glory of God” (Rm. 3:23) is a statement that is short in words, but an abyss in reality. Our nature is to look to ourselves as the standard of what is good, wise and honorable but in doing so we hold to a completely false idea.

“For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself.” (IOTCR p. 5 Kindle Edition)

Calvin insists that we must look to God first in order to obtain any clear understanding of ourselves.  He uses our eyesight as an  illustration to show that when we think our eyesight is accurate and dependable, one look at the sun shows us that our eyes are insufficient for dealing with such brilliance: “…when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun.” (IOTCR p. 5 Kindle Edition).

No less is our vision dimmed in relationship to our Creator. Our appetite is ruined. Our joy has no true object. We honor shadows that we insist are reality.  Here is Calvin at length:

“So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.” (IOTCR p. 5 Kindle Edition)

In our day, when the gospel of self-esteem in the preferred religion of the world and much of the church, thoughts such as these find a small audience. Yet, without this understanding  we will always be “learning (yet) never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim 3:7) I remember being chided in the past for using the song “At the Cross” in worship. How horrid that we, the children of God, would use a word like “worm” to describe ourselves! But when it comes to gazing at the “The Sun of righteousness.” (Mal. 4:2), what language should you use?  Can anything but the deepest humility help us to even begin the contemplation of His glory?

“And what can man do, man who is but rottenness and a worm, when even the Cherubim themselves must veil their faces in very terror?” (IOTCR p. 5 Kindle Edition)

How glorious an object is this Savior, whom the gospel thus reveals! It is true His essential greatness, like the peace which He Himself gives, “passes all understanding;” yet, like that peace, He may be known, though He cannot be measured. “We may know experimentally,” as Owen beautifully remarks, “that which we cannot know comprehensively; we may know that in its power and effect, which we cannot comprehend in its nature and depths. A weary person may receive refreshment from a spring, who cannot fathom the depth of the ocean from where it proceeds.” That this is true of the “love of Christ, which passes knowledge,” is equally true of the person of Christ Himself, whom “no man knows but the Father.”

Do not think that all His beauty is concealed. They, in whom it has pleased the Father to reveal His Son, “behold His glory;” they “see the King in His beauty;” the discovery of His excellence often captivates their soul, and the sense of His love often cheers their hearts; while in lively faith and joy they exclaim, “I am my Beloved’s, and my Beloved is mine.”

Take one more view of Him, who is the “chief among ten thousand.” Look at His sinless yet real humanity; without a single taint, yet sympathizing with all the conditions of ours: afflicted in our afflictions; tempted in our temptations; infirm in our infirmities; grieved in our griefs; “wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities;” and now that He is in glory, still cherishing a brother’s heart, bending down His ear to our petitions, ever standing near to catch our sighs, to dry our tears, to provide for our needs, to guide us by His counsel, and afterwards to receive us to glory.

Oh what a Savior is Jesus Christ! Wonder not, my readers, that when He is known, all other beings are eclipsed; that when His beauty is seen, all other beauty fades; that when His love is felt, He becomes supremely enthroned in the affections; and that to know Him more is the one desire of the renewed mind, and to make Him more known is the one aim of the Christian life.

What glorious tidings, too, does the gospel announce! Take the doctrine of pardon, the very mention of which thrills the soul with gladness. Pardon through the blood-shedding of God’s dear Son; for “all manner of sin,” and for the chief of sinners! What myriads have gone to glory, exulting with their expiring breath in those melodious words, “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” Is there no music in this declaration, to the ear of a sin-burdened soul? And when the called children of God behold in that blood of Immanuel the sea which has drowned all their sins, the fountain which has cleansed all their guilt, the source of their reconciliation, the cause of their peace, and the ground of their access—is not the gospel a joyful sound to their ears?

And yet how few live in the full enjoyment of this truth—”You will cast all my sins behind Your back.” “You have forgiven all their iniquity.” “I have blotted out as a cloud your transgression, and as a thick cloud your sins.” Precious truth! Since God has spoken it, faith exclaims, “I believe it. On this I can live holily, and on this I can die happily.”

Get more Octavius Winslow at   http://octaviuswinslow.org/

The Works of Octavius Winslow – 33 Books in 1 e-book! Get it for $7 at Monergism Books

The Duty of Constant Communion
By John WesleySermon 101
(Text from the 1872 Edition)

The following discourse was written above five-and-fifty years ago, for the use of my pupils at Oxford. I have added very little, but retrenched much; as I then used more words than I do now. But, I thank God, I have not yet seen cause to alter my sentiments in any point which is therein delivered.

“Do this in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19

It is no wonder that men who have no fear of God should never think of doing this. But it is strange that it should be neglected by any that do fear God, and desire to save their souls; And yet nothing is more common. One reason why many neglect it is, they are so much afraid of “eating and drinking unworthily,” that they never think how much greater the danger is when they do not eat or drink it at all. That I may do what I can to bring these well-meaning men to a more just way of thinking, I shall,

I. Show that it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord’s Supper as often as he can; and,
II. Answer some objections.

I.I am to show that it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord’s Supper as often as he can.

1. The First reason why it is the duty of every Christian so to do is, because it is a plain command of Christ. That this is his command, appears from the words of the text, “Do this in remembrance of me:” By which, as the Apostles were obliged to bless, break, and give the bread to all that joined with them in holy things; so were all Christians obliged to receive those signs of Christ’s body and blood. Here, therefore, the bread and wine are commanded to be received, in remembrance of his death, to the end of the world. Observe, too, that this command was given by our Lord when he was just laying down his life for our sakes. They are, therefore, as it were, his dying words to all his followers.

2. A Second reason why every Christian should do this as often as he can, is, because the benefits of doing it are so great to all that do it in obedience to him; viz., the forgiveness of our past sins and the present strengthening and refreshing of our souls. In this world we are never free from temptations. Whatever way of life we are in, whatever our condition be, whether we are sick or well, in trouble or at ease, the enemies of our souls are watching to lead us into sin. And too often they prevail over us. Now, when we are convinced of having sinned against God, what surer way have we of procuring pardon from him, than the “showing forth the Lord’s death;” and beseeching him, for the sake of his Son’s sufferings, to blot out all our sins?

3. The grace of God given herein confirms to us the pardon of our sins, by enabling us to leave them. As our bodies are strengthened by bread and wine, so are our souls by these tokens of the body and blood of Christ. This is the food of our souls: This gives strength to perform our duty, and leads us on to perfection. If, therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if we desire the pardon of our sins, if we wish for strength to believe, to love and obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord’s Supper; then we must never turn our backs on the feast which our Lord has prepared for us. We must neglect no occasion which the good providence of God affords us for this purpose. This is the true rule: So often are we to receive as God gives us opportunity. Whoever, therefore, does not receive, but goes from the holy table, when all things are prepared, either does not understand his duty, or does not care for the dying command of his Saviour, the forgiveness of his sins, the strengthening of his soul, and the refreshing it with the hope of glory.

4. Let every one, therefore, who has either any desire to please God, or any love of his own soul, obey God, and consult the good of his own soul, by communicating every time he can; like the first Christians, with whom the Christian sacrifice was a constant part of the Lord’s day service. And for several centuries they received it almost every day: Four times a week always, and every saint’s day beside. Accordingly, those that joined in the prayers of the faithful never failed to partake of the blessed sacrament. What opinion they had of any who turned his back upon it, we may learn from that ancient canon: “If any believer join in the prayers of the faithful, and go away without receiving the Lord’s Supper, let him be excommunicated, as bringing confusion into the church of God.”

5. In order to understand the nature of the Lord’s Supper, it would be useful carefully to read over those passages in the Gospel, and in the first Epistle to the Corinthians [1 Cor. 11], which speak of the institution of it. Hence we learn that the design of this sacrament is, the continual remembrance of the death of Christ, by eating bread and drinking wine, which are the outward signs of the inward grace, the body and blood of Christ.

6. It is highly expedient for those who purpose to receive this, whenever their time will permit, to prepare themselves for this solemn ordinance by self-examination and prayer. But this is not absolutely necessary. And when we have not time for it, we should see that we have the habitual preparation which is absolutely necessary, and can never be dispensed with on any account or any occasion whatever. This is, First, a full purpose of heart to keep all the commandments of God; and, Secondly, a sincere desire to receive all his promises.

II.I am, in the Second place, to answer the common objections against constantly receiving the Lord’s Supper.

1. I say constantly receiving; for as to the phrase of frequent communion, it is absurd to the last degree. If it means anything less than constant, it means more than can be proved to be the duty of any man. For if we are not obliged to communicate constantly, by what argument can it be proved that we are obliged to communicate frequently? Yea, more than once a year, or once in seven years, or once before we die? Every argument brought for this, either proves that we ought to do it constantly, or proves nothing at all. Therefore, that indeterminate, unmeaning way of speaking ought to be laid aside by all men of understanding.

2. In order to prove that it is our duty to communicate constantly, we may observe that the holy communion is to be considered either, (1.), as a command of God, or, (2.) As a mercy to man.
First. As a command of God. God our Mediator and Governor, from whom we have received our life and all things, on whose will it depends whether we shall be perfectly happy or perfectly miserable from this moment to eternity, declares to us that all who obey his commands shall be eternally happy; all who do not, shall be eternally miserable. Now, one of these commands is, “Do this in remembrance of me.” I ask then, Why do you not do this, when you can do it if you will? When you have an opportunity before you, why do not you obey the command of God?

3. Perhaps you will say, “God does not command me to do this as often as I can:” That is, the words “as often as you can,” are not added in this particular place. What then? Are we not to obey every command of God as often as we can? Are not all the promises of God made to those, and those only, who “give all diligence;” that is, to those who do all they can to obey his commandments? Our power is the one rule of our duty. Whatever we can do, that we ought. With respect either to this or any other command, he that, when he may obey it if he will, does not, will have no place in the kingdom of heaven.

4. And this great truth, that we are obliged to keep every command as far as we can, is clearly proved from the absurdity of the contrary opinion; for were we to allow that we are not obliged to obey every commandment of God as often as we can, we have no argument left to prove that any man is bound to obey any command at any time. For instance: Should I ask a man why he does not obey one of the plainest commands of God, why, for instance, he does not help his parents, he might answer, “I will not do it now, but I will at another time.” When that time comes, put him in mind of God’s command again; and he will say, “I will obey it some time or other.” Nor is it possible ever to prove that he ought to do it now, unless by proving that he ought to do it as often as he can; and therefore he ought to do it now, because he can if he will.

5. Consider the Lord’s Supper, Secondly, as a mercy from God to man. As God, whose mercy is over all his works, and particularly over the children of men, knew there was but one way for man to be happy like himself; namely, by being like him in holiness; as he knew we could do nothing toward this of ourselves, he has given us certain means of obtaining his help. One of these is the Lord’s Supper, which, of his infinite mercy, he hath given for this very end; that through this means we may be assisted to attain those blessings which he hath prepared for us; that we may obtain holiness on earth, and everlasting glory in heaven.
I ask, then, Why do you not accept of his mercy as often as ever you can? God now offers you his blessing; — why do you refuse it? You have now an opportunity of receiving his mercy; — why do you not receive it? You are weak: — why do not you seize every opportunity of increasing your strength? In a word: Considering this as a command of God, he that does not communicate as often as he can has no piety; considering it as a mercy, he that does not communicate as often as he can has no wisdom.

6. These two considerations will yield a full answer to all the common objections which have been made against constant communion; indeed to all that ever were or can be made. In truth, nothing can be objected against it, but upon supposition that, [at] this particular time, either the communion would be no mercy, or I am not commanded to receive it. Nay, should we grant it would be no mercy, that is not enough; for still the other reason would hold: Whether it does you any good or none, you are to obey the command of God.

7. However, let us see the particular excuses which men commonly make for not obeying it. The most common is, “I am unworthy; and ‘he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.’ Therefore I dare not communicate, lest I should eat and drink my own damnation.”
The case is this: God offers you one of the greatest mercies on this side heaven, and commands you to accept it. Why do not you accept this mercy, in obedience to his command? You say, “I am unworthy to receive it.” And what then? You are unworthy to receive any mercy from God. But is that a reason for refusing all mercy? God offers you a pardon for all your sins. You are unworthy of it, it is sure, and he knows it; but since he is pleased to offer it nevertheless, will not you accept of it? He offers to deliver your soul from death: You are unworthy to live; but will you therefore refuse life? He offers to endue your soul with new strength; because you are unworthy of it, will you deny to take it? What can God himself do for us farther, if we refuse his mercy because we are unworthy of it?

8. But suppose this were no mercy to us; (to suppose which is indeed giving God the lie; saying, that is not good for man which he purposely ordered for his good) still I ask, Why do not you obey God’s command? He says, “Do this.” Why do you not? You answer, “I am unworthy to do it.” What! Unworthy to obey God? Unworthy to do what God bids you do? Unworthy to obey God’s command? What do you mean by this? That those who are unworthy to obey God ought not to obey him? Who told you so? If he were even “an angel from heaven, let him be accursed.” If you think God himself has told you so by St. Paul, let us hear his words. They are these: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.”

Why, this is quite another thing. Here is not a word said of being unworthy to eat and drink. Indeed he does speak of eating and drinking unworthily; but that is quite a different thing; so he has told us himself. In this very chapter we are told that by eating and drinking unworthily is meant, taking the holy sacrament in such a rude and disorderly way, that one was “hungry and another drunken.” But what is that toyou? Is there any danger of your doing so,– of your eating and drinking thus unworthily? However unworthy you are to communicate, there is no fear of your communicating thus. Therefore, whatever the punishment is, of doing it thus unworthily, it does not concern you. You have no more reason from this text to disobey God, than if there was no such text in the Bible. If you speak of “eating and drinking unworthily” in the sense St. Paul uses the words, you may as well say, “I dare not communicate, for fear the church should fall,” as “for fear I should eat and drink unworthily.”

9. If then you fear bringing damnation on yourself by this, you fear where no fear is. Fear it not for eating and drinking unworthily; for that, in St. Paul’s sense, ye cannot do. But I will tell you for what you shall fear damnation;– for not eating and drinking at all; for not obeying your Maker and Redeemer; for disobeying his plain command; for thus setting at nought both his mercy and authority. Fear ye this; for hear what his Apostle saith: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)

10. We see then how weak the objection is, “I dare not receive [The Lord's Supper], because I am unworthy.” Nor is it any stronger, though the reason why you think yourself unworthy is, that you have lately fallen into sin. It is true, our Church forbids those “who have done any grievous crime” to receive without repentance. But all that follows from this is, that we should repent before we come; not that we should neglect to come at all.
To say, therefore, that “a man may turn his back upon the altar because he has lately fallen into sin, that he may impose this penance upon himself,” is talking without any warrant from Scripture. For where does the Bible teach to atone for breaking one commandment of God by breaking another? What advice is this, — “Commit a new act of disobedience, and God will more easily forgive the past!”

11. Others there are who, to excuse their disobedience plead that they are unworthy in another sense, that they “cannot live up to it; they cannot pretend to lead so holy a life as constantly communicating would oblige them to do.” Put this into plain words. I ask, Why do not you accept the mercy which God commands you to accept? You answer, “Because I cannot live up to the profession I must make when I receive it.” Then it is plain you ought never to receive it at all. For it is no more lawful to promise once what you know you cannot perform, than to promise it a thousand times. You know too, that it is one and the same promise, whether you make it every year or every day. You promise to do just as much, whether you promise ever so often or ever so seldom.
If, therefore, you cannot live up to the profession they make who communicate once a week, neither can you come up to the profession you make who communicate once a year. But cannot you, indeed? Then it had been good for you that you had never been born. For all that you profess at the Lord’s table, you must both profess and keep, or you cannot be saved. For you profess nothing there but this,– that you will diligently keep his commandments. And cannot you keep up to this profession? Then you cannot enter into life.

12. Think then what you say, before you say you cannot live up to what is required of constant communicants. This is no more than is required of any communicants; yea, of everyone that has a soul to be saved. So that to say, you cannot live up to this, is neither better nor worse than renouncing Christianity. It is, in effect, renouncing your baptism, wherein you solemnly promised to keep all his commandments. You now fly from that profession. You wilfully break one of his commandments, and, to excuse yourself, say, you cannot keep his commandments: Then you cannot expect to receive the promises, which are made only to those that keep them.

13. What has been said on this pretence against constant communion, is applicable to those who say the same thing in other words: “We dare not do it, because it requires so perfect an obedience afterwards as we cannot promise to perform.” Nay, it requires neither more nor less perfect obedience than you promised in your baptism. You then undertook to keep the commandments of God by his help; and you promise no more when you communicate.

14. A Second objection which is often made against constant communion, is, the having so much business as will not allow time for such a preparation as is necessary thereto. I answer: All the preparation that is absolutely necessary is contained in those words: “Repent you truly of your sins past; have faith in Christ our Saviour;” (and observe, that word is not here taken in its highest sense) “amend your lives, and be in charity with all men; so shall ye be meet partakers of these holy mysteries.” All who are thus prepared may draw near without fear, and receive the sacrament to their comfort. Now, what business can hinder you from being thus prepared? — from repenting of your past sins, from believing that Christ died to save sinners, from amending your lives, and being in charity with all men? No business can hinder you from this, unless it be such as hinders you from being in a state of salvation. If you resolve and design to follow Christ, you are fit to approach the Lord’s table. If you do not design this, you are only fit for the table and company of devils.

15. No business, therefore, can hinder any man from having that preparation which alone is necessary, unless it be such as unprepares him for heaven, as puts him out of a state of salvation. Indeed every prudent man will, when he has time, examine himself before he receives the Lord’s Supper whether he repents him truly of his former sins; whether he believes the promises of God; whether he fully designs to walk in His ways, and be in charity with all men. In this, and in private prayer, he will doubtless spend all the time he conveniently can. But what is this to you who have not time? What excuse is this for not obeying God? He commands you to come, and prepare yourself by prayer, if you have time; if you have not, however, come. Make not reverence to God’s command a pretence for breaking it. Do not rebel against him for fear of offending him. Whatever you do or leave undone besides, be sure to do what God bids you do. Examining yourself, and using private prayer, especially before the Lord’s Supper, is good; But behold! “To obey is better than” self-examination; “and to hearken,” than the prayer of an angel.

16. A Third objection against constant communion is, that it abates our reverence for the sacrament. Suppose it did? What then? Will you thence conclude that you are not to receive it constantly? This does not follow. God commands you, “Do this.” You may do it now, but will not, and, to excuse yourself say, “If I do it so often, it will abate the reverence with which I do it now.” Suppose it did; has God ever told you, that when the obeying his command abates your reverence to it, then you may disobey it? If he has, you are guiltless; if not, what you say is just nothing to the purpose. The law is clear. Either show that the lawgiver makes this exception, or you are guilty before him.

17. Reverence for the sacrament may be of two sorts: Either such as is owing purely to the newness of the thing, such as men naturally have for anything they are not used to; or such as is owing to our faith, or to the love or fear of God. Now, the former of these is not properly a religious reverence, but purely natural. And this sort of reverence for the Lord’s Supper, the constantly receiving of it must lessen. But it will not lessen the true religious reverence, but rather confirm and increase it.

18. A Fourth objection is, “I have communicated constantly so long, but I have not found the benefit I expected.” This has been the case with many well-meaning persons, and therefore deserves to be particularly considered. And consider this: First, whatever God commands us to do, we are to do because he commands, whether we feel any benefit thereby or no. Now, God commands, “Do this in remembrance of me.” This, therefore, we are to do because he commands, whether we find present benefit thereby or not. But undoubtedly we shall find benefit sooner or later, though perhaps insensibly. We shall be insensibly strengthened, made more fit for the service of God, and more constant in it. At least, we are kept from falling back, and preserved from many sins and temptations: And surely this should be enough to make us receive this food as often as we can; though we do not presently feel the happy effects of it, as some have done, and we ourselves may when God sees best.

19. But suppose a man has often been at the sacrament, and yet received no benefit. Was it not his own fault? Either he was not rightly prepared, willing to obey all the commands and to receive all the promises of God, or he did not receive it aright, trusting in God. Only see that you are duly prepared for it, and the oftener you come to the Lord’s table, the greater benefit you will find there.

20. A Fifth objection which some have made against constant communion is, that “the Church enjoins it only three times a year.” The words of the Church are, “Note, that every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year.” To this I answer, First, What, if the Church had not enjoined it at all, Is it not enough that God enjoins it? We obey the Church only for God’s sake. And shall we not obey God himself? If, then, you receive three times a year because the Church commands it, receive every time you can because God commands it. Else your doing the one will be so far from excusing you for not doing the other, that your own practice will prove your folly and sin, and leave you without excuse.

But, Secondly, we cannot conclude from these words, that the Church excuses him who receives only thrice a year. The plain sense of them is, that he who does not receive thrice at least, shall be cast out of the Church: But they by no means excuse him who communicates no oftener. This never was the judgment of our Church: On the contrary, she takes all possible care that the sacrament be duly administered, wherever the Common Prayer is read, every Sunday and holiday in the year.

The Church gives a particular direction with regard to those that are in Holy Orders: “In all cathedral and collegiate Churches and Colleges, where there are many Priests and Deacons, they shall all receive the communion with the Priest, every Sunday at the least.”

21. It has been shown, First, that if we consider the Lord’s Supper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretence to Christian piety, who does not receive it (not once a month, but) as often as he can. Secondly, that if we consider the institution of it, as a mercy to ourselves, no man who does not receive it as often as he can has any pretence to Christian prudence. Thirdly, that none of the objections usually made, can be any excuse for that man who does not, at every opportunity obey this command and accept this mercy.

22. It has been particularly shown, First, that unworthiness is no excuse; because though in one sense we are all unworthy, yet none of us need be afraid of being unworthy in St. Paul’s sense, of “eating and drinking unworthily.” Secondly, that the not having time enough for preparation can be no excuse; since the only preparation which is absolutely necessary, is that which no business can hinder, nor indeed anything on earth, unless so far as it hinders our being in a state of salvation. Thirdly, that its abating our reverence is no excuse; since he who gave the command, “Do this,” nowhere adds, “unless it abates your reverence.” Fourthly, that our not profiting by it is no excuse; since it is our own fault, in neglecting that necessary preparation which is in our own power. Lastly, that the judgment of our own Church is quite in favour of constant communion. If those who have hitherto neglected it on any of these pretences, will lay these things to heart, they will, by the grace of God, come to a better mind, and never forsake their own mercies.

In his book, Paul, the Spirit and the People of God, Gordon Fee, recounts a time during his tenure at Regent College, when some of his students asked him this question: “ If you were to return to pastoral ministry, what would you do?” Fee says that his answer was immediate: “No matter how long it might take, I would set about with a singular passion to help a local body of believers recapture the New Testament Church’s understanding of itself as an eschatological community.”

I think that in large measure, the average local church in America doesn’t really grasp this. In the charismatic world, the emphasis on the ‘baptism in the Spirit’ is often highly individualized. Most believers – even if they do have the sense that the Holy Spirit is a person – see the Spirit’s infilling work more in terms of personal empowerment.

But what Fee is recognizing here is that our sense of self definition as a church has alarmingly shifted from that of the primitive church we read about in Acts. The first Christians knew that they as a people were to be the taste of the future for their generation in the present. The Apostle Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as “the down payment” of our future glory. What the Acts Church understood was that the Spirit’s power coming upon them and flowing through them was the sign of the future. They didn’t just look to the future; they knew that in a sense they were the future!

A wise marathon runner studies and knows the course of his race. He knows where the finish line is. Because he knows that that finish line is perhaps twenty miles away, he knows how to run his race at every point.

Knowing where the finish line is determines the way he paces himself and runs his race. For us as The Church it ought to be the same. Because the Holy Spirit indwells us individually and corporately, we should possess a keen awareness of what the ‘end’ looks like and adjust our present priorities and lifestyles in the light of that end.

To put it another way, let me ask a question. What will the end-time people of God look like? If we hold to a biblical worldview – regardless of our particular eschatological viewpoints – we know that there will be a generation who will actually witness the second coming of Christ .

We often hear talk of end time revival and ‘the glory of the lord covering the earth as the waters covers the sea.’ I for one do believe that there will be a manifestation of the glory of God in such a global fashion. What would a fully empowered Church look like just months prior to the coming of Jesus? I think there would be a passion to see lost men and women come to Jesus; I think there would be a passion to worship with abandon; I think there would be a release of authority over the enemy and power to do the works of Jesus in an unprecedented way.

I suggest that to live eschatologically, or as Gordon Fee says to define ourselves as an eschatological community, is to do precisely this: to live with the end in mind. To let the reality of the victory of Jesus at the end of the age shape who we are and what we do in the present time.

Tim Keller:

…There are four kinds of persons in the world:

#1 Law-obeying, Law-relying:
These people are under the law, and are usually very smug, self-righteous and pharisaical. Externally, they are very sure they are right with God, but deep down, they have a lot of insecurity, since no one can truly be assured they are living up to standards. This makes them touchy, sensitive to criticism and devastated when their prayers aren’t answered. [This includes members of other religions but here I am thinking mainly of people who go to church.]

#2 Law-disobeying, Law-relying:
 These people have a religious conscience of strong works-righteousness, but they are not living consistently with it. As a result, they are more humble and more tolerant of others than the Pharisees above, but they are also much more guilt-ridden, subject to mood swings and sometimes very afraid of religious topics. [Some of these people may go to church but stay on the periphery because of their low spiritual self-esteem.]

#3 Law-disobeying, Not Law-relying:
These are the people who have thrown off the concept of the Law of God. They are intellectually secular or rather relativistic, or have a very vague spirituality. They largely choose their own moral standards and insist they are meeting them. But Paul in Romans 1 says that at a sub-conscious level, they know there is a God who they should be obeying. [Such people are usually happier and more tolerant than either of the above groups. But usually there is a strong liberal self-righteousness They are definitely earning their own salvation by feeling superior to others. It is usually a less overt kind of self-righteousness.]

#4 Law-obeying, Not Law-relying:
These are Christians who understand the gospel and are living out of the freedom of it. They obey the law of God out of grateful joy that comes from the knowledge of their sonship and out of the freedom from the fear and selfishness that false idols had generated. They are more tolerant than #3, more sympathetic than #2, and more confident than #1. [Most real Christians tend toward the errors of #1, #2, and even #3. But to the degree that they do, they are impoverished spiritually.]

–from Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s Leader’s Guide for Paul’s Letter to the Galatians

This was posted back in 2007. Given some of the recent controversies, I thought it might be good to re-visit. While I don’t endorse all that Frederica offers here, I do think she brings some thoughtful insights from her Greek Orthodox perspective.

I really like Frederica Mathewes-Green. She’s a wonderful writer and if you’ve never read her book The Illumined Heart: The Ancient Christian Path of Transformation, I highly recommend it. This piece was something she did for Belief Net as part of a group of writers approaching Hell from their various perspectives. I don’t endorse all she says (which you should assume about anything I post on here.) but there are some gems in this…

Hell has never been a fashionable destination, but it in recent years it’s met a fate that even the most passé hotspots don’t endure; people suspect it doesn’t exist. Or, if it does exist, it attracts no customers; “we are permitted to hope that hell is empty” is how this is sometimes phrased. Even the most conservative Christians have a hard time putting a positive spin on a wrathful God who flings evildoers into flaming torment.

It is tragic that some Christians have been so battered with stories of a prideful, vindictive God that they have fled from Jesus’ fold. No wonder some become atheists; who would want to spend eternity with such a tyrant?

Yet I’m going to make a case for hell, though not the one you see in cartoons, a fiery cavern where demons poke you with pitchforks. Dante made that kind of thing look pretty exciting, but “The Inferno” was written almost 1300 years after the Gospels. When you strip away European and medieval assumptions, and look at the writings of Christians in lands and cultures closer to Jesus’ time, you get a different picture.

First of all, hell is not a place. If you’re separated from your body and exist only as a spirit, you don’t take up any room. In the Hebrew Scriptures all the dead, righteous and unrighteous, abide in Sheol (the Greek Scriptures translated it “Hades”). It is a non physical realm where the souls of all the departed await the Last Judgment.

But they don’t all experience it the same way. In Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31), the Rich Man is not sequestered in a bleak alternative dimension; he’s able to see Lazarus, and speak to Abraham. But he’s sure isn’t having a good time.

How can this be? Because the real answer to the “where” question is “in the presence of God.” Nothing exists outside God, making the concept of “separation from God” only a handy metaphor. “Whither shall I flee from thy presence? … If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there” (Psalm 139:7-8). In this life, we perceive that presence pulsing through all material Creation. In the next life that materiality will be dissolved, and we’ll be irradiated by the living energy that sustains the universe.

Those who love God and prepare themselves to assimilate his light will begin to be transformed even in this life; they become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). But those who resist and ignore God “harden their hearts” (Hebrews 3:15). If they “love darkness rather than light” (John 3:19), they will find the inescapable brilliance to be searing misery and paradoxical blindness.

And that’s only a foretaste. What we experience as spirits can be termed “Hades” and “Paradise.” After the unimaginable resurrection and restoration of our bodies, true “Heaven” and “Hell” will commence.

How can the same Light affect people in different ways? Hearers of scripture in earlier generations would have seen this phenomenon every day. Before the age of electricity, light always meant fire. And fire requires respect. From earliest childhood they would learn that fire gives us warmth and light, but if mishandled, it deals agonizing pain, darkness and death. “Our God is a consuming fire” (Deut. 4:24, Hebrews 12:29).

“The same sun that melts wax hardens mud” is how Origen, the 3rd century Egyptian writer, put it. In the 4th century, St.Basil the Great used the story of the three young men in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:1-30) as an illustration: the fire spared the prayerful trio, while the guards who threw them in were destroyed.

God’s presence is not just Light, and Life, but Love. And Love invites, but does not compel. The Prodigal Son’s older brother lived in his father’s loving abundance, but was bitter and resentful. To the pure, God’s purity shines clearly; but to the twisted, even His love appears untrustworthy and twisted (2 Samuel 22:27). St. Issac of Syria (7th century) wrote that those who suffer in the next life “are scourged by the scourge of love.”

This idea, that both heaven and hell are experiences of the same divine presence, is startlingly different from contemporary assumptions. But even more so is the next idea: hell is not a punishment. We assume God’s justice means settling the score; that each sin must have its payment, either in Christ’s blood or human writhing in hell. We can even sort of like the idea. Surely God will torture murderers and rapists and bad guys, and anyone who ever did us a wrong turn. Justice, we think, means finally getting even.

But as St. Isaac points out, God isn’t “just” in that calculating sense. “How can you call God just,” he says, when you consider the parable of the workers paid for a full day when they worked only an hour? Or the parable of the Prodigal Son, restored fully to his father on the basis of mere repentance? St Isaac concludes, “Do not call God just, for his justice is not evident in the things concerning you.”

God is not looking for repayment, but repentance. What heals a broken relationship is sincere love and contrition. What’s wrong with us isn’t a rap sheet of bad deeds, but a damaged heart, a soul-sickness, that plunges us into fearful self-protection, alienation from God and others. Paradoxically, this leads to death: “whoever would save his life will lose it” (Matthew 16:25).

This sickness elicits not God’s fury but his indomitable love, much like the urgent, grieving love a parent has for a wandering child. (Jesus’ parable was about the Prodigal Son, not the Indignant Accountant.) “It is not that God grows angry with us,” said the 3rd century Desert Father, St. Antony the Great, “but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us.”

Who will end up in hell? Nobody knows. God has not shown us the guest list. And “Judge not” (Matthew 7:1) means it’s none of our business. We can’t guess by looking at external behavior, because we don’t know whether someone, in private, is begging God for forgiveness and the strength to change. That’s the lesson of the Publican in the Temple.

The safest bet, and a venerable spiritual discipline, is to assume that you, personally, are the worst sinner in the world. St. Paul set an example, referring to himself as “the foremost” of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). And, while God has not told us who he will or will not save, he has given us a safe harbor. Christians have agreed on certain spiritual helps from the earliest centuries: the Eucharist, personal spiritual direction and confession, public worship, private prayer, and the intercessions of the “great cloud” of saints. In this way we can become light-bearers, even in this life. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century) said that the Spirit penetrates our whole being like fire transforms a piece of iron, “so that what was cold becomes burning and what was black is made bright.”

If you hammer together your own Stairway to Heaven, you won’t know which rungs are missing. The practices upheld by the consensus of the community is a surer bet for the humble.

So, yes, we need “hell”– or rather, we need an urgent awareness that eternal misery is a horrifying possibility. But on the other hand, I don’t see any permission to imagine that “hell” sits empty, with the deck chairs stacked and folded. Jesus was emphatic, not that a place named hell exists, but rather that some will be in torment, with “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He nowhere encourages us to hope that he was just kidding and everything will turn out fine.

We don’t know, of course, *how* things will turn out. We hear that “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), but we don’t know if that desire will be fulfilled, and in a way we could now understand. We don’t know how God deals with hard cases. All we know is that we’re commanded to go and preach the Gospel. If God has some emergency back-up plan in case we fail to do our job, he has not told us about it. He’s only told us as much as he thinks servants need to know.

What we know is not facts, but a Person, and even in this life we begin to be softened and warmed by his love. Every ordinary moment is turning us either into a light-bearing saint or a monster. The Judgment on the Last Day will reveal what we did with all that time, and how our choices shaped us, one by one.

And if Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats is correct (Matthew 25), the Day will be less like judging a criminal trial and more like judging a livestock show. You don’t need a cross-examination to tell a sheep from a goat. Day slips into day, and after decades of goatish deeds, it will be nearly impossible to turn back.

“‘Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts’…While the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be found to have failed to reach it” (Hebrews 3:15, 4:1).

“the River of Fire”, by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros

http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html

Peter Chopelas has also done some good word-study on the terms:

http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html

********
Frederica Mathewes-Green
www.frederica.com