Christopher Love on Grace

This is a brief summary of my reading on the book "Grace, the truth, growth and different degrees" by Christopher Love, a Puritan in the 17th century.

On young people:

Youth is subject to pride, rashness, indiscretion, lustfulness, unsettledness of judgment (instability), vulnerability to sensual pleasures, tendency to despise the aged, impatience and bad temperance.

Advice to young people:

Avoid unnecessary familiarity with bad company
Wail your sinful environment
In youth remember your Creator
Keep your fervor till old age

Reminder for young people:

There is no place so good that you cannot sin. Adam sinned while in paradise.
There is no place so bad that you can be excused from the sin you commit. Christ showed perfect example in the worst of circumstances.

On Grace:

Weak in grace is not the same as no grace. God cherishes the least good He sees in us. A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoking flax He will not snuff out.

Am I weak in grace? Here are characteristics of people weak in grace:

1. Much dependence upon the performance of my duties
2. No insights into the failings that cleave to my duties
3. Scrupulous conscience over matters of indifference. That is, to have a bound conscience when the Scriptures left it free due to the lack of the knowledge of liberty. Young converts tend to call more things sin than God ever did. Tender conscience is our duty but tormenting scrupulosity is our infirmity. Yet a weak Christian is better than no Christian and a weak conscience is better than a seared conscience.
4. Difficulty in balancing hearing, living, praying and working. An experienced Christian is regular in all these and does not let one jostle or hinder the others.
5. Respect of persons. Tendency to idolize some and despise others. Solid Christians love all good ministers and condemn none.
6. Easily seduced and led into errors
7. Acquainted only with common principles of religion, without futher search into the depth and mystery of religion.
8. Much affection without much solid judgement. More heat than light.
9. Difficulty to bear reproof.
10. Able to trust God for my soul but not for my body, to trust God for heaven but not for earthly providence.

Encouragement to those weak in grace:

Grace can grow if it is true, no matter how small.
Do not be content with the greatest measure of grace
Do not be discouraged with the least measure of grace

The strength of grace should NOT be measured with:

- the length of my profession as a Christian
- zeal and strength of gifts
- the availability and abundance of the means of grace

The strength of grace is NOT the same as:

- the perfection of grace
- the affections of a Christian
- the sense of Christian comfort

What then are the marks of strong grace?

1. Grounded in assurance and manifestation of the love of Christ
2. Able to comfort and exhort others
3. Understand profound mystery of religion
4. Engaged in strict exercises of religion such as fasting, watching, mortifications of sin, etc.
5. Deep faith in the accomplishment of God’s promises
6. Able to suffer for the truth
7. Able to govern one’s tongue
8. Able to trust God for physical things
9. Labor for purity and unity of the church

An excerpt on Inerrancy

My Introduction

The content below is taken from chapter 3 of the essay Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics and Inerrancy by J.I.Packer. I will just give an overview of the first two chapters.

Chapter 1 expounds the principle of the authority of the Scripture as understood by the evangelicals, as a complex construction of 7 elements: Inspiration, Canonicity, Witness of the Spirit, Sufficiency and Clarity, Mystery of the Scripture, Obedience to intellectual and ethical rule of the Scripture.

The second chapter expounds on hermeneutics as consisting of 3 parts: exegesis, synthesis and application, revealing at the same time the presupposition behind each part, namely, the full humanity of inspired writing, the organic character of the Scripture, and the consistency of God in all ages respectively. This chapter also talks about how one’s hermeneutics is influenced by one’s doctrine of the Scripture like a exegetical spiral that moves upward. The paragraph below is taken from chapter 2 of the essay.

Thus he travels round the exegetical circle, or up the exegetical spiral. If his exegetical procedure is challenged, he defends it from his hermeneutic; if his hermeneutic is challenged, he defends it from his doctrine of biblical authority; and if his doctrine of biblical authority is challenged, he defends it from the texts. The circle thus appears as a one-way system: from texts to doctrine, from doctrine to hermeneutic, from hermeneutic to texts again.

So we cannot escape the fact that our view of the Scripture affects our hermeneutics and vice versa. Such realization is important if we are to do hermeneutics responsibly. What then are the presuppositions the historic evangelicals have? Here the author also freely admits what presuppositions bound the hermeneutics of the evangelicals. First, the exegete is bound to grammatico-historical method. This must be understood from the inspiration as expounded in chapter one. That is both the full humanity and the divine inspiration in the writing. So what the human writer means, God means. God might mean more, but no less. Secondly, the exegete is bound by the principle of harmony. That is that there is One Divine Author of the Scripture, so Scripture interprets Scripture, Scripture cannot be set against Scripture and finally, what is secondary or obscure must be interpreted in light of what is primary and clear.

I want to focus the content of this entry on inerrancy, but I have summarized the first two chapters above on authority (which includes another 7 huge topics) and hermeneutics (its meaning, scope, presuppositions and implications) because inerrancy cannot be separated from them. Hence I think the overview will set the context better when chapter 3 is read below.

Since it is not very long, and the content is quite a compact and precise one, I do not re-summarize but I just copy and paste here only the introduction paragraph of the essay, and then all the content of chapter 3 on inerrancy. I have not modified the content at all, except to add little subtitles highlighted in bold for better readability to catch the main points of the author.

Introductory Paragraph

The importance of reflecting on the relation between biblical authority and hermeneutics appears from the single consideration that biblical authority is an empty notion unless we know how to determine what the Bible means. It appears also from the fact that every hermeneutic implies a theology, just as every theology involves a hermeneutic, so that where a false hermeneutic operates the Bible will not in fact have authority, whatever is claimed to the contrary. The importance of reflecting on the question of biblical inerrancy in relation to these two subjects is that the evangelical view of both assumes it, and that any denial of it afflicts both with unsteadiness, inducing collapse. To show the link between these three matters is the main aim of the present essay.

3. Inerrancy

The Recent Attacks and Misunderstanding on Inerrancy

How does all this relate to the question of the inerrancy of Scripture? The concept has come under heavy fire in recent years, from professed evangelicals no less than from others. It has been dismissed as speculative, unnecessary, and unprofitable. It has been attacked as viciously rationalistic, in the sense of expressing a concern to show that one “has the answers” to all seeming contradictions and difficulties in the biblical text, and a belief that by showing this one can “prove” that the Bible is the Word of God. It has been accused of betokening the kind of exegetical arbitrariness which we ourselves have been censuring, in such matters as allegorizing, wresting prophetic scriptures unhistorically, and making the Bible teach science in the modern sense and with modern precision. It has been linked in the minds of some critics with the pietistic mistakes of supposing that if one’s approach to Scripture is reverent enough, no problem of interpretation will remain, so that he who adoringly proclaims an inerrant Bible will emerge an inerrant interpreter. In face of this array of misunderstandings (for such they all are) it is necessary to begin by stating explicitly what the assertion of inerrancy does and does not mean.

What Inerrancy Is and Is Not

Inerrancy is a word that has been in common use since only the last century, though the idea itself goes back through seventeenth century orthodoxy, the Reformers and the Schoolmen, to the Fathers, and, behind them, to our Lord’s own statements, “the scriptures cannot be broken,” “thy word is truth” (Jn 10:35; 17:17). The word has a negative form and a positive function. It is comparable with the four negative adverbs with which the Chalcedonian definition fenced the truth of the incarnation. Its function, like theirs, is not to explain anything in a positive way, but to safeguard a mystery by excluding current mistakes about it. It, like them, has obvious meaning only in the context of the particular debates that have caused it to be used; apart from that context, it, like they, may well seem esoteric and unhelpful. The idea it expresses—namely, that all Scripture assertions are true and trustworthy in all that they assert—is not a speculation, but is directly entailed by the fact of inspiration, which, as we saw, asserts direct identity between man’s word and God’s.

Logically, the function of the assertion of inerrancy has been to express a double commitment: first, an advance commitment to receive as truth from God all that Scripture is found on inspection actually to teach; second, a methodological commitment to interpret Scripture according to the principle of harmony which we analyzed above. It thus represents not so much a lapse into rationalism as a bulwark against rationalism—namely, that kind of rationalism which throws overboard the principle of harmony.

What it expresses is not an irreligious interest in “proving the Bible” but a retention of reverence for the sacred text which some were irreverently expounding as if it were in places self-contradictory and false. To assert biblical inerrancy is not, however, to prejudge any questions about the literary genre, range, and content of particular biblical passages; these things must in every case be determined inductively and a posteriori, by grammatico-historical exegesis. The assertion, in other words, does not function as an exegetical short cut! Nor does it imply a blanket claim to have up one’s sleeve a convincing solution, here and now, of all puzzling biblical phenomena of detail, or an expectation of not having to leave any of these problems open as one advances in one’s earthly pilgrimage of Bible study. He who asserts inerrancy with understanding expects, rather, to have to live with such problems all his days, perhaps in quite acute form, simply because he will not settle for anything less than a convincing harmonization, and declines to cut any knots by saying flatly that the Bible errs.

Extent of Inerrancy

It has been proposed to limit the confession of inerrancy to biblical doctrine as distinct from biblical history, or, more precisely, to doctrinally significant facts as opposed to other facts. But this is impossible: by what method of enquiry could one hope to determine which biblical facts have no doctrinal significance? Also, the proposal is unsound: for as students of history-writing now recognize, all facts presented by historians are, willy-nilly, interpreted facts, and if that is so, then the doctrine of inspiration, which posits that man’s witness to God in the Bible is identical with God’s witness of himself, obliges us to assign to all facts reported in Scripture the status of God-interpreted facts. It is true that careful distinctions must be drawn between the form and the content of the biblical revelation (i.e., between concepts used for making an assertion and the assertion itself); also, between the varying strengths of human affirmation (absolute certainty, non-committal reporting of sources, voicing of hopes, guesses, provisional beliefs, etc.). But the sole purpose of these distinctions is to help us discern how much the writers are actually, in the logical sense, asserting, i.e., asking their readers to accept as true. When this has become clear, our part is to accept the assertions as not simply human, but divine instruction, guaranteed to us by the veracity of God.


The Importance of Inerrancy

The significance of the confession of inerrancy in relation to the evangelical understanding of hermeneutics and biblical authority is now plain. By making explicit the identity of man’s witness to God and God’s witness to himself in the Bible, it undergirds the maxim that a harmonistic synthesis of the fruits of grammatico-historical exegesis is the sure and only way into God’s mind; and thus it establishes the further proposition, basic to sound theology in a fallen world, that if biblical teaching and my own thoughts clash, it is my thoughts that are wrong every time!

Furthermore, its insistence on the divine authority of all that the biblical writers assert safeguards, first, the identity of the Christ of faith with the Jesus of the gospels, the “Jesus of history,” and, second, the covenantal continuity and correspondence of God’s saving acts in history under both Testaments—the two foundation-principles apart from which the contents of the Bible cannot exert their due authority at any point. To the weaknesses of its hold on these principles the theological malaise of modern Protestantism is directly due. The fact is that inerrancy, as we have defined it, is not merely a truth, but an essential and fundamental truth. Surrender it, and neither the authority of the Bible nor the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and God’s grace in him, can remain intact.

10 Steps to Biblical Literacy by Michael D. Marlowe

I thought this is an excellent procedure!

If any of you are thinking of practicing this, for step 2, you can find audio Bible here. The entire procedure, if followed strictly, takes about 3 years. One might not have to follow everything, but in overall this is a good recommendation to get familiar with the Scripture.

Here we go! The following content are taken from: http://www.bible-researcher.com/bible-study2.html

Ten Steps to Biblical Literacy
by Michael D. Marlowe

"I know I should read the Bible more often, but I just don't enjoy doing it: I get frustrated when I don't understand a verse, and I get bored reading verses I've already read and understand. It's such a chore." Few people would put it so bluntly as this. But if we were honest with ourselves, most of us would have to admit that such discouraging thoughts are frequent enough, and practically prevent us from reading the Bible at home. After all, who wants to do irksome chores in his free time? In this pamphlet we will take this problem by the horns in a very practical manner, so as to really help those who wish to improve their Bible-reading ways.

1. You must first of all choose a version to stick with. This is very important. Skipping around from version to version will continually distract and worry you, and you will never get anywhere. I recommend that you use a Bible version that is an essentially literal one, such as the English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New King James Version, or (if you can understand the old English in it) the good old King James Version. Whatever version you use should be one for which you can get audio tapes. Get an edition of the version that has the translators' notes and plenty of cross-references. This is important. Do not use a cheap edition that omits these notes and cross-references. Also get a set of tapes of the version for the whole Bible. The book and tapes will cost you about $150, but it will certainly be one of the best investments of your life.

2. Listen to the entire Bible on tape. Listen to an entire book at one sitting. Pay attention, but do not worry about understanding difficult parts, backing up the tape, and so forth: just let the tape play. If you do this every day you will have heard the entire Bible after just two months. When you are finished, do it again, and again. Three times in all. After six months you should be pretty well familiar with the contents of the whole Bible.

3. Now listen to the tape of Paul's epistle to the Romans while following along in your Bible. Do the entire epistle in one sitting. This will get you used to reading. Romans is the book to read at this point because it is the most important book of the Bible, and explains almost everything.

4. Now read the epistle to the Romans again without the tape. As you read, never skip a lexical note. Always read the notes. Do the whole book at one sitting.

5. Now read the epistle to the Romans again while looking up the first cross-reference in every chapter. Look up no more than one, or you will not be able to read the book in one sitting; and resist the temptation to go browsing as you look up the passages. Lightly cross out the references with a pencil as you look them up. The reason for this will be explained below. As you read, you will occasionally come across verses and phrases that you do not understand. Do not worry about it: just put a question mark next to the verse and continue reading.

6. Read the epistle again (including notes), this time looking up any cross-references given in the places where you put a question mark before. You will find that the passages referred to usually clear up your problem. Circle any references that prove helpful, and cross out the others. (If problems remain, don't trouble yourself about them: everyone has problems. If you continue to read other books of the Bible in this attentive manner you will find that most of the problems will just go away as you learn more. You will waste a tremendous amount of time if you try to figure them out now or if you go searching in commentaries.) Look up at least one reference for every chapter, whether you have a problem in it or not, and cross them out. This is a sort of game, which you may find silly at first, but it will greatly help you to maintain a high level of interest. It will keep the epistle interesting to you as often as you read it, because you will derive a slightly different or fuller meaning as you compare different passages every time you read it. By this time you have not only learned Romans well, but you have also learned and become accustomed to the method of profitable and interesting Bible reading which you should follow at all times.

7. Now begin to follow this daily routine:

(1) Begin by reading one of the Psalms, taking them in order.
(2) Then pray to God for understanding of his Word.
(3) Then read at least three chapters of the New Testament, from the beginning. While you are reading:
- Look up at least one cross-reference for each chapter. In this you should always prefer the references to Romans, because by looking them up you will be building on a good foundation which is already familiar to you. Cross out references as you go.
- Put a question mark next to verses you have problems with, and look up any cross-references for the verses. Circle references that prove helpful, and continue reading.
- Read every marginal note.
- When you are done reading, go back and find a pithy sentence which seems to sum up a good portion of the things you have just read. This will cause you to reflect briefly on the reading.

-Underline the sentence, and commit it to memory.
-Bring your memorized portion to mind several times until the next day. When you take up where you left off you will be ready to read, having kept the substance of the previous day's portion in your mind by means of the sentence you have memorized.

If you do these things you will find that you are not bored, and that, with the help of the cross-references, you are usually quite capable of understanding everything tolerably well. All will fall safely in place "theologically" if you keep referring to and remembering Romans as you go. You will also find that, by means of the memory work, what you have read will begin to fall into place in your life, because you will get in the habit of reflecting upon God's Word during the day, and you will be able to bring appropriate words of Scripture to mind at the time when they will be of real service to you and others.

8. When you are done with the New Testament, start on the Old Testament, from the beginning, proceeding in the same manner as outlined above. Pay special attention to cross-references to the New Testament. (It is a bad idea to spend months in the Old Testament without staying in touch with the New Testament.)

9. When you are finished with the Old Testament, read the New Testament again. You will be amazed at how much more you get out of the New Testament the second time, after having read the Old Testament.

10. When you have done all this, which should take at least three years, you will probably be among the more biblically literate in your congregation, and you will feel confident in offering comments at Bible study meetings. This is good, but take heed: You should regard comments upon Scripture as a form of teaching ministry, to be regulated by such chapters of Scripture as First Timothy 1 and 2, Second Timothy 2, and James 3. You will avoid the worst errors of interpretation by the method prescribed above, being anchored on Romans, and habitually comparing Scripture with Scripture by means of the cross-references. But if you aspire to become a truly reliable help to others, begin now to acquaint yourself with some standard commentaries. You should avoid the use of commentaries up to this point, because people too often get bogged down in them, and end up learning less that way than if they were to simply read the Scripture without comment. Good commentaries often give so much interesting and unexpected help in matters of detail that the reader will begin to feel that he should always read the commentary along with the Scripture, in order to avoid missing anything or getting things wrong; but the duty of reading the lengthy commentary soon becomes irksome, and the student leaves off reading his Bible because he has made it into such an intolerable burden. The truth is, a better grasp of the Scripture is to be had by the mere reading and re-reading of it than by the disciplined use of commentaries. But by now you should be familiar enough with Scripture that it would not be inappropriate to spend some time with commentaries which would otherwise be spent in simply reading the Scripture. I recommend that you begin with the classic and very edifying commentary of Matthew Henry. This commentary not only explains many things, but it will also serve you well as a model of godly practical teaching. Afterwards, for explanations in a more technical or exegetical vein, consult Notes on the Old and New Testaments by Rev. Albert Barnes, or the Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown. All of these are available in inexpensive reprints. Any one of them will give you more commentary than you will ever have the time to read; you should use them as reference books, like encyclopedias of biblical interpretation and application.

When you have obtained one of these commentaries, go through your Bible and find all those question marks you have made in the margins, and see what the learned commentator has to say about the passages. The next time you read a book of Scripture, refer to the commentary occasionally just to be sure that you are on the right track when you are unsure of your own understanding of a passage. Study the commentary thoroughly when you prepare a Scripture lesson for Sunday school, or if you are expected to take a leading part in Bible study meetings. If someone asks you a question about some passage, and you are not sure of the answer, refer to the commentary.

It is my sincere hope and prayer that the program of "biblical literacy" described in this pamphlet will be of some good use to you. May the Lord Jesus Christ himself cause you to abound in all wisdom and understanding of his holy words, and help you to walk in them. To him be the glory!