Richard Baxter, The Reasons of the Christian Religion, in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, Vol. 21, pp. 324-327:

8. To recite what I said, and speak it more plainly, I confess it greatly quieteth my mind against this great objection of the numbers that are damned and cast off for ever, to consider how small a part of this earth is of God’s creation, as well as how sinful and impentitent. Ask any astronomer that hath considered the innumerable numbers of the fixed stars and planets, with their distances, and magnitude, and glory, and the uncertainty that we have whether there be not as many more, or an hundred or thousand times as many, unseen to man, as all those which we see, (considering the defectiveness of man’s sight,) and the planets about Jupiter, with the innumerable stars in the milky way, which the tube hath lately discovered, which man’s eyes without it could not see: I say, ask any man who knoweth these things, whether all this earth be any more in comparison of the whole creation than one prison is to a kingdom or empire, or the paring of one nail, or a little mole, or wart, or a hair, in comparison of the whole body. And if God should cast off all this earth, and use all the sinners in it as they deserve, it is no more sign of a want of benignity, or mercy, in him, than it is for a king to cast one subject of a million into a gaol, and to hang him for his murder, or treason, or rebellion; or for a man to kill one louse, which is but a molestation to the body which beareth it; or than it is to pare a man’s nails, or cut off a wart, or a hair, or to pull out a rotten, aching tooth. I know it is a thing uncertain and unrevealed to us, whether all these globes be inhabited or not. But he that considereth, that there is scarce any uninhabitable place on earth, or in the water, or air; but men, or beasts, or birds, or fishes, or flies, or worms, and moles, do take up almost all; will think it a probability, so near a certainty as not to be much doubted of, that the vaster and more glorious parts of the creation are not uninhabited; but that they have inhabitants answerable to their magnitude and glory, as palaces have other inhabitants than cottages; and there is a connaturality and agreeableness there as well as here, between the region, or globe, and the inhabitants.. But whether it be the globes themselves, or only the inter-spaces, or other parts, that are thus inhabited, no reason can doubt, but that those more vast and glorious spaces are proportionably possessed. And whether they are to be called angels, or spirits, or by what other name, is unrevealed to us: but whatever they are called, I make no question but our number, to theirs, is not one to a million at the most.
…
4. Yet, after all this, I am neither asserting that all this is so, nor bound to prove it; I only argue, that you, who are offended at the numbers that sin and perish, do wrangle in the dark, and speak against you know not what.

Cotton Mather, The Christian Philosopher, p. 59:

For Mr. Derham has confuted Hugenius with his own Glasses, and has demonstrated, that there are great Collections of Waters in the Moon, and by consequence Rivers, and Vapours, and Air; and in a word, a considerable Apparatus for Habitation.

But by what Creatures inhabited? A Difficulty this, that cannot be solved without Revelation.

John Dick, Lectures in Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 381-382:

The discoveries of modern science make no part of Theology; but they are worthy of attention, because they exalt our ideas of the might and beneficence of our Creator. As the planets are removed from us by many millions of miles, they could not be visible unless their magnitude was great. How much greater is the magnitude of the fixed stars, the distance of which from the earth is such, that it seems but a step to the utmost planet which revolves around the sun! It is natural to ask, for what purpose they were placed in the heavens? It was not surely to give light to the earth; for all their light is of little account, and more would be furnished by a single satellite of a size far less than the moon. It is not to mark the revolution of the year, and the progress of the seasons; for this is ascertained by the motion of the sun, and the changes which take place upon the surface of the earth. Shall we then suppose that they were created in vain? Shall we suppose that a Being of infinite wisdom, who made the little ball which we inhabit for great purposes, and made that star which we call the sun, to give it light, has lavished his power in the production of thousands and millions of suns for no assignable end? Why are such vast bodies so situated as to appear to us only as points? Was their surpassing splendour, which attracts, indeed, the eye of a spectator upon earth, but darts upon it only a faint and ineffectual ray, bestowed to be wasted on the barren fields of ether? We cannot for a moment admit a conclusion which seems to charge the Lord of nature with folly, and is at variance with the proofs of intelligence and design which are so amply supplied by his other works. The opinion, that around those suns planets revolve, the inhabitants of which rejoice in their light, and are cheered by their influences, is something more than a flight of fancy. It rests upon strong grounds of belief; and while it vindicates the wisdom of God in replenishing with so many bodies the wide regions of space which would be otherwise useless, it fills us with admiration of his inexhaustible goodness, which has diffused life and happiness far beyond the reach of the eye, and the more extended range of imagination. It may be mentioned as a corroboration of this theory, that in the heavenly bodies which lie nearer to us, we observer certain phenomena, which indicate that they are destined for some other purpose than to give light to the earth. The surface of the moon, like that of our globe, is diversified by hills and vallies, which we cannot conceive to be of any use, if the moon is a solitude. In three of the planets, we observe a provision similar to what is made for us, to alleviate the darkness of the night, in the satellites which move around them, in different times, and at different distances. Why are they accompanied with moons, if there are no inhabitants to whom their light would be grateful in the absence of the sun? To us they can be of no use, because they are invisible to the unassisted eye. There is another wonderful fact, from which, however, we cannot reason so certainly, the ring of Saturn, because we are unacquainted with its use; but we may be confident that it was not placed there in vain. If it was intended for ornament, there must be some spectators nearer than the inhabitants of this globe, to whom it was unknown till modern times, and of whom scarcely one in a hundred thousand has ever seen it, and then very imperfectly through a telescope: if it was intended for accomodation, it was the not of the planet itself, which no more needed this appendage than Jupiter or Mars, but of the beings who reside upon its surface. Upon the whole, it is highly probable, that as the fixed stars are luminous bodies of an immense size, or in other words, suns, they are surrounded, like our sun, with planets, which are not deserts, but the seats of life, and activity, and enjoyment. Thus, the universe opens upon us in all its magnificence and extent; and lifting up our thoughts to Him, at whose fiat it arose out of nothing, we feel ourselves constrained to express our admiration and praise in the words of the Psalmist, “How manifold, O Lord, are thy works! in wisdom has thou made them all; the earth is full of thy riches.”

Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Love of Jonathan and the Love of Jesus” (Sermon No. 2336 – intended for reading on Nov. 26, 1893, delivered by Spurgeon on Sept. 29, 1889), Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 39 (1893)

I have told you before what I sometimes dream shall be my lot in Glory—to stand not here and preach to a handful of people, though it is truly a large handful—but to stand upon some starry orb and preach of Christ to whole constellations at once and thunder out my remembrances of His sweet love to myriads of beings who have never heard of Him as yet, for they have never sinned, but who will drink in all the tidings of what Jesus did for sinful men! And each of you, according to your training for it, shall make known to angels, principalities and powers, the manifold wisdom of God! There is plenty of room for you all, for God’s universe will need millions upon millions of messengers to go through it all and tell out the story of redeeming love. And we, I believe, are here in training for that eternal work of making known to illimitable regions of space and countless myriads of intelligent beings whom God has created, but who have never fallen, the story of this little planet and of the God who loved it so that He came here and died that He might save His people from their sins.

If you want to see more, you can watch Ryan’s interpretations of  Psalm 145, Psalm 22, and Hebrews 9 and 10.

If you’re interested, you can contact Ryan at ryanf@nhcconline.com.

What would happen if we always heard/read/thought about Scripture with this kind of emotion and thoughtfulness?

Retiring Netherlands bishop Tiny Muskens (not to be confused with any inhabitants of Middle Earth) offered the following proposal to the religious world:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? … What does God care what we call him? It is our problem.”

Drawing upon their centuries-old tradition of dealing ruthlessly with heretics, Rome responded with a scathing rebuke . . .

“I’m sure his intentions are good but his theology needs a little fine-tuning.”

Harsh words.

Meanwhile, in Our Own Backyard

Fresh off their recent triumphs of supporting Palestinian terrorism, endorsing the use of marijuana (for medical purposes, of course), and granting local congregations the authority to ordain practicing homosexuals, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has also decided that God’s name needed a little sprucing up.

In an attempt to top those slackers at the Second Ecumenical Council who took a year to produce the Nicene Creed (381), the PCUSA spent six years (2000 to 2006) developing “fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God.” Knowing how much God loves the theologically novel, PCUSA churches may now refer to God in any of the following ways:

• Rock, Redeemer, and Friend
• Lover, Beloved, and Love
• Mother, Child, and Womb

And if these don’t strike your liturgical fancy, the PCUSA offers seven other nifty, new names to choose from!

PS. Rumor has it that the PCUSA is already working on a follow-up to their Trinitarian Greatest Hits. It’s an updated version of the Bible where you’ll read about “. . . the Womb of God moving over the face of the waters.” (And if you’re a Trinity Hymnal fan, just wait until you hear the new version of O for a Thousand Tongues!)

God’s Name

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

(Exodus 20:7)

Q. What is required in the third Commandment?
A. That we must not by cursing, or by false swearing, nor yet by unnecessary oaths, profane or abuse the name of God; nor even by our silence and connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others; and in summary, that we use the holy name of God in no other way than with fear and reverence, so that He may be rightly confessed and worshiped by us, and be glorified in all our words and works.

The Heidelberg Catechism, Q & A 99

God’s name represents who He is. Our human languages are woefully inadequate when it comes to revealing the glories of God’s nature. For this reason the Scriptures use many names to cast a ray of light upon His character (e.g., Yahweh Jireh, The Lord will Provide, Gen. 22:14; Yahweh Sabbaoth, The Lord of Hosts, 1 Sam. 1:3; Yahweh Tsidkenu, The Lord our Righteousness, Jer. 23:6). But this is done by the Scriptures and not by us. It is God Who chooses how and by what name He’ll be called; in other words, He has the right of self-definition and self-disclosure. He retains this right as sovereign Lord and creator, and as such is not a wax nose to be toyed with by self-aggrandizing bishops or wayward Presbyterians.

The names of God are not of human invention, but of divine origin, though they are all borrowed from human language, and derived from human and earthly relations. They are anthropomorphic and mark a condescending approach of God to man.

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology

Commenting on Bishop Muskens, Father Jonathan Morris said that referring to God as Allah was “impractical.” What if I started referring to the fetching Mrs. Catechizer as Selma Hyach. Would that be “impractical”? Anyone who knows my wife will tell you that several minutes will pass before I regain consciousness. How much more forcefully will our Righteous King respond when He is called by the name of a devil like Allah? Or when our Creator, who revealed Himself in masculine terms, is told that He can no longer be Father because it’s not politically correct?

A Plea

I ask Rome (considering their weak-kneed response to the bishop), and especially the PCUSA, to consider the Third Commandment and its New Testament counterpart, The Lord’s Prayer (“hollowed be your name . . . Matthew 6:9); I also ask that they—and all the rest of us—observe the following three points from the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

. . . first, whatever our mind conceives of God, whatever our tongue utters, should savor of his excellence, match the loftiness of his sacred name, and lastly, serve to glorify his greatness.

Secondly, we should no rashly or perversely abuse his Holy Word and worship mysteries either for the sake of our own ambitions, or greed, or amusement; but, as they bear the dignity of his name imprinted upon them, they should ever be honored and prized among us.

Finally, we should not defame or detract from his works, as miserable men are wont abusively to cry out against him; but whatever we recognize as done by him we should speak of with praise of his wisdom, righteousness, and goodness. That is what it means to hallow God’s name.

John Calvin

And truly when I am most near God,
I have no greater request than this
for my self and you, that God would use
any means to make us see things really as they are,
and pound our hearts all to pieces,
and make indeed sin most bitter,
and Christ most sweet, that we might be
both humbled and Comforted to purpose!

Robert Burns, To a Louse (1786):

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

[O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!]

On July 28, 1881, J. Gresham Machen was born in Baltimore, Maryland.

The second of three sons born to Arthur Webster Machen and Mary Gresham Machen, Gresham was raised in an affluent Southern Presbyterian home, and his family attended Franklin Street Presbyterian Church, an influential Old School congregation. His upbringing nurtured him less in the “sentimental variety associated with Victorian Protestantism” than in “older forms of Protestant piety ” the Bible, the Westminster Catechism, and Pilgrim’s Progress,” according to biographer D.G. Hart. Machen’s resistance to moralism would prompt his initial reluctance to enter the ministry after his education at Johns Hopkins University and Princeton Seminary. Eventually, his theological and cultural viewpoints would lead him to reject both theological modernism that he would condemn in Christianity and Liberalism and the “sickly interdenominationalism” of Protestant fundamentalism.

- John Muether

Self-examination; for a man to take his heart, as a watch, all in pieces, to set up a spiritual inquisition, or court of conscience, and traverse things in his own soul; to take David’s candle and lantern (Ps. 119.105) and search for sin; nay, as judge, to pass the sentence upon himself (2 Sam. 34.17) this is against nature, and will not easily be attained to without learning.

Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity, p. 371:

Quest. 2. What is self-examination?

Ans. It is a setting up a court of conscience and keeping a register there, that by a strict scrutiny a man may see how matters stand between God and his soul. Self-examination is a spiritual inquisition, a heart-anatomy, whereby a man takes his heart, as a watch, all in pieces, and sees what is defective there. It is a dialogue with one’s self, Ps. lxxvii.6, “I commune with my own heart.” David called himself to account, and put interrogatories to his own heart. Self-examining is a critical descant or search; as the woman in the parable did light a candle, and search for her lost groat, Luke xv.8, so conscience is the candle of the Lord; search with this candle what thou canst find wrought by the Spirit in thee.

Thomas Watson, The Christian Soldier; or, Heaven Taken By Storm, p. 55-56:

5. The fifth duty wherein we are to offer violence to ourselves, self-examination; a duty of great importance: it is a parleying with one’s own heart, Psalm lxxxvii. 7. ‘I commune with my own heart.’ David did put interrogatories to himself. Self-examination is the setting up a court in conscience and keeping a register there, that by strict scrutiny a man may know how things stand between God and his own soul. Self-examination is a spiritual inquisition; a bringing one’s self to trial. A good Christian doth as it were begin the day of Judgment here in his own soul. Self-searching is a heart-anatomy. As a Chirurgeon, when he makes a dissection in the body, discovers the intestina, the inward parts, the heart, liver, and arteries, so a Christian anatomizeth himself; he searcheth what is flesh and what is spirit; what is sin, and what is grace, Psalm lxxvii. 7. ‘My spirit made diligent search:’ As the woman in the Gospel did light a candle, and search for her lost groat, Luke xv. 8. so conscience ‘is the candle of the Lord,’ Prov. xx. 27. A Christian by the light of this candle must search his soul to see if he can find any grace there. The rule by which a Christian must try himself, is the Word of God. Fancy and opinion are false rules to go by. We must judge of our spiritual condition by the canon of Scripture. This David calls a ‘lamp unto his feet,’ Psalm cxix. 105. Let the word be the umpire to decide the controversy, whether we have grace or no. We judge of colours by the sun. So we must judge of the state of souls by the light of Scripture.

Self-examination is a great, incumbent duty; it requires self­-excitation; it cannot possibly be done without offering violence to ourselves. 1. Because the duty of self-examination in itself is difficult: 1. It is actus reflexivus, a work of self-reflection; it lies most with the heart. ‘Tis hard to look inward. External acts of religion are facile; to lift up the eye to Heaven, to bow the knee, to read a prayer; this requires no more labor than for a Catholic to tell over his beads; but to examine a man’s self, to turn in upon his own soul, to take the heart as a watch all in pieces, and see what is defective; this is not easy. — Reflective acts are hardest. The eye can see everything but itself. It is easy to spy the faults of others, but hard to find out our own.

Here’s today’s helpful hint: take notes during the sermon . . .

• It’ll help you stay awake.
• It’ll help you remember what was said.
• And, for heads-of-households, it’s a great way to make sure that everyone understood the sermon by going over the notes later with the family.

If we are to use the term “separation between Church & State,” we must do so honestly, remaining faithful to the original context: Thomas Jefferson was writing to Baptists who were being persecuted by an officially Congregationalist state government. Thus, he was not calling for a wall that protected the government from the church, but the church from the government. Something to keep in mind when discussing this issue.

From Great Commission Publications . . .

“What’s going on here?” That’s the question the teacher asks when she returns to find her classroom in chaos, or the parent when he sees his children misbehaving. “What’s going on here?” my also be an appropriate question to ask many congregations as they assemble week after week to worship God.

What goes on in church, like the conduct of a class in the teacher’s absence, can be a far cry from what it ought to be in the hour of worship. Some worship services are little more than forms of entertainment. Others center around majestic music and rote liturgy that may or may not foster true worship. All too often we spend the hour in whispered remarks and mental wonderings.

Concentrating on the order of service might help us spend our time in church truly worshiping God. The service begins with the call to worship in which the voice of God himself is heard summoning us to bow before him in adoration and praise. Then the invocation follows, with the minister leading the people in prayer for God’s presence and blessing while we worship. As the congregation rises to sing the doxology and the hymns, we voice our praise of the triune God.

When the Scripture is read the voice of God speaks to his people. In the pastoral prayer the minister prays on behalf of the people, expressing our praise and voicing our petitions to our Father in heaven. The sermon is an explanation of the meaning of God’s revelation in the Bible and its relations to life.

Such activities demand attentive and wholehearted participation. Absentminded singing is mock praise; to whisper or look around while Scripture is read is to despise God’s voice.

Yet we don’t want to communicate that worship is a severe, depressing experience. It is serious, because we are approaching the almighty God of the universe. But it is also a joy and a delight. And how do we cultivate a sense of joy and delight in worship? By cultivating a good memory. We must always remember as we come together what God has delivered us from—bondage and sin, death and decay; and what he has delivered us for—eternal happiness such as we can scarcely imagine on earth.

What’s going on in your church? In you?