• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Tag Archives: Charles Hodge

Charles Hodge learns spiritual affections are given by God

21 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Charles Hodge, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Affections, Charles Hodge, spiritual affections

As a young man of 22, Charles Hodge, the great Princeton theologian, was extremely self-reflective about his spiritual affections. He intently searched his emotions and thoughts to gauge his spiritual state. Then, he seems at one point (recorded in his journal) to realize that such introspection was not profitable. As he biography Hoffecker explains:

That is, he found the more a person examined his subjective spiritual state, the less apt he was to experience what he was looking for because he sought something that was not under his control. When focusing so intently on experience, the cognitive act itself preceded a person’s experiencing the alternative subjective activity being sought. Genuine spiritual “experience” wold come not as the result of efforts to achieve it but as something given by God. Hodge hereby recognized an irony in spiritual experience. The religion affections were not subject to human manipulation; rather than being under human control, they arise as a gift. Thus, when Hodge was least apt to think positively about his experience because of spiritual depression, taking his thoughts off looking for the beginning of spiritual impressions actually freed his mind so that the affections stirred by God could arise. Perhaps Hodge came to realize that description of pious experience such as those he narrates in his diary were a disguised form of what he would condemn in other contexts as ‘works righteousness.’

W Andrew Hoffecker, Charles Hodge: The Pride of Princeton, American Reformed Biographies (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2011), 61.

This is a detailed, well-researched and very readable biography of Charles Hodge. Recommended.

Should we pray to the Holy Spirit?

09 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Abraham Kuyper, Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, Prayer, Trinity, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abraham Kuyper, Charles Hodge, Charles Simeon, Charles Spurgeon, Daniel Block, Daniel Bloesch, Holy Spirit, Object of Prayer, Prayer, Prayer to the Holy Spirit, Theology, Trinity, Worship of the Spirit

In Daniel Block’s “For the Glory of God”, he asks the question as to whether we should address worship specifically and personally to the Spirit.  His analysis begins with three observations:

  1.  “No one addresses the Holy Spirit in prayer, or bows to the Holy Spirit, or serves him in a liturgical gesture. Put simply, in the Bible the Spirit is never the object of worship.”
  2. “The Spirit drives the worship of believers yet does not receive worship.”
  3. “In true worship, the person of the Trinity may not be interchanged without changing the significance of the work.”

He notes two historical developments in the church. First, is the development of the Doxology,

Praise God from whom all blessings flow,

Praise him all creatures here below;

Praise him above you heavenly host;

Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

He noted that it derives from Gloria Patri per Filium in Spiritu Sancto, Glory to God the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. This was changed in response to the Arians, which sought to ontologically subordinate Jesus. To avoid that movement, the connections where changed to “and” from “through” and “in”.

The second development was the Charismatic movement to single out the Spirit for particular adoration in prayer and song.

Block is reticent to make the Spirit the unique object of worship

When we read Scripture, the focus will on God the Father or Jesus Christ the Son. However, it seems that the Holy Spirit is most honored when we accept his conviction of sin, his transforming and sanctifying work within us, and his guidance in life and ministry, and when in response to his leading we prostrate ourselves before Jesus.

This emphasis on the Spirit’s work in is matched by an interesting comment from Kuyper

It appears from Scripture, more than has been emphasized, that in the holy act of prayer there is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit working both in us and with us.

Kuyper, Holy Spirit (1946), trans. de Vries, p. 618.

James Hastings has a discussion on prayer directed to the Spirit. The conclusion comes in his last paragraph:

Continue reading →

On the Death of an Infant

10 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by memoirandremains in Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, Ministry, Samuel Rutherford

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, Death Of An An Infant, Lady Kenmure, Salvation of Infants, Samuel Rutherford

I was asked to write a short article for a church news letter on the death of infants. Here it is:

On the Death of an Infant: “She is not lost to you who is found to Christ.”

What happens when an infant dies? That child stands before the Lord with glory and honor as a joint heir of Christ. How can I say this? Because God is good and Christ died for sinners. The 19th Century Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge explained in his Systematic Theology: “[A]ccording to the common doctrine of evangelical Protestants [] all who die in infancy are saved.”

Hodge explains that the death of Christ, according to Romans 5:18-19, undoes the work of death wrought by Adam:

We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places on them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ.

In short, Jesus saves infants.

This doctrine is quite dear to me. At nine months of age, my first son died. He had a seizure late at night, then his heart stopped and his breathing stopped. He died while his mother held him. The paramedics came, and despite their best efforts, his heart would not start again. A few hours later, as the sun came-up, a man came to our house and laid a sheet on the floor of my son’s bedroom. He took the body of my son, laid him in the middle of the cloth and wrapped him like a package and then carried him away.

I have never felt so hollow, so sad, so alone. The pain of death has a quality unlike any other. The death of a child strikes so hard, you can reach out your hand and touch it. I felt as if my heart had turned to stone. The sorrow is such that words fail.

Sometime later, I realized how my Lord and my son had much in common. When Jesus was born, his mother wrapped him tight; she swaddled him and loved him.  And then, when my Lord came to die Joseph of Arimathea came for Jesus. “This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had every yet been laid” Luke 23:52-53. My son and my Lord were both wrapped in cloths at death –O the infinite love of the Lord! That He would willingly give Himself in the humiliation of death to rescue my son from death! How can I speak to such a thing?

And what of the Father’s love? I recall thinking that I would give the world to save the life of my son. And yet, I know, that God gave His Son to save the world (John 3:16). I cannot understand such a thing. The Father gave His Son for the sin of my son. My son, as dear as he was and is to me (for my son has died and yet is not dead – such is the paradox of God’s grace), was a son of the first Adam. My son was born under a curse. And so, God

Sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Galatians 4:4b-7.

My son was saved from the curse of sin by God’s Son bearing the curse of the law. Galatians 3:13.

How then can I say my son was saved? My son never prayed aloud – indeed, he could not make any sounds for much of life (because a feeding tube was kept down his throat). My son never understood the Gospel. My son knew little beyond needle pricks and hospital rooms – how could he be saved?

The reason I know my son is safe with God is because God sent His Son for my son. This is a doctrine so lovely and deep that I cannot lay out all the details in this small space – and so I encourage you to study further so that you can rejoice at the surpassing goodness of God.

First, read Spurgeon’s sermon on “Infant Salvation”:

Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith—it was not capable of such a thing—it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that “answer of a good conscience towards God;” nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves; well without limitation, well without exception, well infinitely, “well” eternally.

You will find the rest here: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm. Here are two books for you to read: John MacArthur, Save in the Arms of God; and James W. Bruce III, From Grief to Glory.

Let me leave you with a letter written by the Scottish Puritan Samuel Rutherford to a dear friend on the death of her infant daughter. That letter reads in part:

Ye have lost a child: nay she is not lost to you who is found to Christ. She is not sent away, but only sent before, like unto a star, which going out of our sight doth not die and vanish, but shineth in another hemisphere. We see her not, yet she doth shine in another country. If her glass was but a short hour, what she wanteth of time that she hath gotten of eternity; and ye have to rejoice that ye have now some plenishing up in heaven. Build your nest upon no tree here; for ye see God hath sold the forest to death; and every tree whereupon we would rest is ready to be cut down, to the end we may fly and mount up, and build upon the Rock, and dwell in the holes of the Rock.

January 15, 1629; letter to Lady Kenmure.

Repentance.5

17 Tuesday Jan 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Biblical Counseling, Charles Hodge, Quotations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Biblical Counseling, Charles Hodge, Flesh, Quotations, Repentance, Systematic Theology, The Lord's Prayer

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology:  Charles Hodge, a great systematic theologian of the 19th Century makes this statement about repentance in the Christian life:

 The declarations of Scripture, which are so abundant, that there is none righteous, no not one; that all have sinned and  come short of the glory of God; that no flesh living is just in the sight of God; and that every one must lay his hand upon his mouth, and his mouth in the dust in the sight of the infinitely holy God, who accuses his angels of folly, refer to all men without exception; to Jews and Gentiles; to the renewed and. unrenewed; to babes in Christ and to mature Christians. All feel, and all are bound to acknowledge that they are sinners whenever they present themselves before God; all know that they need constantly the intervention of Christ, and the application of his blood, to secure fellowship with the Holy One. As portrayed in Scripture, the inward life of the people of God to the end of their course in this world, is a repetition of conversion. It is a continued turning unto God; a constant renewal of confession, repentance, and faith; a dying unto sin, and living unto righteousness. This is true of all the saints, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles of whose inward experience the Bible gives us any account.

Passages which describe the Conflict between the Flesh and the Spirit.

3. More definitely is this truth taught in those passages which describe the conflict in the believer between the flesh and the Spirit. To this reference has already been made. That the seventh chapter of Paul?s Epistle to the Romans is an account of his own inward life at the time of writing that Epistle, has already, as it is believed, been sufficiently proved; and such has been the belief of the great body of evangelical Christians in all ages of the Church. If this be the correct interpretation of that passage, then it proves that Paul, at least, was not free from sin; that he had to contend with a law in his members, warring against the law of his mind; that he groaned constantly under the burden of indwelling sin. At a still later period of his life, when he was just ready to be offered up, he says to the Philippians, iii. 12?14, “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” This is an unmistakable declaration on the part of the Apostle that even at this late period of his life he was not yet perfect; he had  not attained the end of perfect conformity to Christ, but was pressing forward, as one in a race, with all earnestness that he might reach the end of his calling. To answer this, as has been done by some distinguished advocates of perfectionism, by saying that Paul=s not being perfect, is no proof that other men may not be; is not very satisfactory.

The parallel passage in Galatians, v. 16:26, is addressed to Christians generally. It recognizes the fact that they are imperfectly sanctified; that in them the renewed principle, the Spirit as the source of spiritual life, is in conflict with the flesh, the remains of their corrupt nature. It exhorts them to mortify the mesh (not the body, but their corrupt nature), and to strive constantly to walk under the controlling influence of the Spirit. The characteristic difference between the unrenewed and the renewed is not that the former are entirely sinful, and the latter perfectly holy; but that the former are wholly under the control of their fallen nature, while the latter have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, which leads them to crucify the flesh, and to strive after complete conformity to the image of God. There was nothing in the character of the Galatian Christians to render this exhortation applicable to them alone. What the Scriptures teach concerning faith, repentance, and justification, is intended for all Christians; and so what is taught of sanctification suits the case of all believers. Indeed, if a man thinks himself perfect, and apprehends that he has already attained what his fellow believers are only striving for, a great part of the Bible must for him lose its value. What use can he make of the Psalms, the vehicle through which the people of God for millenniums have poured out their hearts? How can such a man sympathize with Ezra, Nehemiah, or any of the prophets? How strange to him must be the language of Isaiah, “Woe is me I for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.”

Argument from the Lord=s Prayer.

4. Not only do the holy men of God throughout the Scriptures in coming into his presence, come with the confession of sin and imperfection, praying for mercy, not only for what they were but also for what they are, but our Lord has taught all his disciples whenever they address their Father in heaven to say, “Forgive us our trespasses.” This injunction has ever been a stumbling  block in the way of the advocates of perfection from Pelagius to the present day. It was urged by Augustine in his argument against the doctrine of his great opponent that men could be entirely free from sin in the present life. The answer given to the argument from this source has been substantially the same as that given by Pelagius. It is presented in its best form by the Rev. Richard Watson.?1 That writer says, “(1.) That it would be absurd to suppose that any person is placed under the necessity of ?trespassing,? in order that a general prayer designed for men in a mixed condition might retain its aptness to every particular case. (2.) That trespassing of every kind and degree is not supposed by this prayer to be continued, in order that it might be used always in the same import, or otherwise it might be pleaded against the renunciation of any trespass or transgression whatever. (3.) That this petition ?is still relevant to the case of the entirely sanctified and the evangelically perfect, since neither the perfection of the first man nor that of angels is in question; that is, a perfection measured by the perfect law, which in its obligations, contemplates all creatures as having sustained no injury by moral lapse, and admits, therefore, of no excuse from infirmities and mistakes of judgment; nor of any degree of obedience below that which beings created naturally perfect, were capable of rendering. There may, however, be an entire sanctification of a being rendered naturally weak and imperfect, and so liable to mistake and infirmity, as well as to defect as to the degree of that absolute obedience and service which the law of God, never bent to human weakness, demands from all. These defects, and mistakes, and infirmities, may be quite consistent with the entire sanctification of the soul and the moral maturity of a being still naturally infirm and imperfect.”

The first and second of these answers do not touch the point. No one pretends that men are placed under the necessity of sinning, “in order that” they may be able to repeat the Lord=s prayer. This would indeed be absurd. The argument is this. If a man prays to be forgiven, he confesses that he is a sinner, and if a sinner, he is not free from sin or perfect. And therefore, the use of the Lord?s prayer by all Christians, is an acknowledgment that no Christian in this life is perfect. The third answer, which is the one principally relied upon and constantly repeated, involves a contradiction. It assumes that what is not sin requires to be forgiven. Mr. Watson says the petition, “Forgive us our  trespasses,” may be properly used by those who are free from sin. This is saying that sin is not sin. The argument by which this position is sustained also involves a contradiction. Our “infirmities” are sins if judged by “the perfect law”; but not if judged by “the evangelical law.” As we are not to be judged by the former, but by the latter, want of conformity to the law is not sin. The only inability under which men, since the fall, labour, arises from their sinfulness, and therefore is no excuse for want of conformity to that law which it is said, and said rightly, is “never bent to human weakness.”

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Study Guide: Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.1
  • Should I Look for Signs to Know God’s Will?
  • What If It Works?
  • Upon a Sundial and a Clock
  • John Newton On the Three Witnesses 1 John 5:10 [Annotated]

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Study Guide: Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.1
  • Should I Look for Signs to Know God’s Will?
  • What If It Works?
  • Upon a Sundial and a Clock
  • John Newton On the Three Witnesses 1 John 5:10 [Annotated]

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 630 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar