Fuller’s Encouragement to Prayer

August 13, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Ian Hugh Clary

Without taking morbid fascination in the failings of another, we can learn from the struggles of other Christians. To observe an admired Christian wrestle against sins that beset even us, help us take heart that our trials are not uncommon. It should not surprise us, but we can forget that, yes, saints greatly used of God like John Piper or Joni Eareckson Tada fight against sin. This can encourage us, if taken rightly, when it comes to the mundane aspects of Christian discipleship like prayer or bible reading. To see that a hero of the faith struggled to pray keeps me from complacency, and encourages me to press on as they evidently did. Even more encouraging is to read about their victories over sin, and the joy they received from such victories.

I was struck by this as I read about Andrew Fuller. On May 2, 1785 he wrote in his diary about a monthly prayer meeting set up in his church in Kettering—part of the “Prayer Call” that began in 1784. I’ll quote the entry at length:

This evening, I felt tender all the time of the prayer-meeting for the revival of religion; but, in hearing Mr Beeby Wallis [a deacon in the church] pray for me, I was overcome: his having a better opinion of me than I deserve, cuts me to heart! Went to prayer myself, and found my mind engaged more than ordinarily in praying for the revival of religion. I had felt many sceptical thoughts; as though there were room to ask—What profit shall I have if I pray to God? for which I was much grieved. Find a great satisfaction in these monthly meetings: even supposing our requests should not be granted, yet prayer to God is its own reward.

There are a number of thoughts we can take away from such a quote. One is the inadequacy a pastor feels before his congregants. Wallis had a high view of his pastor, and Fuller, knowing his own heart, experienced conviction of sin. Another is that the prayers of one can spur another in the same. A third, and pertinent to this post, is that Fuller—a man with no mean theological abilities, and well used by God—doubted the value of prayer, if only in his own heart. This grieved him, because he knew his doubts were unfounded, real though they were. Yet Fuller encourages us by telling of us of the satisfaction he received in corporate prayer, even prayer that might not be answered in the way he hoped. Why? Because, in that great, pithy quote, he said: “prayer to God is its own reward.” Rooted in a tradition that stressed the importance of communion with God, Fuller was able to gain a biblical perspective on prayer that helped him—and us—see the real value in prayer. This is a rebuke to me when I languish in my own spiritual lethargy. I am thankful to read quotes like this.

_____________________

Ian Hugh Clary is finishing doctoral studies under Adriaan Neele at Universiteit van die Vrystaat (Blomfontein), where he is writing a dissertation on the evangelical historiography of Arnold Dallimore. He has co-authored two local church histories with Michael Haykin and contributed articles to numerous scholarly journals. Ian lives in Toronto with his wife and two children.

Fuller’s “Lively Hope”

August 8, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

In a circular letter, entitled, “The Excellency and Utility of the Grace of Hope,” Andrew Fuller reasoned from Scripture to show that hope in eternal rest and reward energizes the minister today to be active in the Lord’s service. In many ways, it sounds similar to John Piper’s call to faith in Future Grace. The whole letter is excellent, and the two paragraphs below are especially encouraging excerpts:

HOPE, or an expectation of future good, is of so extensive an influence, that whether true or false, well or ill founded, it is one of the principal springs that keep mankind in motion. It is vigorous, bold, and enterprising. It causes men to encounter dangers, endure hardships, and surmount difficulties innumerable, in order to accomplish the desired end. In religion it is of no less consequence. It is claimed by almost all ranks and parties of men. It makes a considerable part of the religion of those that truly fear God; for though in all true religion there is and must be a love to God and Divine things for their own excellency, yet God, who knows our frame, and draws us with the cords of a man, condescends also to excite us with the promise of gracious reward, and to allure us with the prospect of a crown of glory….^{^[1]}

Moreover, as servants of God, you have a great work to do.—Though the meritorious part of your salvation has been long since finished, yet there is a salvation for you still to work out. By prayer, by patience, by watchfulness, and holy strife, you have to overcome the world, mortify sin, and run the race set before you. Hope is of excellent use in this great work. It is well denominated a “lively hope.” Its tendency is not to lull the soul asleep, but to rouse it to action. We trust, dear brethren, that the hope of which you are partakers will more and more animate your breasts with generous purposes, and prompt your souls to noble pursuits. For this you have the greatest encouragements surely that a God can give! God will employ none in his service without making it their inestimable privilege. They that plough for him shall plough in hope. Mansions of bliss stand ready to receive you, and crowns of unfading glory to reward you; therefore, beloved brethren, “be ye steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.”^{^[2]}

Fuller saw hope in future reward has eminently useful for active labour in the Lord’s service. We labour heartily in our Master’s vineyard because he assures us that we will eat at table with him and enjoy the wine of his inheritance. “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ” (Col 3:23-24).

^{^[1]} Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 308-09.

^{^[2]} Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 314.

____________________

Evan D. Burns (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is on faculty at Asia Biblical Theological Seminary, and he lives in Thailand with his wife and twin sons. They are missionaries with Training Leaders International.

Calvin versus the Anabaptists

July 30, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin Bruce

In John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life, Herman J. Selderhuis attempts an unbiased telling of the Reformer’s story, counting him “neither friend nor enemy.”[1] Striving for balance, Selderhuis presents a nuanced relationship between Calvin and the Anabaptists. Against the common misconception of Calvin as a vitriolic persecutor of Anabaptists, Selderhuis states, “Calvin did not differ from his fellow Reformers in his stance toward them, but he did in his approach, for he thought that these Anabaptists had a point when they stressed sanctification of life, imitation, dedication, and devotion.”[2]

Calvin, willing to learn from Anabaptists, found commonalities with them even while feeling they went too far in some areas. For Calvin, the Anabaptist tendency toward perfectionism in the Christian life and church proved unbiblical. He sought to extend Luther’s insight of simul iustus et peccator from the individual saint to the church as a whole.[3] Calvin also took issue with “the absence of ordered, structured thought among the Anabaptists.”[4] Calvin served a God of order and he felt the absence of such to be inconsistent with divine revelation.

While the Magisterial Reformer undoubtedly took issue with the Anabaptists at points, Selderhuis makes a case for a much more understanding Calvin. As he summarizes, “He was very engaged with the Anabaptists, and even married an Anabaptist widow, providing a symbol of the way he dealt with them theologically. One had to win them over and bring them into one’s own house. In terms of the church, one might even marry them by taking into one’s own theological house the good that they bring with them.”[5] Whether you count John Calvin as theological friend of enemy, all would do well to model such a practice.

[1]Herman J. Selderhuis, John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life (Downer’s Grove: IL, InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 8.

[2]Selderhuis, John Calvin, 74.

[3]Selderhuis, John Calvin, 75.

[4]Selderhuis, John Calvin, 75.

[5]Selderhuis, John Calvin, 74.

___________________

Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.

Fuller’s “Lively Faith”

July 25, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

In 1799, Andrew Fuller wrote, “The Importance of a Lively Faith, Especially in Missionary Undertakings.” He illustrated the dangers of disobeying the Great Commission because of our disbelief in God’s promises to deliver us through adversity in our Great Commission labors. He called for a “lively faith” in missionaries to enter the nations, believing in God’s promises despite seemingly insurmountable hardships and opposition, just as Joshua and Caleb did. And, whereas the Israelites were to engage the nations with a mission of justice, armed with swords, missionaries ought to engage the nations with a mission of mercy, equipped with the sword of the Spirit. Here is a great excerpt from what Fuller wrote:

When Israel went out of Egypt, they greatly rejoiced on the shores of the Red Sea; but the greater part of them entered not into the Promised Land, and that on account of their unbelief. The resemblance between their case and ours has struck my mind with considerable force. The grand object of their undertaking was to root out idolatry, and to establish the knowledge and worship of the one living and true God; and such also is ours. The authority on which they acted was the sovereign command of Heaven; and ours is the same. “Go preach the gospel to every creature.” The ground on which they were to rest their hope of success was the Divine promise. It was by relying on this alone that they were enabled to surmount difficulties, and to encounter their gigantic enemies. Those among them who believed, like Joshua and Caleb, felt themselves well able to go up; but they that distrusted the promise turned their backs in the hour of danger. Such also is the ground of our hope. He who hath commissioned us to “teach all nations” hath added, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” The heathen nations are given to our Redeemer for an inheritance, as much as Canaan was given to the seed of Abraham; and it is our business, as it was theirs, to go up and possess the land. We should lay our account with difficulties as well as they; but, according to our faith in the Divine promises, we may expect these mountains to become a plain. If the Lord delight in us, he will bring us into the land; but if, like the unbelieving Israelites, we make light of the promised good, or magnify the difficulties in the way of obtaining it, and so relax our efforts, we may expect to die as it were in the wilderness.^{^[1]}

Would that we, in our day, preserve such a lively faith that lays hold of the Divine promises in obedience to the Great Commission, lest we be like the unbelieving Israelites who died in the wilderness.

^{^[1]} Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 826.

____________________

The Evangelistic Fervor of a 17th Century Particular Baptist

July 24, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Steve Weaver

When Andrew Fuller was wrestling with the question of whether or not the gospel should be preached indiscriminately to all, he found a model for promiscuous gospel preaching in the seventeenth-century English Particular Baptist John Bunyan. Fuller noted that Bunyan, contrary to the contemporary Particular Baptist examples of preaching he knew, regularly addressed the unconverted directly and appealed to them to trust in Christ's saving work. Fuller would eventually realize that the hyper-Calvinistic approach was an intrusion into Particular Baptist life and not faithful to its original heritage. Seventeenth-century Particular Baptists preached the gospel to all, calling upon all to believe and repent.

Along with Bunyan, Fuller could have also read the writings of men such as Benjamin Keach, Thomas Harrison, William Collins and Hercules Collins. Each of these men were convinced Calvinists soteriologically, subscribing to the Second London Confession of Faith. Yet, each of these men pleaded with sinners to be saved. In his funeral sermon for Hercules Collins, John Piggott commented upon the evangelistic zeal of Collins by saying that “no man could preach with a more affectionate regard to the salvation of souls.”[1] He later called the regular attenders of the Wapping-street Church who remained unsaved as witnesses to the gospel fervor of Hercules Collins: “You are witnesses with what zeal and fervour, with what constancy and seriousness he used to warn and persuade you.”[2] Piggott then began to plead with the lost present himself by crying out, “Tho you have been deaf to his former preaching, yet listen to the voice of this providence, lest you continue in your slumber till you sleep the sleep of death.” He then closed with these forceful words:

You cannot but see, unless you will close your eyes, that this world and the fashion of it is passing away. O what a change will a few months or years make in this numerous assembly! Yea, what a sad change has little more than a fortnight made in this congregation! He that was so lately preaching in this pulpit, is now wrapped in his shroud, and confined to his coffin; and the lips that so often dispersed knowledge amongst you, are sealed up till the resurrection. Here’s the body of your late minister; but his soul is entered into the joy of his Lord. O that those of you that would not be persuaded by him living, might be wrought upon by his death! For tho he is dead, he yet speaketh; and what doth he say; both to ministers and people, but “Be ye also ready, for in such an hour as you think not, the Son of Man cometh?”[3]

Historical evidence such as this should put to rest the claims of some that Calvinism necessarily inhibits evangelistic fervor. Hyper-Calvinism, indeed, is an error that must be rejected by Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike. Those who refuse to call upon all sinners to believe and repent are not only disobedient to the clear teaching of Scripture, they are also not living up to the best of their Calvinistic Baptist heritage exemplified by men such as John Bunyan, Hercules Collins, and Andrew Fuller.

^{^[1]} John Piggott, Eleven Sermons, 236.

^{^[2]} Ibid., 240.

^{^[3]}Ibid.

__________________

Steve Weaver serves as a research assistant to the director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies and a junior fellow of the Center. He also serves as senior pastor of Farmdale Baptist Church in Frankfort, KY. Steve and his wife Gretta have six children between the ages of 2 and 14.

The Domestic Benefits of “A Right Spirit”

July 15, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin Bruce

With the recent birth of my daughter, I have given much thought to Paul’s command to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). I’ve read page after page on the importance of family worship, catechetical instruction, consistent discipline, and more. Andrew Fuller joined a chorus of helpful voices in offering a bit of heart piercing counsel.

Fuller, in a 1798 sermon at Ipswich, gave a sermon on David’s request that God “renew a right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10). Surprisingly, Fuller elaborated on the familial benefits of possessing a right spirit in relation to God. According to Fuller, David was never more a sinner than when he dealt with Uriah, but he was never more a saint than when, in true repentance, he penned the 51^st Psalm. He goes on to speak of a right spirit as signifying true religion, which he defines as follows:

A right spirit is a spirit of love to God, and love to our neighbour, and a right disposition to ourselves. A right spirit towards God is a spirit of love to him, a spirit of faith in God, a spirit of gratitude to God, a spirit of submission to God, a spirit of obedience to God, and so of every grace of the Spirit of God. A right spirit is not that of him who has experienced right feelings at a distant period only, but of one who habitually lives in the exercise of them: a constant spirit, as expressed in the margin. The term right has respect to some rule; this rule is the law of God, which is a right rule—the rule by which the Spirit of God works in the conversion of a sinner: hence he has said, “I will write the law in their hearts;” and as this is the rule by which God works, so it is the rule by which Christians ought to walk.^{^[1]}

The personal consequences to losing a right spirit are devastating. However, failure to maintain such a spirit affects one’s family as well. First, the loss of a right spirit makes us ineffective Christians at home. As Fuller explains,

We can do no good in our families. When a person has lost his right spirit, he commonly lives in the neglect of his duties, and too often in the commission of some small sins, neither of which seem to affect his conscience, so that religion appears of little consequence in the eyes of those around him. As he has not a savour of religion in his own mind, he cannot communicate it to others. As he has no love to God, no zeal for God, he cannot enkindle the flame of them in others. And it is mostly found when a person is in such a state, when he attempts to perform duties, he does it in such a manner, that, instead of exciting lively emotions in the lives of others, makes them burdensome, and so become disgustful. Sin unrepented of will spoil our usefulness. Guilt will chain our minds, and keep us from the discharge of what we know to be our duty. In this state we cannot with freedom or pleasure engage in it, and so give it up. Thus it appears we can do no good during this state of mind in our families.^{^[2]}

Second, we cannot rightly enjoy our families without a right spirit. Fuller goes on,

It is essentially necessary that we should possess this right spirit, rightly to enjoy what is good in this life. There is no good to be enjoyed in our families, nor good done, without it. The domestic comforts of life are no comforts without it; nor are our relatives a support to us. We may rove among our connexions from object to object, seeking relief, but all will be in vain. The great defect is in ourselves; wanting the right spirit which gives a relish to our comforts, we want the great essential of all.

As the consequence of this, instead of the cheerfulness which infuses a savour into the comforts of social life, and which ought to be seen on our countenances by our domestics, there is nothing but gloom and sullen despair. ^{^[3]}

In typical fashion, Fuller penetrates to the heart of domestic piety. The great responsibility of bringing up children, as well as the great joy associated with it, are both dependent on the possessing of a right spirit. Family worship may go wrong more than it goes right and children may forget catechisms. But they will never forget growing up in a home with parents who maintained a right spirit of love toward God. May we join David in praying, “Create in me a clean heart, oh God; and renew a right spirit within me.”

^{^[1]} Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 837.

^{^[2]} Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 839.

^{^[3]} Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 840.

___________________

Adoniram Judson “Deeply Impressed” by an Unnamed Pious Man

July 12, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

Adoniram Judson (1788-1850), the first American missionary, was a man marked by inimitable missionary devotion and theological grit. Many biographies, indeed some hagiographies, have retold his remarkable story over and over again. Though many biographies exclusively portray him as a martyr-like hero, he was no island. He had friends, companions, and co-laborers who died as hard as he did, whose biographies only the historians of heaven have written. Moreover, there was an anonymous man in his life who never went with him to Burma and never knew him personally, whose name history has left unrecorded, and yet, God used this unknown man to impress God-centered piety upon Judson’s soul.

After going to school in Providence, Judson set out, surging with wanderlust, to explore the Northern States in pursuit of adventure and inspiration. He had wished to go write for the theater in New York and to also brave the untamed wilderness. His worldly aspirations broke his pious parents’ hearts. He went to visit his uncle Ephraim in the wilderness, but God appointed another man to meet him there instead. Judson’s biographer, Francis Wayland, records:

Before setting out upon his tour he had unfolded his infidel sentiments to his father, and had been treated with the severity natural to a masculine mind that has never doubted, and to a parent, who, after having made innumerable sacrifices for the son of his pride and love, sees him rush recklessly on his own destruction. His mother also, was no less distressed, and she wept, and prayed, and expostulated. He knew his superiority to his father in argument; but he had nothing to oppose to his mother’s tears and warnings, and they followed him now wherever he went. He knew he was on the verge of such a life as he despised. For the world he would not see a young brother in his perilous position; but “I,” he thought, “am in no danger. I am only seeing the world—the dark side of it, as well as the bright; and I have too much self-respect to do any thing mean or vicious.” After seeing what he wished of New York, he returned to Sheffield for his horse, intending to pursue his journey westward. His uncle, Rev. Ephraim Judson, was absent, and a very pious young man occupied his place. His conversation was characterized by godly sincerity, a solemn but gentle earnestness, which addressed itself to the heart, and Judson went away deeply impressed.[1]

Not long after meeting this pious man, Judson surrendered his life to his Lord. How many well-known men in history have been impressed by the warm-hearted piety of unknown saints? Let us never underestimate the historical impact we could have in a conversation “characterized by godly sincerity, a solemn but gentle earnestness,” that addresses the heart and leaves an indelible impression. May God be pleased to “deeply impress” future missionaries through our God-enamored piety, even in the most inadvertent conversations.

[1]Francis Wayland, A Memoir of the Life and Labors of the Rev. Adoniram Judson, D.D. (Boston: Philips, Sampson, and Company, 1853), 1:23-24.

____________________

Don’t Judge a Theologian by His Unpublished Musings

July 4, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Nathan A. Finn

A good reminder from pastor and Jonathan Edwards scholar Josh Moody:

This brings up a more general point about Edwards’s many notebooks and “Miscellanies” from which Edwards scholars love to quote. They are fascinating, there are many of them, and they are rich with insights into how Edwards’s mind worked. But they can also be dangerous. We must never forget that they were not intended to be published. That they have been is a good thing because they give us insight into the working mind of an undisputed theological genius. But they are not necessarily fully-formed opinions. It’s like looking at Van Gogh’s oil paint palate and drawing conclusions about what kind of painting style he believed in. It might give us insight into his method, and we might draw some connections between that and what he painted, but it wouldn’t tell us finally what he wanted to paint. Only Edwards’s published works, by his own intention, during his own lifetime, reveal with certainty what he wanted to say. Perhaps Edwards has hidden opinions in his notebooks not consistent with his preaching and writing, but the majority of Edwards scholarship has long shown that not to be the case. Each time I engage with fellow Edwards scholars on the “Miscellanies,” I make a fresh resolution to comb through all my personal extended notes and jottings on theological matters. If I am to be held to the stake for every semiformulated idea I have ever penned in private journals, I had better get rid of some of them before I pass through the veil.

See Moody’s helpful (and punchy) chapter “Edwards and Justification Today” in Jonathan Edwards and Justification (Crossway, 2012), ed. Josh Moody, pp. 30–31.

________________________

Nathan A. Finn is associate professor of historical theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an elder at First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and a senior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

Why read an obscure Baptist pastor from the seventeenth century—Abraham Cheare?

July 1, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Michael A.G. Haykin

The history of the Baptists’ reception of their own past is a fascinating one in its own right. Most of the Baptist works of the seventeenth century were never reprinted and consequently a significant amount of their thought was obscure to their eighteenth-century heirs. To be sure, there was a certain amount of reflection on the past by eighteenth-century authors like Thomas Crosby (1683–c.1751) and Joseph Ivimey (1773–1834), but it was the Victorian Baptists who really began to delve into Baptist history and that for a variety of reasons: the Victorians in general were fascinated by the past; in England this exploration of Baptist history was linked to the realization of the strength of the Nonconformist cause and became a vehicle to express Baptist pride; while, in America it was used by many to prove (or disprove) the theology of Landmarkism. Then came the twentieth century, which was probably the worst of all centuries for remembering the past. After World War I the ambience in the west was increasingly one in which the past was seen as old lumber to be discarded to make way for new perspectives, in the very same way that Victorian Gothic buildings were being leveled to make way for Art Deco and postmodernist structures. Even in the renaissance of interest in the Puritans that has been taking place in the past fifty years, both in regard to academic scholarship and to popular literature, it seems that the Baptists have been forgotten. Nearly all of the Puritan figures who are being studied or read are either Presbyterians or Congregationalists. With the exception of the celebrated John Bunyan (1628–1688) and to a lesser degree, Hanserd Knollys (1599–1691), William Kiffin (1616–1701) and Benjamin Keach (1640–1704), the Baptists of the seventeenth century have been largely forgotten. Thankfully this is changing, however, as Baptist scholars are rediscovering their forebears. And among these forebears is the subject of this post, Abraham Cheare (1626–1668).

Why should an early twenty-first-century Christian take the time to learn about Abraham Cheare and read his writings? Well, first of all, suffering for religious beliefs, as he did for eight years till it killed him, is not foreign to the modern world. Around the world, there are numerous contexts where religious toleration is all but non-existent and men and woman have to count the cost if they wish to be public about their convictions. And increasingly in the west an intolerant cultural elite are targeting the Church and seeking to muzzle Christian witness. Here then, Cheare can help us enormously, for Cheare was a Puritan and after 1660, when the Anglican state church sought to extirpate Puritanism, Cheare and many others knew first-hand what it was to suffer for Christ’s sake. His example and writings in this regard are tremendously helpful for Christians undergoing the same today.

Then, Cheare, above all things, sought to be guided by the Scriptures, not simply when it came to church polity but in all of his life. His life and writings exemplify what “being biblical” looks like. In this regard, then, he is a quintessential Puritan, for Puritanism was above all things a movement that sought to be Word-centered. Modern-day Christians would not cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’ the way Cheare does; but his passion to be found living in accord with the Scriptures is certainly worthy of imitation.

And simply reading the past for its own sake is important, for there we see God at work. To quote Richard Baxter, the Puritan contemporary of Cheare: “[T]he writing of church-history is the duty of all ages, because God’s works are to be known, as well as his Word… He that knoweth not what state the church and world is in, and hath been in, in former ages, and what God hath been doing in the world, and how error and sin have been resisting him, and with what success, doth want much to the completing of his knowledge.”[1]

[1] The Life of Faith in The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, ed. William Orme (London: James Duncan, 1830), 12:364.

___________________

Michael A.G. Haykin is the director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. He also serves as Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Haykin and his wife Alison have two grown children, Victoria and Nigel.

Prayer: Common Ground for Origen of Alexandria and Fuller of Kettering

June 18, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin W. Benge

Throughout church history men have written treatises on the subject of prayer using the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9–13) as a framework to shape their pastoral instruction. Perhaps no connection could be made between early church father, Origen of Alexandria (184/185–253/254) and Andrew Fuller (1754–1815), except they both gave insightful expositions on the Lord’s Prayer.

Origen’s treatise on prayer (De Oratione) reads more as a practical pastoral handbook than a major theological treatise. Origen gave a beautiful interpretation of the opening address of the Lord’s Prayer, “Our Father, who art in heaven.” Origen believed a Christian could not proceed with the following petitions and requests contained within the Lord’s Prayer until this opening phrase is rightly understood. Origen pointed out that the Old Testament does not know the name “Father” as an alternative for God, in the Christian sense of a steady and changeless adoption.^{^[1]} Only those who have received the spirit of adoption can recite the prayer rightly. Therefore, the entire life of a believer should consist in lifting up prayers that contain, “Our Father who art in heaven,” because the conduct of every believer should be heavenly, not worldly. Origen explained:

Let us not suppose that the Scriptures teach us to say “Our Father” at any appointed time of prayer. Rather, if we understand the earlier discussion of praying “constantly” (1 Thess 5:17), let our whole life be a constant prayer in which we say “Our Father in heaven” and let us keep our commonwealth (Phil 3:20) not in any way on earth, but in every way in heaven, the throne of God, because the kingdom of God is established in all those who bear the image of Man from heaven (1 Cor 15:49) and have thus become heavenly.^{^[2]}

Like Origen, Fuller began his exegesis of the Lord’s Prayer by establishing that prayer must be dependent upon the character of the one to whom we are allowed to draw near, namely, “Our Father.” The recognition of God as “Our Father” implies that sinners have become “adopted alien[s] put among the children.”^{^[3]} Those adopted into God’s family can therefore rightly approach God as their Father but it must, as Fuller clarifies, be through a Mediator. Fully consistent with the Messianic age, Christ set himself within the context of the prayer as the One through which the Christian must come if he or she is to approach God as “Father.” Fuller states, “The encouragement contained in this tender appellation is inexpressible. The love, the care, the pity, which it comprehends, and the filial confidence which it inspires, must, if we are not wanting to ourselves, render prayer as a most blessed exercise.”^{^[4]}

Origen and Fuller arrive at the same conclusion. They both see the phrase, “Our Father,” as the affirmation within the Lord’s Prayer that anchors the proceeding requests and brings great confidence within the one praying. Understanding God as “our Father” is the gift that causes the joy of prayer to be realized.

^{^[1]} On Prayer (De Oratione) (Coptic Orthodox Church Network).

^{^[2]} Origen, “On Prayer,” 125.

^{^[3]} The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 1:578.

^{^[4]} The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 1:578.

________________________

Dustin W. Benge (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as Associate Pastor and Pastor for Family Ministries at Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile, AL. Dustin is a junior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center and lives with his wife, Molli, in Mobile.

The First Abolitionist: Gregory of Nyssa on Slavery

June 18, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin Bruce

Though it rubs against our modern sensibilities, Christians in the ancient world generally accepted slavery as a normal, albeit unfortunate, aspect of human reality. One expert has summarized, “In antiquity, only the rare Christian perceived the gospel to be incompatible with the institution of slavery.”[1] Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 330–395), the youngest of the Cappadocian Fathers, was just such a rare Christian.

Gregory, in what is considered “the most scathing critique of slaveholding in all of antiquity,” attacked the institution as incompatible with humanity’s creation in the image of God.[2] Gregory’s remarkable diatribe against the practice of slavery may be found in his fourth homily on Ecclesiastes, specifically addressing 2:7, “I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem” (ESV).

Of all the Preacher’s boasting, this statement stands as the worst affront to Gregory and in his mind, God.[3] He asks, “Do any of the things listed here…suggest as much arrogance as the man’s idea that he as a man can be master over his fellows?”[4] Such a declaration of slaveholding reveals the “vast extent of his boastfulness.”[5] Gregory states sharply, “Such a voice as his is raised in open defiance against God.”[6]

For Gregory, slavery violates the characteristics of man as created in the image of God. The following portions are a mere sampling of his powerful argument:

‘I acquired slaves and slave girls.’ What is that you say? You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and in doing so you lay down a law in opposition to God, overturning the natural law established by him. For you subject to the yoke of slavery one who was created precisely to be a master of the earth, and who was ordained to rule by the creator, as if you were deliberately attacking and fighting against the divine command.[7]

What price did you put on reason? How many obols did you pay as a fair price for the image of God? For how many staters have you sold the nature specially formed by God? ‘God said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness.”’[8]

Gregory of Nyssa holds a unique place among the Fathers as the singular opponent of the existence of slavery in any form. With comments reminiscent of a William Wilberforce speech or a Frederick Douglass discourse, Gregory sharply denounces the practice of enslaving a person who bears the image of God as immoral and contrary to God’s intentions for humanity. Not only is Gregory’s condemnation of slavery unique, it is also instructive. With millions of modern day slaves, all bearing the image of God, existing in a state of tortuous bondage throughout the globe, may all God’s people be as bold as Gregory in asking, “who can buy a man, who can sell him, when he is made in the likeness of God.”[9]

[1]Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery as Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 78.

[2]Glancy, Slavery as Moral Problem, 97.

[3]It is interesting to note that Gregory understands the Preacher to be offering a public confession for his sins in this portion of Ecclesiastes. Daniel F. Stramara Jr., “Gregory of Nyssa: An Ardent Abolitionist,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 41, no. 1 (1997): 43.

[4]Translation taken from Trevor Dennis, “Man Beyond Price: Gregory of Nyssa and Slavery,” in Heaven and Earth : Essex Essays in Theology and Ethics (Worthington, West Sussex: Churchman, 1986), 130. Also, an English translation may be found in Stuart George Hall and Rachel Moriarty, eds., Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 74–75.

[5]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 135.

[6]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 135.

[7]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 135.

[8]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 136.

[9]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 136.

___________________

Evangelical Preaching: “The End Dominates the Action”

June 12, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

In his “Concluding Reflections” of The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, Andrew Fuller wrote “On the Duty of Ministers in Dealing with the Unconverted.” In his arguments, he warned against engaging in ministry without preaching the gospel as the “leading theme of our ministrations.”[1] Fuller also warned against preaching the gospel and promising only blessings of religion “to the neglect of exhortations, calls, and warnings.”[2] He argued that both Jesus and the Apostles implored sinners to repent, believe, and be reconciled to God. Arguing against those hyper-Calvinists who said that such indiscriminate gospel calls are cruel to the non-elect, Fuller said that it is not cruel because such people have no desire for God in their hearts. They choose according the prevailing disposition of their hearts, which is always darkness.

After this, he concluded his plea for evangelical gospel preaching by contending for the use of the law to wound the conscience in order that the gospel might heal it. He had no toleration for soft preaching that entertained and made false promises of blessings with no call for repentance and submission to Christ’s lordship. The gospel call demands compliance. He said:

…enforcing the duties of religion, either on sinners or saints, is by some called preaching the law. If it were so, it is enough for us that such was the preaching of Christ and his apostles. It is folly and presumption to affect to be more evangelical than they were. All practical preaching, however, is not preaching the law. That only, I apprehend, ought to be censured as preaching the law, in which our acceptance with God is, in some way or other, placed to the account of our obedience to its precepts. When eternal life is represented as the reward of repentance, faith, and sincere obedience, (as it too frequently is, and that under the complaisant form of being “through the merits of Christ,”) this is preaching the law, and not the gospel. But the precepts of the law may be illustrated and enforced for evangelical purposes; as tending to vindicate the Divine character and government; to convince of sin; to show the necessity of a Saviour, with the freeness of salvation; to ascertain the nature of true religion; and to point out the rule of Christian conduct. …

If the foregoing principles be just, it is the duty of ministers not only to exhort their carnal auditors to believe in Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls; but it is at our peril to exhort them to any thing short of it, or which does not involve or imply it… We have sunk into such a compromising way of dealing with the unconverted as to have well nigh lost the spirit of the primitive preachers; and hence it is that sinners of every description can sit so quietly as they do, year after year, in our places of worship. It was not so with the hearers of Peter and Paul. They were either “pricked in the heart” in one way, or “cut to the heart” in another. Their preaching commended itself to “every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” How shall we account for this difference? Is there not some important error or defect in our ministrations? … I conceive there is scarcely a minister amongst us whose preaching has not been more or less influenced by the lethargic systems of the age.^{^[3]}

____________________________________

[1] The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 2: Controversial Publications, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 386.

[2]Works, II, 386.

^{^[3]}Works, II, 386–387.

____________________

John Gill on a Husband’s Love for his Wife

June 10, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

John Gill, the illustrious 18^th century Baptist pastor and theologian, suggests that while love should be mutual between spouses, the Scriptures exhort husbands to it more frequently because they “are most wanting in the performance of it” (IV.1). His point may be debatable, but even so, his tutelage in how to love one’s wife more is worth hearing.

Basing his thoughts on Ephesians 5, Gill concisely lists four reasons why a husband should improve his love for his wife. 1) She is his own flesh. Neglecting one’s own body is unnatural and strange—it will not benefit a man in any way. 2) A man receives enormous profit from a wife. She offers support and companionship in his affairs, rejoices and weeps with him, and therefore a man should be grateful. 3) The wife is the glory of her husband. She is his crown and her conduct, devotion, and chastity makes him respectable among others. 4) Most importantly, a man should imitate Christ’s love for his church in how he loves his own wife. His love for her is a testimony to the beauty of the gospel.

With the reasons established, Gill turns to the manner in which husbands should love their wives (also neatly organized in four points). 1) He should provide for her temporal good, “signified by nourishing and cherishing her” (IV.1). The husband loves his wife through his provision of food, shelter, clothes, etc., suitable to his circumstances and abilities. If he neglects this duty, he is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim. 5.3). 2) He should protect his wife “from all abuses and injuries: as she is the weaker vessel,” and if necessary, “risk his life in her defence” (IV.1).

While the first two ways to love one’s wife seem natural to most men, the next two may require more attentiveness and strategy. 3) Gill urges men to do “every thing that may contribute to her pleasure, peace, comfort, and happiness” (IV.1). When Paul tells the Corinthians, “he who is married must care how he may please his wife,” he is not blaming men for it but rather commending them (1 Cor. 7.33). A husband makes his wife feel comfortable when he hides her failings and covers her weaknesses in love. 4) He must lead his wife in her spiritual welfare. A man loves his wife “by joining with her in all religious exercises, in family worship, in reading, in prayer, in praise, in Christian conference and conversation” (IV.1). The husband is responsible for teaching his wife and answering her questions without misleading or belittling her.

Gill’s instructions will not transform you into the chimerical Hollywood chick-flick ladies man with quick wit, contagious humor, and an Adonis body. But this notion of romance, if attained, will eventually sag in correlation with our aging bodies. If, however, a man patterns his love after Christ rather than culture, he will have an enduring and gratifying marriage.

Gill, John. A Body of Practical Divinity; or A System of Practical Truths. 1839. Reprint, Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1984.

__________________

Ryan Patrick Hoselton is pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are expecting their first child in August.

A Mirror for the Soul

May 22, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin W. Benge

The revival of interest in Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) in recent years has brought his Resolutions to a new generation of readers. The Edwards Resolutions have been printed on tee-shirts, been the subject of ministry conferences, and have been read by many preachers desiring somehow to emulate the life and ministry of their author. However, Edwards was not the only preacher of the 18th century to have a list of maxims against which he regularly measured his life and heart. In fact, such lists for personal self-examination were common practice among ministers and other Christians.

Like Edwards, fellow 18th century revivalist and preacher, George Whitefield (1714–1750) also composed a list of criteria, which he used each night as a basis of judging himself on his actions during the day. Whitefield’s smaller list^{^[1]} (to be compared with the 70 Resolutions of Edwards) seems to be much more manageable for the contemporary Christian to use as a mirror into their own soul.

The list is,

Have I,

Been fervent in private prayer?

Used stated hours of prayer?

Used prayer every hour?

After or before every deliberate conversation or action, considered how it might tend to God’s glory?

After any pleasure, immediately given thanks?

Planned business for the day?

Been simple and recollected in everything?

Been zealous in undertaking and active in doing what good I could?

Been meek, cheerful, affable in everything I said or did?

Been proud, vain, unchaste, or enviable of others?

Recollected in eating and drinking? Thankful? Temperate in sleep?

Taken time for giving thanks according to Law’s rules? (William Law)^{^[2]}

Been diligent in studies?

Thought or spoken unkindly of anyone?

Confessed all sins?

^{^[1]} Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield: The Life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the 18th Century Revival, Vol. 1, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 80.

^{^[2]} To read the list of William Law, visit: http://img.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic_pdf.php?topic_id=12062&forum=34

________________________

Learn Your Religion from the Bible

May 16, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

In a sermon entitled, “On an Intimate and Practical Acquaintance with the Word of God,” Andrew Fuller meditated deeply on the piety exemplified in Ezra 7:10—“Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.” Fuller made four outstanding observations about Ezra’s character, which Fuller strongly commended for Christian imitation. Here is what he gleaned so exquisitely from one verse:

SEEK THE LAW, or will, of God
1. Seek it.
2. Seek it at the fountain-head.
3. Seek the will of God in every part of the Bible.
4. Seek it perseveringly.
PREPARE YOUR HEART to seek the law of the Lord
KEEP THE LAW.
1. Dread nothing more than recommending that to your people to which you do not attend yourself.
2. More is expected from you than from others.
3. You will attend to practical preaching.
4. Attend not only to such duties as fall under the eye of man, but walk with God—in your family, and in your closet.
TEACH in Israel the statutes and judgments of God.
1. Let Christ and his apostles be your examples.
2. Give every part of the truth its due proportion.
3. Dare to teach unwelcome truths.
4. Give Scriptural proof of what you teach.
5. Consider yourself as standing engaged to teach all that hear you—rich and poor, young and old, godly and ungodly.
6. Teach privately as well as publicly.[1]

One of the most perceptive and potent points Fuller argued from this verse was the preeminence of seeking the will of God in the Bible alone. Under the first point, Fuller contended:

Seek it at the fountain-head.—You feel, I doubt not, a great esteem for many of your brethren now living, and admire the writings of some who are now no more; and you will read their productions with attention and pleasure. But whatever excellence your brethren possess, it is all borrowed; and it is mingled with error. Learn your religion from the Bible. Let that be your decisive rule. Adopt not a body of sentiments, or even a single sentiment, solely on the authority of any man—however great, however respected. Dare to think for yourself. Human compositions are fallible. But the Scriptures were written by men who wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Human writings on religion resemble preaching—they are useful only so far as they illustrate the Scriptures, and induce us to search them for ourselves.^{^[2]}

[1]Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 1: Memoirs, Sermons, Etc., ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 483-486.

^{^[2]}The Complete Works, 1: 483.

____________________

Augustine of Hippo’s Theology of Moral Reasoning

May 14, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

Christians today have two options: hiding under a rock, or confronting complicated and disturbing moral issues. The past month alone has witnessed an ethical Blitzkrieg on Christian values. From the Gosnell trials to the Marathon Bombing, with two more states on the verge of legalizing homosexual marriage and insecure international relations, believers are overwhelmed with moral conundrums. Thankfully, there are resources from the past that help Christians think through the moral dilemmas of today—nothing is new under the sun. Augustine’s work, The City of God, is an excellent example of such a resource, and while it may not comprehensively address every nuance of our modern ethical crises, it’s a good place to establish a moral framework for working in that direction.

In this work, Augustine (354-430) depicts two realms: the earthly city and the heavenly city. The earthly city is transient and corrupt, and the heavenly city is eternal and glorious. In Book XIX, Augustine explains what differentiates the citizens of these cities: one worships and serves God, and the other serves the self. The worship of God establishes true virtue while self-worship leads to immorality. He expounds this point:

Now in serving God the soul rightly commands the body, and in the soul itself the reason which is subject to its Lord God rightly commands the lusts and the other perverted elements. That being so, when a man does not serve God, what amount of justice are we to suppose to exist in his being? For if a soul does not serve God it cannot with any kind of justice command the body, nor can a man’s reason control the vicious elements in the soul. (XIX.21)

If God is not the master of our actions, then our conduct will serve evil. Service to God subjects the mind, will, and actions to righteousness rather than corruption.

The worship of God grounds not only justice but also true happiness and wisdom. When the saints inhabit the heavenly city, they experience supreme joy because they no longer serve other things. The “present reality without” the future hope of being righteous in God is “a false happiness, in fact, an utter misery” (XIX.20). The things humans serve in the earthly city will not only tend to evil but also to profound disappointment. True wisdom must direct “its just dealings with others” towards “that ultimate state in which God will be all in all, in the assurance of eternity and the perfection of peace” (XIX.20). If believers want to act morally wise in the present age, they must pattern their conduct on the heavenly city rather than the earthly city.

Make no mistake, Augustine warns, for many will exploit the virtues to serve selfish ends rather than serving God. Non-Christians and Christians alike can fall into this insidious trap. Augustine explains, “if the soul and reason do not serve God as God himself has commanded that he should be served, then they do not in any way exercise the right kind of rule over the body and the vicious propensities” (XIX.25). Thus, it is essential for believers to constantly study and cherish God’s commands if they hope to gain moral discernment.

In sum, the foundation of virtue is the worship and love of God. Moral reasoning that is not subject to the service of God is vulnerable to serve all kinds of evils, for “it is not something that comes from man, but something above man, that makes his life blessed” (XIX.25). Augustine grounded his confrontation with the moral issues of his day in this framework, and believers today would do well to imitate him.

St. Augustine. The City of God. Trans. Henry Bettenson. New York: Penguin Books, 1972, 1984.

__________________

Ryan Patrick Hoselton is pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are expecting their first child in August.

Andrew Fuller’s final sermon—vintage Fuller

May 7, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Michael A. G. Haykin

Andrew Fuller passed into the presence of the Lord he had served faithfully for most of his life 198 years ago today. In the months prior to his death he had been preaching through 1 Corinthians and had reached the middle of the fourth chapter before his death. His last sermon, though, was on Isaiah 66:2, preached on April 2, 1815. John Jenkinson (1799–1876), sixteen years old at the time and one of Fuller’s regular hearers—he would later pastor another Baptist work in Kettering, the scene of Fuller’s ministry since 1782—many years later recalled Fuller’s “unequalled expository labours,” as he put it, and heard that final sermon.

He noted that Fuller’s main points were three in number (very Baptist-like!):

“God’s approval of poverty of spirit, or genuine humility: of contrition of spirit, or true repentance: of tenderness of spirit, or a godly shrinking from sin and temptation.”

(In R.L. Greenall, ed., The Autobiography of the Rev. John Jenkinson, Baptist Minister of Kettering and Oakham [Victor Hatley Memorial Series, vol.3; Northampton, Northamptonshire: Northamptonshire Record Society, 2010], 22–23).

These points are vintage Fuller—and a key reason why we remember his life and witness with thanksgiving to the God who enabled him to do all that he did.

_______________

Zwingli Against the Zwinglians?

May 7, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Ian Hugh Clary

Zwinglianism is the view that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are only a memorial and that Christ is in no sense present—what some have called the “real absence” view, or the memorialist view. The Eucharist was a hotly debated topic during the Reformation that resulted in deep lines drawn between the Reformed, particularly the Swiss, and the Lutherans. Luther could barely bring himself to say that Zwingli was a brother in the Lord because the Zurich theologian refused to believe in consubstantiation. It is often noted that Calvin sought to steer a middle course between the Lutheran and Zwinglian forms by offering a “spiritual presence” view, where the Spirit draws the believer by faith into true communion with Christ in the elements. The so-called memorial view had a continuing influence in subsequent Reformed theology, and even more so in broader evangelicalism. But was Zwingli a Zwinglian?

W. P. Stephens, in his Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought (Oxford, 2001) puts Zwingli in perspective. The heat of Zwingli’s debate with Luther centred on the words of Christ who said of the bread, “This is my body.” For Zwingli, the word “is” should be understood as “signifies.” For Luther this was anathema. At the Marburg Colloquy (1529), though some headway towards agreement was made, the two Reformers could not agree on this point. However, this did not entail that Zwingli denied any presence of Christ in the supper. After the colloquy, Zwingli expressed his belief in the “real presence” of Christ. Stephens, pointing to Zwingli’s works like An Account of the Faith (1530) and The Letter to the Princes of Germany (1530), says, “Zwingli made it clear that the bread was not mere bread, and he began to affirm terms such as presence, true, and sacramental” (105). In the appendix to his An Exposition of the Faith (1531) Zwingli said, “We believe Christ to be truly present in the Supper, indeed we do not believe that it is the Lord’s Supper unless Christ is present” (Stephens, 105). This change in emphasis came with a greater stress on the bread and the wine, both of which were “divine and sacred” (Stephens, 107).

Stephens does an excellent job tracing out Zwingli’s overall Eucharistic theology. After establishing that Zwingli was not really a “Zwinglian,” as the term has become known, he also makes the important point that Zwingli was consistent in his theology from his early to his later years. While his earlier views were nascent, his later views did not contradict them. In 1523 Zwingli spoke of the soul being fed in the supper. Admittedly he emphasised the “symbolic” understanding of the elements after 1524, yet he held this view when he spoke of feeding on Christ. Stephens summarizes Zwingli’s overall thought saying, “The more positive notes in the later Zwingli do not indicate a real shift in his position, rather a difference of emphasis” (Stephens, 109). The concern for Zwingli, as for other Reformers at this time, was the place of faith in the communicant—he guarded against any gracious effect for the unbeliever who partakes. In this, he appealed to the early Luther who emphasized the need for faith. While issues of Christology and philosophy play into their differences, Zwingli was not as far from Luther as the German Reformer thought. Though he they did not share full agreement, Zwingli was much closer to Calvin, whose view Luther was not so scathingly against.

So, in a sense, Zwingli was against the Zwinglians.

_____________________

A Missionary Vision of the Glory of God

May 7, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin W. Benge

David Brainerd (1718–1747) yearned for the salvation of Native Americans scattered along the colonial trails of America and farther west. From 1742 to 1747 he toiled among tribes in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Initially he saw little to encourage him and seriously considered abandoning his labors among them altogether. But in time the situation reversed itself, and scores of Native Americans came to know Christ. Brainerd’s poor health, however, eventually forced him to abandon his missionary efforts, and at age twenty-nine he died.

Brainerd spent his last days in the home of his celebrated friend, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). Before his death, Brainerd consented to leave his diary with Edwards for publication. That volume has had an untold impact on the lives of others because it reveals Brainerd’s devotion, earnestness, sincerity, and self-denying spirit.

Missionaries such as Henry Martyn (1781–1812), William Carey (1761–1834), and Jim Elliot (1927–1956) have spoken of the great inspiration they received from reading Brainerd’s diary. These are some of the last entries Brainerd made:

This day, I saw clearly that I should never be happy, yea, that God Himself could not make me happy, unless I could be in a capacity to “please and glorify Him forever.” Take away this and admit me into all the fine havens that can be conceived of by men or angels, and I should still be miserable forever. . . . Oh, to love and praise God more, to please Him forever! This my soul panted after and even now pants for while I write. Oh, that God might be glorified in the whole earth! . . . Was still in a sweet and comfortable frame; and was again melted with desires that God might be glorified, and with longings to love and live to Him. . . . And oh, I longed to be with God, to behold His glory and to bow in His presence!

It is clear that Brainerd’s desire was to magnify God’s glory before the world. He also looked forward to his earthly departure because he longed to see the glory of God in heaven. What exactly does the phrase "the glory of God" refer? It is the sum of who God is—the sum of his attributes and divine nature. Throughout history, God has endeavored to show all men and women His glory.

________________________

Unfolding the Word of God

May 2, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

Andrew Fuller loved to stare long and hard at Scripture in deep meditation and study. His pastoral methods were marked by providing good food for his flock and by protecting them from contaminated food. Fuller despised false doctrine, and he was quick to engage those who promoted such error. One way he protected his flock from confusion and uncertainty was by expounding difficult and seemingly contradictory passages in Scripture. In a large section in the first volume of his Works called “Passages Apparently Contradictory,” Fuller would take a couple of verses with ostensible contradictions and clarify their coherence having considered each of their historical, literary, and theological contexts. As he did this for his people, he modeled how ministers today can help their flocks have more confidence in the Word of God and more certainty in its inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency. The Serpent loves to ask, “did God really say….?” If we, like Fuller, would not rest till we had a satisfactory understanding of how the hard texts fit together, those entrusted to our care would have their eyes opened to wonderful things in God’s law. “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple” (Ps 119:130). The first two conflicting texts in his “Passages Apparently Contradictory” are:

“And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”—John 5:40.

“No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him…. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me”

“Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not: and he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”—John 6:44, 45, 64, 65.

The following points demonstrate Fuller’s durable cogitation of difficult texts and how he could plainly harmonize without being too complex or too simplistic:

First, There is no way of obtaining eternal life but by Jesus Christ…. Secondly, They that enjoy eternal life must come to Christ for it…. Thirdly, It is the revealed will of Christ that everyone who hears the gospel should come to him for life…. Fourthly, The depravity of human nature is such that no man, of his own accord, will come to Christ for life…. Fifthly, The degree of this depravity is such as that, figuratively speaking, men cannot come to Christ for life…. Sixthly, A conviction of the righteousness of God’s government, of the spirituality and goodness of his law, the evil of sin, our lost condition by nature, and the justice of our condemnation, is necessary in order to our coming to Christ…. Lastly, There is absolute necessity of a special Divine agency in order to our coming to Christ…. Upon the whole, we see from these passages taken together, first, if any man is lost, whom he has to blame for it—himself; secondly, if any man is saved, whom he has to praise for it—God.^{^[1]}

^{^[1]}Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 1: Memoirs, Sermons, Etc., ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 667-69.

____________________

Blog

By Ian Hugh Clary

By Evan D. Burns

By Dustin Bruce

By Evan D. Burns

By Steve Weaver

By Dustin Bruce

By Evan D. Burns

By Nathan A. Finn

By Michael A.G. Haykin

By Dustin W. Benge

By Dustin Bruce

By Evan D. Burns

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

By Dustin W. Benge

By Evan D. Burns

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

By Michael A. G. Haykin

By Ian Hugh Clary

By Dustin W. Benge

By Evan D. Burns