In this section (p27-29) Charnock's main point is that we do not have to only rely upon Scripture to prove the existence of God. In fact God has revealed himself in the creation as well as in the Scriptures. (This is what theologians refer to general revelation and special revelation) Charnock gives two proofs of this thought:

1. Charnock first wants us to understand that God's revelation is "an [object] of our faith, and an [object] of our reason". It appears that we can "discover" God's nature through the Scriptures and his existence through creation/reason. What Charnock wants us to understand though is that faith (which is necessary for salvation) cannot come through mere reason. Because it "purely [depends] upon reason". Hebrews 11:6 shows the necessity of faith, but Charnock wants us to realize that the "faith" that is spoken of is not the mere existence of God but "what God is in relation to them that seek him, a rewarder". Speaking of that faith which is necessary to please God we read, "He that seeks to God according to the mind of God, must believe that he is such a God that will pardon sin, and justify a seeker of him; that he is a God of that ability and will, to justify a sinner in that way he hat appointed for the clearing the holiness of his nature, and vindicating the honor of his law violated by man. No man can seek God or love God, unless he believe Him to be thus; and he cannot seek God without a discovery of his own mind how he would be sought." If we are to have the type of faith that please God then it must be the type of faith that can only come from God. It is therefore necessary that man must not only know that God exists but also something of His character (that He is a rewarder). No one admires anything simply because it exists, "the bare existence of a thing is not the ground of affection to it". I do not love my wife simply because she exists, I love her because I know her--and so it must be if we are to have the type of faith that please God. However, Scripture does declare that because of Him revealing Himself men can "know" Him--but they do not care for knowing Him. "The notices of God are as intelligible to us by reason, as any object in the world is visible; he is written in every letter".

   Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding what Charnock is saying in this point, but to me it appears that he does not necessarily prove it. I understand from this section what Charnock is saying about the necessity of special revelation for faith. And I agree with his final statement that the "notices of God" are clear to us by reason and the existence of God is written throughout all of creation. What I do not understand is how everything prior to that sentence went to proving it. It appears to me that Charnock merely puts this truth in at the end of the paragraph and does not adequately show his point. But I would venture to say that it is I who am mistaken more so than Charnock.

2. His second point is that often in Scriptures we are told to look at the creatures to understand God. He points out that truth that when Paul is speaking to Bible-believing Jews in Romans 1:9 he points to creation just as he does when he is speaking to biblically ignorant pagans in Acts 16, 17. Even God Himself does this when talking to Job. When we look at God's answer to Job in 38-40 we do not see him showing any miracle or displaying his power any other way than pointing Job to nature. Charnock then makes the point, "but what miracles could rationally be supposed to work upon an atheist, who is not drawn to a sense of the truth proclaimed aloud by so many wonders of the creation?" This sounds to me very similar to what Jesus said concerning the unbelieving Jews--"If they do not believe Moses then they will not believe even someone raises from the dead." God has revealed Himself in Creation and in Scripture and if we reject these two things what more will be offered. Therefore, this is a display of the atheist folly.

Next time we will look further into this. Charnock will show us the folly of atheism based upon the universal consent of a Creator. Today, we must ask ourselves how to apply what we have learned. First of all we should thank God for his mighty work in saving us and leaving us not to mere general revelation but gave us further grace by giving us special revelation. Secondly, we should ask ourselves "what more do we want from God"? I know often in our discontent we pray for God to reveal Himself more, we figure that if he would show us this or that then we would be more apt to worship. The truth of the matter is that we have creation, creatures, and the His Word. If that is not sufficient then even if God appeared in human form, slapped us in the face and told us what we wanted to hear, we would still be asking questions and denying that it was God who slapped us. Therefore, let us focus on and rejoice in the revelation that God has given us. Be passionate about the Word and open up your eyes and look for how God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures.

I am not sure that I will be posting the sermon from last night. I might in the future whenever I am able to work out a few of the kinks. To be honest after I went home I felt really sour about the sermon. I was afraid that I communicated the wrong thing. My hope in asking, "Does God have enemies" was to cause us to think about what it was like when we were God's enemy or for those who do not know Him to realize they are in a dangerous spot. I hope that was conveyed and perhaps it was--but I went home thinking I could have communicated that truth more effectively. I understand that one of the things that I said might be confusing but I still stick beside it. I really do believe that the Word of God reveals that God not only hates sin (as an outward expression) but also the sinner (an inward condition), but on top of this we can also say at the same time that God loves the sinner. I do not understand all of the complexities of God.
If you are curious as to my stance here are a few other places you can look:

Does God Hate Anyone?--CARM
Does God Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin?--John H. Gerstner (Excellent)
If you are absolutely distraught on this I would suggest buying and reading D.A. Carson's excellent work: The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God

Another one of the reasons I felt uneasy has to deal with a website I visited the day before preaching this sermon. I stumbled upon the site of Westboro Baptist Church of whom maybe you have heard about on the news. These are the "Christians" who picket funerals and hold up signs such as "God hates fags" and "Thank God for (insert present disaster here)". The site made me weep because they are proclaiming a half truth. They too believe that God hates the sinner...but where they falter is that they hate the sinner. Not realizing that they are incapable of the righteous and holy anger of God. They are ungentle and unloving and feel that they are being biblical in doing so. Therefore, I had a fear that what I was preaching could potentially convey that. We should take the path that Jesus Christ took and love our enemies. We should love sinners. John Piper wrote an excellent article that I think you should view: Do I Not Hate Those who Hate You?

Also there has been a request for the full text of Jonathan Edwards' sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, just click on the link and you will find it.