Today we will be looking at Charnock's second point of evidence (p33-35) concerning the folly of the atheist rejecting that which all nations, in all places and ages have adhered to. Last time we saw that this has been a universal consent. Today we will see that it is constant and uninterrupted. By this Charnock means that there has never been a time since the beginning of the world where a belief in God has not been universally known. To this end Charnock gives three evidences:

1. In all the changes of the world a belief in the existence of God has been maintained. Even when empires have been overturned their gods might have changed but the belief in a god or gods has not. Even when the notion of a multiplicity of gods was rejected the notion of one true God grew stronger. As Charnock says, "the being of one God was more vigorously owned when the unreasonableness of multiplicity of gods was manifest; and grew taller by the detection of counterfeits." It is an absurdity to think that such an imposture could have "walked perpetually in the world without being discovered, and whipped out by some nation or other."
2. Men by nature desire to not have a god--it is not for lack of desire or trying that men have not been able to stamp out this nation. By its very persistence it proves its existence. Or as Charnock said, "The fears and anxieties in the consciences of men have given men sufficient occasion to root it out, had it been possible for them to do it." Since no man in his natural state desires to be controlled by someone or something he naturally tries to reject a god who is in control of him. Charnock gives the evidence of Adam and notes that we too follow after our father. But, "since men under the turmoils and lashes of their own consciences could never bring their hearts to a settled dissent from this truth, it evidenceth, that as it took its birth at the beginning of the world, it cannot expire, no not in the ashes of it, nor in anything but the reduction of the soul to that nothing from whence it sprung". Charnock is simply stating here that this is such a fixed truth that as long as the soul endures (which will be eternal) so will the conception of a belief in the existence of a god.
3. The devil deems it impossible to root out the notion of an existence of god. If you go back to the narrative of the Fall we see that the devil did not try to convince Adam and Eve that God did not exist but rather distorted Him and tried to convince them that they too were gods. The reason? "He knew it impossible to effect it, and therefore in vain to attempt it". Certainly, the Deceiver set himself up in many places as a god but was never able to throw out the notion altogether. To which Charnock comments, "The impressions of a Deity were so strong as not to be struck out by the malice and power of hell".

Here Charnock gives 3 rather decent arguments. They certainly are not the "nail in the coffin" but alongside all other evidences prove formidable. I especially like 1 & 2 put together. If we take it as truth that men would rather deny a god than adhere to one then it shows that men would have been giving much effort to putting out this notion. They would have put much effort into whipping out this imposture--however, because of the continued belief in the existence of God it shows they have not been able. However, this argument is not airtight. Some might argue that it is within man (as an evolutionary tendency) to keep the existence of a god. Therefore, it would bring down Charnock's argument.

The last argument must be established upon the authority of Scripture. For those of us who adhere to the infallible Word of God we stand behind Charnock. It is a great point that Satan, rather than trying to blot out his existence, has masqueraded as a god instead. Put together these 3 arguments serve as sufficeint evidence to show that throughout history the existence of a god has been accepted.

I am back from the Missouri Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. It was an eventful 3 days yet also a little boring. I have taken 3 things from this convention. 1) I felt that there was a great deal of pride at the convention (not the least of which was my own). The Lord convicted me deeply of a desire to make my name great. On Tuesday night I skipped out on the programs and got alone with the Lord. I went back over the gospel and had to be reminded that I was created by God and created for His glory and His glory alone. I know that He will not share His glory with another. I was deeply convicted yet mightily encouraged. I have a new resolve to preach the gospel boldly and a desire to fight pride in my life via the power of the Cross. May God be gracious and give me clarity and passion in driving the vice of pride out of my life. 2) I need to go to seminary. I am not sure when, but I realize that I must go deeper and I cannot do that on my own. I need a further education. I am praying that the Lord might show me His timing--and that I might not pursue that any sooner than I am supposed to nor any later. 3) There is a sharp division in our Missouri Baptist Convention. The younger generation seems to be a very large contrast to the older generation. I fear that because of our hubris ("our" being the younger generation) we will not be heard, and when we are it will be self-honoring and not Christ-honoring. Brothers, we must bow humbly before the Cross. We must realize that God is more concerned with our convention, with being honored, with spreading His name than we are. Therefore, we should boldly stand for the truth yet not create factions and not refuse to love our brothers in Christ. I am humbled by the depth of some of the leaders in my generation. I am thankful to God for them. Hopefully, the MBC stance on alcohol will not be displeasing to God. I say that because by passing a resolution that would not allow Paul, Timothy, or Jesus Himself to be a trustee--i think we have went too far. But enough on that. I am back and happy to be back...now i must draw deeper from the wells of grace and preach the gospel boldly.

On Monday at noon until Wednesday at 4:00-ish I will be attending the Missouri Baptist Convention annual meeting held at Tan-Tar-A. Therefore, the post to the website might be a little slow. However, keep checking back. If I have internet access and find the time then I will try to still make posts. But if not I look forward to seeing all of our students on Wednesday night--do not forget to be a super hero or villan.

In this section (p29-42) Charnock's intent will be clear to show that it is a "folly to deny or doubt of that which hath been the acknowledged sentiment of all nations, in all places and ages. There is no nation but hath owned some kind of religion, and, therefore, no nation but hath consented in the notion of a Supreme Creator and Governor." In other words if you look at the history of mankind you can see that they have always had a consent to a "higher power", therefore, rather than disproving that their is a one true God this serves to prove it. He will do this by showing three things 1. This has been universal. 2. It has been constant and uninterrupted. 3. It is natural and innate. Today we will look at the first (p30-33). Charnock gives 4 points to prove that a belief in God has been universal.

1. No nation has been exempt from a belief in God. I really want to disagree with Charnock here. Especially when he makes such bold statements as, "No instance can be given of any one people in the world that disclaimed it". Or even further, "One died for asserting one God; none, in the former ages upon record, hath died for asserting no God." The first statement I can find no contradiction in. As I sat and thought about it, I could not think of a country that explicitly has no form of a god. Perhaps there is one. If you can think of one then please send your comment along. The second statement I think I can disprove. In thinking of many during the Inquisition or a few other times when Christians got into the "burn ya at the stake" type of mood. I can think of some people who would indeed die for the cause of renouncing a God. But perhaps many of these did not die so much for renouncing that a god exists but rather that it is the Triune God of the Bible. Thoughts? Charnock's last statement under this point is the one that holds the most weight in my opinion: "you shall scarce find the most distracted bedlam, in his raving fits, to deny a God, though he may blaspheme and fancy himself one." Charnock is simply saying that even those who are lunatics do not deny a god, they might think that they are He, but they do not deny the fact. I thought it was at least an interesting thought.
2. Charnock's second point is the one that I find most helpful. Many claim in our culture today that the very belief in all of these multiple gods and different forms of idolatry really proves that there is no God but just something that creatures by evolutionary process have developed. Charnock, certainly, did not have to defend his position against evolution (it has not been invented yet) but he does give a good defense that the fact of a multiplicity of gods does not weaken the case for God but rather confirms it. After citing multiple examples of the worship of the gods of other cultures Charnock says, "The worship sprung from a true principle, though it was not applied to a right object: while they were rational creatures, they could not deface the notion; yet while they were corrupt creatures it was not difficult to apply themselves to a wrong object from a true principle". Then to prove this Charnock makes a wonderful analogy. "No man would be imposed upon to take a Bristol stone instead of a diamond, if he did not know that there were such things as diamonds in the world". A Bristol stone is a rock crystal used to make ornaments, it looks like a diamond. Charnock's point is that no man would be tempted to pervert a reality unless there were a reality that existed. Charnock notes that "people would never have given the title of a God to men or brutes had there not been a pre-existing and unquestioned persuasion, that there was such a being;--how else should the notion of a God come into their minds?--the notion that there is a God must be more ancient". Granted this is kind of an argument from silence and probably could not be proven--but it is a good point nonetheless.
3. Charnock's third point is that when we study history we see that many men have had arguments about all sorts of things, however, the existence of God was never the subject of contention. They indeed had "contentions about the nature of God and the number of gods" but never that a God existed. "The question was not whether there was a First Cause, but what it was". Therefore, that which was, "never subjected to any controversy, but acknowledged by the whole world, has reason to be embraced as a truth without any doubt". I will not venture to disagree with Charnock about the lack of contention concerning the existence of God. Jogging my memory I can think of none; however, that memory is quite limited. My contention with this point is that I do not think that just because something has not been argued about necessarily proves it to be so. Men might not have ever argued that the sun was the center of our universe until Copernicus thought otherwise. But, I believe that Charnock lived in a day that was much different than ours. Indeed he lived when the Enlightenment was a growing movement--but we have seen the fruits of the Enlightenment and we have many bold atheist in our day. We now have arguments and contentions about the existence of God. Therefore, I am not certain that this point would hold much weight in our day.
4. Charnock seems to have realized the objection to his third point and counters it in his fourth. He says that even if we would grant that there are some who are legit atheist, "what are they to the multitude of men that have sprung out of the loins of Adam?" At first this appears to be a somewhat silly argument. It seems that Charnock is merely saying that majority rules and therefore it must be correct. But we know this not to be the case. I think, though, that Charnock is getting to something much deeper than a mere majority rule. Charnock's point is that, "why should then the exceptions of a few, not one to millions, discredit that which is voted certainly true by the joint consent of the world?" And I agree with Charnock. Something in my American spirit wants to rise up and disagree--but I realize that it is folly. Charnock is certainly correct in asserting, "what if some men be blind, shall any conclude from thence that eyes are not natural to men"? The exception proves the rule. And that is what Charnock is saying. He further ponders, "it is strange if there were any reason on their side, that in so long a space of time as hath run out from the creation of the world, there could not be engaged a considerable number to frame a society for the profession of it". Again I am not certain that such an argument from silence is the best one but nonetheless it seems to be a pretty fair point. Charnock sums up this section by saying that if you are going to ascribe everything to nature then it appears that the law of nature heartily affirms that their is a God.

Honestly, I find this section rather weak as far as proving the existence of God. I feel that Charnock shines in his second point but seems to make only arguments from silence in 1, 3, 4. You cannot prove that God exists just because people in history do not seem to argue about it, it seems that many nations have assented to it, and lastly that a few dissenters cannot set the rule. I do agree with Charnock that the exception usually makes the rule. But, I am not certain that if these are the only evidence that we had that we could prove that God exists. Thankfully, it is not all that we have and Charnock's main goal is to show that the existence of God appears to be universally assented to. And for that reason I will stand behind Charnock and heartily agree with him. It does indeed appear that the existence of a god is a universally affirmed truth. How do you apply this to your life? The only thing that struck me was a reminder of a story that Sam Storms once told about a Hindu women that had stopped traffic to worship cow poop. And before we laugh, Storms reminds us that she shames us. I think of Charnock's statement about the passionated worship of the multiple gods, and am saddened by my lack of passionate worship for the one true God! So, today might we worship Him in spirit and truth.

NFL.com today ran a story about Commissioner Roger Goodell's global vision of "Making America's Obsession the World's Passion". As I read that I thought about Jesus. I wonder what is the Church's obsession? Is it fame? Is it prominence? Is it influence? What is it that we desire? Is our obsession Jesus? And if we can honestly and humbly say that He is indeed our obsession then my question is this, "do we have a global vision of making our obsession (Jesus) the world's passion?" Oh, that we had the passion that Coca-Cola and now the NFL has to spread their joy for the joy of others! Today, I am encouraged by reading this article to repent of all the things that are my obsession that is not Jesus. I am encouraged to be more intentional and focused on not only making Jesus my obsession but of spreading that obsession to be the world's passion.

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.