MacDonald (as selected by Lewis)

Faith & Science Conversation
, , ,
1143

I daresay, though, that you are willing to recognize the primacy of Love over wrath? Not that wrath is nonexistent or of no account; only that it is properly understood as being subservient to the purposes of love. “God is Love”, after all. There is no equivalent claim that “God is Wrath.” Love and wrath are not symmetrical equals like some sort of “yin and yang” thing. That’s all I was really speaking of when I said that current readers of scripture ought to be able to recognize this. [And as I recall, there was an entire thread or part of a thread somewhere that we devoted to this particular tension.]

Of course there are still other things that remain unresolved or in great tension for probably all of us.

1 Like
1144

that’s an interesting quote–failure to repent–the way one’s compass goes.

1145

And hi @Kendel , this reminds me of a good diagram I found that describes LOVE as being God’s essence which gets expressed (experienced by us) in various ways which we may call "attributes.

god is love
god is love2048×1152 194 KB

2 Likes
1146

That’s very interesting. Thank you. I will think it over.

1147

(218) Excuses

We dare not say that this or that man would not have come to the light had he seen it; we do not know that he will not come to the light the moment he does see it. God gives every man time. There is a light that lightens sage and savage, but the glory of God in the face of Jesus may not have shined on this sage or that savage. The condemnation is of those who, having seen Jesus, refuse to come to him, or pretend to come to him but do not the things he says. They have all sorts of excuses at hand; but as soon as a man begins to make excuse, the time has come when he might be doing that from which he excuses himself. How many are there not who, believing there is something somewhere with the claim of light upon them, go on and on to get more out of the darkness! This consciousness, all neglected by them, gives broad ground for the expostulation of the Lord–‘Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life!’

From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Light”

1 Like
1148

In this last of the excerpts from this sermon, we see MacDonald’s take on “the unforgiveable sin” - which, after his treatment has perfect and obvious clarity in stark contrast with the dark obfuscations of those who treat the scriptural testimonies as codes to be solved, and who agonize over what ‘secret’ and specific sin was ‘set apart’ by the Lord as being uniquely and devastatingly unforgiveable. Read on, and let the following light of Christ chase all such darkness away!

(219) Impossibilities

How many are there not who, believing there is something somewhere with the claim of light upon them, go on and on to get more out of the darkness! This consciousness, all neglected by them, gives broad ground for the expostulation of the Lord–‘Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life!’

‘All manner of sin and blasphemy,’ the Lord said, ‘shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the spirit shall not be forgiven.’ God speaks, as it were, in this manner: ‘I forgive you everything. Not a word more shall be said about your sins–only come out of them; come out of the darkness of your exile; come into the light of your home, of your birthright, and do evil no more. Lie no more; cheat no more; oppress no more; slander no more; envy no more; be neither greedy nor vain; love your neighbour as I love you; be my good child; trust in your father. I am light; come to me, and you shall see things as I see them, and hate the evil thing. I will make you love the thing which now you call good and love not. I forgive all the past.’

‘I thank thee, Lord, for forgiving me, but I prefer staying in the darkness: forgive me that too.’

'No; that cannot be. The one thing that cannot be forgiven is the sin of choosing to be evil, of refusing deliverance. It is impossible to forgive that sin. It would be to take part in it.

From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Light”

3 Likes
1149

I am way behind on this thread and the things I really have treasured here. How have I missed this post for 3 weeks and not noticed.
MacDonald at his best here, I think.
This is particularly encouraging in light og a very disturbing conversation I had earlier today. Thanks, Merv.
If you have time and interest in continuing this thread, I am always glad to read it.

2 Likes
1150

I’m glad you found encouragement in the prior one, Kendel - It spoke to me powerfully as well. And I in turn get encouragement from your words. The next installment is a more scathing (than I’ve yet heard) take on those recently healed ones who, despite Jesus’ instructions, went on to spread word about what he’d done. I’ve normally seen their disobedience treated with kid gloves by most of us.
Not so, MacDonald! Read on…

(220) Disobedience

Let us next look at the account of the healing of the two blind men, given in the ninth chapter of Matthew’s gospel. In both the versions the same phrases are used in translation of the word in question, as in the story of the leper in Mark’s gospel–‘straitly,’ ‘strictly,’ ‘sternly charged them.’ I read the passage thus: ‘And Jesus was displeased’–or, perhaps, ‘much displeased’–‘with them, saying, See that no man know it.’

‘But they went forth, and spread abroad his fame in all that land.’ Surely here we have light on the cause of Jesus’ displeasure with the blind men! it was the same with them as with the leper: they showed themselves bent on their own way, and did not care for his. Doubtless they were, in part, all of them moved by the desire to spread abroad his fame; that may even have seemed to them the best acknowledgment they could render their deliverer. They never suspected that a great man might desire to avoid fame, laying no value upon it, knowing it for a foolish thing. They did not understand that a man desirous of helping his fellows might yet avoid a crowd as obstructive to his object. ‘What is a prophet without honour?’ such virtually ask, nor understand the answer, ‘A man the more likely to prove a prophet.’ These men would repay their healer with trumpeting, not obedience. By them he should have his right–but as they not he judged fit! In his modesty he objected, but they would take care he should not go without his reward! Through them he should reap the praises of men! ‘Not tell!’ they exclaim. ‘Indeed, we will tell!’ They were too grateful not to rumour him, not grateful enough to obey him.

We cannot surely be amazed at their self-sufficiency. How many are there not who seem capable of anything for the sake of the church or Christianity, except the one thing its Lord cares about–that they should do what he tells them! He would deliver them from themselves into the liberty of the sons of God, make them his brothers; they leave him to vaunt their church.

As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: The Displeasure of Jesus
(from which will come 220 - 223).

2 Likes
1151

(221) The Same

It is to me an especially glad thought that the Lord came so near us as to be angry with us. The more we think of Jesus being angry with us, the more we feel that we must get nearer and nearer to him–get within the circle of his wrath, out of the sin that makes him angry, and near to him where sin cannot come. There is no quenching of his love in the anger of Jesus.
…
That he should be crucified was a horror to them; they would have made him a king, and ruined his father’s work. He preferred the cruelty of his enemies to the kindness of his friends. The former with evil intent wrought his father’s will; the latter with good intent would have frustrated it. His disciples troubled him with their unbelieving expostulations. Let us know that the poverty of our idea of Jesus–how much more our disobedience to him!–thwarts his progress to victory, delays the coming of the kingdom of heaven. Many a man valiant for Christ, but not understanding him, and laying on himself and his fellows burdens against nature, has therein done will-worship and would-be service for which Christ will give him little thanks, which indeed may now be moving his holy anger. Where we do that we ought not, and could have helped it, be moved to anger against us, O Christ! do not treat us as if we were not worth being displeased with; let not our faults pass as if they were of no weight. Be angry with us, holy brother, wherein we are to blame; where we do not understand, have patience with us, and open our eyes, and give us strength to obey, until at length we are the children of the Father even as thou. … Make us able to be angry and not sin; to be angry nor seek revenge the smallest; to be angry and full of forgiveness. We will not be content till our very anger is love.

The Lord did not call the leprosy to return and seize again upon the man who disobeyed him. He may have deserved it, but the Lord did not do it. He did not wrap the self-confident seeing men in the cloud of their old darkness because they wrapped themselves in the cloud of disobedience. He let them go. Of course they failed of their well-being by it; for to say a man might disobey and be none the worse, would be to say that no may be yes, and light sometimes darkness; it would be to say that the will of God is not man’s bliss.

As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: The Displeasure of Jesus.

1 Like
1152

Merv, I just went ahead and listened to the whole sermon. It was worth it.

MacDonald is very Kierkegaardian in the way his logic works, and his ability to see a path clearly that most of us would never notice. He makes the very best of the very worst, and uses it to give hope and encouragement.

2 Likes
1153

I find that in him too! And I think this next bit continues so well in that vein - a bit of what all would be included in the bliss of real life.

(222) The God of Remembrance

I do not mean that God would have even his closest presence make us forget or cease to desire that of our friend. God forbid! The love of God is the perfecting of every love. He is not the God of oblivion, but of eternal remembrance. There is no past with him. So far is he from such jealousy as we have all heard imputed to him, his determination is that his sons and daughters shall love each other perfectly. He gave us to each other to belong to each other for ever. He does not give to take away; with him is no variableness or shadow of turning.

As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: The Displeasure of Jesus

2 Likes
1154

This is what I see reflected at the Lord’s Supper, or Communion, too. Jesus preaches the Gospel to us through the physical elements that we are holding and taking together, so that we understand our union with him, but in performing this sign act together, we also see and experience our union with each other.
It is both a sermon, and a physical and performative reminder of the state in which we now exist and live.

Since we are told to perform this act and frequency is assumed in the command, I think it is intended to reinforce just what MacDonald says in this recent quote.

[Emphasis altered]

2 Likes
1155

Yes, I love the physicality of that remembrance. And its not only a feeling of union with others in the mind. In our congregation, we are asked to “examine ourselves” before partaking, and if we have any grudges or sin between ourselves and other Christians, to get up and make things right before participating. So, the symbols of communion are also a gate into physical action of reconciliation and maintaining that corporate unity.

3 Likes
1156

I started reading John Wenham’s Autobiography, “Facing Hell”. I have loved Wenham’s The Easter Enigma which helped me early in my Christian life and in learning to have more trust in the Bible. His “Re-Dating, Matthew, Mark and Luke” is as scholarly a book as you can get and also affirmed my trust in the Bible.

Wenham says he thought of writing such a scholarly work about Hell, but he thought at his older age, he would not have the 10 years he surmised it would take to do the job adequate justice and so felt that at least some effort would be worthwhile.

I am halfway through the book and appreciating more and more the complexity of church politics, at least in England, in the Anglican church and in the 20th century. He has early on laid out his arguments for believing that hell is not everlasting and an anhiliationism.

Oh, that Wenham were right. How like MacDonald is Wenham and one could easily see why CS Lewis wrote The Great Divorce. We all want an escape clause.

This past Sunday, July 30th 2023, I yearned for closeness with my Lord and have always found Charles Spurgeon to bring me closer to Jesus, more than anyone else, except The Bible and Prayer. I have worked systematically through each of his sermons starting in 1855 and the sermon that was next due was March 25th 1866, “Punishment: A Fearful Thing”.

The scripture quote is: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” — Heb. 10:31.

Spurgeon demolishes ivory towers, myths and daydreams. There is an escape clause the Bible offers, it is the life of Jesus on the cross. In a previous sermon he says, “The difficulty in the gospel is that it isn’t difficult” Believe and live. In Spurgeon’s facing of hell, he speaks plainly. “I do not know what the words for ever and ever can mean, if they do not mean for ever and ever.”

My adult son struggles with the concept of hell as do I. I do not like it. I wish it were not there. It is an act of faith and trust to believe that which I cannot prove and do not like. But Jesus always affirmed the scriptures, He never contradicted the scripture and in facing Satan He said, “It is written”

Some foolish thoughts of Christian Psychiatrist.

1157

Once you’ve read MacDonald for a while, you’ll discover that what Christ is offering us is anything but an escape from God’s wrath. In fact, it is when you’re done trying to escape that you will eventually be brought back to the cross to discover that was your only way (not out) but in … into abundant life itself. What has now come to pass for tradition among so many Christians - that would take a covenant and reduce it into a mere contract, that take trust in a loving Father and replace it instead with a transaction between parties that don’t or can’t rise to the level of trust - once all of that has been brought out into the light of the apostles and prophets - indeed the light of Christ himself, there is no going back. Once the Bridegroom is in the room all the calculations and doctrinal machinations and traditions - true and important as some of them are - they all nonetheless fade into the background baggage which will already be included and need not be fussed over once we sit at the feet of Christ, and then rise to do His bidding.

On the notion of “forever” or the terrors of hell (or the pleasures of God’s welcomed presence) - I have yet to encounter any more terrifying than MacDonald’s or any more blissful than his descriptions of the blessed presence once we are made and then participate in righteous holiness.

[In speaking of ‘escaping God’s wrath’ above, I’m using that phrase in the sense of somebody successfully fleeing an avenger - as in they are getting away with something. Since there is no such thing as escape when God is the avenger, the real escape from God’s wrath we read of in Scriptures instead refers to God’s willingly putting away our past sins when we repent of them and turn to Christ. God will no longer hold those against us when we yearn and learn to ‘make it right’ between ourselves and our neighbor whom we’ve wronged. Only in that restored relationship can we be said to have ‘escaped our sins’ and their consequences - i.e. God’s wrath.]

2 Likes
1158

Thank you so much for your response. It is certainly a different way of thinking about hell. You probably wouldn’t like that Spurgeon sermon though. He starts out by saying something which I think is true, his focus in innumerable sermons (I think the one I linked was something like the 640th sermon) is on God’s mercy. It may be worth reading, his sermons usually can be read in 20 minutes, reading quickly, 30 with some meditation and research.

How CS Lewis processes this- is that the likelihood of turning to God, decreases, not increases over time in the kind of purgatory he describes in the Great Divorce. He pictures a bus-stop and one can move further and further away from the bus-stop as you struggle with the ugliness of people in hell. He even quips that almost beyond sight there is the house of Napoleon, so far from the bus-stop he would be very unlikely to take that wonderful bus trip to heaven. And remember, most people in CS Lewis story when they get to heaven, chose to return to hell.

I think there is another thing which we mortals struggle with, the concept of ‘eternity’. Here I am very much speculating. Somehow, God sits ‘outside of time’ and invented time. We think of eternity as a very long time, more than a million years. But perhaps that is not the way to think of time.

I know one thing; I hope you’re right.

Thanks again for sharing.

1 Like
1159

In this final installment from the ‘Bereavement’ sermon, I take Lewis’ long excerpt from the very end of that sermon, and make it longer yet - so you can see the Lazarus context for the conversation.

(223) Bereavement

You make a lamentable ado, vexing Jesus that you will not be reasonable and trust his father! When Martha and Mary behaved as you are doing, they had not had Lazarus raised; you have had Lazarus raised, yet you go on as they did then!

‘You give too good reason to think that, if the same thing were done for you, you would say he was only in a cataleptic fit, and in truth was never raised from the dead. Or is there another way of understanding your behaviour: you do not believe that God is unchangeable, but think he acts one way one time and another way another time just from caprice? He might give back a brother to sisters who were favourites with him, but no such gift is to be counted upon? Why then, I ask, do you worship such a God?’

‘But you know he does not do it! That was a mere exceptional case.’

‘If it was, it is worthless indeed–as worthless as your behaviour would make it. But you are dull of heart, as were Martha and Mary. Do you not see that he is as continually restoring as taking away–that every bereavement is a restoration–that when you are weeping with void arms, others, who love as well as you, are clasping in ecstasy of reunion?’

‘Alas, we know nothing about that!’

‘If you have learned no more I must leave you, having no ground in you upon which my words may fall. You deceived me; you called yourself a Christian. You cannot have been doing the will of the Father, or you would not be as you are.’

‘Ah, you little know my loss!’

‘Indeed it is great! it seems to include God! If you knew what he knows about death you would clap your listless hands. But why should I seek in vain to comfort you? You must be made miserable, that you may wake from your sleep to know that you need God. If you do not find him, endless life with the living whom you bemoan would become and remain to you unendurable. The knowledge of your own heart will teach you this-- not the knowledge you have, but the knowledge that is on its way to you through suffering. Then you will feel that existence itself is the prime of evils, without the righteousness which is of God by faith.’

The conclusion MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: The Displeasure of Jesus

2 Likes
1160

Beautiful video. Compassionate, intelligent. What a loss is Tim Keller, but as we know, God’s timing is perfect. A Marionite priest recently shared that in the Middle East, when a person of faith dies they say, “He’s arrived”.

2 Likes
1161

(224) Abraham’s Faith

They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

We have the word imputed just once in the New Testament. Whether the evil doctrine may have sprung from any possible misunderstanding of the passage where it occurs, I hardly care to inquire. The word as Paul uses it, and the whole of the thought whence his use of it springs, appeals to my sense of right and justice as much as the common use of it arouses my abhorrence. The apostle says that a certain thing was imputed to Abraham for righteousness; or, as the revised version has it, ‘reckoned unto him:’ what was it that was thus imputed to Abraham? The righteousness of another? God forbid! It was his own faith. The faith of Abraham is reckoned to him for righteousness.

As found in the unspoken sermon: “Righteousness” (224 - 238)

2 Likes
1162

Thanks for your comment – I might not have watched the video without it. (And there are more of them, yay. ; - ) I trust Keller and Piper a lot more than I do MacDonald. (Thanks to you too, @Randy. :slightly_smiling_face:)

1 Like