Yeah … I think it’s his Scottish Brogue that is even more challenging yet to us moderns. [And while I fancy I’ve mastered some of that, I, like you, thank God for M Phillips editing to help cut through that in his novels.] But you’re right, and I noticed that the majority of his sermon material is fairly modern, if tending toward long sentences and dialectic. He seems to drop into the flowery King James style in his conclusions or more intensely passionate bits or when quoting scriptures.
1 Like
I would contend that they don’t love God with all their heart, soul, and strength. And to love your neighbor as yourself, flows out of loving God and having your needs met in him. Now there is some nuance in this as Jamie Smith so well brings out in a chapter that ties the perfect bow on Piper’s Desiring God, which has been a great influence for me.
But for God, as Piper shows so perceptively, he is the one being for whom it is proper to love himself supremely, and his love for us is found in his commanding us to love and worship him.
1 Like
Randy, what is the relationship between Phillips and MacDonald, if there is one?
Thanks!
1 Like
Sorry! Michael Phillips edited a lot of George Macdonald’s work to make it easier to read. He had a lot of his books published in the 90s. His account of the run on sentences is funny–but he really likes Macdonald, too.
1 Like
I still don’t think that precludes those who have already let themselves be burnt and those who will, contributing to it themselves by choice. This still applies:
Nor does it address either of these, in our rush to confirming our own subjective feelingness by extrapolation:
(10) The Word
Sad, indeed, would the whole matter be, if the Bible had told us everything God meant us to believe. But herein is the Bible itself greatly wronged. It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” not the Bible, save as leading to him. And why are we told that these treasures are hid in him who is the Revelation of God? Is it that we should despair of finding them and cease to seek them? Are they not hid in him that they may be revealed to us in due time—that is, when we are in need of them? Is not their hiding in him the mediatorial step towards their unfolding in us? Is he not the Truth?—the Truth to men? Is he not the High Priest of his brethren, to answer all the troubled questionings that arise in their dim humanity?
As found at Project Gutenberg - “The Higher Faith”
(I used a different site than the one I’ve been linking to before now, since that site seems to be down for the last few hours here.)
2 Likes
The Bible leads us to Jesus and Jesus leads us back to Bible. Some of my earliest arguments for the inerrancy of Scripture rested on the words of Jesus.
1 Like
Lewis only had one excerpt from that sermon: “The Higher Faith” - and so before going on to Lewis’ next, I feel a need to share this additional one from that same sermon of MacDonald’s, and then will follow that with Lewis’ next day’s selection.
If we were once filled with the mind of Christ, we should know that the Bible had done its work, was fulfilled, and had for us passed away, that thereby the Word of our God might abide for ever. The one use of the Bible is to make us look at Jesus, that through him we might know his Father and our Father, his God and our God. Till we thus know Him, let us hold the Bible dear as the moon of our darkness, by which we travel towards the east; not dear as the sun whence her light cometh, and towards which we haste, that, walking in the sun himself, we may no more need the mirror that reflected his absent brightness.
But this doctrine of the Spirit is not my end now, although, were it not true, all our religion would be vain, that of St Paul and that of Socrates. What I want to say and show, if I may, is, that a man will please God better by believing some things that are not told him, than by confining his faith to those things that are expressly said–said to arouse in us the truth-seeing faculty, the spiritual desire, the prayer for the good things which God will give to them that ask him.
“But is not this dangerous doctrine? Will not a man be taught thus to believe the things he likes best, even to pray for that which he likes best? And will he not grow arrogant in his confidence?”
If it be true that the Spirit strives with our spirit; if it be true that God teaches men, we may safely leave those dreaded results to him. If the man is of the Lord’s company, he is safer with him than with those who would secure their safety by hanging on the outskirts and daring nothing. If he is not taught of God in that which he hopes for, God will let him know it. He will receive, something else than he prays for. If he can pray to God for anything not good, the answer will come in the flames of that consuming fire. These will soon bring him to some of his spiritual senses. But it will be far better for him to be thus sharply tutored, than to go on a snail’s pace in the journey of the spiritual life. And for arrogance, I have seen nothing breed it faster or in more offensive forms than the worship of the letter.
The above selection was found here from MacDonald’s sermon: “The Higher Faith”
(11) I Knew a Child
I knew a child who believed she had committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, because she had, in her toilette, made an improper use of a pin. Dare not to rebuke me for adducing the diseased fancy of a child in a weighty matter of theology. “Despise not one of these little ones.” Would the theologians were as near the truth in such matters as the children. Diseased fancy! The child knew, and was conscious that she knew, that she was doing wrong because she had been forbidden. There was rational ground for her fear . How would Jesus have received the confession of the darling? He would not have told her she was silly, and “never to mind.” Child as she was, might he not have said to her, “I do not condemn thee: go and sin no more”?
As found in the sermon: “It Shall Not Be Forgiven”
1 Like
Just as I was about to not say anything more on this subject, the final paragraph caught my attention and it was a curious matter it raises, the unforgivable sin. And while it can be mocked through it’s misapplication, it was and is the one sin that will not be forgiven. And the verse where Jesus says all sins will be forgiven except for this, it is and may be the only verse that stands opposed to some kind of evangelical universalism.
Not so fast! I think I can anticipate MacDonald’s likely reply to you - and please don’t confuse this with some defense of ‘universalism’ as some principle or doctrine unto itself - all of which MacDonald appears happy to leave in Christ’s hands and not his (MacDonald’s) job to defend.
There is a sin which cannot be forgiven - and that is our clinging to and chasing after our sin (any sin). While we stay attached to it, we cannot be admitted to Heaven (or rather - it wouldn’t be Heaven for us even if we were “allowed in”.) So rather than agonizing over teasing out “just which sin” it is specificaly that could become our “eternal bane” (as if most sins were of the more ‘benign’ sort that can be shrugged off and forgiven - except for the ‘one biggie’ if we can just decode the Bible to find out exactly what it is so we can stay away from that one), I suggest instead (along with MacDonald I think) that every sin is the unforgiveable sin when we cling to it and insist on it as part of our very core - our identity. Until it is painfully burned away from us (even down to our very heart and core if that’s where we’ve cherished it), …until that happens, we are not yet fitted and clothed for eternity.
Of course - I venture all this without having freshly read the whole of MacDonald’s sermon “The Unforgiveable Sin” - at least not in recent months. So we could both do that to see if I have anticipated him accurately. But even as he would tells us …“why do you care what I think? …take it up with the Master; His word is the only one you need concern yourself with.”
No decoder rings necessary, it is right there in the context of the passage.
Now if you want to look at a reference in Hebrews to intentional sin, I found an odd thing when searching a number of commentaries about it.
MacDonald has certainly anticipated my question that was brewing, while I was reading the sections you quoted from “The Higher Faith.” And I can imagine that he would counter all my questions and doubts and worries with something like: “How well have all those doctrinal safe-guards you rely on been working? Have they protected your congregations from self-righteous sins? Have they provided the Holy Spirit a better field in which to cultivate the mind of Christ?” And to those I must hang my head.
I’m not sure I’ll ever see eye to eye with MacDonald, even when at first I feel drawn to what he’s saying. I understand why he was so controversial. At the same time, I appreciate the challenge he gives, and thank you @Mervin_Bitikofer for sharing it, and @Randy for helping talk me through some of it. I’ll be thinking this over, as you continue to share his quotes, Merv. There’s a lot to take in and consider.
And so, I feel some comfort with my discomfort, coming into contact with MacDonald for the first time. You’ve been processing his work for some time, it seems.
This part, though, yes. Yes.
Yes.
1 Like
No. Take the accuser to task. Dare to say there is no doctrine so precious in Scripture as God does not suffer being alone, except perhaps, depending on your doctrinal understanding, he suffered being alone in the person of Jesus Christ.
I’m glad you decided to include the longer pieces as well. Lewis knew MacDonald well, as do you and Randy, but not all the rest of us. What spoke to Lewis from MacDonald’s work would most certainly speak to each of us differently depending on our life and theological backgrounds and our experience with MacDonald.
I downloaded Lewis’s book, when you first started this thread, and I found his selection of segments unsatisfying, because there just wasn’t enough context for me to understand them.
I’ll stick with this “challenge” you’ve floated out for anyone who dares to explore it. If nothing else, I’ll have been given much to chew on.
It was Randy that got me started on him a year or two back … and somewhere in that interval, I read through all three of his series of unspoken sermons, along with many of his novels.
I suppose it would be astounding if any of us completely did on everything. But the challenge with MacDonald is that he gives so little for anybody to disagree with. He just isn’t into doctrinal castle-building, and in fact reacts rather critically against so much of those labors - urging us instead to just come sit at the feet of Christ and be ready to rise, go, and obey His bidding.
1 Like
This reminds me of how a politician will say they are against partisanship, and in the next breath make a partisan rip.
I’m looking forward to seeing more of where he goes. Actually, after the last quite-a-few-years of ever-tightening add-on doctrinal statements, mostly named after cities, MacDonald by your description sounds like a genuine restorative.
2 Likes
Ah, yes, @Randy…gently, kindly, quietly subverting all of our unquestioned assumptions….turning us all on our ears and leaving us thanking him for it.
Sounds like he did his work very effectively……
The best.
2 Likes
There is so much that (it seems to me) is brought out into much clearer light after letting MacDonald urge one toward immersion with (or in) Christ.
Here is one example. I remember reading an anecdote in one of Philip Yancey’s books many years ago where he relayed how a friend had pressed him: “Can God really forgive any sin?” and Yancey gave him something to the effect of an affirmative answer to that, after which he said his friend then dropped the bombshell: “Then I think I’m going to divorce my wife.” And Yancey related that he went on to backpedal some with his friend, then, that you can’t plan to sin and then think that you’ll be easily repenting of that later. Or perhaps I might add now: Repentance isn’t something you can plan to do in the future. If you aren’t repentant now, then you aren’t repentant period. Not yet, not truly - and you aren’t right with either God or neighbor. And I think Yancey had a lot of similar words - or something wise to all that effect as best I can recall.
But under the bright illumination of Christ - as MacDonald relates - this is all crystal clear (in case it wasn’t before). His friend’s wish to stay right with God is nothing more than a chimera, and his repentance is non-existent as he speaks those words. He is more attached to his intended unfaithfulness than he is to Christ, and he has put forgiveness out of the question. He’s still attached to his sin and so will remain enslaved to that until the refining fires of the reality of God help him to see all that as God sees it - with loathing. As MacDonald has noted, the man is not [yet] saved who still prefers his own sin to the fires of Hell.
That is a hard teaching for any of us. And I’m preaching to myself here. My lesser and worldly self much prefers the standard version of Christendom these days where my sins just get wiped away and I don’t have to face any unpleasant consequences for any of it because I just get to “offload” all that onto Christ. But that just shows that my heart isn’t fully God’s yet - not until I learn to want what God wants as Christ shows me. MacDonald cuts right through all that rubble - sees it for what it is, and will have none of it. Not until our sins have been removed as far as the east is from the west - so far will they have been removed from our hearts and our desires - will we finally be our fully human good-created selves.
4 Likes
There are steep towers and dark dungeons to navigate here. It goes to the heart of the gospel, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the perseverance of the saints.