Patience and Providence (Rutherford)

 When Christians are suffering in various ways it is made worse sometimes because we just can’t understand what’s going on – why is God doing what he’s doing?  Samuel Rutherford (d.1661) here reminds Christians that we can usually only see half the picture of providence.  Therefore, we need to be patient and remember that we have a limited view of God’s greater plan – a plan for his glory and the good of his people.

“…We look upon God’s ways and works by halves and pieces; and so, we see often nothing but the black side, and the dark part of the moon.  We mistake all, when we look upon men’s works by parts; a house in the building, lying in an hundred pieces; here timber, here a rafter, there a spar, there a stone; in another place half a window, in another place, the side of a door: there is no beauty, no face of a house here.  Have patience a little, and see them all by art compacted together in order, and you will see a fair building.  When a painter draweth the half of a man; the one side of his head, one eye, the left arm, shoulder, and leg, and hath not drawn the other side, nor filled up with colors all the members, parts, limbs, in its full proportion, it is not like a man.”

“So do we look on God’s works by halves or parts, and we see him bleeding his people, scattering parliaments, chasing away nobles and prelates, as not willing they should have a finger in laying one stone of his house; yet do we not see, that in this dispensation, the other half of God’s work makes it a fair piece.  God is washing away the blood and filth of his church, removing those from the work who would cross it.”

In other words, God’s providence is like a huge painting and we can only see a little here and there.  Sometimes it doesn’t look like a beautiful picture; instead it looks like a mess.  But if we have patience and wait, in time we’ll see more of the picture and it’ll make a lot more sense – if not in this lifetime, then in the one to come.  We need to pray for the faith to remember that God is the sovereign artist and architect who knows exactly what he’s doing. 

Quotes taken from The Trial and Triumph of Faith by Samuel Rutherford, page 28.

shane lems

Christ or Nothing

 These are some great words from Samuel Rutherford to his friend John Henderson.  Rutherford wrote this from a prison in Scotland in 1637.

“Know the Lord and seek Christ.  You have a soul that cannot die.  Seek for a lodging to your poor soul, for that house of clay will fill.  Heaven or nothing! Either Christ or nothing!  Use prayer in your house and set your thoughts often upon death and judgment.  It is dangerous to be loose in the matter of your salvation. ….Love your enemies and stand by the truth which I have taught you, in all things.  Fear not men, but let God be your fear.  Your time will not be long; make the seeking of Christ your daily task.  Seek a broken heart for sin, for without that there is no meeting with Christ.”

You can find this quote on page 104 of the Puritan Paperback entitled The Letters of Samuel Rutherford.  I especially like that sentence, which is a great commentary on Psalm 51.17.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms (Part III)

In case you just tuned in, this is part III of a brief review of David VanDrunen’s book, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. The other two posts immediately precede this one.

In chapters 4-7 VanDrunen treks through the English and European post-reformation eras, into the early American scene (New England and Virgina), back to  Europe (specifically Holland) and Abraham Kuyper.   He discusses how natural law and the two kingdoms show up in these times, places, and people of Reformed history.

Chapter four specifically deals with the “Bloody Mary” situation of the 1550s as well as he Huguenot persecution of 1572 (the so-called St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre).  VanDrunen argues specifically that in these examples there was continuity between earlier and later Reformed teaching of natural law.  He also argues (well, in my opinion) that there was an “expansive rather than minimalistic view of natural law” among these two groups of Reformed Christians.  Some names that VanDrunen writes about include George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford, John Knox, Christopher Goodman, John Ponet, just to name the major figures.  This chapter was a total learning experience for me, since I’ve not read more than a few books covering this area of church history.  VanDrunen is right: they utilized natural law principles broadly and creatively as they faced persecution.

Chapter five is where VanDrunen digs into the great era of Reformed scholasticism (“The Age of Orthodoxy” is the title of the chapter).  He not only argues that there is significant continuity between earlier Reformers and the scholastics (concerning natural law and the two kingdoms), he also says that these theologians “through their natural law and two kingdoms doctrines, affirmed and developed the idea that social and political life is grounded in God’s work of creation and providence rather than in his work of redemption” (p. 151).  The major figures VanDrunen summarizes are Johannes Althusius, Samuel Rutherford, and Francis Turretin, along with others and the Westminster Standards.  This was a great chapter, especially where he talks about these figures and how they closely related natural law and Sinai.  I enjoyed this chapter as much as I did the one on Calvin.

Chapter six also had some things that were new for me.  VanDrunen commented on Stuart Robinson, John Cotton, early Virginian Presbyterian experiences, and Samuel Davies, to mention just a few.  Also worth mentioning for VanDrunen were Charles Hodge and James Henley Thornwell, who wrestled (in the 19th century) over the presbyterian distinction of boards and committees, which had much to do with ecclesiology and Christian liberty.  I’m still mulling over some things in this chapter, so I’ll just state his conclusion: “The Reformed natural law and two kingdoms traditions continued on into the early American experiment and even attained greater degrees of clarity among some theologians amidst the greatly changing social and intellectual contexts” (p. 275).

Chapter seven – the one on Kuyper - could take a book to discuss!  I thought it was helpful how VanDrunen pointed out the fact that Kuyper was working with and within the Reformed scholastic categories.  At the same time, he used some newer terminology and was not 100% consistent in theory and practice (again, none of us are!).  Kuyper’s common and special grace distinction, along with his organizational and institutional church distinction have a lot to do with natural law (i.e. “divine ordinances”) and the two kingdoms of earlier Reformed doctrine.  This chapter (along with earlier stuff I’ve read by Kuyper) has very much made me hesitant to accept statements made by neo-Kuyperians on what Kuyper actually taught.  In other words, some neo-Kuyperians may be more “neo” than they are “kuyperian.”  But don’t take my word for it, read the chapter.  It deserves to be studied in-depth.

shane lems

sunnyside wa