Category: Devotion

Categories
Devotion

Shut Up, Fool!

Shut Up, Fool! –

Plato once said:

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”

And another has said:

“Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”

Which was no doubt derived from one of the wisest of the wise, writing in Scripture:

“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” – Proverbs 27:28 

Which brings us to a related text:

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. – James 1:19,20

In a previous post, we disucssed Peter’s lil’ Foot-in-Mouth problem, and I also conceded my own problem with that dreaded foe. Isn’t it amazing how the same subject is addressed all throughout Scripture? I mean, it’s almost like all the books of the Bible have the same Author (hint, hint, ;) ). This same observation lets us know that diarrhea of the mouth is no small problem.

I think, though, we can deduce more than just foot-in-mouth issues with what James is addressing here. A cursory glance at the text tells us something about how presumption and impatience leads to unfounded anger. An immediate example which comes to mind can be derived from just perusing an internet message board…even a “Christian” one (gasp!). The misunderstandings that can ensue are boundless sometimes, it seems.

The instructions given by James need to be applied in most of our dealings, but especially are dealings with fellow believers. May we keep these words of James in mind while conversating, communicating, and discussing with those around us. I’ll leave you with a quote from another great Puritan, Richard Sibbes:

It would be a good contest amongst Christians, one to labour to give no offence, and the other to labour to take none. The best men are severe to themselves, tender over others.

 

 

[Reformers, Puritans, and a Geek]

Categories
Devotion

Psalm 51:5-9

Psalm 51:5-9 –

Verses 5-9

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,and in sin did my mother conceive me.

The truth of our utter, complete, and total depravity is shown throughout the Scriptures. I would take some time to blog about it, but it’s been written so well by so many other fine folks that for me to do so would be superfluous. Maybe another day, when I’m feeling gratuitously bored. This is only one instance to which man’s being born dead in sin is alluded. David had been taught the story of Eden and man’s fall. He knew the truth of man’s condition, as was epitomized in the state of man right before the great flood. Thus, he recognized the great depth in sin to which he’d sunken, acknowledging he was a prodigy of Adam. But he doesn’t end there.

6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.

A recognition of God’s absolute divine right to define, elaborate upon, declare, and impart truth to sinful man. He says, “You teach me” Not only did David recognize his depravity, but he affirmed and acknowledged God’s sovereignty in the impartation of saving faith! It wasn’t that David was seeking after this wisdom of his own doing. It wasn’t that David thought he was somehow able to attain this knowledge in and of himself. He prays back to God, God’s thoughts YOU TEACH ME.

7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Yes, he remembered Adam’s plunging of mankind into spiritual death. Yes, he realized his utter and complete ineptitude before Holy God. But as previously noted, he doesn’t stop at the acknowledgement of “bad” news. Rather, in light of the bad news, he by faith proclaims the good news! “Father God, if YOU purge me, I will be clean. I will be whiter than snow, if it is of Your doing. For You, O GOD, are able to cleanse to the uttermost!” The story of the Fall was sad indeed, but the glory of the promise given (Gen 3:15) was much greater than the horror of the Fall! David expressed great faith in God’s Redemptive ability ACCORDING TO HIS PROMISE! Abraham believed and it was credited unto him as righteousness! Amen!

8 Let me hear joy and gladness;let the bones that you have broken rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins,and blot out all my iniquities.

His absolute throwing out of all other means as being able to console him is a testament to the fact that David knew ONLY God could bring the relief and comfort he needed. Only God could make wrongs (in an eschatological sense, as opposed to an immediate sense) right! Sins forgiven! Iniquities cleansed! He acknowledges (v.8) that his pain is due to God’s judgment of his sin. He realized that “those whom God loves, he chastens.” Oh, the vast riches of good theology Christ’s church can learn from the Book of Psalms! Blessed be the Name of the Lord!

 

[Reformers, Puritans, and a Geek]

Categories
Devotion

Psalm 51:1-4

Psalm 51:1-4 –

Verses 1-4

The exposure of that great darkness which is in my heart moves me to a dreaded state of melancholy. In solemn brokenness, I acknowledge my absolute ineptitude before God’s holiness apart from imputed righteousness given to me upon my initial granted repentance. If not for Christ’s purchase, if not for God’s redemptive Covenant made with Him, I would be a silenced reprobate, justly cast into the depths of hell with wicked sinners. Such a sobering truth ought press me more toward true Christian piety, striving and thirsting after that perfect holiness of God. Noting my sickness over my rebellion against God’s law, I nevertheless believe His promise to keep me grounded in Him, though ever mindful of my deceitful heart. Brokenness and contrition are my heart’s present leading attributes. Let us look at the 51st Psalm, for at least the 151st thousandth time.

1 Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.

An appeal to God’s mercy David starts out with. Here we catch a glimpse of David remembering the God Who covenants with man with a gracious covenant. He provided a covering to Adam and Eve, deliverance to Noah and his family, a great promise to Abraham and all his offspring. So God, in His great perfection, has acted exceptionally merciful toward man. Thus, David appeals to His steadfast love, i.e. lovingkindness. So, God, do I humbly appeal to your great mercies shown to those Who love you, yet fail you! I plea for mercy on the basis of your promises made to man.

2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,and cleanse me from my sin!

David immediately acknowledges the reality of his sin, and his great need for cleansing from it. God, I affirm my wretchedness and cast it away from me; it is why I have appealed to this Psalm. Please cleanse me from my sin.

3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.

David had, in other Psalms, made mention of his bones wasting away while he was in his sin. The marks of a true believer are not that he does not sin, even sin heinously, but that he will be ever so miserable while in a state of unrepentance from that sin. Like a dark cloud hanging heavily over a tree, blocking much needed sunlight for sustenance, so is sin in the life of a believer. It hangs heavily over him, consuming his every thought, giving him neither rest, nor peace till he repents. David truly knew his transgressions, and they were certainly “ever” before him. Father, I know my sins, and I hate them”¦but not enough, obviously. God, help me to be undone. 

4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

Had David sinned only against God? Had he not sinned against Uriah by committing adultery with his wife and taking his very life?!!? Had he not sinned against Bathsheba by causing her to commit adultery? Had David, the King, not sinned against the people of Israel with lies and deception? Of course he had done all these things. But that is not the point David is raising here. David is making the greatest distinction between God and man: namely, that God is holy. Sin against man and sing against God is vastly different. Man is not holy. Man sins against man, and all, in God’s eyes, are on equal footing apart from divine grace. By saying “Against you, you only have I sinned”¦” Davis was confessing the absolutely heinous nature of rebelling against God’s law, not because of the pain it causes in their own and others’ lives, but because IT IS GOD’S LAW. This is also why David ended this particular section with “that you may be justified in your words.” His point: God is holy, lofty, set apart, without sin. David acknowledged his unholy disregard for God’s standard. I confess my rebellion toward your perfect law and, in light of your holiness, realize the great offense that it is. Have mercy upon me, Lord. I rest in Your promises.

[Reformers, Puritans, and a Geek]

Categories
Devotion

God is Good. All the Time.

God is Good. All the Time. –

Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. – James 1:16-18

Hitler. Mussolini. Stalin. Hussein. Fill in the blank. All were government leaders. All were corrupt. But the main point I wish to express by their mention is this: They were tyrants. They abused their power, which reminds me of that saying, Absolute power corrupts…absolutely. Ruling with iron fists (and iron hearts) they didn’t even begin to consider the good of their people. Their ultimate goals were not pure, but self-serving. Whethere it was their racism, classism, attempts to secure a good legacy at any cost, or just priding in their control over the masses, it can be shown they were selfish, not sacrificial in their rule.

Many anti-Christs in our day would like for folks to not believe in God, particularly the true God as made known by the Scriptures. When they fail to persuade people of such, they proceed to paint a caricature of a god who is like the previously mentioned dictators. They make foolish remarks like, “If God’s so good, then why…” Fill in the blank with all the typical phrases. “…does He allow cancer? Why do children get abused?” So on, so forth, etc. ad nauseum. They contend that a good and loving Ruler wouldn’t permit such things.

The problem with such thinking is that it’s rooted in some idea that man is basically good. I believe it was John Locke who articulated the phrase tabula rasa which means “clean slate”. So the idea was that man is born innocent or neutral and at birth has a clean slate. Ideas have consequences, my friends. Based on this false assertion (that man is born with a clean slate) is the idea that, amongst other things:

1. If man lives perfectly, he can attain eternal life apart from anyone or anything else’s help. In turn, this leads to:

2. The idea of man’s work being measured by a scale at the end of time. So long as his good outweighs his bad, he’s “in”.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, though, such a view is patently false. Man is bent, from conception, toward sin, death, and with a hatred of God’s law. The importance of this basic doctrine is almost incalculable. It is precisely in light of this truth we may discern the inherent and absolute goodness of God. You see, God is not a tyant, nor a dictator. He is a good God. He alone is truly good and though He rules and reigns both sovereignly and supremely, He does so by virtue of His goodness, justice, mercy, and grace.

This is not to say he overlooks sin. No, He does not avoid exacting His justice for the penalty which sin brings. Let it be known: there is no sin that will go unpunished. Not one! Just as each and every person born of mere human parents is a transgressor by nature, so will each and every sin committed by those persons be known, accounted for, and paid in full.

You ask, “But, Josh, what of Christians? Are their sins not forgiven?” Certainly! But they are not simply written off. No! May it never be thought of in such a manner. Every sin ever committed by a true Christian is an affront to God’s holiness and purity. Because God is just, He cannot, nay, He will not cheat Himself. He doesn’t merely pretend that our sins didn’t occur. His justice demands payment.

Herein we find God’s goodness! Christ the Lord has made atonement for each of our sins and has satisfied God’s demand for justice to be served. Christ was accursed for us! That, brothers and sisters, is the epitome of Good. If the Christian can grasp this truth fully, then all things God sends his direction can be seen as ultimately flowing from the goodness of God.

Precisely because we believe God is inherenty good, we can be confident in forgiveness of sin. Because we believe God is good, we can boast of our infirmities, glory in our afflictions, and persevere under trial. Because we believe God is inherently good we can have assurance of salvation, despite our ongoing war with the flesh that still lingers.

Blessed be the Name of the Lord for He, in His goodness, has graciously, mercifully and certainly brought us from darkness into His glorious light! Think on this, Christian, and be not deceived; rather, bask in God’s goodness, whatever your humble circumstance.

 

[Reformers, Puritans, and a Geek]

Categories
Devotion

On Guard, Christian!

On Guard, Christian! –

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. – James 1:12-15

About two years ago, I had the privilege of meeting some of my Christian brothers whom I knew from a favorite online message board. On this same occasion there was a “Men’s Rally” being held at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi. It was wonderful to sit under the preaching and teaching of Dr. Sinclair Ferguson. Excepting the Lord’s Day gathering that followed that weekend, there were two sessions. Dr. Ferguson spent one session on the subject of trials and the other on temptation.

One particular Dr. Ferguson expressed concerning temptation will always stand out in my mind. I don’t remember if it was his own choice of words (I think), or if he was simply paraphrasing John Owen, but his thoughts were along these lines:

“Sometimes in our lives the desire to sin is present, but not the opportunity. At other times, the opportunity presents itself, but the desire is absent. Temptation is most present and at its strongest when the sperm of desire and the egg of opportunity meet.”

What a way to put it, and how true it is! Friends, it is when opportunity and desire grather one with another that we must up the ante eve more on our guard. “Stay dressed for action and keeps your lamps burning”, Christ says. When temptation comes, and it will, the Christian must be ready. Not only is an active alert, preparation necessary, but also, oddly enough, a resignation of the pilgrim’s trust in his own ability to fight; rather, he must, as William Gurnall has so aptly penned, “Take special care not to trust in the armour of God, but in the God of the armour.”

We are deceived if we think we will not face trial or temptation. Though it is true Jesus said to his disciples, “Watch and pray so that you will not enter into temptation”, we cannot take this to mean we won’t ever face such. From The Christian in Complete Armour we read:

“Now if this bold tempter watched Christ so closely, does it not seem likely he will scout you, too, hoping sooner or later to find your graces slumbering? What he misses now by your watchfulness he may gain later by your negligence.”

So, Christians let us rouse ourselves, be alert, and stay alert, and let us never forget the hideousness and heinousness of sin, that we might remain steadfast under trail and receive the crown of life. Amen. I leave you with one more quote from Gurnall with some food for thought:

Because the devil is a very subtle enemy, the saint must always be on his guard. Satan is called the old serpent. The serpent is subtle above other creatures; and an old serpent, above other serpents. If Satan was too crafty for man in his perfection, how much more dangerous to us now in our maimed condition – for we have never recovered from that first crack Adam’s fall gave to out understanding. And as we have lost knowledge, so Satan has gained more and more experience. Granted, he lost his heavenly wisdom as soon as he became a devil, but ever since, he has increased his craft. And while he does not have wisdom enough to do himself good, yet he has knowledge enough to do others harmd. God showed us where Satan’s strength lies when He promised to bruise the head of the serpent; with his head crushed, he will soon die.

 

[Reformers, Puritans, and a Geek]

Categories
Devotion

Foot-in-Mouth

Foot-in-Mouth –

Matthew 16:15-23

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. 21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

If ever there was a time to for one to reflect on something they’ve just learned, Peter’s situation here would’ve been just that. Instead, he immediately, it seems, forgot what he’d just confessed and a whole lotta stupid proceeded drivelingly forward from his mouth. Defintely a case that could be categorized as foot-in-mouth.

As easy as it is too look at poor lil’ Peter and single him out because his blunder has been recorded in the Holy Writ, I have to admit something. He reminds me of me. You see, one moment I’m confessing Christ and do everything to the glory of God, then BAM, it’s as if I’ve forgotten what I just confessed and I’m stickin’ my nose in the pig sty of sin.

Why, why, why!?!? Who will rescue me from this body of death? “Thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ!” 

 

[Reformers, Puritans, and a Geek]

Categories
Devotion

On Assurance of Salvation

I think I get all my ideas on things to post from the Puritanboard.  We were talking about forgiveness of sins this past week in Sunday School and this conversation brought to mind some reflections on the Gospel and our assurance of salvation.  A brother asked:

If one has trouble or find that one can not seem to forgive someone for a wrong can one really be assured of one’s own salvation? This question is just something that I have been wrestling with.

Have you ever questioned whether you are saved or not? After reading Jonathan Edwards “religious affections” One thought that came to mind is that, I wonder if I am really what I think that I am. If I am not a believer this is truly somekind of self-deception. I need some stuff on assurance. All I know is that Jesus came into my life back in 1993 and I have never been the same since.

This is a very simplistic statement that needs a lot of reflection behind it but the bottom line is that if we never struggled and were never weak then what need would there be of faith in Christ’s work?

Living with the accusation that Satan whispers in our ear every time we sin “You’re not really a Christian are you?” is hard enough. What makes things harder is the error that surrounds us in so many “Christian” circles where people are taught that you’ve not really repented of something unless you stop doing it.

I’m so thankful that God found me and rescued me to the Gospel for it exposed me to Christ’s sufficiency and caused me to stop leaning on my own strength. I had been a Roman Catholic in my childhood and then an Evangelical for years but never found peace. I tried to battle, I tried to wage war against the flesh and the world but I failed repeatedly in my strength and was beaten back. Who was going to deliver me from this body of death?!

But I know now that, ultimately, I’m fighting against a foe that has lost its mastery of me. I know that Christ’s strength will renew me. I hear the Gospel remind me that Christ did not die for me because I was worthy. I see the Sacraments speaking God’s promise of salvation and means of spiritual nourishment. I look back on my own baptism when I cannot believe that God would save me and remember that seemingly insane promise (according to the world) that God would save me simply by trusting in and believing in His Son.

And so I sin and I sin mightily and I want to retreat from God and re-double my efforts and promise Him, on my own strength, that I’m going to try harder. Maybe then, I reason in my denial of the Gospel, will God accept me.

But then He finds me with His Gospel yet again and says to me: “Do you believe?” and I cry out “Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief!” And in the simple trust of a son who loves and is grateful to His Father, I discover again the desire to please Him and the fountain of strength toward that end.

And so I find myself continuing in the fight, striving against sin, with fear and trembling, trusting that God is at work in me to will and do His good pleasure.

Categories
Devotion

“A Constellation of Graces”

From my blog


I am unsure why the idea of beauty embarrasses me, as though my thoughts are too defective to confess. Often it seems to me that my beauty receptors process input in blunt chunks.

Objects–dwellings, clothing, the stuff of life–engage me with their utility, and beauty somehow is optional. The miraculous intricacies of creation–animal, botanical, and mineral, of the earth, sea, and visible heavens–captivate me; nevertheless, I fear my appreciation is terribly analytical.

But that isn’t what distresses me. The huge and terrible question is: Do I find beauty in Christ? This is where diffidence grips and I fear I am casehardened.

Certainly I find beauty in his Word. But, “He is altogether lovely“ (SS 5:16) refers to a Person, not to a Word. But this Person is the Word…is the Word the sole repository of his beauty? Is seeing beauty in the Word sufficient to apprehend “the beauty of Christ,” the altogether loveliness? And, I can be analytical with the Word….

So in my distraction I turn to my therapist, Dr. John Owen, who died in 1683, but left a therapeutic legacy of systematic theology. Owen, always on deck with a lifeline, assures me that Christ is indeed beautiful, and his beauty is something I can begin to take in. His beauty is in his Word, because he is there. His beauty is his wisdom, his pondering the “hidden man of the heart;” it is his eminency, his strength, his faithfulness, and his stability. Dr. Owen wrote that prescription for me.

Owen writes more than 20 pages specifically on the subject of the beauty of Christ in Vol. II, Communion With God (Banner of Truth) pp. 56-78. The rest of this volume and much of his other work is also rife with the subject, if not as specifically. I am not given to typing exercises, but he lists 11 ways in which Christ is “lovely.” From Owen’s exposition on the beauty of Christ, I will here extract one crystalline sentence:

“There is light in him, and life in him, and power in him, and all consolation in him;–a constellation of graces, shining with glory and beauty.” (The Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth, Vol. II, p. 75)

That, I find beautiful.

I remain diffident about my blunt chunk approach. I am consoled that this has little to do with beauty in a way that I need to understand it.

To know something of the light and the life and the power and the consolation of Christ is to know something of his beauty.

Categories
Devotion

The House of Mill: All Mirrors, No Windows

This is from my blog, Board Housewife & The Cat

I am still reading Dabney to the Cat. He takes it in through his senses. James and son John Stuart Mill would posit that I, if I formulate any ideas about their work, am experiencing “copies of single sensations.”

The Cat, whose ideation begins and ends with his own sensory learning, disbelieves Mill. The Cat learns everything in one take and finds insulting the idea of copies of his own uniquely perfect sensations.

The Cat does not think that I am as capable a learner as he. According to Mill, the Cat would be right. But the Cat would still be a lower animal in Mill’s scheme, because he cannot name his sensations, and I can. I will not read that part to the Cat.

According to Mill, my cumulative learning and experience, from hot stovetops to jurisprudence, is a bundle of habits. (But how would he account for my bad habits of not learning from experience? I have burned myself more than once.) I have received no a priori input, not even language. I have learned nothing but that to which my senses have had the happy or unhappy occasion to be exposed. I am a perfectly revelation-proof being.

So that is how Mill proposes to escape God! God will never make it past those nerve bundles. Mill has devised a scheme to enable man to make himself inaccessible to revelation.

Once man acquires an idea through his senses, he will “mark,” or “name” it, so that he can remember it, so that he may repeat it or not, depending on whether it was enjoyable or not. So man can define reality by naming what he likes. The logical corollary is, he may elect not to name anything he doesn’t like. Poof. All gone. No more unhappy thing.

I have encountered children who were unable to extrapolate because of brain damage. You could set up a simple arithmetic problem: put five oranges on a table, remove three, and show them that two were left. Then, if you put five apples on the table, you would have to start all over again. They had no idea what would happen if you removed three apples. Mill’s reasoning, notwithstanding his creditable intelligence, is similar. His scheme simply does not permit extrapolation. Each idea must be built on an identical chain of experiences. Since apprehension of God’s revelation of himself requires abstract thought, Mill’s refusal to abstract is another God-proofing mechanism.

Objective reality is necessarily elusive in Mill’s scheme. A rock, for instance, is a “permanent possibility of sensations.” We might as well vote on the meaning of that one.

Educators study John Stuart Mill today. (His work, according to Dabney, differed from his father’s by accentuating it at its most torqued.) They learn that the end of education is the individual’s happiness. Dabney notes this in his chapter on Mill: “Hence, it follows that moral education consists simply in establishing desirable associations between acts and consequences, by the frequent repetition of the right acts” (Robert L. Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, Naphtali Press, 2003, p. 58.) But with no a priori information as to what “right” is, who can know what should be repeated? The senses, of course. Happy sensations are worth repeating.

Mill should not be accused of saying that men disregard the welfare of fellow men in favor of their own happiness. The bludgeoner does not have the right to bludgeon repeatedly because it makes him happy. Mill provides for moral categories of prudence and fortitude (duties to ourselves), and justice and benevolence (duties to our neighbors). However, some sort of unrevealed natural desire comes into play–there is, once again, no a priori revelation of what constitutes prudence or justice or benevolence. Men simply learn from experience what is pleasurable and what is painful. In a world without sin and sociopathy, this might even be thinkable. But we do not live in a world without sin and sociopathy. Nor, contrary to Mill’s premise, do we live in a world without revealed law.

Once again, the sensualist is lost in his own quagmire, attempting to God-proof himself. He has built a house of mirrors–surrounding himself with his own perceptions of the consequences of his own experiences–with no windows admitting the light of revelation.

…every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Ju 17:6; 21:25

For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. Ro 10:3

Categories
Devotion

The Pontiff of Humanity

from my blog Board Housewife & The Cat

“The Pontiff of Humanity”

Advisory: Scary content.

The Cat enjoys scaring his friend Zack. He has urged me, therefore, to write about Positivism’s arch scion, Auguste Comte, about whom we were just reading in Dabney. Comte had the modest aspiration of becoming “Pontiff of Humanity.”

Ideas that reject sources of knowledge can get very weird, and Comte quite possibly attained the zenith of weirdness. If we owe our ideas to no sources of knowledge outside of our own experience of phenomena, we tend to become a bit obsessed with ourselves. Thus, atheism is the predictable logical consequence of positivism.

Positivism denies the supernatural, even in light of the evidence of supernatural facts. Thus, the documented miracles that Christ performed on earth before thousands of witnesses would be denied or explained naturally–an impossibility untroubling to a positivist mind.

The cosmological implication of this is, or should be, terribly frightening: self-existence without God. As Dabney puts it so well, “Thus, matter is clothed with the attributes of God” (Robert L. Dabney: The Sensualistic Philosophy, Naphtali Books, 2003, p. 81).

Comte, who lived from 1798 to 1857, was certainly not the first person to attempt to recreate God; nor was he original in his attempt to introduce worship of himself. However, there is a certain novelty to his approach of denying the existence of any god, while introducing a religious system of worship with himself as the center, and expecting liberty-enjoying people to go along with it.

To the psychotic Comte, a religion without God was a reasonable concept. His religion included the necessary element of worshipers. To ensure a prodigious number of them, he devised a congregation known as the “Great Being,” consisting of all humanity, living, dead, and those who will live. Evidently hip to the utility of liturgical worship principles, Comte devised a system of worship with 84 holy days in a year and nine sacraments (p. 83).

Comte’s system was to consist of a “spiritual order” of positivist philosophers and educators (reminiscent of Plato’s philosopher kings, but in Plato’s gnostic model, at least knowledge was understood to come from without the visible world). These people would be presumed infallible and defiance of their dicta would not be tolerated. Above the oligarchy would be the Pontiff of Humanity, with Comte, of course, to be the first to hold this office. The Pontiff, imbued with unsurpassed wisdom, would select his own successor.

Comte had a plan for the United States of America, wherein three bankers were to govern each of the States. The spiritual order would be absolute in its authority, and its authority would be absolute in its sphere of human control–social, spiritual, educational, and, economic.

Comte suffered from manic depression in addition to his obvious megalomania, and was rescued in the course of several suicide attempts. But consider the burden under which he labored–the pressure of ruling every soul that ever lived, did live, and ever would live–equipped only with the laws of nature directly sensible to him. No wonder he held such a hopeless, fatalistic world view, holding “intellectual skepticism as the most advantageous state of mind” (Dabney, p. 84). The irony was likely lost on him that he could not even trust the validity of his own “infallible” ideas.

Unchallenged deference to experts because they are experts, regardless of competence, is a current manifestation of Comte’s positivist world view. I would submit that Comte’s view is not extreme, but rather the logical outcome of positivism, and that it exists around us more than makes us comfortable to think.

Dabney said this in the 19th century, and it is as true in our day as it was in his: Positivism’s “most deplorable result is the impulse which it gives to irreligion and open atheism. Thousands of shallow persons, who have no understanding of any connected philosophy, and are too indolent and inattentive to acquire it, are emboldened to babble materialism and impiety, by hearing it said that the “˜positive philosophy’ has exploded the supernatural” (Dabney, p. 85).

Adherence to positivism and its sequelae is shallow and uncomplicated; it is a giving over to a reprobate mind. Paul presaged the philosophy long before Dabney warned America: “for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…” Ro 1:25. “And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting…” Ro 1:28.

Positivists would profess that their philosophy advocates nothing specifically immoral, that nature itself is sufficient revelation of proper moral conduct. Whose nature–Auguste Comte’s? Their scheme forecloses any moral source outside of nature and sensibility; therefore, how can morality be known? But this is a rude question to ask an all-knowing Pontiff of Humanity.