The "Good" in the Good News

I was thinking about the question posed by people regarding talking about the wrath of God in a gospel presentations (or anything that makes people feel bad. Calling people “sinners”, for example). the question posed is this, “We are command to tell people the good news of Jesus Christ. Now, all that stuff about wrath and sin is not all that “good” to some people. So how can we tell people about the good news if we tell them so much bad news (wrath, sinner)?”

I believe that problem with this question is that it defines the meaning of what is a good message according to a cultural context. What is good differs from culture to culture. The same message can be affirmed in one culture while causing people to tear their hair out in frustration in another. So to force the message of Christ to be defined by a cultural understanding of good is just letting the culture tell you what to preach. Our message that we have been entrusted with is filtered through a grid of acceptability. If, indeed, what we preach is considered “good” to the hearers.

This can prove detrimental to the gospel message which we are commended to preach. Here in America it seems to work just fine to lay off the bits about wrath and hell. I mean, those are uncomfortable subjects. Isn't it best to just tell people about how much God loves them by sending forth His Son to die on a cross and be resurrected in three days for them? To bring up the part of them being rebels against the living God and the only thing that their rebellion is going to accomplish is an eternity in hell is just going to make them feel down cast. So, we think it is best to lay off the the wrath part since it really is not that good of news to people. But lets say that one day while sitting down on one side of a park bench you turn and see an older man on the other side. You begin conversing with him out of friendliness. You'all talk about normal things at first: what both of you do, where each of you live, etc. during the conversation you come to find out that he is Jewish. Thus, you begin to move the conversation towards a more religious direction. It is not much longer until you bring up the fact that you are a Christian. “Oh,” he says, “I have heard about Christianity but have not had the privilege to talk an actual follower.” This, of course, excites you tremendously, but before you start explaining your beliefs he makes the following comment, “What I do know about Christianity is that you believe that the Messiah died on a cross. Now let me tell you, I shutter in my soul to think that God's messiah would die in such a fashion. I cannot bare the thought of such an atrocious idea!” What are you going to do? Obviously, the news that the messiah did in fact die on a cross is not good news for him. In fact it will probably close his ears to where ever else you are going to say.

Do you see the problem when you let the culture or the person define what is the good that our message should bring? Now, not only are you removing the truth of God's judicial wrath but if you are consistent, you have to remove the very fact that Jesus died on a cross! So that the message you are bring could be good in the listeners ear. So now we have gone from removing a few attributes too removing the very essence of the gospel! If we, indeed, say that the hearers are the determiners of the nature of the good we bring we are capable of having the very essence of the gospel removed from our message.

That is why the nature of the good in the gospel is not based in a culture's take on what makes them feel good but in the immutable and glorious character of God. That must be the nature of the good in our news. Our news is good because we tell of the nature and workings of our God who is Himself good. God came, in the flesh, to reconcile a world that rejects Him though He made the world and the very people that rejected Him. That is a good action. But what about wrath? It is telling that this is even a question. Yes! God's wrath is good! It is righteous! It is holy! God does the right thing by punishing evil and wickedness.

The proclamation that God's wrath will be poured out on those who do evil is good news. When ever you are told that someone did the right thing you always take it as good news. Well, God punishing those that deserve punishment is a good thing. For every tyrannical dictator, every child kidnapper, and every raper, will be punished according to what they did. What kind of news would it be if you heard that God just looks past evil atrocities? If you hear of a judge that pardons the clearly guilty, do you take that to be good news? No! Good news is hearing that the Lord of the universe will render all accounts settled in the end. Justice with be served. Evil will be punished. This is good news!

The problem that we face is that the people in this culture do not see themselves as evil. They consider themselves to be good people that slip up now and then. Now, they would say, there are some really bad people out there that God should punish. But, God will just see all the good things that I have done and see that they out weight the bad things in my life. The very idea that God's wrath should be over them personally is not only far from their minds, it is offensive. I mean, God being wrathful on a “good” person? What is up with that?

See, once again, that when we let the culture define what is the good in our gospel we end up letting the culture shape the gospel itself? God's righteous judgment against wickedness is removed because telling people the truth that they are indeed wicked is offensive. Therefore we end up failing to tell people the very truths that they need to hear. The very philosophical and ideological problems that are hostile in people's minds to embracing the gospel go unchallenged. If people do not believe that they need saving they will not look for a savior. The good that the unconverted want is not always the good that they should have. At times it is not even good. We cannot let sinful people tell us what good is.

So, the good of our gospel is God. His nature and His deeds. Man in his rebellion is always going to be offend by some, if not all, aspects of the message we bring. We must, however, present boldly, clearly, confidently, tenderly, humbly, and passionately the full gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

No babies, No problem! (So they say...)

Well, I guest this is one answer to a falling population of children as reported by the Washington Post. Just build robots to complete tasks that would be done by the young.


Japan, like many other countries, is paying the cost for rejecting the Biblical view of sex, children, and motherhood. Because Japanese women are dodging motherhood, there is no up coming generation to take the place of the departing generation. Numerous jobs will not be filled and the general population is going to decline. From the report by the Washington Post,

Within 50 years, the population, now 127 million, will fall by a third, the government projects. Within a century, two-thirds of the population will be gone. That would leave Japan, now the world's second-largest economy, with about 42 million people.

With these figures Japan is in for a ruff future.

The reasons for the decreasing population is two fold according to the report, Negative look on immigration and decrease in motherhood.

But what testimony is given by a nation unable to grow by itself. Immigration helps, but when the citizens of a nation cannot reproduce, it is a very clear message that something is wrong.

If Japanese women do marry and have children, they drop out of the workforce at far higher rates than women in other wealthy countries. The primary reason is because they cannot find affordable day care, according to Matsui and many others.

So according to the experts in Japan, If quality childcare was offered more women would become mothers. Or maybe the reason is a diminished view of motherhood?

Now I don't know this issue in-depth, But I believe that the Bible does provide an answer to this. A reclaimed vision of the beauty and glory of parenthood and children.

Today's world tells women that their value is found in what they accomplish in a career outside the home. With a broad side attack from feminism. Women are pressured to forget about the home and find a job else where. It is also apparent form the article that materialism is affecting the picture as well. Women want money over children.

Unlike the world, the Bible paints a different picture of what women (and men as well) should strive for to get satisfaction: To know and follow the living God. The main problem in Japan, as well as the world, comes from a misplaced focus on true happiness. Money, prestige, material gain, and many more things are raised up as fulfillments of the longings in people's heart.

Be appalled, O heavens, at this;be shocked, be utterly desolate,declares the Lord, for my people have committed two evils:they have forsaken me,the fountain of living waters,and hewed out cisterns for themselves,broken cisternsthat can hold no water. (Jer 2:12-13)

There is no fountain that can satisfy but the living God! There is nothing that can fill the empty heart accept God. We are made to know and worship God. Not any God that we construct. We must look to His revelation of Himself, The Bible. for in the Bible God has revealed is eternal character. And from that character he as revealed to us the standard by which we are to live and conduct ourselves.

Because we know Him as good, we can see that His ways are wonderful and good. For His laws reflect His character. Therefore, His commandments are not burdensome but are the means to true, lasting joy. our joy is found is being well pleasing to Him because we love Him.So what does God say about women's main task? What should women be striving for?

and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. (Titus 2: 4-5)

God's plan for women is to show his glory by putting their husband and children before themselves. Their goal is not to achieve a high paying career, but serve the Lord by nurturing and building the home. having and raising kids is not to be looked at as a burden to endure but a gift to rejoice in!

Do note, I am not saying that women should not get a job outside the home. I don't believe that is the meaning of this passage. But, the meaning is about the priorities. Which is first, the career or the kids? Is a woman's goal to make herself known in the business world? Or is her a means to complete her main mission which is to love her husband and children?

That is where things have gone wrong in this world. Women have put their careers above their families. If they have children it is suppose to aid their careers. But in fact children to do not do such a thing. So, as the happenings in Japan prove, when women put their jobs over the prospect of having kids, more than likely they will not have kids. (But of course, if they had a place to dump their kids off so they could have a career then they might start having kids.That is why some experts are blaming the problem on the lack of childcare).

I do find it interesting and frightening where feminism is taking mankind. Feminism is a world view that is causing robots to be implemented because there is no children to fulfill the fictions of a working economic society.

Because God has shown light in our darkened soul, revealing the glorious nature of his work on the cross and of his person. We gladly follow Him where every He leads. May the happenings in Japan warn us of the cost of forsaking God's laws.

The God Man

“Jesus is God and man in one person: man that he may feel our woes, God that he may help us out of them.”- Charles H. Spurgeon, “Immanuel - The Light of Life” (sermon on Isaiah 9:1,2)

That was today's gospel quote from the blog Of First Importance. I really liked it and wanted to past it on.

Preaching Select Attributes of God and the Effect of that with the Practice of Denying Penal Substitution.

Here is a paper I wrote for one of my classes last semester. It could only be a short paper so I could not get that indept. Any how, I think it gets the main point of this debate.



Choosing to see and worship select attributes of God’s character can lead to truths of the Bible being denied. It is costly to preach only the attributes of God that you and your hearers want to believe and hear about. An example of this tendency is the denial of penal substitution because the doctrines if sin and God’s wrath are ignored.

An evangelical pastor made this statement about the doctrine of penal substitution (Jesus completely satisfying the wrath of God by His death for those who believe on Him) not to long ago,

"The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed…If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil." (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003], pp. 182-183)


Such was the statement made by this pastor, the belief that Jesus took the wrath of God upon Himself at the cross is equated with “cosmic child abuse.” The rejection of this truth, however, is not only coming from him. If one keeps an ear tuned to theological circles, he will come across more and more people who count penal substitution as a worthless or a offensive doctrine. Why is this happening?

Stand under most gospel presentations today and you will here a reduced gospel message about humanity. D. A. Carson sums up this gospel message preached today very well,

"In recent years it has become popular to sketch the Bible's story-line something like this: Ever since the fall, God has been active to reverse the effects of sin. He takes action to limit sin's damage; he calls out a new nation, the Israelites, to mediate his teaching and his grace to others; he promises that one day he will come as the promised Davidic king to overthrow sin and death and all their wretched effects. This is what Jesus does: he conquers death, inaugurates the kingdom of righteousness, and calls his followers to live out that righteousness now in prospect of the consummation still to come."(Why Is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution Again Coming Under Attack? by: D. A. Carson.)

Notice that missing from most gospel presentations is any mention of the offense that sin is to God and the wrath that He has against it. Sin has been reduced to pain and sorrow in this world. It is the troubles and grief that is brought on a person because of their bad choices. God’s response is simply to remove it from humanity. Sin is not a abominable act that insults the character of God. God’s view of sin is ignored or seen only in terms of it effect on humanity.

Added to this is the removal of the wrath of God upon sin. God is presented these days as a fixer of problems. No indignation from the rebellion that goes on before Him is even spoken of. No floods of anger and vengeance being stored up to be unleashed on God’s enemies is acknowledge. The infinite offense to God’s holiness that is caused by sin is a total stranger to the stereotypical evangelistic message.

So, what we get from this message is a reduced gospel. The problem is not that the story line is completely wrong. It is the fact that only half of God’s character is revealed. God’s justice and wrath are completely eclipsed by the intensification of God’s more acceptable, enjoyable, and delightful attributes. In essence, then, what we get from this selective message is no teaching on God’s wrath and justice. Thus, when the wrath of God is brought before people, it is a foreign and sometimes offense subject.

When one brings these facts to the penal substitution debate, puzzle pieces start falling into place as to why this doctrine is being denied. If the wrath of God is an unknown subject, no one would know that it must be removed? It would seem very odd that Christ would absorb the anger of God if God has not been angry at sinners. It would seem that Christ was given unnecessary affliction in His death. Thus, by the removal of the consideration of God’s wrath, the atmosphere for this doctrine to be denied has been made.

God’s attributes are not decorations of God that can be picked and chosen according to one’s preferences. God is all that He is. All his attributes make up His glorious character. This doctrinal debate is just an example of the consequences of only looking at the attributes of God that we like.

If thou but suffer God to guide thee

This is one of the best(if not the best)song regarding trusting God through trials. The message of the song is to trust in God's character and purposes, (for that is what the song is full of) when times are hard and there are few answers. I have been aided multiple times by the truth in this song.


If thou but suffer God to guide thee
And hope in Him through all thy ways,
He’ll give thee strength, whate’er betide thee,
And bear thee through the evil days.
Who trust in God’s unchanging love
Builds on the rock that naught can move.

Be patient and await His leisure
In cheerful hope, with heart content
To take whatever thy Father’s pleasure
And His discerning love hath sent,
Nor doubt our inmost want are known
To Him who chose us for His own.

God knows full well when time of gladness
Shall be the needful thing for thee.
When He has tried thy soul with sadness
And from all guile has found thee free,
He comes to thee all unaware
And makes thee own His loving care.

Nor think amid the fiery trial
That God hath cast thee off unheard,
That he whose hopes meet no denial
Must surely be of God preferred.
Time passes and much change doth bring
And set a bound to everything.

Sing, pray, and keep His ways unswerving,
Perform thy duties faithfully,
And trust His Word: though undeserving,
Thou yet shalt find it true for thee.
God never yet forsook in need
The soul that trusted Him indeed.

(If thou but suffer God to guide thee. Words: Georg Neu­mark, 1641. Information from Cyber Hymnal.)

Homosexuality and the Bible

A friend of my posted an article from a discussion board which said that homosexuality is compatible with the Bible. This is my response to the article.

I feel a need to respond to your views of homosexuality and the Bible. Before I begin let me say that I am up for my views being challenged. I have no problem with a person saying that I maybe wrong and giving me reasons why that is so. However, I expect the same attitude from the challenger. He should allow his beliefs to under go attack as well. Allowing the possibility that he may be wrong.
And in all things, Christ’s love and mercy should reign in the discussion. That does not mean things will not get intense. Yet, I am to respect you and not demean you as a person. If I correct you it is not out of hatred but out of love for God’s truth and wanting you to attain God’s truth. So, let me begin.

“Even when we believe the Scriptures are "infallible" or "without error," it's terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error. We are human. We are fallible. And we can misunderstand and misinterpret these ancient words. To many people have used the scripture to justify murdering, or condemning homosexuals and other minorities.”

So you begin with a Post-modern assault on our ability to understand. Why is there error in every understanding of a sentence? Is this not what you said? “it's terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error.” Funny that you seem to understand fully what God meant when He said that He is love! If you are going to say that our ability to understand is limited, apply that to yourself as well. Not just on the people you disagree with.
It is agreed that people have and are misinterpreting Scripture. But that cannot be used for your position. You have just as good of chance of being wrong as those you disagree with! To stand up and say, “everybody can be wrong, so follow my beliefs.” is inconsistent to say the least. People have just as good reason to follow what they want to believe.

“I believe with all my heart that the Holy Spirit is still teaching us. When we reconsider the texts that are used by some people to condemn God's gay children, we must fervently seek the Holy Spirit's guidance, or we risk being misled by our own prejudices.”

You need to change the words “some people” in the second sentence to “basically every Christian since the God gave the Law to Moses!” The belief that homosexuality is a sin has been held by the church for 2000 years. I don’t mean this in a mean way but, your belief is the strange one, held by very few believers. (It gets even fewer with you put the word “orthodox” before believer).
I agree that the church is still reforming. Yet, God is not some distant being, waiting and hoping that we get the facts right. God wants to be known. He wants His commandments to be obey by everybody on earth. He became man so that He would be known! And God has not left the church to fight for herself. He has guided her through many trials and hard times. So, when I want to see whose position is correct, where should I turn to? I new movement saying follow us. Or the consistent testimony of believer after believer after believer for 2000 years saying the same thing?

“Because the text says it is "natural" that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, it doesn’t say that people of the same sex who love each other are unnatural. It doesn’t even address any other relationship. Such as those who cannot have children, or those who are to old, or those who are single. And this story is not about sexuality, or fact. It is about Gods power, and his creation of the universe. This story is not meant to condemn anything. The bible is not used as a sexual “handbook” it is a testament to the power of our God.”

You really start going far away from the Bible with these arguments. “it doesn’t say that people of the same sex who love each other are unnatural.” I argue the fact that it does! So lets break from what we are doing to look at the texts themselves

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22)

You said, “The only reason that homosexuality is an "Abomination" is because the word in English is different meaning than in Hebrew. The word in Hebrew is (TO'EBAH) and it means: behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive.”

Let me be clear and kind about that definition. It is flat out wrong! If that is the meaning, how do you explain verse 30 of the same chapter,

“So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.” (Lev. 18:30)

God did not believe that those behaviors listed in chapter 18 was for a certain time and place! God’s people were never to practice them.
Lets get the context of this text. In chapter 18 God tells Israel what practices Israel must avoid when they enter the land,

“You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.” (Lev 18:3-5)

All the practices in that chapter were sins before God. And in that list was homosexuality.
You said, “Aside from the fact that Leviticus was meant for Priests so that they would be greater than priests of other nations. Paul and Jesus both said that it wasn’t for Christian believers.”
The first sentence is, once again, completely wrong as Lev 18:3-5 demonstrates. And can you show me were Paul and Jesus said that all of Leviticus was not for Christians?


Romans 1:24-27: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

You said in regard to this passage, “This is hard to see the true meaning of the text, because it has to do with what Paul did that led to this letter to the Roman church. Why did he do it? Because he was on a travel and he came across temples dedicated to the gods and goddesses of sex and passion. In the temples he saw many lustful sexual acts. All of them rituals to the Gods they believed in….It’s the lustful and pagan like beliefs and rituals that he came across when traveling…It is about letting desire take over, and then lose sight of God.”

Take this from a loving brother in Christ, I call your explanation, “Making something up to get around the clear meaning of a passage!” Where in the verses, or the surrounding context, or the entire book of Romans does Paul give this reason for what he said in verses 24-27! Where is there anything about untamed sex in the verses? No where! Instead Paul is quiet clear in what he is addressing, “men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,” The only sin stated is men wanting other men sexually!


1 Corinthians 6:9: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The trouble you had for this verse was the Greek word that was translated for homosexual. You also made a remark that was very strange indeed, “Its also important to know who Paul was talking to. He was talking to the Christians of Ephesus and Corinth during a war they were having. He was reminding them to love one another like the 10 commandments say. And then preceded to remind them of the new law. And showed them that God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another.”

A war that they were in!? What is your historical backup for that belief?
I ask this in love, have you ever read 1 Corinthians? Or even the context of chapter 6? Paul and God was, and still are, very concerned about who is “in” and who’s “out.” Now I am not going to respond to this any further because there is a chance I don’t understand what you are saying about “in” and “out.” Is that in regard to salvation or something else?

Now back to the Greek word, Having looked at The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, Greek-English Lexicon of the Net Testament Based on Semantic Domains, and Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. All translate the word homosexual. Here is the verse in the NET translation and the explanation on why they translated the words as they did,

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners,5 practicing homosexuals,6”

5tn This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. malakov" 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’ …As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase “male prostitutes” for malakoiv in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean “males who sell their services to women,” while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation “passive homosexual partners” has been used here.
6tn On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ajrsenokoivth" states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. malakov"…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ajrsenokoivth" in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakov", the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

The same reason of 6tn is given for the 1 Timothy 1:10 passage.

Let me get back to your flow of arguments now,

“It doesn’t even address any other relationship. Such as those who cannot have children, or those who are to old, or those who are single. And this story is not about sexuality, or fact. It is about Gods power, and his creation of the universe. This story is not meant to condemn anything. The bible is not used as a sexual “handbook” it is a testament to the power of our God.”

Yes God displays His immense love to us through the Bible. But that is not the only thing. The Bible is the revelation of God’s glory which is His love and justice and grace and all that He is. No, the whole story is not about sex, it is about God. Yet God created sex for the display of His glory. God’s glory is only shown through sex when it is practiced the way He wants it done. So, we must conform our sex lives to the glory that God has revealed to us in Scripture. Namely, obeying His commandments. For His laws show His glory. To disobey them is to diminish the glory of God. So how we view and practice sex is connected with God’s big story.

You said, “This story is not meant to condemn anything.” The story is meant to condemn any person or thing that rises in rebellion against the glory of God! If homosexuality diminishes God’s glory, which I believe God says it does, then this story is against homosexuality.

“Remember that Jesus, the Jewish prophets, and even Paul never even comment on the responsible love a gay man or lesbian feels for another.”

They never commented on the supposed “love” a 53 year old has for a 7 year old either. So I guess, biased in your logic, that is acceptable as well?
What the Biblical writers made clear was, the only sex that glorifies God is done in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. That is the only praised means of sexual practice. All others are looked down upon! There is no way you can argue equal footing for gay’s and straights in Scripture. It is not there.

“There is nothing in the bible to condemn it or approve it.”

I have given you my refutations of your arguments and interpretations in this response. I have made it clear that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexual as diminishing the glory of God and thus making it a sin.

Please look to the Scriptures and think about your position. May we, by God’s Spirit, all attain the understanding of the precious truth of God’s Word.

Soli Deo Gloria
Charlie Albright

Man's Dependence on God by Jonathan Edwards

Some quotes from Jonathan Edward's sermon I read this morning,


The redeemed have all their objective good in God. God himself is the great good which they are brought to the possession and enjoyment of by redemption. He is the highest good, and the sum of all that good which Christ purchased. God is the inheritance of the saints; he is the portion of their souls. God is their wealth and treasure, their food, their Life, their dwelling-place, their ornament and diadem, and their everlasting honor and the glory They have none in heaven but God; he is the great good which the redeemed are received to at death, and which they are to rise to at the end of the world.


God hath made man’s emptiness and misery, his low, lost, and ruined state, into which he sunk by the fall, an occasion of the greater advancement of his own glory, as in other ways, so particularly in this, that there is now much more universal and apparent dependence of man on God. Though God be pleased to lift man out of that dismal abyss of sin and woe into which he was fallen, and exceedingly to exalt him in excellency and honor, and to a high pitch of glory and blessedness, yet the creature hath nothing in any respect to glory of; all the glory evidently belongs to God, all is in a mere, and most absolute, and divine dependence on the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.


Now whatever scheme is inconsistent with our entire dependence on God for all, and of having all of him, through him, and in him, it is repugnant to the design and tenor of the gospel, and robs it of that which God accounts its luster and glory.


It is the delight of a believing soul to abase itself and exalt God alone.


Let us endeavor to obtain, and increase in, a sensibleness of our great dependence on God, to have our eye to him alone, to mortify a self-dependent and self-righteous disposition.


Hath any man hope that he is converted, and sanctified, and that his mind is endowed with true excellency and spiritual beauty? That his sins are forgiven, and he received into God’s favor, and exalted to the honor and blessedness of being his child, and an heir of eternal life? Let him give God all the glory; who alone makes him to differ from the worst of men in this world, or the most miserable of the damned in Hell. Hath any man much comfort and strong hope of eternal life, let not his hope lift him up, but dispose him the more to abase himself, to reflect on his own exceeding unworthiness of such a favor, and to exalt God alone. Is any man eminent in holiness, and abundant in good works, let him take nothing of the glory of it to himself, but ascribe it to him whose “workmanship we are, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.”