Feast of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, 461 There was no point of controversy between Jesus and the read more

Feast of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, 461 There was no point of controversy between Jesus and the Jews; Jesus brought no new doctrine unto them. Jesus said, What the masters in Israel teach, what the Pharisees and the Scribes teach, is perfectly correct. There was no dogma which was the cause of controversy between Jesus and the nation; there was no new custom that Jesus introduced: He went into the Temple every day, He observed the ordinances and festivals of Israel. What was the subject of dispute and controversy between Jesus and the Jews? It was no doctrine, it was no innovation, it was Jesus Himself whom they rejected. There was an antipathy in them to the person of Jesus: it was the Lord Himself whom they hated, because they hated the Father... But Jesus knew... that it was because He was one with the Father, because He was the express image of His being, because He was the perfect manifestation of the character of God, that they hated Him; and therefore Jesus was pained, not because they hated Him, but because they hated in Him the Father.

The shameful apostasy of Israel is unparalleled among the heathen nations of the world, God charges (Jer. 2:9-13). Search through read more

The shameful apostasy of Israel is unparalleled among the heathen nations of the world, God charges (Jer. 2:9-13). Search through every pagan nation, inquire in every idol temple, investigate the religious life of the idolaters of the world, and there will be found a fidelity to these false gods that will put Israel's unfaithfulness to her God to shame. Israel's conduct was unheard of even among the heathen. The idolatrous nations remained true to their gods, in spite of the fact that they did not actually exist and could not help them in any way. God, as it were, marvels at Israel's unbelief.

Commemoration of Ethelburga, Abbess of Barking, 675 Most Christians would agree with C. S. Lewis when he says read more

Commemoration of Ethelburga, Abbess of Barking, 675 Most Christians would agree with C. S. Lewis when he says [of the doctrine of the Final Judgment], "There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power". But we cannot do so, for two reasons: first, because it enjoys the full support of Christ's own teaching; and second, because it makes a good deal of sense. If the gospel is extended to us for our acceptance, it must be possible also to reject and refuse it. The alternative would be for God to compel an affirmative response. It would be nice to be able to say that all will be saved, but the question arises, Does everyone want to be saved? What would love for God be like if it were coerced? There is a hell because God respects our freedom and takes our decisions seriously -- more seriously, perhaps, than we would sometimes wish. God wants to see hell completely empty; but if it is not, He cannot be blamed. The door is locked only on the inside. It is not Christians but the unrepentant who "want" it [to be locked].

Concluding a short series on topics of Christian apologetics: We need to forget the imaginary Christ who has been read more

Concluding a short series on topics of Christian apologetics: We need to forget the imaginary Christ who has been ours too long and to rediscover the real Christ, the Christ of the prophets and the martyrs and the confessors, the Christ who is not only the lover of souls but also master, a monarch with demands to make in industry, in finance, in education, in the arts, in marriage, in the home; the Christ who is teacher of a social ideology which has eternal validity; the Christ who cries aloud with convincing force, "He who would save his life will lose it; only he who is willing to lose his life, can find it.".

Continued from yesterday: The result of all this is that the Christian is a free man. It is here read more

Continued from yesterday: The result of all this is that the Christian is a free man. It is here to be observed that the term "freedom" is ambiguous in common usage. It is sometimes used to imply that a man can do just as he likes, undetermined by any external force. To this the determinist replies that as a matter of fact this freedom is so limited by the laws which condition man's empirical existence as to be illusory. The rejoinder from the advocates of free will is that no external force can determine a man's moral conduct (and with mere automatism we are not concerned), unless it is presented in consciousness, and that in being so presented it becomes a desire, a temptation, or a motive. In suffering himself to be determined by these, the man is not submitting to external control, but to something which he has already made a part of himself, for good or ill. When, however, we have said that, we are faced with a further problem. Not all that is desired is desirable, and in being moved by my immediate desire I may be balking myself of that ultimate satisfaction which is the real object of all effort. If that is so, then to "do as I like" may well be no freedom at all. There is a law of our being which forbids satisfaction to be found along that line, as it is written, "He gave them their desire, and sent leanness into their souls." (Ps. 106:15) (Continued tomorrow).

Whenever man decides that he is competent to do as he pleases he is soon enjoying Hell on earth, partly read more

Whenever man decides that he is competent to do as he pleases he is soon enjoying Hell on earth, partly because much of what he pleases, except he know he must obey God, is low-down disgusting and partly because, even when he pleases to do something decent, he is mostly too weak-willed and too addle-pated to bring the same to good effect. Man must be redeemed by a power outside himself. I do not regard the over-determined "optimists" as silly; they seem to me only the victims of a wishful thinking.

The now wherein God made the first man, and the now wherein the last man disappears, and the now I read more

The now wherein God made the first man, and the now wherein the last man disappears, and the now I am speaking in, all are the same in God, where this is but the now.

Commemoration of Caroline Chisholm, Social Reformer, 1877 In saying God is there, we are saying God exists, and not read more

Commemoration of Caroline Chisholm, Social Reformer, 1877 In saying God is there, we are saying God exists, and not just talking about the word God, or the idea God. We are speaking of the proper relationship to the living God who exists. In order to understand the problems of our generation, we should be very alive to this distinction. Semantics (linguistic analysis) makes up the heart of modern philosophical study in the Anglo-Saxon world. Though the Christian cannot accept this study as a total philosophy, there is no reason why he should not be glad for the concept that words need to be defined before they can be used in communication. As Christians, we must understand that there is no word so meaningless as the word "god" until it is defined. No word has been used to reach absolutely opposite concepts as much as the word "god". Consequently, let us not be confused. There is much "spirituality" about us today that would relate itself to the word god or to the idea god; but this is not what we are talking about. Biblical truth and spirituality is not a relationship to the word god, or to the idea god. It is a relationship to the one who is there, which is an entirely different concept.

Commemoration of Pandita Mary Ramabai, Translator of the Scriptures, 1922 Ultimate confidence in the goodness of life cannot read more

Commemoration of Pandita Mary Ramabai, Translator of the Scriptures, 1922 Ultimate confidence in the goodness of life cannot rest upon confidence in the goodness of man. If that is where it rests, it is an optimism which will suffer ultimate disillusionment. Romanticism will be transmuted into cynicism, as it has always been in the world's history. The faith of a Christian is something quite different from this optimism. It is trust in God, in a good God who created a good world, though the world is not now good; in a good God, powerful and good enough finally to destroy the evil that men do and redeem them of their sins. This kind of faith is not optimism. It does not, in fact, arise until optimism breaks down and men cease to trust in themselves that they are righteous.