What To Do On Thursday is an extremely helpful book! It helped me learn how to take the scripture that I am reading and apply it to the daily situations that I am faced with. I am so glad for the skills that I learned from this book. It is very high on my "must read again list". I highly reccomend it to anyone who is interested in learning how to apply the scriptures to their life.

Edwards is the greatest mind America has every produced and his stuning logic, acumen, and biblical knowledge are on display here. Edwards, unforetunatly, is only known today for hellfire and brimstone sermons. This is unfortunate because this does not represent the totality of what he talked about. His 'hellfire' sermons are in here. Unfortunately for humanity, he was correct. If you do not understand God's holiness and justice, these sermons will seem cruel and sadistic to you. (I would suggest you read R.C. Sproul's Holiness of God.) However, if you are willing to be challenged with the extent of your own sin, read on. Jonathan Edwards is a giant among men. I wish we could have another like him for today.

This book is not for those who want a light read. Edwards doesn't write like that. Bring your thinking cap. You must also remember he was speaking and writing in the 1700's. The style of the prose reflects that. But his genious still comes through. I thank God for Edwards and I highly recommend this book.

It is difficult to be critical of an author whose intent is to say something good and uplifting to the reader, ie. "Flowers are the plant kingdom smiling at us". So I will say that this book was, at best, 'somewhat interesting', but grossly lacked inspiration. I tend to cringe, but Sermons from Compost Pile did have a few salient points, but as a whole was pedantic and as dry as a catus garden. OK, now I feel like a slug, but this is said in fairness to those of you who are considering a purchase.

Edward Sylvia's "Seven Steps" were trite adages that failed to engage me. For example , the first three were: as a garden needs light, so we need UNDERSTANDING; as a garden needs water, so we need TRUTH; as a garden needs soil, so we need CHARACTER. You get the idea.

I am sure that Sylvia is a great gardener and what Sylvia is saying has validity but Sylvia is about as engaging as a compost pile. Conditionally Recommended.

Sermon from the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating an Inner Garden by Edward F. Sylvia focuses more on cultivating one's spiritual inner self than the practical task of maintaining a fertile garden, yet both topics are discussed and compared at length. An insightful book with a message of hope and refinement for the soul, written especially for garden lovers but filled with wisdom for all who seek to open their inner selves to a higher plane of existence, Sermon From The Compost Pile is recommended as a welcome and appreciated contribution to self-help, self-improvement reading lists, and will have a special affinity for students of spirituality combined as well as those having a penchant for gardening.

What an excellent surprise...this book goes much deeper than I expected. Edward Sylvia has taken an interesting look at what really goes on beneath the surface...of not only the organic processes of a compost pile, but of our own lives as well. This book is every bit as much about what makes us grow as human beings as it is about tending to our flower or vegetable gardens. Maybe even more so.

I purchased this book while searching for an escape from the recent news of world events and ended up learning more than I would ever have imagined. In Mr. Sylvia's skilled hands, the compost pile itself becomes a fascinating metaphor for the process of building one's very soul, much as you'd build the soil in your garden. Both require our diligent effort as we dig deep and get our hands dirty.

This is a book I'll share with friends. It's delightful reading with just the right touch of humor and has certainly helped me take another look at how I approach life. Like the flowers in my garden, the book has helped restored my sense of joy. Bravo!

Fantastic! What a great read from a Bishop who can recognize a man of character and faith. Unlike most Episcopal bishops today who chase after the wind, Bishop Brown has written an interesting short tome on the greatest man produced by the 19th Century. Bishop Brown's intertwining of C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, and T.S. Elliot makes it all the more interesting. This book will bless you during devotional time.

A well-researched book on the religious beliefs of Robert E. Lee. A most instructive study on how these beliefs developed and impacted the man. The book is detailed on just what these beliefs were and how they were at the very core of who Robert E. Lee was.

The review written in a vain attempt to slash at the character of such a paragon of virtue is ridiculous and only shows the strength of Lee's character and the weakness of any who would care to even attempt such damage to it. Lee freed all his slaves by 1863 only because that was the time period set within his father-in-law's will, he would have preferred to release them earlier since he viewed slavery as a vile and impractical institution although he was not in favor of complete and immediate abolition, preferring gradual abolition for their "education as a race"-- in other words, to fit them with abilities worthy of employment and adequate pay once freed. The comment about protocol was ridiculous and incomprehensible. Lee specificially told his younger officers, who suggested that he lead the army into what would be a devastating round of "bushwhacking"- guerrilla warfare in the countryside, that he would not because the only honorable thing was to surrender to Grant, and thus saved the country from years of devastating warfare. To say that Lee prolonged the war, then, is pointless, for it was he who surrendered when davis, his superior, would have continued to fight. The quote which suggests bigorty and prejudice of Lee shall not even be repeated here due to the fact that it was a misinterpretation of his meaning. Lee, in fact, showed by personal example the best way to unite the country. He attended an Episcopalian church in which the congregation was white, until one day a black man entered the church and proceeded to the rail to take communion. there was a oause in the church, for no man dared sit beside this "colored" man- except Lee, who immediate took his seat beside the man and showed that he was in no way prejudiced.

Gene Edwards knows firsthand what it's like to try to cope with being in an authoritarian/abusive church and he uses the story of Saul and David most effectively to demonstrate his points. Overall, this book can offer comfort and understanding to those who have experienced being in such a group. However, I do disagree with Mr. Edwards' ultimate advice to deal with abusive/authoritarian ministries in a "hands-off" manner, as this approach provides no reality check (i.e., "accountability") and only serves to enable those who are abusing positions of authority to continue to do so. Who's to say who God might use to deal with an abusive person or situation. My own experience has been that speaking out against the abusive practices of the allegedly authoritarian/abusive "Christian" group I was involved with has helped so many others to feel understood, to feel they are not alone, and has also helped current members of that group to see another side of the story.

Gene Edwards is a master with the pen, and he has the heart of a shepherd to boot. This man's anointed writings have done much to aide in the healing of the spirit of many.

I've read most of his works, but this book, 'Letters to a Devastated Christian,' is his tour-de-force. It's a short read, but it is packed with a rich and manifold density. His spare writing style is showcased in this piece; there is a tremendous motherlode of wisdom and discernment packed into few words.

The outlay of the book is engaging... letters from a mentor to a crushed young man. The mentor doesn't try to sugar-coat the authoritarian abuses the young man has endured but instead uses them as stepping-stones to teach about issues such as suffering, humility and grace. The wells of wisdom come through as a breeze, refreshing, not as a jarring assault to an already-wounded soul. Edwards uses the Master to teach and show the higher way, the better way.

If you've ever been tormented at the hands of fellow believers then this book is for you. There's a healing balm in its words. It won't magically remove the pain inflicted upon you, nor give you rose-coloured perceptions regarding faith and fellowship, but it will help you understand that all things can be turned to good (hard as that is to believe)... and that the hardest things bring the biggest benefit to the maturing and deepening of one's faith. It will set you on the healing path and encourage you to take the higher, better road in life.

Edwards is a shepherd/prophet speaking to the church at large - admonition and exhortation for one and all is seen in his writings. Believers would do well to pay heed to his words. I recommend this book to anyone and everyone who've gone through painful things in life, have been wounded deeply by fellow believers, or who just simply find life hard to live. I'm sure you'll treasure this title as much as I do.

I read this right after "Tale of 3 Kings" during a time of trouble in our fellowship hoping to be "consoled" and justified in not submitting to the authority in my fellowship. Wrong! The Lord used this book to open my eyes to His purpose in my life and in my church. Thank you, Mr. Edwards in being obedient to write this and thus preventing me from "devastating" others.

Augustine's Confessions combines an intellectual biography and conversion story with apologetics and theology. It is an essential source document on one of the most highly regarded Western thinkers and for early Church history. As a conversion story, it sets the standard in Christian thought. In short, any serious student of Christianity cannot afford to miss reading this book.

The Penguin Classics edition, translated by R. S. Pine-Coffin, provides a good translation. However, you are going to get what you pay for. Like most books in the Penguin Classics series, this edition of the Confessions leaves a lot to be desired. It has a bare bone's introduction, no notes to help the reader understand obscure passages, and no index. This edition is fine if you want to read Augustine without the distractions of commentary. However, if you want to seriously understand the Confessions, spend some more money and get an edition with better support.

I was asked to read this book as a freshmen in college and I loved it. It is not an easy read, but once you read over a part once more, Augustine's logic makes perfect sense. If you've read any other Augustine, such as "Freedom of the will", this book fits right in there and explains it perfectly. In fact, this book explains most of Augustine's tenants perfectly. If anyone wants to know why Christianity took such a harsh stand against sexual sins...it's Augustine lashing out at his past. He was really tormented. Worship God or worship sex. He chose God and I'm sure he thought about going back. Augustine also developed the full Christian idea of free will, which is manifested in this book as well. Augustine is an incredible figure and a role model for modern Christians. His trials are not much different from ours, seeing as we live in a society so obsessed with sex. Augustine's Confessions is one of my favorite books. A must-read for any theologian and philosopher.

I decided to read this book to find out for myself what everybody was talking about, especially from being Catholic. I wanted to read the book that so long ago won over all of the philosophers of the time who considered Christianity to be a simpleton's system of life.
Right from the beginning of this book/autobiography I knew that I had in my hands something special. It is written with such brutal honesty and insight into St. Augustine's soul and mind. He pours himself out and into this work. It was completely refreshing to know that He/they so very long ago were dealing with the same searching the same longings and fascination that we /I do today. It is wondeful to feel the thoughts of St. Augustine who lived most of his life right in the heart of the dieng Roman civilization. This book is deeply spiritual, personal, and filled with a strong message of faith. But it goes beyond being religious or spiritual or preachy all of which it is as wll but it is a masterpiece. It is very thoughtful, personal, and well crafted. It is a great read for anyone whether Catholic, Christian, athiest or any other. It is the story of a man's life told by the very man who lived and experienced it. It tells the story of this time and this place told through the eyes of one who lived in it. I found some of the passages deeply moving. ANd yet other passages I found to be utterly hillarious. So read and enjoy the Spiritual, personal autobiography of one who lived a long time ago. For Christians one who lived closer to the actual life of Christ than to us today. It is clear to see after reading this work how it helped the Catholic Church and Christianity itself take-off with such passion and intellectual backings.

Dr. Veith wrote this well researched book to explain why fascism as best personified by Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 40's can be seen in today's culture. Veith uses an amazing amount of source material to craft an intricate series of arguments that expose the philosophical underpinnings of fascism, as well as arguing how that philosophy has been adopted by intellectuals today.

Fascism, and especially Nazism, have been made out to be the ultimate evil, due to its actions in Europe during the early part of the twentieth century. What few people seem to know is that fascism is an ideology, one that has a philosophy. Veith makes a good point that concentration camps and war were effects of fascism. These effects sprang from the ideas of fascism.

I was especially interested in how Veith showed that Communism and National Socialism are really two sides of the same coin. The difference is in their outlook. Communism has an international outlook, while National Socialism deals with a localized outlook (the nation). While there are flaws in this argument, Veith does a pretty good job of supporting himself with evidence.

Much of the book is spent discussing these philosophical ideas. There is much discussion of the ideas of Martin Heidegger and Frederich Nietzsche, and how they were the leading theorists of fascist thought. Many of today's intellectuals are vigorously trying to clean up Heidegger's writings to try and hide his obvious affinity for fascism. They just can't understand how he could embrace this mode of thought. Veith shows how his writings that are so loved by intellectuals today are outgrowths of fascist thought. He also shows that by adopting Heidegger's tenets, intellectuals are inadvertantly adopting fascist principles. Veith also spends time discussing how Christianity responded to fascism, especially in Nazi Germany where the church was viewed with great suspicion by the Nazis. Why? Because Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism. Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, and all of its early theologians were Jews. Go look at your Bible. The only non-Jew in the New Testament is Luke (I've seen arguments for John as well).

A rare book that makes the reader look at things in a different way. I gave it four stars due to a few errors in the book. The first one was in the first paragraph, when Veith says that David Duke was a member of the American Nazi Party. Duke was never a member of the ANP. He was a member of the KKK. Also, using Nietzsche as a theorist of fascism might be a bit misleading. Nietzsche's sister edited his works after his descent into madness, and it from these versions that fascism borrowed some of their ideas. This seems to be the prevailing view today, anyway. I may concede the point to Veith, though, because this may be an attempt by leftist intellectuals to cleanse Nietzsche of what they perceive to be fascist thought. Also, I wish that Veith would have spent more time looking at how fascist thought has permeated our society today. There is only one chapter devoted to this, and it is the last one in the book.

I'd highly recommend this book. It'll make you question some of the ridiculous behavior that is going on in our country today.

Veith's "Modern Fascism" is essentially a primer on the philosophy of fascism. He shows the ideas that converge to form the ideological basis for fascism are still alive today in academia, especially in postmodernism. In this respect it is brilliant. In fact, his discussion of the philosophy of fascism is so moving that it is hard to keep from felling some affinity towards this philosophy. Veith also does little to tell us why these ideas are bad, other than they were used by fascists to do bad things. He argues for a return to Judeao-Christianity, but ignores the fact that this philosophy has been put to bad uses as well. This is why I give him 4 stars only. As a primer on the philosophy of fascism, the book is genius, and very powerful. As a revolt against these ideas in modern thought, the book is subpar. I still recommend it to everyone in social science. If nothing else you can use it to point out the fascist tendencies in people's thought, and see the shock on their face. Good fun, and useful.

Most people are only exposed to two historical aspects of Nazi Germany - WWII military campaigns and the Holocast. This book eloquently and thoroughly presents the most important aspect of the rise of Fascism in Germany, which is in fact the development of the philosophy and world-view of progressive, anti-Judeo-Christian European high-culture.

Hitler and the Nazis should not be dismissed as insane lunatics. The terror they unleashed was perfectly rational within their world-view which was based on Atheism (paganism), Socialism, and Darwinism. With Atheism, there is no absolute right and wrong & the ends justify the means. With Socialism, the greater good is more important than the rights of the individual. With Darwinism, man is just a highly advanced animal evolving by tooth and claw - survival of the fittest! What transpired in Europe was inevitable given the prevailing philosophies.

I think that Hitler and his leutenants absolutely believed they were creating a Utopia - within the framework of their worldview.

The Nazi leaders and their actions were put on trial at Nuremberg, but the philosophers, and especially the ideas that made the rise of Nazism possible, escaped serious scrutiny. The ideas are alive and well in modern progressive circles. History is ripe to repeat itself. (ie. Hatred of Christianity, expanding socialism, and promotion of evolution in public edu-indoctrination.)

The Prince by Machiavelli is not about a "prince" but about principles that a ruler, a king, a president, a prince should follow or manipulate to maintain and keep his kingdom or country. Machiavelli's famous treatise is one of the central texts in the history of political thought and a basic foundation to all principles dealing with "How to rule an acquired or inherited kingdom/country," how to be an effective ruler, and government politics. This book is a response to the florentine politics of Machiavelli's time and to the genre of advice-books for princes. Underneath the generalities of his principles, Machiavelli leaves a sense of admonishment to the ruler and the reader alike.
This treatise was written based on his experience as second Chancery and secretary to the main foreign relations committee of the republic, the so-called Ten of War. His writing style lacks verbosity and florid eloquence; Instead, there is a lucid string of concise words in a coherent and cogent order. The brevity and understatements of his general statements makes it very easy for the reader to follow. In every chapter, he states his thesis for a certain principle and gives examples to prove his point. The principles address important issues such as how to win over people, nobles, and soldiers; accomplish political ambitions and necessities by force or fraud, how to be loved and feared by the people, eliminate those with and without power who can possibly harm the ruler, how to make the government agree with the ruler, when to be austere or munificient, how to establish and maintain loyalty, when to build fortresses and how to build alliances and friendships with other kings and kingdoms. This book will not only instruct the ruler how to be a prince and a good one, but also how to maintain oneself as a ruler over people whose hearts can quickly shift contrary to the ruler.

"The Prince" is one of the view books from college that I've actually kept. It is splendid reading on several levels. First, one appreciates Machiavelli as a problem solver. Italy is divided; what is the most practical and efficient means for a wise prince to consolidate his power and unify it? But one also appreciates Machiavelli as a person. A florentine intellectual banished to the countryside--it wouldn't be a bad life for some of us, but to him it must have been torture.

I was once asked whether Machiavelli was a cynic, a realist, or a patriot, and I believe the correct answer is all three. Much of Machiavelli's advice contains an under current of cynicism and ruthlessness, and this has undoubtedly come to be the dominant portion of his reputation. One of the terms for devil, "Old Nick" is derived from Machiavelli. When one speaks of destroying an enemy or performing a ruthless, sneaky act, that person is likely to be called "machiavellian". But Machiavelli's advice was as realistic as one could get in those times. This was an era when despots and mercenaries ruled by force and assasination. It was a time when popes fathered children and carved out little principalities for themselves. One was not going to remain in power, much less get ahead of one's enemies by being virtuous. It isn't that Machiavelli despised virtue so much as he realized how useless it was in the political context of the times. But in the end Machiavelli was also an idealist. He dreamed of a united Italy under a strong (and practical) prince. When he dedicated his treatise to Rodorigo Borgia, he did so in the hopes that he might be the man to perform such a task.

This book provides timeless practical advice for anyone who wishes to succeed in a hostile, divisive environment. It also illuminates the peculiar political circumstances of Renaissance Italy.

There are two good reasons to read Machiavelli's classic, "The Prince."

First, so you'll know what everyone is referring to when you come across the adjective "machiavellian" in news stories or other media. This adjective has become so commonplace (and overused) it is almost a cliche. Also, most who use it have never read this letter from Machiavelli, a Rennaisance courtier to his Prince (written from prison), but they insist on peppering writings with this noun turned adjective so much that as a matter of clearly understanding what is meant by the term, famiality with this brief treatise is helpful.

Second, this book does describe most (not all) power situations very well. From politics to corporations to most settings where advancement, influence and control exist, Machiavelli's observations and rules apply.

You will also discover that Machiavelli was not as evil as he is understood to be in popular thought. What he was doing was describing the rules of the game that have existed and always will exist for many situations involving selfish humans in competition. Machiavelli's rules are neither good nor bad in themselves -- they describe a process. What is good or bad is how those who master Machiavelli's rules use their power and position, in a society that tempers actions according to law and basic Judeo-Christian principals. When those principals do not exist (as in Nazi Germany, the Middle Ages or under Communism, or by those who refuse to live by these constraints), Machiavelli's rules take on their demonic and evil cloak; usually because they serve demonic and evil ends. In societies where positive constraints exist, for example the U.S. political system, Machiavellian behavior can produce excellent results. A good example involves Abraham Lincoln, whose ambition led him to use every legitimate trick and stragety to master (and remove) political opponents. His mastery of Machiavellian behavior constrained by the US political system allowed him to save the Union and end slavery.

To fully appreciate the modern lessons that can be taken from this writing, one must translate Medieval sensibilites to their contemporary counterparts. The casual way in which Machiavelli discusses the need to kill opponents was necessary to those who wished to be princes 500 years ago. Today, of course, "killing" is translated as rendering less powerful, or taking an opponent out of the game.

What does one get from this book? It is a roadmap with insights and lessons about how to 1) get ahead of others to attain power; and 2) maintain and expand one's power in the face of others who would usurp one who is in a desirable position.

This book is about ruthlessness and putting the attainment of goals ahead of any other consideration. Plenty of maxims that are also tossed about frequently in media are to be found in Machiavelli's book: "the end justifies the means," "it is better to be feared than loved," "if you fight the prince, kill the prince" to name a few.

It is essential reading to anyone who would be in a competitive environment and hope to advance, if for no other reason than many of one's competitors operate by Machiavelli's dictums (which arise out of human instinct and selfishness). One does not have to operate according to Machaivelli's code -- many examples of alturism and "pluck and luck" exist to defeat any claim that Machiavelli's road map is essential for success. However, human nature and human history deliver far more examples of ruthless self-interest (Machiavellianism) behind success in power situations.

Is Machiavellianism bad? Not in and of itself. Remember, one must translate the Middle Age ethos to current practices -- there usually isn't blood spilled as a result of today's Machiavellian duels, just power and positon. Most political and business leaders are at least partly Machiavellian. The trick is using one's power to good ends. Thus, even though Lincoln and all of our presidents were Machiavellian in their climb to the White House, some of them did darn good work there. The same is true for business leaders. Jack Welch (GE), Bill Gates (Microsoft), anyone who advances past the first few rungs of the corporate ladder or dominates markets at the expense of competitors is using Machiavelli's dictums. The trick of a just and good society is to set the bounds by which power can be attained and exercised so that good and benefits will flow from those who are able to "claw their way to the top."

To summarize, read this book if you want to 1) truly understand when the adjective "Machiavelli" is used to describe people and 2) understand the rules by which most people navigate their way to power.

The meretricious devotion this author holds toward canonized scripture humors me, as does that of his far greater predecessors in the conditional immortality debate. His work is by no means revolutionary, and without having read it, I can already recommend better authors in his field. (Dr. Leroy Froom, for example, whose works are put at the forefront.) Invariably, the usual arguments catch the laity off guard, but genuine biblical scholars of orthodox theology are not led astray by the heresy of ultimate annihilation, anthropological monism, or conditionalism.

Is conditionalism an ancient doctrine? Yes, and the origins are readily available. To briefly summarize what would otherwise be several volumes of refutation, conditional immortality was originally advocated by Arnobious of Sicca- c. 327 C.E., whose personal record as a Christian apologist is amongst the most pitiful, albeit entertaining, in clerical history. Also hailed as Arnobious the Elder, he was an enemy of both Judaism (Unlike Paul) and Christianity and a proponent of Asiatic mysticysm. According to the tale told by his subsequent disciples, Arnobious met a spiritual Jesus after awakening from a bad dream, who transformed the mystic into a self proclaimed sage, endowing him with the knowledge of God apart from scriptural reading. Rather than acknowledging mainstream Christianity, Arnobious opened his own school and taught his remarkable "dream" philosophies in Sicca, Africa, where he wrote a flawed, though sincere, theological treatise titled "Against the Pagans" c. 305 C.E. In this work, conditionalism, annihilation, and anthropological-monism appear for the first time in Christian history. Amazingly, Arnobious confounded the Pharisees with the Sadducees in several references to Jewish sects, and quoted the New Testament only ONCE in the treatise. As Catholic Friar Jurgen comments, the treatise does hold water- not in the realm of theological truth, but certainly in its revealed information about the cults of the time. This is the historical basis for conditionalism.

On the purported claim that immortal soulism was derived from Greco mythology and Platonism, such an idea is true only for those without knowledge of Judaic sects of Essene or Kabbalist, both of which held to the doctrine of an immaterial, immortal spirit. Contrary to what conditionalist scholars would have you believe, Orthodox Judaism itself has always taught immortal soulism, and rabbinical interpretation of the Old Testament does not find man and beast to be equal. Let it never be said, therefore, that the Hebrew Bible does not teach immortal soulism, on the contrary, those to whom it belongs find it amusing that conditionalists unable to speak Hebrew consider themselves expert on a Hebraic eschatology. (It should come as no surprise, since conditionalists also rate themselves as the sole beneficiaries of Y-w-h's irrevocable blessings to the Jews. How strange they cannot grasp the Old Testament's clearly defined salvation of Israel, while nonetheless being able to comprehend nebulous doctrines inferred by "divine inference".) As for the human soul in Hebrew, the solitary "nephesh" is contextualized, but with blatant arrogance, conditionalists assume their fragmented knowledge is somehow supplemented by divine illumination- in combination, of course, with the authority of Arnobious the Dreamer. On this threefold foundation rests every claim of conditionalism; the dogma gains momentum by its humane appeal to modern society. Yet as a fly in the face of both mainstream Christianity AND Judaism, conditionalists maintain a long tradition of denying reality, whilst usurping the texts of two major religions. (I suppose at least it speaks for the short lived worth of Arnobious's own text.) (...) There's little doubt I know more about his own theories than the author of the book.

After several years this is still the best defence of the conditional position. Any one who holds to a high view of scripture and is curious about hell must interact with this text. This view is, of course, a held by a minority whithin the evengelical spectum and as such should be held to the hightest level of critical examination. Fudge's integrity thoughout renders this possible. Also helpfull is "Four Views on Hell" in the counterpoints seires where the conditional view is contrasted with the two versions of the traditonal view.

What does the Bible really teach about God's righteous wrath. Is God's wrath a means to an end, or is God's wrath an end in itself?

What does the Bible mean by such words and phrases as "forever," "unquenchable fire," "eternal punishment," "eternal destruction," "death," etc.

Do you really wish to submit to the authority of God's infallible Word on the subject of hell. Then, dear reader, read this book!

Sinners in the hands of an angry God, by Jonathan Edwards.

Who would chose this title for a best seller today? Yet this is probably one of the best-known American sermons ever preached! This sermon had three main sections: ' The state of mankind'; 'Sinner, beware'; and 'A warning to all'. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1785) was pastor at First Church of Northampton, Massachusetts. His aim in ministry was to transform his congregation from mere believers who understood the logic of Christian doctrine to converted Christians who were generally moved by the principles of their belief.

On July 8th 1741 Edwards preached his most famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" to a Church in Enfield, Connecticut, USA. It was a word of light imparted to darkened souls and many came to faith experiencing true 'heart religion'. It was based on Deuteronomy 32:35 "Their foot shall slide in due time". Jonathan Edwards gave a clear picture of the predicament of every unbeliever and lukewarm Christian. Edwards used compelling words and images to describe the shaky position of those who do not follow Christ and God's urgent call to receive His love and forgiveness.

Edwards spoke graphically, for example, "As the heart is now a cesspool of sin so if sin were not restrained it would immediately turn the soul into a fiery oven, or a furnace of fire and brimstone". He warned his hearers that, "Whatever pains a natural man take in religion, whatever prayers he makes, until he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him from eternal destruction for even a moment." This book gives an interesting insight into a revival sermon - used by God to help change America. Read it ... if you dare.

This particular sermon from Edwards has been trumpeted by some as the greatest sermon given on American soil, while being vehemently attacked by others as puritanical fire and brimstone of a backwards age. Oddly enough, there are elements of truth in both sentiments, more the former than the latter however. While unquestionably hitting on many timeless truths that are relevant in any period of time, the genius of the sermon really comes out when one considers the historical context in which the sermon was given.

Contrary to many negative reflex and often revisionist reactions we tend to hear today about puritanism and Edwards, Edwards was not a constant fire and brimstone preacher. The writings of Edwards reveal a man who spoke much more on the grace and mercy of God then of His wrath. But really, the two go hand in hand. There's no need for God to be merciful if there's no eternal wrath to fear. There's no need for God to show grace to human beings if there's nothing bad enough in human beings to warrant divine punishment. It is impossible to adequately discuss God's mercy and grace without also dwelling very intently on the wretchedness of man and the divine justice that must be exacted if we believe that God is perfectly holy. This is the context in which this sermon by Edwards was given. He was invited to preach at a church that was spiritually dead and dominated by a spirit of skepticism and a deeply entrenched disbelief in the need for radical personal conversion. Such is the attitude that can be found in many churches today. Yet contrary to what happens each Sunday in these kind of churches all across America, the preacher at this particular church found such comfortable skepticism not to be a virtue of an enlightened congregation, but as a cancer that ensured that many in his church would go unsaved if things didn't change. Enter Jonathan Edwards, and his sermon to this church on that day changed the people in that church and made a lasting impact on American Christianity that is felt to this day.

The main purpose of the sermon, contextually speaking, was to abruptly dislodge and disrupt the culture of apathetic skepticism that reigned in this church. Edwards attempted to do this by drawing haunting imagery of God's mercy in all things, ensuring the congregation that the only reason they are even breathing is because of God's grace. He paints a picture of man dangling over an eternal fire, and stressing that this is where man finds himself right now, and that the only reason he doesn't fall in is because God (and a very angry God at that) has a hold of him and hasn't yet let go. For Edwards, it was clear that by holding on to sinful and unrepentant man and not allowing him to fall at any moment, God was being infinitely more merciful than we deserve, but that such mercy is not indefinite or inexhaustible, but instead serves either to keep an elect person alive long enough for him to reach a point of faith and repentence, or serves to harden the sinner's heart to the point where eternal damnation is a completely just punishment for having denied and defied the authority of their Maker for so long.

Some have commented that this kind of imagery is backwards because Christians shouldn't be in the business of trying to scare people into personal faith. While such a sentiment sounds good and tends to appeal to our modern sensitivities, such a view is decidedly unfaithful to the entire earthly ministry of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels. Jesus talked about hell and punishment more than anyone else, and certainly far more than Edwards. If one accepts that Jesus is God and can therefore be considered a pretty reliable authority on the supernatural and the afterlife, then one must conclude that Christ's continual warnings about eternal punishment are authoritative, accurate, and should be heeded with deep seriousness. I found this sermon by Edwards to be very faithful to the uncomfortable and even scary warnings given by Jesus throughout the four Gospels of the New Testament. Edwards is not scaring people for the sake of scaring people. He is doing exactly what Christ did 2,000 years ago - out of a spirit of deep love and concern, he is warning people of the very real and terrifying consequences of deliberately walking away from Jesus Christ.

In the end, the basic question one has to ask when reading either Edwards or Scripture is whether the eternal punishment described by both is truthful or not. If it is, then how can it possibly be an act of love not to tell people about it? Better to offend with the truth and call people to faith in the one true God and personal repentance than try to make people feel comfortable believing a lie and not seeing a need for people to change anything about their beliefs, wrong and negatively consequential though they may be. If someone believes that eternal punishment is false, then that person has bigger fish to fry then Edwards, they must also patently reject the sayings of Jesus and adopt completely by blind faith a different view of the afterlife. Many have taken this latter road, just as Christ predicted would happen. But truth does not depend on whether our ears are sufficiently tickled. Those who sincerely want to know the truth will give Edwards a fair hearing here and put his views to the test.

The danger in understanding Edwards is that all too few know anything about him except for this sermon. He spoke about the excellency of Christ more than any other topic.

The editor was wise in noting that Edwards gave this sermon to a church that was playing around with God. Jesus' example is that He was very harsh with the religious hypocrites, and He was gentle and sweet with the "sinners."

It should be noted that without law there can be no concept of grace. When the doctrines of grace were recovered in the Reformation, respect for God's law was likewise recovered. If someone is coming to Jesus not based on because they need forgiveness and atonement with a Holy God, they are coming on false grounds. That is why this sermon is needed today. There is too much felt-needs sermons. Come to Jesus because He will make you better. No, come to Jesus and escape the wrath of God. If you come on other grounds than that, you are endanger of not being a true disciple. That last sentence may sound weird. If it does, I would read "The Gospel According to Jesus" by John MacArthur.