This is the 3rd installment of the Adventure of the Elected Man.
You can read the first installment here.

Sherlock Holmes (J. Simpson Strand 1911)

After Mrs. Hudson replenished our tea pot and exchanged pleasantries with the Rev. Spurgeon we continued our discussion.

“Now, let us consider two doctrines – the doctrine of divine sovereignty and the doctrine of man’s guilt in rejecting God.”, Spurgeon offered. “This will certainly be a paradox even you will be compelled to admit Mr. Holmes.”

“Can you briefly explain these doctrines?”, Holmes asked as he returned to his thinking position, drawing himself up into the chair, pipe held tightly between his lips, and legs drawn up, wrapped by his arms and held close to his chest.

“Divine sovereignty, as it relates to salvation can be stated succinctly as follows. If any man be saved, he is saved by Divine grace, and by Divine grace alone. His salvation is the effect of a Divine cause within for there never was a man saved yet who merited it. Yet all the men who are lost, after having heard the Word that bids them to come, are lost because of their willful sin. They bear full responsibility for being lost because they would not come.” Spurgeon explained.

“This promises to be most interesting.” Holmes remarked. “But that may be a bit to brief of an explanation. I find that it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Would you care to provide some more information on Divine sovereignty, as it relates to salvation.”

“This doctrine, when narrowed to salvation, may be rightly called election.” Spurgeon clarified. “We must understand first and foremost that all mankind, through the fall and their sinning, lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell for ever. When Adam sinned, it would have been easy enough to strike the world out of existence. But no! Instead of making a new people who could not sin, God takes a depraved and fallen people and out of his good pleasure from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life through a most costly means; by the death of his own Son by the work of his own Spirit; that these may be delivered out of the state of sin and be the jewels in his crown to reflect His glory forever.”

“A most splendid and marvelous truth”, Holmes agreed.

Spurgeon stood and continued, “that those who will have eternal life are elected is a great truth in the Bible. Just let me run through a few passages where the people of God are called elect. In the 13th chapter of Mark, Jesus Christ explained to His apostles the signs of the end of the age. There He told them that ‘the days were shortened for the sake of the elect, that false prophets would try to deceive the elect, and that He would send out His angels to gather the elect’. Paul tells the Colossians ‘as the elect of God put on bowels of mercy’ and Peter says we are ‘elect according to the foreknowledge of God’ – “

Holmes slowly reopened his eyes and looking at his guest suggested “That the people of God are called elect will get no argument from me. But tell me, how are the elect chosen?”

“God has chosen to himself a people whom no man can number, out of the children of Adam – a wonder of wonders.”

“Why?, Why has God chosen some and not others.”

“Why?, Holmes you question the Maker? We must bow before the sovereignty of God for He does as He wills, for if there were any reason to move God in his creatures, He would certainly have chosen devils rather than men. Why? Only because He did so. There is no other reason.”

“None at all?”

“There was doubtless some wise reason for the Lord’s acts, for He doeth all things after the council of His will, but there certainly could not be any reason in the excellence or virture of the creature whom He chose. Why? Again I say, in the case of the individual, why is the man chosen who is chosen? The only answer I can give is the same as our Savior – ‘for it seemed good in the Father’s sight’.” Spurgeon continued, “Dwell on that a moment Mr. Holmes. There is no original goodness in those whom God selects.”

Holmes released his legs and arched his back so that he was sitting in a slouched reclining position. Then holding his pipe in one hand and motioning for Spurgeon to take his seat with the other asked – “what was there in Abraham that God chose to give him eternal life?”

Sitting back down and getting re-situated into a comfortable position our guest replied, “There was nothing more in Abraham than in anyone of us. That is to say that it was not based on any goodness in Abraham.”

“But was it not on the basis of faith that God credited Him with righteousness?”

“Justification is by faith and at the same time we must distinctly and determinately insist upon it that regeneration is necessary to every soul that shall enter heaven.”

“Regeneration or being reborn is certainly required for anyone to enter into the kingdom”, Holmes agreed. “And this faith – “

“This faith”, interrupted Spurgeon, “that saves rests upon a person—upon Jesus. ‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.’ So says 1 John in the fifth chapter. It is not belief about a doctrine, nor an opinion, nor a formula, but belief concerning a person. It is all about relying upon a crucified Saviour.”

“But, ” Spurgeon insisted, “this faith, wherever it exists, is in every case, without exception, the gift of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Never yet did a man believe in Jesus with the faith here intended, except the Holy Spirit led him to do so. He has wrought all our works in us, and our faith too.”

“If I may, are you claiming that regeneration precedes faith?”

“Absolutely! Faith is in every believer ‘the gift of God’. Faith is too celestial a grace to spring up in human nature till it is renewed. It is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith in the living Christ is a saved man.”

“And this regeneration, would that be the Divine cause you spoke of earlier? It is this cause that has as its effects a renewed nature and faith in Christ?”

“Most assuredly so!”

“Yet you also hold that God bids ‘Whosoever will, let him come?’”

“Again I say most assuredly so!”

“Then if I am following you,” Holmes attempted to summarize, “faith is at the same time the duty of man and the gift of God?”

“Yes. These are clear facts that the Bible teaches. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity.”

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. But I would like to examine these doctrines as you hold them further.”

[to be continued]

[Spurgeon's remarks are quoted and based on "A Puritan Catechism", the sermons "Election", "Election and Holiness", "Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility" and "Faith and Regeneration"]

Sherlock Holmes (source: PhotoBucket)

This is the 2nd installment of the Adventure of the Elected Man.
You can read the first installment here.

“Ah, yes what is a paradox”, said Spurgeon as he took a deep drag on his cigar and shifted in his chair settling himself in for the discussion, “defining that is certainly a good place to start”.

“A paradox”, Spurgeon explained, “is two things that are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. They are not actually contradictory because these two things are both true. For certainly two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. It is just the fault of our weak judgment and our folly that leads us to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. In this we have the makings of a paradox”.

Holmes, without opening his eyes, drew his legs up toward his chest, then asked, “interesting, and might we have a simple example to examine”?

Not wanting to be left out of the conversation, I offered up the simple paradox known as the Hooded Man. It goes something like this -

You claim that you know your brother. You claim not to know that man who just came into the room with his head covered. But that hooded man is your brother. Therefore you do not know your brother.

The statement, ‘I know my brother’ is true, but so is the statement ‘I don’t know my brother’. They are contradictory yet both statements are true giving us the paradox.

As I concluded I saw Holmes break into a grin. His eyes opened and that playful twinkle that I had come to know glimmered in them. He took the pipe from his lips and turned to me saying, “Watson, while this is no paradox, I think you have offered up an excellent example for us to study nonetheless. For, I would venture, that the solution to this puzzle will prove a useful technique for many of the paradoxes that our friend Spurgeon has in mind”.

“Surely you jest Holmes, this appears in numerous lists of paradoxes and is dated to the earliest philosophers”, I remarked.

“As my room-mate would you say that you know me well Watson”?

“I would, I know your habits, talents, and quirks better than I know myself”.

“Indeed! And you know well my talents for theater, acting, and makeup. I often put these to good use in our adventures. Do you then not recall than an instance when you walked past an old man, wrinkled with age whom you would swear before all that you did not know, only to find out that it was none other than myself, a person you claim to know very well.”

I blushed as the point Holmes made became clear in my mind. Turning to Spurgeon, Holmes explained, “this is really a sophism – a play on words – and is not a paradox at all. It might appear to be at first glance since I know my brother and I do not know my brother appear to be two truths that are indeed contradictory. Just as Watson knows me, yet when I am in disguise he does not know me. The game being played is the fact that the word “know” has nuanced meanings. In the first statement, ‘I know my brother’, means that I have a relationship with my brother and know things about him. In the second statement, ‘I don’t know my brother’, the word “know” takes on the meaning of recognition. My brother was in a disguise and I did not recognize him, but that does not change the fact that I am well acquainted with him whether I recognize him at all times or not. What is important is noting that when we recognized we had a paradox we were tipped off that we must examine the puzzle more closely. The paradox exists because we assumed we were interpreting the statements correctly. Changing how we interpret the word ‘know’ using equally acceptable meanings removed the paradox.”

“I have a feeling I know where you are going with this Mr. Holmes”, Spurgeon demurred dwelling on the word ‘know’ as he spoke. This no doubt to make sure he had another meaning for this word in mind – to perceive or understand. “Since I see we may have some differing opinions on the concept of paradox, let me suggest another one. Paul writes to the Corinthians and tells them ‘when I am weak, then I am strong’. This expression is paradoxical.”

Holmes waved his hand for Spurgeon to continue with his thought.

“‘When I am weak.’ What does that mean? It means when a person is consciously weak, when he painfully feels, and distinctly recognizes that he is weak, then he is strong. In truth, we are always weak, whether we know it or not; but when we not only believe this to be the fact, but see it to be the fact—then it is that we are strong.”

“‘Then am I strong.’ When is that? Why, a man is strong when he is consciously weak, because now he has reached the truth. He really is weak; and if he does not know that he is so, he is under the influence of a falsehood. Therefore, a man becomes strong when he is consciously weak, because he is on the truth, and is not being flattered by false hopes.”

“But it is the statement being flipped around that is equally true. And that is what I want to focus on here – when I am strong then I am weak. Holmes you are trusting in the strength of your analytical skills and sharp mind. That can lead to pride, which is indeed a weakness. It prevents us from relying on God or trusting in the things He has said are true.”

“You have been gifted with clear insight and a measure of shrewdness, and have, therefore, felt that your judgment on most subjects was that of an umpire. However, if we were to examine folly then we need only look at the wise man for this may be where it exists in its worst form. If we were called upon to select a man who, as to his life as a whole, perpetrated the greatest folly, we should mention Solomon. Yet he was the wisest of man. Yes, the cream of wisdom, when curdled, makes the worst of folly. Was ever man so insanely enthusiastic in vain pursuits as this master of all knowledge? Then, dear Holmes, whenever we feel sure of our own superior intelligence, let us suspect ourselves of weakness.”

“My good man, you are indeed ready to preach in season and out as it were. And well preached I might add. Holmes remarked, taking our guest’s barb in good spirits. Then he added, “I agree with our apostle and your overall thrust. The world certainly prizes strength and control but really has none. It is a most peculiar thing that we are strongest when we recognize our weaknesses. But since you understand this passage so well you must surely see that Paul does not present us with a paradox, but with irony.”

“Now speaking of cream, I observe that we need to call on our good lady Mrs. Hudson and get our tea pot replenished.”

Spurgeon nodded in agreement. Then smiled enjoying the compliment, and the fact that his point was not lost on Holmes. Leaning back in his chair he made the request, “might I suggest another”.

[To be continued...]

————————-

[Spurgeon's remarks are quoted and based on the sermons "A Paradox" and "Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility"]

As I look back upon my life it is with great pleasure that I think about the good fortune I had being acquainted with one Sherlock Holmes. Not only because he was probably the greatest detective who ever lived but because he was among my dearest of friends. Life was never boring. We worked together on many cases and shared many adventures. Many of which you no doubt might be very familiar with, as I have taken up the task of writing up the more interesting of these paying attention to those that challenged Holmes great analytical skills and power of observation. However as I sit back and reflect I can’t help but recount some of the conversations and visitors we had in our apartment on Baker Street that did not make it into these various accounts.

Not all our visitors came seeking Holmes involvement in solving some crime or predicament which they often brought with them. Some came just to talk.

One of the more interesting visits came early in our friendship when we had just met and started sharing an apartment. Our guest on that day was none other than Charles Spurgeon. Yes, the Charles Spurgeon, the very popular preacher at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, a large church in South London near the river Thames. It was approximately 10 km from our flat on Baker Street.

Do you find it surprising that Sherlock would entertain the Prince of Preachers. While not the most active of church-goers, Holmes was no stranger to God. Remember the account about the Blue Carbuncle when he sought to help Mr. Ryder remarking that he likely “saved his soul” by letting him go rather then letting him rot in prison. Or that episode with the Naval Treaty involving Percy Phelps. Holmes lost himself in the contemplation of a rose.

There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,” said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. “It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers.”

That day that Spurgeon came to visit was a foggy, cold, Autumn day. It started with my being awakened by joyous shouts and a most offensive odor. The fire was already going in the fire place and the curtains were pulled back showing that that dawn was about ready to announce itself. I staggered into the room adjoining our sitting-room and found the culprit of both the noise and the smells. Holmes was hunched over a concoction of chemicals.

He had apparently spent the night working on one of his projects and his experiments had not left the sitting-room in any condition for visitors, let alone the distinguished preacher that Holmes informed was coming once he saw me standing there. I rushed to get dressed and be presentable and was enjoying a cup of tea when Mrs. Hudson rushed up the stairs to announce that we had a guest. Though my observation skills were nothing compared to my friend Holmes, even I could tell that she was bubbling over with excitement at having such a famous person arrive at the apartment.

Moments later a middle aged, large man, with a good and neat appearance and a full beard entered. He was dressed well but not in a pompous or dandy way. His manners were humble and he showed much respect to Holmes and myself. After exchanging pleasantries Holmes offered him the chair closest to the fire that he might warm himself.

Holmes reached for his clay pipe, then offered his box of fine cigars to the man. The man reached for one and as he did Holmes with a twinkle in his eye remarked, “smoking to the glory of God”. The man paused with his hand hovering over the box then broke out into a grin.

“You caused quite the stir over these a few years back. And I imagine the issue is still not laid to rest for many.”, Holmes mused.

“Indeed!” remarked the man, “but I still contend that no Christian should bend to any Pharisaic system devised by man nor do anything in which he cannot glorify God. I bear no shame for my enjoying a cigar now and again. Why, even in the most common actions of life, like smoking tobacco, we may glorify our Creator”.

“You will get no complaint here”, Holmes remarked as he lit his pipe and offered the man a match. “Like you I enjoy a good smoke to sooth a weary brain or to relax and get the mind ready to tackle an analytical challenge. But, I do say, you really ought to coordinate your illustrations before inviting someone to join you in the pulpit”.

Changing the subject, our guest remarked, “Holmes, you have a most interesting profession”.

“I suppose that it is. I listen to a story, they listen to my comments, and then I pocket my fee. But in reality I am served well for I cannot live without brain-work. My mind,” he said, “rebels at stagnation. Give me problems to solve for what else is there to live for”?

It was after Holmes briefly touched on some of the cases he was engaged in that Spurgeon asked a most interesting question that set off an even more interesting discussion.

“As a man of reason and logic, how do you handle the great paradoxes we are confronted with in the Scriptures”?

Holmes folded his hands, closed his eyes, and leaned his head back. A most unusual behavior if one did not know him well. After some thought he leaned forward and asked, “How might you define a paradox”?

[To be continued...]