Click on the image below to download.

Resolution One.

Resolved, to live every moment for the glory of God, never compromising for selfish motives, less risky endeavors, or a passive attitude.

One must first be resolved to do that which glorifies God because every resolution that follows is built upon it, merely explaining in more detail what the first has already stated.

We must be resolved to live every single moment of our lives for the glory of God. We cannot compromise. There is no excuse. There is no try. We must deny our selfish motives and ambitions. We must fight against the ease of life, doing that which is safe. We must fight against laziness, against passivity, for our life is not our own.

There is no joy outside of His glorification, and we must be willing to risk it all for that glory as Christ did on the cross.

Jonathan Edwards is becoming a celebrity. Or, more accurately, Edwards is a dead rock star amongst 20-something evangelicals. The reformed resurgence, led by John Piper and a plethora of other pastors, theologians and leaders, has captured the minds and the hearts of a large number of young believers, promoting Edwards’ works from the dust-riddled basements of libraries to the hands of eager young Calvinists. As Collin Hansen wrote in an article(1) for Christianity Today, “Not since the decades after his death have evangelicals heaped such attention on Edwards.”

The new found attention is centered around Edwards’ propagation of the sovereignty of God. (2) And though there remains little debate on Edwards’ allegiance to Calvinism(3), Edwards’ theology as presented in his works should clear any confusion. The “T” in “TULIP,” representing the foundational doctrine of Calvinism, Total Depravity, is central to Jonathan Edwards’ Theology for without it, his understanding of the will, of sin and salvation, would crumble.

Justice requires that sin be punished, because sin deserves punishment. What the demerit of sin calls for, justice calls for; for it is only the same thing in different words. For the notion of a desert of punishment, is the very same as a just connexion with punishment. None will deny but that there is such a thing, in some cases, as the desert or demerit of a crime, its calling for or requiring punishment. And, to say that the desert of a crime does require punishment, is just the same thing as to say, the reason why it requires it is, that it deserves it. So that the suitableness of the connexion between the crime and the punishment, consists in the desert; and therefore, wherever desert is, there is such suitableness. None will deny that some crimes are so horrid, and so deserving of punishment, that it is requisite that they should not go unpunished, unless something very considerable be done to make up for the crime; either some answerable repentance, or some other compensation, that in some measure at least balances the desert of punishment, and so, as it were, takes it off, or disannuls it: otherwise the desert of punishment remaining, all will allow, that it is fit and becoming, and to be desired, that the crime should be severely punished. And why is it so, but only from the demerit of the crime, or because the crime so much deserves such a punishment? It justly excites so great abhorrence and indignation, that it is requisite there should be a punishment answerable to this abhorrence and indignation that is fitly excited by it. But by this, all is granted that needs to be granted, to show, that desert of punishment carries in it a requisiteness of the punishment deserved. For if greater crimes do very much require punishment, because of their great demerit, lesser crimes will also require punishment, but only in a lesser degree, proportion-ably to their demerit; because the ground of the requisiteness of the punishment of great crimes, is their demerit. It is requisite that they should be punished, on no other account but because they deserve it.

…

The laying of hands on the head of the sacrifice, was a token of putting the guilt of sin upon a person; agreeably to the customary signification of the imputation of guilt among the Hebrews. Thus the phrase, his blood shall be upon his awn head, or on our heads, &c. was a phrase for the imputation of the guilt of blood. So Joshua ii. 19. 1 Kings ii. 32, 33. “And the Lord shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of.Tether, captain of the host of Judah. Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever; but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the Lord.” Verse 37. “For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shall know for certain that thou shall surely die; thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” Verse 44. “The king said moreover to Shimei, Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to, that thou didst to David my father; therefore the Lord shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head.”

…

The word translated here in Isaiah liii. 4, and 12. is Greek the same word, and the same phrase, of bearing sin and bearing iniquity, is often used concerning things which are the types of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice, viz. the Levitical priests and sacrifies. It was no uncommon phrase, but usual, and well understood among the Jews; and we find it very often used in other cases, and applied to others besides either Christ or the types of him. And when it is so, it is plain, that the general meaning of the phrase is, lying under the guilt of sin, having it imputed and charged upon the person, as obnoxious to the punishment of it, or obliged to answer and make satisfaction for it; or liable to the calamities and miseries to which it exposes. In such a manner it seems always to be used, unless in some few places it signifies to take away sin by forgiveness. See Dr. Owen on Heb. ix. 28. and Pool’s Synopsis on Isaiah liii. And concerning their laying their hands on the head of the sacrifice, see also Pool’s Synopsis on Levit. i. 4.

…

The translation of guilt or obligation to punishment was not a thing alien from men’s conceptions and notions of old in scripture times; neither the times of the Old Testament nor New; as appears by what the woman of Tekoa says, 2 Sam. xiv. 9. “My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.” And by what the Jews said, when Pilate said of Christ, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it;” Matt. xxvii. 24, 25. “His blood be on us and on our children.” And the words of Rebekah, when Jacob objected against doing as she proposed, that he should bring a curse on himself and not a blessing; Gen. xxvii. 13. “On me be thy curse, my son, only obey my voice.”

…

The sacrifice of Christ is a sweet savour, because as such it was a great honour done to God’s majesty, holiness, and law, and a glorious expression of Christ’s respect to that majesty, &c. That when he loved man, and so greatly desired his salvation, be had yet so great respect to that majesty and holiness of God, that he had rather die than that the salvation of man should be any injury or dishonour unto those attributes. And then, 2ndly, It was a sweet savour, as it was a marvellous act of obedience, and some expression of a wonderful respect to God’s authority. The value of Christ’s sacrifice was infinite, both as a propitiation, and as an act of obedience; because he showed an infinite regard to the majesty, holiness, &c. of God, in being at infinite expense from regard to those divine attributes.

Here is an excerpt from the sermon:

If we consider the infinite evil and heinousness of sin in general, it is not unjust in God to inflict what punishment is deserved; because the very notion of deserving any punishment is, that it may be justly inflicted…Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less. If any fault deserves punishment, then so much the greater the fault, so much the greater is the punishment deserved…A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary…Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words…So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.

You can read it in full here.