GIP Library icon

A Cancer Caregiver’s Journey With God A Cancer Caregiver’s Journey With God

A Cancer Caregiver’s Journey With God Order Printed Copy

  • Author: Dr Paul Loh
  • Size: 5.14MB | 195 pages
  • |
Continue with
Google Twitter
LOG IN TO REVIEW

Exceptional piece. Highly recommended! I learned so much physically, emotionally and spiritually.

- paul loh (7 months ago)

1
About the Book


"A Cancer Caregiver's Journey with God" is a book that follows Dr. Paul Loh as he cares for his wife during her battle with cancer. Through his experiences, Dr. Loh shares his struggles, faith, and the lessons he learned about God and love. The book offers inspiration and guidance to those who are caring for loved ones with cancer.

Richard Sibbes

Richard Sibbes Richard Sibbes was born in Tostock, Suffolk, four miles from Bury St. Edmunds, in 1577.[1] He is the eldest son of Paul Sibbes and Joane. His father was a wheelwright who hoped Sibbes would be in the same field of occupation. Instead of following the footsteps of his father, young Sibbes, out of love for reading, would choose books over wooden wheels.[2] Truly enough, throughout his lifetime, books were part of Sibbes’ life.[3] Proof of this interest to books is his accomplishments as a lecturer [pastor], fellow tutor, vicar, and for obtaining various degrees in his academic education. Sibbes’ legacy of his seven-volume work was collected by A. B. Grosart which was published from 1862 to 1864.[4] Sibbes’ ministries and his works spread throughout England even after his death. However, he was never married. Sibbes died on July 5, 1635, in his chambers at Gray’s Inn.[5] J. I. Packer noted that Sibbes’ left more than two million words on paper after his death.[6] Educational Background Sibbes’ started studying at St. John’s College, Cambridge when he was eighteen, in 1595. He then proceeded to finish a Bachelor of Arts in 1599. He received a fellowship grant in 1601. Sibbes continued studying, finishing a Master of Arts degree by 1602. Sibbes became a prominent preacher in Cambridge and got the endorsement to apply for a Bachelor of Divinity. After his defense and fulfilling the requirements, he earned this degree in 1610.[7] Furthermore, in almost two decades, Sibbes received his Doctor of Divinity in 1627 after returning from London for his mastership at St. Katherine.[8] Ministerial Experience and Vocation Sibbes’ conversion happened after hearing Paul Bayne’s sermon in 1603. Bayne succeeded William Perkins at St. Andrews, Cambridge.[9] During Sibbes’ stay in Cambridge, as a fellow, he handled and supervised five to six students for a tutorial.[10] Sibbes held various vocations such as being chaplain, lecturer, and got a promotion from mere fellow to senior fellowship. After being a senior dean at St. John, Sibbes became the master of St. Katherine’s College in 1626.[11] As a preacher, Sibbes received his ordination in Norwich, in 1607. He became the minister of Thurston in 1608. Later, in 1610, Sibbes accepted the offer as a lecturer of Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge until he was called to be a lecturer at Gray’s Inn, London, in 1617.[12] This lectureship lasts until his death. Even during Sibbes’ mastership at St. Katherine, he remained a lecturer at Gray’s Inn. In 1633, through the appointment of King Charles I, Sibbes became the vicar of Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge. The positions held by Sibbes were mastership at St. Katherine, a lecturer at Gray’s Inn, and vicar of Holy Trinity Church. Influence of the Heavenly Doctor Throughout Sibbes ministries, prominence followed as he influenced many Puritan ministers. Sibbes, as an influencer, is known to be the “pastor of pastors,” not just in the Church of England but even to Presbyterians and Independent Congregationalists.[13] Sibbes was responsible for John Cotton’s conversion in 1612.[14] Moreover, he persuaded John Preston’s style in preaching, transforming from witty sermons to more plain but spiritual preaching.[15] Sibbes’ book, The Bruised Reed, encouraged Richard Baxter to gain settled-conviction on his conversion.[16] Likewise, Sibbes helped Thomas Goodwin, the chief editor of most of his works, to keep away from Arminianism.[17] Sibbes’ ministry extends even to common people. Humphrey Mills, a layman, shared his testimony about Sibbes’ ministry. Mills was spiritually refreshed and brought to peace and joy after hearing Sibbes’ “sweet soul-melting Gospel-sermons.”[18] Sibbes’ encouragement did not end in the days of Puritans. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, one of the greatest preachers in the twentieth century, was grateful for Sibbes’ works. Lloyd-Jones, in his spiritual dryness, said that Sibbes’ books “quietened, soothed, comforted, encouraged, and healed [him].”[19] Sibbes was a renowned Puritan throughout Cambridge, London, and even to Amsterdam. Mainly because of his various offices plus broad networks outside the church. He remained a moderate Puritan perceiving the Church of England as the true church. Sibbes encouraged other Separatists to return and warned the moderates not to dissent. Yet many historians and scholars misinterpreted Sibbes in his theology and ministry. Thankfully, Mark Dever, in his recent work, argues contrary to many historians that Sibbes was dismissed in his ministry. Dever also concludes that Sibbes did not drift away from Calvinism, claiming that he was a thoroughly Reformed preacher and never became non-conformist, rather a moderate puritan.[20] Sibbes, through his works, are still penetrating churches and seminaries up to this day. Recently, his seven-volume set was published by The Banner of Truth Trust in 2001. The best introduction for Sibbes’ works, personally, is his The Bruised Reed and the Smoking Flax. For Michael Reeves’ opinion, Sibbes is “the best introduction to the Puritans…. Reading him is like sitting in the sunshine: he gets into your heart and warms it to Christ.”[21] References [1] Alexander B. Grosart, “Memoir of Richard Sibbes, D.D.,” in Richard Sibbes, The Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. Alexander Grosart, 7 vols. (1862-1864; reprint, Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), 1:xxvii. [2] Joel Beeke, “Richard Sibbes on Entertaining the Holy Spirit,” in The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit, ed. Joel Beeke and Joseph Pipa Jr. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 228. Cf. Joel Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), chap. 36, Kindle. [3] Joel Beeke and Randall Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 534-5. [4] Mark Dever, “The Works of Richard Sibbes,” in You Must Read: Books that Have Shaped Our Lives (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2015), 154. [5] Grosart, “Memoir,” in Sibbes, Works, 1:cxxxi. [6] J. I. Packer, foreword to Richard Sibbes: Puritanism and Calvinism in Late Elizabethan and Early Stuart England, by Mark E. Dever (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2000), ix. [7] Dever, Richard Sibbes, 37-38. Bachelor of Divinity, according to Dr. Shawn Wright is equivalent with Master of Divinity today, “Lectures in English Puritanism” (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, Spring 2020), but the process is different. Dever noted in his work that Sibbes undergone two public preaching, one in English and another in Latin, and two defense topics chosen by the panelists. [8] Grosart, “Memoir,” in Sibbes, Works, 1:cxi. [9] Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 534-5. [10] Dever, Richard Sibbes, 30-31. [11] Dever, 31-34, 46. [12] Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 534-6. [13] Beeke, “Richard Sibbes on Entertaining the Holy Spirit,” 230. [14] Dever, Richard Sibbes, 40. [15] Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 535-7. [16] Richard Baxter, The Autobiography of Richard Baxter (Bedford St., London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1931), 7. Baxter’s father bought Sibbes’ book from a peddler and gave it to Richard Baxter. Cf. Timothy K. Beougher, Richard Baxter and Conversion: A Study of the Puritan Concept of Becoming a Christian (Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2007), 21. [17] Dever, Richard Sibbes, 41. [18] Ronald Frost, “The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes (1577-1635)” in Kelly M. Kapic and Randal C. Gleason, The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 80-81. Quoting from a collection of Puritan testimonials by John Rogers, Ohel or Bethshemesh, A Tarbernacle for the Sun (London, n.p., 1653), 410. [19] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), 175. Cf. Publisher’s Foreword to The Bruised Reed, by Richard Sibbes, x. [20] Dever, Richard Sibbes, 211-8. [21] Michael Reeves, “A Short Biography of Richard Sibbes,” in Richard Sibbes, Christ it Best; or, St. Paul’s Strait (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 66.

What Is Life’s Ultimate Good

Dear Dan, I agree; any view that has God as the foundation of morality — like the Christian view I described in my last letter — will have further, serious issues to address. In fact, your two objections get at the most central ones. Let me respond to both. What Makes God’s Laws Good? Your first objection has a great pedigree and can be traced all the way back to Plato. Namely, what makes God’s moral laws — his moral values — good? Does he like these laws because they are good? Or are they good because he likes them? Either way seems to spell trouble for Christianity. Take the first option. Are God’s laws good because they meet some separate standard of good, one “outside” of God? If so, God has to defer to — is beholden to — some higher authority. And that’s impossible, according to Christianity. But the alternative seems just as bad. If God’s laws are good because he likes them, it makes morality seem arbitrary, dependent merely on his personal tastes or whims. After all, what if he had preferred things like murder, rape, and torture? Would these therefore be good? Do we really want to define “good” as “what God likes,” similar to the way “coolness” is just whatever the cool kids like? Wouldn’t this rob statements like “God is good” of all significance, reducing them to saying merely that “God is the way he is”? Again, neither choice looks very promising. So, which horn of the dilemma should the Christian choose? Goodness Is Godness I think the second option is the right one: God’s laws are good because he likes them. That is, anything that God likes or values is good by definition. Goodness just is Godness. So then, is the phrase “God is good” nothing but an empty tautology, saying no more than “God is God”? “Anything that God likes or values is good by definition. Goodness just is Godness.” Well, no. In this specific context, where we’re defining “good,” “God is good” tells us something informative — namely, that God’s values are what make things morally good. But in most other contexts, when we say, “God is good” we can generally take for granted which properties or characteristics go on the “good” list. In these ordinary cases, “God is good” expresses something different — for example, “Here’s what God is like: he hates lying, murder, stealing — things we all agree are bad.” But then, if goodness is defined as whatever God likes, doesn’t my view mean that murder and rape would have been good if God had liked them? In a sense, perhaps; at least their advocacy would have been included in his moral laws. But remember that we’re currently defining “good,” and I think some of the rhetorical force of the wouldn’t-rape-therefore-be-good objection comes from ignoring this context. After all, it seems that regardless of what we say ultimately “makes” something good, if that “good-maker” were different, good would be different. And in any case, the traditional Christian view of God holds that he couldn’t have liked these things, that it’s logically impossible for God to be different than he is, just as a square couldn’t fail to have four equal sides. It turns out, therefore, that things aren’t as nearly as bad as the objection initially implied. Why Follow God’s Moral Law? Then there’s your second objection: why should we follow God’s laws? Is it because, if we don’t, he’ll submit us to everlasting punishment? Should we follow God’s laws simply to avoid pain? Does it turn out, after all, that morality is merely a matter of might makes right? Well, I think Christians should acknowledge that avoiding pain and suffering is a good reason to follow God’s moral laws. Moreover, I concede that this would be a genuine problem — if this were the only reason for obeying God. And as I said, even this reason isn’t without its virtues. After all, if we think of God as a parent — which the Bible encourages us to do — it’s a perfectly good reason, morally as well as rationally. As children we often obeyed our parents, in part, to avoid discipline. In fact, this was the reason for discipline in the first place — to help motivate us to obey. But of course, our obedience wasn’t merely motivated by a fear of discipline. We also obeyed our parents because we loved and trusted them. We knew that their requirements were an integral part of their deep love and affection for us, that they gave us these rules to benefit us. Their laws were evidence of our parents’ love. This interweaving of love and law, this close relation between our love for our parents, their love for us, and their moral values (that is, their moral loves) usually resulted in us adopting their morals; their values naturally became our values. We liked these values. And it didn’t stop with moral values; we sometimes adopted our parents’ values about sports teams, movies, and music — again, sometimes simply because we loved them. So, according to my view, we ought to follow God’s laws because, ultimately, we want to — and the main reason we want to is that we love him. In this way, morality is ultimately personal and grounded in what we love. Meaning of Life The personal aspect of value isn’t limited to moral value; it’s a component of all value, including life’s ultimate value. What we might call life’s ultimate meaning or purpose is perhaps the most important topic of all. So, what is our ultimate value, meaning, purpose, or goal in life? Well, suppose you’re right that there’s no God. The meaning of life, then, would be like all value in a godless cosmos: subjective and relative. And because each person has his own values, there would be as many meanings of life as there are persons. In such a world, there would be no objective meaning that life has. But according to Christianity, humans have been made for something, for a purpose. Moreover, this purpose does not depend on us, and so, in this sense, it’s objective, human-independent. And because we were designed for a specific purpose, humans will only truly flourish and thrive by fulfilling this purpose. Fulfilling God’s purpose for us is life’s ultimate meaning. That doesn’t mean that, in a world without God, humans could not find some measure of meaning or value in things like family, work, art, gardening, or whatever. But unless these individual goods are put into the context of the much larger, overall purpose, they will never be as meaningful (to us) as they could be. Only by fulfilling this ultimate purpose is our meaning of life maximized. What Are Humans For? What is this larger context or purpose? What were we made for? We find a hint by noticing that, for many of us, relationships and community are what we most value, where we find our greatest fulfillment. We flourish best in community with people we love. And this fact is entirely in line with the Christian view that our ultimate purpose is to know and love the ultimate Person, God himself. Christianity is of one voice on this. As one famous confession says, our ultimate purpose “is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Indeed, God is a loving relationship, as odd as that sounds. The mysterious doctrine of the Trinity says that the Godhead is an intimate community of three (divine) persons. That’s what he is. (This is one reason why monistic religions can’t truly make sense of the view that God is love: Who was God loving before he created persons other than himself? Such a being couldn’t essentially be love; at best, he would need creatures in order to love.) “Our ultimate purpose is to know and love the ultimate Person, God himself.” Notice that the centrality of relationships is also evident when Jesus sums up all of God’s laws in just two: love God and love your neighbor. The moral law — and, not coincidentally, life’s ultimate meaning — is about relationships, both human and divine. God, then, created humans for his own purpose. Our purpose — the meaning of life — is also importantly objective, just as morality is: it is human-independent. Yet it’s obvious that we can and do reject God’s purpose for us. In fact, the gospel message — and the entire Bible — is predicated on such rejection. But God has given us another chance to truly flourish, to find ultimate meaning through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He has made this possible at an immense cost to himself. Dan, I get why you would reject Christianity, viewing it as you do from the outside. I hope you’ll continue to consider all this and at least begin to sense that genuine atheism might be a lot different from your current “kinder, gentler” version. I also hope that in the process you’ll reconsider Christianity’s claims — in particular, Jesus’s offering of himself and the relationship you were made for. Article by Mitch Stokes

Feedback
Suggestionsuggestion box
x