Many people wonder what I do with my work day. Some people, I think, imagine that a full-time minister sits in his office and stares out into space all day. Perhaps, some give me more "spiritual points" than I am due--thinking I pray for about 4 hours and read my Bible for the next 4-5. Actually my 9-5 includes less prayer time than it should and less Bible reading than it should. However, much of my day is saturated in constant conversation with the Lord and in reading/studying. One of my most productive times is actually in the morning. Usually before I make blog posts myself I engage my mind with a little reading. I point my browser to www.google.com/reader and check out all of the various blogs I read daily.

I thought that it might be beneficial for you to know which blogs I frequent. One that I visit numerous times a day is Between Two Worlds. It is Justin Taylor's Blog. Some of my readers are probably not familiar with Justin. You should go to his blog and check out some of his stuff. One of his accomplishments, that is a huge benefit to the church, is his update of John Owen's Overcoming Sin and Temptation. A free copy is available in pdf. format here. It is especially beneficial to me because another blog I frequent, www.challies.com is currently doing a Reading the Classics Together. The book we are going through now is Owen's book. We are only on the third chapter; so you could get caught up quickly and join us.

Those, and Piper's Desiring God, are my most frequent visits. I also check out Southern Seminary President Dr. Albert Mohler's blog. Others that I frequent include: Thabiti Anyabwile's Pure Church blog, The Resurgence, The blog that is maintained by Founders, The Shepherd's Scrapbook, and the Pyromaniacs.
I also have a few friends (surprising I know) that are in the blog world. My friend Garrett often blogs at Thoughts on the Way, Josh has his own blog at Everything to Enjoy. A couple of other friends have blogs for their ministries: David at FBC Monroe City and Jonathan at Elm Grove.

So, I spend a little bit of time in the morning reading some of the latest articles that these guys either link to or write themselves. After that I spend time either preparing for sermons, reading one of the books I am currently reading, working on a book I am attempting to write, or making blog posts like this one. Oh, and just so you do not get the wrong idea, I also spend some time checking up on my fantasy football teams and the playoff-bound Cleveland Browns!!

My reason for sharing all of this is to get you to follow some of these links and check them out. They are great resources and every Christian would benefit from signing up for google reader and checking out the blog updates daily. To God be the glory!

Last time we saw that contentment is a free work of the spirit. This time we will see that it is taking pleasure in God's disposal. (p9-10). At this point Burroughs is going to take us further into this matter of Christian contentment. It is not only seeing that we should be content, but it is actually seeing good in, and taking pleasure in, the affliction. Burroughs notes that it is not merely looking back on the affliction and saying with David, "it was good that I was afflicted". Rather, it is being in the midst of the trial and saying, "it is good that I am afflicted". "Not just good when you see the good fruit it has wrought, but to say when you are afflicted, 'It is good that I am afflicted'."

We see this type of contentment evidenced in Proverbs 15:6, "In the house of the righteous is much treasure, but in the revenues of the wicked is trouble". Regardless of the state of the righteous man's house in it he has much treasure. "There is more treasure in the poorest body's house, if he is godly, than in the house of the greatest man in the world, who has his fine hangings and finely-wrought beds and chairs and couches and cupboards of plate and the like. Whatever he has, he has not so much treasure in it as there is in the house of the poorest righteous soul." This should consistently remind us that no matter what lot in life the Lord gives us we still have the greatest treasure; namely Jesus Christ. What a great gift the Father has lavished upon us. We also see evidence of this in the Apostle Paul's life. Who spent many nights naked and hungry, yet was able to say, "possessing all things" (2 Cor. 6:10).

I am again reminded of the quote by Samuel Rutherford that continues to ring in my mind. It is an excellent work. If you do not own it I would suggest clicking on its picture on the sidebar and buying it for $7. It will be worth every penny. The quote is thus: “I would not want the sweet experience of the consolations of God for all the bitterness of affliction; nay, whether God come to his children with a rod or a crown, if he come himself with it, it is well". He then continues by saying, “It is better to be sick, providing Christ come to the bed-side…than to enjoy health, being lusty and strong, and never visited of God.”

I am always a little reluctant to share stories like this. It could have a great effect or it could have adverse ones. The truth is, I would be saying "our great God!" whether this blessing happened or not (or at least I'd hope I would). But as it stands the Lord has shown us His mercy, grace, and power this morning.

As many of you know Nikki and I are having our first child in January. The Lord has blessed us with not only the baby but we have also been able to save up a little, so as to provide for him. As we have had a few expenditure's, our savings and checking both have been dwindling. We found out a couple of weeks ago that a scholarship was not coming through and by today we would have to pay the college $710--wiping out our savings. To add to this, Nikki was almost a felon (she was speeding late for work one morning) her fine is due Monday. I say all of this to say that this morning I was walking over to our secretary to see if I could get an advance on my paycheck because we were a short a few dollars. We were still trusting that God was going to provide, although beginning to get a little scared.

As I began walking to the office our pastor greeted me half way (out in the blistering cold) and gave me a card. I opened it and to my surprise inside the card were 5 Benny Frank's--that's nerd for $500. Wow! Needless to say I did not need to go ask for an advance. This blessing is wonderful and amazing and a great reminder that our Father is very gracious and merciful. Another reminder that he covers over our sin (Nikki's ticket) and lavishes upon us much much more than we deserve. What is even more astonishing is that this is but a glimpse of a glimpse of what awaits us in glory. When the Lord gives us the greatest treasure--Full enjoyment of Himself! I await that day...but until then I'm enjoying His previews before seeing the full feature.

Last night we finished our next to last book on the Minor Prophets--Malachi. We will be doing two messages on Zechariah and then sum it all up with a Christmas message on the Promised King. Then we will kick the New Year off by starting a series on "Being Godly Men and Women". But until then lets take a look back at Malachi.

We listed six different marks of indifference and then gave suggestions on how to battle them.

1. When you are questioning God’s love for you focus on His electing love in redemption.
2. When you are engaging in half-hearted worship focus on God’s awesome character.
3. When you are struggling with infidelity guard yourselves and do not be faithless
4. When you are questioning God’s justice focus on His past fulfillments and future promises
5. When you are selfishly giving half-hearted devotion focus on the storehouse of God’s pleasures.
6. When you lose hope and feel like giving up look to your future redemption or judgment

For all of the details you can find the sermon here: Battling Indifference While We Wait

I am indebted to a dear pastor friend for pointing me to this sermon. I finally today had the time to listen to it (undistracted) for its longevity. I would urge you to do the same. It was preached at the Desiring God 2003 National Conference. The Conference was in honor of Jonathan Edwards and the sermon to which I am referring is by Sam Storms. Dr. Storms has written an excellent book called Pleasures Evermore among others. You can read lots of material for free at http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com

Here is the sermon to which I was referring: Joy's Eternal Increase


P.S. I am trying to put a music playlist on the sidebar--If I get that figured out I will post audio sermons on the sidebar as well

The fifth characteristic (which is the second half of Burroughs original definition) is that Christian contentment is "freely submitting to and taking pleasure in God's disposal". Today (p.8) we will see that there are three things (Burroughs says there are four, but only lists three) to be explained about this "freedom of spirit".

1. The heart is readily brought over. Burroughs simply means that if you really are content and "freely submitting" then it will not take a cattle prod to get you into contentment. Burroughs says that if we really are content then, "as soon as you come to see that it is the hand of God your heart acts readily and closes and once".
2. It is freely, that is, not by constraint. It is not that we "must" be content. We do it with joy. It is also not because of ignorance that we freely submit. If our contentment stems from not knowing any better then it cannot truly be called "free". True freedom comes whenever we "know the condition [we] are in as an afflicted and sad condition, and still [have] a sanctified judgment [to bring our hearts to contentment]."
3. It is in opposition to mere stupidity. This appears to be much the same point as number 2. Burroughs likens this to pinching a man with paralysis and then praising him for his patience and tolerance of bearing such a terrible affliction. He could not feel it, how can you praise him? True contentment is likened to when you can feel the pinch and do not pop the guy in the teeth (my words not Burroughs).

Burroughs then continues with his sixth point and because it is short we will too. He hopes to expound upon what it means to "submit to God's disposal". "The word submit," says Burroughs, "signifies nothing else but 'to send under'". What he means by that is that submitting means to bow yourself before the feet of God. It is when our soul, "can send itself under [bow before] the power and authority and sovereignty and dominion that God has over it." That causes me to ask myself today, am I freely submitting to God's rule? Do I live in proper authority, bowing before God's dominion over me? Does my heart readily submit to His and say, "Have thine own way Lord, Have thine own way"?

Next time we will look take this another step and look at having pleasure in God's disposal.

Just wanted to let my readers know that i am very much "under the weather" and have been since Saturday. That coupled with Thanksgiving has made posting very difficult. But we will be back up and running, Lord willing, either tomorrow or Wednesday!

Yesterday we saw that Christian contentment is an inward heart condition. Today we will see 3 things that this gracious frame of spirit is opposed to (p.7). A gracious frame of spirit is opposed to:

1. the natural quietness of many men and women. Some are naturally quiet; others are naturally impatient.
2. a sturdy resolution.
3. the strength of natural reason.

Burroughs then expounds why these are distinguished from Christian contentment. He deals especially with the first of the three--natural quietness. The difference between the two is clear, "The one whose disposition is quiet is not disquieted as others are, but neither does he show any activeness of spirit to sanctify the name of God in his affliction. But , on the other hand, he whose contentment is of grace is not disquieted and keeps his heart quiet with regard to vexation and trouble, and at the same time is not dull or heavy but very active to sanctify God's name in the affliction that he is experiencing." Simply put, one who is exercising Christian contentment will be giving God the glory and praise while the natural man will not. And this, Burroughs says, is the difference between the other two points as well.

The question for us today is this: are we praising God in our afflictions and in our blessings?

This matter of Christian contentment is a matter of the soul. Today (p.5-6)we will see three things about this "inward, quiet frame of spirit".

First, we see that it is a "grace that spreads itself through the whole soul." What Burroughs means by this is that contentment begins in the soul's understanding (reason, judgment, cognition) and satisfies the thoughts. Then as the thoughts are satisfied it moves to the will--which submits to the understanding. Then as the will submits the affections follow. Therefore, true Christian contentment penetrates through the entire soul.

Some have only a partial contentment. They are able to get their understanding and therefore their thoughts in check but for whatever reason they cannot seem to harness their affections. A great example of this would be Psalm 42. David has a settled disposition but yet his soul is still downcast. Yet even without having his affections settled he is in a far better state than the soul who cannot be settled in his understanding. But if we are to have true Christian contentment then it must penetrate all of our soul.

Secondly, we see that "spiritual contentment comes from the frame of the soul." What Burroughs means by this is that contentment does not come from outward help but from "the disposition of their own hearts". "When a Christian is content in the right way, the quiet comes more from the temper and disposition of his own heart than from any external argument or from the possession of anything in the world".

To help us to see this Burroughs gives an example of a man with cold clothes. He can get his clothes warmed by two different ways. Either by sitting by a fire (outward) or by wearing them for awhile and letting his natural body heat warm them (inward). This is compared to the differences in many men. Some are ill and their natural body heat will not warm them. They can go to the fire but it will only warm them for awhile. Only while the outward help is upon them, but when left to themselves their "contentment" will soon dwindle. The one who has true Christian contentment will at first field the coldness of the affliction but after awhile will warm up to it and become content under the trial. This will continue because it came from the inward state. Therefore, "when it comes from the spirit of a man or woman--that is true contentment."

Lastly, we see that this frame of spirit "shows the habitual character of this grace of contentment". By this Burroughs simply means that contentment is no mere flash in the pan. It is a lasting endeavor. It is not fixed upon moods or seasons. True Christian contentment will find itself as the "constant tenor and temper of their hearts". If we are to call it Christian contentment then it must be persevering.

What then can we learn from Burroughs today?

• I am especially challenged by Burroughs second point. Thinking of all the different "fires" that might warm me I realized that I can be tempted to find comfort in things other than Jesus. We know, as does Burroughs, that true contentment only comes from the soul's satisfaction with God. That is where this "inward soul-warming" comes from. I am challenged then to discover the areas in my life where my "contentment" only comes from outward blessing and not inward satisfaction.
• It is also challenging to determine whether or not our attitude is continually contented or is it shifting with our various moods and cirumstances.
• Therefore, we must cling to Jesus to teach us this mystery of contentment.

• Cling to the gospel
• Pray in the Spirit
• Allow your gospel roots to go deep
• Fight the fight of faith

Call it irony, call it laziness, call it distraction, call it what you will. I just realized today that I never finished up our bible studies on Jude. My plan is to finish the last 4 messages (1 of those today) and then begin a series of Bible studies on 1 Thessalonians. So, for the poor guy who has been checking this website every day since September 17th, here you go:

Last time we looked at three things that Christian contentment is not opposed to. Today we will see the 8 things that it is opposed to (p. 3-4) and then have a brief word on each. Christian contentment is opposed to:

1. Murmuring and [complaining] at the hand of God
2. Vexing and fretting (a degree beyond murmuring)
3. The spirit being highly agitated so that it becomes unruly
4. An unstable and unsettled spirit whereby it is distracted from its duty to God and others
5. Distracting, heart-consuming cares
6. Sinking discouragements
7. Sinful shiftings and negligence so as to seek relief and help
8. Desperate risings of the heart against God by way of rebellion

It appears that each of these points that Burroughs mentions has a couple of root exhortations. You cannot claim Christian contentment if when given a difficult trial you murmur and complain towards God and it so agitates you that you are consumed and distracted by it. If it is taking all of your heart and your focus so that you eyes are constantly fixed on this affliction then you are not practicing Christian contentment. Also, we see that if the affliction is bringing you to sinful rebellion whether through active rebellion or negligence. You cannot claim Christian contentment while you are engaged in sinful rebellion so as to relieve the affliction. A biblical example that Burroughs gives is the story of Saul running to the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28). Perhaps a more contemporary example would be a man who has his finances afflicted and to relieve his sufferings he steals, gambles, and cheats. He pursues dishonest gain to relieve his affliction.

One of Burroughs points that you might have contention with is #6, "sinking discouragements". Is Burroughs saying that the Christian is not allowed to struggle mightily with depression? What about Spurgeon--was he sinning in his bouts with melancholy? What specifically did Burroughs mean? We will let Burroughs speak--"God would have us to depend on Him though we do not see how the thing may be brought about; otherwise we do not show a quiet spirit. Though an affliction is on you, do not let your heart sink under it. So far as your heart sinks and you are discouraged under affliction, so much you need to learn this lesson of contentment".

Today we will be looking at Charnock's third reason (p.41) why the existence of a god is natural and innate. We have seen that it is not because of mere tradition that there is a universal consent to this truth. Nor can we say that it is because of societies leaders having made this notion up so as to keep the masses in check. His third reason is that it is not fear that introduced this belief.
Charnock's argument here is simple. Fear is the consequence of wickedness. You do not fear a god unless a god was already there prior. Unless you feel that you have offended a Deity there is no reason for fear to rise up. As he has argued prior, "it is not the existence of a thing that excites any of [these] affections, but the relationship a thing bears to us in particular." Charnock also notes that it was more often love and hope of blessing which gave birth to sacrifices than fear of punishment. "The fear of evils in the world, and the hopes of relief and assistance from the gods, and not a terrifying fear of God, was the principal spring of their worship". Even in Scripture when we think of the "fear of God as the beginning of wisdom" we think of it not as a terrifying fear but a reverential fear.
Fear, whether reverential or terrifying, only comes from already knowing an established god. It is not grounds for making one up. The question I believe the Lord would ask us today is this. What does a meditation upon His character spring up in us? Are we shamed by the worshippers of a false god? Are they more devoted than we who worship the real and living God? The character of God should excite all sorts of passions within us, all reach their climax in humble exuberant worship of the living God. The existence of fear, then, is not a reason to deny the existence of God but to worship Him all the more!

Some might think that if God desires us to be content always then does that must mean that we can never have a frown on our face. Does this mean we cannot weep? Does this mean that it is a sin for a Christian to be sad? In his typically profound way Burroughs will help us see three things (page 3)that this "quiet of heart" is not opposed to:

1. To a due sense of affliction. What Burroughs means by this is that the Christian should not ignore and refuse to acknowledge that there are difficult times. If we were totally unaware that we were being afflicted then what type of virtue would it be to have joy amidst the trial? The very nature of being content in all circumstances points to the necessity of being sensible to our afflictions.
2. To making our cries known to God. Notice in the life of Job that he was able to make his affliction known to his friends without sin. He was able to even make his plea to God without sin. But what if we are being disciplined? Can we then make our moan known to God? Burroughs seems to think this unfitting when he says, "...a Christian ought to be quiet under God's correcting hand". However, Burroughs also says, "without a breach of Christian contentment complain to God". The way this is done is by a "quiet, still, submissive way [in which we disclose our] heart to God."
3. To seeking help and refuge from the difficult circumstance. Who knows if it is God's will to alter our condition? Perhaps God wills to bring us through this suffering time. Indeed we should pray and seek to be relieved. As Burroughs says, "God is thus far mercifully indulgent to our weakness, and He will not take it ill at our hands if by [serious intention] and [persistent] prayer we seek Him for deliverance until we know His good pleasure in the matter." Which should thus desire that our "wills [be] melted into the will of God".

These things then are not opposed to Christian contentment. It is soothing to a broken soul to know that it is not merely okay to make their request known to God but strongly suggested. Nor is it wrong to be broken and to cry out to the Almighty! James 1:2-18 confirms this. Especially focus on verse 5. James is specifically saying that if any of us lack wisdom [in the context referring to wisdom in our trials] we should ask the Lord. Then we are encouraged by the character of God, "who gives generously without reproach". The word for reproach means he does so without rebuking us, without thinking we are stupid for asking, or without laughing at us and scorning us. I am reminded of Psalm 103:14, that God "knows our frame; he remembers that we are but dust." Therefore today let us make our request known to God. But also might we fashion our prayer after what Burroughs said, that "our wills be melted into the will of God".

In what has been the first "complication" to my wife's pregnancy the other day she was diagnosed with possible placenta previa. Placenta previa is a condition where the placenta is near to or covers the cervix. To put this in "what does this mean" terms--it means that if it stays in its current position Nikki will not be able to have a normal birth but will have to have a C-section. However, there is still much hope. She has been put on bed rest (not complete bed-rest, as of yet). The hope is that the placenta might "move up" and Nikki will be able to have a normal delivery. So, I am asking that you please pray that the Lord might heal this condition and that the placenta might move up and allow my wife to have a normal delivery. But, above all it is my prayer that He might be glorified and give us the strength to enjoy Him no matter His will on this. As my friend Will has prayed for and encouraged me--pray that "our eyes will be fixed on Christ and His wonderful sovereign grace". Oh, how the Lord loves us and wants what is best for us. Even if it's a trial.

Our attendance was down on Wednesday. It's really sad that people had to miss, some where sick, some had birthdays, some had other affections, some had things they had to do that could not be rescheduled. Nonetheless, our attendance was down and many missed a good service. For those of you who want updated and to know what was preached here is the sermon notes. You missed out on a little bit though because there were a few sections that were preached a little different than originally written.
I love how Nahum starts with the character. He is going to talk about the judgment of God upon Nineveh but he wants Judah to know, and probably Nineveh as well, that everything is happening because of the character of God. So that is what our sermon was about the character of God and the reason for our salvation. You can read the sermon here. Enjoy!

Today we will be looking at Burroughs' description of contentment (page 2). This description will serve as a thesis for the entire book. Burroughs will spend 13 chapters expounding upon this description and giving principles on how to attain it. Burroughs offers the following description:

"Christian contentment is that sweet, inward, quiet, gracious frame of spirit, which freely submits to and delights in God's wise and fatherly disposal in every condition.

Today we will be looking at Charnock's second reason why a universal consent to the existence of God is natural (p38-41). His reasoning here is that the existence of a god is not something that could have been contrived by governors. He gives two reasons why this is so. First of all it is unaccountable how such a thing would come to pass. Charnock gives numerous questions that really have no answer. For instance, "What mutual correspondence could such have, whose interests are for the most part different, and their designs contrary to one another?" Or again, "How could they who were divided by such vast seas, have this mutual converse"?

Charnock's argument here rests upon his earlier argument that this belief in the existence of god is universal in its consent. If we were to counter argue Charnock we would say that the original rulers contrived of this god and took it with them wherever they went. As they travelled around the globe they took their belief in a god or gods. But again Charnock would take us back to the original man. Where did this belief even come from? Or again we can see that "the being of a God is owned by some nations that have scarce any form of policy among them". And perhaps an even more fitting argument is to ask, why would a ruler (or group of rulers) want to contrive a being which detested their unjust practices? As Charnock says, "No man satisfying his pleasures would impose such a deceit upon himself to render and make himself more miserable than the creatures he [has] dominion over."

Then we must ask another question; which transitions to our second point. How could such a deceit endure so long? If men in their natural state would be so desirous to cast of this restraint why would it endure for so long? How could these rulers have kept this for so long? Why would some of them not have desired to cast off this restraint? If we would permit for a moment that this notion of a god was made up and is indeed a lie, and then compare it to other lies we must ask why has this lie prevailed? Or as Charnock asks, "If a cheat [imposes] upon some towns and countries, he will be found out by the more piercing inquires of other places; and it is not easy to name any imposture that hath walked so long in its disguise in the world, without being unmasked and whipped out by some nation or other". Why then has this "lie" not been whipped out?

Again, we could probably point to a few exceptions, and perhaps this argument would not bode well in the 21st century. What would atheistic nations do to Charnock's argument? How does North Korea fit into this? (Perhaps you could say that a nation making itself a god would further prove the point...I am not sure). But all in all I think Charnock makes a good point. It is quite ludicrous to think that a group of rulers got together and made up a notion of a god. Especially gods that had more power than they, or gods who required something of them, or gods that would keep their injustice at bay.

Next time we will see that fear is not a reason for this universal consent, and then we will move to the second reason why atheism is sheer folly: by reason of that which all creatures manifest.

Burroughs was a man who was accustomed to much sorrow. He had more than a few situations in his life where he was plagued with disunity among the body of Christ. Anyone who loves the bride of Jesus knows how trying these times can be. Burroughs also lived in a tumultuous time. In the early portion of his ministry he had to fight many battles against the Church of England concerning conformity and non-conformity. Most of these struggles were centered upon his refusal to accept King James’Book of Sports. After this was seemingly resolved, Burroughs found himself in the center of the controversy between the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Independents (of whom Burroughs was a “member”). So, Burroughs knows of suffering. The things written in Rare Jewel are not mere theoretical musings--they are the outgrowth of experience in his own Christian walk. You can feel Burroughs pain in his first paragraph when he speaks of the “drooping spirits of the saints in these sad and sinking times” (1). No doubt Burroughs himself was one of those who struggled with having a “drooping spirit”. Therefore, it is fitting that he should labor to faithfully exposit Philippians 4:11.

Today we will look at the introductory matters. We will ask two questions. 1) What does the apostle mean in Philippians 4:11? 2) What is the doctrinal assertion of this text?

1) What does the apostle mean in Philippians 4:11?

To place this in its proper context we must understand that Paul is in the midst of thanking the Philippians for their kind gift. This is what he meant in 4:10 when he said, “…you have revived your concern for me”. It seems as if the Philippians had been going through a deep financial struggle and where unable to support Paul monetarily. But then, as Paul is in prison, Epaphroditus shows up. Epaphroditus himself is a gift, yet he is bringin monetary support from the Philippians as well. In this Paul rejoices. But, so as not to sound desperate he qualifies his thanksgiving in verse 11. He wants them to know that his excitement is not in the monetary gift but in their support. As Burroughs says, “not that he sought ‘theirs’ but ‘them’”. And tucked away in this paragraph is Paul’s statement, “for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content”.

Burroughs helps us to see three things from this text: it is learned, it is to be constant, and it comes from the sufficiency of Christ.

“It is learned” helps us to see that having contentment in every situation is a “great art”. Burroughs notes the tense of the phrase. It is almost as if Paul is saying, “I do not have to learn it now, nor did I have [this] at first, I have attained it, though with much [struggle], and now, by the grace of God, I have become the master of this art.” It is vital that we see that contentment is a learned art. It will keep us from being frustrated, guard us from arrogance, and push us on to pursue more contentment.

“In whatever situation” helps us to see that this is to be a constant state. We must always be content. Whether as Paul says we are, “facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need”. We must learn to be content.

“To be content” actually can refer to only God. The word means “self-sufficient”. Only God can, “rests fully satisfied in and with Himself alone”. But how then can we say that Paul (and later that we) can have this self-sufficiency? As Burroughs helps us see it is because Paul, “had a right to the covenant and promise, which virtually contains everything, and an interest in Christ, the fountain and good of all, it is no marvel that he said that in whatever state he was in, he was content.”

2) What is the doctrinal assertion of this text?
Burroughs states the doctrinal consideration is brief but is thus: “That to be well skilled in the mystery of Christian contentment is the duty, glory and excellence of a Christian” (2). And it is this great doctrine that we will, with the help of Jeremiah Burroughs, expound in the month of November.

What can we learn from all of this today? I am reminded of a quote by Samuel Rutherford in counseling a young woman who was going through many trials. Rutherford says, “I would not want the sweet experience of the consolations of God for all the bitterness of affliction; nay, whether God come to his children with a rod or a crown, if he come himself with it, it is well[1]In case you lost what Rutherford said in his Old English he is simply saying that so long as he has Christ it is sweet. Whether Christ comes with a rod (affliction, tough times) or with a crown (blessings, abundance, good times) it is still Christ who is there—and therefore it is sweet. To drive this point home Rutherford says,“It is better to be sick, providing Christ come to the bed-side…than to enjoy health, being lusty and strong, and never visited of God.”[2]

The question that I see the Lord of glory asking us through the ministry of Burroughs and Rutherford and indeed even through His apostle Paul is this: Am I sufficient? Do you love me so much that in trying times and in good times you can be content—all because you have me? Let us repent of our self-sufficiency and cling to the Cross of Jesus Christ and rejoice in His all-sufficiency. He is our sufficiency!

[1]Rutherford, Samuel. Letters of Samuel Rutherford. The Banner of Truth Trust. 2006. p18-19.
[2] Ibid.

Wednesday night we were challenged to allow the gospel to go deeper. In fact we were challenged to do everything we can to drive the gospel deeper by pursuing some of the classic spiritual disciplines. We noted that these disciplines are not the goal. The best way to honor a water pipe (if that were your desire) would be to enjoy the water it brings. The same way with the disciplines the best way to honor the disciplines is to enjoy the water (Jesus) that it brings. But again all of these must be clothed in grace. If you really want to here a solid sermon about this I would suggest listening to this sermon by Jonathan McIntosh: How Change Works
I also am a little reluctant to use the phrase "allow the gospel" or "allow God". Perhaps if you have that same aversion what a dear pastor friend said to me might help. After asking him in what way is it appropriate to use the phrase "allow the gospel" he responded thus:

"I'll try a quick, 2-part answer.
#1. As often happens, part of answer comes down to semantics. Just how exteme are we defining "allow"? Which seques into second part.
#2. Colossians 3:15-16 tell us to "let the peace of Christ rule....let the word of Christ
dwell...." Obviously we cannot stop these things if God chooses to force them on us -nor- can we make them happen if chooses to deny. We let these thing happen in our lives by a). Not doing things which impede or hamper and by b). doing things which promote them.

Illustration.....I plant corn in my garden and 'let' it grow.I let it grow in several ways. I fertilize, weed, and water. I also let it grow by not tromping it down or uprooting it. I don't cause the growth, but I can have a part in letting (allowing) it to grow in healthier, more productive way."

This illustration and statement really helped me. We "let the word of Christ dwell" by not hampering it's growth and by doing things which promote them. Such as the disciplines we talked about Wednesday night.

Today we will be discussing Charnock's third reason for the folly of atheism as shown in the universal consent to a Supreme Creator. His first being that this consent is universal. Secondly, we saw that this consent has been constant and uninterrupted. Today we will see his third that it is "natural and innate". Even though some men claim it not to be natural we can see clearly that it is "so natural that every man is born with a restless instinct to be some kind of religion or other". In fact, "wherever you find human nature, you find this settled persuasion". And we can see in all mankind that there is a law of nature which directs them. And certainly if there be a law of nature there must be a Lawgiver. We cannot entertain the thought that man is the creator of this law. Because as Charnock says, "no man would endure a thing that [does] frequently molest and disquiet him, if he could [reject] it." But does it have to be said to be natural? Can we not say that this notion of a god is not natural but merely a tradition passed down through the ages? Can we not say that it is something put in place by leaders to keep the people in check? Can we not say that it is simply a residing fear in people? These three questions Charnock will begin to answer to prove that it is indeed natural. The first (p37-38) we will address today; that it is not by mere tradition.

Charnock begins by noting that this argument will lead us to ad infinitum. You must trace it back to the first ancestor and ask "where did he get it"? "It cannot be supposed, that the first man should acquaint his posterity with an object of worship, and leave them ignorant of a mode of worship and of the end of worship". In other words why would the first persons have transmitted that there is a God but left out all the details? If he did do this then where and why did questions start to arise? Why did men decide to keep the notion of a god but forget the mode and end of worship? Why make it so general? Or again take the Native Americans who at the time of Charnock could not trace their beginnings. How can we say that they had their belief in a Supreme Creator given to them by tradition. What tradition?!?!? As Charnock says, "No reason can be rendered for the security of [the above questions], but that there is so clear a [trace] of a Deity upon the minds of men, such traces and shadows of him in the creatures, such indelible instincts within and invincible arguments without to keep up this universal consent."
We must acknowledge that the reason these traces of a god are here is because they are there by nature and not by tradition.

But suppose for a moment we could say it is due to tradition. Then we must also ask the question, "was it likely to be a mere intention and figment of the first man". Even if he did pass it down would he not have done so because God Himself required it? Why else would he make it up? How could we expect him to be so advanced and intelligent?

Charnock's arguments are solid in this section. It actually begs a question...if this belief in a god is so natural why do you think that men suppress it? We could make the question even more biblical. Why do people suppress the belief in God as He has revealed Himself? We could even make it more personal. Why do I suppress what God has revealed in my own life? Why do I run from the revealed God?

Today we will be looking at Charnock's second point of evidence (p33-35) concerning the folly of the atheist rejecting that which all nations, in all places and ages have adhered to. Last time we saw that this has been a universal consent. Today we will see that it is constant and uninterrupted. By this Charnock means that there has never been a time since the beginning of the world where a belief in God has not been universally known. To this end Charnock gives three evidences:

1. In all the changes of the world a belief in the existence of God has been maintained. Even when empires have been overturned their gods might have changed but the belief in a god or gods has not. Even when the notion of a multiplicity of gods was rejected the notion of one true God grew stronger. As Charnock says, "the being of one God was more vigorously owned when the unreasonableness of multiplicity of gods was manifest; and grew taller by the detection of counterfeits." It is an absurdity to think that such an imposture could have "walked perpetually in the world without being discovered, and whipped out by some nation or other."
2. Men by nature desire to not have a god--it is not for lack of desire or trying that men have not been able to stamp out this nation. By its very persistence it proves its existence. Or as Charnock said, "The fears and anxieties in the consciences of men have given men sufficient occasion to root it out, had it been possible for them to do it." Since no man in his natural state desires to be controlled by someone or something he naturally tries to reject a god who is in control of him. Charnock gives the evidence of Adam and notes that we too follow after our father. But, "since men under the turmoils and lashes of their own consciences could never bring their hearts to a settled dissent from this truth, it evidenceth, that as it took its birth at the beginning of the world, it cannot expire, no not in the ashes of it, nor in anything but the reduction of the soul to that nothing from whence it sprung". Charnock is simply stating here that this is such a fixed truth that as long as the soul endures (which will be eternal) so will the conception of a belief in the existence of a god.
3. The devil deems it impossible to root out the notion of an existence of god. If you go back to the narrative of the Fall we see that the devil did not try to convince Adam and Eve that God did not exist but rather distorted Him and tried to convince them that they too were gods. The reason? "He knew it impossible to effect it, and therefore in vain to attempt it". Certainly, the Deceiver set himself up in many places as a god but was never able to throw out the notion altogether. To which Charnock comments, "The impressions of a Deity were so strong as not to be struck out by the malice and power of hell".

Here Charnock gives 3 rather decent arguments. They certainly are not the "nail in the coffin" but alongside all other evidences prove formidable. I especially like 1 & 2 put together. If we take it as truth that men would rather deny a god than adhere to one then it shows that men would have been giving much effort to putting out this notion. They would have put much effort into whipping out this imposture--however, because of the continued belief in the existence of God it shows they have not been able. However, this argument is not airtight. Some might argue that it is within man (as an evolutionary tendency) to keep the existence of a god. Therefore, it would bring down Charnock's argument.

The last argument must be established upon the authority of Scripture. For those of us who adhere to the infallible Word of God we stand behind Charnock. It is a great point that Satan, rather than trying to blot out his existence, has masqueraded as a god instead. Put together these 3 arguments serve as sufficeint evidence to show that throughout history the existence of a god has been accepted.

I am back from the Missouri Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. It was an eventful 3 days yet also a little boring. I have taken 3 things from this convention. 1) I felt that there was a great deal of pride at the convention (not the least of which was my own). The Lord convicted me deeply of a desire to make my name great. On Tuesday night I skipped out on the programs and got alone with the Lord. I went back over the gospel and had to be reminded that I was created by God and created for His glory and His glory alone. I know that He will not share His glory with another. I was deeply convicted yet mightily encouraged. I have a new resolve to preach the gospel boldly and a desire to fight pride in my life via the power of the Cross. May God be gracious and give me clarity and passion in driving the vice of pride out of my life. 2) I need to go to seminary. I am not sure when, but I realize that I must go deeper and I cannot do that on my own. I need a further education. I am praying that the Lord might show me His timing--and that I might not pursue that any sooner than I am supposed to nor any later. 3) There is a sharp division in our Missouri Baptist Convention. The younger generation seems to be a very large contrast to the older generation. I fear that because of our hubris ("our" being the younger generation) we will not be heard, and when we are it will be self-honoring and not Christ-honoring. Brothers, we must bow humbly before the Cross. We must realize that God is more concerned with our convention, with being honored, with spreading His name than we are. Therefore, we should boldly stand for the truth yet not create factions and not refuse to love our brothers in Christ. I am humbled by the depth of some of the leaders in my generation. I am thankful to God for them. Hopefully, the MBC stance on alcohol will not be displeasing to God. I say that because by passing a resolution that would not allow Paul, Timothy, or Jesus Himself to be a trustee--i think we have went too far. But enough on that. I am back and happy to be back...now i must draw deeper from the wells of grace and preach the gospel boldly.