At the end of Chapter 8 Sibbes admonished us to believe Christ and not Satan. He was helping us to see that we need to continue in our duties and bank on the mercy of Christ. In this chapter Sibbes is going to add to that thought.

Quick Outline:

• How We Should Think of Christ
• When Christ Seems to be an Enemy
• When Doubt Assails Us

Summary:

One of the primary things that Satan attempts to do in the life of the believer is put a wedge between us and Christ. He often does this by causing us to think poorly of Jesus. Yet, we should abhor such ridiculous notions and fixate on the biblical Christ.

But still sometimes Satan causes us to view Christ as an enemy. He especially does this when God is legitmately displaying to us his fatherly displeasure. Yet we must be careful in how we view Christ; even when he seems like an enemy. We should take heart even in this season of displeasure and know that, "He cannot restrain his bowels of mercy long".

Although these things are true, doubt still sometimes overcomes us. What do we do in those times? Sibbes gives wonderful God-centered, Christ-honoring, advice. "Cast yourself into the arms of Christ, and if you perish, perish there. If you do not, you are sure to perish. If mercy is to be found anywhere, it is there". After saying this it is as if Sibbes knows people will still question whether they might be accepted into the arms of Christ; they feel themselves not to be smoking flax. The author then reminds us that, "when he [Christ] goes before us by kindling holy desires in us, he is ready to meet us in his own ways". This very doubt is the act of Christ kindling a holy desire. And when we see that holy desire we can rest assured that Christ is ready to meet us there.

Discussion:

Since the Lord changed my heart and mind towards the doctrines of grace (some call it Calvinism) one aspect of my walk with Christ has changed significantly, that of assurance. I am not so sure that if you reject the doctrines of grace that Sibbes statements here will hold much water. Perhaps it will still be accepted but I am not sure that it would go quite as deep. (Maybe some of my Arminian readers would be interested in showing faulty thinking here).

Now, lest I be misunderstood, what I am not saying is that accepting the doctrines of grace is the grounds for our assurance. What I am saying, and what I believe Sibbes is arguing, is that our assurance--and our hope when doubt assails us--is that what Christ has started He will close. When Sibbes says, "The least love we have to him is but a reflection of his love first shining upon us", he means something really loaded and profound. If we can see but a spark of grace in our hearts (even the smallest spark or desire for Christ) we can be certain that it was implanted there by God. (This comes from a true understanding of the depravity of man and that any spark is there because God put it there). Therefore, we can also take heart that Christ is going to finish this work that he has started. Even if we love him a little, that is a reflection that he has shined his love upon us. Knowing that His love being cast upon us (in the way Sibbes means "love" here) we can be assured that we belong to Jesus, and if we belong to Jesus then we have the greatest comfort. Therefore, in the midst of doubtings we must believe Christ (the gospel) and not the lies of Satan.

Pearls and Diamonds:

"Cast yourself in the arms of Christ, and if you perish, perish there." (p.65)

"The sighs of a bruised heart carry in them a report, both of our affection to Christ, and of his care to us." (p.66)

"God sees fit that we should taste of that cup of which his Son drank so deep, that we might feel a little what sin is, and what his Son's love was. But our comfort is that Christ drank the dregs of the cup for us, and will [relieve] us, so that our spirits may not utterly fail under that little taste of his displeasure which we may feel." (p.66)

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Matthew 17:

That must have been a phenomenal thing to see Jesus in his glory. I wonder how they knew it was Moses and Elijah. Name tags? Did they hear Jesus referring to them by name? What language did they speak? What did they talk about? So, many questions none of them of much significance.

I wonder why Peter was never given an answer to his request. He was wanting to build tents for each of them. I notice that he asks, "If you wish" and also refers to him as Lord. So, even though he is making three tents it is not as if he is saying Moses, Elijah, and Jesus are on the same plain. He is still referring to Jesus as Master and he asks him the question not Moses and Elijah.

That would have been very terrifying, but I wonder why they were so shocked. Did they not already see this as something really significant because Jesus is kind of glowing? Oh, that the voice of God would make me tremble as it did these men!

How did John the Bapitst "restore all things"?

After reading the story of the Demon-Possessed Boy I find myself wishing I had never heard charismatic watered down preaching. It seems to close my eyes to the text. I find myself reading things like this with their lens...knowing they are most often wrong, I go the other way and end up being blind to the meaning of the text. Lord, help me see what you are saying here. I bet there is something cultural here that I do not understand. I do not think that Jesus is literally saying that becasue we believe enough we can move stuff like mountains. He is speaking figuratively, but yet does the principle stand? What is to be said of "nothing will be impossible for you". I want to have biblical faith. I do not want to have a stick in the mud anti-supernatural faith, nor do I want to be a chicken-clucking charismatic. Lord, help me to see and live the balance.

I think this temple tax might be something that helps us in debates concerning our freedoms. Did Jesus have to pay tax? Of course not. He is free. Did he pay tax not to give offense? Yes. Should we sometimes not use our freedom so as not to give offense? Yes. Does his paying taxes cause him to deny the gospel and slip into legalism? No. We have much to learn here.

Acts 17:

I wonder why the Jews gave Paul a hearing for three straight Sabbaths. It is also significant that what Paul used was not fancy rhetoric or even rabbinical writings. Paul reasoned with them "from the Scriptures".

"These men who have turned the world upside down"...what a stirring statement. Is it my pride that wants to follow suit or is it a holy ambition? Lord, if the world be turned upside down let it be for the sake of and glory of Jesus Christ. May he be the only boast of the generation that is "turned upside down".

v.9 Did Jason bribe them?

How are the Jews of Berea more noble? 1) Received the word with eagerness 2) examined the Scriptures daily. There is much to be said about this. They received the word. They did so with eagerness. They examined the Scriptures. And they did so on a day to day basis. Their passion for truth is astounding.

Is my spirit provoked in a city full of idols?

v.21 in some way sounds like us in America. We spend all of our times searching for novelty. May the gospel penetrate this culture as well. Lord, help us to "teach strange things" and not be irrelevant by our undiscerning pursuit of relevancy.

It's not as if the Athenians are actually worshipping the living God. They are "worshipping" an unknown God...and Paul sees this as a bridge to preach the gospel.

Paul starts his gospel "presentation" with teaching on Creation. Would they have readily believed this? Probably not. I notice throughout this section that the God that Paul is proclaiming is a massive contrast to the gods that they were so passionately worshipping.

I think the full meaning of verse 27 escapes me.

Paul also bridges with common things in their culture. But notice what he uses is "morally neutral". It's not as if Paul goes to the sex temples or engages in idolatry with them. He uses morally neutral things that can bridge the gap.

Repentance is a command. v30

Is it significant that Paul only speaks of this unknown God and does not refer to Jesus by name but merely describes Him?

Genesis 19:

I lost an angel somewhere. Earlier there were three now two. Where did the third go?

v.5 has always astonished me at the audacity of these men to make such a request. It beautifully shows the depth of our depravity (although I am sure that even these men were restrained from being as wicked as possible).

Lot's solution has always bothered me as well. Rather than having them sleep with his angelic guest he offers his daughters. Yet even this does not appease them. They want the angels.

Before I chide the sons-in-laws for thinking Lot was jesting, I have to confess I see myself in these men. I am so turned away from emotionalism that sometimes I would not listen to such a "prophecy". Again, as I prayed earlier--I need balance and growth in this.

I wonder if men that are so passionate about preserving man's "free will" (that's in quotation marks because it is typically a misunderstanding of true biblical freedom) see these men as being dishonoring and unloving to Lot and his family. I can see myself again here. If the Lord had not "seized me" with his mercy and brought me "outside the city", I would still be in my sin. I am glad that the Lord's mercy is so powerful that it changes me and keeps me from treasuring my sin and causes me to delight in Christ.

I think there is a type in Lot escaping to this city of refuge. I am jogging my memory but I think this is spoken of somewhere else in a more profound way.

What would sulfur and fire rain have been like?

Why a pillar of salt? Is this literal? Does this stem from the destruction? Those are not as significant as the message of this text. We must never look back after the Lord has delivered us. I would not go so far as to make this a type of those that "lose their salvation", yet I do believe we need to heed the warning.

It looks like Lot ended up moving out of Zoar and living in the hills, even though at first he made the request not to.

Esther 1:

v4 Kings of earth even in all their splendor are exhaustible in 180 days. It will take the Lord all of eternity to "show the riches of his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his greatness."

I wonder was Queen Vashti only lovely to look at because the king was "merry with wine".

It's pretty neat that the King's consul (even though not acting the most merciful) is thinking through the ramifications of his decision. If he lets her get away with this it will have adverse affects. We as leaders should always think through the outcome of our decisions. Our disobedience has a counter effect on others as well as ourselves.

Last week John Piper responded to "A Common Word". Piper, articulated what many of us believed about the document--it borders on betraying the gospel and is not helpful in evangelism (my words not his). Today, Rick Love, a signer of the document gives his reasons why. He has a few well crafted arguments. However, one that I disagree with concerns the question of whether or not the Muslims worship the same God as Christians. Here is part of his answer:

"Christian and Muslim views of God are similar in that we both worship the one true God, creator of the heavens and the earth. We both believe this God will judge all peoples at the end of history. We both believe this God has sent His prophets into the world to guide His people. Christian and Muslim views of God differ primarily regarding the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, and especially regarding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I believe that Muslims worship the true God. But I also believe that their view of God falls short of His perfections and beauty as described in the Bible. Thus, I try to model my approach to Muslims after the apostle Paul who said to the Athenians: “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you" (Acts 17:23)."

My problem with his statement is that it does not match up with what Jesus' said in John 8:19, 42, and 14:6 (among many others). If Jesus is the only way to the Father; if you cannot be said to love the Father unless you love Jesus; if you do not know the Father unless you know Jesus; then how in the world can we say that "Muslims worship the true God". According to Scripture they do not even know the true God because they reject Jesus. How can you worship (and by that I mean truly worship) that which you do not know? Perhaps if he would have said, "I believe that Muslims sincerely believe they worship the true God" then I could agree, but not as it now stands.

Said at Southern has a wonderful discussion going on centered upon the question, "Do You Believe in the SBC?"

Craig Brian Larson has a solid article on Preaching that Promotes Self-Centeredness. (HT: Transforming Sermons) If you are a preacher of the gospel you should read this post. If you listen to preaching you should read this post.

Being a new parent I found this post extremely helpful in knowing how best to care for Isaiah. If you are a parent I would suggest reading this article, very helpful stuff. Actually, anybody should read this post, it is very humorous. (HT: Challies)

Al Mohler has a great commentary on the effects of divorce in older people: Old and Alone?

You may remember my 2008 Reading Plan. If I read all of those books I will have read 40. I am hoping to add to this list...my big goal is 100, my lower goal is 50. In reality it might be something in between the two. Another goal that I have is to post a review on every book that I read in 2008. So far I have reviewed Spurgeon by Dallimore and Newton by Aitken. I am also posting these reviews on Amazon; it would be greatly appreciated if you would visit each review and say whether or not it was helpful. Spurgeon here, Newton here. In the future you will see the Amazon permalink on every review.

I had to read this chapter a couple of times. It is loaded with knowledge. Up until this point it is as if Sibbes has been giving us a few quick powerful jabs, it appears that in this chapter he is sizing us up (laying the foundation) for a knockout punch. Although this chapter is not the knockout punch itself, I believe it will serve to build a foundation for that later on. Maybe if Sibbes were here today he would prefer I say hugs instead of knockout punches, but maybe not, there is a reason why we are called bruised reeds.

Quick Outline:

• We Should Persist in Duties
• Overcoming Discouragements
• The Source of Discouragements
• Some Uneasy Feelings Removed
• What are Sins of Weakness?

Summary:

Sibbes' main concern in this chapter is to keep us from discouragement and to encourage us to press on in our duties despite our hearts being "altogether averse to them". He first gives four reasons; paraphrased they are:

1. If we do not corruption will gain ground
2. God strengthens us as we go about our duties
3. Obedience is most direct when there is nothing to else to sweeten it
4. Reward follows work; the fruit of our labor will be sweet

Sibbes then offers help in overcoming discouragements. As always he points us to Jesus and the mercy of God therein. In order to most effectively help us he sets about to show us that the Godhead is not the source of our discouragements. "Discouragements, then, must come from ourselves and from Satan, who labours to fasten on us a loathing of duty." Christ has came to free us from these discouragements, yet, "in some such ignorance of that comfortable condition we are in under the covenant of grace as to discourage them greatly". Because of this we must understand three things about our weaknesses: 1) they do not break covenant with God 2) they do not exclude us from mercy 3) If Christ is not merciful to the weak then he will have no one to serve him.

The central thing that Sibbes wants us to understand in this chapter is that, "weaknesses so considered, although a matter of humiliation and the object of our daily mortification, yet may be consistent with boldness with God, or is a good work either extinguished by them or tainted so far as to lose all acceptance with God." In other words weakness, even though it should be battled, does not exclude us from the merciful care of the Lord.

The last part of this chapter honestly confuses me and is difficult for me to summarize. Basically Sibbes closes by teaching us on the sins of infirmity. He shows us four things that we must understand about sins of weakness (they appear to be qualifications). 1) There must be a life of grace begun 2) there must be a sincere and general bent to the best things 3) there must be a right judgment, allowing of the best ways, or else the heart is rotten 4) there must be a conjugal love of Christ.

All of this is to show us that if we have these qualifications, then "Christ counts it his honour to pass by many infirmities, nay, in infirmities he perfect his strength." Or again, "if there be any bruised reed, let him not make an exception of himself, when Christ does not make an exception of him.

Discussion:

There is quite a bit in this chapter that is worthy of discussion. It is loaded with much foundational information; but it seems to me that the most important thing that Sibbes is trying to establish is that if Christ accepts us then we ought to "accept" ourselves. This must be taken carefully otherwise it will drift into New Age heresy. His main point is that we find ourselves accepted in Christ and live in that.

Here are a few questions for us to discuss. 1) Do you agree with Sibbes statement that, "Obedience is most direct when there is nothing else to sweeten the action"? 2) Do you agree with Sibbes statement that "God's children never sin with full will..."? 3) What would you say is Sibbes' key thought in this chapter?

Pearls and Diamonds:

"..none have abilities so meagre as to be beneath the gracious regard of Christ. Where it pleases him to make his choice and exalt his mercy he passes by no degree of understanding, though never so simple." (p.57)

"What course shall such take to recover their peace? They must condemn themselves sharply, and yet cast themselves upon God's mercy in Christ, as at their first conversion. And now they must embrace Christ the more firmly, as they see more need in themselves..." (p.61)

"Therefore, if there be any bruised reed, let him not make an exception of himself, when Christ does not make an exception of him." (p.61)

Author: Arnold Dallimore

Pages: 252

Publisher: Banner of Truth

Price: 11.99 USD

Genre: Biography


Quick Summary:

In the past I have read Iain Murray’s The Forgotten Spurgeon and Spurgeon vs. Hyper Calvinism. Both of these works were excellent at getting to know the theology that drove the man. Yet their purpose was not to tell the life story of the man. Dallimore does just that. He says his goal will have succeeded if many “come to know him better and are both instructed and inspired by his powerful example”.

Dallimore begins his biography by showing the preparation of the man. This serves to help us see the foundation that was built in this mighty man of God. Young Charles had studied and read extensively on the Puritans. Certainly, they (along with Spurgeon’s passion for Scripture) were used by God to develop at a young age the passionate theology of Spurgeon. It is because of the “boy and his books” that Spurgeon became the “prince of preachers” that labored to earnestly contend for the faith.

In this shorter biography Dallimore will lead us from the boy preacher at Waterbeach to the embattled veteran defender of biblical faith against the onslaught of New Theology. We read of his early labors at the New Park Street Chapel to his thriving services at the famous Metropolitan Tabernacle. Dallimore champions throughout this work the exhausting labors of Charles Spurgeon. It is telling that after his death it took many men to carry on that which Spurgeon started and they still were not able to fill his shoes. We are introduced to many friends and even a few in opposition to Spurgeon. We also are honored to meet in these pages Spurgeon’s admirable wife Susannah.

Dallimore closes with a beautiful chapter on Spurgeon’s funeral. He writes as if he were there and takes the reader into the funeral services. I found myself holding back tears, mourning the loss of this wonderful saint. Therefore, I find as I close the book, that Dallimore has succeeded. I feel as if I know Spurgeon better, but more importantly I have been instructed and inspired by his powerful example.

What I Enjoyed:

Probably Dallimore’s best chapter is the conclusion. It was a wonderful idea to close a work on the life of Spurgeon as those that loved him did at his funeral. Dallimore causes the reader to feel as if you are sitting in a seat mourning with the rest of the crowd some 120 years ago. Knowing that Spurgeon’s ministry was based upon “knowing Jesus Christ and him crucified” causes those that are preachers, like myself, to be inspired and instructed. It fills us with a passion and a boldness to do the same.

As you read the biographies of Spurgeon, as well as Jonathan Edwards, one cannot help but feel saddened by a personal lack of labor and fervency in worship of our great God. After reading Dallimore’s work on Spurgeon I am encouraged by the words of McCheyne, "How feeble my spark of Christianity appears beside such a sun! But even his was a borrowed light, and the same source is still open to enlighten me."

What I Disliked:

In the beginning Dallimore, in my opinion, seems a little too uncritical in his praises of Spurgeon. This tends to be a theme throughout the work, but that is often to be expected in biographies. I would love to see biographies about men that desire nothing but seeing Jesus magnified having that same desire in honoring the man.

Another smaller area of criticism would be that while Dallimore proposes to give us a “definitive treatment given to his theology and preaching methods”, I do not see that in this work. Iain Murray does a much better job.

Yet for Dallimore’s overall purpose, of being a somewhat introduction to Spurgeon and dealing with his entire life in a short setting, he does a wonderful job. I find it difficult, other than that which is mentioned, to offer much disapproval.

Should You Buy It:

It is a wonderful work, for that reason I give a wholehearted “yes” to buying it. However, if you are wanting to buy a book dealing with his theology and preaching methods, Dallimore might not be the best place to go. I would suggest buying this book to be introduced to Dallimore’s life, but as an accompaniment I must encourage the reader to buy Iain Murray’s works on Spurgeon.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

This would perhaps be better titled Today and Yesterday in Blogworld. Business did not allow me to do as much posting yesterday.

Steve Camp has an excellent, though somewhat lengthy, article on holiness. I love how Steve introduces this: "They say when Leonardo Davinci painted his famous Last Supper he had little difficulty with any of it except the faces. Then he painted the faces in without too much trouble except one. He did not feel himself worthy to paint the face of Jesus. He held off and kept holding off, unwilling to approach it but knowing he must. Then in the impulsive carelessness of despair, he just painted it quickly and let it go. “There is no use,” he said. “I can’t paint Him.”I feel very much the same way about explaining the holiness of God. I think that same sense of despair is on my heart. There isn’t any use for anybody to try to explain holiness. The greatest speakers on this subject can play their oratorical harps, but it sounds tinny and unreal, and when they are through you’ve listened to music but you haven’t seen God."

Thabiti has a couple of good posts. One is on Jerry Bridges Four Ways to Live. The other discusses Carefulness in Treating Sin.

Jonathan Leeman continues blogging through REVEAL. Today we are treated to Part 7 and Part 8.

Scott Lee discusses the Task of a Faithful Shepherd and John MacArthur discusses the pastor's job as More Than Just a Preacher.

Here are a couple of good quotes one by MLJ the other by Thomas Brooks. Martyn Lloyd-Jones quote hits me pretty hard. "You can be so interested in great theological and intellectual and philosophical problems that you tend to forget that you are going to die." (HT: DG)Brooks tells us the mark of true humility. “Remember this—all the sighing, mourning, sobbing, and complaining in the world, does not so undeniably evidence a man to be humble, as his overlooking his own righteousness, and living really and purely upon the righteousness of Christ.” (HT: Of First Importance)

Jimmy, actually a guy I went to college with, has a great post on lessons from The Young Physician. No, not Jesus. He is referring to a Resident Doctor that had learning unconnected with real life. Jimmy uses this experience to give sound advice to us young ministers.

Terry Rayburn asks whether or not we have two natures. His answer is no. This keeps coming up I am sensing that the Lord is prodding me to study this in depth.

And lastly, Denny Burk absolutely disgusts me. OK, not actually him, he is pretty cool. What disgusts me is the truth of his latest article: Yale Students Celebrate Abortion Rights. Apparently they celebrated with comedy skits and mock abortions. Truly disgusting.