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.

The first thing we see is that contentment is a sweet inward heart thing. It is as the Psalmist said, "Truly my soul waits on God" (62:1) or again "My soul, wait only on God (62:5). Burroughs notes that "many may sit silently, refraining from discontented expressions, yet inwardly they are bursting with discontent".

Therefore we see that it is vitally important that our hearts be content inwardly. Because God hears our inward heart. What a great analogy Burroughs then employs by saying, "A shoe may be smooth and neat outside, while inside it pinches the flesh." Oh, how many souls are outwardly "content" yet inwardly they are discomforted and grumbling against the Lord? I know that sometimes due to my position in the ministry I can outwardly look contented yet inwardly my heart is turbulent. How much must our great God despise our murmuring hearts?

Certainly our battle for contentment will be an inward battle. Often times we can easily fake the outside; only occasionally, when pressed beyond control, do we display our inward unrest. Therefore, "there is certainly more to it than can be attained by common gifts and the ordinary power of rason, which often bridle nature. It is a business of the heart." As Burroughs will show us this will take the power of the Christ and His gospel to bring us to contentment.

What are your comments? Has anything struck you in this section? I especially like Burroughs analogy of the shoe; polished on the outside and pinching on the inside. Have you ever felt that way? Do you ever feel like a polished shoe on the outside all the while inwardly your heart is discontented?

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.

"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?