In our guys Bible study we are going through the Book of Job. I hope the guys are having as much fun with it as I am. It is teaching me a ton about the way that I counsel people. Especially people that are hurting.

Yesterday we looked at Eliphaz's first speech. It's amazing when you look at his theology. As I told the guys, if we were grading his speech for theology he would probably get about an 85 or 90%. He believed that God is just. He believes that God is self-sufficient. He seems to understand that God is transcendent but He is also loving and sends blessings. He understands that God disciplines. He also seems to know that God saves and that God redeems (although that could be debatable).

His advice to Job is pretty simple. 1) Live what you teach 2) The innocent do not perish, the guilty do. Trouble does not simply spring up from the ground. It has to be planted. You reap what you sow. 3) Repent (make sacrifice) and God will remove His hand of discipline and you'll be blessed again.

Other than a possible hint of the prosperity gospel in the end, Eliphaz's advice seems to be pretty sound. Only problem is that God rebukes him in the end (42:7-9). Why? His theology was good, yet God says that what he spoke about God was "not right". It is this:
Right theology, wrong applied, sucks. (Sorry, if you are offended by the word "sucks". I can not think of a better word that is clear and concise. I mean no offense.)

As I think about Eliphaz I see myself. Spiritually arrogant at times. He has all the answers. He has read all the right books. He has even had a "word from God" (or so it seemed). Eliphaz knows what he is talking about. He knows truth. Can you hear the hubris in 5:27? "Behold, this we have searched out; it is true. Hear, and know it for your good". Oh, the arrogance of Eliphaz. He knows Job's problem. Job is going through a hard time. Trouble does not come upon the innocent. No man is innocent. Job is not innocent. Job's trouble is coming because of his guilt.

But that's not the case. Even though Eliphaz's theology is pretty accurate it is wrongly applied. Job is not guilty. Job has done nothing wrong. This is not coming upon Job because of his guilt. Therefore, Eliphaz may have the correct theology but he applies it to the wrong situation. Do I do this? Do I look upon people as if "I know your problem"? Do I automatically assume that someelse's experience is similar to my experience, "I know what you are going through"?

Right theology, wrongly applied, sucks.

That's the book of Job, not a job that pays you. Quick question. I am certain that I have a few readers that are not necessarily persuaded by the the arguments for Calvinism. Here is my question, and it is legit. I am not trying to trap anyone, I am trying to learn. If someone were coming from a Semi-Pelagian or Arminian perspective how do you understand the book of Job?

The basic gist of my question is that Arminians and Semi-Pelagians have a wonderful answer for the problem of evil...the fall of man, our sinfulness, our choices, etc. The book of Job does not allow for such an answer. In fact those answers are rebuked by God. The Calvinist is able to sit back read the book of Job, and say "let God do what He will". So, for my Arminian/Semi-Pelagian readers, how do you address the book of Job as a whole?

I have not gotten a chance to listen to this yet, but am looking forward to it later; Dan Kimball is interviewed by C. Michael Patton. He asks some really good questions, I am anxiously awaiting to hear Kimball's responses. You can listen here.

The Thirsty Theologian tells us the fourth reason that he is a Calvinist. Today he discusses the doctrine of the Atonement. This is probably the most rejected point in the TULIP, David does a wonderful job of explaining it.

Dr. James Galyon points us to J.I. Packer's discussion of Calvinism. You can read the Intro, Point 1, and Point 2.

Ben Stein, yes that Ben Stein, discusses Creationism with R.C. Sproul. Again, I have yet to view this video, but will try to later. I am interested in what Stein has to say though.

Great discussion at Pyromaniacs started by Dan Phillips. The discussion is centered around the question of Legalism.

I would like to personally thank all four of you that have voted for Borrowed Light in the SBC Blog Madness. Apparently, in the entire tournament field I am close to the least influential. Humbling. In case you have not yet voted, you can go here and vote. Be certain not to vote for me...I'm enjoying my thrashing.

I remember waiting for THE CALL, when my grandmother was dying with cancer a few years ago. For the past week we have been waiting for it again. Tonight we got it. Nikki's grandmother passed into eternity. We are not sure that she knew Jesus. Be praying for the family, as there are several others in her family that do not know the Lord. Pray that Nikki's father (as well as her and I) will be faithful to Christ and His gospel during this crucial time.

Nikki is doing as good as can be expected, she is sleeping now. I got back up and am now working on finishing the sermon for tomorrow night. Posting might be a little slow around here. The best way to keep updated is add this website to your Google Reader. You can do so on the sidebar.

It is March 24th and I am on chapter 4 and have about 200 pages to go. Anyone want to bet I do not get this finished by April 1st? Fortunately, I have already read Burroughs' (our book for April). I should finish this by the first week or so in April and then move to blogging through Burroughs excellent work.

Today we will deal with the third part of the fourth chapter in Watson's Godly Man's Picture. We will cover the topic of being like God in holiness and being reverent in our worship of God.

Canvas:

A godly man is like God. Could there be a more obvious statement? Yet, how many would claim to be godly yet not reflect Him in holiness? This is Watson's concern in this section. A man is not truly a Christian unless he is said to be holy. How then do we know whether or not we are holy? Watson gives two principle evidences: 1) in hating 'the garment spotted by the flesh' and 2) in being advocates for holiness.

There are two uses of this truth. The first is that holiness is exposes whether we are believers or not. Secondly, it ought to cause us to strive to be like God in holiness, because:

• This is God's great design he drives on in the world
• Holiness is that alone which God is delighted with
• Holiness fits us for communion with God

Not only is the godly man holy but he is also a "true worshipper of God". One will not fully understand this section unless you put yourself in the historical situation that Watson found himself. The Puritans were not only fighting a battle with the Church of England being swayed toward "Romanism" but also the "Papists" themselves. In this section, you can hear the warning of Watson to his fellow nonconformist, and also his countrymen's Church of England, not to adulterate the true worship of God.

Watson may seem to come off a little strong here in regards to the regulative principle. Yet, his four consequences to "making a medley in religion" serve as fitting warnings to us today:

1. Those who will add to one part of God's worship will be as ready to take away from another
2. Those who are for outward commixtures in God's worship are usually regardless of the vitals of religion
3. Superstition and profanity kiss each other
4. Such as are devoted to superstition are seldom or never converted

In this section Watson does give a very strong defense of not adding "strange fire" to our worship. "And no wonder he is so highly incensed at it, for it is as if God were not wise enough to appoint the manner in which he will be served. Men will try to direct Him, and as if the rules for His worship were defective, they will attempt to correct the copy, and superadd their inventions".

Discussion:

This is not really a matter of discussion, more informative. The word calumniated on page 33 is another word for slandered. I had to look it up. Maybe I was the only one.

Does Watson's statement, "A godly man will not go as far as he may, lest he go further than he should", nullify Christian freedom or actually strengthen it?

Do you like how Watson makes holiness "God's great design for which he drives the world"? Should it not be His glory? Or is Watson correct and simply saying that his glory is his holiness?

Watson says that if God does not "see this stamp [holiness] upon us, he will not own us". Do you think he is referring to the imputed righteousness and holiness of Christ imparted to us, or is he referring to actual holiness that is produced as a fruit from our union with Christ?

In the section on worship, what are examples of things we have added to "worship"? It is my opinion that the Puritans get this correct. They understand, rightly, that true worship is about God and not us. Whenever we make it about us, or worse yet, unbelievers, we are moving from the center of worship. God has directed how He wants to be worshipped, why should we add to that? Or is this too narrow, and actually an unbiblical, way of thinking?

Watson says that, "Those who will introduce into God's worship that which he has not commanded, will be as ready to blot out that which he has commanded". Do you find this experientially true?

Strokes of Genius:

"Holiness defends the godly, and they will defend holiness; it defends them from danger, and they will defend it from disgrace." (p33)

"Where God sees his likeness, there he gives his love" (p35)

On to Part 4...

By our uncritical pursuit of relevance we have actually courted irrelevance; by our breathless chase after relevance without a matching commitment to faithfulness, we have become not only unfaithful but irrelevant; by our determined efforts to redefine ourselves in ways that are more compelling to the modern world than are faithful to Christ, we have lost not only our identity but our authority and our relevance. Our crying need is to be faithful as well as relevant.

-Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness, page 15

In my opinion understanding Guinness' plea will determine whether missional (emerging, contextualizing, whatever title you use) churches are "successful" 15 years from now. If they uncritically pursue relevance or "coolness" at the expense of faithfulness we will be having the same dismissal of the seeker-sensitive movement.

What Guinness is saying in this book is that being faithful to be biblical gospel will bring about our relevance. Here is a question for you...is Guinness' quote at odds with this quote by Stetzer?

"It may sound uncharitable, but we do not mean it to be so. But...many will say that theses shifts, and a book like this, do not matter. They are convinced if you just 'preach the gospel' and perhaps 'love people' that your church will reach people. They are wrong, and their ideas hurt the mission of the church. Communities across North America are filled with churches led by loving gospel preachers--most of whom, if statistics are true, are not reaching people."

Ed Stetzer, Breaking the Missional Code, page 14

Wyman Richardson posts an eight-year old interview with Timothy George. (Note that the interview is 8 years old, not the person giving the interview). It is an excellent resource. I particularly like this quote: I sometimes think, "Am I a five-point Calvinist?" I like to think I'm a "66-point" Calvinist because I think it's in every book of the Bible. But, in one sense, there's only one point, and that is that God is the source of our salvation from first to last. And if you believe that, then the points become ways of understanding or explaining this or that dimension of it but not a rigid grid through which everything has to be filtered. (HT: Founders)
Find out how $20 can supply fresh water to one person in Africa for 20 years. Lord willing, I will be giving 20 bucks to this cause, consider doing the same.

Phil Johnson continues his series on contextualization. Read part two here.

For those in the Puritan Reading Challenge, Timmy Brister provides an update. The April book will be Burroughs' Rare Jewel instead of Brooks' work.

For those that do not like the "Calvinistic tendencies" on this blog, Gordan Runyan has provided you a service: Defeating Calvinistic-blogs. Feel free to cut and paste as necessary.

Sorry I didn't give you this link sooner. Tim Challies discusses becoming a better apologizer.

Great post by Rhett on Altar Calls: The New Sacrament. I have been saying this for quite some time. In fact I have wanted to put together several posts comparing modern evangelicalism (or, heck, even Southern Baptist) with Roman Catholicism.

C.J. Mahaney and Jeff Purswell again treat us to the Leadership Series Interviews. Check out the latest installment on the Early-Morning Spiritual Battles.

Dan Phillips discusses Tim Keller's way of preaching on hell. It is an interesting article. I'm not sure if I agree more with Keller or Phillips. (My style probably matches Phillips, however). Be sure to read it and check out the comments too.