While working on my Wednesday survey over the Book of Psalms, I ran across this sentence in Mark Dever's "The Message of the Old Testament".

Right belief or words, without right behavior has a simple name in the Bible: hypocrisy. Anyone who presents himself as a spiritual or good person and yet lives contrary to God's revealed Word is deluded and deluding. OUCH! That hurts because it hits too close to home. I study hard and deep to make sure I'm presenting the right doctrine in my sermons. Am I equally concerned with the hard, deep discipline to make sure that I am truly practicing what I preach?

May God forgive me when I think I've grown in the faith merely because I have learned more or understand better, but knowledge is all I've gained. Give me the Love which compels me to live what I know.

Ligonier Ministries celebrates April Fools Day with an interesting topic: Did Jesus Ever Laugh?

Absolutely brilliant post from Brent at Colossians 3:16. As one that is attempting to change an anti-intellectual culture, this article really hits home. Why It's Arrogant to Say, "Just give me the Bible..."

One of the most oft questions asked of me, is how were the people in the OT saved. Terry Rayburn discusses this question today, find his answer here.

Abraham Piper gives us 6 reasons that pastors should blog. He also desires for your thoughts and suggestions.

C.J. Mahaney has interviewed Sinclair Ferguson. Last week I linked to the first two parts, now parts 3, 4, and 5 are available.

Challies reviews Young, Restless, and Reformed. I have to get this book, as well as the Harris' brothers' Do Hard Things.

Why is asking of the Bible, "what does this mean to me", dangerous? C. Michael Patton tells us, and I agree.

One of the most often cited passages in support of contextualization is Acts 17. Phil Johnson discusses Paul at Mars Hill.

This is a wonderful quote on worry from Ed Welch's book Running Scared: "Worriers are visionaries minus the optimism." (HT: Josh Harris)

Last week I linked to Dr. Galyon's series on Packer's points of Calvinism. Today we are treated Packer's Third Point.

It seems like whatever Michael Patton posts I link to. Nonetheless, you also need to check out this series on The Problem Passages of Scripture, Part 1.

Nathan Finn gives a Baptist Look at the Lord's Supper.

(HT: Purgatorio)

Canvas:

Today we will consider the godly man as a servant of God and not a servant of men. Watson will discuss in what manner we are servants of God, and then will discuss in what manner we are to serve men, and in what manner we are not to serve men. He begins by listing seven ways that men are to be servants of God:

1. A servant leaves all other, and confines himself to one master
2. A servant is not independent, at his own disposal, but at the disposal of his master
3. A servant is bound
4. A servant not only wears his master's [uniform], but does his work
5. A servant follows his master; thus a godly man is a servant of God
6. A servant is satisfied with his master's allowance
7. A servant will stand up for the honor of his master

Watson then considers why we ought to be servants of God? He gives three principle reasons. All are very obvious. First, we ought to serve God because He is the best Master. Anyone that has served God for anytime knows this to be the case. Secondly, we ought to serve God because His service is the best service. There are six privileges which Watson gives for being in God's service: Freedom, Honor, Safety, Gain, Assistance, Supplies. The last reason that Watson list for motivating our service to God is that we are engaged to serve God. We were bought with a price. As Watson says, "If any can lay a better claim to us than Christ, we may serve them; but Christ having the best right to us, we are to cleave to him and enroll ourselves for ever in his service.

Our author then moves to his second main point: A godly man is not a servant of men. He lists a threefold serving of men. First there is the civil service we owe to men. An example of this would be in our jobs. There is also the religious service we owe to men. We would fulfill our religious duties by serving men for Christ's sake. Both of these are exemplary ways of service, and we ought to be engaged in them. The third, however, is a sinful serving of men. It consists primarily of three things:

1. When we prefer men's injunctions before God's institutions. (When the laws of man we follow above the Law of God)
2. When we voluntarily prostitute ourselves to the impure lusts of men. (When we conform to anything just to be accepted among men)
3. When we are advocates in a bad cause, pleading for an impious, unjustifiable act. (When we pretend to be religious all the while tickling men's ear)

What do we do if we are found to be serving men more than God? Watson urges us to look to the day of judgment. We have been like Jell-O before men and always shifting to fit a mold. The shape-shifter will not look Christ in the face on that day, and He will give a cold-shoulder. Watson also encourages us to consider the reward of serving men? What does it gain us? Put positively, we are admonished to "abandon fear and advance faith". Serve God rather than men.

Discussion:

Note that Watson does not believe in retirement. "A godly man is active for God to his last breath, 'even unto the end'".

What a wonderful rebuke that we are given when Watson says, "When Christians complain at their condition, they forget that they are servants, and must live on the allowance of their heavenly Master." Oh, how sinfully often do we feel that we are owed grace. Let us never complain at our condition.

Do you agree that, "It is a slander to say, 'God is a hard master'"?

In what ways may you be sinfully serving men?

Strokes of Genius:

"You who have the least bit from God will die in his debt." (p39)

"He [God] enlarges the heart in love and fills it with joy." (p40)

"It is more honor to serve God than to have kings serve us." (p41)

"[Prostituting ourselves to the impure lusts of men] is not humility, but sordidness, and it is men-serving" (p43)

"Faith is a world-conquering grace" (p44)

"Our 'self' is not a simple entity that is either wholly good or wholly evil and therefore to be either totally valued or totally denied. Instead, our self is a complex entity of good and evil, glory and shame, which on that account requires that we develop more subtle attitudes to ourselves"

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.