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.

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)