Is this the desire of our hearts...?
"Oh, my brothers and sisters in Christ, if sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies; and if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay and not to destroy themselves. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for."
- Charles Spurgeon
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Regeneration Defined
Regeneration is a word derived from human birth. We must not understand this to refer only to giving birth itself, but it is inclusive of all that pertains to it, such as conception, fetal growth, and the birth itself. We must not be of the opinion that man possesses life prior to regeneration, as if there were a preparation for regeneration, which we would understand to be conversion. No, man is dead prior to regeneration and receives life by way of regeneration. There is no third state between death and life, and thus also not between being converted and unconverted.
Although we can make a distinction between calling, regeneration, conversion, and sanctification, considering them to be sequential—that is, the one issuing forth from the other—Scripture does not always use this distinction. Instead, Scripture comprehends all these in either one word or the other.
It is not the justice of God which requires regeneration, but it is a necessity as far as the will of God is concerned. Without satisfaction of the justice of God, absolutely no man can be saved. Regeneration, however, neither contributes anything toward satisfaction for guilt nor toward obtaining the right to eternal life. It would therefore not be in conflict with His justice if it so pleased the Lord, at the moment of death, to translate a person who is chosen and reconciled through Christ’s death into the state of perfection and thus into eternal felicity. This is true for such children who die prior to birth or prior to the years of discretion. All the regenerate, whether they live a longer or shorter period and are converted at an earlier or later date, are made perfect in one moment at the hour of their death. However, it is the will and wisdom of God concerning those who have come to the years of discretion, not to bring them into heaven except He first regenerates them in this life by means of His Word.
Source: Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, vol. 2
Although we can make a distinction between calling, regeneration, conversion, and sanctification, considering them to be sequential—that is, the one issuing forth from the other—Scripture does not always use this distinction. Instead, Scripture comprehends all these in either one word or the other.
It is not the justice of God which requires regeneration, but it is a necessity as far as the will of God is concerned. Without satisfaction of the justice of God, absolutely no man can be saved. Regeneration, however, neither contributes anything toward satisfaction for guilt nor toward obtaining the right to eternal life. It would therefore not be in conflict with His justice if it so pleased the Lord, at the moment of death, to translate a person who is chosen and reconciled through Christ’s death into the state of perfection and thus into eternal felicity. This is true for such children who die prior to birth or prior to the years of discretion. All the regenerate, whether they live a longer or shorter period and are converted at an earlier or later date, are made perfect in one moment at the hour of their death. However, it is the will and wisdom of God concerning those who have come to the years of discretion, not to bring them into heaven except He first regenerates them in this life by means of His Word.
Source: Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, vol. 2
Monday, August 29, 2011
Deaconesses: What Does Scripture Say?
From my close friend Dr. Ron Gleason(Rs6):
We are asking the question about the biblical legitimacy of female deacons. This is rapidly becoming a controversial issue in the P.C.A., and there are those therefore who are attempting to skirt their vows by the practice of un-ordained, “commissioned” male and female deacons. In reality, this merely complicates matters and advances the notion that if two wrongs don’t make a right, why not try a third? In other words, some of my colleagues are striving to incorporate women into ecclesiastical life in a way not prescribed by the Word of God.
As I mentioned briefly last time, I am very much in favor of using the manifold gifts and talents of godly women in the local congregation. I am also very much in favor of women not only being theologians, but being good theologians. I thoroughly enjoy being in the presence of intelligent and competent sisters in the Lord. What I am not in favor of is placing women in positions for the sake of enculturation or adapting to the culture. This is “contextualization” of the worse and most tendentious kind.
As we approach any issue or subject as Christians, our first question should be: What does Scripture say? Therefore, I will look at the pertinent texts in the Bible that address our subject and give you my impressions and interpretations. I will attempt to put everything on the table and not to avoid the difficult texts. I will not, however, as one woman wrote to me on my blog site (http://rongleason.blogspot.com) force a text to say what it clearly does not say. Her translation of Phoebe’s position in Romans 16:1-2 was “champion.” Clearly, this is a translation that is not supported by exegesis, but rather by an overt feminism and that is a great deal of the problem that we face in the modern Church. That translation is as ridiculous as translating “helper” in Genesis 2:18 as “warrior.” It is totally unwarranted.
Having made these qualifying remarks, we will take a little bit of time and make some brief remarks about Acts 6:1-6; 1 Timothy 3:1-11; 1 Timothy 5:9-10; and Romans 16:1-2. These are summary comments that I made in a recent debate in Georgia. We’ll begin with Acts 6.
Acts 6:1-6
Although some today question whether Acts 6:1-6 is speaking about Deacons, it was an accepted fact by the Reformers that this was the case. As early as the 1530s, Martin Bucer included his support in his work Von der waren Seelsorge (Concerning the True Care of Souls). It was the view of John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, and the other Reformers. It was the view of the Southern Presbyterians John Girardeau, T.E. Peck, Robert Dabney, and James Thornwell. It was also taught by Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper, the Reformed Dutch theologians in general, and more recently Cees Trimp, professor of pastoral theology in Kampen, The Netherlands. It is the view of Simon Kistemaker, F.F. Bruce, and R.C.H. Lenski.
If there is this affirmation by this prestigious gathering of scholars, what might the objections be to seeing the 7 in Acts 6 as Deacons? The first objection is quite understandable: the word Deacon does not appear in the verses in question. How should this objection be answered then? I want to direct your attention to the verses 2 & 4. Verse 2 reads, “And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve (to deacon) tables (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις; diakoneîn trapédzais).’”
Verse 4 is also pertinent for our purposes. When the apostles explain that from this time forward they will devote themselves to prayer and to the ministry (deaconing) of the Word, they are showing that all the New Testament are those of service.
At the end of the day, I grant that “the Seven” are not called “Deacons,” but that is hardly relevant in the book of Acts. For instance, we all acknowledge that Paul was an apostle, but in the book of Acts he is never referred to as an apostle. While these seven spiritual men are never called Deacons, it is clear from the text that what they were called to do was completely in line with the labors of a Deacon.
During the recent debate, my opponent drew attention to the fact that all seven of those chosen were Greeks. This is true. Every name in the list of those chosen is a Greek name. While I believe this manifests the trust in the New Testament Church that the Hebrews would entrust the distribution of food and money to their new Greek brothers in Christ. What is equally significant about “the Seven” is not only that they are all Greeks, but also that they are all men. Verse 3 imparts a clear command: “Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute.” (Emphasis added.)
Since the New Testament Church was in her infancy stage in Acts 6 and if God planned to deviate from his divinely-ordained plan and structure given in creation, this would have been the ideal spot to instigate the change. All things being equal, this was the ideal place and time to introduce the fact that now women are to be included in ecclesiastical offices. Yet the scriptures are silent at a place where we might expect them to speak. Verse 5 is quite explicit reminding us that men (ἀνήρ; anér) were chosen. Luke employs a Greek word that indicates specifically a man as opposed to the general word for “person” or “human being”: anthropos. In other words, he employed the word that often accepts gender; man in contrast to woman.
The intent of verse 6 is that the people of God were actively involved in this process. Listening to the apostles’ request, the Church presented their choices to the apostles, who then, in turn, prayed over them and “ordained and installed” them by the laying on of hands. Calvin comments, “The laying on of hands was a solemn sign of consecration under law. To this end, do the apostles now lay their hands upon the deacons, that they may know that they are offered to God.”[1] Lenski also explains the laying on of hands as an Old Testament symbolic act, which transferred an office, with its duties and privileges to the recipient(s). It also portrayed the bestowal of the divine blessings that were necessary for the important ecclesiastical word (Comp. Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9).[2]
Lenski adds, “These seven were in no sense presbyters of the Jerusalem congregation; they were not elected for that purpose. What is later reported about Stephen and about Philip has nothing to do with their official duties in the congregation. These activities were the result of gifts and of opportunities that extend beyond their specific office. The offices that came into being in the apostolic Church were not fluid, but well defined.”[3] Next time we’ll look at 1 Timothy 3 and 5.
[1] Calvin, Acts, 238.
[2] R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 19614), 247.
[3] Ibid.
We are asking the question about the biblical legitimacy of female deacons. This is rapidly becoming a controversial issue in the P.C.A., and there are those therefore who are attempting to skirt their vows by the practice of un-ordained, “commissioned” male and female deacons. In reality, this merely complicates matters and advances the notion that if two wrongs don’t make a right, why not try a third? In other words, some of my colleagues are striving to incorporate women into ecclesiastical life in a way not prescribed by the Word of God.
As I mentioned briefly last time, I am very much in favor of using the manifold gifts and talents of godly women in the local congregation. I am also very much in favor of women not only being theologians, but being good theologians. I thoroughly enjoy being in the presence of intelligent and competent sisters in the Lord. What I am not in favor of is placing women in positions for the sake of enculturation or adapting to the culture. This is “contextualization” of the worse and most tendentious kind.
As we approach any issue or subject as Christians, our first question should be: What does Scripture say? Therefore, I will look at the pertinent texts in the Bible that address our subject and give you my impressions and interpretations. I will attempt to put everything on the table and not to avoid the difficult texts. I will not, however, as one woman wrote to me on my blog site (http://rongleason.blogspot.com) force a text to say what it clearly does not say. Her translation of Phoebe’s position in Romans 16:1-2 was “champion.” Clearly, this is a translation that is not supported by exegesis, but rather by an overt feminism and that is a great deal of the problem that we face in the modern Church. That translation is as ridiculous as translating “helper” in Genesis 2:18 as “warrior.” It is totally unwarranted.
Having made these qualifying remarks, we will take a little bit of time and make some brief remarks about Acts 6:1-6; 1 Timothy 3:1-11; 1 Timothy 5:9-10; and Romans 16:1-2. These are summary comments that I made in a recent debate in Georgia. We’ll begin with Acts 6.
Acts 6:1-6
Although some today question whether Acts 6:1-6 is speaking about Deacons, it was an accepted fact by the Reformers that this was the case. As early as the 1530s, Martin Bucer included his support in his work Von der waren Seelsorge (Concerning the True Care of Souls). It was the view of John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, and the other Reformers. It was the view of the Southern Presbyterians John Girardeau, T.E. Peck, Robert Dabney, and James Thornwell. It was also taught by Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper, the Reformed Dutch theologians in general, and more recently Cees Trimp, professor of pastoral theology in Kampen, The Netherlands. It is the view of Simon Kistemaker, F.F. Bruce, and R.C.H. Lenski.
If there is this affirmation by this prestigious gathering of scholars, what might the objections be to seeing the 7 in Acts 6 as Deacons? The first objection is quite understandable: the word Deacon does not appear in the verses in question. How should this objection be answered then? I want to direct your attention to the verses 2 & 4. Verse 2 reads, “And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve (to deacon) tables (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις; diakoneîn trapédzais).’”
Verse 4 is also pertinent for our purposes. When the apostles explain that from this time forward they will devote themselves to prayer and to the ministry (deaconing) of the Word, they are showing that all the New Testament are those of service.
At the end of the day, I grant that “the Seven” are not called “Deacons,” but that is hardly relevant in the book of Acts. For instance, we all acknowledge that Paul was an apostle, but in the book of Acts he is never referred to as an apostle. While these seven spiritual men are never called Deacons, it is clear from the text that what they were called to do was completely in line with the labors of a Deacon.
During the recent debate, my opponent drew attention to the fact that all seven of those chosen were Greeks. This is true. Every name in the list of those chosen is a Greek name. While I believe this manifests the trust in the New Testament Church that the Hebrews would entrust the distribution of food and money to their new Greek brothers in Christ. What is equally significant about “the Seven” is not only that they are all Greeks, but also that they are all men. Verse 3 imparts a clear command: “Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute.” (Emphasis added.)
Since the New Testament Church was in her infancy stage in Acts 6 and if God planned to deviate from his divinely-ordained plan and structure given in creation, this would have been the ideal spot to instigate the change. All things being equal, this was the ideal place and time to introduce the fact that now women are to be included in ecclesiastical offices. Yet the scriptures are silent at a place where we might expect them to speak. Verse 5 is quite explicit reminding us that men (ἀνήρ; anér) were chosen. Luke employs a Greek word that indicates specifically a man as opposed to the general word for “person” or “human being”: anthropos. In other words, he employed the word that often accepts gender; man in contrast to woman.
The intent of verse 6 is that the people of God were actively involved in this process. Listening to the apostles’ request, the Church presented their choices to the apostles, who then, in turn, prayed over them and “ordained and installed” them by the laying on of hands. Calvin comments, “The laying on of hands was a solemn sign of consecration under law. To this end, do the apostles now lay their hands upon the deacons, that they may know that they are offered to God.”[1] Lenski also explains the laying on of hands as an Old Testament symbolic act, which transferred an office, with its duties and privileges to the recipient(s). It also portrayed the bestowal of the divine blessings that were necessary for the important ecclesiastical word (Comp. Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9).[2]
Lenski adds, “These seven were in no sense presbyters of the Jerusalem congregation; they were not elected for that purpose. What is later reported about Stephen and about Philip has nothing to do with their official duties in the congregation. These activities were the result of gifts and of opportunities that extend beyond their specific office. The offices that came into being in the apostolic Church were not fluid, but well defined.”[3] Next time we’ll look at 1 Timothy 3 and 5.
[1] Calvin, Acts, 238.
[2] R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 19614), 247.
[3] Ibid.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Breathing after God
Richard Sibbes (1577-1635) was lecturer at Holy Trinity, Cambridge, 1610-1615, preacher at Gray's Inn, London, from 1617, and Master of St. Catherine's Hall, Cambridge, from 1626 until his death. He was one of the most significant preachers of the Puritan period.
Here are some highlights of a piece that he wrote entitled "A Breathing After God", using Psalm 27:4..."one thing I have desired of the Lord, that will I seek; that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of God, and to inquire in His temple...."
"Happiness being by all men desirable, the desire of it is naturally engrafted in every man; and is the centre of all the searchings of his heart and turnings of his life."
"Now, after the desire in general, set out here by the object in general, the transcendent object, 'One thing have I desired of the Lord,' and like-wise by the frequency and fervency of the desire, 'I will seek after it still.' I have desired it, and I will not cease. So my desire, it shall not be a flash soon kindled, and soon put out. No; but 'one thing have I desired of the Lord, and that I will seek still.' I will not be quiet till my desire be accomplished. There is the general desire, and the degrees of it."
"Then the grounds and ends of the particular desire of dwelling in the 'house of the Lord,' because it is 'the house of God.' There is a strong argument to move him to dwell in the house of God. It is good dwelling where God dwells, where his angels dwell, and where his Spirit dwells, 'in the house of the Lord.' There is one argument that moved him, 'I desire to dwell there,' because it is the house of God, which is set out by the extent of time, that 'I may dwell in the house of God all the days of my life,' till I be housed in heaven, where I shall need none of these ordinances that I stand in need of in this world. 'I desire to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life.' "
"Then the second end is, 'To behold the beauty of God.' That was one end of his desire, to dwell in the house of God; not to feed his eyes with speculations and goodly sights (as indeed there were in the tabernacle goodly things to be seen). No; he had a more spiritual sight than that. He saw the inward spiritual beauty of those spiritual things. The other were but outward things, as the apostle calls them. I desire to dwell in the house of the Lord, 'to behold the beauty of the Lord,' the inward beauty of the Lord especially."
"And then the third end of his desire is, 'that I may inquire in his temple.' He desired to dwell in the house of God, because it was the house of God, and to see the beauty of God, the sweet, alluring beauty of God, that appeared in his ordinances; and then his desire was to dwell in the house of God, that he might inquire more and more of the meaning of God still, because there is an unfathomed bottom, and an endless depth of excellency in divine things, that the more we know, the more we may, and the more we seek, the more we may seek. They are beyond our capacity; they do not only satisfy, but transcend it. Therefore, he desires still further and further to wade deeper into these things, 'to inquire in God's temple.' Thus ye see the state of the verse. There is a general desire propounded. 'One thing have I desired of the Lord, and that will I seek after.'"
"Quest. Was there but one thing for holy David to make the object of his desire? Was there but one thing needful? Alas! this poor life of ours, it is a life of necessities. How many things are needful for our bodies? How many things are needful for the decency of our condition? How many things need we for our souls? It is a life of necessities. How, then, doth he say, 'One thing have I desired?'
Ans. Yes. His meaning is, comparatively, I seek for other things in their order and rank, and as they may stand with the main; but, indeed, one thing principally. All the rest will follow. 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all the rest will he cast on you,' Mat. vi. 33. The best way to have all other things, is to seek one thing in the first place. Therefore, in heavenly wisdom he saith, I desire "unum unice"...one thing after an entire manner. That I desire more than all things else."
"Quest. But here it may be asked, why doth he say, 'one thing?' He desired not only to live near the tabernacle, but to hear and see, to have the word read, and he desired thereupon grace, and then nearer communion with God by grace, to have more communion here, and fuller communion in heaven. Here is more than one thing.
Ans. I answer, it is all one. As a chain that hath many links, yet it is but one chain; so all these are but one. 'I desire one thing.' What is that? To live in the church of God, to enjoy the ordinances of God, and they will draw on faith and fear, &c. The Spirit accompanying the ordinances, it will be a spirit of faith, and repentance, and grace; and by those graces of faith, and the rest that accompany the ordinances, I shall have nearer communion with God here, and eternal and everlasting communion with God in heaven; and all these are but one, because they are all links of one chain. Therefore, when he saith, 'One thing have I desired,' he means that one thing that will draw on all other.
That is the scope of a gracious heart, when it attends upon the means of salvation, and lives in the church; not to hear that it may hear, and there an end, and to read that it may read, to perform it as a task, and all is done; but to have the work of the Spirit together with it, to have the ministry of the Spirit in the gospel, and the Spirit to increase faith, and faith to increase all other graces, and so by grace to grow into nearer communion with God in Christ. That is the scope of every good hearer. Therefore, he speaks to purpose when he saith, 'One thing have I desired.'"
"But to speak a little more of the object, why doth he say, 'One thing?'
First, it is from the nature of God. We must have the whole bent and sway of our souls to him. He will have no halting. The devil is content with half, if we will sin, because then he is sure of all; but God will have the whole heart. 'My son, give me thy whole heart,' Prov. xxiii. 26; and 'Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,' Luke x. 27. The bent and sway of the soul must be that way; for it is the nature of excellent things, except we desire them in the chief place, they take state upon them. [that is: 'are offended.' —ed.] God takes state upon him in this case. He will not have us serve him and Mammon, Mat. vi. 24. He will not have the heart divided. "
In these days of economic and political uncertainty, it is easy to be distracted.
Our response to this distraction should be one of focus. Focus, like David on ONE thing, that we may dwell in Gods presence, continually. Not just because we benefit from doing so, but that God requires it.
Does our Sovreign God have the "whole bent and sway of our souls", is there any "halting" in our submission and worship of our Holy God?
Note: I would highly recommend you read Sibbe's entire piece. You can find it at the following: http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_sibbes/ric_sibbes.breathing.html
Here are some highlights of a piece that he wrote entitled "A Breathing After God", using Psalm 27:4..."one thing I have desired of the Lord, that will I seek; that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of God, and to inquire in His temple...."
"Happiness being by all men desirable, the desire of it is naturally engrafted in every man; and is the centre of all the searchings of his heart and turnings of his life."
"Now, after the desire in general, set out here by the object in general, the transcendent object, 'One thing have I desired of the Lord,' and like-wise by the frequency and fervency of the desire, 'I will seek after it still.' I have desired it, and I will not cease. So my desire, it shall not be a flash soon kindled, and soon put out. No; but 'one thing have I desired of the Lord, and that I will seek still.' I will not be quiet till my desire be accomplished. There is the general desire, and the degrees of it."
"Then the grounds and ends of the particular desire of dwelling in the 'house of the Lord,' because it is 'the house of God.' There is a strong argument to move him to dwell in the house of God. It is good dwelling where God dwells, where his angels dwell, and where his Spirit dwells, 'in the house of the Lord.' There is one argument that moved him, 'I desire to dwell there,' because it is the house of God, which is set out by the extent of time, that 'I may dwell in the house of God all the days of my life,' till I be housed in heaven, where I shall need none of these ordinances that I stand in need of in this world. 'I desire to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life.' "
"Then the second end is, 'To behold the beauty of God.' That was one end of his desire, to dwell in the house of God; not to feed his eyes with speculations and goodly sights (as indeed there were in the tabernacle goodly things to be seen). No; he had a more spiritual sight than that. He saw the inward spiritual beauty of those spiritual things. The other were but outward things, as the apostle calls them. I desire to dwell in the house of the Lord, 'to behold the beauty of the Lord,' the inward beauty of the Lord especially."
"And then the third end of his desire is, 'that I may inquire in his temple.' He desired to dwell in the house of God, because it was the house of God, and to see the beauty of God, the sweet, alluring beauty of God, that appeared in his ordinances; and then his desire was to dwell in the house of God, that he might inquire more and more of the meaning of God still, because there is an unfathomed bottom, and an endless depth of excellency in divine things, that the more we know, the more we may, and the more we seek, the more we may seek. They are beyond our capacity; they do not only satisfy, but transcend it. Therefore, he desires still further and further to wade deeper into these things, 'to inquire in God's temple.' Thus ye see the state of the verse. There is a general desire propounded. 'One thing have I desired of the Lord, and that will I seek after.'"
"Quest. Was there but one thing for holy David to make the object of his desire? Was there but one thing needful? Alas! this poor life of ours, it is a life of necessities. How many things are needful for our bodies? How many things are needful for the decency of our condition? How many things need we for our souls? It is a life of necessities. How, then, doth he say, 'One thing have I desired?'
Ans. Yes. His meaning is, comparatively, I seek for other things in their order and rank, and as they may stand with the main; but, indeed, one thing principally. All the rest will follow. 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all the rest will he cast on you,' Mat. vi. 33. The best way to have all other things, is to seek one thing in the first place. Therefore, in heavenly wisdom he saith, I desire "unum unice"...one thing after an entire manner. That I desire more than all things else."
"Quest. But here it may be asked, why doth he say, 'one thing?' He desired not only to live near the tabernacle, but to hear and see, to have the word read, and he desired thereupon grace, and then nearer communion with God by grace, to have more communion here, and fuller communion in heaven. Here is more than one thing.
Ans. I answer, it is all one. As a chain that hath many links, yet it is but one chain; so all these are but one. 'I desire one thing.' What is that? To live in the church of God, to enjoy the ordinances of God, and they will draw on faith and fear, &c. The Spirit accompanying the ordinances, it will be a spirit of faith, and repentance, and grace; and by those graces of faith, and the rest that accompany the ordinances, I shall have nearer communion with God here, and eternal and everlasting communion with God in heaven; and all these are but one, because they are all links of one chain. Therefore, when he saith, 'One thing have I desired,' he means that one thing that will draw on all other.
That is the scope of a gracious heart, when it attends upon the means of salvation, and lives in the church; not to hear that it may hear, and there an end, and to read that it may read, to perform it as a task, and all is done; but to have the work of the Spirit together with it, to have the ministry of the Spirit in the gospel, and the Spirit to increase faith, and faith to increase all other graces, and so by grace to grow into nearer communion with God in Christ. That is the scope of every good hearer. Therefore, he speaks to purpose when he saith, 'One thing have I desired.'"
"But to speak a little more of the object, why doth he say, 'One thing?'
First, it is from the nature of God. We must have the whole bent and sway of our souls to him. He will have no halting. The devil is content with half, if we will sin, because then he is sure of all; but God will have the whole heart. 'My son, give me thy whole heart,' Prov. xxiii. 26; and 'Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,' Luke x. 27. The bent and sway of the soul must be that way; for it is the nature of excellent things, except we desire them in the chief place, they take state upon them. [that is: 'are offended.' —ed.] God takes state upon him in this case. He will not have us serve him and Mammon, Mat. vi. 24. He will not have the heart divided. "
In these days of economic and political uncertainty, it is easy to be distracted.
Our response to this distraction should be one of focus. Focus, like David on ONE thing, that we may dwell in Gods presence, continually. Not just because we benefit from doing so, but that God requires it.
Does our Sovreign God have the "whole bent and sway of our souls", is there any "halting" in our submission and worship of our Holy God?
Note: I would highly recommend you read Sibbe's entire piece. You can find it at the following: http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_sibbes/ric_sibbes.breathing.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)