Tag Archives: Faith

Spiritual Eye-Salve: Sermon Outline

10 Saturday Dec 2022

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

SPIRITUAL EYE-SALVE
Thomas Adams
Ephesians 1:18
This grace that here Paul prays for his Ephesians is illumination. Wherein is described to us — I. an eye; II. an object [what the eye sees]. The eye is spiritual, the object celestial.
I. The eye is the most excellent organ of sense.

But it is certain, in God’s image be not in the understanding, the soul is in danger; if they chimed air, there is comfort of life gay, life of comfort. Hence it is that the God of this world dothso strive to blinded the minds of them that believe not
God hath set to bid us to defend the poor real eye from annoyances. So he had given the understanding faith and hope to shelter it.

A. The situation of the spiritual eye is the soul. God, framing man’s soul, planted in it two faculties: the superior, that is the understanding, which perceive it and judge it; the inferior, that is the will, which being informed of the other, accordingly follows are flies, chooseth or if refuseth.

Use 1: this teaches us to desire in the first place the enlightening of our eyes, and then after, the strengthening of our feet…. Keep it labors for feet before he has eyes, takes a preposterous course; for, up to, the lame is more likely to come to his journeys and then the blind…. Chrysostom says, knowledge of virtue must ever go before devotion; for no man can earnestly affect the good he knows not; and the evil whereof he is ignorant, he fears not.

Use 2: this reprehends a common fashion of many auditors. When the preacher begins to analyze this text, and to open the points of doctrine, to inform the understanding, they lend him very cold attention…. But alas! No eyes, no salvation.
B. I come from the situation to the qualification of the spiritual eye: enlightened…. Man’s mind is not only dark, darkness, Ephesians 5:8, till the Spirit of knowledge of light on him, lighten him…. When a natural man comes in the Temple, among the congregation of God’s saints, the soul is not delighted with their prayers, praises, songs, and service; he sees no comfort, no pleasure, no content in their actions. True, he does not, he cannot; for his understanding is not enlightened ….Wwhat a world of happiness does this man’s I not see! Whereupon we call a mere full and natural. The world links have esteemed and misnamed Christians Gods fools; but we know them the fools of the world.

There are two reasons why we must all day of God for ourselves, as Paul did for the Ephesians, this grace of illumination:
Reason one: Our spiritual blindness came upon us by God to just curse for our sins.

Reason two: This original defect is increased by actual transgressions…. But I rather think that, like the water man, but look one way and row another; for he must needs be strangely squinted eye that can at the same instant fashion one of his lights on the light of glory, and the other on the darkness of iniquity.
C. [Diseases of the eye]:
1. First the cataract, which is a thickness drawn over the eye, and bread of many causes: this especially, either from the rheum of vainglory, or the inflammation of malice…. This dark mind is the fault were saints and keeps his seminary, and since hatching a black root of the lusts.
The means took spell this disease is to take God’s law and to thy hand and heart, and through that glass to look to thyself…. This inspection is difficult. It is a hard, but a happy thing, to know oneself. Private sins are not easily spied out…. He that is partially indulgent to one sin is a friend to all. It is at pains well taken to study thyself. If thou wouldst be good, first know that thou art evil.

And as in some, the fuliginous vapors arising from the lower parts of the body blind the eyes; so in him the fumous evaporations of the flesh’s lusts have caused absolute blindness.

2. Secondly, there is another disease called pearl in the eye: a dangerous disease, and hereof are all worldlings sick; for earthly riches is such a great pearl in the eye, that they cannot see the pearl of the Gospel, which the wise merchant sold all he had to purchase…. We are easily inclined and declined from our supernal bliss, by a doting love of these transient delights…. The eye follows the heart with more diligence than a servant his master…. This pearl must be cut out of the worldling’s eye with a sharp knife of repentance otherwise he is never likely to see heaven.

D. There is also a double defect in this natural eye

1. First it perceives only natural and external things. A beast has one kind of eye, a natural man to a Christian three. The beast has an eye of sense; the natural man, a sense and reason; the Christian, of sense, of reason, and of faith. Each of these has its several objects, several intentions. The eye of sense regards only natural things; the eye of reason, only sensible and natural things; the eye of faith, spiritual, supernal, and supernatural things.

2. The second defect in the eye is an insolid levity; it is roving, like Dinah’s, and ravished abroad; but wants self-inspection. Nothing does sooner blind us in comparisons. He they would mount to a high opinion of his own worth, by comparing it to the base wickedness of another, is like one that observing a cripple’s lameness, wonders at himself that he is so swift.

E. Spiritual blindness

1. Spiritual blindness shall appear the more perilous, if we compare it with natural. The bodies I may be better spared than the souls; as to want the eye of Angels is far worse than to want the eyes of beasts. The want of corporeal site is often good, not evil: evil in the sense, and good in the consequence. He may the better intent heavenly things, that sees no earthly to draw him away. Many a man’s eyes has done him hurt [like David].

Besides, the bodily blind fields and knowledge is his want of sight; but the spiritually blind thinks that none have clearer eyes than himself. He that wants corporeal eyes blesses them that see; this man derides and despises them…. But the mind and soul is led by the world, which should be his servant, is his traitor; or, by the flesh, which should be as a wife, is his harlot; or by the devil, which is a dog indeed, a crafty curb, not leading, but misleading him.

2. The means to cure it:
i. A knowledge of God, procured
a. By his works.
b. by the Scriptures
c. But the scriptural knowledge (common to the wicked) is not sufficient; there must be a spiritual knowledge.
ii. A knowledge of ourselves, procured
a. Naturally, by looking into the Constitution and composition of our own persons.
b. Morally: by considering how frequently we have transgressed these virtues to which the very heathen gave a strict obedience.
c. Spiritual knowledge goes yet further: it searches the heart; and if that most inward chamber, or in any thereof, you can find an idle, it brings it forth.

II. The object to be seen: ‘the hope of his calling, and the riches of the glory of God’s inheritance in the saints.’
The philosophers propound six necessary occurrences to her perfect seeing

A. Firmness or good disposition of the organ that sees. A rolling eye bolts nothing perfectly…. This object is so immense, that we cannot well look besides it.

B. The spectacle must be objected [made an object] to the sight:… nor can the understanding see into the super natural joys, lest the Lord objects [shows it] it to them.

C. That there be a proportional distance between the organ and the object: neither too near, nor too far off…. The best I upon earth looks but through a glass, a lattice, and obscuring impediment.
It is required that the objective matter be substantial…. but this object here proposed is no empty chimera, or imaginary, translucent, airy shadow, but substantial: “the hope of God’s calling, and a glorious inheritance;” which though natures goal I cannot reach, the fates by sees perfectly.

D. And the subject of this spectacle is by demonstration proved solid and substantial; because nothing but that can give this intellectual eye firm content and complacency. How go the affections of man and a rolling and ranging pace from one creature to another. Now that hard to set up on wealth…. say wealth was calm, thou art than for honor; they riches are a latter, whereby thou would client dignity [and so on from one desire to another – no man is content with anything in this world. Here is an irony: The man who cannot see God is still not content with anything but God.] Nothing but the Trinity of persons in that one Deity can fill the triangular concave of man’s own heart.

E. clearness of space between the organ and the object …. there must be removing all thick and impenetrable obstacles:
i. Some have whole mountains between their eyes and heaven; the mountains of vainglory hinder their sight.
ii. Others, to make sure prevention against their site of heaven, have rolled the whole earth between that and their eyes.
iii. Others yet have interjected such a skewer and peachy clouds between their site and his son of glory, but they cannot see. Whether of the errors, the dark and light of truth, or of affected ignorance, but blind to their own eyes; or a blasphemous atheism; they will see nothing what they do see…. Thus the devil deals with them,…. First he put out their eyes with their own iniquities, and then leaves them about to make himself sport.

F. lastly, the object must be stable and firm.

Conclusion: ….Contemn we, condemn we the foolish choice of worldlings, in regard of our portion, and the better part, never to be taken from us. Why should I mislike my gold, because he prefers his copper? The least dram of these joys shall outweigh all the pleasures of earth. And as one performance in hell shall make the reprobate forget all earthly vanities; so the least drop of this pleasure shall take from us the remembrance of our former miseries. We shall not think on our poverty in this world, when we possess those riches; but forget contemptible baseness, when God shall give us that glory of Saints… God give us to see these things now in grace, that we may hereafter see them in glory! Amen.

Zachary Crofton, Repentance not to be Repented.2

09 Wednesday Nov 2022

Posted by in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The second “conclusion” or introductory point is “The believing sinner is the subject of gospel-repentance.”

First, only a sinner can repent, because repentance is a turning from sin. Thus, before the Fall, Adam could not repent. Repentance “is the work of a transgressor.”

Second, repentance is only the work of one who believes, who is seeking grace. To merely see one’s sin, to merely experience conviction is insufficient make for repentance. The sinner will repent only if he “see[s] a pardon procured for sin committed.”

Faith and unbelief thus stand as the basic components of one’s spiritual life toward God:  “Faith must be the formal qualification of a gospel-penitent, as the very foundation and fountain of true repentance; unbelief is the very ground of impenitency, and lock of obduracy.” That last phrase is great, “lock of obduracy” a lock which cannot be moved or altered.

Faith permits a certain sort of understanding. When faith looks upon its proper object, the sight becomes an argument in favor of seeking the pardon: “Hence it is that the objects of faith become arguments, and the promises of grace persuasions, to repentance.” Faith argues for repentance.

Here he makes an interesting argument, “The approach of “the kingdom of God” is the only argument urged by John the Baptist, and our Saviour, to enforce repentance. (Matt. 3:2; 4:17.)  The Gospels begin with Jesus and John the Baptist saying repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. The text does not record a different basis upon which one is to repent: God is here, repent.

When the cross is seen by faith, it shows the proof of the sight by repentance.

He then enters into the argument of the order of salvation: does faith or repentance come first?

In terms of cause and effect, faith must come before repentance. But in terms of our personal experience, the order is opposite: we repeat and then have the knowledge of our faith.  “In order of sense and man’s feeling, repentance is indeed before faith; but, in divine method and the order of nature, faith is before repentance, as the fountain is before the stream.”

So faith makes plain to the sinner, his state of sin and need for pardon. Faith looks upon Christ. The sight of Christ by faith, draws out repentance because the sight of Christ provokes hope of pardon matched with the knowledge of sin.

The Wonderful Combat, Sermon 2.4

16 Thursday Jun 2022

Posted by in Faith, Faith, Lancelot Andrewes, temptation

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

IV. The Devil’s Temptation to Distrust

Now we are to consider the diversity and order of the temptations, & then will we handle them particularly. And first we are to note, that though there are but these three recorded, yet he endured divers [various] others. His whole life was full of temptations, as may appear by Luke 22. 28. It is said Luke 4. 2. that he was tempted forty days of the Devil whereas these three Temptations here set down, were not till after the end of forty days. These only are mentioned, but there were other not written, as divers of his miracles are unwritten. John 20:31. Only so much was written, as was expedient.[1]

These three are a brief abridgement of all his Temptation.[2] As it is true that Paul saith, that Christ resembled Adam, and was made a quickening spirit, as Adam was a living soul, 1. Cor. 15. 45.[3] And the bringing of the Children of Israel out of Egypt, by being called out of Egypt, Matt. 2. 15.[4] So may Christ and Adam be compared in these three temptations. For they both were tempted with concupiscence [strong, sinful desire] of the flesh, concupiscence of the eye, & pride of life, 1. John 2. 16.[5]

In Adam, the Devil first brought him into a concept, that God envied his good, and of purpose kept him hood-winked, least he should see his good,[6] as we see falconers put hoods over hawks’ eyes, to make them more quiet & ruly [subject to being ruled]. Secondly, he lulls him on to a proud conceit [thought] of himself, by persuading him, that by eating he should be like God. Thirdly he shows the fruit, which was pleasant. So in Christs temptation first, he would have brought him to murmur against God: secondly to presume: & thirdly to commit idolatry[7], all which are set down.[8]

And under these three heads come all temptations, Numb. 14. & 21. and Exod. 32.

To some of these extremes will the Devil seek to drive one.

First, by distrust he will seek to drive us to use unlawful means, for the obtaining of necessary things, as bread is when a man is hungry. Or if we be in no such want, that that temptation cannot take place, then (through superfluity) he will tempt s to wanton and unnecessary desires, as to throw ourselves down, that the Angels may take us up: and having prevailed so far, then he carries us to the Devil and all. All this will I give thee, there is his All: Fall down and worship me, there is the Devil with it: so (that in this respect) may it well be said, that The way of a Serpent is over a stone, Proverb. 30. 19. He goes so slyly, that a man sees him in, before he can tell what way, or how he got in. First he wraps himself in necessity, and thereby winds himself in unperceived then he brings us to make riches our God.

Now let us see his Darts. The first is, of making stones bread. This may well be called the hungry temptation. The stream of the Doctors[9], make Adam’s offence the sin of gluttony: but Bucer[10] thinks, that this temptation is rather to be referred to distrust and despair. There is small likelihood, that one should sin in gluttony by eating bread only. The Devil’s desire was only, that the stones might be turned into bread, and that after so long a Fast: and then if the temptation had been to gluttony, Christ’s answer had been nothing to the purpose; the Devil might well have replied against the insufficiency of it. For gluttony is to be answered by a text willing sobriety, whereas this text which Christ answers by, contains rather an assertion of Gods’ providence: and therefore, our Savior should have seemed very unskillful in defending himself. The temptation therefore is to distrust.[11]

This stands well with the Devil’s cunning in fight: for by this he shows first even at the throat, and at that which is the life of a Christian: to wit his faith; as a man would say, even at that which overcomes the world, 1. John 5. 5.[12] He tempted him to such a distrust, as was in the Israelites, Ex. 17 7[13]. when they asked if God were with them or no.

So, he made Adam think, God cared not for him: so here the Devil premises a doubt to shake his faith, wherein Christ made no doubt, Si filius Dei es. [If you are the Son of God.][14]

Indeed, you heard a voice say, you were the beloved Son of God, but are you so indeed? or was it not rather a delusion?[15] You see you are almost starved for want of bread: well, would God have suffered you so to be if you had been his Filius dilectus [beloved Son]? No, you are some hunger-starved child. So, Luke 22. 3. Christ prayed that Peter’s faith might not fail.[16] It was that the Devil shot at. He is a roaring lion seeking to devour us, whom we must resist by faith, 1. Pet. 5. 8.[17]

It is our faith that he aim at 1. Thess. 3. 5.[18] For having overthrown that, disobedience soon will follow. Having abolished the stablisher of the Law, Roman. 3. 31. the breach of the Law must needs [by logical necessity] follow. He hath then fit time to set us a work, about making stones into bread, that is, to get our living by unlawful means. First, shipwreck of faith, then of obedience.[19]

The Devil here seeing him in great want and hunger, would thereby bring in doubt, that he was not the Son of God, which is not a good argument.[20] For whether we respect the natural tokens of God’s favor, we see they happen not to the wisest and men of best and greatest knowledge, as appears in the ninth chap. of Eccl. vers. 11 or the supernatural favor of God, we shall see Abraham forced to fly his country into Egypt for famine, Gen, 10. 12. so did Isaac, Gen. 26. 1. & Iacob likewise was in the same distress, Gen. 43. 1.[21] Notwithstanding that God was called The God of Abraham, Isaack and Jacob[22]; yet were they all three like to be hunger-starved. Yea, not only so, but for their faith, many were burned and stoned, of whom the world was not worthy, Heb. 11. 37.[23] So fared it with the Apostles, they were hungy, naked, and a thirst, 1. Cor. 4. 11.[24] But what do we speak of the adopted sons of God, when as his own natural Son suffered as much, nay, far more?[25] Here we se he was hungry, also he was wearied with travail and fain [desirous] to rest. John4. 6.[26] he had no house to hide his head in, whereas foxes have holes.[27]

If thou be the Son of God.

The heathens have observed, that in rhetoric it is a point of chiefest cunning, when you would out-face a man, or importune him to do a thing, to press & urge him with that, which he will not, or cannot for shame deny to be in himself: as by saying; If you have any wit, then you will do thus and thus: if you be an honest man or a good fellow, do this[28]. So here the Devil (not being to learn any point of subtlety[29]) comes to our Savior, saying, If thou be the Son of God, (as it may be doubted, you being in this case) then, make these stones bread. No, no, it follows not: a man may be the Son of God, and not shw it by any such art.[30] So when Pilate asked, who accused Christ? They [the ones bringing the accusation against Jesus] answered, If he had not been a malefactor, we would not have brought him before thee, John 18. 30. They were jolly grave men [very serious men], it was a flat flattery: and in John 21. 23.[31] there is the like. This ought to put us in mind, when we are tempted in like manner, that we take heed we be not out-faced.[32]

In the matter itself we are to consider these points: First the Devil sets it down for a ground, that (follow what will) bread must needs be had. [The Devil asserts: You must have bread.]

Therefore, Christ first closes with him[33], Admit he had bread, were he then safe?[34] No, We live not by bread only: so that bread is not of absolute necessity. Well, what follows of that? Bread you must needs have, you see your want [lack], God has left off to provide for you. Then comes the conclusion, Therefore, shift for your self [take are of yourself] as well as you can.[35]

First, he solicits us to a mutinous repining within ourselves, as Heb. 3. 8. Harden not your hearts, as in the day of temptation, whereby he forces us to break out into such like conceits [thoughts], as Psalm. 116. 11. I said in my distresse, that all men be liars: and Psalm. 31. 22. I said in my hast, I am cast off. Thus closely he distrusted God, in saying, his Prophets prophecy loes, till at last, we even open our mouths against God himself, and say, This evil commeth from the Lord, shall I attend on the Lord any longer? 2. Booke of Kings, chapter 6. and verse 33. Hunger and shame is all we shall get at God’s hands.[36] And so having cast off God, betake themselves to some other patron, & then the Devil is fittest for their turn.

For when we are fallen out with one, it is best serving his enemy, and to retain to the contrary faction.[37] Then we seek a familiar (with Saul) to answer us, 1. Sam. 28. 7.[38] But what did the Devil tell him? Did he bring comfort with him? No, he tells him, that tomorrow he & his sons should dye. So here does the Devil bring a stone with him. What Father (says Christ) if his Sonne aske him bread, would give him a stone? Matthew the seventh chapter and in the ninth verse:[39] yet the Devil does so; Christ was hungry, and the Devil shows him stones.

Here is the Devil’s comfort, here be stones for thee, if thou canst devise any way to make these stones bread, thou art well; whereas we do not use to make bread of stones, but of wheat[40], to work it with the sweat of our brows. To get it so, we learn Gen. 3. 19.

By extortion and usury we may make stones into bread, that is the Devil’s Alchemistry: or happily we may make bread of nothing, when a man gets a thing by another’s oversight, Gen. 43. 12. Or else, what and if we can overreach our brother in subtilty, and go beyond him with a trick of wit or cunning? Let no man defraud or oppress his brother in any matter: for the Lord is avenged of all such, 1. Thess. 4.6. The one is called The bread of violence and oppression, Proverbs 4. 17. The other, The bread of deceit.[41]

They are indeed both made of stones, for they still retain their former property, as the event will declare. For though in the beginning such bread be pleasant, Proverb. 20. 17. yet after his mouth is but filled with gravel, Proverb. 20. 17. After which will consequently follow, gnashing of teeth.[42]

Notes:

This section of the sermon begins to consider the first temptation.

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”” (Matthew 4:1–4, ESV)

We must not think that these were the only temptations which Jesus ever faced. But there are representative temptations. The temptations follow in a pattern which was laid down in the Garden when the Serpent tempted Eve. First, there is the temptation to distrust God. Second, there is the temptation to trust yourself. Third, there is the temptation to full idolatry.

Thus, in the attack, the Devil must begin by striking at our faith.  He does this with Christ by first asking him, are you really the Son of God. That voice you thought you heard 40 days ago? Did you really hear anything? Really? If you are the Son of God, then why are you here in the desert starving to death?

You cannot really trust God to take care of you. That is for certain. But I’ll tell you what, if you are really the Son of God you could certainly do something little like turning these stones into bread.

If Jesus had made bread, would the Devil have left him alone? “Oh, you are the Son of God, my bad.” No. The Devil would have continued to press Jesus to distrust God. The attack at each step was an attack upon trust in God. That is the nature of temptation. It attacks at faith: God is not to be trusted. You can only trust yourself.

This is the critical element of this section of the sermon: Temptation first comes at faith. It seeks to dislodge us from God. The response must be then to focus on our trust of God.

Jesus saw through the temptation and knew what the Devil aimed at: His answer, Man shall live by what God says.

Andrews then turns the matter around and looks at the Devil’s temptation the other direction. The Devil comes to us when we are hungry and he only offers us stones. He says, see if you can eat that? He is not seeking to free us, but to ruin us.

What is the Devil’s means of getting bread? It is not farming and waiting and making bread. It is stealing, oppression, fraud. If we eat such bread, it will turn to gravel in our mouths.

[1] “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30–31, ESV)

[2] The three temptations of Satan which are recorded should be understood as a sort of summary of all the temptations Christ suffered.

[3] “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” (1 Corinthians 15:42–49, ESV)

[4] This text has provoked a great deal of confusion over time. Here is an excellent discussion of this text and how Matthew is in fact using Hosea. https://www.gracechurch.org/sermons/10928

[5] “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.” (1 John 2:15–16, ESV)

[6] The Devil was the first to trick (hoodwink) Adam into believing that God did not want Adam to have good. The Devil was thus (falsely) offering Adam sight.

[7] “Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.”” (1 Corinthians 10:5–7, ESV)

[8] The temptation of Christ follows the same pattern as took place in the Garden. The first move was to assert that God was withholding some good thing. To Eve, the Serpent says that God is withholding the fruit because God does not want Eve to know good and evil. To Christ, the Devil says God is withholding food from you, why don’t you make bread? Second, the Serpent tells Eve you should eat the fruit, it won’t hurt you. It will make you better. To Christ he says, throw yourself down from the temple. You won’t be hurt. Third, the Serpent bring Eve to actually rebel against God. To Christ, the Devil says, just worship me.

[9] Most prior theologians.

[10] Martin Bucer, protestant theologian, 1491 – 1551.

[11] The majority of theologians speak of the temptation to make bread being a temptation to gluttony. But that does not make sense. Why offer bread if it was gluttony. Moreover, the response to a temptation to gluttony is sober self-control. But Jesus does not speak about self-control. Instead, the temptation was to despair of God’s oversight of the world, “Why isn’t God taking better care of you?” Jesus goes to his trust in God, not to he has self-control over hunger.

[12] “Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:5, ESV)

[13] “And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”” (Exodus 17:7, ESV)  The people became discontent and did not trust the Lord. And so they asked, Is the Lord among us?

[14] The Devil sought to sway Christ’s faith by saying, Well if you are really the Son of God.

[15] Andrews here makes an interesting observation. When Jesus came up from being baptism a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son.” The observation by Andrews takes the humanity of Jesus seriously. Jesus has spent an impossible time alone in the wilderness. He must be near physical death. The comparison to Moses does not even seem appropriate at this level, because was apparently being supernaturally maintained. This fast level Jesus weak and hungry. Matt. 4:2. At that point, one might begin to wonder, did I really hear that voice?

[16] ““Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,” (Luke 22:31, ESV)

[17] “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.” (1 Peter 5:8–9, ESV)

[18] “For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.” (1 Thessalonians 3:5, ESV)

[19] If the Devil can cause us to doubt God, our obedience will fail.

[20] The Devil’s argument is not based upon a sound premise. We cannot tell whether we are God’s child merely by looking at our present physical circumstances. Sometimes the most wicked person has a long, profitable life; and the most faithful child becomes a martyr.

[21] Abraham and Isaac each had to flee the land due to famine. Jacob had to flee the potential violence of his brother. By looking at merely their circumstances, one could not necessarily conclude that they were favored by God.

[22] “And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.” (Exodus 3:6, ESV)

[23] “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:37–40, ESV)

[24] “To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless,” (1 Corinthians 4:11, ESV)

[25] We are all children of God by adopted. Jesus is Son of God by nature.

[26] “Jacob’s well was there; so Jesus, wearied as he was from his journey, was sitting beside the well. It was about the sixth hour.” (John 4:6, ESV)

[27] “And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”” (Matthew 8:20, ESV)

[28] It is a useful rhetorical trick to press someone to do something which it appears he must be obligated to do or he will lose his reputation. This permits you to gain a degree of control over the other person.

[29] There is no trick which the Devil does not know.

[30] The Devil, If you were really the Son of God, then you could turn these stones into bread. But being made to play tricks for the Devil is not necessary for Jesus to be the Son of God.

[31] “So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”” (John 21:23, ESV)

[32] We should be careful and wise not to respond to every demand of a fool or one who is trying to manipulate us.

[33] Christ engages him in battle.

[34] Christ sees the trap: If he makes the bread, will the Devil leave him alone and admit that he is the Son of God? No. Jesus sees the trap as is shown by his response.

[35] The Devil says, You need bread. God is not going to help you. You have better help yourself. This will then lead to discontent. The examples in the next paragraph show instances of discontent.

[36] If we begin to distrust God, our complaints against God will grow into complete unbelief and rebellion.

[37] When grow to distrust God and rebel, we will turn to serve God’s enemy. It is interesting that turning to God’s enemy we often think ourselves to be serving no one.  As if we were sufficiently clever to avoid the Devil’s scheme.

[38] Since Saul could no longer receive a word from the Lord, he went to see a witch. “Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants said to him, “Behold, there is a medium at En-dor.”” (1 Samuel 28:7, ESV) Saul will learn that he and his son will die the next day.

[39] “For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?” (Matthew 7:8–10, ESV)

[40] Andrews here turns the Devil’s temptation on him and in quite an ironic and funny manner. You want help from the Devil? Here is how the Devil helps: You’re hungry? Here are some stones. See if you can make yourself something to eat. But we don’t eat stones. We make bread from wheat.

[41] The way in which the Devil provides bread is by alchemistry like bread into stones, or deceit, or oppression, or stealing.

[42] “Bread gained by deceit is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth will be full of gravel.” (Proverbs 20:17, ESV)

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner 4.3

31 Friday Dec 2021

Posted by in Faith, Faith, Richard Sibbes, Richard Sibbes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

John Street (director of the MABC program at TMU) when teaching on the change which should take place in the Christian refers to the passage in Ephesians 4, where Paul writes a thief must stop stealing and then get a job and give to others. To merely stop stealing is to be a thief between jobs. But to work and give is to be something new. John Owen explains that the death of sin is to abound in grace:

The first is, How doth the Spirit mortify sin?

I answer, in general, three ways:—

[1.] By causing our hearts to abound in grace and the fruits that are contrary to the flesh, and the fruits thereof and principles of them.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 19.

Sibbes makes a similar point about faith. It is not sufficient to merely stop trusting in the creature, we must put our trust in God:

Obs. That it is not sufficient to disclaim affiance in the creature, but we must pitch that affiance aright upon God.

We must cease one thing and begin another. Our faith will be somewhere. If we take it off of the creature and do not place it upon God, we will be like the soul where a demon has been driven out only to return with others worse than himself. Thus, the Scripture commands us repeatedly to take our trust off of the creature and to place it upon God:

We must not only take it off where it should not be placed, but set it where it should be. ‘Cease from evil, and learn to do well,’ Isa. 1:16, 17. Trust not in the creature. ‘Cease from man,’ as the prophet saith, ‘whose breath is in his nostrils,’ Isa. 2:22; ‘Commit thy ways to God, trust in him,’ Ps. 37:5. 

He then makes an argument from common grace. We can read in many heathen authors the reasonable argument that we must stop trusting in the creature. The world will disappoint us. It reminds me of the Fire Sermon of Buddha, ““Everything, monks, is burning. What, monks, is everything that is burning? The eye, monks, is burning, form is burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning. The feeling that arises dependent on eye-contact, whether pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral, that also is burning. 

With what is it burning? It is burning with the fire of passion, the fire of hatred, the fire of delusion. I declare that it is burning with the fire of birth, decay, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair.” 

He can see the vanity of the creature, but he then can offer no solution beyond rejecting creation. 

This much can be seen without grace:

The heathen, by the light of nature, knew this, that for the negative there is no trusting in the creature, which is a vain thing. They could speak wonderful wittily* and to purpose of these things, especially the Stoics. They could see the vanity of the creature. But for the positive part, where to place their confidence, that they were ignorant in. And so for the other part here, ‘Neither will we say any more to the works of our hands, Ye are our gods.’ Idolaters can see the vanity of false gods well enough. 

But this rejection is insufficient; it is not salvation:

It is not enough therefore to rest in the negative part. A negative Christian is no Christian; 

There must be a movement to trust in God

Oh! such make religion nothing but a matter of opinion, of canvassing an argument, &c. But it is another manner of matter, a divine power exercised upon the soul, whereby it is transformed into the obedience of divine truth, and moulded into it. So that there must be a positive as well as a negative religion; a cleaving to God as well as a forsaking of idols.

* That is, ‘with wit’ = wisdom.—G.

Edward Taylor Meditation 36.3 What strange strange thing am I?

09 Tuesday Nov 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The first two run thy glory would to shame.
The last plea doth my soul to hell confine.
My faith therefore doth all these pleas disdain.
Thou kindness art, it saith, and I am thine.
Upon this bank it doth on tiptoes stand
To ken o’re Reason’s head at Grace’s hand.

Now he considers the possibilities. If vileness indeed has the ultimate power in his life, or if grace lacks the strength to respond to the movement of sin, then God’s promises are weaker than the strength of sin. It would bring God’s glory to shame. For what can we do with a promise such as

For sin will not have dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. Rom. 6:14

And he rejects these possibilities on the ground that God cannot untrue.

The third possibility he considered, that he is not truly God’s, he also rejects because that would mean that he is accursed.

What then does he attribute to the basis for this consideration:

My faith therefore doth all these pleas disdain.

These are repugnant to faith, even though they appear as a matter of reason to be the only possibilities. Having worked himself into an apparent dead end, the poem, at this point, spies a way out of the quandary:

His faith “It” sees something. Faith begins with the truth of God: God is kindness. Second, faith knows that it lays hold of God, and those who confess and believe are indeed those who belong to God (I am thine). He knows that God cannot be a liar.

Faith from here spies somewhat difficult to see

Upon this bank it doth on tiptoes stand

Faith stands upon a bank. The bank (such as riverbank) must be (1) the disdain which faith has for the possibilities: since these things cannot be true—even though it seems most reasonable; and (2) the knowledge that God is kind, and he is God’s. I will start here and look for the answer. I belong to a good God. What must that mean for someone in my condition?

Faith has the ability to see over the head of Reason and to see what Grace can do:

To ken o’re Reason’s head at Grace’s hand.

Notice something here about Faith. Faith is not blind. It is not merely guessing or vague hoping. He understands faith as a specific kind of knowledge.

Perhaps it would be best to understand Faith as the means by which persons know one-another. We believe we love another, when we believe another loves us – or hates us for that matter; we are exercising faith. While we use the word “belief” as a weak form of knowledge, that is not the only meaning of that word. Belief/faith is means by which the intangible but real beauty of a relationship can be known.

Reason assumes a sort of self-interestedness: it is unreasonable to give all that you for the good of another. It is unreasonable to love your enemy. These things do not serve my self-interest. But Faith can see things which are unreasonable, not because they are untrue, but because they do not serve one’s self-interest.

There is a kind of love in God which is both true and unreasonable (in this sense). The absolute core of Christianity is the love of the enemy. God loves his enemies and makes them into family. We are then called upon to love our enemies (which is both exalted and impossible, for this is something God must convey through us) and in so doing help to reconcile them to God.

And so Faith can see past reason and see that must exquisite of treasures, Grace.

Faith is needed to understand God, because the work of God is often not directed at the particular moment, but may be directed toward the outcome (thus, as the poet will tell us, God’s patience is not for the purpose of encouraging his sin, but rather for the provocation of the poet’s love toward God). Conversely, difficulties from God often are given out of his love toward us:

Mercy and kindness floweth from him freely, naturally; he is never severe, never harsh; he never stings, he never terrifies us, but when he is sadly provoked by us. God’s hand sometimes may lie very hard upon his people, when his heart, his bowels, at those very times may be yearning towards his people, Jer. 31:18–20. No man can tell how the heart of God stands by his hand; his hand of mercy may be open to those against whom his heart is set, as you see in the rich poor fool, and Dives, in the Gospel; and his hand of severity may lie hard upon those on whom he hath set his heart, as you may see in Job and Lazarus. And thus you see those gracious, blessed, soul-quieting conclusions about the issue and event of afflictions, that a holy, a prudent silence doth include.

Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 304.

An argument for freedom of conscience (1661) part 2 (with comments)

28 Wednesday Jul 2021

Posted by in law

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

9. Because, to force, is inconsistent with the Belief of the Jews Conversion (and other false worshippers) which is prayed for by the Publick Teachers, and cannot be attained, if Persecution for Conscience be prosecuted.

Comment: The thrust of this argument seems to be as follows: You pray for actual conversion (such as prayer for the Jews to be converted). Yet, by forcing conscience you are not obtaining conversion (which is what you claim) but rather sin (which is what you should avoid). Thus, your conduct contradicts your prayers.

10. Because, they that impose upon men’s Consciences, exercise Dominion over men’s Faith, which the Apostles denied, saying, they had not Dominion over any men’s Faith.

Comment: This is based upon a passage from Paul in his second letter to Corinth: 2 Corinthians 1:24 (AV) “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.” The argument thus runs, 

You do not have more authority in ecclesiastical matters than Paul.

Paul did not “lord over” the faith of others.

Therefore, you may not lord over the faith of others. 

Again the argument is that you are being the hypocrite in your supposed effort to be a good Christin.

11. Because, Imposition upon mens Consciences necessitates them to sin, in yeelding a Conformity contrary to their own faith: for whatsoever is not of a mans own faith, is sin.

Comment: This is from Paul’s letter to the Romans: Romans 14:23 (AV) “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Paul was writing about those who believed that eating meat would be a sin. Since the matter was an issue upon which there could be a difference of conscience, forcing the conscience of another man would be force that man to sin.

The response to this argument would be, Yes, but you hold opinions upon which there may be no difference of opinion.

12. Because, that Imposition and force wrestles with flesh and blood, and Carnal weapons, which is contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, who said, Our Weapons are not Carnal, but Spiritual, and mighty through God: and we wrestle not with flesh and bloud.

Comment: This argument draws on two separate passages from Paul. The first is from 2 Corinthians 10. In this passage, Paul explains that the resistance to his gospel is ultimately not a matter of other human beings but of spiritual conflict: it is a battle of spiritual matters, a battle of ideas, not a battle of “flesh and blood”:

2 Corinthians 10:1–6 (AV) 

1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you: 2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

The second passage is from Ephesians 6 and concerns “spiritual warfare”:

Ephesians 6:10–12 (AV) 

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in highplaces. 

The argument is thus, you claim to be concerned with a spiritual conflict, a spiritual matter. If this is so, then you are to use “spiritual weapons” (truth, faith, peace, et cetera).

Now the Court of Charles II was remarkably debauched.  The concern was not with true piety but rather political expedience. 

Kierkegaard on the Difference Between the Tragic Hero and Abraham

22 Sunday Mar 2020

Posted by in Faith, Faith, Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard draws an interesting contrast between Abraham and Agamemnon: both men are called upon to sacrifice a child: but Agamemnon is a tragic hero and Abraham is an example of faith. What then is the true distinction between the two?

The tragic hero is compelled to his end by an ethical demand. To fulfill his oath, Agamemnon must lead the force into war. The demand to sacrifice is daughter is tragic and painful, but it is compelled by the demand of his oath. His act is meaningful and ethical to the community.

But it is not so with Abraham. There is no ethical duty which is recognizable to anyone who watched Abraham. The soldiers who saw Agamemnon move to give up his daughter, would have a basis to understand and even sympathize with Agamemnon. But if one were to watch Abraham: his actions would make no ethical sense. There is no apparent duty.

A second and related comparison comes with the matter of disclosing his conduct.

In this section Kierkegaard first makes an observation about concealment and revelation. In the older Greek tragedies, the concealment was brought about by fate. Oedipus kills his father, but it is concealed to him. It is revealed afterward.

In the modern age, the act of concealment is brought about the character’s decision. He compares two types here. There is the esthetic concealment, where two lovers conceal to bring about their desired end. And to have the happy ending we enjoy such action.

Esthetics permits these actions, even if unethical:

But esthetics is a civil and sentimental discipline that knows more ways out than any pawnshop manager. What it do then? It does everything possible for the lovers. (75)

But ethics requires revelation: The concealment is a deception, and even if pleasing aesthetically it is repugnant to ethics. Ethics requires an explanation, a justification for the conduct. There must be a public rationale.

Abraham differs, because he cannot explain. What is there to say? He is seeking something absurd. Abraham is not merely doing something which seems outside of all ethics; he is doing something he knows cannot be true. He will kill Isaac and Isaac is the child of promise and God will fulfill his promise. This is not merely improbable; it is paradoxical.

There is no public rationale, because the wisdom of God is greater than man.

We go wildly astray if we think Kierkegaard says that faith is believing things which are untrue or improbable. That is what is often miscredited to him. Faith is not believing stupid or false things. Faith is believing that God is above human categories:

1 Corinthians 1:20–29 (ESV)

 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

 

Some observations on the “absurdity” of faith from Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling

06 Friday Mar 2020

Posted by in Faith, Faith, Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Kierkegaard’s Fear and Loathing considers the fact of God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. A central concern of this work has to do with the obvious ethical problem of murder: how can Abraham be a great man of “faith” when his greatest act of “faith” is so obviously unethical?

Kierkegaard takes on this problem from multiple directions. Here, to merely get the ideas straight in my own mind, are certain elements of this text which I found most interesting and useful.

“The old saying that things do not happen in the world as the parson preaches.” (Cambridge University Press, trans. Sylvia Walsh.) Too often philosophy is too abstract, to pat; too often sermons are more platitude than help in patience.

When it comes to the question of Abraham, this book works to avoid neat theories of Abraham’s act: What could he do? God was making him do this thing. Or, well he knew that Isaac would live again in the resurrection; so what does it matter? Or Abraham knew it was some mere trial.

The work (written by a pseudonym; thus, there is some distance between Kierkegaard and the “author” of the work, does nothing to shy away from the fact this great act of faith hinges upon a murder; and thus, unethical in the fullest sense of the world. “What is left out of the Abraham’s story is the anxiety … to the son the father has highest and most sacred duty.”

The ethical makes a demand upon Abraham which runs counter to the command of God; thus, the ethical paradoxically becomes a temptation!

One aspect of the analysis lies with the common understanding of ethical as merely a culturally determined pattern for behavior. While faith may be consistent with such ethics, faith is not necessarily constrained by such ethics.

Abraham cannot kill Isaac and point to some greater ethical good. If it were, then Abraham’s killing could be justified on the ground of the greater good.  But, there is no argument of the loss of the one for the community. And yet somehow, Abraham’s act is a matter of faith. He is not a “tragic hero” who ultimately has an ethical justification for an unethical act.

Kierkegaard aims to disentangle the matter of temptation (by the ethical) from the matter of paradox.

Next, faith is not merely resignation to the greater will of God and a willingness to lose Isaac.  Kierkegaard writes at length of the Knight Infinite Resignation. This knight resigns himself to the loss because there is (again) a greater context in which the paradox of God’s command “makes sense”.

A common intellectual tactic is to resolve a present problem into an unknown future good in the world to come. There is something in the “infinite” which justifies this action in the “finite”. In such a circumstance, the present loss and conflict removes the difficulty of the command of God.

Again, the resolution of the matter is completed by resolving and dismissing the “paradox” of God’s command.

But this will not work, because Abraham does not proceed according to some platitude and hope for the vague future. Abraham expects to murder and receive Isaac in the same act: “By faith Abraham did not renounce Isaac, but by faith Abraham received Isaac.” (41)

In another place, Kierkegaard notes that Abraham was not hoping for some future but was hoping for something in this life: God had promised Abraham that Isaac was the son of promise.

How then does this work out? Abraham is tempted to the ethical; but how could God command the unethical. Abraham is tempted to merely resign himself to duty or overwhelming power, but instead expects to receive Isaac back.

Moreover, Kierkegaard rules out another escape hatch. Abraham is not believing in something merely improbable (which is another dodge undertaken in the name of faith).  Kierkegaard expressly does not mean by faith, something highly unlikely.

Rather, solves his problem by grasping it squarely and stating that faith is a paradox; it actually does hinge upon something “absurd” which we too often which to domesticate.

Abraham believed. He did not believe that he would be blessed one day in the hereafter but that he would become blissfully happy here in the world. God could give him a new Isaac, call the sacrifice back to life. He believed by virtue of the absurd, for all human calculation had long since ceased. (30)

By absurd, he does not mean “the improbable, the unforeseen, the unexpected.” (39). Before Abraham can believe that he will receive Isaac in this life, he must first fully resolve himself to the fact that Isaac is lost. He knows that Isaac is lost, utterly lost. That is the “movement” of infinite resignation. Faith then takes an “absurd” step to believe that Isaac will be restored in this life – knowing full well that Isaac is lost. Faith then says, Yes, Isaac is lost and I will receive Isaac back though he is lost.

One could ask what this dense, often difficult discussion of faith and ethics has to do with the actual life of a Christian today? I do not necessarily find myself struggling with Hegelian categories of thought on the same grounds as that faced by Kierkegaard in the 19th Century church of Europe.

The answer lies in our constant tendency tame faith in some manner.

Olivia Walsh, in her essay, “The Silencing of Philosophy” makes the observation

This idea of the absolute duty to God in faith can lead to some rather remarkable commands, such as the Gospel injunction to hate one’s “own faith and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life” (Luke 14:26 RSV) which exegetes tend to water down in typically ethical fashion.

I will testify to having heard this and similar texts being domesticated by turning the word “hate” into the phrase “love less”.  But the language itself is shocking. We can say this means hyperbole; but if so, what is the toned-down understanding of “hate”.

Moreover, Jesus in nowise ever abrogates the duties to one’s family. Indeed, he commands love even of one’s enemies. Kierkegaard helps us here by seeing the paradox in the duty toward God and human beings. There is a resignation to loss and recovery back which refuse to be resolved by ethical games or linguistic tricks.

Indeed, the Christian religion itself hinges upon the most profound of paradoxes:

2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV)

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

God made Christ sin – the one who was sinless; so that we who are sinful might become righteous. There are no ethical tricks, no linguistic tropes, no logical move which resolves the utterly paradoxical movement in this passage. Faith takes hold of the paradox in joy.

Faith and fear go hand in hand

28 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Faith, Faith, Fear, fear of God, Fear of the Lord, Thomas Watson, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The graces of the Spirit work for good. Grace is to the soul, as light to the eye, as health to the body. Grace does to the soul, as a virtuous wife to her husband, “She will do him good all the days of her life.” Prov. 31:12. How incomparably useful are the graces! Faith and fear go hand in hand; faith keeps the heart cheerful, fear keeps the heart serious; faith keeps the heart from sinking in despair, fear keeps it from floating in presumption; all the graces display themselves in their beauty: hope is the helmet, 1 Thess. 5:8. meekness “the ornament,” 1 Pet. 3:4. love “the bond of perfectness,” Col. 3:14. The saints’ graces are weapons to defend them, wings to elevate them, jewels to enrich them, spices to perfume them, stars to adorn them, cordials to refresh them: and does not all this work for good? The graces are our evidences for heaven; is it not good to have our evidences at the hour of death?

 Thomas Watson, A Divine Cordial; The Saint’s Spiritual Delight; The Holy Eucharist; and Other Treatises, The Writings of the Doctrinal Puritans and Divines of the Seventeenth Century (The Religious Tract Society, 1846), 17–18.

What hope produces, what produces hope.3

29 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Colossians, Hope, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

[And here is the conclusion of my notes; I guess I will see what is left when it has been edited and re-written. ]

To our second point, let us consider the nature and certainty of this hope. So look down again at verse 5:

5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel

This hope is certain: that is a where and a what. The certainty of the hope is tied to its location: it is a heavenly hope. Everything here upon earth is temporary; it changes; it decays:

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

Eccl. 1:2. Nothing in this world is stable, secure, eternal. It is a vanity, a breath and then it is gone like mist on a cold morning. The most certain things on this planet are temporary, shifting things. Even mountains wear down; even billionaires and kings die.

If it is here, it can be found, broken, stolen. To store one’s treasure here, to count on an inheritance from this world is to be disappointed; we need a better, safer place:

Matthew 6:19–20 (NASB95)
19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
20 “But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;

You may have noticed that I didn’t finish Jesus’ sentence; we’ll come to the end of his statement in a moment. For now, notice this: here on earth, our treasure, our hope is insecure. It may be lost: decay and trouble will assault our treasures. My family went to King Tut’s treasure: here were the possessions of an unimaginably wealthy, powerful man. They had been buried in vault for centuries. And now they were on display, in protected rooms, with monitored light and humidity and temperature, because light and air were a danger to this treasure.

Tut gathered his treasures for what he thought was a heavenly journey; but all his treasury remained in his tomb. His treasure is in constant threat of theft and decay.

But our hope is not like that: it is in heaven. As Peter writes:

1 Peter 1:3–5 (NASB95)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

We have a hope, an inheritance, which cannot decay or be stolen, an inheritance which is kept by God — reserved in heaven.

And here is where you must stop as you think of this treasure. You might be thinking the inheritance, the hope, the treasure is some mansion, or the streets of gold or the gates of pearl. Those are merely decorations and ornaments; they are paper about the present — both those things are not the treasure, they are not our hope.

Think again. Paul said that you have heard of that hope in “the word of truth, the gospel”. The gospel is not that you get a large house and gold pavement. Think again about the gospel.

What is there in the Gospel? You may say that the gospel is that my sins are forgiven, that I will not go to hell. There is life without end, without decay, without death. Yes, there is all of that. There are great and glorious, outrageous promises and goodness in the forgiveness of sin.
This forgiveness of sin is an unimaginable, audacious blessing. Listen to Psalm 41:4

As for me, I said, “O Lord,, be gracious to me;
Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.”

That is dumbfounding: not forgive me because I have made things right; not be good to be because I have been good. David prays, heal me, forgive me, because I have sinned. We may have become used to hearing such things being around church — and if we have, then our ears have grown dull. We don’t ever deserve to say such a thing. But that is precisely what is involved in this word or truth, this good news:

Colossians 2:13–14 (NASB95)
13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

There is good news! You were an enemy of God, and God took his claim against you and fastened those claims to Jesus who bore our sins in his body on the tree: the claim against us was nailed to the cross! Now that is glorious.

But our hope is even greater than that: our hope is greater than the most perfect of environments; our hope is greater than a resurrected body and a conscious cleaned from sin and shame; there is something even better — and it was right there in verse five: a hope in heaven.

Our true and supreme hope is the reason why we are forgiven and cleansed and brought into a beautiful place. Imagine a man or a woman preparing for their wedding day: we have a special place, we wear special clothes, we have a special party, we go on a special trip: all of those things are marvelous, but none of them are the point of the wedding. We have and do all those things because there is someone we seek.

The gospel involves forgiveness, and resurrection and life everlasting, but those things are all less than the great point and glory of the gospel, those things are all less than the real hope. Turn over to verse 25 of chapter 1 because you must look at these words:

Colossians 1:25–27 (NASB95)

25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God [that is the word of truth, the gospel]
26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, [that mystery is what you have heard — and what is it]
27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Listen to those words: our hope is “Christ in you”. Paul calls it “the hope of glory”. Your hope, your treasure is not the wedding dress, the wedding cake, the honeymoon — it is the bridegroom. Our hope is secure because our is the Lord himself. Paul says here that our hope is a hope of glory and he defines it as “Christ in you.”

Calvin wrote of this verse, “he calls Christ the hope of glory, that they may know that nothing is wanting to them for complete blessedness when they have obtained Christ.” If we have Christ, we have all.

We sing that song, All I have is Christ — but to have Christ is to have all: “all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.” 1 Cor. 3:23.

Our hope is Christ, it is a hope of glory, a heavenly glory, a glory of the age to come. As Peter says in 1 Peter 1:7, that our faith, tested through fire, like a suit of armor battered and ravaged, will prove true at the last, and it will “be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

And now the third point, which will make the other points even more clear. Our hope creates a destination, a direction: it is a compass point which draws along the entire rest of our life.

Paul has said that our hope is in heaven, our hope is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”.

What I wish to finish with is just the hint of something. We know our duties as Christians to have greater faith, to have greater love. We know that love fulfills the law. We know that love is the bond of unity. And Paul has told us that our faith and love are somehow sustained by hope. We also know that our hope is in heaven. And so we can sometimes think that we can just hope to go to heaven; and we will struggle along and try to not be too bad, to do our best and hope it works out.

But Christ does not intend that for us. Take a look at chapter 3. In verse 1, Paul says the we are to seek the things above — where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Then look at verse 2, he says we are to set our minds on the things above — that is in heaven: seeking and setting our minds on something sounds very much like hoping. We are to be hoping, hoping on Christ who is above, who is at the right hand of God.

Then in verse 3 Paul says, that we have died and our life is hidden with Christ in God. So our life is not our own. Like Paul says in Galatians 2:20, “For I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ live in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.”

And now in verse 4 of Colossians 3 we see our hope stated plainly, in large, unmistakable letters:

When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then we will be revealed with Him in glory.

There is our hope. That is why we put to death what is earthly — we give it up because we are straining for something better. There is our hope. That is why hope produces faith, because faith gives substance to our desire in hope. That is why we can love, because we are becoming like Christ as we strain forward, fixing every thought upon Christ.

Our heavenly hope is Christ, himself.

He will “present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach — if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you have heard.” Col. 1:22-23.