THE WILDERNESS OF SIN

Exodus 16:1-5: They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and the people of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.”  Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not. On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily.”

So, a simplistic post, that reflects as much on myself as on all read this: How often are you in the Wilderness of Sin, and reflecting on that, how often do you grumble against the Lord and those whom He has appointed to be over you (not as in being better than you, but as those who "...are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account..." (Hebrews 13:17)?

How often do you think your appraisal of a situation - of any given situation - in the local body of Christ, is better than that given by our God, and as prescribed, according to that prescription of  our God, by those who are over you in the faith - those who are keeping watch over your souls as those who must give an account?

Are you so very arrogant as to think that they whom the LORD has appointed to keep such watch are subject to your personal vendettas and fleshly precepts which have nothing - nothing whatsoever - to do with the properly prescribed and ordained manner of church polity of our God?

Read on, arrogant ones: "And Moses said, “When the LORD gives you in the evening meat to eat and in the morning bread to the full, because the LORD has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him—what are we? Your grumbling is not against us but against the LORD (Exodus 16:8)."

So many think that the demonstration of our LORD Jesus Christ was intolerant in the Old Testament; that He did not show His gracious forbearance in the manner in which He dealt with the church-nation, Israel.

How, then, do you account for this, and similar, instances of redemptive history?

He did not deal with His chosen people of the Old Covenant, at this time, according to their folly - that came later.

Do you suppose that His dealing with your grumbling will come later? Do you so presume upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord?

Are you so lost in your personal application of "the wilderness of sin" that you fail to see the forest for the trees of personal fleshly preference which you - you ALONE - have planted?

For you who are elect and beloved of God, His provision is much more than you can imagine; however, do not think that there are not consequences to your despising of that structure which He Himself has implemented.

Do you yet think such Scripture is vain which states " Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7)?"

Are you one of those who state "I do not listen to men; I listen to God," while yet not recognizing that God, Himself, in Jesus Christ our Lord, has so appointed men over you?

Are you really so blind?

I admonish you to search the Scriptures, ignore what your preconceptions might be (which no doubt, you were taught of men), and recognize that structure and authority in the Lord which He has set over you for your benefit and growth to His glory being proclaimed, lest you find yourself alone and adrift in "the wilderness of sin," grumbling and complaining against those whom the Lord has set over you, and so, against the Lord.

SDG - Bill

DELIGHT in the LORD.

Psalm 35:27:  Let those who delight in my righteousness shout for joy and be glad and say evermore, "Great is the LORD, who delights in the welfare of his servant!"

Who can deny that delighting in the LORD is our heritage?

What else is there to delight in; our own self sufficiency? Our heritage in conforming to that which our great God has decreed and prescribed for us?

We must realize that to DELIGHT in the LORD is to be thoroughly swept up in all that HE is, not our preconceptions of who and what He is, nor our emotions of that which He describes in His holy Scriptures.

Certainly, this has to do with both our perception of who He is, and what He has done - and indeed, from our finite perspective, what He is doing - regarding redemptive history; however, that is not the point of this Psalm. The point is that we are to have the greatest thoughts and emotions of favor towards our God because of - to put it as simply as possible - who He IS, not those thoughts or emotions of what we think or preconceive Him to be.

There is nothing in the life of each saint that can give valid expression of this thought: DELIGHT YOURSELF IN THE LORD!

Who can give valid expression to these thoughts and emotions?

Yet that is EXACTLY what we are prescriptively commanded to do here, and how far do we fall short of expressing just these very things?

We have the atheists and the deists and all manner of others who decry to us that we cannot fully comprehend or fully express the substance of that which is our understanding of God, and little do they know, they are actually speaking truth in this instance (though it be in the wisdom of men who are without God), for we fail, so often, to do just that which is prescribed.

How sad, that we could be in agreement with those who know not God, in this greatest of all the commandments (Mark 12:30). How it shows in the manner in which we fail to treat those created in the Imago Dei - that we still seek to "bite and devour one another," when to express our highest concept from Scripture is to see our brethren as representing the infinite perfection of our Creator and Redeemer in them (1 Corinthians 2:2; Romans 4:25).

How little attention we pay to that which God has done in not only redeeming our brethren, but in implementing the New Creation (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15).

If we do not see this in our brethren, how, then, can we expect to actually delight ourselves in our great God and Savior?

Dare we claim that we actually see and desire and pursue such in our God, when we actually live according to preconceptions based in our former manner and view of life regarding the brethren (Ephesians 2:1-3)?

Do you, then, think you DELIGHT YOURSELF IN THE LORD,  when, in fact, you deny HIM in HIS body?

I believe this truth needs rethinking, by the grace of God through the working of His Holy Spirit, amongst those who claim to be His, for to truly do this, we need to remember where He is expressing Himself in these days (1 Corinthians 3:17;1 Peter 2:4-5).

So then, here is the crux of the matter: If you think you are honoring God as Holy, delighting in all that He is, as He has revealed Himself in Scripture through our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet denigrate your brethren based upon false presuppositions based in your former fleshly life, you are simply lying to yourself, and your profession of allegiance to, honoring of, and delighting in God as to His righteousness and holiness, is a LIE to which you subject yourself - the deception is yours; however, God is able to break even this deception.

He has willed to reveal Himself most fully in the local body, amongst your brethren, who are are a reflection and emanation of our Lord most Holy crucified and glorified; do not partake of the wiles of the world and the flesh and think you actually are delighting in God while you do so, for such is most certainly NOT the case.

If you are truly delighting in all the holiness and glory and righteousness of who God is, you will certainly be seeing Him in your fellow saints - or your profession is but a shallow shell of His truth.

SDG - Bill

Weekly Pink (On Personal Holiness)

  “That opinion that personal holiness is unnecessary to final glorification is in direct opposition to even dictate of reason, to even declaration of Scripture.”      —Augustus Toplady

BY our fall in Adam we not only lost the favor of God but also the purity of our nature and therefore we need to be both reconciled to God and renewed in our inner man, for without personal holiness “no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). “As He which hath called you is holy; so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (behavior); because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:15, 16), God’s nature is such that unless we be sanctified there can be no intercourse between Him and us. But can persons be sinful and holy at one and the same time? Genuine Christians discover so much carnality, filth, and vileness in themselves that they find it almost impossible to be assured they are holy. Nor is this difficulty solved, as in justification, by recognizing that though completely unholy in ourselves we are holy in Christ, for Scripture teaches that those who are sanctified by God are holy in themselves, though the evil nature has not been removed from them.

None but “the pure in heart” will ever “see God” (Matthew 5:8). There must be that renovation of soul whereby our minds, affections and wills are brought into harmony with God. There must be that impartial compliance with the revealed will of God and abstinence from evil which issues from faith and love. There must be that directing of all our actions to the glory of God, by Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel. There must be a spirit of holiness working within the believer’s heart so as to sanctify his outward actions if they are to be acceptable unto Him in whom “there is no darkness” True, there is perfect holiness in Christ for the believer, but there must also be a holy nature received from him. There are some who appear to delight in the imputed obedience of Christ who make little or no concern about personal holiness. They have much to say about being arrayed in “the garments of salvation and covered with the robe of righteousness” (Isa. 61:10), who give no evidence that they “are clothed with humility” (1 Pet. 5:5) or that they have “put on … bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering, forebearing one another and forgiving one another” (Col. 3:12).

How many there are today who suppose that if they have trusted in Christ all is sure to be well with them at the last even though they are not personally holy. Under the pretense of honoring faith, Satan, as an angel of light, has deceived and is now deceiving multitudes of souls. When their “faith” is examined and tested, what is it worth? Nothing at all so far as insuring an entrance into Heaven is concerned: it is a powerless, lifeless, fruitless thing. The faith of God’s elect is unto “the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness” (Titus 1:1). It is a faith which purifieth the heart (Acts 15:9), and it grieves over all impurity. It is a faith which produces an unquestioning obedience (Heb. 11:8). They therefore do but delude themselves who suppose they are daily drawing nearer to Heaven while they are following those courses which lead only to Hell. He who thinks to come to the enjoyment of God without being personally holy, makes Him out to be an unholy God, and puts the highest indignity upon Him. The genuiness of saving faith is only proved as it bears the blossoms of experimental godliness and the fruits of true piety.

In Christ God has set before His people that standard of moral excellence which He requires them to aim and strive after. In His life we behold a glorious representation in our own nature of the walk of obedience which He demands of us. Christ conformed Himself to us by His abasing incarnation, how reasonable therefore it is that we should conform ourselves to Him in the way of obedience and sanctification. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). He came as near to us as was possible for Him to do, how reasonable then is it that we should endeavor to come as near as it is possible for us to do. “Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me” (Matthew 11:29). If “even Christ pleased not Himself” (Rom. 15:3). how reasonable is it that we should be required to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Him (Matthew 16:24), for without so doing we cannot be His disciples (Luke 14:27). If we are to be conformed to Christ in glory how necessary that we first be conformed to Him in holiness: “he that saith he abideth in Him ought himself so to walk even as He walked:” (1 John 2:6). “Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19): let him either put on the life of Christ or drop the name of Christ.*

*Pink, A. W. (2005). The Arthur Pink anthology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Bravo, Kevin DeYoung, Bravo

In the discussion of sanctification Kevin DeYoung points out some flaws (go here and get his book here), even in Reformed circles, that seem to be prevalent in some parts of Christianity. The fear of legalism seems to drive some from preaching on any imperatives (commands) in Scripture. In fact it seems that some imply that in the realm of being conformed to the likeness of Christ, we are passive. Any attempts at trying to please God through our obedience (yes obedience grounded in the Gospel) should be avoided. I read an article by a known "Reformed" theologian that discouraged such an idea. In fact when I first read his article My mind went immediately to this passage:

9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Co 5:9–10).

One may wish to spin that text to simply mean please God only in faithful obedience to preaching the Gospel but the immediate context does not allow for it. Clearly the Apostle Paul, whom answered "answered the accusation of antinomianism with more grace," is urging obedience to the one in Christ (call it "Gospel obedience if you will) with the sober reminder of having to appear before the Righteous Judge of all-Christ. It seems as if there is an element of fear to motivate, if not the main thing (at least in this passage), that is leading Paul to faithfully preach the Gospel to sinners and walk in a manner worthy of the Gospel (Php. 1:27). My understanding of the passage is also confirmed by the first phrase of verse 11 ("Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord").

Before I turn it over to DeYoung, permit me to cite Simon Kistmaker's commentary on the above passage:

a. “Therefore, we consider it our aim to please him.” Paul is writing his concluding remarks on this topic, and on the basis of the preceding verses he says “therefore.” He now reverses the order of “away from home” and “at home” (v. 8) and returns to the original sequence (v. 6). The reversals make no difference in the understanding of this passage. Whether believers are in or out of the body does not matter, for their aim is to please the Lord. Does this mean that in the intermediate state, Christians are not able to please him? The answer is no. Paul is not addressing those who have died and are with the Lord. He is speaking to the readers who are alive. He is exhorting us to serve the Lord in such a manner that both God and our fellow men always take pleasure in our conduct (Rom. 14:18; Heb. 13:21).

b. “For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ.” When Paul writes “all of us,” is he referring to all people? The New Testament teaches that everyone must appear before the judgment seat of God or Christ (Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 14:10; II Tim. 4:1; I Peter 4:5). But here the Greek construction shows that he addresses the Corinthian Christians and presumably his opponents in that church. No one is exempt from being summoned to appear in court, for the word that Paul uses is “must”; the command to stand trial has a divine origin, for God through Christ issues the summons. The accused must answer to God (Rom. 14:10) and will receive the verdict from Christ.

c. “So that each one may receive recompense for the things which he has done in the body, whether good or bad.” Each individual appears in court and hears the verdict based on one’s conduct on earth. When the Lord returns (I Cor. 4:5), all works, whether good or bad, will be revealed. At that time, he assigns recompense to each individual for deeds performed through the instrumentality of the body while one is on earth. Jesus says, “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done” (Rev. 22:12).

Paul is not teaching a doctrine of earning one’s salvation by doing good works. God accepts us not because of works that in themselves are stained by sin, but because of the meritorious work of Jesus Christ. Calvin notes, “Having thus received us in His favour, He graciously accepts our works also, and it is upon this undeserved acceptance that the reward depends.”*

Here is how DeYoung responds to one of his critics (for the very good article go here):

This would be a serious deficiency, so it’s worth probing a bit further. Is the deepest problem in every situation and in every sinful struggle our failure to appropriate the gospel? Perhaps—depends on your definitions. I don’t have a problem saying at the root of every problem is a misfiring of the gospel. But neither would I have a problem saying that at its root every sin is a failure to recognize the Lordship of Christ, or to believe the promises of God, or to accept the goodness of God’s commands, or to trust the word of God, or to recognize our union with Christ, or to celebrate the character of God, or to find our satisfaction in Jesus, or to live in the power of the Spirit. I suppose someone may say, “Yes, that’s it exactly. And all of that is a failure to appropriate the gospel.” But then “gospel” has become shorthand for almost any spiritual blessing evidenced in Scripture. And if that’s our working definition of the gospel, I don’t mind, so long as we don’t expect everyone to give a hat-tip to “gospel” before we say anything else.

The gospel is, in one sense, the answer for everything. It unmasks our legalism and our antinomianism. Paul certainly confronts the “let’s continue in sin” attitude in Romans 6 by reminding us that we are dead to sin and alive to righteousness by virtue of our union with Christ. I have a whole section in the book on the glories of Romans 6. But it would be a mistake to think this is the only way to confront sin, or the only truly gospel-centered approach, or the only one that gets to the ultimate problem. In Romans 13 Paul attacks the libertines of his day by warning them of Christ’s return. This is a gracious gospel truth too, though not, I think, what people have in mind when they argue that the antidote for the abuse of grace is more grace.

Thabiti Anyabwile also has some very wise words in the discussion that even convicts me and reminds me to connect the dots with the Gospel being the answer and whatever problem. For this article go here.

I believe some folks have mastered the doctrine of justification but have fumbled the doctrine of sanctification out of some "phantom fear" of legalism.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Fernando


*Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 19: Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. New Testament Commentary (180–181). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones (On Inappropriate Discussions In The Church)

‘And the house when it was in building was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither.’ Then—‘So that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building’ (1 Kings 6:7). What a vital principle this is! Being interpreted and put into its modern dress it is this. There should be no discussion and no debate and no disagreement in the Church about vital truths. There is to be none of this noise of chiselling and hammering and forming and preparation in the Church. That happens before you come into the Church. There should be no discussion in the Christian Church about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. There should be no discussion in the Church about the position and condition of man in sin. There should be no discussion in the Church about the substitutionary atonement, and regeneration, and the Person of the Spirit, and all the doctrines of grace. There must be no noise of discussion about these things. All that should have happened beforehand.

...The gospel of Jesus Christ is not something which offers itself to us for debate or discussion, but for our definite acceptance and belief. It desires not our approval but demands our obedience. It does not court discussion but rather commands diligence.*

*Sargent, T. (2007). Gems from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Anthology of Quotations from 'the Doctor' (86). Milton Keynes, England; Colorado Springs, CO; Hyderabad, AP: Paternoster.

My Holy Land Regret

When it comes to spending money on any product--I am a top-notch researcher. I spend endless hours till I am satisfied knowing my expectations will be met (I am not cheap-- just fiscally conservative). Unfortunately, likely due to my excitement of being on vacation in Florida, I decided to attend The Holy Land. Yes, this confessionally reformed baptist took a voyage to TBN's "Holy-Land". Before you launch your stones at ninety miles an hour, hear me out. I had no idea the Holy Land attraction was owned by TBN (I live in a cave). I didn't even know what the attractions were, other than knowing they reenacted stories from scripture. I learned of TBN's ownership the night before and despite the warnings, I decided to visit.

As we were about to pay for two tickets, priced at forty dollars each, there was a large "no refund" sign in bold. That should have been enough to tell me to head back to the resort, jump in my dolphin designed swim trunks, and enjoy the sun. But my stubbornness got the best of me, and I walked the plank.

You know those wild west movies, when they show the middle of the town, and there is not a soul in sight-- that's exactly what it was like walking in. It was empty. But not so far away, there was some contemporary Christian music playing, so we headed towards the ruckus, and saw some morning worship. Didn't stay very long, as it was very charismatic-y. At the confused book store, it was filled with your typical dispensational left behind junk, and some J.C Ryle and Spurgeon gems. We headed toward the "Scriptorium", and found it to be the best part of the park. It's a "journey" that allows you to see some early manuscripts. They move through church history, highlighting Tyndale's print shop, John Bunyan's jail cell, Spurgeon's preaching, and Calvin's Geneva bible. At the end of this journey, they rightly ask, "what are you doing with God's word?", and it ended with a faithful gospel presentation.

They had a restaurant where people can eat. I chose to eat at the food stand outside, and ordered some Chick-Fil-A (it was inexpensive). The dramas at the "church of all nations" were...okay. Nothing special. I was blessed by a drama that highlighted God forgiving David after his shameful act of taking Bathsheba and killing Uriah the Hittite. After this play, they had a charismatic preacher tarnish the message by promising a year of prosperity. Little did I hear, as I chose to skip the charismania, and walk around. The rest was pathetic. The children's area was tiny.

All in all--it's like burning money. Save your money, and take your kids to Discovery Cove. Its also located in Orlando, and its a day full of fun.

The problem with "The Holy Land", is not with its cheap attractions, and mediocre dramas. I'm sure there are people who love the place. The problem lies else where, first with its glorification of images, which is a second commandment violation, and its false and contradicting messages.

R.C Sproul and me.


- awretchsaved

Weekly Dose of Lloyd-Jones (On the Differences Between The Roman Catholic and Protestant Views of Justification)

But the great question is: What was the Protestant Reformation about? What did Martin Luther rediscover? What did he find when he went back to the Scriptures? And you see, therefore, that it is something which is vital and about which we should be absolutely clear. So another good way of testing ourselves is to picture ourselves seated at a table with an examination paper in front of us and here is the question: ‘Give an account of the doctrine of justification by faith only.’ Do you know what it is that makes you a Protestant, what it is the marks you off from the Roman Catholics? That is the test.

So, let us look at this doctrine together, and perhaps the best approach is historical. Why was Martin Luther in trouble before his conversion? What was wrong with him before this truth suddenly dawned upon him? And what is wrong with all who are vague and indefinite and uncertain about the whole question of justification by faith? Now it was not that Luther had not heard of the term ‘Justification’, because he had. What was wrong with him was that he had the wrong view of it. In other words, he had the typical Roman Catholic view of justification by faith. Roman Catholics claim to teach that doctrine, but they never say ‘justification by faith only’. They regard that as the Protestant heresy.

First, then, let us look at this Roman Catholic error and in its essence it is this: the Roman Catholic Church confuses justification with sanctification. And that had been the trouble with Martin Luther before his conversion. The Roman Catholic view of justification is, first of all, that it means and includes forgiveness of sins and they are all right at that point. But they add that the sin inherent in us is taken out of us for Christ’s sake. And they do not even stop at that. They go on to say that in justification there is a positive infusion of grace into us and that, of course, comes by means of baptism. They say that in the act of baptism, grace is actually infused into the person who is baptised and that is a part of justification. Forgiveness, removal of sin—yes—but also the infusion at baptism of a positive righteousness, and not merely a positive righteousness, but the life of God as well.

And then Roman Catholics go on to say that justification is progressive. Of course, they are quite consistent there. If there is this infusion of grace, that is going to grow and develop, the justification must be progressive. Furthermore, typically, they have to go further and they even say it can be lost if we become guilty of what they call, ‘mortal sin’. But then, if we do lose it, they say that we can regain it by going through the sacrament of penance and the process of regaining it will be completed in purgatory.

Now that is the characteristic Roman Catholic view and that was the view that was held by Martin Luther before his conversion. But then, you remember, the story of his life goes on to tell us that suddenly he saw a statement in the Scripture. He had read it many times before but he had never truly seen it. This is what he saw: ‘The just shall live by faith’ (Rom. 1:17)—and these words absolutely changed everything for him. His whole life was revolutionised; he became an entirely different man. He suddenly saw that all his past ideas on justification had been quite unscriptural, utterly false, and the moment he saw this, he experienced a great liberation of his soul. He began to preach this truth and so began the great and mighty work of reformation.

Exactly what, then, did Luther see? It was that justification is a judicial act of God in which He declares that He regards those of us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, as righteous on the grounds of the work and merit of Christ. God imputes and ascribes Christ’s righteousness to us, and we rest on that by faith. That is what Luther saw. As a result, in a moment, he knew that he was right with God. Luther’s problem had been that of job: ‘How should a man be just with God?’ (Job 9:2). How can a man stand in the presence of God? That was the problem that oppressed the mind and heart of Luther. There he was, a monk in his cell, asking, ‘How can I put myself right with God?’ He fasted, he prayed, he sweated, he did good deeds, and yet the whole time he was more and more aware of the blackness and darkness of his own heart and of the utter unutterable righteousness and holiness of God. And he was trying to fit himself, to make himself just, along that Roman Catholic way, and he could not, but there he saw it suddenly. God declares him righteous, and he is righteous, because God says so, because God puts to his account the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is the historical background in which we should rejoice more and more. The crux of the matter is this: the great mistake we all tend to fall in, as Luther had done, with regard to justification, is that we tend to think that justification means that we are made righteous or good or upright or holy. But that is quite wrong. In justification we are not made righteous, we are declared to be righteous—the thing is quite different. To say that in justification you are made righteous is to confuse it with sanctification. Justification is something legal or forensic. It is God, as the judge, who is responsible for administering His own law, saying to us that as regards the law He is satisfied with us because of the righteousness of Christ. Justification is a declaratory act. It does not do anything to us; it says something about us. It has no reference to my actual state or condition inside; it has reference to my standing, to my position, to my appearing in the presence of God. Now that is the biblical doctrine of justification. That is what Luther discovered; that is what he began to preach and, in a sense, he spent the rest of his life in preaching it. It is the great central doctrine of all Protestantism and in every great revival you will find that this always comes to the forefront. It was what Whitefield used to preach, as did John Wesley.*

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (167–170). Wheaton, IL: Crossways Books.