Home » Puritans » Page 2

Category: Puritans

Make Your Soul a Library of Christ

Someone told me an interesting story the other day that goes like this: Someone came into my place of work distressed (I was not present at the time). The man was noticeably crying. He asked a clerk if she had a Bible. He said he was in desperate need of one at the moment. She happened to have a Gideon New Testament, with Psalms and Proverbs (I don’t call them Bibles) tucked away in her desk, and so she gave it to him.

Fast forward a few hours to that evening as I am reading Thomas Watson’s book, The Bible and the Closet. Watson observes that some people only want to read the Bible when they are sad and in need of encouragement. He writes,

…When they are sad, they bring forth the Scripture as their harp to drive away the evil spirit…

The lesson is simple: the music needs to be playing all the time. He mentions the phrase of Jerome concerning Cecilia, that she “had by much reading of the Word, made her heart the Library of Christ…” He continues,

Were the Scriptures confined to the original tongues, many would plead excuse for not reading; but when the sword of the Spirit is unsheathed, and the Word is made plain to us by being translated, what should hinder us from a diligent search into these holy mysteries?

Feast on the Scriptures now before the famine comes. Let your mind be formed through much reading of the Scripture that it may be the Library of Christ. Be determined, as Spurgeon says, to ‘bleed Bibline’:

I would quote John Bunyan as an instance of what I mean. Read anything of his, and you will see that it is almost like the reading the Bible itself. He had read it till his very soul was saturated with Scripture; and, though his writings are charmingly full of poetry, yet he cannot give us his Pilgrim’s Progress—that sweetest of all prose poems — without continually making us feel and say, “Why, this man is a living Bible!” Prick him anywhere—his blood is Bibline, the very essence of the Bible flows from him. He cannot speak without quoting a text, for his very soul is full of the Word of God. I commend his example to you, beloved.

A Theology of the Sabbath (5): Follow-Up Questions Concerning Application

This is a follow-up to a four part series on John Owen’s doctrine of the Sabbath. The other posts will clarify the answers here. See Part 1 (the Sabbath as Moral and Mosaical) HERE,  part 2 (the Sabbath in the Covenant of Works) HERE, part 3 (Christ’s fulfillment of the Sabbath in the Covenant of Works and its Mosaical Elements) HERE, and part 4 (on the Sabbath in the New Covenant) HERE. For a summary list of quotations by Owen see HERE.

When I started blogging through John Owen’s treatise on the Sabbath, Brian posed several questions for discussion. I’ve kept them in mind as I’ve thought through Owen. These are my attempts to answer the questions:

  • I would love to hear your take on America’s historical “Blue Laws”, related to Owen’s thoughts.

Unless I missed it somewhere, Owen did not argue for or against state-based laws regarding the Sabbath. Reading between the lines, however, I do not think he would necessarily be for such laws (my main reason for this is the fact that he was a convinced Congregationalist, who likely would not want the government over-meddling in the affairs of the church). That’s the simple answer, let me expand it a bit.

Owen’s main case for the New Covenant Sabbath is that it is realized spiritually only as we rest and trust in Jesus Christ as he is offered in the gospel. The actual observance of the first day Sabbath is simply a sign and symbol pointing to that reality – Christ resting from his works, and us resting in Christ. It therefore would seem illogical to demand that pagans and atheists observe the Sabbath. It could be enforced as a law just as much as idolatry and graven images could be banned, which is not an easy task. Therefore, at least in my mind, I see the Sabbath as a wonderful opportunity to be counter-cultural. It should be one of the things that distinguishes God’s people from the world.

Now the problem with what I have just written is that the Sabbath command (in principle, not as a civil law) remains in effect for all time. This means that those who fail to honor it are sinning. Shouldn’t we therefore encourage the world not to sin in this regard? My answer to this is that we cannot do this by coercion; we need to preach the law and preach the gospel. Conversion is the answer, not coercion.

  • I would also enjoy hearing your take on pastoral recommendations to their busy flocks to take a “sabbath hour” if you cannot find time to rest for the whole day. Along those same lines, I’ve also seen the particular day extolled as entirely unimportant by some Christians, claiming that you can just take a “day of rest” or a moment of rest, whenever you find time in the week. Finally, this all would seem connected to the modern [Americans’] blatant disdain for tradition and symbolism. Can you speak to all of this?

We’ve discussed this already to a degree. The idea of a ‘sabbath’ hour is not related to the fourth commandment, which entailed one entire day each week. As for any day of the week serving as a sabbath, again I don’t think this can be justified biblically. If we observe the first day of the week as a sabbath precisely because of its connection to the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week, then we are missing the entire point by observing it on another day. If sabbath only entails rest, this could be feasible; but I’ve followed Owen in emphasizing the fact that the sabbath is not simply about physical rest. It is about resting in Christ, as he is offered in the gospel; and the first day of the week connects us to the reality of the resurrection in particular.

If you want to apply this principle to daily life, then the primary application, I think, would be that we are constantly resting and trusting in Christ. This means that we are not to be striving for acceptance with God, but that we are already accepted in Christ by faith. Living in that light honors the principle of the sabbath. It means that we can die to sin and rise from the dead anew each day as we wake from our sleep to live by the power of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

The last thing to cover here is the simple idea of physical rest. I do not think our traditional idea of a weekend is what the Lord Jesus Christ has in mind when he calls us to rest in him. But I am reminded of an anecdote:

 At one point in the course of their very influential ministries, George Whitfield, the Calvinist evangelist, and John Wesley, the Arminian evangelist, were preaching together in the daytime and rooming together in the same boarding house each night. One evening after a particularly strenuous day the two of them returned to the boarding house exhausted and prepared for bed. When they were ready each knelt beside the bed to pray. Whitfield, prayed like this, “Lord we thank Thee for all of those with whom we spoke today, and we rejoice that their lives and destinies are entirely in Thy hand. Honor our efforts according to Thy perfect will. Amen.” He rose from his knees and got into bed. Wesley, who had hardly gotten past the invocation of his prayer in this length of time, looked up from his side of the bed and said, “Mr. Whitefield, is this where your Calvinism leads you?” Then he put his head down and went on praying. Whitefield stayed in bed and went to sleep. About two hours later Whitefield woke up, and there was Wesley still on his knees beside his bed. So Whitefield got up and went around the bed to where Wesley was kneeling. When he got there he found Wesley asleep. He shook him by the shoulders and said to him, “Mr. Wesley, is this where your Arminianism leads you?”

Who correctly applied the principle of rest before work?

Lastly under this heading, let’s speak to modern America’s ‘disdain for tradition and symbolism.’ America is a strange contradiction here. In some sense, modern folk love tradition and symbolism. We love holidays. We’re fresh off the heels of halloween; there’s certainly a lot of tradition and symbolism there. Same goes for the fourth of July, St. Patrick’s Day, Valentine’s Day etc. We have a weekly rhythm of five days of work and two off. There is certainly some tradition and symbolism involved in that (TGIF).

The thing that leaps out at me, however, in these symbols and traditions that American’s love is that we have weighed them down with our own baggage. The Fourth of July means fireworks; Valentine’s Day means candy and roses; St. Patrick’s Day means green and beer. We love the weekend because it means time off from work, time to party, hang out, whatever. What we really hate are symbols and traditions that are not about us and our self-fulfillment, especially blatantly religious traditions and symbols which resist being re-branded. We’ve tried it with the sabbath – we call it the weekend. The problem is that a day or two off from work does not offer man the rest that he truly needs. Physical rest pales to the deep rest of the soul in Christ.

  • I would also like to hear what you think about calling it the “Sabbath” vs “The Lord’s Day.”

Owen called it both, and I have no problem with that. The Lord’s Day title is more of a traditional title since it’s hard to argue that ‘Lord’s day’ spoken of by John in Revelation was necessarily the first day of the week. It may very well have been, but it’s hard to sustantiate beyond doubt. That does not mean, however, that we cannot use the title with confidence.

Pieper (in Leisure) argues that the sabbath is akin to the temple in that it is cut off specifically for the service of the Lord. The temple was cut off geographically; the sabbath is cut off chronistically (you could say chronologically I suppose). It is the Lord’s day in that sense. Jesus also calls himself ‘Lord of the Sabbath,’ which at least means that he asserts ownership over it.

The issue here is that we are pretty much afraid to use the term ‘sabbath’ today, because we have a distinct sense that we do not observe the first day of the week in that way. If that’s true, then the term ‘Lord’s Day’ could serve as a cop-out, and we don’t want that. Which means that we need to remind people that the day actually does belong to Christ in a special sense in comparison to all other days. He is the Lord of time, but he claims special ownership over the day of his resurrection. And if Owen’s doctrine is correct, this is vital to our spiritual well-being.

Law and Gospel and Application

This is the third and last entry in a series on ‘meaning and application.’ See Part 1 and Part 2.

William Perkins’ book, The Art of Prophesying, is a gem. It is written as a means of instruction for preachers, but Perkins’ principles of interpretation can be used by anyone. With that said, here is what Perkins writes about biblical application:

Application is the skill by which the doctrine which has been properly drawn from Scripture is handled in ways which are appropriate to the circumstances of the place and time and to the people in the congregation (p. 54).

For an individual who is not a preacher, we would simply say that application is drawing out the teaching of a passage in such a way that it is instructive (in any number of ways, both negative and positive) to himself and his world (including his family, church, culture, etc.).

Perkins then goes on to describe what he considered to be the most important element of the application of Scripture:

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect stimulates and stirs it up. However the gospel not only teaches what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it. When we are regenerated by him we receive the strength we need both to believe the gospel and to do what it commands. The law is, therefore, first in the order of teaching; then comes the gospel (p. 54).

He also notes that

…Many statements which seem to belong to the law are, in the light of Christ, to be understood not legally but as qualified by the gospel (p. 55).

This is how the Israelites should have understood the Law – as qualified by redemption. But, the Apostle Paul writes,

Brothers,my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them (Romans 10:1-5).

They did not properly qualify the Law by the Gospel. If you take “do this and live” to mean that you are actually capable of gaining life through obedience, then you’ve missed the qualification of the Gospel, which tells us that Christ obeyed the Law in our behalf that we might be counted blameless through him.

This is an aspect of what Perkins recognizes as ‘rightly dividing the Word of truth’ (2 Tim. 2:15). It has been widely observed that the Apostle Paul uses a Greek word (Ὀρθοτόμεω) relating to his ‘second job’ as a tent-maker when he speaks of the art of ‘rightly dividing.’ He wants Timothy to ‘cut straight the Word of Truth.’ Perkins relates the word to the Old Testament sacrifices:

Right cutting is the way in which the Word is enabled to edify the people of God…

The idea of cutting here is mataphorical language possibly derived from the activity of the Levites, who were required to cut the limbs of the animals they sacrificed with great care. It is of this skill that the Messiah speaks: ‘The Lord has given Me the tongue of the learned, That I shoul dknow how to speak a word in season to him who is weary’ (Isa. 50:4).

There are two elements in this [right cutting of the Word]: (i) resolution or partition, and (ii) application.

Resolution is the unfolding of the passage into its various doctrines, like the untwisting and loosening of a weaver’s web…Sometimes the doctrine is explicitly stated in the passage…On other occasions a doctrine not specifically stated is correctly drawn from the text because, in one sense or another, it is implied in what is written…Note, however, that doctrines ought to be deduced from passages only when it is proper and valid to do so. They must be derived from the genuine meaning of the Scripture. Otherwise we will end up drawing any doctrine from any place in the Bible (pp. 48-51).

Perkins will go on to make his argument that the key principle of application is discerning between Law and Gospel, and a proper qualifying of the Law by the Gospel – this is a part of ‘cutting straight the Word of truth.’

Let me summarize: If you are going to apply the Scriptures well, you need to know the difference between law and gospel and you need to be able to understand how the law is qualified (i.e. how our position in relation to the law is qualified) by the gospel. Once you understand the law as law, and your inability to gain righteousness through it, you are well on your way to a proper application of the law. But if you stay there, if you fix your eyes on the law as if you will be able to produce righteousness in your own power, then you have failed to properly distinguish law from gospel. The Holy Spirit (read Romans 8) works through the gospel and gospel principles. You must therefore take the law and qualify it according to the gospel. This can be as simple as: I have failed, I know that in my own power I will still fail, but Christ has succeeded and paid for my sins, therefore I will walk by faith in him. This is the attitude the Spirit promises to bless. This is the “mindset of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:6) – always looking to Christ as he is offered in the gospel. (Read more about that HERE).

The main point here, from Perkins, is that in order to apply a passage legitimately, which also implies a proper understanding of the meaning of the text, you must train yourself diligently in what Walter Marshall calls “the rare and excellent art of godliness.” That is, obedience motivated by gospel principles. And in order to seek holiness by gospel principles, you must be able to discern the Scriptures’ distinction between Law and Gospel, which includes the qualifying of the Law by the Gospel.

On Not Being Righteous Overmuch

That precept of Solomon, ‘Be not righteous over much’ (Eccles. 7:16) is very useful and necessary, if rightly understood. We are to beware of being too rigorous in exacting righteousness of ourselves and others beyond the measure of faith and grace. Overdoing commonly proves undoing. Children that venture on their feet beyond their strength have many a fall, and so have babes in Christ when they venture unnecessarily upon such duties as are beyond the strength of their faith. We should be content at present to do the best that we can, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, though we know that others are enabled to do much better; and we are not to despise the day of small things, but to praise God that He works in us anything that is well-pleasing in His sight, hoping that He will sanctify us throughout and bring us at last to perfection of holiness through Jesus Christ our Lord. And we should carefully observe in all things that good lesson of the apostle: ‘Not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith’ (Rom. 12:3).

-Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, Chapter 12

This section demonstrates Marshall’s pastoral heart more than any other section of the book. Anyone who has worked in the ministry likely realizes that you cannot set the same bars for everyone – even in regards to holiness.

Chesterton once quipped something to the effect that the Puritans wanted to turn the whole world into a monastery. This is a caricature, but it has some teeth. There are those who have misused Puritanism in that way. I would prefer to think that the Puritans wanted to open up the windows of the monastery and let some fresh air in. They didn’t think anyone was strong enough to be a good monk (much less a good Christian) under that suffocating air. C.S. Lewis once pointed out that the tone of the early Reformers and Puritans was one of relief and buoyancy. If our Christianity doesn’t follow that trajectory of relief and buoyancy, then we’re headed down an inverted, yet somehow genuine, primrose path.

So much for the anecdotal, let’s get to a couple of actual points.

First, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 exist for a reason. Elders and deacons are called to a higher standard than others within the church. If the are quick-tempered, for instance, they are disqualified from the ministry. If other Christians are quick-tempered, they might be disqualified from partaking of The Lord’s Supper from time to time. The Apostle James made a similar point: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). Those texts tell me that I should hold teachers (including myself)/elders to a higher standard of holiness than I would hold someone else in the same congregation. For instance, I probably can’t count the number of times I have let church members get away with saying things (without a rebuke) that I would have chided an elder for. If God judges the teacher with greater strictness, then we should as well.

Allow me to anticipate an objection: this does not mean that ministers never sin and should never be shown grace. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 do not say that the minister must be perfect. But they do set a certain standard. They still get grace, but there are sins that disqualify them from office. Such sins do not necessarily mean that they are not a Christian; but it does mean that they are not called of God to be elders or deacons or what have you.

Second, the world is not a monastery. We want our people to live holy lives to be sure, but we do not want them to be stiffs. We don’t want to destroy their personalities, but we want their personalities to be submitted to the person of Christ. We want them to live in this world, to have fun, to learn from their mistakes, and ultimately to live a life of repentance. And, sadly, a life of repentance implies a life that includes sin. This does not mean that they will live in constant sin, but it does mean that they will fall. The Christian doesn’t stay in sin, but he certainly will fall into sin. Yet he keeps turning from it.

Third, speaking of living their lives, Christians should not feel under constant oppression. God does not have his thumb on us. As Spurgeon said, not a drop of water gets inside the ark; likewise, not a drop of wrath gets near the Christian. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Christians are serving a loving Father, not a tyrannical despot. Luther wrote something to this effect: sin boldly, but let your faith in Christ be bolder. I want the people I teach to be unafraid of screwing up. I don’t want them to be looking over their shoulders, constantly in fear that the hammer is about to drop. I want them to know what sin is, and I want them to know when they sin, but I also want them to know the feeling of gospel relief on a daily basis.

In his great hymn, Here, O My Lord, I See Thee Face to Face, Horatius Bonar described his desire in partaking of The Lord’s Supper in this way:

Here would I feed upon the bread of God,
Here drink with Thee the royal wine of heaven;
Here would I lay aside each earthly load,
Here taste afresh the calm of sin forgiven.

The calm of sin forgiven, tasted afresh. That’s it.

Fourth, I’ll bottom line this line of thought. I know what it is like to put yourself under tremendous pressure to live in holiness. I read books about sanctification and talk about Law and Gospel a lot. The reason I do so is this: I am a closet Legalist. I’ve known this for years. I distinctly remember the relief I felt a few years ago upon reading The True Bounds of Christian Freedom and realizing that I am not under the Law as a covenant. But, you see, I already knew that. I just hadn’t experienced the relief of that fact up until that point in time.

An amazing thing happened at that point. My preaching improved, and so did my life – my wife can attest to it. I tell people that the gospel frees us up to be screw-ups without fear of not being loved. If I didn’t believe that I wouldn’t have lasted this long. There are days when I will fight myself on and off for hours at a time over sinful thoughts and temptations – even stupid temptations that 99% of the world isn’t the least concerned about (like how many hours I sleep and how many minutes I spend reading the Bible in a given day). When I do this in my own strength I only beat myself down. When I remember the grace of Jesus Christ, I find myself built up. If that is my own experience why would I put that sort of pressure on other people? I don’t want them to think that sin is ‘okay.’ But I want them to know that God is gracious and forgiving to those who are trusting in his Son. And I want them to know (as I want my children and my wife to know) that I don’t expect them to be exactly like me – or exactly like Christ (and I am by no means exactly like Christ).

To expect perfection is to have an over-realized eschatology. We won’t be eternal splendors until we get to eternity. We are, says Peterson, in the midst of a long obedience in the same direction. That direction implies a destination that we haven’t reached. Don’t expect yourself to be there when you’re still en route. You know what it’s like to wish you had the magic button so that your tedious car-ride would be over. But no magic button exists this side of death. The good thing is that there are radios and audio books and fun games that can be played in the car along the way. I’ve learned more on some car-trips than I did in seminary classes. You’ll get there, Lord willing. The road has bumps and can be tedious, but you’ll get there.

As for how we treat others: we want to encourage one another in holiness, but we want to do so in a godly way. To encourage people to godliness in an ungodly way is the height of hypocrisy. So then, how does God encourage his people to godliness? By gospel means. Go and do thou likewise.

Ordering the Soul through Prayer (The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification)

Strive to bring your soul into order by this duty, however disordered by guilt, anguish, inordinate cares or fears…A watch must be often wound up. You must wrestle in prayer against your unbelief, doubting, fears, cares, reluctancy of the flesh to that which is good; against all evil lusts and desires, coldness of affection, impatience, trouble of spirit; everything that is contrary to a holy life and the grace and holy desires to be acted for yourselves or others…Stir up yourselves to this duty…

– Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, Chapter 13

I like Marshall’s language of ‘ordering’ the soul by prayer; it’s very much true to my experience. I wake up every morning, more or less, a disordered mess, and find that prayer is the only means by which I can get my mind, and frame of mind, in the right condition to face the day.

For this reason, prayer is highly instructive. It not only grabs ahold of God’s promises; it is a means God uses to teach us to love what is good and hate what is evil. For in it we pray against what is evil within us and seek after good; we repent of sin and seek grace; we turn from self-centeredness and seek to align ourselves with God’s purposes.

The Rare and Excellent Art of Godliness (The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification)

We are said to walk according to either of these states [flesh/spirit, law/gospel], or to the principles and means that belong to either of them, when we are moved and guided by virtue of them to such actings as are agreeable to them. Thus kings act according to their state in commanding authoritatively, and in magnificent bounty; poor men, in a way of service and obedience, and children, indiscriminately…So the manner of practice here directed to consists in moving and guiding ourselves in the performance of the works of the law by gospel principles and means. This is the rare and excellent art of godliness, in which every Christian should strive to be skillful and expert.

-Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, Loc. 2705-10 (Get a free copy for Kindle HERE).

I love the phrase “the rare and excellent art of godliness.” This art, Marshall says, is “the performance of the works of the law by gospel principles and means.” He adds that Christians should exert themselves to become skillful experts in the practice of this art.

William Perkins called theology “the science of living blessedly forever.” This is the Puritan notion of biblical application: We study the Scriptures in order to understand and apply (though you cannot separate understanding and application) the Law and the Gospel. And the one who understands/applies the Law and the Gospel properly will be driven to the gospel by the law and then empowered by the gospel unto obedience; that is, to “perform the works of the law by gospel principles and means.”

There are three quotes that I always go to in order to illustrate this principle:

First, Samuel Bolton, in The True Bounds of Christian Freedom, put it this way: “The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.” Second, Isaac Watts put it this way:

The Law commands and makes us know
What duties to our God we owe
But ’tis the Gospel must reveal
Where lies our strength to do His will

Third, Ralph Erskine wrote,

The law says, Do, and life you’ll win;
But grace says, Live, for all is done.

Each author is making the same point; and it is a point that we need to heed if we want to be “skilled and expert” in the “rare and excellent art of godliness.”