Shepherd the Flock

I found this John Owen excerpt proper considering yesterday’s post about church gimmicks and boosting attendance:

“…evangelical theology insists that the glory of religious worship is its internal and spiritual nature…To the natural man, therefore, no religious worship is pleasing unless he can see something of glory and splendor.”

“Notional religion must ever devise new rites, novel ceremonies, and so on until the whole of worship is converted into empty, superstitious, theatrical farrago of worldly rites all dished up in a rich sauce of idolatry.” – Biblical Theology, p665 (emphasis mine)

Above, Owen rightly identifies a cause of idolatry and apostasy within the church: an abandonment of the simple, God-given ordinances of worship in favor of more spectacular, showy, man-pleasing extravaganzas.

To the natural and unbelieving heart, the church must have gimmicks, entertainment, and some kind of visible glory, such as speaking in tongues, or even extravagant music that appeals to our emotions and makes us feel good. For the simple, God-given ordinances of singing Psalms and Hymns to God’s glory alone, prayer, the preaching of the word, and the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is simply too boring and seemingly ineffective for the natural man to accept.

Interestingly enough, I think this desire for ‘visible glory’ shows itself in a number of ways. Consider the desire for ‘instant’ conversions, large altar calls with people getting saved right then and there, otherwise we might deem the service some kind of failure; consider how we deem church as unprofitable if the preacher doesn’t give us something practical or profound that we can take home with that day; consider how our emotions must be fed to ‘feel’ the presence or glory of God for us to deem it worthwhile; consider how offerings/giving is setup on a successful/unsuccessful scale, etc. Regardless, instant, visible glory is seemingly all this culture wants in church.

So what is the role of a church? It is the role of the church to figure out how to get people in the door, or is obeying our God in how He has instructed us to gather and worship? Is the role of the church to feed the desires of the people in order to get them in and get them to stay, or is it to feed the desires of God through the worship He has instituted?

My friends, though we may want to have larger fellowships, and though we DO want unbelievers to walk into our gatherings, when these desires supersede the clear instruction of scripture in that we are to gather to worship the Lord Jesus Christ through the means which He has given us, we then give ourselves to idolatry and thus feed the natural, sinful corruptions of man in his fallen state.

Sure, I agree, the musical shows, dramas, comedy, video-clips, gimmicks, programs, youth and singles functions, giveaways, etc., do indeed make the church attractive and entertaining, but they undermine the very gospel itself by making worship all about us and our desires rather than all about God and what He has commanded. Let us go back to what God has already said –and examine where we’re not walking in obedience, rather than searching for the new ‘thing’ and excitement to make church more pleasing to those who hate God and His instituted worship. Anything less is, well, idolatrous and vain self-worship.

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

Last week I was interviewed by a member of the Associated Press in regards to a blog article I had written earlier this year, Free Gas Giveways to Save Souls?

The writer, a very kind gentlemen, was doing a piece on Churches that promote Gasoline gift-cards and such to get attention and increase attendance, and he came across my blog article and wanted to inquire further. You can find his article in a few spots, one being at USA Today:

Godly or gimmick? Churches offer free gas

We talked a good bit about the subject, and I tried to be as ‘bipartisan’ as possible by not turning this into a simple doctrinal dispute. That is, lest unbelievers read and assume it’s just an argument about ‘words and names in our own law’, I tried to emphasize that the practice is a matter of integrity, and essentially, the very gospel itself.

Just a short sound-bite of my comments were included in the article, and as quoted, they were:

Nathan White, an Atlanta-area Baptist, was troubled by a church gas card raffle he learned about at a Baptist church in Snellville, Ga. The corporate executive, who plans to become a pastor, thinks gas giveaways are shameful financial gimmicks that undermine the Gospel.

“They are appealing to the natural corruptions in unbelieving people … . The Bible warns very explicitly about the dangers of greed, the love of money being the root of all evil,” said White. “Appealing to the selfish motives of people is not Christianity.”

I went on from there about the high calling of Jesus in the gospel, the nature of true repentance as being the opposite of self-fulfillment, and even the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, which is essentially the age-old argument over whether salvation is of good works or faith alone.

But to give the full context, let me expound a little further here:

• The gospel of Jesus Christ is about repenting from sin and turning away from the natural desires of our flesh; it is diametrically opposed to self-fulfillment.
• As JM Boice has said: “What you save them with is what you save them to.” That is, if you entice them with something to get them in and signed up, you’ve won them to that, not the gospel, and as soon as the enticement is gone, they will fall away.
• Also, in regards to simple integrity: is there no concern about a church, which obviously depends on giving to meet their financial needs, using gimmicks to increase attendance?

Again, the practice is more than a simple doctrinal dispute. The practice of enticing unbelievers to come to church by appealing to corruptions that are explicitly stated in scripture, is to undermine Christianity at it’s very core.

Nevertheless: what do you think about the article and my comments? Could I have taken it in a better direction, and/or was I too harsh?

For those wanting to know more about my comments and essentially, a fuller presentation of my argument, feel free to ask, or check out some of the following posts:

• Blasphemy in Today’s Churches
• Saved from What?
• Mike Horton on Joel Osteen’s Message: “It is certainly heresy”

It should be widely agreed upon that the American church is largely in a state of apostasy. The evidence for such a statement should be obvious: false doctrine and heresies abound, blatant sins are often casually overlooked, and more people than ever profess Christ and maybe even attend church on occasion –but clearly without evidence that they have repented of their sin.

So the church, that is the outwardly professing church, is in deep trouble. But what is the reason for it? Why have so many protestant denominations ‘lost’ or have abandoned the pure gospel?

I think there are many answers to this question; one of the chief answers being of course that the scriptures are not taken as authoritative, Christ is not given His rightful title as Head of the Church, and false heresies and doctrine have leavened almost the entire lump.

But how can we break it down more precisely? Where is the source of this poisonous spring?

I stumbled upon John Owen on this subject last week, and I think his words are very wise as to this subject. In fact, it is almost as if Owen was speaking of our day. Consider his words below.

John Owen, the great Puritan theologian of the 17th century, in the book Biblical Theology, p660-661, states that the first factor in apostasy among evangelical theology (distinct from the Roman Catholic Church),

“…concerns the membership of the Church, because a true Church can, obviously, only be made up of people who are regenerate and who display reformed lives, observing the truth and living blamelessly before men.”

So here Owen points to the first facet of apostasy as being unregenerate church membership. Certainly he’s on to something here in relation to the modern church, no? Are not our cities and even our churches full of people who profess to believe in Jesus? I mean, I even heard Barack Obama profess Jesus Christ this week, in relation to Christ dying and forgiving his sins. This from a man who denies that life begins at conception! Who is it that cannot profess Christ now days, no matter what they live like?

But let Owen conclude the thought; it is worth its weight in gold:

“Many took up the title of Christian who were still profane, superstitious, carnal, proud, greedy, luxurious –indeed, they rushed into the churches in crowds.”

“…From this influx, it is not surprising that the doctrine of faith and, most especially, that of the new birth became so rapidly corrupted in the churches…until, at length, Christian church discipline was remodeled on the fashion of the pagan secular state.”

There you have it, my friends. You have a great number of people taking on the name of Christianity, as we do in our day, and these people rush into the church. Only now days, they have more reason than ever to rush into the church. Consider that a large movement within this country believes that:

• Evangelism is somehow equated with getting unbelievers in the church, something that scripture diametrically opposes.

• Thus, church programs, social functions, entertainments, and enticements are abundant in an attempt to lure in unchurched, unregenerate, indeed, profane ‘Joe’.

The end result, of course, is that the American church is filled to the brim with those who profess Christ but are yet still lost and dead in their sins. Once this has taken place, church discipline, holiness, indeed the very gospel itself, along with countless other vital doctrines are redefined and remodeled according to the prevailing few of the day –rather than according to scripture.

Finally, Owen gives us the end result of such a movement,

“And so it came about that faith was neglected, doctrine no longer studied, regeneration equated to the mechanical performance of the rite of baptism…by that time, most of the world had taken up the Christian profession so, at length, everything that had been instituted by Christ was basely transmuted into another gospel.”

Let us sum this up for this day and age:

• Church discipline is neglected, the church fills with unbelievers; or, unbelievers are enticed into the church, thus proving that church discipline was thrown out long ago,

• The true faith, pure gospel doctrine, is neglected and no longer studied are carefully considered/defended,

• Regeneration is equated with a raising of the hand, a ‘decision’, an act of the will, a sinners’ prayer, or a walk down the aisle,

• Thus, the doctrines instituted by Jesus Christ became barely visible in the very church that claims to worship and follow Him.

Conclusion:
As hard as this statement may seem, I believe that scripture and experience prove it right 100% of the time: where there is no biblical church discipline (of course, outlined in several passages, the most prominent being Mathew 18), you will not find the gospel of Jesus Christ, and you will not find a true church.

The church must be purged of its leaven, my friends, otherwise it ceases to be a church. Thus I have but one question for you: Are you in a true church?

I picked this book up because of my recent exposure to those who deny the imputation of Christ’s “active” obedience on behalf of believers. Some proponents of New Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have headed in the direction of denying the historically-protestant doctrine of imputation, not to mention the classical objections from Rome and semi-pelagians, but Piper certainly meets their objections head-on.

The book is a short 125 pages, but don’t let that fool you, for the main thrust of his argument (the third chapter) is loaded with solid and meticulous exegesis. In short, Piper interacts with a treatise by Robert Gundry, and does so in the humble, pastoral way we’ve come accustomed to with Piper.

The book can really be broken down into four parts, as follows:

1. Evidence that the righteousness imputed to us is external and not our faith.
a. To this, Piper examines and exegetes the following texts: Rom 4:5-6 paralleled with Rom 3:28; Rom 4:9-11; 10:10; Phil 3:8-9.

2. The external righteousness credited to us is God’s
a. To this, Piper examines and exegetes the following texts: Rom 3:20 - 4:6; 2 Cor 5:21

3. Justification is not liberation from sin’s mastery [and by this Piper means perfectionism, infused righteousness, salvation by our continual effort, etc.]
a. To this, Piper examines and exegetes the following texts: Rom 6:6-7; flow of thought in Rom 8:3-4

4. The divine righteousness imputed to believers is the righteousness of Jesus Christ
a. To this, Piper examines and exegetes the following texts: 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 10:4; Rom 5:12-19

Personally, I would see his exegesis of Romans 5:12-19 to be his most potent and thorough argument. This section alone is worth the price of the book.

Conclusion:
This book absolutely deserves the highest rating, five stars. Piper defends the doctrine that is at the very heart of the Christian faith, and does so in such a warm, thorough manner, that the believer who is indeed covered by Jesus Christ’s perfect righteousness will no doubt leap for joy. In the face of such shoddy theology in this land, not to mention the shallowness of the American church which probably can’t even define the term ‘active obedience’, this doctrine of imputation of Christ’s obedience by faith alone has fallen by the wayside. I would submit that many errors of pelagianism, salvation-by-merit or works, and even self-willed sanctification begin with a misunderstanding or misconstruing of this precious doctrine.

Are we counted righteous based upon God’s righteousness and not our own? Is this righteousness imputed or ‘counted’ to us by faith alone, as opposed to ‘infused’ or self-merited? Is this righteousness the perfect obedience of the second Adam, Jesus Christ, in our place? Piper proves from scripture that the answer to these questions is without a shadow of a doubt, ‘Yes’. And this, my friends, *is* the gospel. And the defense of the gospel in the face of error never gets old.

I’ve heard it said that John Owen affirmed that to take away the Regulative Principle of Worship would be to take away the entire foundation of Puritanism. To this I would agree, but would add to it that a true denial of the RPW would be to undermine Christianity in its entirety, not simple one movement within its history.

The point of this post is simple: I am going to make a few simple statements about the Regulative Principle of Worship, not taking the time to provide a defense at this time, and leave you with some precious quotes from John Owen below.

First, the RPW, a issue discussed on this blog many times before, is simply that “the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.” (1689 LBC, chapter 22)

Secondly, it should be clear that every single true believer affirms some form of the Regulative Principle of Worship. That is, a true believer will not say we can worship God just any way we please, for to do so would be to affirm the essence of idolatry. Where men differ is in how this doctrine is defined.

Thirdly, it should be clear that people/ministries who do not follow at least some form of the RPW, are in fact not truly worshiping God. “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” Instead, I think we can affirm that they are in fact worshiping themselves, in that they value their imaginations and preferences above the revealed truth of scripture.

Fifthly, I find it interesting how the Christian circles that are most vocal about upholding the Ten Commandments (the religious right) are the ones who clearly do not place any real value on actually obeying them. The 2nd Commandment in the Decalogue is crystal-clear in that images of God/Christ are forbidden, and that He is to be worshiped according to the pattern He has given us in scripture. Who, among the mega-churches and religious right, observes this?

Fourthly, this truth is so basic to Christian theology that I have trouble understanding why people don’t see it more clearly. Maybe it’s just me, but I see God revealing Himself on every page of scripture, and each and every time man goes outside those bounds in his own attempt to ‘define’ God or ‘please God’, it is met with the harshest of penalties and rebukes. We are so sinful to the core that God must stoop down to us at every level in order to keep us from chasing other gods. What could be more clear?

Lastly, I am troubled that so many misunderstand the RPW. Yes, things like drama, comedy, and images violate this principle (violating scripture), but I have found that most people who disagree with this doctrine simply do not understand it. The initial reaction that I’ve seen is, “You believe what? Isn’t that kind of legalistic?“, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Therefore, I see the proper understanding of this doctrine to be one of the most important issues facing the church today (second to soteriology).

Thus, here are a few choice quotes by the greatest Puritan theologian, John Owen. (Quotes taken from P 434-435 of Biblical Theology, emphasis mine).

“Divine Revelation is the unique foundation, the sole norm, the only rule of all religious worship, if it is to be acceptable to God.”

“God has, in no way and at no time, from the foundation of the world, allowed human judgment to give His worship its limits or measures.“

“…it is clearly laid down that no teaching about God, or concerning His worship, can be considered true theology except those which He alone has revealed…”

“The command that nothing shall be added to these belongs to this fundamental legislation and still remains in force. It is firmly grounded in the second commandment of the Decalogue. Arrogant little humans are very prone to introduce into religious worship figments drawn from their own emotions, and to defend them by specious pretexts (particularly by the use of philosophy and superstition…).”

Before you read the quote below, let me preface it by saying that I count many people as brothers and sisters in Christ who somewhat align themselves with the doctrine that this puritan is condemning. My reason for posting this is not to call anyone’s profession of faith into question. We must understand that there are different ‘levels’, so to speak, of error. Some hold to the error because they don’t know better, some because they believe everything that their pastor tells them, some hold to error with their lips which their prayers and their lives betray, etc.

Nevertheless, the error I am referring to is Arminianism, which is the historic name for free-will theology, i.e., those who deny the doctrine of election and predestination as historically understood by the protestant Church. The opposite of Arminianism is of course Calvinism.

Now days ‘free-will’ theology comes in all shapes and sizes. Some are far worse than others, some are actually just inconsistent Calvinists, and some simply don’t know that there are two sides to this debate.

But all things considered, I found the following quote, taken from Robert Traill’s defense of the protestant doctrine of justification in Justification Vindicated, to be a most accurate description of the modern evangelical scene. I’d be curious to hear thoughts of those who might disagree:

“…the principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind which is emnity both to the law of God and to the gospel of Christ; and, next to the dead sea of Popery –into which this stream also runs — they have, from Pelagius on to this day, been the greatest plague of the church of Christ and, it is likely, will be till His second coming.”

And a little later:

“There is not a minister that deals seriously with the souls of men but he finds an Arminian scheme of justification in every unrenewed heart. And is it not sadly to be bewailed, that divines [ministers] should plead that same cause that we daily find the devil pleading in the hearts of all natural men?”

Two things to note in conclusion:

1) We must understand what the author means here by Arminianism, and understand that the version most prevalent in his day is slightly different than what it’s morphed into in our day. Thus, let me again reiterate that there are many godly men and women in our day who hold to a form of Arminianism that is not the full-fledge doctrine that Traill was most likely referring to.

2) Is it not amazing, considering the second quote, how churches in our day have taken this ‘appeal to their flesh’ to the logical extreme? That would be the seeker-sensitive movement, my friends. We have mega-churches from coast to coast doing marketing to determine how to appeal to the masses; they’re giving people just the right kind of selfish messages, programs and other enticements to get them to darken the door. Church growth and ‘Church Planting’ even are now just marketing schemes that are aimed at appealing to the fleshly lusts of unregenerate man.

Thus, from giving them a message that they have the free-will power to save themselves, which appeals to their pride and self-righteousness, to appealing to their lust for money and entertainment by showering them with programs and excitement, the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the imputed righteousness therein has fallen by the wayside. Instead we now how a church who truly caters to the ‘consumer’ in every facet: not only are you sovereign over your salvation, but you’re sovereign over what kind of message you want to hear and what kind of entertainment and atmosphere you want at ‘church’.

This, my friends, is why I cannot, and we cannot, step down and simply ‘agree to disagree’ over the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism. The implications contained within are not worth the sacrifice of souls necessary to keep the peace.

My first inclination to pick up this book came from an endorsement by the great preacher Martyn Lloyd-Jones that caught my eye. Lloyd-Jones’ endorsement read:

“Lewis provides an excellent foretaste of the rich meal that readers of the works of the Puritans can enjoy. His arrangement of the matter—the brief biographical touches, the judicious selections threaded into a continuing theme, etc.—is brilliant.”

To this endorsement I must give my hearty agreement. Make no mistake about it, Lewis gets right to his point –and he stays on his point until the very end. His point is simple: to give a taste of Puritan theology and writings by letting the puritans speak for themselves. Though the book is a mere 136 pages, it boats 351 direct quotes/references from Puritan writings.

The outline is fairly simple. Lewis breaks things down into 3 parts: The Puritan in the Pulpit, the Puritan in the Pew, and The Puritan in Private. From this standpoint he surveys the distinctives of Puritan theology in each of these areas, often with an eye to correcting common misconceptions about them.

• Are you one who has the perception that the Puritans were high-tower theologians, long-winded, overly cognitive, and dry? The section on Puritan theology surrounding the pulpit will disprove that caricature (Read a previous post I wrote about this section here).

• Did the Puritans see the church service as mere formalism where one goes to hear great oratory and ‘high’ church? The Puritan in the Pew lets gives us a glimpse into what a Puritan service was like and the attitude of the common layperson.
• But what about legalism and impossible standards of living for the saved? Did the Puritans raise the bar too high, quench the smoldering flax of weak believers, and form their own community of self-righteousness? Such hideous lies are exposed in The Puritan in Private, the largest section of the book which deals primarily with spiritual depression, doubting of salvation, etc. No doubt there will be some who will be very surprised at how warm, pastoral, and patient the Puritans were towards those who struggled with besetting sin, depression, and doubts about salvation!

But all things considered, I do have one complaint about this book, and it is but a small one: the last section, the Puritan in Private, is close to three-fourths of the entire book, and I must say that it was tough to follow. The material was great, don’t be mistaken, but with 259 references in this section alone, the material was overwhelming. Simply too much crammed into too little of space, and I was left a little disillusioned. Half the length and half the references would have made it just perfect, and would have eased things up for the reader unfamiliar with the Puritan style of writing.

Overall, I highly recommend the book as instrumental in getting a proper view of Puritan theology, and of the monumental contribution they have made to the church. For the serious student, and the one seeking, like David Brainerd, ‘Oh Lord, for more holiness!’, this is an introduction that will open up a world of writings to you that will certainly change your life and deepen your affection for Jesus Christ.

Below is an excerpt from The Almost Christian Discovered, by the Puritan Matthew Mead. The subject he discusses is how to determine whether conviction of sin is from conscience or from the Holy Spirit. But before we get to his words, I’d like to share what stuck out to me in this passage.

Under point 5 below, you will read where Mead distinguishes between a troubled conscience and the conviction wrought by the Holy Spirit. And typical of Puritan theology, he points out that the work of the Holy Spirit leads to and points us to Jesus Christ. Thus, in this particular subject, when we are convicted of sin, we can look at the effect and determine whether it’s simple conviction of conscience (which leads to a false repentance), or if we are cut to the heart by the Holy Spirit.

Speaking from personal experience, I can certainly attest that I have often attributed conviction and or other work in my life to the Holy Spirit, when instead, according to scripture, the Spirit leads and points us to Christ each and every time, and ending up anywhere else besides a running to and resting in Christ proves that it is our fancy and not the Spirit who is at work. A sobering thought indeed.

Now onto Mead: note here that he is explaining why so many profess to be Christians when in fact they’re not truly converted, and then he goes on to distinguish between natural conscience that can accompany any natural man versus that conviction that comes from the Holy Spirit. All emphasis mine:

Why is it that many are but almost Christians when they have gone thus far? What is the cause of this?

First, it is for lack of right and sound conviction. If a man is not thoroughly convinced of sin and his heart truly broken, whatever his profession of godliness may be, yet he will be sure to miscarry.

Question [objection]: Suppose I am at any time under conviction; how shall I know whether my convictions are only from a natural conscience or whether they are from the Spirit of God?

Answer:
1. Natural convictions reach chiefly to open and scandalous sins, sins against the light of nature, for natural conviction can reach no further than natural light. But spiritual conviction reaches to secret, inward, and undiscerned sins such as hypocrisy, formality, lukewarmness, deadness, and hardness of heart, etc.

2. Natural convictions deal only with a man’s conversation, not with his state and condition; with sins actual, not original…but spiritual conviction reaches all sins…to the sin that is born in us as well as the sin that is done by us.

3. Natural convictions carry the soul out to look more on the evil that comes by sin than on the evil that is in sin. So that the soul under this conviction is more troubled at the dread of hell, wrath, and damnation than at the vileness and heinous nature of sin.

4. Natural convictions are not durable; they are quickly worn out…the convictions of the Spirit are like a deep wound…When it is healed, it leaves a scar behind, that, when the patient is well, yet he can say, ‘here is the mark of my wound which will never wear out’.

5. Natural convictions make the soul shy of God. Guilt works fear and fear causes estrangedness. Thus it is with Adam; when he saw his nakedness, he ran away and hid himself from God. Now, Spiritual convictions do not drive the soul from God, but unto God.

Till the sinner is convinced of sin, he can never be converted from sin…slight and common convictions, when they are but skin deep, are the cause of much hypocrisy.

I know no other rise and spring of hyprocrisy like this of slight convictions; this has filled the church of Christ with hypocrites. Nay, it is not only the spring of hypocrisy, but is also the spring of apostasy.

How the last words cut so deep! Even in Mead’s day the chief spring of apostasy and hypocrisy was shallow convictions and shallow, empty professions. How much more so in our day!

“…many more…men…would scorn to be thought evil, in practice despise any time spent on Theological study as a fruitless waste of time…

“The chief spring of sloth is indwelling sin, ever itching for the pursuit of pleasure. Any mind that is enslaved to lust, desire, and wantonness is unable to give serious attention to our subject [Biblical Theology]. If you are not temperate and industrious, your labors [to study this work/subject] will be in vain…”

“Considering that a mind which has surrendered to sensuality will shrink from all mental effort, and that the vices of the body hold the mind in the chains of darkness, so by contrast, a man dedicated to a life of study in things divine and spiritual will recoil from flesh and from sloth…”

“Truly, it is impossible for a man to be a lover of God and a lover of pleasure at the same time!…”

“Some men, I know, are willing for the wearisomeness of study out of an excessive lusting for worldly wealth, all the while promising themselves that future ease which will destroy all their potential for useful work.”

“It is for no other reason than a failure to subdue sinful nature and carnal habits before the Spirit and grace of Christ that we see so many men who profess to have committed themselves to the study of liberal arts and, especially theology finally grow weary and fall into the ways of negligence and sloth.”

–All from the Epistle to the Reader in Biblical Theology by John Owen.

Tough words, yes indeed. And from none other than John Owen, the epitome of deep thinkers. So you still want to study theology, my friend?

In my last post, I attempted to argue that spiritual growth is a slow process, that visible growth or even the effect of the Word is not always immediately evident to us, and the two areas which I considered were when we preach to others and when we sit under preaching of others.

By God’s providence, the day after I wrote the post I stumbled upon the same subject in a book I just happened to pick up, The Genius of Puritanism. (Just as a side-note, this is a fantastic book, and I can think of no better overview/introduction to the Puritans and why they were unparalleled in church history, apostles aside.)

Specifically, I found many helpful statements on the subject of the primacy of preaching, the role it plays in our spiritual growth, the importance of sitting under the preached Word, etc. And although the quotes I am going to share are not exactly on the topic of spiritual growth, they do emphasize some very helpful truths regarding the preaching and hearing of the Word of God.

If you haven’t read my last post yet, I’d encourage you to do so before proceeding here; but even still, these quotes can certainly stand on their own. I hope and trust these will keep you from discouragement when you, A) preach to others and don’t see any immediate growth, and B) sit under preaching where you don’t feel like you’re growing. (Everything below is taken from The Genius of Puritanism, all emphasis mine).

Regarding the preaching of the Word:

Thomas Goodwin, stating the primacy of the preached Word and it’s place as the primary means of justification and sanctification, states,

“It is not the letter of the word that ordinarly doth convert, but the spiritual meaning of it as revealed and expounded.”

Goodwin also said:

“It is the meaning of the Word which is the Word indeed; it is the sense of it which is its soul…preaching in a more especial manner reveals God’s Word…”

Nehemiah Rogers said:

“The text is the Word of God abridged; preaching is the Word of God enlarged.”

Jeremiah Burroughs said:

“It is not the nature of the thing that carries such power in it, but it is the institution of God and the ordinance of God in it.” [That is, it isn’t the nature of the physical act of preaching that carries the power, but God through it.]

Regarding our hearing and sitting under the preached Word:

To the objection of some, that ‘they know God’s Word well enough, and therefore they need not be taught’, Richard Sibbes replies:

“The Word of God preached…is not altogether to teach us, but [exists that] the Spirit going with it might work grace necessary to strengthen us in the inward man…”

Jeremiah Burroughs said:

“…[we are to] come to hear the Word as an ordinance appointed by God to convey spiritual food to the soul.”

Burroughs again:

“For men that are of some understanding and parts [talents], when they come to hear, this temptation is ready to come upon them, that except they hear some new thing that they did not understand before, wherefore should they come?…Now this is a great mistake.”

Burroughs concludes with regard to preparing for the hearing of the Word of God preached:

“Pray beforehand that God would open thine eyes, and open thine heart, and accompany His Word…Now, seeing it is an ordinance though dost expect more food from than what of its own nature [it] is able to convey, thou hast need to pray…”

John Wells said:

“We must deal with our hearts to embrace the Word…The gospel is not only to be let in by our apprehension, but to be locked in by our affections; and we are to entertain it, not only in the light of it, but in the love of it.”

Conclusion:
This is just a sampling of a lengthy survey Peter Lewis gives on the Puritan teaching regarding these things, but I hope they were as beneficial to you as they were to me.

If nothing else, let us meditate deeply on the truth that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” And that Word of Christ is the preaching of His word, not simply (or normally) the reading of it. As the Ethiopian Eunuch said to Philip, ‘How can I understand the book of Isaiah unless someone guide me?’

And also, as we seek to guide others as well through our preaching, let us trust the Spirit of God to work through the simple truths. Let us not be discouraged if we do not see the results we had hoped for; for God has promised that His Word will not ever come back void…