Lessons From the Life of Lot Part 6: Lot’s Wife

Posted on August 3, 2018 by The Editor

Luke 17:32; Genesis 19:26

Remember Lot’s wife.

His wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): It seems to me that Lot had married a heathen woman―Call your attention to her, who, in this case, is “his worse half.”

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): She looked back from behind him. This seemed a small thing, but we are sure, by the punishment of it, that it was a great sin, and exceedingly sinful.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): Though she had outwardly left Sodom, yet her heart was still there.

C. H. SPURGEON: Lot’s wife could not tear herself away from the world. She had always been in it and had loved it and delighted in it. Though associated with a gracious man, when the time came for decision, she betrayed her true character! Flight without so much as looking back was demanded of her, but this was too much—she did look back and thus proved that she had sufficient presumption in her heart to defy God’s command and risk her all—to give a lingering loveglance at the condemned and guilty world.

MATTHEW HENRY: Probably she hankered after her house and goods in Sodom, and was loth to leave them. Christ intimates this to be her sin; she too much regarded her stuff, Luke 17:31, 32.

C. H. SPURGEON: Lot’s wife had shared in her husband’s errors. It was a great mistake on his part to abandon the outwardly separated life, but she had stayed with him in it and perhaps was the cause of his so doing.

D. L. MOODY (1837-1899): Lot was one of those characters who are easily influenced―and I think, perhaps, that is just the key to his character…So long as he stayed with Abram he got on very well. His mistake was in leaving him.

C. H. SPURGEON: I should not wonder if Lot’s wife influenced him in that way. He was a man of weak mind and while his uncle had him under his wing, he was right enough, except that even then he had what a writer calls, “a lean-to religion”—he did not stand alone, but leaned upon Abraham. When he was married it is probable that his wife assumed the ruling place and guided the way of his life. She began to think that it was a pity that the family should live in such separation, so unfashionable, so rigid, so peculiar and all that.

JOHN ANGELL JAMES (1785-1869): How insidious is the influence of a husband or a wife in decoying the other from the paths of godliness—and into the ways of the world! And in some cases how systematic, persevering, and successful they have been.

C. H. SPURGEON: She tossed her head and cried, “Really! People must mix with society and not keep up old-fashioned, strait-laced ways! You might as well be dead as be shut out from life.” When her husband had an opportunity of getting out of that rigid style by leaving his uncle, she said she would like to go down Sodom way because it would be nice for the girls and give them a taste of something liberal and refined. The old style was all very well for such an antiquated couple as Abraham and Sarah, but Lot and herself belonged to a younger generation and were bound to get into a little society and find eligible matches for their young people. It would be well for them to dress better than they could learn to do if they always kept roaming about like gypsies. You see, Abraham’s people did not study the fashions at all and were a very vulgar sort of shepherds who had no ideas of refinement and politeness. And it was pity that people in Lot’s station in life should always associate with mere sheep-shearers, drovers and the like.

H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): An imperious, dominating woman will drive her husband further from God instead of drawing him to Christ.

C. H. SPURGEON: Nag, nag, nagging, is very, very fagging.

MATTHEW HENRY: It is “a continual dropping,” that is, a continual vexation, Proverbs 27:15.

C. H. SPURGEON: If they got to Sodom there would be nice parties, dances and all sorts of things! Of course the people were a little loose and rather fast—they went to plays where modesty was shocked and gathered in admiration around performers whose lives were openly wanton—but then you see one must be fashionable and wink at a good deal! We cannot expect all people to be saints and, no doubt, they have their good points. By some such talk Mrs. Lot gained her husband over to her way of thinking. They did not mean to actually go into the worst society of Sodom, but they intended to make a careful selection and go only a little way.

R. C. CHAPMAN (1803-1902): It is the nature of sin to obtain great power by little beginnings.

C. H. SPURGEON: Surely they could be trusted to know where to stop. So they pitched the tent towards Sodom where it was within an easy walk of the town—a little separated, but not far. If anything did happen that was very bad they could move away and no harm would be done. It was no doubt wise, they said, to go and see Sodom and know the people, for it would be ridiculous to condemn what they had not seen! They would therefore try it and give the young people some idea of what the world was like.

THOMAS MANTON (1620-1677): Many think to stop after they have yielded a little; but when the stone at the top of a hill begins to roll downward, it is hard to stop it, and you cannot say how far you will go.

C. H. SPURGEON: I think I am not mistaken in the conjecture that Mrs. Lot’s influence brought her husband there and when there, introduced him to the best families and found suitors for the daughters who had been fully imbued with the liberal ideas of the place.

D. L. MOODY: You would have found Mrs. Lot, perhaps, and her daughters, at the theaters and in most places of amusement, and there is the family, just moving in the very highest circles in that city.

C. H. SPURGEON: Very sweet the city life became. The free and easy ways of Sodom came to be enjoyable. Not the gross part of Sodom life—Lot could not bear that—and it made Mrs. Lot a bit uncomfortable at times, but the liberal spirit, the fine free bearing of the people, their gaiety and artistic culture were quite to her mind and so she was right glad when her husband put away the old tent, had a sale of the sheep and lived as a retired grazier in the west end of the city.

A. W. PINK: Finally, we see him an alderman of Sodom, seated in its “gate,” and his daughters wedded to men of Sodom, Genesis 19:1 & 14.

C. H. SPURGEON: Lot ought to have been firmer, more steadfast, more thorough. He had no business going to Sodom―Lot was not to do evil to please his wife.

 

Posted in Lessons from the Life of Lot | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lessons From the Life of Lot Part 6: Lot’s Wife

Paul’s Persuasion

Posted on July 27, 2018 by The Editor

2 Timothy 1:12

I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): It will be profitable to consider the point of which the Apostle was persuaded.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): The point which the Apostle expressly mentions is the power of Christ—“I am persuaded that He is able.” He had a solemn conviction of the ability of the Lord Jesus, who is able to save unto the uttermost. Let us hope that no believer here has any doubt about the power of Christ―there is no lack of sufficiency or ability in Him.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): And what might induce the apostle―and so any other believer―to conclude the ability of Christ to keep the souls of those that are committed to Him?

C. H. SPURGEON: Paul knew that the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom he trusted his soul, was now adorned with all the glory of heaven and clothed with all the omnipotence of the mighty God…Paul felt that such power was worthy of boundless confidence and, therefore, he said, “I know Whom I have believed.”

JOHN GILL: He knew Whom he had believed―His proper deity; He, having all the fulness of the Godhead, or the perfections of deity dwelling in Him; His being the Creator and upholder of all things; His having accomplished the great work of redemption and salvation, by His own arm; His mediatorial fulness of grace and power; and His being trusted by His Father with all the persons, grace, and glory of the elect, to whom He has been faithful.

CHARLES SIMEON: The offices of Christ may also be considered as justifying an assured hope of final perseverance. For our Lord did not assume the priestly, prophetic, and kingly offices merely to put us into a capacity to save ourselves; but that His work might be effectual for the salvation of all whom the Father had given to Him. And at the last day He will be able to say, as He did in the days of His flesh, “Of those whom thou hast given me I have lost none.” If He is ever living on purpose to make intercession for them, and is constituted Head over all things to the Church on purpose to save them, then He will keep them; none shall ever pluck them out of His hands.

C. H. SPURGEON: Will the Lord utterly and finally reject those who are His own, and suffer them to be the objects of His contemptuous reprobation, His everlasting cast-offs? This Paul was persuaded could not be.

THOMAS SCOTT (1747-1821): He was assured that the Lord would guide him in wisdom through life, and at death “receive” him to glory.

CHARLES SIMEON: God never yet lost one whom he had undertaken to keep: He never suffered “one of his little ones to perish,” Matthew 18:14. “None was ever plucked out of His hand,” John 10:28,29; not the “smallest grain of wheat, however agitated in the sieve, was ever permitted to fall upon the earth.” Amos 9:9. The gates of hell have never been able to prevail against His Church. Then, says the Christian, “I will trust, and not be afraid.” My Saviour, in the days of his flesh, “lost none that had been given him,” John 18:9. “Whom he loved, he loved to the end,” John 13:1; and therefore I am persuaded He “will perfect that which concerneth me,” Psalm 138:8, and “complete in me the good work He has begun,” Philippians 1:6.

OCTAVIUS WINSLOW (1808-1878): He is faithful to His promises and faithful to His saints.

CHARLES SIMEON: Paul does not merely presume upon God’s sufficiency: he is well persuaded of it―Did God create my soul, and can He not uphold it? Did He form my enemies also, and can He not restrain them? Has He numbered even the hairs of my head, and will He overlook the concerns of my soul?

G. CAMPBELL MORGAN (1863-1945): Who are the foes? Who are the accusers? Who are the separators? In answer to the first, the apostle declared, “God is for us.” In answer to the second, he declared that God justifies us. In answer to the third, he declared that none of the terrible things through which we pass to glory can separate us.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): “Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us,” Romans 8:37. This one sentence sufficiently proves, that the Apostle speaks not here of the fervency of that love which we have towards God, but of the paternal kindness of God and of Christ towards us.

CHARLES SIMEON: The stability of the covenant, which God has made with us in Christ Jesus, warrants an assurance, that all who are interested in it shall endure to the end. The immutability of God is another ground of assured faith and hope. Wherefore did God originally set His love upon us? Was it for our own goodness, either seen or foreseen? Alas! we had no existence but in God’s purpose: and, from the moment we began to exist, we have never had one good thing in us which we did not first receive from God. If then God loved us simply because He would love us, and not for any inherent loveliness in us, will He cast us off again on account of those evil qualities which He well knew to be in us, and which He Himself has undertaken to subdue? This would argue a change in His counsels: whereas we are told that, “with Him there is no variableness neither shadow of turning,” James 1:17; and that “His gifts and calling are without repentance,” Romans 11:29.

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): Can there be anything like a yea and nay Gospel, in these solemn assurances of Jehovah? And can an assurance that He, who hath saved, and called from the first, without works, will cause His grace to be doubtful as to the end?

JOHN CALVIN: As He is faithful and just, He will not disappoint us.

C. H. SPURGEON: Paul was fully persuaded of this great truth of God. Paul also knew the character of Jesus whom he trusted. His perfect character abundantly justified the Apostle’s implicit trust.

ROBERT HAWKER: Must not every man, taught as Paul was, and through grace brought into the same views, and confirmed in the same truths, declare, that he knows Whom he hath believed?

C. H. SPURGEON: Well, this is my persuasion: “I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,” Romans 8:38,39—If any enquire of us in Glory, “How did you get here?” we will answer, “He brought us here.” “Now unto Him that is able to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”

 

Posted in Assurance & Communion | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Paul’s Persuasion

Dead Flies

Posted on July 20, 2018 by The Editor

Ecclesiastes 10:1

Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): A great many flies may fall into a tarbox, and no hurt done. A small spot is soon seen in a swan, but not so in a swine.

J. R. MILLER (1840-1912): It is sad to see how some strong and noble characters are marred by little, yet grievous faults and blemishes. One man is generous, but he desires always to have his charity praised. Another is disposed to be kind and helpful, but by his manner hurts or humiliates the one he befriends. Another is unselfish and devout, but is careless of promises and engagements; he makes appointments and never thinks of them again; he borrows money, and does not repay it.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): A Christian’s character is spoilt by the omission of any one virtue―that “but” spoils it all―it is the dead fly which has got into a very good pot of ointment and made the whole of it stink.

ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): Any putrefaction spoils perfume; and so a foolish act ruins the character of him who has the reputation of being wise and good.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): A good name is like precious ointment, valuable and fragrant.

C. H. SPURGEON: You may be in the Church and yet you may not have a good name as a member of it. I mean as to your own personal character as a Christian, for some professors are in the pot of ointment, but I wish we could pick them out, for they are flies and they spoil everything! There are such in this Church—oh that they had gone elsewhere! If only they would have flown into a pot of the world’s honey, or something of that kind! For them to get into the Church’s ointment is a great pity.

J. R. MILLER: One writes, “Our greatest failures often happen in the little things of life.”

C. H. SPURGEON: Some get a name in the Church for quarrelling and fault-finding. “Oh,” people say, “if anybody can pick a hole in the sermon, I know who it is.” You need only have half-a-dozen words with this crab apple critic and you surely and speedily lose what enjoyment you have had during the service. Alas, that many Christian women have not a good name, for they are addicted to gossiping.

J. R. MILLER: Carelessness and thoughtlessness are themselves such serious moral blemishes that they make impossible any excuse for delinquencies resulting from them. We need to look to the infinitesimals that make perfection or mar it. No fault is too small to be worth curing, and no fragment of beauty is too small to be worth setting the mosaic of character.

MARTIN LUTHER (1483-1546): Every one ought so to live that nothing evil can be said of him, and that he give offence to no one.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): There is a sanctity about the Christian character which should be kept inviolate. If you are sons of God, you should be “blameless and harmless in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, shining among them as lights in the world,” Philippians 2:15. I pray you, then, walk circumspectly, and in a way “worthy of your high calling,” yea, “worthy also of Him who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.”

ADAM CLARKE: Alas! alas! in an unguarded moment how many have tarnished the reputation which they were many years in acquiring!

JOHN TRAPP: Fine linen is sooner and deeper stained than coarse canvas.

JOHN ANGELL JAMES (1785-1869): You can ruin your reputation. After building up with great care your good name, for some years, and acquiring respect and esteem from those who knew you, in one single hour, by yielding to some powerful temptation, you may permanently fix a dark stain upon your character, which no tears can ever wash away, or repentance remove—but which will cause you to be read and known of all men, until the grave receives you out of their sight. You may render yourself an object of the universal disgust and abhorrence of the pious—and be the taunt and scorn of the wicked.

JOHN GILL: Sin, which is folly, is like a dead fly; not only light and mean, and base and worthless, but hurtful and pernicious, deadly, and the cause of death; and what may seem little, a peccadillo, or, however, one single act of sin may injure the character of a wise and honourable man, and greatly expose him to shame and contempt, and cause him to stink in the nostrils of men; and to be reproached by men, and religion and government to be reproached for his sake. Thus the affair of Bathsheba and Uriah, what a slur did it bring on the character of David, so famous for wisdom and honour, and for religion and piety?―and the idolatry of Solomon, the wisest of men; Jehoshaphat, that good king, entering into affinity with Ahab; and pious Josiah going to war with the king of Egypt, contrary to the word of the Lord; with many other instances.

JOHN TRAPP: If Jacob deals deceitfully, the banks of blasphemy will be broken down in a profane Esau thereby. If his unruly sons falsify with the Shechemites, he shall have cause to complain, “Ye have made me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, ” Genesis 34:30…If Samson go down to Timnah, the Philistines will soon have it, “told” it will be “in Gath, published in the streets of Askelon,” 2 Samuel 12:14—the enemies of God will soon compose comedies out of the Church’s tragedies, and make themselves merry in her misery.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): The world will make no allowances for human infirmity, or the force of temptation; but, looking with envy on superior excellence, are happy to seize every shadow of abuse to degrade to their own level those who excel them, and to triumph that they are no better than themselves.

H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): People on the outside say, “What! Is that one of your Christians? Does he belong to Christ and yet do thus and so?”

JOHN GILL: How careful men eminent for gifts and grace should be of their words and actions; since the least thing amiss in them is easily discerned, and soon taken notice of, as the least speck in a diamond, or spot in fine linen, clean and white. And there are wicked and envious persons enough watching for their halting, glad to have an occasion against them, and improve everything to the uttermost.

CHARLES BRIDGES (1794-1869): Indeed in a path, where every step is strewed with snares, and beset with enemies, great need have we of the caution, “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,” Ephesians 5:15.

MATTHEW WILKS (1746-1829): Did you ever see a tom cat walking on the top of a high wall that was covered with bits of broken glass bottles?  If so, you had just then an accurate illustration of what is meant by the injunction, “See that you walk circumspectly.”

 

Posted in Sanctification & Holiness | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dead Flies

Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Posted on July 13, 2018 by The Editor

Romans 13:1-4

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES (1899-1981): The question of capital punishment—this is certainly a very contemporary question. There are those who say that killing, in any shape or form, is always wrong…The Old Testament makes it perfectly plain and clear that that is not the case.

WILHELMUS à BRAKEL  (1635-1711): God has commanded this: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man,” Genesis 9:6.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): It needs emphasizing today that capital punishment as the penalty for murder was ordained by God Himself long before the giving of the Mosaic law, and, since it has never been repealed by Him, that precept is binding until the end of time. It is important to observe that the reason for this law is not here based upon the well-being of human society, but is grounded upon the fact that man is made “in the image of God.”

MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): Murder is not only an offence against man, but also an injury to God, and a contempt of that image of God which all men are obliged to reverence and maintain.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): But there is also a strong feeling in the mind of many that the severity of the punishment is questionable. There are some who pronounce authoritatively that the murderer’s blood must be shed for murder. But there are some who think the Christian dispensation has ameliorated the law and that now it is no longer, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): Paul was willing to abide by the rules of the law, and to let that take its course. ―“If I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die,” Acts 25:11.

ROBERT HALDANE (1764-1842): Would the Apostle Paul have in this way sanctioned this punishment, allowing its justice, if it have been contrary to the law of God?

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: The Christian’s view of the state; you’ve got to start with that. The state is the representative of God; the state is “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): Let us consider, first, what is the function of the magistrate? As Paul clearly declares that he is “the minister of God to us for good,” we thereby understand that he was so ordained of God.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): The office of magistrates is to do all in their power for the suppression of iniquity, and for the promotion of universal happiness. It is for these ends alone that power is put into their hands. They are to be “a terror to the workers of iniquity.”

JOHN CALVIN: What is the extent of his power?

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): The “sword” is an emblem of the power of life and death.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: So the power of the sword that the state has, is a power that God Himself has delegated to the state. Why has He done so? Well, surely the answer of the whole of the Old Testament is this: God is the Author of life. It is the greatest gift that He gives to man. And as God is sole Author of life, He alone has a right to take life. It is at that point you see the enormity of murder. That’s why murder is a very special and unique crime. It is the thing which makes it the most terrible crime of all; that a man should take it upon himself to take another man’s life!―this is the most precious of all that man possesses.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): Murder is the summit of human wickedness.

JOHN CALVIN: When the murder is proved, God sternly requires, and commands that it should not remain unpunished.

A. W. PINK: This law of judicial retaliation ought to be upon our statute books today and impartially and firmly enforced by our magistrates. But alas, so foolish and effeminate is the present generation that an increasing number are agitating for the abolition of capital punishment.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: But then says somebody, “Doesn’t the commandment say, Thou shalt not kill? And what about turning the other cheek?” And the answer to those is that all those commandments are to the individual―the individual is not to kill; the individual is to turn the other cheek. However, we are now dealing with the power of the state to take life in the form of capital punishment. So, it’s no use quoting one of those ten commandments, or the teaching of the sermon on the mount—they are addressed to the individual, and not to the state.

C. H. SPURGEON; Sometime ago a lady sought an interview with me, with the object of enlisting my sympathy upon the question of “Anti-Capital Punishment.” I heard the excellent reasons she urged against hanging men who had committed murder, though they did not convince me. She proposed that when a man committed murder, he should be confined for life. My remark was, that a great many men who had been confined half their lives were not a bit the better for it. “Ah,” she said, “that is because we have been all wrong about punishments. We punish people because we think they deserve to be punished. Now, we ought to show them that we love them; that we only punish them to make them better.”

“Indeed, madam,” I said, “I have heard that theory a great many times, and I have seen much fine writing upon the matter, but I am no believer in it. The design of punishment should be amendment, but the ground of punishment lies in the positive guilt of the offender. I believe that when a man does wrong, he ought to be punished for it.”

JOHN GILL: He that is guilty of wilful murder shall surely be put to death by the order of the civil magistrate. “Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death,” Numbers 35:31.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: It is the positive duty of the state to use the sword.

MATTHEW POOLE: No intercession nor ransom shall be accepted to save his life, or procure him a pardon.

WILHELMUS à BRAKEL: He who forgives a murderer is opposed to the commandment of God and is an accomplice to the murder.

THOMAS WATSON (1620-1686): A felon having committed six murders, the judge may be said to be guilty of five of them, because he did not execute the felon for his first offence.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: There is nothing, in other words, that should so teach us the sacredness, and the sanctity of life, so much as the execution of capital punishment.

 

Posted in Doctrine & Practice | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Does the Sixth Commandment Forbid All Killing?

Posted on July 6, 2018 by The Editor

Exodus 20:13

Thou shalt not kill.

D. L. MOODY (1837-1899): First, let us see what this commandment does not mean. It does not forbid the killing of animals for food and for other reasons. Millions of rams and lambs and turtledoves must have been killed every year for sacrifices under the Mosaic system. Christ Himself ate of the Passover lamb, and we are told definitely of cases where He ate fish and provided it for His disciples and the people to eat.

WILHELMUS à BRAKEL  (1635-1711): This commandment neither applies to the vegetative life of trees and herbs, nor to animal life, for God has given both to the benefit of man. The killing of animals may, however, not proceed from cruel motives. The killing which is forbidden here pertains to human life, which is the most precious thing that man possesses.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): “Thou shalt not kill.” The words are better rendered, ‘thou shalt do no murder.’

D. L. MOODY: It does not forbid the killing of burglars or attackers in self-defense.

THOMAS WATSON (1620-1686): The commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ requires that we should preserve our own life and soul. It is engraven upon every creature that he should preserve his own natural life.

WILHELMUS à BRAKEL: The slaying of one’s neighbour out of self-protection is also not included in the forbidden homicide. This occurs when either a murderer, a person who is in a fit of wrath, or a demented person attacks someone in order to slay him―he either must permit himself to be killed, or he must in self-defense kill the attacker. If he kills him, he is not guilty of bloodshed; rather, this is referred to as self-defense. One is obligated to preserve his life and this is the only objective here. If this culminates in the death of the other person, the attacker is guilty, and not the person being attacked.

D. L. MOODY: Directly after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God laid down the ordinance that if a thief be found breaking in and be smitten that he die, it was pardonable, Exodus 22:20. Did not Christ justify this idea of self-defense when He said: “If the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up,” Matthew 24:43?

WILHELMUS à BRAKEL: The killing of an enemy in a lawful war also is not included in the homicide which is forbidden. A war is lawful when enemies conspire to attack a nation that has not offended them, but which dwells quietly and peacefully—these enemies robbing them of their goods and making the people their bond servants. If the government of such a country then arms itself against such enemies, resists violence with violence, punishes them, and renders them incapable of returning, this is a righteous undertaking whereby the wicked are punished, and good persons are protected both personally as well as relative to their religion and belongings.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): The wars in which David was engaged were honest wars for the defense and deliverance of the country, in which God had helped him, and yet even the best war is bad in God’s esteem. When blood is shed, God delights not in it.

WILHELMUS à BRAKEL: The legality of such wars is not only abundantly evident in the Old Testament, where God commanded them and prescribed the time and manner of attack, as well as promising to deliver up the enemy.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: But now, of course, immediately the pacifist brings up an argument against this teaching; “But that’s only the Old Testament teaching.” Now, there are those who say that fighting is always wrong, the “taking of life” they say, is “always wrong.” They therefore argue that no state should ever go to war, that war is always wrong, for every state, and every country.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): Though war is exceeding far from being desirable, it is not always unlawful.

ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER (1772-1851): There is no excuse for war but dire necessity. As long as possible, every nation should avoid war; but a state of warfare may be forced upon a nation.  Self defence is the first law of our nature, and is a duty.  On the contrary principle, the lawless and violent would have everything in their own hands, and the virtuous and peaceable would be the prey of the wicked.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: For a state to go to war, it must be regarded as a part of the duty of the state in certain circumstances; it is as an extension of the duty and the function of the magistrate, Romans 13:1-6―That as the magistrate has to maintain law and order within the state, he is also called by God to do the same in the external relationships of the state…If another state from the outside, is attempting to interfere with the life of this state in an evil sense, then it is the duty and the business of the magistrate to protect the interests of the citizens of the state. And I think there can be no question about this at all. Once you see that it is but an extension of the duty of the magistrate, the governing power within the state, this then follows by a logical necessity.

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): War is not rashly to be undertaken.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: This must always be the last resort. Every other effort must have failed. Every other possibility must have been exhausted. The state only goes to war when all its endeavours to prevent war, and to right the wrongs, have completely failed. And that leads me to my third point, which is this: that when the state does go to war, she must be able to show that she’s doing so in a just cause. Now, throughout the centuries, there has been great discussion on this matter in the church―the just war, a righteous war.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): There is not a nation under heaven where the art of war is not cultivated…Under these circumstances it is not optional with a nation whether they will have a military force: they are compelled to maintain armies, and to preserve their lives and liberties by the same means that others use to subjugate and overwhelm them―and if there were any one nation determined to cultivate peace to the uttermost, it would still be necessary for them to learn the art of war, in order that they might be ready, when attacked, to repel aggression, and to maintain their liberties.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: Well, now, that’s the point at which we’ve arrived, and we come now to the next problem, which of course, is very closely related to that last one―the question of capital punishment.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): This commandment was not intended to touch the questions of capital punishment or of war. These were allowed under the Jewish code, and cannot therefore be supposed to be prohibited here. How far either is consistent with the deepest meaning of the law, as expanded and reconsecrated in Christianity, is another question.

C. H. SPURGEON: I shall not enter into the question of the rightness of capital punishment. I have my opinion upon it, but this is not exactly the place to state it.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: Very well, we’ve got to leave it at that.

 

Posted in Doctrine & Practice | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Does the Sixth Commandment Forbid All Killing?

Empathy

Posted on June 29, 2018 by The Editor

Galatians 6:2; Romans 12:15

Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

CHARLES BRIDGES (1794-1869): The gospel does not shut us up in our own private interests, as if we had no sympathy with our neighbour. It is an universal brotherhood of love.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): If the love of God has been shed abroad in my heart—then I shall sympathize with His children in their varied trials and troubles, be ready to counsel and comfort, and assist them so far as lies in my power. Only thus shall I fulfill the law of Christ’s precepts and the law of His example (John 13:14,15), for He enjoins us to be compassionate to others, and is Himself “touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” Hebrews 4:15.

JOHN NEWTON (1725-1807): Such a compassionate disposition, which excites our feelings for the afflicted, is an eminent branch of the mind which was in Christ.

A. W. PINK: Christ was tender, sympathetic, and full of compassion.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): This obliges us to a mutual forbearance and forgiveness, to sympathy with and compassion towards each other―agreeable to His pattern and example, which have the force of a law to us. He bears with us under our weaknesses and follies, He is touched with a fellow-feeling of our infirmities; and therefore there is good reason why we should maintain the same temper towards one another.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): “Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you,” Ephesians 4:32. And as this virtue will never reign in us, unless attended by compassion, He recommends to us to be tender-hearted. This will lead us not only to sympathize with the distresses of our brethren, as if they were our own, but to cultivate that true humanity which is affected by everything that happens to them, in the same manner as if we were in their situation.

MATTHEW HENRY: Compassion is a debt owing to those that are in affliction. The least which those that are at ease can do for those that are pained and in anguish is to pity them—to manifest the sincerity of a tender concern for them, and to sympathize with them―to take cognizance of their case, enquire into their grievances, hear their complaints, and mingle their tears with theirs—to comfort them, and to do all they can to help and relieve them.

JOHN CALVIN: Concern, undoubtedly, produces sympathy.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): Some people listen but do not hear. You tell them your story, but it does not help you a bit because their minds are no more moved by your case than if they were far away. They are just saying to themselves, “We will hear this poor old lady’s story; it will please her.” But it does not please her because she perceives that they have no sympathy, no feeling for her. The kind of person you like to tell your story to is one who weeps with you—who is really afflicted with your affliction. It is greatly comforting to have a person with you who feels just as you feel.

JOHN CALVIN: No act of kindness, except accompanied with sympathy, is pleasing to God.

C. H. SPURGEON: A comforter without sympathy would be a strange being, indeed—he would be a mocker of human woes!―Other people’s pity is the pity of inaction. “Oh, I do pity you very much!” says a person to a sick woman, “your husband is dead, your children have to be supported and you have to work hard. Well, my good Woman, I pity you very much, but I cannot afford to give you anything. I have so many who call upon me.” How much pity there is of that kind in the world!

CHARLES BRIDGES: It is not pity in words and looks. It is when our neighbour’s trouble descends into the depths of our hearts, and draws out thence bowels of kindness and practical sympathy.

JOHN CALVIN: There are many apparently liberal, who yet do not feel for the miseries of their brethren.

C. H. SPURGEON: Men who are wrapped up in their own glories are not sympathetic. Is it not a fine thing to spend life in contemplating one’s own magnificence? Those who are amazed at their own greatness have no thought to spare for the suffering. “No,” says the man, “the masses must obey the laws of supply and demand and get on as well as they can. Let them do as I have done. I might have been as poor as they are if I had shown as little push and enterprise as they do.” The gentleman talks on a great scale and he has no sympathy for the small woes of common life. His sympathy is needed at home and his charity begins there—and is so satisfied with its beginning that it never goes any further.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): If it be true respecting those who sympathize not with others in their bodily necessities, that “they have not the love of God in them,” 1 John 3:17—much more is it true, that they who “shut up their bowels of compassion from a brother” under the pressure of spiritual troubles, can possess but little knowledge of that mystery which unites all in one body, and causes every member to participate in the feelings and necessities of the whole body.

JOHN CALVIN: We, as much as possible, ought to sympathize with one another, and that, whatever our lot may be, each should transfer to himself the feeling of another, whether of grief in adversity, or of joy in prosperity. And, doubtless, not to regard with joy the happiness of a brother is envy; and not to grieve for his misfortunes is inhumanity. Let there be such a sympathy among us as may at the same time adapt us to all kinds of feelings. Therefore while we have time, let us learn to exercise humanity, to sympathize with the miserable, and to stretch out our hand for the sake of giving assistance.

MATTHEW HENRY: Inhumanity is impiety and irreligion.

CHARLES SIMEON: The very essence of Christianity is love: and it is by bearing one another’s burdens that we very principally fulfil the law of Christ. But how can we fulfil that law, if we do not “rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep?” Or how can we possess “true and undefiled religion,” if we do not “visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,” James 1:27, and endeavour, according to our ability, to “lift up the hands that hangs down, and the feeble knees, and to make straight and smooth paths” for “the feet of those who are ready to slip?” (Hebrews 12:12,13). It was peculiarly characteristic of our blessed Lord, that “He would not break the bruised reed, or quench the smoking flax, till he should bring forth judgment unto victory,” Isaiah 42:3, and, if we do not resemble Him in His compassionate regard for His afflicted saints, whatever we may profess, we have not “the mind that was in Christ Jesus,” Philippians 2:5.

 

Posted in Love | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Empathy

Jesus Christ, An Everlasting Father to His Children

Posted on June 22, 2018 by The Editor

Isaiah 9:6,7

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): All these, and many more, are names given to Christ in Scripture. Each is a fountain of instruction and comfort for everyone who is willing to drink of it. Each supplies matter for useful meditation.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): The fourth name is “Everlasting Father,” or “Father of Eternity.”

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): The Septuagint renders the clause “the Father of the age,” or “the world to come;” and hence mention is made in the Jewish writings of “the world to come of the Messiah.”

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): In my opinion, the translation is correct, for it denotes eternity, unless it be thought better to view it as denoting “perpetual duration,” or “an endless succession of ages,” lest any one should improperly limit it to the heavenly life, which is still hidden from us, Colossians 3:3. True, the Prophet includes it, and even declares that Christ will come, in order to bestow immortality on His people; but as believers, even in this world, “pass from death to life,” this world is embraced by the eternal condition, John 5:24; 1 John 3:14.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): The “everlasting Father.” This name has puzzled many.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): This title respects not Christ’s relation to the Deity, for with respect to that, He is the Son and not the Father.

JOHN GILL: The “everlasting Father” does not design any relation of Christ in the Godhead. There is but one Father in the Godhead, and that is the first Person; indeed Christ and the Father are one, and the Father is in Him, and He is in the Father, and He that has seen the one has seen the other, and yet they are distinct.―Christ is a Father with respect to chosen men who were given Him as His children and offspring in covenant; who are adopted into that family that is named of Him, and who are regenerated by His Spirit and grace. And to these He is an “everlasting Father.”

A. W. PINK: Christ is the “everlasting Father” because from everlasting He has had “children!”―“Behold I and the children which God hath given Me,” Hebrews 2:13. Those whom God hath given to Christ were referred to by Him, again and again, during His public ministry. “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me,” John 6:37. “I have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world: Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me…I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me,” John 17:6-9. They were given to Christ before the foundation of the world. These “children” are God’s elect, sovereignly singled out by Him, and from the beginning chosen unto salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): And of all these it must be said, that every individual of Christ’s seed was in Christ from all eternity, for they were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. And all the purposes and grace designed for the Church in time, with the sure hope of eternal life in the world to come, were all given to every individual of the Church, before the world began, 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2. Of Christ’s whole seed, it may be truly said, as was said by the Holy Ghost of Levi being in the loins of his father Abraham, when Melchizedeck met him; so all of Christ’s seed were in Him, and He their everlasting Father from all eternity, Hebrews 7:10.

THOMAS COKE: As Adam was the first man that God created, so he was the first father and progenitor of all other men, who are every one born in his image as they come into the world of nature, and breathe the vital air. Just so, from Jesus Christ, the everlasting Father, all who come into the world of grace derive their spiritual being; His image they bear, I Corinthians 15:49, and from Him “the whole family in heaven and earth is named,” Ephesians 3:15. So, all the saints are descendants from Jesus Christ, their everlasting Father.

JOHN GILL: These bear His name, and are called “Christians” from Him.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): He is ‘the everlasting Father;’ a father to beget His likeness in us, and everlasting to maintain it ever, when it is begun once.

JOHN GILL: And Christ is a Father to these unto everlasting; He will never die, and they shall never be left fatherless; He and they will ever continue in this relation; He, as such, supplies them with everlasting provisions, He clothes them with everlasting raiment, He gives them an everlasting portion, promotes them to everlasting honour, saves them with an everlasting salvation, bearing an everlasting love to them.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): He is the Author of everlasting life and happiness to them, and so is the Father of a blessed eternity to them. It was “from everlasting” in the counsels of it, and will be “to everlasting” in the consequences of it.

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): This “everlasting Father” shall have an endless government.

MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): “The mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him,” Psalm 103:17. As God’s mercy was from eternity exercised in gracious purposes, so it will be continued unto eternity in that future and endless life.

CHARLES SIMEON: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever,” Hebrews 13:8. How far back does this “yesterday” go?

ROBERT HAWKER: What “yesterday?” In all the eternity past. Set up from everlasting in His Mediator character, Proverbs 8:23. “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” Revelation 13:8.

JOHN GILL: He existed not only as the eternal Word, the everlasting “I AM,” but as the Saviour and Redeemer of His people—and He is “today” under the Gospel dispensation, in His person as the God-man, and in His offices as Prophet, Priest, and King: and will be so “forever:” He will never die more; His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His priesthood an unchangeable one.

ROBERT HAWKER: The oneness between Jesus and His people, gives a right of interest in all that belongs to Him, as the Head and Mediator of His redeemed. He hath said Himself, “Because I live, ye shall live also,” John 14:19.

JOHN GILL: “His seed also will I make to endure forever,” Psalm 89:29. His seed and offspring, shall endure forever―the “enduring” of these “forever” may denote the final perseverance of particular believers; which may be concluded from the relation of Christ, as an everlasting Father to them, who therefore must continue as His children.

 

Posted in Attributes of God, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Jesus Christ, An Everlasting Father to His Children

What is True Conversion?

Posted on June 15, 2018 by The Editor

Acts 3:19

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): What is conversion? True and saving conversion, we mean.

JOHN ANGELL JAMES (1785-1869): True conversion is emphatically called, “coming to the knowledge of the truth,” 1 Timothy 2:4.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): Now the Bible uses that word know to express two different things; one which we call mere intellectual perception; or to put it into plainer words, mere head knowledge such as a man may have about any subject of study; and the other, a deep and living experience.

MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): There is a more effective, experimental knowledge.

A. W. PINK: It is far, far more than a believing that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God, and that He made an atonement for our sins. Thousands ‘believe’ that who are yet dead in trespasses and sins!

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): Alas! how many are there in the present hour, that possess an head knowledge of the glorious truths of the gospel, but who remain forever strangers to the heartfelt influence of them. Simon the Sorcerer is said to have believed, that is, in head knowledge, and no further―he was convinced of the truth as it is in Jesus, Acts 8:13.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN: Simon’s belief was purely an affair of the understanding―there was in it no penitence, no self-abandonment, no fruit in holy desires; or in other words, there was no heart. It was credence, but not trust.

JOHN ANGELL JAMES: Knowledge, my friends, is indispensable. True religion is repentance towards God; but can you repent if you do not know the character of the God whom you have offended, the law you have broken, and the sin you have committed? True religion is faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; but can you really believe, if you do not know whom and what you are to believe? True religion is the love of God; but can you love a being whom you do not know?

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): That is quite true. You are to have a creed and I urge you to take heed to what you believe. Go to the Law and to the Testimony and believe nothing but what is in the Word of God. But I pray you to also remember that a man may receive the most sound creed in Christendom—and yet be damned! He may believe, as a matter of head knowledge, all that should be believed. And yet, for all that, he may not believe anything with his heart, and so may perish. I believe that the devil is orthodox―he knows what the Truth is, yet, though in that sense he “believes,” and even goes as far as trembling (James 2:19), the devil is not changed in heart, nor will he be saved by what he believes! It is not receiving a creed which saves you—it is receiving a Person into your heart’s love.

JOSEPH ALLEINE (1634-1668): Conversion turns the bent of the affections.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): Heart knowledge―a knowledge of God, joined with love and affection to Him―high esteem, and approbation of Him; and including communion with Him, and an open profession and acknowledgment of Him: and it is an appropriating knowledge also; a knowing Him for themselves, and as their own; and such a knowledge, or heart to know the Lord, is a pure gift of His, and without which none can have it.

A. W. PINK: Conversion consists not in believing certain facts or truths made known in Holy Writ, but lies in the complete surrender of the heart and life to a divine Person. It consists in a throwing down of the weapons of our rebellion against Him. It is the total disowning of allegiance to the old master—Satan, sin, self, and a declaring “we will have this Man to reign over us.” It is owning the claims of Christ and bowing to His rights of absolute dominion over us. It is taking His yoke upon us, submitting unto His scepter, yielding to His blessed will. In a word, it is “receiving Christ Jesus, the Lord,” Colossians 2:6; giving Him the throne of our hearts, turning over to Him the control and regulation of our lives.

JOHN ANGELL JAMES: The very substance of true conversion is a change from supreme selfishness―to this Divine affection. Every unconverted sinner is supremely selfish; that is, he loves himself, and all that pertains to himself, instead of God.

C. H. SPURGEON: The child of God, acknowledges God, submits to His authority and gives Him the throne of his heart. He does not give the Lord a secondary place and permit self to be first, for that would be to deify self and insult the Lord! He makes God to be God, that is first and sole in authority and power! This is a sure index of true conversion—when God is God in your soul—then is the soul converted, indeed!

JOSEPH ALLEINE: Conversion turns the bias of the will―The intentions of the will are altered. Now the man has new ends and designs. He now intends God above all, and desires and designs nothing in all the world, so much that Christ may be magnified in him.  He counts himself more happy in this than in all that the earth could yield, that he may be serviceable to Christ―this is the mark he aims at, that the name of Jesus may be great in the world.

A. W. PINK: The desire and determination of those truly converted is that they “should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again,” 2 Corinthians 5:15…That which distinguishes Christians from non-Christians is their surrender to the authority of Christ. He is their Lord by voluntary submission. True conversion is the heart turning from Satan’s control to God’s control; from sin to holiness; from the world to Christ―this is what true conversion is; it is a tearing down of every idol, a renouncing of the empty vanities of a cheating world, and taking God for our portion, our ruler, our all in all.

C. H. SPURGEON: Obedience is the test of discipleship. Mere head knowledge is all in vain, and all in vain our fears, unless we render a practical obedience to the commandments of Christ. We shall not only savingly know Him, but we shall “ know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments,” 1 John 2:3.

THOMAS MANTON (1620-1677): Faith is the mother of obedience. Obedience is counterfeit when it is not uniform―partial obedience is an argument of insincerity.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): Love is the root, obedience is the fruit.

A. W. PINK: There is no such thing as a saving faith in Christ where there is no real love for Him, and by “real love” we mean a love which is evidenced by obedience. Christ acknowledges none to be His friends save those who do whatsoever He commands them, John 15:14. As unbelief is a species of rebellion, so saving faith is a complete subjection to God: hence we read of “the obedience of faith,” Romans 16:26.―And, dear reader, nothing short of this is a Scriptural conversion: anything else is make-believe; a lying substitute, and a fatal deception.

 

Posted in Conviction & Conversion | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on What is True Conversion?

Self-Deception & Counterfeit Conversions

Posted on June 8, 2018 by The Editor

Deuteronomy 11:16

Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): We must remember that there is such a thing as self-deception in the world.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): God has warned us plainly in His Word that, “There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes and yet is not washed from their filthiness,” Proverbs 20:12. He has set before us those who say “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing,” and who know not that they are “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked,” Revelation 3:17; and let it be duly noted that those were in church association.

JOSEPH ALLEINE (1634-1668): Conversion is not the taking upon us the profession of Christianity. Conversion is not putting on the badge of Christ in baptism.

JOHN ANGELL JAMES (1785-1869): Profession is very common—and so is self-delusion. Perhaps as many are lost by self-deception, as by any other means. It is one of the cunning artifices, the deep devices, the artful machinations of Satan—to lead men into self-deception, when he can no longer hold them in careless indifference; to ruin their souls in the church, when he cannot effect it in the world; to lull them asleep by the privileges of church fellowship, when he cannot continue their slumber amidst the pleasures of sin.

A. W. PINK: If my sins have not been pardoned, then the more firmly convinced I am that they have been, the worse for me; and very ready is Satan to second me in my self-deception!

JOSEPH ALLEINE: The devil has made many counterfeits of conversion, and cheats one with this, and another with that. Conversion is not the mere chaining up of corruption by education, human laws or the force of affliction. It is too common to mistake education for grace. Conversion does not lie in moral righteousness.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): There are many things which may hide our condition from us. We may easily mistake our gifts for graces; and may ascribe to the special operation of the Spirit of God what is the result only of natural principles.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): Feelings are supposed to be ‘faith.’ Convictions are supposed to be ‘grace.’

JOHN ANGELL JAMES: It may be worth while to set before you how far people may go, and not be really converted. They may have many and deep religious impressions, many and strong convictions; they may have much knowledge of their sinful state, and a heavy and burdensome sense of their guilt; they may look back upon their past lives and conduct with much remorse; they may be sorry for their sins; and may desire to be saved from the consequences of them, being much alarmed at the prospect of the torments of hell.

JOSEPH ALLEINE: Many, because they are troubled in conscience for their sins, think well of their case, miserably mistaking conviction for conversion.

MATTHEW MEAD (1629-1699): This is that wherein most men miscarry: they rest in their convictions, and take them for conversion, as if sin seen were therefore forgiven, as if a sight of the want of grace were the truth of a work of grace.

JOHN ANGELL JAMES: Nor is a detestation of sin always a true sign of conversion. Hazael, before he was king of Syria, detested the crimes which he afterwards perpetrated in the fullness of his pride and power, 2 Kings 8:12,13.

JOSEPH ALLEINE: Conversion does not consist in illumination, or conviction, or in a superficial change or partial reformation. An apostate may be an enlightened man, Hebrews 4:4; and a Felix trembled under conviction, Acts 24:25; and a Herod do many things, Mark 4:20.

JOHN ANGELL JAMES: And as conviction of sin may exist without conversion, so may religious joy. The stony ground hearers “heard the word, and with joy received it,” and yet they had “no root in themselves, and endured only for a while.” Mark 4:16,17. The Galatians had great blessedness at one time, which the apostle was afraid had come to nothing. Multitudes rejoiced in Christ when He made His entrance into Jerusalem, who afterwards became His enemies. A person may admire the people of God, and covet to be of their number, as Balaam did, and yet not really belong to them…There may be considerable zeal for the outward concerns of religion, as we see in Jehu, without any right state of mind towards God.

J. C. RYLE: Often—far too often—people are built up in self-deception, and encouraged to think they are converted when in reality they are not converted at all.

CHARLES SIMEON: The man who has felt some conviction of sin, and some hope in Christ, and has been hailed by others as a sound convert to the Christian faith, is ready to conclude that all is well: his successive emotions of hope and fear, of joy and sorrow, are to him a sufficient evidence, that his conversion is unquestionable. If he have some ability to talk about the Gospel, and some gift in prayer, he is still further confirmed in his persuasion, that there exists in him no ground for doubt or fear. More especially, if he have views of the Covenant of grace, as “ordered in all things and sure,” and have adopted a crude system of religion that favours a blind confidence, he concludes at once that he is, and must be, a child of God. But who more open to self-deception?

JOHN ANGELL JAMES: Many have had great confidence of the reality of their conversion; they have had dreams, impressions, and an inward witness, as they suppose―and yet too plainly proved, by their after-conduct, that they were under an awful delusion. It would be almost endless to point out the various ways in which men deceive themselves, as to their state.

SAMUEL RUTHERFORD (1600-1661):  Remember, many go far on, and reform many things, and can find tears, as Esau did; and suffer hunger for the truth, as Judas did; and wish and desire the end of the righteous, as Balaam did; and profess fair, and fight for the Lord, as king Saul did; and desire the saints of God to pray for them, as Pharaoh and Simon Magus did; and prophesy and speak of Christ, as Caiaphas did; walk softly, and mourn for fear of judgment, as Ahab did; and put away gross sins and idolatry, as Jehu did; and hear the Word of God gladly, and reform their life in many things according to the Word, as Herod did; and say to Christ, “Master I will follow thee, whithersoever thou goest,” as the man who offered to be Christ’s servant in Matthew 8; and may taste of the virtues of the life to come, and be partakers of the wonderful gifts of the Holy Spirit, and taste of the good Word of God, as the apostates who sin against the Holy Ghost, Hebrews 6: and yet all these are but like gold in clink and colour, and were really brass, and base metal.

CHARLES SIMEON: Beware of self-deception—“The heart is deceitful above all things:” and we have a subtle adversary, who will not fail to help forward the most fatal delusions.

 

Posted in Conviction & Conversion | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Self-Deception & Counterfeit Conversions

An Eminent Religious Writer: Thomas Manton (1620-1677)

Posted on June 2, 2018 by The Editor

Judges 5:14

And out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): Let me clear the way by considering an objection which is frequently brought against Manton. That objection is that he was “a Puritan.”

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): Nothing is so obnoxious to these creatures as that which has the smell of Puritanism upon it. Every little man’s nose goes up celestially at the very sound of the word “Puritan.”

J. C. RYLE: But what of it, if he was a Puritan? It does not prove that he was not a valuable theologian, an admirable writer, and an excellent man.

C. H. SPURGEON: Manton needs no praise from us―Manton’s work is most commendable.

J. C. RYLE: What are Manton’s special merits? What claims has a man of the seventeenth century on our attention? What good thing is there about him that we should buy him and read him?

STEPHEN CHARNOCK (1628-1680): Manton was the best collector of sense of the Puritan age.

JOHN COLLINGES (1623-1690): In all his writings one finds a quick and fertile invention, governed with a solid judgment; and the issue of both expressed in a grave and decent style. He had a heart full of love and zeal for God and His glory; and out of the abundance of his heart his mouth continually spake.

J. C. RYLE: As a writer, I consider that Manton holds a somewhat peculiar place among the Puritan divines. He has pre-eminently a style of his own, and a style very unlike that of most of his school. I will try to explain what I mean. I do not regard him as a writer of such genial imagination, and such talent for illustration and similitude, as several divines of his day. In this respect he is not to be compared with Brooks, and Watson, and Swinnock, and Adams. Talent of this sort was certainly not in Manton’s line. I do not regard him as a writer of striking power and brilliancy―he never carries you by storm, and excites enthusiasm by passages of profound thought expressed in majestic language, such as you will find frequently in Charnock. He never rouses your inmost feelings, thrills your conscience, or stirs your heart of hearts, like Baxter. Such rhetoric as this was not Manton’s gift, and the reader who expects to find it in his writings will be disappointed.

C. H. SPURGEON: Whatever he does is done in a style worthy of a chief among theologians.

J. C. RYLE: As a theologian, I regard Manton as a divine of singularly well-balanced, well-proportioned, and scriptural views. He lived in a day when vague, indistinct, and indefinite statements of doctrine were not tolerated. The Christian Church was not regarded by any school as a kind of Pantheon, in which a man might believe and teach anything, everything, or nothing, so long as he was a clever and earnest man. Such views were reserved for our modern times. In the seventeenth century they were scorned and repudiated by every Church and sect in Christendom―earnestness alone was not thought sufficient to make a creed. Did the famous Westminster Assembly want a commendatory preface written to their Confession and Catechisms of world-wide reputation? They committed the execution of it to the pen of Thomas Manton.

THOMAS JACOMB (1622-1687): Manton did not so much concern himself in what is polemical and controversial; but chose rather, in a plain way, as best suiting with sermon-work, to assert and prove the truth by scripture testimony and argument.

J. C. RYLE: As an expositor of Scripture, I regard Manton with unmingled admiration. Manton’s chief excellence as a writer, in my judgment, consists in the ease, perspicuousness, and clearness of his style. He sees his subject clearly, expresses himself clearly, and seldom fails in making you see clearly what he means. He has a happy faculty of simplifying the point he handles. He never worries you with acres of long, ponderous, involved sentences, like Goodwin or Owen. His books, if not striking, are generally easy and pleasant reading, and destitute of anything harsh, cramped, obscure, and requiring a second glance to be understood. For my own part, I find it easier to read fifty pages of Manton’s than ten of some of his brethren’s; and after reading, I feel that I carry more away. Let no one, moreover, suppose that because Manton’s style is easy, his writings show any lack of matter and thought. Nothing of the kind. The fertility of his mind seems to have been truly astonishing. Every page in his books contains many ideas, and gives you plenty to think about. No one, perhaps, but himself could have written such an immense book as he wrote on the 119th Psalm, and yet repeated himself so little, and preserved a freshness of tone to the end.

C. H. SPURGEON: One hundred and ninety sermons on the 119th Psalm. The work is long, but that results only from the abundance of matter.

VINCENT ALSOP (1630-1703): The matter of them is spiritual, and speaks the author one intimately acquainted with the secrets of wisdom. He writes like one who knew the psalmist’s heart, and felt in his own soul the sanctifying power of what he wrote. Their design is practical, beginning with the understanding, dealing with the affections, but still driving on the design of practical holiness.

WILLIAM BATES (1625-1699): I cannot but admire the fertility and variety of his thoughts; though the same things occur in the verses of this Psalm, yet, by a judicious observing the different arguments and motives whereby the psalmist enforces the same request, or some other circumstance, every sermon contains new conceptions, and proper to the text.

J. C. RYLE: This witness is true. If Manton never soars so high as some writers, he is, at any rate, never trifling, never shallow, never wearisome, and never dull…Manton’s writings, with few exceptions, were originally published under very great disadvantages. Most of them never saw the light till after his death, and were printed without receiving the author’s last touches and corrections.

WILLIAM HARRIS (1675-1740): Whosoever shall consider the constant frequency of his preaching, and the affairs of business in which he was often engaged, will easily be able to make a judgment of his great abilities and vast application, and to make the requisite allowances for posthumous works; especially when Manton tells us that he was  “humbled with the constant burden of four times a week preaching.”

JOHN COLLINGES: So frequent, and yet so learned and solid preaching by the same person was little less than miraculous.

J. C. RYLE: I am sure that Manton was one of the best authors of his day―one who was eminently a “good man and full of the Holy Ghost.”

 

Posted in Reading & Writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on An Eminent Religious Writer: Thomas Manton (1620-1677)