Friday, February 16, 2007

Today's devotionals by C. H. Spurgeon

I often hear and read an accusation laid forth by the Romanist crowd, that although "we Protestants" claim Sola Scriptura, we do not follow it, because we use interpretations and explanations of men, hence contradicting our own principle. This is supposed to crush our arguments against their Tradition.
However, this is nonsense, really. What we have are the faithful exegetical efforts of our ancestors in Christ, none of them claiming to be infallible, all of them willingly submitting themselves to the scrutiny of other believers, humbly admitting any doctrinal error, if proved to exist. Even today, years after those texts were written, they are not holy just because their authors are dead. We realize it, we admit it, we say it loud and clear.
This is not the same as the Vatican crowd claiming Tradition's right to infallibility, their organization's ONLY right to the interpretation of Scriptures, equalling 'biblical' with 'catholic'. The most ridiculous thing that happens when you talk to a catholic is when he dooms your interpretation as wrong because... the Catholic church says otherwise. Not because the Bible contradicts it or presents us with one vague verse in the apocrypha, but because the Vatican says so.
Enough of that. I have learned to value the men of old and what they have to say. Not only because the men of today respect them, but also because what those men of old write is valuable and educating in itself.
BTW: There's A New Bus in Town :), for all who love the Word of God.

Here you are - C. H. Spurgeon helping us all with this day in our lives.



Morning

“I have learned, in whatever state I am, therewith to be content.”
- Philippians 4:11

These words show us that contentment is not a natural propensity of man. “Ill weeds grow apace.” Covetousness, discontent, and murmuring are as natural to man as thorns are to the soil. We need not sow thistles and brambles; they come up naturally enough, because they are indigenous to earth: and so, we need not teach men to complain; they complain fast enough without any education. But the precious things of the earth must be cultivated. If we would have wheat, we must plough and sow; if we want flowers, there must be the garden, and all the gardener’s care. Now, contentment is one of the flowers of heaven, and if we would have it, it must be cultivated; it will not grow in us by nature; it is the new nature alone that can produce it, and even then we must be specially careful and watchful that we maintain and cultivate the grace which God has sown in us. Paul says, “I have learned ... to be content;” as much as to say, he did not know how at one time. It cost him some pains to attain to the mystery of that great truth. No doubt he sometimes thought he had learned, and then broke down. And when at last he had attained unto it, and could say, “I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content,” he was an old, grey-headed man, upon the borders of the grave-a poor prisoner shut up in Nero’s dungeon at Rome. We might well be willing to endure Paul’s infirmities, and share the cold dungeon with him, if we too might by any means attain unto his good degree. Do not indulge the notion that you can be contented with learning, or learn without discipline. It is not a power that may be exercised naturally, but a science to be acquired gradually. We know this from experience. Brother, hush that murmur, natural though it be, and continue a diligent pupil in the College of Content.

Evening

“Thy good Spirit.”
- Nehemiah 9:20

Common, too common is the sin of forgetting the Holy Spirit. This is folly and ingratitude. He deserves well at our hands, for he is good, supremely good. As God, he is good essentially. He shares in the threefold ascription of Holy, holy, holy, which ascends to the Triune Jehovah. Unmixed purity and truth, and grace is he. He is good benevolently, tenderly bearing with our waywardness, striving with our rebellious wills; quickening us from our death in sin, and then training us for the skies as a loving nurse fosters her child. How generous, forgiving, and tender is this patient Spirit of God. He is good operatively. All his works are good in the most eminent degree: he suggests good thoughts, prompts good actions, reveals good truths, applies good promises, assists in good attainments, and leads to good results. There is no spiritual good in all the world of which he is not the author and sustainer, and heaven itself will owe the perfect character of its redeemed inhabitants to his work. He is good officially; whether as Comforter, Instructor, Guide, Sanctifier, Quickener, or Intercessor, he fulfils his office well, and each work is fraught with the highest good to the church of God. They who yield to his influences become good, they who obey his impulses do good, they who live under his power receive good. Let us then act towards so good a person according to the dictates of gratitude. Let us revere his person, and adore him as God over all, blessed for ever; let us own his power, and our need of him by waiting upon him in all our holy enterprises; let us hourly seek his aid, and never grieve him; and let us speak to his praise whenever occasion occurs. The church will never prosper until more reverently it believes in the Holy Ghost. He is so good and kind, that it is sad indeed that he should be grieved by slights and negligences.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

True, I'm not aware of a Protestant claim to "infallibility", at least not that I've heard. However, I've heard Protestants state they're "certain" that doctrine x or y is true.

Perhaps what they mean to say is that they're certain beyond a reasonable doubt that x or y is true, yes? They won't say this, but I think that's what they mean. It leaves the room open for correction (if needed) and reflects a certain degree of humility in terms of their own understanding.

Of course, one can take this "existential doubt" a bit too far, as do some nihilist philosophers who state that "chairs do not exist"! lol

- Tom

ann said...

they stated that a doctrine is true on the basis of the scriptural evidence, and not out of an eisegetical pressuposition. That is a huge difference between seeking for a meaning of a verse and seeking for a verse for a meaning.
In a world without God chairs really have no ground of existing ;)