Ambivalence
I continued in my reading of Jerry Bridge’s The Discipline of Grace this morning. I am only a few chapters into the book and have already learned a great deal from it. Though it was written in 1994, it seems that I missed its first publishing and am glad to have discovered it after the second. The book flows logically from the groundwork laid in Bridge’s classic The Pursuit of Holiness. In this book he attempts to differentiate and reconcile God’s role and our role in the pursuit of holiness.
The third chapter of The Discipline of Grace is an exhortation to Christians to preach the gospel to themselves. Bridges draws upon a survey R.C. Sproul has often mentioned which asked people attending a large Christian convention to define the gospel. Tragically, of the many questioned, only one was able to provide a definition that could be considered accurate. While we cannot conclude that the people who were unable to give an adequate answer were not Christians, it does show that many believers have been poorly taught and have only a minimal knowledge of the gospel. “These observations constitute a serious indictment of our evangelical discipling process. The gospel is not only the most important message in all of history; it is the only essential message in all of history. Yet we allow thousands of professing Christians to live their entire lives without clearly understanding it and experiencing the joy of living by it.” Bridges believes, as do I, that churches are guilty of too often giving unbelievers just enough of the gospel to get him or her to pray a prayer to receive Christ as Savior. At that point we put the gospel aside and focus instead on the duties of discipleship such as personal holiness, Christian service and spiritual disciplines.
But the gospel is not just about a moment of salvation. The gospel is a message that saves, but also a message that sustains. It is a message we all need to hear all the time. Bridges spends the rest of the third chapter examining and defining the gospel and encouraging believers to preach this gospel to themselves on a daily basis. He applies the gospel to daily life, showing how it needs to be central to the Christian walk.
As I read this chapter I was suddenly struck by how little the recounting of the gospel story was affecting me. I was ashamed that reading of such good news could leave me so unaffected. I read of the absolute best news a man could ever hear: “The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed or credited to us forever. From the day we trust in Christ as our Savior, on throughout eternity, we stand before God clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.” I read about redemption: “Justice has been satisfied: the penalty has been fully paid by the Lord Jesus Christ. In a sense, to justify is to declare that the claims of justice have been fully met.” I read about the turning away of God’s wrath. “The Lord Jesus Christ by His sacrifice on the cross appeased and turned aside God’s just and holy wrath, the wrath we should have borne.” It isn’t that I was bored or uninterested - just unmoved. And after reading a few pages more I realized that I had to stop and repent. How is it that I could read of what Christ has done for me and not be filled with praise and thanksgiving? As I stopped to think about this I began to think about heaven and how incredible it will be to sit constantly in God’s presence and to always be filled with awe and praise. The cherubim are always before God’s throne and are always crying out about His holiness. They never grow tired of this, nor could they, for they dwell in the fullness of His presence. And, I trust, this is the way it will be when I stand before God. Never more will the gospel leave me unaffected. Never again will I hear or read or learn of what God has done with ambivalence.
But that may be a long time off. For now, I will have to continue to strive after holiness, to preach that gospel message to myself, and to repent when even news so joyous leaves me unmoved.
Comments (42) »
1. Aaron
July 11, 2006
11:56 AM
Tim,
I don’t comment much but do enjoy reading your blog. I think you may have hit on something here that is more sobering than you think. Do we really see the glory of God in the work of redemption? What does it say about the state of things when the work of Christ, and indeed even meditating on the character of God does not move our affections greatly. I think it shows our self-centeredness and our low view of God though we claim to have a higher one. (I’m not accusing you here - actually accusing myself). Stephen Charnock wrote many years ago about practical atheism. One idea being that in practice, everyone is an atheist to the degree that they do not see and work for the glory of God in all things.
Anyway, I hate to do this but feel okay since I am not the author. I would like to give a plug for a relatively new blog dealing with both the character of God and our spiritual climate. One series I’ve found especially insightful is on God-centeredness and is working through A.W. Tozer’s book, “The Knowledge of the Holy”. I’ll link to one post on that, but would really recommend reading some of the others in this category. It’s: God-Centeredness & Thoughts of God.
2. 2e
July 11, 2006
12:59 PM
I read Bridges’ The Pursuit of Holiness and found it to be similar. It was packed full of practical and convicting material from the get go. His writing is so gentle, but it’s powerful. Bridges has the touch.
3. Derek
July 11, 2006
1:33 PM
Tim,
Thanks for this post. I often find myself in the same place: being unaffected by the glory of the gospel. It is a scary, sobering and humbling place to be. But I love Jerry Bridges and what he is laboring to provide his readers: a clear, lucid, refreshing sight of the gospel so that we might live in the joy and freedom of Christ. That is why I love his book, ‘The Gospel for Real Life,’ it is 180 pages of pure gospel. It, as well, has often invigorated my ever-‘ambivalent’ heart. I agree with 2e: “Bridges has the touch.”
Thanks, brother— Derek
4. Ethan Dunham
July 11, 2006
8:23 PM
I read this book last year and that very chapter radically changed my thinking about the Gospel. I never really understood the Gospel’s significance on my entire life until a real understanding of God’s grace was made plain. I don’t think I ever realized what an effect semi-pelagianism had on my thinking.
Thank you Lord for Jerry Bridges and others like him. I can now more clearly see how the Gospel should radically affect every action in my life as I live out a life of gratitude instead of trying to earn my salvation with consistent quiet times etc.
5. Brian Thornton
July 12, 2006
9:21 AM
Tim said: But the gospel is not just about a moment of salvation. The gospel is a message that saves, but also a message that sustains. It is a message we all need to hear all the time.
-What better place to hear it ‘all the time’ than from the Word of God itself. The gospel is NOT just the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but is the whole narrative of the redemptive plan of God. There is no better place to read of that good news than from the very pages of Scripture…THAT is where we should be ‘hearing’ about it ‘all the time’.
Aaron said: I would like to give a plug for a relatively new blog dealing with both the character of God and our spiritual climate.
-I myself would like to give a plug for spending more time in the Word of God. There is no better place than the Holy Scriptures to see and understand what God has done for us in Christ.
2e said: It was packed full of practical and convicting material from the get go. His writing is so gentle, but it’s powerful. Bridges has the touch.
-God also has the touch. What better place than His inspired Word to perfectly see the gospel as the Holy Spirit gives us illumination into its truth.
Derek said: But I love Jerry Bridges and what he is laboring to provide his readers: a clear, lucid, refreshing sight of the gospel so that we might live in the joy and freedom of Christ.
-I am sure Jerry Bridges is a great writer, and loves his Lord…but the truth is…he CANNOT make the gospel any more refreshing than it already is…he CANNOT make it any clearer and lucid than it already appears on the pages on Scripture. No one can make the Bible come alive, or make it more refreshing…it has ALWAYS been alive and lucid and clear and refreshing…it is US who are dead, and dull and cloudy and in need of being refreshed.
Derek also said: That is why I love his book, ‘The Gospel for Real Life,’ it is 180 pages of pure gospel. It, as well, has often invigorated my ever-‘ambivalent’ heart.
-As good a writer as I am sure Bridges is…his book is NOT 180 pages of ‘pure’ gospel. He is a fallen man with a fallen nature, whose words - though as good as they may be - have NOT been breathed out by God like those found in Scripture.
Ethan said: I read this book last year and that very chapter radically changed my thinking about the Gospel. I never really understood the Gospel’s significance on my entire life until a real understanding of God’s grace was made plain.
-What does it say about our view of Scripture when we acknowledge that it takes a book other than God’s Word to radically change our thinking about the Gospel? Does it perhaps reveal that we may not be spending the kind of time we should in the reading and study and meditating of His Word?
Ethan also said: Thank you Lord for Jerry Bridges and others like him. I can now more clearly see how the Gospel should radically affect every action in my life as I live out a life of gratitude instead of trying to earn my salvation with consistent quiet times etc.
-I am not trying to pick on Ethan or the others who have commented here…but it just shouldn’t take a book to show us how the gospel should ‘radically affect every action’ of our lives. Dare I say that if we would devote more time to the reading and study of the Word, it would effectuate in us a change that would affect every action in our lives.
I have read great praise here for Jerry Bridges…but sadly have gotten the impression that without him, the gospel would be all but dead to those who have commented here.
Again, this is not to pick on those who have posted comments here. It is just that I am saddened when I see so little regard given for the very written source for the Gospel (the Bible) within a post concerning that very thing. Brothers and sisters…the Gospel is the power of God…the Gospel is from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21…it is profitable for reproving, rebuking, exhorting, for teaching, for training in righteousness…and as helpful as a book from Bridges may be…I pray that we get back to the Word of God as our primary source for our inspiration of the Gospel.
MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP SPENDING SO MUCH TIME READING ABOUT THE GOSPEL, AND START SPENDING MORE TIME READING THE GOSPEL…
6. Aaron
July 12, 2006
10:36 AM
Brian: I hear your sentiments and I doubt any who’ve written here would argue with you that the Bible is to be our primary source for our inspiration of the Gospel. But by what you have written above it almost seems as if you believe it is to be our ONLY source. Be careful not to discount the wisdom and insight given to Godly men of another age when the spiritual climate was different than it is now. (I’m not thinking of Jerry Bridges here - I haven’t even read his book, but perhaps the same could be applied to him, I don’t know). If another has written something of the glory of God in the gospel and shows his view from scripture, then what grounds is there for dismissing his work simply because it’s “not as good as the Bible”? Yes, we ought to be reading scripture primarily, but if others can give us a greater understanding of God in what they have written, we ought to be reading them as well.
A quote from A.W. Tozer in his “The Knowledge of the Holy” that seems applicable (yes, this isn’t scripture, but does every single thing we write have to be dripping with references to passages in the Bible?): “Were Christians today reading such works as those of Augustine or Anselm a book like this would have no reason for being. But such illuminated masters are known to modern Christians only by name. Publishers dutifully reprint their books and in due time these appear on the shelves of our studies. But the whole truth lies right there: they remain on the shelves. The current religious mood makes the reading of them virtually impossible even for educated Christians.”
One other thought: Just because we aren’t directly dealing with scripture (as in expositional preaching) doesn’t mean it isn’t our primary source. When I read works written by other men, I do so to learn more of the character of God, which has been manifested in his Son and shown in scripture. Scripture is the final authority. Can you read things by Edwards, Charnock, and other puritans and not be somewhat amazed about their view of God (given to them by God) and so be impressed with a greater view of God yourself? Do we really see the glory of passages like Romans 11:33-36 or the glory of the just God who redeems as shown in Romans 3:21ff? (I’m condemning myself here as well)
7. Brian Thornton
July 12, 2006
10:58 AM
But by what you have written above it almost seems as if you believe it is to be our ONLY source. Be careful not to discount the wisdom and insight given to Godly men of another age when the spiritual climate was different than it is now.
Aaron, Thanks for your comments. I am advocating Scripture as our PRIMARY source, NOT our only source. Although, the saints in the first century and even those today who have no access to extra-biblical sources (or even access to the Word itself), may disagree with that and say that they would be happy just to have a complete Bible, let alone a great work from Sproul or Bridges or Packer.
I am not discounting the wisdom of godly men, just trying to point us to the source of that wisdom.
I just get concerned when I see comments that indicate how another person or book made the gospel more clear or lucid, or more refreshing…because it CAN’T be made any more of those things than it already is.
8. Tim Challies
July 12, 2006
11:12 AM
“MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP SPENDING SO MUCH TIME READING ABOUT THE GOSPEL, AND START SPENDING MORE TIME READING THE GOSPEL…”
Maybe we should stop commenting on blogs and spend more time reading the gospel. I mean, seriously, Brian. We can’t all read the Bible all the time. Nor does God want us to or expect us to.
9. Brian Thornton
July 12, 2006
11:23 AM
We can’t all read the Bible all the time. Nor does God want us to or expect us to.
-Please show me where I have said this.
10. Aaron
July 12, 2006
11:59 AM
Brian:
Thanks for your response and clarification. I am pondering your last statement and not sure that I agree with it. You said, “I just get concerned when I see comments that indicate how another person or book made the gospel more clear or lucid, or more refreshing…because it CAN’T be made any more of those things than it already is.”
While I would say that nobody can add to the glory of the gospel, it is true that men can explain the scriptures in a way that may open an individual’s eyes to what is really being taught. So the question is, can it be made clearer or more glorious to an individual? I would argue that different people have differing levels of conceptions of God and the gospel. This ties in with holiness and love for God. Do all people love God equally? No. Do all people understand the Bible perfectly? Does anybody? So if a man has been given a greater understanding of God revealed in the scriptures, then him writing and attempting to explain that might help to give another a greater understanding or a greater love for God.
It would be sort of like me arguing as follows: “I get concerned when I hear people tell me that a preacher explained the gospel in a way that was more clear than they had previously understood.” Isn’t that exactly what a preacher is supposed to do? The only reason I read books other than the Bible is to obatin a greater understanding of (and hopefully love for) God.
11. Derek
July 12, 2006
12:04 PM
Brian,
I must say that was a bit excessive and condescending. I doubt that any of the guys who commented would disagree with you about the Bible’s primacy over secondary literature.
However, I fear that many of your comments are self-refuting as your own site attests. The header to your site has a quote from Spurgeon; plus your site is replete with plugs for secondary liturature. I guess I would be justified in saying “Perhaps you should spend less time reading and promoting that literature and spend more time reading the Bible,” or, “I fear when I see so many quotes and books from men instead of Scripture on Christian websites…etc.”
Secondly, I do not appreciate being misrepresented. In your second to last comment, you said, “I just get concerned when I see comments that indicate how another person or book made the gospel more clear or lucid, or more refreshing…” I assume you are referring to me, since I am the only one who used that language. I never said “more clear, etc.” I did not use the word “make.” I said “clear, lucid, refreshing.” Any good author/teacher (like Bridges) is going to present the gospel in such a way, since, as you point out, the Bible presents it in such a way. In no way did I EVER imply that Bridges “makes” the gospel “more clear, etc.,” than it already appears in Scripture. YOU are the one who used those words to misrepresent what I was saying.
You also said, “I have read great praise here for Jerry Bridges…but sadly have gotten the impression that without him, the gospel would be all but dead to those who have commented here.” And the gospel would be dead to most of the world without teachers like Luther, Calvin, etc. God has provided good teachers to the Church—to teach us the Scripture—to explain the gospel. Praise God for those men!
Overall, I think that your confrontation of the comments made here was completely unnecessary.
Derek
12. Brian Thornton
July 12, 2006
3:06 PM
But I love Jerry Bridges and what he is laboring to provide his readers: a clear, lucid, refreshing sight of the gospel so that we might live in the joy and freedom of Christ.
Derek, this is what you said, and you are correct that I misquoted it and added the word ‘more’ in my comments. My apologies to you for that. Also, should the word ‘sight’ there actually be ‘insight”? Just wondering. I would still ask what you mean by Bridges providing a ‘clear’, ‘lucid’, and ‘refreshing’ sight of the gospel…clear in comparison to what…lucid in comparison to what, and refreshing in comparison to what? Is the gospel contained in Scripture not also clear, and lucid, and refreshing…is the gospel in Scripture not able to enable us to ‘live in the joy and freedom of Christ’?
As to your claim that my site proves that my comments are self-refuting…I put to you the same question I have put to Challies, which is, show me where I have said that we should read NO extra-biblical literature.
My clarification to Aaron should be what you base your inferences on concerning what I am saying…not what you think I might be implying. I said to him, “I am advocating Scripture as our PRIMARY source, NOT our only source.”
The reason I say this - even though many would agree that that is a given and doesn’t necessarily have to be emphasized - is because there are those out there who do NOT believe that Scripture should be our primary source, or that we should spend the majority of our time in the Word rather than in other books.
Please hear me…my push is for us us to devote the greater percentage of our time to the word of God…that is all.
13. Derek
July 12, 2006
6:25 PM
Brian,
I appreciate the apology. To answer your question, it would be easy to say that Bridges’ explanation of the gospel is “clear, lucid, refreshing” compared to much of the contemporary atheological writing that abounds in many Christian bookstores. That is because he labors to explain the Scripture in his books. That’s because he saturates his books in Scripture. That’s why I love them! It is love for Scripture that makes one love books about Scripture. So, I did not mean (and I am having a difficult time seeing how it could be understood in this way) that Bridges’ explanation of the gospel is better than the Bible’s. Bridges is explaning the Bible! I just don’t see the conflict.
The reason I made the self-refuting comment is because I think you are contradicting yourself by nailing 2e for saying that “Bridges has the touch,” and me for saying that Bridges presents a “clear, lucid, refreshing” description of the gospel when it is obvious that you appreciate other secondary literature as well, as your website attests. Ours were statements of appreciation and admiration. I don’t see this as any different than a website that quotes and promotes secondary literature. I am not claiming that you say that we shouldn’t use secondary literature; simply that your remarks about our comments were contradictory given your website’s promotion of secondary literature.
I agree whole-heartedly with your desire to promote the Bible as our primary source of divine knowledge; and we should be devoting a larger percentage to it than secondary literature. But, I think writers like Bridges are pointing us toward the primary source, not steering us away. If your concern is that you believe there are ” those out there who do NOT believe that Scripture should be our primary source, or that we should spend the majority of our time in the Word rather than in other books,” then take those people to task in an article or something. Nailing a few dudes who wanted to give Bridges thumbs up just doesn’t seem warrented.
Derek
14. donsands
July 12, 2006
8:53 PM
I love this book. My pastor a few years back took us through the heart of this book. It really did help my walk with Christ. Preach the gospel to yourself daily. Amen. Grace saves us, and grace takes us each and evry single step home. Thanks for the good review, on a fine book, which compliments the Bible. Have a blessed evening in His everlasting love, and in His amazing and precious grace.
15. Brian Thornton
July 12, 2006
9:17 PM
Derek,
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks…I will most certainly take them to heart. My error was in making it appear I was condeming you for saying something you and 2e had not said…by implying that you had set Bridges words over and above Scripture. I apologize again for doing that…it truly wasn’t my intent.
I was trying to make a point of how I think their are many who do place extra-biblical works above Scripture…but I am afraid I did a poor job of saying what I wanted to say.
Sorry for being unjust to you and others…I too am a fan of Bridges…my feature article on my site right now is from him, so the last thing I would want to do is put him down, or anyone who is favorable to his work.
Chalk it up to amateurish zeal…but that still is no excuse.
You also said, “I agree whole-heartedly with your desire to promote the Bible as our primary source of divine knowledge; and we should be devoting a larger percentage to it than secondary literature.”
I only wish more shared that sentiment with us…
16. Derek
July 13, 2006
1:01 AM
Brian,
Thanks for all your last comments. I truly appreciate it. I am also thankful for your passion for the Word of God! I am often rebuked by the life and ministry of Jonathan Edwards. He gave more time and study to the Bible than any other book and he exhorts us to do the same. And look at the fruit of his labors. Imagine the fruit of our labors if we were to devote the majority of our study time to the text of Scripture!
Anyways, thanks again, Brian.
Derek
17. Susan
July 13, 2006
4:02 AM
I also have missed this book. As “The Pursuit of Holiness ” is in my top 5 “extra-biblical” texts, your review has encouraged me the find a copy of “The Discipline of Grace”.
18. Tim Challies
July 13, 2006
6:52 AM
“I agree whole-heartedly with your desire to promote the Bible as our primary source of divine knowledge; and we should be devoting a larger percentage to it than secondary literature. But, I think writers like Bridges are pointing us toward the primary source, not steering us away.”
I find that interesting. See, to me, there isn’t a perfectly clear line between Bible study and reading a book like “The Discipline of Grace.” Bridges explains and exposits Scripture so well and so clearly that it’s not really like I’m taking time away from studying Scripture by reading this book. Now of course I’m not raising his book to the level of Scripture, but am just saying that a good book is, in my opinion, a good use of time.
Show me in the Bible where God says we should measure our time to make sure that we read more of the Bible than any other book (or all other books) and I’ll rethink this.
19. Brian Thornton
July 13, 2006
7:37 AM
Tim Challies said: Show me in the Bible where God says we should measure our time to make sure that we read more of the Bible than any other book (or all other books) and I’ll rethink this.
As I have promised in an email, I am planning to do just that. Though, I think the issue will be finding any mentioning or recommending at all of extra-biblical works, save ones mentioned in the OT such as the Book of wars, and the Book of Jasher…but there was no instruction for reading these other sources…just the record we have of them being cited.
If you are looking for justification in Scripture for spending more time in extra-biblical works than in the Bible, and your reasoning is that there is NO direct mention in Scripture telling us of the need for reading Scripture MORE than anything else, then what is the justification for reading ANY extra-biblical reference? Is there an imperative in the Bible that says we should be reading books OTHER than the Bible?
If your reasoning is that it is okay since it is nowhere specifically forbidden, then isn’t that like a NORMATIVE principle for reading…rather than a REGULATIVE one? Just a thought.
Now, I am not saying we shouldn’t be reading other books…I’m just using your own logic for wanting to see proof in Scripture that we should be spending the majority of our time in the Word of God more than anything else(which, by the way, I think will be fairly easy to demonstrate).
20. Jerry Morningstar
July 13, 2006
8:24 AM
I find the reading of ‘good’ Christian books helpful - for the sake of clarifying Scripture. A lot of the books I read - MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, C.S. Lewis - oftentimes the material presented was first presented as a lecture or sermon somewhere. Their pages are filled with Scripture references and devoted to the task of explaining either what the Scriptures say and mean or how we can better live the Christian life.
When I look to the Scriptures - which are the inspired revelation of God. I find certain truths in relation to teachers.
1) We should be like the Bereans who examined the Scriptures daily to see if what we are taught corresponds to Scripture [Acts 17:11]
2) Those with a gift of teaching - are God’s gift to the church for the building up of the body [Eph. 4:11, 12]
To lay down an either/ or dichotomy of the usefulness of teaching as opposed to Scripture reading itself is not justified from the Scriptures themselves
We know the Scriptures are said to build us up [Acts 20:32, II Pet. 2:2]
But - we also know that preaching and teaching has always played a huge role in how the NT church has grown and developed spiritually.
Paul told Timothy to pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. [I Tim. 4:16]
Timothy wrote no inspired Scripture - yet Paul reminded him that his words of teaching would be the instrument in others’ salvation - as long as He paid close attention to what he was teaching. i.e. remained faithful to the truths handed down to the church
The point being - true biblical teaching and preaching - as found in good ‘extrabiblical books’ - is the product of the Spirit’s gifting to the church for the building up of the body.
I find that becoming familiar with what some others have had to say about a particular passage is helpful in giving me perspective in how I may need to see that passage as well.
I read a lot of Bible commentaries and at times have read some of the older dispensational writers like M.R. Dehaan - and I can’t help but think - ‘boy if he would have just opened three commentaries on this topic - He would have known better!’
Let’s use the wisdom God has given to the church for our building up.
If we despise the teachings of men whom God has given to us - we demean His gifts
Let us not think so highly of what the Spirit has told us thru the Word and think so little of what He has shown others thru the Word
The reality is - He may have shown them a few things we missed. I find personally - the worst teachers are the ones who are ignorant of church history, historical theology and fail to make use of ‘extra biblical’ commentaries.
Spurgeon was known to read massively - I think about 8 books a week. I saw his library housed at a bible college in Missouri - very impressive.
Brian - I realize that you are not saying everything I refer to in this post - so don’t feel that you have to point that out or even bother to respond.
If we want to argue that the Scripture is our primary source of truth - I would stand in agreement with you any day.
But - let us also exalt and make use of the fruits of the Holy Spirit as given to us thru gifted teachers given to the church
21. Brian Thornton
July 13, 2006
8:41 AM
1) We should be like the Bereans who examined the Scriptures daily to see if what we are taught corresponds to Scripture [Acts 17:11]
Jerry, one thought regarding this principle…and I think you have pretty much already clarified this further down in your comments when you say that you agree that Scripture should be our primary source for truth, but I want to hear what you think about this direct question concerning this:
IF we are to be like the Bereans, and IF we are to use as our primary source for truth the Bible, then shouldn’t that - of necessity - mean that we should be spending a greater percentage of our time in Scripture?
In other words, shouldn’t our time spent reading the Bible outweigh our time spent reading other books?
22. Aaron
July 13, 2006
10:23 AM
After some more thought on this, I’m tending to agree with what Tim wrote a few posts above. When we start making rules about how much we should be reading the Bible, I think it gets dangerous. As a case example, I know someone who was really struggling to read their Bible. After some discussion it was found that this person had been told their whole life that they must have a quiet time every day and so was feeling guilty for missing certain days. This guilt then caused them to not want to read the Bible (the effect of sin). Well, a pastor asked the simple question, “where in the Bible does it say you MUST read the scriptures / have a quiet time every single day?” This got the person to thinking and realizing that this isn’t a command that is being disobeyed. It was actually quite freeing, seeing that it wasn’t sinful to miss a quiet time or to not read the Bible every day. With the guilt removed, it then became much easier to actually read. In thinking back, this seems similar to what the Pharisees did to people - added unbiblical commands that only they could keep.
So my point is, I think we must be careful with the statement that our percentage of time spent reading the Bible must be greater than our percentage of time spent reading other books. Obviously this can’t be a blanket statement because some people can’t even read or don’t even have the Bible. Now it may be a fine principle to follow, but I think we must be careful not to make it a rule (as in sin to disobey). Besides, that is such a vague statement. Does it mean:
It seems problematic to me. I did a biography on David Brainerd a while back and spent probably 2-3 weeks where the majority of my reading time was spent studying His life. Was I violating that principle? Was that wrong or sinful?
Reading books (if they are good) gives us insight into the scriptures and the Holy Spirit is not constrained to work in us ONLY when we are reading the Word directly. I say all this without lessening the scriptures as the ultimate source of truth revealed to us in this life.
23. GWilly
July 13, 2006
11:18 AM
What if the only version of the Bible someone had was the King James? Certainly, a commentary or sermon could potentially make the message more lucid, clear, or refreshing in that case. I’ve read Galatians several times. I understood what I read better when I supplemented with Halley’s or Unger’s commentaries (I don’t recommend either for any but the newest of believers). They helped me to understand the historical perspective. Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, if I could have understood it, would definitely have yielded much more understanding. It took Tim Keller, commenting on Luther’s commentary, to really unpack Galatians in a way that has helped me apply it on a regular (not daily, because I forget the Gospel) basis. John Owen’s “The Death of Death on the Cross of Christ” would probably be a great aid to helping me understand the gospel revealed in Scripture, but I can’t get my brain around that. So Packer, commenting on Owen, or Piper commenting on Edwards, or Lundsgard commenting on Owens, all of whom have had greater brains than mine, are used by the Spirit to help me unpack, understand, and apply the implications of “Christ died for your sins according to the Scripture, and was raised again, according to the Scripture.” Did I get off track?
On another note, it is encouraging and discouraging (ambivalent?) to hear that others of you have, like me, forgotten the Gospel, been unenthused about Bible reading or prayer, and been, at times, unrepentant about our lack of passion for God. I’ve had several solid people doubt my salvation because I wasn’t as broken over my dullness as I should have been.
24. Brian Thornton
July 13, 2006
12:51 PM
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see what all the fuss is about when a statement is made that my primary source and majority of time should be in the word of God rather than in other sources.
It’s not legalistic…I think it’s just common sense.
The example above about reading someone’s commentary of someone else’s commentary of a book of the Bible is actually a good point for primarily getting back to the Bible itself. I think we often times make it tougher on ourselves, when all we might need to do is get back to the basics of Bible reading. Nothing legalistic here…though I would say that if someone’s arm has to be twisted to read Scripture, there may be some serious problems there.
I would liken it to the example I used in my article on my site…which was a story about how Pam and I had watched this commentary on roller coasters…and as good as it was and informative as it was…it still doesn’t compare to me and Pam going and riding them for ourselves.
Do you spend more time watching videos of your kids, or do you spend more time directly with them? I just think firsthand exposure is still the thing that should be first and foremost. YES, commentaries and other writing can be very beneficial…but nothing beats time spent directly in the Word.
25. david
July 13, 2006
2:05 PM
Frankly, I think it’s ridiculous to say that the majority of my reading every day should be from Scripture. I don’t read any other book like I read the Bible. I have read the Bible many times, and will read it many more times. Most other books are read only once, and the few that I will read again will be reread only once or a few times. If only 1% of my reading every day was Scripture, it would still constitute the majority of my reading just due to repetition. The primacy of Scripture cannot be strictly measured in hours or minutes any more than it can be measured in ounces or pounds.
Some days, I read only Scripture. Some days, I read mostly Scripture. Some days, I read mostly human writings and some Scripture. Some days, I read only human writings and no Scripture at all. Some days, I read nothing.
Overall, The Bible is the majority of my reading. I read it regularly, often, and repeatedly.
“At least half of your daily reading must be Scripture” may apply to those who read very little, but not to those who read voraciously.
And Brian, saying “It’s not legalistic…I think it’s just common sense,” is not the same as saying “thus saith the Lord.” “Common sense” is subjective. What it amounts to is, “that’s my opinion, and, obviously, it should be everyone’s opinion.” Turning your opinion into dogma is legalistic. That is what all the fuss is about. You haven’t just said that the Bible should be our primary source, or that it should be read more than anything else. You are laying down legalistic dogma that Scripture doesn’t support. If Scripture does support it, you’ll have to cite Scripture, not just your “common sense.” But do so on your own blog, because…
…the topic of this post is not “What Should We Read?” It is The Discipline of Grace by Jerry Bridges, which was being discussed until you hijacked the thread with your topic. Let’s keep all further discussion on topic.
26. Jerry Morningstar
July 13, 2006
2:12 PM
shouldn’t our time spent reading the Bible outweigh our time spent reading other books?
Brian - I don’t think I can answer that question. Meaning - that I, personally would not care to tell someone how to arrange their lives in such a context. I think that’s the Holy Spirit’s job to guide us and lead us in those areas. To me it’s like asking, ‘should a person pray for 20 minutes a day or an hour?’ Should we attend both morning and evening service? Are we more spiritual if we do both? Should I tell my wife I love her every day or 3 times a week? The line of thinking moves towards legalism in my understanding.
27. Ethan Dunham
July 13, 2006
2:26 PM
What does it say about our view of Scripture when we acknowledge that it takes a book other than God’s Word to radically change our thinking about the Gospel? Does it perhaps reveal that we may not be spending the kind of time we should in the reading and study and meditating of His Word?
Brian -
1) My post had nothing whatsoever to do with what my view of Scripture is. Do I spend enough time in the Word? No. Do you?
2) How exactly is reading a single book (and have it affect you positively in your understanding and zeal for Christ) any different than having the same experience with a preacher? Is Mr. Bridges not a teacher? Why did God give the gift of teaching to people? To give people extra pew-sleep Sunday mornings? How would you rate the act of sitting under a teacher to reading Scripture?
3) Am I elevating a book above scripture? Of course not. Do I think I can always interpret Scripture accurately the way God intended it to be understood? If that were possible how would you explain the vast denominational differences on issues that seem to be so obvious to us?
4) And doesn’t the Bible teach that “iron sharpens iron”? Our koinonia fellowship with other believers is actually God’s design to encourage us to not give up and to run the whole race as to win the prize. Godly men like Bridges are merely part of that body of Christ that Paul says is essential.
I am very thankful that God has raised up men who hold the light of truth high in the air. I am a wicked, awful sinner in need of a lot of grace. I am encouraged to hold the light of truth given to me a bit higher. Does that also happen when I read the Bible? Duh!
I am a man-fearing kind of guy and to make such a post is a leap for me. But I think your perspective may be a bit critical.
I will rejoice in the Lord anyway ;-)
28. Brian Thornton
July 13, 2006
6:18 PM
David said: “Overall, The Bible is the majority of my reading.”
Why?
David also said: “At least half of your daily reading must be Scripture” may apply to those who read very little, but not to those who read voraciously.”
Who said this about at least half of your daily reading must be Scripture? Did I say that?
Finally, David said: “The Discipline of Grace by Jerry Bridges, which was being discussed until you hijacked the thread with your topic. Let’s keep all further discussion on topic.”
That’s rather strong language, isn’t it, David? So now I’m a hijacker? I didn’t realize I had that much control over what was posted on this web site. From my observations, the topics rarely stay on point to exactly what was posted by Tim…instead they usually run down various rabbit trails from splinter topics that arise in the course of discussion.
Sorry for the hijacking, folks…I will put down my loaded weapon (keyboard) and return to my seat…you can take your hands down from off your heads and you are now free to move about the cabin.
29. GWilly
July 13, 2006
6:23 PM
Brian,
If you ever come to Fort Worth, I’ll buy you your first beer.
30. Brian Thornton
July 13, 2006
6:30 PM
Gwilly…
You are soooooo funny!!! Does root beer count???
31. GWilly
July 13, 2006
6:42 PM
Whatever edifies you more. Or, ‘round here we’re famous for the “real” Dr. Pepper.
32. Jerry Morningstar
July 13, 2006
7:11 PM
Brian - are you independent baptist? Just curious?
33. Brian Thornton
July 13, 2006
7:37 PM
Brian - are you independent baptist? Just curious?
Jerry…nope, born and raised Southern Baptist. After much struggle and prayer…we left our SBC church of 7 years where I was an adult SS teacher and Pam was a children’s teacher, and we began our search for what Mark Dever calls a ‘healthy church’…according to his 9marks.org site.
After a year of wandering and searching, praise God, we have found (as of this past March) the most incredible body of believers, about 30 minutes from our house…Rockdale Community Church in Conyers, GA (rockdalecommunitychurch.org).
I have a sermon from Butch Rumble, our Pastor, on my site along the right hand side of the main page, if you are interested. He is a gifted expositor of Scripture.
Anyway, how’s that for a long ‘no’ to your question? I better stop now or the hijack police might come and accost me again…(smiling here).
34. david
July 13, 2006
7:45 PM
Brian,
Comment #12: “Please hear me…my push is for us us to devote the greater percentage of our time to the word of God…that is all.”
“The greater percentage,” I assume, means more than half. I guess I added “daily.” If that’s your objection, take it out. I still think it’s wrong.
“Hijack,” or “threadjack,” is common language for taking a thread off-topic. I’m not nearly the first to use it. Try not to be too offended, eh?
Yes, side-tracks happen - almost everyone is guilty of that at one time or another - but when the orginal topic is lost, it’s the moderator’s job to bring it back. The fact that that isn’t aways ruthlessly practiced is no cause for protest when it is.
P.S. The fact that I refuse to use that insipid smiley-face code does not mean I’m angry or on the attack. Believe me, you’d know if I was; but I’d probably do that privately.
35. Brian Thornton
July 13, 2006
8:14 PM
David, Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t really all that offended.
Since you have made some comments here, I hope you will permit me to ask something that pertains to a remark made in comment 25 and then one made in comment 34. Here they are in numerical order:
“Overall, The Bible is the majority of my reading. I read it regularly, often, and repeatedly.”
“The greater percentage,” I assume, means more than half. I guess I added “daily.” If that’s your objection, take it out. I still think it’s wrong.”
My question, and I think it is a fair one, is this:
IF the majority of your reading is done in the Bible, as you stated above, then my question to you is, ‘WHY?’
Why is the Bible the majority of your readng?
And…why do you think I am wrong to want the Bible to be the majority of what is read?
I hope you will be so kind as to provide an answer.
Thanks.
36. david
July 13, 2006
9:12 PM
I probably shouldn’t say the Bible is the majority of my reading. It definitly is what I read more than anything else, due to regularity and repetition.
Why? Mostly, for all the reasons you give.
I object to making rules that aren’t directly from Scripture (I’m not Southern Baptist). I’m not at all opposed to spending more time reading Scripture than anything else. I’m vehemently opposed to making rules and placing others under the burden of disciplines which I may impose upon myself.
We are not only to read Scripture, but study and meditate on it. Part of that study should be reading or listening to what others have learned from Scripture. In that way, I agree with Tim when he says “…there isn’t a perfectly clear line between Bible study and reading a book like ‘The Discipline of Grace’.” Bible study is not just God’s Word and me. It’s God’s Word, my teachers, and me; and even my teachers have teachers.
37. Brian Thornton
July 13, 2006
9:56 PM
David,
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
If the Bible is definitely what you read more of than anything else, then it is okay to say that the Bible is the ‘majority’ of your reading. And again, as I have said time and again…I am ALL FOR the reading of other good sources (commentaries and works by pillars of the faith like Bridges and Sproul and Piper, etc.)
I’m not sure where this subject of rules came from, because it definitely didn’t come from me. I am a proponent of the Bible being our primary source, not our only source. My comments from post #12: “Please hear me…my push is for us to devote the greater percentage of our time to the word of God…that is all.”
You apparently do it, and others have echoed their agreement with me also about them spending more time in the Bible than in anything else.
I don’t think what I am proposing rises to the level of legalism…if it does, then things such as requiring church membership and the agreement to statements of faith go way over the line into the legalistic, as they are nowhere mandated by Scripture.
I would like to borrow a line from Dever from one of his remarks about statements of faith and apply it to Christians spending more time in the Word than in anything else— they may not be a must have, but they are certainly good to have and are very important.
Though, I am still not convinced that Scripture doesn’t clearly show us (or at least strongly implies to us) that we should be devoting the majority - the greater number, or percentage - to the reading and meditating of God’s Word over and above other extra-biblical writings. Especially since I don’t think there is ANY instruction in Scripture to read extra-biblical sources…while ther ARE instructions for us to read the Bible.
I am simply advocating the riding of the roller coaster more than reading about the roller coaster…that is my position in a ridiculous nutshell.
38. Jerry Morningstar
July 13, 2006
10:23 PM
Thanks for the reply Brian - I’m glad you were able to find a church home you are happy with and teaches God’s Word. Lord’s blessings to you and your wife
39. Vynette
July 14, 2006
2:09 AM
I have been reading all the comments on this thread and feel it timely to interject here and pose some questions:
All of you believe fervently in scripture but what if your reading of scripture is wrong?
What if the doctrines you hold are so ingrained that you have never thought to question them?
I too hold to the primacy of scripture yet my examination of it leads me to a totally different view, as many on this thread would already know.
Ethan said: “I am very thankful that God has raised up men who hold the light of truth high in the air. “
I too hold the ‘light of truth high in the air’ yet no serious challenge to the evidence I have presented has ever been forthcoming.
Is it because I’m not a man? Just kidding about that.
But, seriously, is not the soundness of doctrine more important than anything? Is it not more important for men and women of good faith to base their lives on the truth of scripture rather than the doctrines of men?
40. Jerry Morningstar
July 14, 2006
7:59 AM
Vynette - I don’t know too much what your beliefs are. If I recall - you don’t believe in the Trinity or deity of Christ. If I am wrong - please forgive me. I will try to use it as an example.
If someone holds that Christ is not deity - - that is a view that stands clearly outside of the mainstream of Christianity. Most Christians [I among them] would argue that a person cannot be genuinely converted without acknowledging the deity of Christ. [I John 2:23]
The problem with fringe group beliefs is that they ignore the weight Christian scholarship and study over the centuries.
Don Carson said it best in his exegetical fallacies book: ‘Just because we are the only person with a particular view doesn’t mean we are necessarily wrong - but it does mean we are probably wrong.’
i.e. - it’s wise to become familiar with the arguments of those outside your group who have studied these issues. You may learn something from them.
There are very compelling reasons why Christians have come to believe that Jesus is presented as God - the Son in the Scriptures.
One example:
In Matthew 11:27 Jesus said - ‘All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.’
Those are not the words of a mere man or a mere prophet - the implications of what Jesus says there are huge.
God bless you in your pursuit of truth
41. Vynette
July 15, 2006
1:58 AM
Dear Jerry,
Thank you for addressing my comment. You are correct - I hold that that doctrine of the Trinity and the teachings about the deity of Jesus are not based on scripture but on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term ‘son of God’ when used in reference to Jesus.
Your remark about the ‘weight of Christian scholarship over the centuries’ could just as easily be paraphrased as the ‘weight of Jewish scholarship over the centuries’. The priests of Jesus’ day claimed that he had no authority to teach because his views contradicted those of the scholars of his day who were relying on the ‘weight’ of tradition also. Therefore, I hold that your argument along these lines cannot be upheld as valid.
Also your quote from Matthew - ‘All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.’ - can be explained by the unique powers that the messiah’s ‘anointing’ conferred.
Jesus - God’s Word of Eternal Life made flesh - was anointed with plenipotentiary powers to speak and act in the name of God. In effect, God’s mouthpiece on earth. It is only possible to know God, or the will of God, through the man appointed to give us that knowledge.
It is just possible that the ‘truth’ about Jesus of Nazareth has been hidden to this day for a purpose - a ‘searching out of the hearts of men’, so to speak.
My stance is that the Reformation failed in its duty to banish ‘idolatry’. Much as this may astound and upset readers, I consider it my duty to point out that the Christian churches are still ‘wandering in the wilderness’ and looking for Jordan because they are still steeped in ‘idolatry’ through the worship of a ‘creature’, Jesus, instead of the ‘creator’, Almighty God.
In spirit and in truth
42. Jerry Morningstar
July 15, 2006
7:38 AM
Vynette - I wish that I were wrong concerning your views! However - let me just say a few words - and I appreciate you taking the time to read them.
One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. [Phil. 2:5-11]
For some it will be too late to make a difference in their eternal state.
For others - it will be a glorious acknowledgment of the truth they came to hold in this life.
Is it not true that man is to worship only God and God alone?
Why will Jesus receive such universal worship if He is a mere man? would that not be blasphemy?
How could He claim to forgive sins if He is not God? [Mark 2:5-12]
The arguments are numerous. I would encourage you to get a copy of C.S. Lewis’ ‘Mere Christianity’ or Josh McDowell’s ‘More than a Carpenter’ and read thru them.
If you find that their arguments are weak - then you have at least made an honest inquiry into the issue. Perhaps you will see - that you have not been taught correctly concerning the high and holy nature of Jesus.
The best way to not follow the ‘teachings of man’ - is to make honest inquiry and search the Scriptures to see if these things are so [Acts 17:11]
Lord bless you in your pursuit of truth