Discipleship

There is a big difference between loving that which is lovely for its own loveliness, and loving it for the sake of its benefits. Although both of these exists in the child of God, the former is proof that we are true children of God, while solely possessing the latter is proof that we are not. It proves that we do not find God's eternal qualities so compelling that we actually sell all and lose all for Him. And the reason is not weak faith, but no faith at all. To the inquiry "Into the first and chief reason why the generality of Christians fall so far short of the holiness and devotion of Christianity," George Whitefield answers, because the generality of those who call themselves Christians a re destitute of a true, living faith in Jesus Christ; for want of which they never effectually intended to please God in all actions of life, as the happiest and best thing in the world. Faith must have an object. When God is revealed, there is no lovelier Object. Unless we have come to know Him as "altogether Lovely," far lovelier than self, then we have not yet come to know Him at all. Charles Hodge explains, The perception of beauty is of necessity connected with the feeling of delight. Assent to moral truth involves the feeling of moral approbation. In like manner spiritual discernment (faith when the fruit of the Spirit) includes delight in the things of the Spirit, not only as true, but as beautiful and good. This is the difference between a living and a dead faith. Faith does not mean that believers escape duty. Faith makes it possible for him to "work out his own salvation." While we are not to trust in these works, neither are we to fear them. Such works, as the fruit of the Spirit, are to be fully expected, for if God works in us, it is always "both to will and to do of His good pleasure." It is this willingness that turns duty into delight. And where this willingness lacking, there can be no delight. Without delight, the performance is only pretense, and therefore not essentially the work that God accepts from nor performs upon the new creature. It is the new birth that changes duty into delight, and on this point we are all agreed. But it does not, as some suppose, lessen our obligation to duty. How can duty be changed into delight, if it is eliminated? Nor can God modify our duty towards Himself to conform with our desires, for our duty to love and obey any person always corresponds with the loveliness and authority of that person. Therefore, we are infinitely bound to love Him who is infinitely lovely. We owe supreme allegiance to Him whose authority is supreme. Since we can only value something properly when we value it according to its proper worth, God, being of infinite worth, can only be valued properly when we value Him above all else. Therefore, it is not only a conscious disaffection towards God that proves our depravity, but also the lack of supreme affection for Him. John Owen has rightly that "where God is not loved above all, He is not loves at all." While it is true that none do love God perfectly in this life, we must love Him supremely; that is, love Him above all else, with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. To love God supremely is not a height that is obtained by a few privileged saints, it is the minimum that God requires of us if we are to call ourselves Christians. To love anything else supremely is idolatry. David Tappan explains, Since God, on account of His transcendent excellence and worth, is entitled to our supreme affection; it follows that no regard to Him can be proper and acceptable, which does not far exceed our love for any other object. If therefore a person possessed some degree of respect to God, but at the same time regarded the world with still higher esteem and affection; the former would be justly accounted as nothing, as vanity, and a lie. For nothing merits the name of love and homage to the Supreme, but that which treats Him as supremely glorious, and accordingly gives Him the supremacy, yea, the entire possession of the heart. A subordinate love for God, then, does not constitute the height of our duty towards Him, but rather the depth of our depravity. Make no mistake, if we love God, it is not because of any virtue of our own, but because of His gracious work in our hearts. This work is not only commenced, but sustained and carried to completion by His almighty power. At the same time, our love for God is an art, with rules and principles that require not only human skill, but diligent pursuit. Failure to recognize the biblical balance between grace and duty, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, produces either apathy on the one hand or self-righteousness on the other. The overemphasis of the former shows an indifference to God by not rendering to Him a diligent use of all our faculties (Heart, soul, mind and strength), which always spring into action whenever true love for God exists. The overemphasis of the latter shows an indifference to God by an over-preoccupation with ourselves and our own abilities. The first, by neglecting responsibility, cannot be God-focused, because the right consideration of God always compels a radical response. The other, by focusing mainly on duty, has lost sight of God altogether, and is in reality equally self-focused. Our consumer nature is always dithering between the two extremes where self hopes to retain control - self-gratifying antinomianism, and self-righteous legalism. And since both of these have a common source in the old nature, the believer must crucify the flesh in both its good and evil forms. While the legalist opposes the work of Christ without by claiming the work of the Spirit within as his own, the antinomian opposes the work of Christ within by claiming the work of the Spirit within as optional. The first mistakes the ground of salvation, the latter rejects the fruit of salvation. The first is false for commingling justification and sanctification, the latter is false for separating them and allowing them to exist one without the other. The work within and the work without are to be received on their own merits, without the one excluding the other. For if the premise of one's soteriology requires either a denial or neglect of any of its other parts, it is a scheme resulting not from the work of God in the soul, but from a deficient view of His glory. One can denounce either self-righteousness or self-indulgence all they want, but so long as they allow the other, self still reigns supreme. Sanctification is as impossible apart from the basis of justification, as justification is apart from its fruits of righteousness in our lives through the Spirit. For the same gospel that warns against including works in our justification, also warns against excluding them in our walk of sanctification.