# God's Discipline



## Scott (Mar 5, 2007)

Hebrews 12 reads, in part:


> 4In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons:
> "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline,
> and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
> 6because the Lord disciplines those he loves,
> ...


*
Can anyone point to any resources that provide practical guidance on how to recognize whether suffering is God's discipline or not? Some suffering is not for discpline, such as the suffering endured by Job and Christ. Some suffering is for discpline, such as when God took David's child. How do we know the difference? I imagine Baxter and others have written on this.

Thanks*


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 5, 2007)

Do you think you are confusing discipline with punishment? All of God's children, whom he loves, are disciplined. This includes Job and Christ. Christ's obedience was perfect righteousness was proved through discipline. Suffering is essential for spiritual maturity. Job was disciplined to prove first that he was God's man but secondly to reveal and purge a prideful spirit. All of life is discipline in that it leads to repentance and sanctification (maturity).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2007)

I think one of the best Puritan works on this subject is Thomas Case's _Treatise on Afflictions_. 

Also worth reading is Thomas Boston's _The Crook in the Lot_ and Thomas Brooks' _Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod_, among others. 

These are discussed in this thread.

Also, William Bates on Heb. 12.5: _How to Bear Afflictions_.


----------



## Scott (Mar 6, 2007)

Andrew: Do you know what sections in those works, if any, discuss how to recogbnize whether suffering comes from discipline/punishment or something else? I looked over the TOCs but did not see anything that looked to address that. Thanks for the sources, BTW.


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 6, 2007)

Scott said:


> Hebrews 12 reads, in part:
> 
> Can anyone point to any resources that provide practical guidance on how to recognize whether suffering is God's discipline or not? Some suffering is not for discpline, such as the suffering endured by Job and Christ. Some suffering is for discpline, such as when God took David's child. How do we know the difference? I imagine Baxter and others have written on this.
> 
> Thanks




Agreed. A former pastor, Jerry McFarland, now at Westminster (PA), urged disciples to prayer through Psalm 139:23-24.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 6, 2007)

I think discipline in the sense found in Hebrews 12.5 (John Owen says: 'The word is variously rendered,” doctrine,” “institution,” “correction,” “chastisement,” “discipline.”') is broader than "punishment." Thomas Case says: "I shall take chastisements here in the utmost latitude, for all kinds and degrees of sufferings, whether from God, or man, or Satan; whether sufferings for sin, or sufferings for righteousness' sake." 

Clearly, we cannot always know the "why" behind our suffering. If one cannot discern the reason behind the suffering one may at least bear in mind that it comes from God and therefore constitutes a "hard providence" as opposed to "hard luck." Thomas Case, _Treatise on Afflictions_: 



> God hath consecrated thy sufferings by his teachings: afflictions have taken orders, as it were, and stand no longer in the rank of ordinary providences, but serve now in the order of gospel-ordinances, officiating in the holy garment of Divine promises, and to the same uses.



But, if a Christian is suffering, the situation always calls for self-examination, ie., "whether there be any wicked way in me" (Ps. 139.24). Otherwise, if we failed to examine ourselves as to any discernable reason for our suffering, we would be guilty of "despising the chastening of the Lord." 

John Owen:



> Directly to despise and contemn, or reject, the chastisements of the Lord, is a sin that perhaps none of his sons or children do fall into. But not to esteem of them as we ought, not to improve them unto their proper end, not to comply with the will of God in them, is interpretatively to despise them. Wherefore the evil cautioned against is, 1st. Want of a due regard unto divine admonitions and instructions in all our troubles and afflictions. And that ariseth either from, (1st.) Inadvertency; we look on them, it may be, as common accidents of life, wherein God hath no especial hand or design: or, (2dly.) Stout-heartedness; it may be they are but in smaller things, as we esteem them, such as we may bear with the resolution of men, without any especial application unto the will of God in them. 2dly. The want of the exercise of the wisdom of faith, to discern what is of God in them; as, (1st.) Love unto our persons; (2ndly.) His displeasure against our sins; (3dly.) The end. which he aims at, which is our instruction and sanctification. 3dly. The want of a sedulous application of our souls unto his call and mind in them; (1st.) In a holy submission unto his will; (2dly.) In a due reformation of all things wherewith he is displeased; (3dly.) In the exercise of faith for supportment under them, etc. Where there is a want of these things, we are said interpretatively to “despise the chastening of the Lord;” because we defeat the end and lose the benefit of them no less than if we did despise them.



One should apply 1 Peter 4.15-16 to their situation: 

[15] But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
[16] Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Thomas Case, _Treatise on Afflictions_, pp. 122-130, gives counsel on discerning or rightly understanding the nature of our afflictions that we might improve upon them:



> 4. Hence we may learn how to judge of our afflictions, and of our deliverances from them and it may serve instead of a use of examination: by this, I say, we may know, when our sufferings come in wrath, and when in love. You need not, as the scripture speaks in another case, say, Who shall ascend up into heaven, to look into God's book of life and death? or who shall descend into the deep of God's secret counsels, to make report hereof unto us? But what saith the scripture? "The word is nigh thee:" [Rom 10:8] the word of resolution, to this inquiry, it is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is to say, if thou canst evidence this to thine own soul, that instruction hath accompanied correction, that God hath taught thee as well as chastened thee, thou art a blessed man, thou shalt be saved: thou hast the word of him who is the author of blessedness, and blessedness itself, "Blessed is the man whom the Lord chasteneth, and teacheth him out of his law."
> 
> And therefore peruse, I beseech you, that model of Divine instructions or lessons, presented to you in the doctrinal part of this discourse, either at large, in those twenty particulars; or in the abridgement, the three great heads, to which they were reduced. And then, withal, set before your eyes those six properties of Divine covenant teaching, and compare your hearts and those lessons together. Ask your own souls, Hath God taught you those lessons, or any of them? 1. Inwardly. 2. Convincingly. 3. Experimentally. 4. Powerfully. 5. Sweetly. 6. Abidingly, (for even a hypocritical Ahab can humble himself for a time, walk in sackcloth, and go softly; a bulrush can hold down its head for a day.) And if the Spirit of God can bear witness to thy spirit, that thou art thus taught, happy art thou; bless the Lord, for the Lord hath blessed thee; thou mayest sing David's song, "I will bless the Lord who hath given me counsel; my reins also instruct me in the night season," Ps 16:7. And again, "I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me," Ps 119:75. If I have been less afflicted, I had been less blessed.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 6, 2007)

Thomas Boston, _The Crook in the Lot_:



> III. It remains to inquire why God makes a crook in one's lot? And this is to be cleared by discovering the design of that dispensation: a matter which it concerns every one to know, and carefully to notice, in order to a Christian improvement of the crook in their lot. The design of it seems to be chiefly sevenfold.
> 
> First, the trial of one's state, whether one is in the state of grace or not? Whether a sincere Christian, or a hypocrite? Though every affliction is trying, yet here I conceive lies the main providential trial a man is brought into, with reference to his state; forasmuch as the crook in the lot being a matter of continued course, one has occasion to open and show himself again and again in the same thing; from where it comes to pass, that it ministers ground for a decision in that momentous point. It was plainly on this foundation that the trial of Job's state was put. The question was, whether Job was an upright and sincere servant of God, as God himself testified of him: or but a mercenary one, a hypocrite, as Satan alleged against him? And the trial of this was put on the crook to be made in his lot. Accordingly, that which all his friends, save Elihu, the last speaker, did, in their reasonings with him under his trial, aim at, was to prove him a hypocrite; Satan thus making use of these good men for gaining his point. As God made trial of Israel in the wilderness, for the land of Canaan, by a trial of afflicting dispensations, which Caleb and Joshua bearing strenuously, were declared suitable to enter the promised land, as having followed the Lord fully; while others being tried out with them, their carcasses fell in the wilderness; so He makes trial of men for heaven, by the crook in their lot. If one can stand that test, he is manifested to be a saint, a sincere servant of God, as Job was proved to be; if not, he is but a hypocrite; he cannot stand the test of the crook in his lot, but goes away like dross in God's furnace. A melancholy instance of which we have in that man of honor and wealth, who, with high pretences of religion, arising from a principle of moral seriousness, addressed himself to our Savior, to know "what he should do that he might inherit eternal life. " Our Savior, to discover the man to himself, makes a crook in his lot, where all along before it had stood even, obliging him, by a probatory command, to sell and give away all that he had, and follow Him: "Sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and come, take up the cross and follow Me. " By this means he was at that moment, in the court of conscience, stripped of his great possession; so that from that time forward he could no longer keep them with a good conscience, as he might have done before. The man instantly felt the smart of this crook made in his lot; "he was sad at that saying; " that is, immediately upon the hearing of it, being struck with pain, disorder, and confusion of mind, his countenance changed, became cloudy and lowering, as the same word is used. He could not stand the test of that crook; he could by no means submit his lot to God in that point, but behoved to have it, at any rate, according to his own mind. So he "went away grieved, for he had great possessions. " He went away from Christ back to his plentiful estate, and though with a pained and sorrowful heart, sat him down again on it a violent possessor before the Lord, thwarting the Divine order. And there is no appearance that ever this order was revoked, or that ever he came to a better temper in reference to it.
> 
> ...


----------



## caddy (Mar 6, 2007)

This is good Andrew! I love the wording: "Hard Providence" as opposed to "Hard Luck". It is so much more _fitting_ with were we should be in our walk with Christ and our knowledge of Him.

Remember when Christ suffered, He did so quietly. In 1st Tim 6:13-16:

*1 Timothy 6:13-14 *13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony *before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, *14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. 

More important than the why, I think is the "How." Let us get a picture from scripture and our Lord on how He suffered and how He handled it. We would do well ask Him to help us mimic Him in our own suffering knowing that it _will_ come to us in this life.

I love Burrough's thoughts on this:

I offer the following description: Christian contentment is that sweet, inward, quiet, gracious frame of spirit, which freely submits to and delights in God's wise and fatherly disposal in every condition.

All is sedate and still there. That you may understand this better, I would add that this quiet, gracious frame of spirit is not opposed to certain things: 1 . To a due sense of affliction. God gives his people leave to be sensible of what they suffer. Christ does not say, 'Do not count as a cross what is a cross'; he says, 'Take up your cross daily'. It is like physical health: if you take medicine and cannot hold it, but immediately vomit it up, or if you feel nothing and it does not move you-in either case the medicine does no good, but suggests that you are greatly disordered and will hardly be cured. So it is with the spirits of men under afflictions: if they cannot bear God's potions and bring them up again, or if they are insensitive to them and no more affected by them than the body is by a draught of small beer, it is a sad symptom that their souls are in a dangerous and almost incurable condition. So this inward quietness is not in opposition to a sense of afflictions, for, indeed, there would be no true contentment if you were not apprehensive and sensible of your afflictions, when God is angry.

It is not opposed to making an orderly manner our moan and complaint to God, and to our friends. Though a Christian ought to be quiet under God's correcting hand, he may without any breach of Christian contentment complain to God. As one of the ancients says, Though not with a tumultuous clamor and shrieking out in a confused passion, yet in a quiet, still, submissive way he may unbosom his heart to God. Likewise he may communicate his sad condition to his Christian friends, showing them how God has dealt with him, and how heavy the affliction is upon him, that they may speak a word in season to his weary soul.


It is not opposed to all lawful seeking for help in different circumstances, nor to endeavoring simply to be delivered out of present afflictions by the use of lawful means. No, I may lay in provision for my deliverance and use God's means, waiting on him because I do not know but that it may be his will to alter my condition. And so far as he leads me I may follow his providence; it is but my duty, God is thus far mercifully indulgent to our weakness, and he will not take it ill at our hands if by earnest and importunate prayer we seek him for deliverance until we know his good pleasure in the matter. Certainly seeking thus for help, with such submission and holy resignation of spirit, to be delivered when God wills, and as God wills, and how God wills, so that our wills are melted into the will of God-this is not opposed to the quietness which God requires in a contented spirit.


http://www.bibleteacher.org/jbcontent1.htm

*The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment*
*by Jeremiah Burroughs *​ 



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Clearly, we cannot always know the "why" behind our suffering. If one cannot discern the reason behind the suffering one may at least bear in mind that it comes from God and therefore constitutes a "hard providence" as opposed to "hard luck." Thomas Case, _Treatise on Afflictions_:


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 6, 2007)

Sometimes the Lord uses your sin itself to chastise you:

5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations and the corruptions of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself; and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for other just and holy ends. So that whatsoever befalls any of his elect is by his appointment, for his glory, and their good. 
( 2 Chronicles 32:25, 26, 31; 2 Corinthians 12:7-9; Romans 8:28 )


----------



## Scott (Mar 6, 2007)

Thanks, Andrew. This point from Thomas Boston I think directly addressed the issue: "The crook in the lot usually in its nature of circumstances, so naturally refers to the false step or course, that it serves for a providential memorial of it, bringing the sin, though of an old date, fresh to remembrance, and for a badge of the sinner's folly, in word or deed, to keep it ever before him." Is there anything else like this? I did not see anything else directly on point. 

Using this, the guy who undergoes suffering would ask if there is any natural connection between the sin and the new suffering. That makes sense and seem the most obvious test. If a guy who sins by getting drunk crashes a car while under the influence, the connection is clear. 

But there are other types of suffering that do not occur as naturally. For example, with respect to Israel, God said that a variety of sins (eg. stealing, murder, sexual immorality) could produce things like bad weather (eg. no rain for crops), military failure, or famine. There is no obvious connection between taking foreign wives (forbidden by the Law) and lack of rain as a punishment. Or, to use a NT example, unworthy receipt of communion caused some people to get sick and die. Physical sickness is not something I would naturally connect in my mind with unworthy receipt of the sacraments, certainly not in the same way as getting drunk and having a car wreck while under the influence. 

Let me ask, this. In bottom line summary terms, what would someone consider in interpreting suffering as punishment for sin?

1. Whether is a clear connection b/t the sin and the suffering (eg. Boston above).

What about these:
2. The person is in known unrepentant sin. 
3. The suffering occurs is close proximity to a sin. 

Are these right? Anything else?

Scott


----------



## etexas (Mar 6, 2007)

You know God was really dealing with me on some of my heart attitudes and being judgmental. I fought tooth and nail and whined. Then I opened my heart to the Holy Bible and have found some real peace again. (No! I was not having a super-mystical thing, I am quite serious, at that deep level that a Christian has now and again, I just knew!) Dogpile me if you want and accuse me of being "subjective". But that is how it played out. Pax Vobiscum


----------

