# The Christian’s Reasonable Service / Vol. 2 - Quotes



## Smeagol

I hope this Lord’s Day Morning finds you focusing on the Great Name of our Lord and Savior. I wanted to begin this thread as a place to share some quotations from Wilhelmus A’ Brakel’s _The Christian’s Reasonable Service (RHB hardcopy edition). _I will begin vol. 2 today. I hope the quotes will also be edifying for the PB viewers as well. I will try to post 1 quote a week.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

It would seem that A’ Brakel‘s rejection of the distinction of “Invisible & Visible” Church, as he states he thinks it distorts the truth that we have One True Church, would be outside the Westminster view described in Chapter XXV.

Personally I find the distinction helpful and am glad the Westminster uses the terms.

A’ Brakel (Vol. 2, pg. 5 -7):


> _Clarification of the Invisible/Visible Church Distinction_
> This one church in its militant state upon earth manifests itself at times more openly in her public assemblies, confession, and holiness. She is then called the visible church. At other times she is more hidden from the eyes of the world by prevailing errors, ungodliness, or persecutions. Then she is referred to as the invisible church (Rev 12:14).
> This militant church can be viewed either in her internal, spiritual frame, or in her public gatherings. Her internal, spiritual frame, which consists of faith, a mystical union with Christ, and the spiritual life of the soul, is invisible and cannot be observed with the physical eye. The gatherings where God‟s Word is heard and the sacraments are used, as well as her public profession in times of prosperity, are public and visible. Thus, in some respects the church is visible, and in some respects invisible. However, one may not divide the church into a visible and invisible church. One and the same person is invisible as far as the soul, will, intellect, and affections are concerned, and he is visible as far as his body and motions are concerned. As one person cannot be divided into an invisible and a visible person, one may not divide the church into a visible and invisible church, for then it would seem as if there were two churches, each being a different church.
> 
> One may also not divide the church into a visible and invisible church as far as the members themselves are concerned, as if the one had different members from the other. Then all the elect, that is, those who truly have been called and converted, would mentally be separated from all others in the church and constitute the invisible church, whereas converted and unconverted together, gathering in one church, and having only in common the external call, historical faith, confession of the truth, and the external use of the sacraments, would constitute the visible church. This is, in our opinion, an erroneous view, generating many confusing thoughts and expressions concerning the church. When a speaker or writer refers to the church, one will then be in doubt as to whether he is speaking of the so- called invisible or visible church.
> We maintain that one may not separate the visible and invisible church in such a manner, for, first, I do not find that the terms visible and invisible church are used in God‟s Word with that connotation, nor do I find the description of such a distinction.
> Secondly, this distinction is founded upon a false supposition—as if the unconverted are truly members of the church with equal right, that is, in its external and visible gathering, and therefore have a right to use the sacraments, something which we deny expressly below. If the unconverted are not members of the church, even when she is visible, the aforementioned distinction is of necessity irrelevant.
> 
> Thirdly, such a distinction infers the existence of two churches which are essentially different from each other. From a spiritual perspective true believers constitute the church by reason of a true, spiritual, and believing union with Christ and with each other. If the unconverted, together with the converted would constitute a church on the basis of equal rights, this would have to be of an essentially different nature, whereby members of distinctly different natures would constitute one body and one church, even though the unconverted are not spiritually united to Christ and believers. If there are two essential manifestations, there must also be two essentially different bodies and churches, whereas we confess that there is but one church.
> 
> Fourthly, if in this respect there were a visible and an invisiblechurch, one consisting only of true believers (due to a spiritual union) and one consisting of converted and unconverted together by way of an external union, then believers would simultaneously belong to two churches, one being invisible and the other visible. They would thus be in one church to which salvation is not promised, and in another to which salvation is promised. To hold such a view is as absurd as to propose the existence of two churches.



Brakel seems to prefer using the terms “invisible & visible” in relation to the Church’s purity being more or less visible.

Westminster Chapter 25:


> 1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.a
> 
> a. Eph 1:10, 22-23; Eph 5:23, 27, 32; Col 1:18.
> 
> 2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion,a and of their children;band is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,c the house and family of God,dout of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.e
> 
> a. Psa 2:8; Rom 15:9-12; 1 Cor 1:2; 12:12-13; Rev 7:9. • b. Gen 3:15; 17:7; Ezek 16:20-21; Acts 2:39; Rom 11:16; 1 Cor 7:14. • c. Isa 9:7; Mat 13:47. • d. Eph 2:19; 3:15. • e. Acts 2:47.



Feel free to share thoughts. Brakel seems to quote the Belgic Confession Articles 27, 28, and 29 for support. This is odd to me because Article 29 does mention those only externally in the Church. I hope I am not misconstruing Mr. Brakel.


----------



## Smeagol

G said:


> It would seem that A’ Brakel‘s rejection of the distinction of “Invisible & Visible” Church, as he states he thinks it distorts the truth that we have One True Church, would be outside the Westminster view described in Chapter XXV.
> 
> Personally I find the distinction helpful and am glad the Westminster uses the terms.
> 
> A’ Brakel (Vol. 2, pg. 5 -7):
> 
> 
> Brakel seems to prefer using the terms “invisible & visible” in relation to the Church’s purity being more or less visible.
> 
> Westminster Chapter 25:
> 
> 
> Feel free to share thoughts. Brakel seems to quote the Belgic Confession Articles 27, 28, and 29 for support. This is odd to me because Article 29 does mention those only externally in the Church. I hope I am not misconstruing Mr. Brakel.


I think the below answer A’ Brakel gives later helps clarify what he is really getting at, to which I say Amen! (Pages 12-13):



> Objections Answered Concerning Membership in the True Church
> Objection #1: It is evident that a large multitude of unconverted persons associate with the church, are accepted as
> her members, remain members there, and partake of the sacraments. Therefore they are members of the church indeed.
> 
> Answer: (1) It is one thing to associate with the church and to be accepted as members, and another thing to be true members. The latter does not proceed from the first, for the acceptance of men as members is performed by men, who see only what is before their eyes and cannot judge according to the heart, leaving this to Him who knows the hearts. Regeneration or the probability of regeneration has not been established as a rule by which the elders of the church accept members. Rather, they are judged by their confession of the truth and their response to this truth, and by the manifestation of a life which does not contradict their confession. The rest is left to them and to the Lord.
> 
> (2) It is one thing to join the church externally, and it is another thing to speak of an external church. Even though they are externally in the church, this does not mean that there is an external church of which they are bonafide members. Membership in an external church to which the promise of salvation is not annexed is not their objective, but rather a church as being a fellowship within which they may be saved. To this church they apply themselves, but only externally, and not in truth with a converted and believing heart. Therefore they are no members, even though men view them as such externally. They are thus within the church as a poisonous fruit which is attached to a good tree with good fruits. They are therefore within the church as strangers, who for some time dwell in a house, but whom no one deems to be family members. Because of this external association with the church there is also an external relationship to the Lord Jesus as King of His church, as well as her true members, and they enjoy the external privileges of the church. Their entrance into the church, and the church‟s acceptance of them does not make them true members of the church. Such can only come about by faith and repentance.



In other words I think I now see that there is no contradiction between Brakel and the Westminster on this point. This is a good lesson when speaking with others on the nature of the Church. We should not assume terms are being defined the same way.


----------



## deleteduser99

WLC to assist your meditations on the subject:

Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.
Q. 62. What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.
Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.
Q. 64. What is the invisible church?
A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.
Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.
Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

From pg. 20 - Relevant to using the name "Reformed"-



> The True Church Refers to Herself as Reformed To distinguish the true church from all erroneous assemblies, we call ourselves Reformed—not, however, in reference to doctrine, as if we had changed or improved the same. No, according to God‟s Word the truth remains impeccably preserved. We do so, however, in reference to errors which permeated the church. These the church has cast out, departing from Roman Catholic heresy by which she had been so long oppressed, and reforming the church according to the precepts of God‟s Word. Certain parties reproachfully call members of the true Reformed Church Calvinists after Calvin, minister in Geneva, who was one of the first to oppose Roman Catholic error. We say, “among the first,” for neither he nor Luther, but Zwingli, was the first. We acknowledge Calvin as a member of the true church. He has done much to promote the truth, but he is neither the head of the church nor the one who prescribed the rule for life and doctrine. We neither magnify nor lean upon man. We do not follow human inventions nor call ourselves after men. If someone desires to name us after a man, he does so at his own peril. If in doing so he wishes to distinguish us as the true church from the false church, the matter itself is good, but not the manner.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Vol. 2, pg. 35



> (3) Holiness in all its activity does not seek its own honor, but the glorification of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

From vol. 2, pg. 67. Brakel shows how being absent is very closely related to being divisive for those who choose to neglect attending their church’s public gathering, especially for the reason that the church you are a member of has too many flaws, though it still be a true church:



> Even if it does not cause the church to be torn asunder, it is at the least a major step in that direction. The sentiments of the members become divided and collide. Every person has his own faction and clings closely to those who belong to his party, thereby opposing others. The bond of love is severed and the one becomes estranged from the other. The absentees are rendered suspect, are accepted by neither the godly nor by the ungodly, and thus become unprofitable as far as the proper use of their talents. Discussions relative to all this lead to division and discord. The common folk among the godly are offended and grieved, which is a great sin (Matt 18:6, 10), and it grieves faithful ministers to the heart. Those who are without are hindered from entering in, and the enemies are given a cause to slander the church. Those who remain absent live but for themselves and do not seek so much the welfare of their neighbor, but rather exalt their own sensuality above the honor of Christ and the well-being of the church, even though they maintain that such is not their objective. From all this it is evident that absenteeism is schismatic or causes schism, which is a criminal offense. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10).


----------



## Smeagol

From Pg. 50, in laying out the arguments for the Pope to be The antichrist among other lesser antichrist:

Regarding the RC church in general:



> Rome places its declarations and traditions next to, and in opposition to, the Word of God. Rome forbids the reading of the Bible, commands that a piece of bread be worshipped as God, has introduced the worship of angels and deceased saints, has erected images and altars, claims authority for itself to forgive sin, promotes the apostasy of the saints, teaches that man is not only able to be perfect but can also perform superfluous works which the pope then keeps in his treasure chest and distributes according to his pleasure. Rome denies that the merits of Christ atone for all sin, original and actual. It teaches that one can and must earn heaven himself. It has fabricated the existence of purgatory, and on behalf of the living and the dead, sacrifices Christ anew in the mass. All Romish errors are too numerous to be mentioned here. These sufficiently demonstrate that Rome and its followers have become apostate concerning the faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Pg. 50

Any historical help with this? Was there a time when the RCs only used 1 element in their mass?



> Yes, the Pope allows himself to be carried about as if he were God, and everyone bows the knee before him. He opposes the God of heaven, establishing religious practices which are contrary to what God has instituted. He has the audacity to maintain that even though *Christ has instituted the Lord’s Supper with two signs, bread and wine, that it will be administered with one sign—bread only.*


----------



## Poimen

G said:


> Pg. 50
> 
> Any historical help with this? Was there a time when the RCs only used 1 element in their mass?



The Council of Constance (1415) forbade the giving of the cup to the laity.

And according to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (1994), statement 1390 (page 389): "Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons _this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite_. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly" (emphasis mine). This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites." To the best of my knowledge, this practice continues in the Romanist sect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Oh how we need the Lord’s Supper restored and restored rightly! We by and large have too easily and for too long have let the magistrates tell us NOT to meet. Praise the Lord many again will be meeting & communing this Lords Day. From Pg. 65 - 66:



> As it is the objective of the Lord‟s Supper to confess Christ, He is confessed in a most public and powerful manner by all who partake of the Lord‟s Supper. To enter the church with the multitude which will partake of the Lord‟s Supper, to join them in going to the table, to sit at the table with them, and to receive the bread and the wine as signs and seals of the covenant (which are ratified by the death of the Lord Jesus) is a loud declaration in everyone‟s ears, “I esteem and confess the Lord Jesus to be the only true Savior. In Him I seek my salvation, with Him I enter into covenant, on Him I depend, for Him I wish to live and die; the Reformed doctrine is the only true and saving doctrine of Christ, and the Reformed church is the only true church of Jesus Christ upon earth. These truths I confess when I partake of the Lord‟s Supper.”
> 
> If someone therefore withdraws himself from the use of the Lord‟s Supper, he abstains from confessing Christ, His doctrine, and His church. Thus, we agree with our Belgic Confession, article 28 [Bel Con 28]:
> 
> We believe ... that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church. ... And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though magistrates and edicts of princes be against it; yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those, who separate themselves from the same or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Pg. 68 - 69 in dealing with those prone to absenting a true church for not being ”pure enough” or abstaining from the Lords Supper because the true church is “too degenerate”:



> First Proof: God generally imposes secret judgments upon those who absent themselves. They become proud, opinionated, and despise the judgment of godly persons endowed with wisdom. They hold the congregation of God in contempt. They haughtily speak of great things, and come in a condition where they deem themselves beyond instruction, manifesting a pride against that which David prayed in Ps 19:13.





> They will have lost much of that inward spiritual frame which previously adorned the church, engaging themselves more with judgmental reflections than with heart reflections, or with concerning themselves with the soul of another person. What a tragic judgment this is!
> 
> I have stated all of this in order that those who, because of our arguments and our response to their arguments, have been convinced concerning their previous misconceptions and errors, would humble themselves concerning this before God, pray for forgiveness, and persevere in asking to be delivered from well-deserved spiritual judgments. May they abstain from the things mentioned above which I have enlarged upon as a warning, and make a new beginning with their original simplicity and sincerity.
> 
> These arguments ought to convince a Christian sufficiently that he is not permitted to abstain from partaking of the Lord‟s Supper due to the degeneracy of the church.



P.S. This was a sobering reflection for me personally. Though I have not absented myself from my church meetings nor the Lords Supper, I have sensed times of being consumed with “judgmental reflections” towards Her over and above heart “reflections” about myself.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

G said:


> Pg. 68 - 69 in dealing with those prone to absenting a true church for not being ”pure enough” or abstaining from the Lords Supper because the true church is “too degenerate”:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. This was a sobering reflection for me personally. Though I have not absented myself from my church meetings nor the Lords Supper, I have sensed times of being consumed with “judgmental reflections” towards Her over heart “reflections” about myself.



There are few things which reveal the deceitfulness of our hearts so much as the "no-one's pure enough mindset" when it comes to the church. Often, it is just a prideful cover for our own sin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed Covenanter said:


> There are few things which reveal the deceitfulness of our hearts so much as the "no-one's pure enough mindset" when it comes to the church. Often, it is just a prideful cover for our own sin.


Very true. The most dangerous aspect for me of this mindset, in my opinion, is that it seems to impact me most on the day I least need to be that way....The Lord’s Day.

Brakel is excellent in this section in reminding laymen that it is the job of the session to fence the table and he strongly encourages Christians NOT to abstain from the Lord’s Supper if a session neglects this duty, though it still be a true church. That failing is not on the laymen but on the session.

Daniel, if you liked that quote I think you will really enjoy his reminder from pg. 74-75. Very helpFul for me to remember when I get tempted this way:



> Thirdly, it has at all times been God‟s intent to leave the church subject to such degeneracy while in the world. Consider the church from Adam to Christ, and you will observe that the Lord was not pleased with the majority of those belonging to it. At the time of Christ‟s sojourn the Jewish church was terribly corrupted, with multitudes of baptized disciples forsaking Him, thereby manifesting that they had not been truly converted (John 6:66). Paul declared that the congregation of Corinth was carnal (1 Cor 3:3), that fornication was in vogue among them (1 Cor 5:1), that some partook of the Lord‟s Supper while being drunken (1 Cor 11:21), and that some were void of the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34). In the congregation of Galatia there were those who should have been excommunicated, but who nevertheless remained within the congregation (Gal 5:12). In Phil 2:21 Paul states the following concerning many in the church, “For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ‟s.” Read the letter of Jude, and Rev 2 and 3, and you will observe how degenerate those churches were. Indeed, one will find exhortations and directives relative to the church‟s obligation to excommunicate those who lead offensive lives. However, in none of the texts referring to degeneracy within the church are the upright forbidden to partake of the Lord‟s Supper in those churches. We here wish to refer you to our Letters Against the Labadists, our Warning, and our Doctrine and Government (addressed to the Labadists), there being many matters which would shed light upon this for such apprehensive individuals. If they refuse to make the effort, however, they must know that they willingly adhere to error.
> He who wishes to hide behind the word church, understanding it to refer to those who are truly godly in the world and not to the congregation in its external manifestation, thereby declaring himself to remain a member of the church, is a person of Labadistic persuasion. For his instruction, he ought to read what we have written concerning the Labadists in Doctrine and Government. Such a person deceives himself and others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

G said:


> Daniel, if you liked that quote I think you will really enjoy his reminder from pg. 74-75. Very helpFul for me to remember when I get tempted this way:



I read the four-volume of The Christian's Reasonable Service and remember reading these sections with interest at the time. Our forebears' approach to the church in general and schism in particular, appears to be a far cry from what we often encounter today.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol

Skipping Ahead, I saw something in Volume 4 and was hoping to get some insight from those knowledgeable of a footnote given on the last Page of Volume 4:

Pg. 535:



> Thus far we have considered the state of the church and God‟s dealings with her from Adam to Abraham, from
> Abraham to Sinai, from Sinai to Christ, and from Christ until the Revelation of John. It now remains for us to consider the state of the church, and God‟s dealings with her, from the Revelation of John until the end of the world,
> 25
> as recorded for us in the Revelation of John.



Footnote:


> 25 à Brakel‟s exposition of the book of Revelation is not included in this four-volume set due to its controversial nature. However, out of respect for àBrakel and for the sake of historicity, it has been decided to publish this exposition as a separate volume at a future date.



Why was Brakel’s commentary on Revelation deemed controversial in nature?

Seems like not the happiest of endings after one makes it through 4 very edifying volumes.


----------



## Phil D.

G said:


> Why was Brakel’s commentary on Revelation deemed controversial in nature?


Your notation of this piqued my interest as well. In this introduction to his commentary on Revelation ("look inside") I found a useful summarization of aBrakel's eschatological view, which was apparently historicist/postmillennial. I suppose some tenants of it may be deemed "too" controversial by some in today's climate of theological egalitarianism.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

Phil D. said:


> Your notation of this piqued my interest as well. In this introduction to his commentary on Revelation ("look inside") I found a useful summarization of aBrakel's eschatological view, which was apparently historicist/postmillennial. I suppose some tenants of it may be deemed "too" controversial by some in today's climate of theological egalitarianism.


Found this, but I’m still scratching my head some:

v. Bartel Elshout explains why it was omitted. He asserts:

“…à Brakel’s exposition of the Revelation of John has not been included in the English edition. This exposition is by far the weakest and most controversial element of his work –à Brakel was a historical millenialist with postmillenial tendencies– and has therefore never received the abiding recognition and approbation which have been awarded to _De RedelijkeGodsdienst_ itself. The Dutch church historian Ypeij states concerning this exposition: “This volume is the least significant and needs to be used by the common man with prudence and with not too much confidence in the exegesis of the writer.” Los concludes: “The public at large has unconsiously placed its stamp of approval on this unfavorable evaluation concerning Brakel’s exposition of the Revelation of John. For, as renowned as the _RedelijkeGodsdienst_ is, in like manner the exposition which concludes the work has been relegated to oblivion.” This unfavorable evaluation of his exposition of Revelation led to the decision to postpone its translation to a future date...”





__





Rev. Wilhelmus a Brakel's Commentary on Revelation






www.puritans.net


----------



## Smeagol

From same link above:

Rev. Elshout expands further on this in his communications recorded at http://faithbasedworks.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/exposition-on-revelation-by-wilhelmus-a-brakel/ . He seems to indicate there that it is likely he will never seek its English translation in these words: “At this point, I am quite doubtful that it will ever be translated.”

Rev. a Brakel was a postmillennial historicist, which is the position that the Historicism Research Foundation (www.historicism.net) advocates. To the extent that the final section of _A Christian’s Reasonable Service _was omitted because postmillennial historicism is out of favor, it may be a sadder commentary on our generation than the author’s eschatology. Therefore, the current project of Historicism Research Foundation is to spearhead its translation into English. The reality is that postmillennial historicism is effectively taught in the Westminster Standards. In addition, it is taught in the Dutch States Bible and significantly implied in the Three Forms of Unity, such as the Belgic Confession article 36 (see http://historicism.net/readingmaterials/sixthpoint.pdf ) .


----------



## Smeagol

Appears to be another example of a translating decision where we just wipe out 200 plus pages of a minister’s work because we deem it “wrong”. The work of Brakel would have been all the sweeter if they included it as he himself intended. Thankfully you can buy it separate, I think!

Oh well, enough of a rabbit trail, back to Vol. II.

P.S. EDIT: Not a reflection on RHB, whom I love, but rather on the opinions and reasonings given in the footnote in Post #16.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It may be more than just the historicism. RHB was happy to publish Durham's commentary on Revelation. The difference may be the need for translation (more time and cost) and maybe a bigger negative for the Dutch (going on one of the comments in one of the blog links above), and maybe lack of the additional content or nature that commended the Durham above the interpretation of "the mysteries" as Spurgeon put it. 


G said:


> Appears to be another example of a translating decision where we just wipe out 200 plus pages of a minister’s work because we deem it “wrong”. The work of Brakel would have been all the sweeter if they included it as he himself intended. Thankfully you can buy it separate, I think!
> 
> Oh well, enough of a rabbit trail, back to Vol. II.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Back to Volume II, pg. 109-110:



> The pope does not adhere to the doctrine of Peter, but opposes it, as we have demonstrated in nearly every chapter of this book. The pope’s lifestyle is also not identical to Peter’s. Where do we read of Peter having a triple crown beset with diamonds? He said, “Silver and gold have I none” (Acts 3:6). Where do we read of Peter having a purple robe, chariots and horses, a gestatorial chair for vain show, and purple-robed cardinals who carried him? When did he ever allow his feet to be kissed? Which kings did Peter either appoint or depose? To which kings did Peter grant the proprietorship of certain countries? There is therefore no resemblance with Peter at all, unless it would be pertaining to his confession, “I know not the man.” Finally, since the pope is the antichrist, as we have demonstrated in chapter 24, it is evident that the pope is not Peter’s successor.



P.S. What does the man-made December holy day and Roman Catholicism have in common?.........Potpourri!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

An excellent section here where Brakel has been dealing with the content and importance of a minister’s internal and external call as well as his commission. He condemns those who seek to start their own house church without a commission. He also COMMENDS what would seem to be a house-group type gathering with some quliaifiucations. A little longer quote I know, but well worth the read Vol. II pg. 128 -129:



> Members must thus be on guard to do nothing whereby the commission of ministers loses its importance. This occurs when the ministry is imitated by someone who, either in his home or in a different location gathers people together, and according to the format of a sermon announces a text, exposits the text, and makes application; or if someone sets forth some touchstones by which (it frightens me to think of it) he declares one to be either spiritually alive or dead. One then runs without being sent, thereby removing the impression concerning the commission of ministers out of the hearts of the people, and thus making the ministry less fruitful. Even if someone is highly talented, being more talented than the best of ministers, and even if it is someone‟s objective to edify, and a person is edified by this, then this does not justify such a practice, which generally will do tenfold more damage than good. Such a practice is generally accompanied by pride and self-promotion, frequently resulting in divided sentiments. Frequently the cause of the ungodly is bolstered, or the hearts of the godly are tossed to and fro, disturbed, and saddened by the imprudent propositions of such preachers. I anticipate that such a practice will cause much confusion in the church. Oh, that the Lord would fill such individuals with terror if they are as yet unconverted. If they are converted, that He would then convince them of their error and cause them to cease such activity!
> 
> I am not opposed to special gatherings of church members. Idespise such ministers who keep godly members from the Lord‟s Supper either because they have such special gatherings or because they are opposed to them. I make it my business to encourage members to meet together, since the communion of saints requires this. I am, however, opposed to disorderly assemblies as well as to the practice mentioned. One must not strive for dominance in such assemblies, but each person must have equal input. Such assemblies must be conducted by way of mutual discussions, the reading of a chapter from God‟s Word, a mutual exchange of questions and answers (one person may lead to ask the questions), the singing of psalms and spiritual songs together, the reviewing of a sermon, the encouraging and comforting of each other, and praying together. Upon such gatherings the Lord‟s blessing would rest, and the Lord Jesus would be present according to His promise. Such gatherings should neither be conducted too frequently nor should they last too long, lest one be blamed for being lazy, squandering his time, and neglecting his household. One must actually demonstrate the contrary to be true. It would be more prudent if one were to have such gatherings during the day rather than at night, especially if men and women gather together.


----------



## Kinghezy

Thanks for these posts. These are a nice break from the cultural discussions that seem to be dominating the board right now.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Brakel explains that one of the marks of a Minister is that he must be a man of GRAVITY, oh how we still need this in our own day!

From Vol. II pg.133:



> Thirdly, he must be a man of gravity, “... with all gravity” (1 Tim 3:4), “in doctrine shewing ... gravity” (Titus 2:15, in order that “no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15). Job conducted himself as such, “The young men saw me, and hid themselves: and the aged arose, and stood up. The princes refrained talking, and laid their hand on their mouth” (Job 29:8-9).



For me jokes from the pulpit or celebrity/movie quotes seems to almost always detract from the gravity of the preached word. I have not read John Piper in a long long time. However a book that always has stuck with me as I have sought to understand the office of a minister is his book,_ The Supremacy of God in Preaching. _He basically outlines Johnathan Edwards preaching style in the book. One thing I always remember from the book it that in Edwards view, humor to get a laugh from pulpit was in his own view unwise. Edwards certainly had a gravity about his preaching it seemed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Brakel on a Minister’s duties with regards to his congregational prayers, pg. 136-137:



> A minister must certainly also pray in secret before he goes to the pulpit, praying for the Spirit of prayer and for the ability to preach. To read a form prayer from a book, or to formulate and memorize one‟s own prayer, and repeat such a prayer time and again, is generally a sign of an intercessor without feeling; and those who pray along with him (or after him) will likewise do so without feeling. I do not object to reflecting ahead of time upon matters which must be brought before the Lord on behalf of the congregation. I also do not object to making notes of some points in order to assist one‟s memory. This must not always be the same, however, but ought to change according to time and occasion. Furthermore, one must be dependent upon the Spirit and bind oneself neither to words nor matters, but follow the Holy Spirit who maketh intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered as far as matters, expressions, and motions are concerned.


----------



## Kinghezy

G said:


> Brakel explains that one of the marks of a Minister is that he must be a man of GRAVITY, oh how we still need this in our own day!
> 
> From Vol. II pg.133:
> 
> 
> 
> For me jokes from the pulpit or celebrity/movie quotes seems to almost always detract from the gravity of the preached word. I have not read John Piper in a long long time. However a book that always has stuck with me as I have sought to understand the office of a minister is his book,_ The Supremacy of God in Preaching. _He basically outlines Johnathan Edwards preaching style in the book. One thing I always remember from the book it that in Edwards view, humor to get a laugh from pulpit was in his own view unwise. Edwards certainly had a gravity about his preaching it seemed.



It's been a while since I heard one of John Piper's sermons, but my recollection is he has the scripture read and then immediately jumps into the exegesis. There's not the "here's some story that I will tell to ease you into scripture". I really appreciate just jumping right into the text, without the windup. I have the typical concerns of his theology that others probably do, but I really appreciate how serious he is about preaching

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Kinghezy said:


> It's been a while since I heard one of John Piper's sermons, but my recollection is he has the scripture read and then immediately jumps into the exegesis. There's not the "here's some story that I will tell to ease you into scripture". I really appreciate just jumping right into the text, without the windup. I have the typical concerns of his theology that others probably do, but I really appreciate how serious he is about preaching


Me too! To be honest I always internally cringe when I hear, ”movie quote” or “one time I had a flat tire on the way to the dog salon”.

The cookie cutter seems to be read text, story quote, 3 points then end. I have never really read that structure in our reformed forefathers, I wonder if it is taught in some seminaries or something. I really enjoy when a Pastor makes me feel the weight of the text, the sense that he buries us in it, show us our sin, and then pulls us through to Christ.


----------



## Kinghezy

G said:


> wonder if it is taught in some seminaries or something



Maybe. It would be interesting to hear from pastors. I saw this in broadly evangelical churches and PCA. So maybe it's just the style everyone hears from each other, and they emulate (I am not going to use the tired metaphor of fish swimming in water that everyone has probably heard).





G said:


> have never really read that structure in our reformed forefathers



I should make a point to listen to Joel Beeke. If anyone is going to structure his sermons to fit the Puritan model, he would be my guess.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

Brakel in dealing with one of the duties of a Minister regarding use of the keys. May this serve as a challenge and encouragement to all ministers. We (church men and women) need you to use the keys when required! Vol. II, pg. 142



> The minister may and must also make specific use of the key of the Word in reference to ungodly members, making application to specific individuals. He must declare that they are unconverted, have no part in Christ, and will go lost—all this upon the condition that they do not repent. As a minister must use this key by making specific application, he must likewise do so publicly from the pulpit. He must first of all give a clear analysis of who true believers are, so that every one may perceive what his own condition is; he must then proclaim to such the forgiveness of sins. On the other hand, he must clearly and forcefully uncover the condition of the unconverted, proclaiming unto them that they are still objects of the wrath of God and must anticipate condemnation if they remain unconverted. The minister must use this key faithfully with much tenderness of heart, without respect of persons, and with boldness, upon the authority given him by Christ, to promote the building up of His kingdom. He must therefore give heed to the manner in which he uses this key. If he leaves this key unused, he is unfaithful to Christ and His church. If he thereby grieves the godly and hardens the ungodly, he ought to fear for the judgment of God. “Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life” (Ezek 13:22). The second key, Christian discipline, is not to be used independently by him, but he must use it as a member of the consistory. We shall discuss this a bit later in this chapter.



P.S. On to the office of Elder and Deacon next and will likely post 1-2 more quotes today.


----------



## Smeagol

Your turn Ruling Elders, be reminded and encouraged by Brakel Vol.II, pg. 145 - 147



> The Duties of an Elder
> Their purpose for being in church is not to sit upon a soft pillow in front of the church, nor to imagine that they stand above other members and thus can order them around. They may also not behave as if they were lords and masters over the ministers, it being their duty to give heed to the doctrine and life of the ministers. It is also the task of ministers to give heed to the doctrine and life of the elders. They also may neither oppose the good counsel of the ministers within the consistory, nor deem it to be a masterpiece if they succeed in checkmating the minister. Neither is it intended that the elders be but “yes-men” who blindly follow the minister in his wishes. Rather, it is their task in all humility, and with wisdom and love, to assist the ministers in promoting the welfare of the church. As is true for ministers, the labor of elders is also twofold, for they perform these labors either individually or in cooperation with other consistories, Classes, and Synods.
> Every elder has a duty toward the congregation. He must view himself as having been sent by the Lord to perform these labors. With this impression and in this capacity he must accept and perform all his labors.



Heeding the walk of every member (a little longer but MUCH needed):



> Secondly, they must particularly give heed to the walk of each member. There must be careful supervision as to how one conducts himself at home; that is, whether there is love and harmony, and whether each member in his particular position of the household conducts himself properly towards others. They must inquire whether family worship is conducted, whether God‟s Word is read, whether the children are instructed, whether they are raised appropriately, whether they are attending school, and whether they are being trained for an honest profession. They must inquire whether the father of the home has an honest profession, as well as how he conducts himself in this profession. Elders must inquire what reputation each member has among the local population, in order that they may know how they ought to deal with each member. In one word, they must keep an eye upon everything, and if they are informed that something is not well somewhere, they must immediately make work of correcting the situation. For this purpose it is necessary for elders to divide the congregation into sections, similar to what ministers do in the cities. They will then be able to take much more careful note of things. Elders must not think that they have performed their duty if they accompany the minister onfamily visitation, even if they do not say a word. No, the purpose of this is to make this family visitation all the more credible, and to make a deeper impression upon the members concerning the necessity of preparation for the Lord‟s Supper. It will also enable them to assist the minister in word and deed if there are situations which require this, and to learn from the minister how to deal with souls. He is also to observe where the minister, upon having conducted family visitation, needs to visit to follow up whatever needs to be attended to. The elder must, however, also do this work himself.



P.S. Deacons are next.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

To Deacons, from pg. 151:



> Secondly, they must distribute. In distributing funds they must use wisdom and caution, seeing to it that they do not give thoughtlessly. They must give most to those who have the greatest need, and less to those who are lazy and waste that which has been given to them, in order to teach them to work and to be frugal. Orphans, the aged, the sick, or mothers who have given birth each require a different approach. Those who are to blame for their poverty and who are capable of working must again be treated differently. This is also true for those who, due to a handicap, cannot work, even though they are healthy. It is again different with those who would rather perish from hunger with their families (which is a sin), than to allow it to be known that they are receiving something from the deaconry. A different approach is also needed for those who would be reduced to poverty unless some monetary help be given to them enabling them to remain solvent. Much wisdom is needed to clearly discern time, manner, and circumstances in making these decisions.
> 
> Thirdly, the deacons must also care for the souls of their poor, for they are as fathers to them; and whatever one member is obligated to do to another, they must excel in doing to those over whom the Lord has placed them.
> (1) They must instruct the ignorant, and bring them to the church services and to catechism instruction.
> (2) They must exhort, rebuke, and comfort according to individual circumstances.
> (3) They must visit the sick, either preparing their souls for the hour of death, or exhorting them to increase in
> godliness if they may again become healthy.
> In doing so they will “purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ
> Jesus” (1 Tim 3:13). They will be an ornament to the church, being enabled to be of more benefit to the church than before.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Lastly for today, and may this leave you with much to dwell on this most blessed Lord’s Day, pg. 155 for ALL Officers (both unfaithful and faithful) to consider when our Lord will ask for an account:



> How dreadful will this investigation and interrogation be for many overseers! How pitiful and dreadful will be the sentence that will be pronounced upon them! If only they had never been born and had never been an overseer! What will it be to perish due to one‟s own sins, and then also to be burdened by so many souls! They will see you in the last judgment and rise up against you, saying, “You knew very well that I was ignorant, and that I lived in sin. If you had looked after me—had warned, rebuked, instructed, and led me in the way of salvation—I would have been saved. Look, however, you unfaithful minister, you unfaithful elder, I am now going lost! Let God require my blood from your hand, and deal with you as a wicked and lazy servant!”
> 
> However, what a precious moment it will be for faithful ministers, elders, and deacons when the Lord will make manifest their labors, their prayers for the congregation, their special discourses, their exhortations, their warnings, and the manner in which they gave direction to souls. He will then cause them to enter into glory, saying, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (Matt 25:21).


----------



## Smeagol

Brakel, Pg. 169 & 179 regarding The Relationship of the Civil Government to the Church:

Pg. 169:


> Fourthly, members of the clergy and the entire congregation, each in their own position, are obligated to honor and obey the civil government conscientiously—with heart and in deeds. They are to do so not by way of compulsion, but in an affectionate manner, out of love for God, whose supremacy and majesty are reflected in the office of civil government. No one is released from the duty of rendering honor and obedience simply because he is a member of the clergy or of the church. This is true even if the civil government is either pagan, Islamic, heretical or Christian, good or evil, godly or ungodly, compassionate or severe. It is the duty of elders to stir everyone up to render such honor and obedience. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” (Rom 13:1).



Pg. 179:


> How blessed is the church and the civil state which functions in this way, and where the church and the civil government, each within their own sphere of influence, are faithful in the discharge of their tasks!
> 
> We thus observe that none ought to be of the opinion that the government is not to be involved in the church at all, ought not to be concerned about her, and ought merely to be the blind executor of whatever the church wishes her to carry out. There is a certain Jus majestatis circa sacra; that is, a rightful claim, power, or duty of civil governments with regard to that which is holy. The Belgic Confession speaks of this in Article 36:
> _
> And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by everyone, as He commands in His Word._
> 
> It is the duty of civil government to uphold not only the second table of the law, but also the first. It must see to it that God is honored. It may not tolerate any idolatry, worship of images, or any false religion within her jurisdiction, but must rather eradicate these. It must prevent the vain use of God‟s Name practiced by cursing, swearing, and blasphemy. It must prevent the desecration of the Sabbath, punish violators of this commandment, and see to it that the gospel is proclaimed everywhere within its jurisdiction. It must see to it that the church, as the darling of the Lord Jesus, is protected and preserved; and that neither internal dissension nor any external oppression disturb or destroy the church, but that instead she be safely preserved in the use of the privileges and liberties which her King Jesus has given her


----------



## Smeagol

Pg. 207/ Regarding Soteriology and the general EXTERNAL call of the gospel:



> Objection #1: God would act deceitfully if He were to call someone to salvation, and yet were not sincere in doing so.
> 
> Answer: God calls all who hear the gospel unto salvation, and it is His objective and intent to give salvation to all who truly believe. Faith and true repentance are, however, singular gifts of God‟s grace, which He gives to all whom He wills to save. Others, however, God leaves to themselves who, being unwilling—and due to their wickedness, blindness, and unwillingness, are unable—do not fulfil this condition, and thus will not be saved. Since God has prior knowledge of this and has decreed not to give them the gifts of grace, and since He cannot be thwarted in the achievement of His purpose, He therefore also cannot have their salvation in view. God nevertheless does not deal deceitfully by making the way of salvation known to them, in obligating them by way of many arguments to enter upon this way, promising to save them upon repentance and faith in Christ. God sincerely and truly has all this in view. In all this He has in view that the unconverted be convinced of His goodness, their wickedness, and His justice—and to punish them in consequence of this. The fact that man is not able to repent and believe is not God‟s fault, but man is to be blamed. God did purpose to provide them with all the means unto salvation, withhold additional grace from them, leave them over to themselves, and condemn them for their failure to repent and for their wickedness; however, He did not purpose to save them. One matter may relate to various purposes, and thus by purposing or not purposing one thing, one cannot conclude the purposing or not purposing of something else. Here the objective relates to the means and not to the ultimate end of salvation. The gospel is an able and sufficient way unto salvation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

G said:


> Skipping Ahead, I saw something in Volume 4 and was hoping to get some insight from those knowledgeable of a footnote given on the last Page of Volume 4:
> 
> Pg. 535:
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote:
> 
> 
> Why was Brakel’s commentary on Revelation deemed controversial in nature?
> 
> Seems like not the happiest of endings after one makes it through 4 very edifying volumes.


To anyone interested, you can complete your Brakel TCRS set in paperback or kindle from amazon. Kindle $3.09 & Paperback $10.48. This final section was intended to be included by Brakel but not included in the standard 4 volume set..






Not to be Ignored: Rev. Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Commentary on Revelation - Kindle edition by à Brakel, Wilhelmus, McCarter, J. Parnell. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.


Not to be Ignored: Rev. Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Commentary on Revelation - Kindle edition by à Brakel, Wilhelmus, McCarter, J. Parnell. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Not to be...



www.amazon.com


----------



## Smeagol

Under the big header of Soteriology, Brakel handles many Arminian Objections, here’s one (pg. 220-221):



> Objection #3: Even pagans, as well as many unconverted, do good works as well as the converted. It is thus evident that man has retained the natural ability to do good works.
> 
> Answer:
> (1) Some pagans have so exceeded in the practice of virtue that they put many Christians to shame. If such virtues had been true virtues, why would there be any need for regeneration?
> Since regeneration is necessary, however, it is evident that their virtues did not have the nature of true virtues.
> 
> (2) There are four types of good works: natural, civil, externally religious, and spiritual good works. Unconverted persons perform the first three types of good works, but not the fourth. Their good works are good in materialiter, that is, in a substantial sense, but not as far as essence is concerned. They are not formaliter (that is, not truly) good works. Spiritual light, life, and virtue are not distinguished from the natural in degree, but rather in essence, as we have demonstrated above. Therefore we cannot make such an inference.


----------



## Smeagol

Dealing specifically with objections against God being the sole cause in regeneratring our souls and giving us new wills to voluntarily submit to Christ. The objectors, Arminians, would believe that our wills are “neutralized” by God so that we can freely reject or accept a genuine INTERNAL call, pg. 229:



> Objection #4: By maintaining that there is such an efficacious and immediate operation of God upon the soul, the freedom of man‟s will is destroyed and removed.
> Answer: This we deny. God works in harmony with man‟s nature; however, He does not do so as one man would interact with another man. God causes man to will voluntarily, as was true when man was created. If God, who created the will in man, touches the will and the soul without removing the freedom of the will, why can this not be true in re-creation? In the first [creation], man and his will did not exist, but were created. In the second [recreation], man and his will are spiritually dead.



P.S. Admittedly many of of the Arminian arguments are much more “slight-handed” than I once gave credit to and I am now seeing why many reformers went to great lengths to point out the heresy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561

If Durham's Revelation saw the light of day...


----------



## Polanus1561

Grant, what do you make of Brakel's "Regen comes before faith?"


----------



## Smeagol

John Yap said:


> Grant, what do you make of Brakel's "Regen comes before faith?"


Forgive me, but I am not sure I follow. Could you be more specific? I do believe regeneration precedes faith logically. I don’t think dead things have faith. Do you have a specific quote in mind?


----------



## Polanus1561

Book 2 Chap 32 opening

We place faith following regeneration. This is not to suggest that man is first made alive and regenerated, and then is gifted with faith; on the contrary, faith precedes regeneration. This is not true in a chronological sense, but as far as natural order is concerned, for the Word is the seed of regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23), and the Word cannot be efficacious except by faith (Heb. 4:2).


----------



## Smeagol

John Yap said:


> Book 2 Chap 32 opening
> 
> We place faith following regeneration. This is not to suggest that man is first made alive and regenerated, and then is gifted with faith; on the contrary, faith precedes regeneration. This is not true in a chronological sense, but as far as natural order is concerned, for the Word is the seed of regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23), and the Word cannot be efficacious except by faith (Heb. 4:2).


Well, I would not word it that way myself. I also have not made it that far in my reading yet. However, in the RHB hardback, there is a longish footnote on pg.245 claiming that Brakel does not teach that the exercise of faith precedes regeneration. Take it for what it‘s worth.


----------



## Smeagol

May you find this comforting regarding ways the Lord commonly Regenerates his Elect, pg. 238 - 239:



> Regeneration and its Attending Circumstances
> Fourthly, we must consider the manner in which regeneration occurs, which varies greatly.
> (1) Some are converted in a very sudden manner, as in one moment. Such was the case with Zacchaeus, the thief
> on the cross, many on the day of Pentecost, and the jailer. With others this transpires less rapidly.
> (2) Some are converted by way of great terror and consternation caused by being confronted with the law, death,
> and condemnation, such as was the case on the day of Pentecost, and with the jailor (Acts 16:27).
> (3) Some are converted in a very evangelical manner. The salvation and the fullness of the Mediator Jesus Christ overwhelm the soul, and the sweetness of the benefits of the gospel so fill their souls that they have no time to think upon their sins with terror. They are, as it were, swallowed up by the gospel, and as a Zacchaeus they receive Jesus
> with joy (Luke 19:3, 10).
> (4) Some the Lord converts in a very quiet manner by granting them a view of the truth. Quietly they perceive
> their sins and their state of misery outside of Christ, the salvation of the partakers of the covenant, as well as the veracity of the offer of Christ by means of the gospel to them. In thus observing the truth they are gradually and imperceptibly changed, become obedient to the truth, believe in consequence of knowing the truth, and their heart is purified (1 Pet 1:22). They do not experience much grievous sorrow or ecstatic joy, but find a delight in the truth and there is a sweet approbation of it. This is true in reference to their misery, salvation in Christ, as well as to their receiving of Christ and their trusting in Him. These are generally the most consistent and steadfast Christians.
> (5) Some are converted in a very gradual fashion, with much vacillation between sorrow and joy, faith and unbelief, strife and victory, and falling and rising again. This is the common method which the Lord generally pursues in the conversion of most people. When I use the word “gradually,” I am referring to conversion in a comprehensive and broad sense; that is, from the first conviction until one consciously receives Christ. For it is otherwise a certainty that conversion [that is, regeneration] transpires in one moment, for the soul in one moment passes from death unto life. There is no intermediate state between being dead and alive. Since this manner of conversion is the most common, we shall deal with it more comprehensively, considering the beginning, continuation, and conclusion of such a conversion. One will thus be able to examine himself accordingly.
> 
> We wish to preface this, however, by stating that no one ought to be concerned about the manner of conversion because the manner of his conversion has not been what he himself would prescribe it to be, nor agrees with the manner in which others are converted. If your conversion is a reality, all is well. Therefore, do not be unsettled as you reflect upon the manner in which your conversion has occurred, even if it is such that you have never read or heard of anything like it. The ways of God are mysterious and even in the common way of conversion the one experiences something with which another is not acquainted. One must, however, frequently reflect upon all the providences and ways whereby God has led us. This will give reason for adoration, for glorifying God, and for confirmation of one‟s spiritual state.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Brakel here is structuring his understanding of Regeneration as a Q & A, with questions that might arise from one who realizes they are unconverted and in need of being saved, hearing the call to “Repent and believe the Gospel!”, pg. 258 - 259:

-


> Question: Am I able to? Is this within the realm of my ability?
> Answer (1) Be assured that it is your duty, which is a fact of which you approve.
> (2) Try it once, and upon beginning you will first of all experience that you are blind, and that you are neither
> acquainted with God, Christ, the way to Christ, the regenerate state of the soul, nor with the essential nature of true holiness. How will you respond to that with which you are not acquainted? Furthermore, you will experience that, when it comes to the point of engaging yourself, you will find yourself unwilling. Your unwillingness is the initial step toward neglect. Furthermore, the wickedness of your nature is so great, sin is so strong, and the matter so difficult, that you will indeed not be able. Therefore sink down in your misery and inability, and as far as you yourself are concerned, be without hope and in despair.



-


> Question: What counsel do you have? Is there then no hope for me at all?
> Answer: There is no hope to be found in you, but there is hope with God. There is hope for you since you live under the ministry of the gospel, which is the means—yes, the only means—whereby God converts souls. Rejoice, therefore, that you may live under the means and that God grants you conviction and a desire for repentance and salvation. Be diligent in the use of the means, in hearing sermons, and in attending catechism classes. Read God‟s Word frequently and attentively, or let someone read it to you. Join yourself to the godly and request that you be admitted to their gatherings. Yield to the inclinations to pray and to be godly.



-


> Question: Shall I then be converted and saved if I do all this?
> Answer: Your efforts will not move God to grant you repentance, but God will also not exclude you if you do not exclude yourself. You have reason to hope since God has thus far brought you under conviction. Wait therefore for the least movement of the Spirit, respond to it, and be careful that you do not resist it. Be thus consistent in your use of the means and do not relent if time and again you are drawn away by your lusts.


----------



## Smeagol

Brakel dealing elaborately with Faith (a trusting in and not merely an assent), here deals with Faith's opposite------Unbelief, pg. 294-295:



> _Unbelief: The Opposite of True Faith _
> Lastly, we must consider the direct opposite of true faith. Those who are of such a disposition are either outside or within the church. To those persons who possess the contrary of true faith outside the church belong all who reject the true doctrine of faith, such as divers heathens, the Mohammedans, the Jews, the Socinians, and various Anabaptists. Among the papists, Lutherans, and Arminians—although they seriously err in many doctrinal points—temporal believers, yes, even true believers, can be found, since Christ is preached there, albeit not purely.



And to unbelievers within the church:



> There are also unbelievers within the church, either entirely ignorant or merely able to mention the name of Christ—but not knowing Him in His natures, offices, states of humiliation and exaltation, indispensability, nor how and to what purpose they must make use of Him. They run their course carelessly, having little or no impression of heaven or hell. If spoken to concerning this and asked how they think they will be saved, they have a ready answer: God is merciful. They hope upon His grace, they will pray and do their best. They are not permitted to be in doubt about their salvation; that would be a grievous thing. A great multitude is thus on their way to hell, and those ministers and elders who allow them to go on so peacefully in their ignorance, and permit them to come to the holy table, will be responsible for their condemnation.


----------



## Smeagol

From pg. 298, Concerning Faith:



> Outside of Christ, there is nothing but restlessness and hostility. This causes the soul to be shaken and tossed to and fro as a ship in a violent storm. Rest and support are nowhere to be found. The dove which was let out of the ark found no rest for the sole of its foot, as there was only water everywhere. Such is the condition of a soul outside of Christ. Neither riches, friends, nor one‟s own wisdom or strength can give rest to the soul. They are all broken reeds which not only provide no support, but which moreover cause the one who leans upon them to fall and be injured. Therefore no longer seek refuge there, but forsake it all.


----------



## Smeagol

When is the last time you took time to do self-examination regarding the genuineness of your faith?

Hear Brakel and be reminded from pg. 308-309, Vol. II:



> Thirdly, it is most detrimental to neglect self-examination and the searching of one‟s heart. Such neglect holds man captive in the sleep of carelessness. It causes him to waste time. It renders the means of grace useless and impotent. It hardens his heart against all the threatenings and judgments of God. It holds him captive to the world and to sin; yes, it is the key whereby he closes heaven and opens hell for himself.





> Fourthly, self-examination is very beneficial. It causes one to become conscious of the evils which dwell in the heart. It causes one to become acquainted with the avenging justice of God. It causes one to become concerned, frightened, and perplexed. It causes one to flee to Jesus for justification and sanctification. It causes one to become serious in heart. And if one may perceive grace, light, life, and faith, it cannot be expressed what joy this generates in the heart and what a strengthening effect this has! It repeatedly provides a person with new courage; he receives more liberty in prayer and he becomes acquainted with the ways in which God deals with souls. It gladdens his heart and it has a sanctifying influence upon all his actions. “And every man that has this hope in him purifieth himself, even as He is pure” (1 John 3:3).



May this serve to bless you this most glorious Lord’s Day Morning

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Regarding Justification, pg. 341:



> He who errs in this doctrine errs to his eternal destruction. The devil is therefore continually engaged in denying, perverting, and obscuring the truth expressed in this chapter and, if he does not accomplish this, to prevent exercise concerning this truth. When new errors appear on the horizon, even when they initially do not pertain to justification at all, they in time will eventually culminate in affecting this doctrine. One must therefore be all the more earnest to properly understand, defend, and meditate upon this doctrine.



Oh how this has proven true.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol

Interesting wording and thoughts on Justification from pg. 358:



> God justifies man by faith, and thus justification is God‟s judicial pronouncement toward man. This sentence is not only pronounced once upon the first act of faith, but is made as frequently and as often as man exercises faith in Christ unto justification. This is not an assurance that they are justified once and for all, but it constitutes an actual and daily act of forgiveness.



Maybe this helps us to better grasp the active mediation of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

The Papist Fear of Assurance, pg. 391:



> Having considered the time when justification occurs, we shall now proceed to consider the secondary aspect or result of justification, assurance.
> 
> Question: Can a believer be assured of his justification, and consequently of his salvation?
> 
> Answer: The Papists and Arminians answer negatively, whereas we answer in the affirmative. The Papists oppose this with all their might, for they perceive that this will topple their entire ecclesiastical structure. No one will then ask any longer for the merits of the saints, concern themselves with their selling of indulgences, their masses for souls, absolution, nor their fabricated purgatory. Once the truth of assurance as being the result of justification has been established, their treasuries will be empty and their kitchens will smoke. They keep people in a continual state of fright and fear, so that with handfuls of money they will take refuge to them. The Papists maintain that man cannot know whether he is truly regenerated, possesses true faith, is truly sanctified, nor does he know whether he will persevere or become an apostate. Consequently, he cannot be absolutely assured of his salvation, nor must he strive for this assurance. They will admit that one can and may make conjectures concerning this, and that God can reveal and indeed has revealed this to some in an extraordinary manner. Apart from this, however, assurance is but conjecture or imagination.



The Christian’s Comfort in Assurance, pg. 396:



> (3) The Holy Spirit operates in harmony with the Word, the infallible rule for believers. There they observe that the Holy Spirit gives assurance after mourning, praying, and wrestling in faith. This brings the soul near to God, and in the enjoyment of communion with God she receives assurance. They find that assurance does not only engender peace with God in the soul, but also love, obedience, and sanctification. It renders the earth and all its glories as insignificant, and it becomes all their desire and joy to live in the realm of the invisible. If a believer, in the enjoyment of assurance, finds himself to be thus, he may know that he is not deceiving himself, but that it is the Holy Spirit who assures and seals him.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Smeagol

Hello on this most blessed Lord’s Day. My job has been a little demanding the past several weeks so I have been a little absent here. However, I am thankful that our Lord has commanded me to set that aside on this day. I hope this quote from Brakel finds you well in the Lord. Here Brakel is unpacking the subject of Spiritual Peace and the uniqueness of this peace in the life of a Christian, pg. 447 - 448:



> (2) Those that are at peace still have the old Adam within them, which frequently and very forcefully makes its presence felt. This engenders laxity and laziness in seeking the countenance of the Lord, as well as neglect of exercise to remain near to the Lord and to exercise communion with God. Added to this are more serious sins committed by them against their conscience and contrary to the warning of the Holy Ghost, thereby grieving the Spirit of God. “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God” (Eph 4:30).
> (3) Furthermore, the devil secretly assaults them, or shoots at them with his fiery arrows. The world entices them with earthly beauty and terrifies them by its wickedness. Tribulations and various crosses overwhelm them. This tosses their faith to and fro, and darkens their peace; this they sense and it grieves them. It causes them to languish, and they cannot rest until they may have received it again.



And further down pg. 448:



> Fifthly, they who truly have peace, actively guard against sin and endeavor to live in tender godliness before the countenance of God. Since they have tasted the sweetness of this peace (the one more and the other less) and know that sin disturbs this peace; since they know that the Lord gives more peace to those who are determined to live a life pleasing unto the Lord; since there can be no peace with God without the love of God—therefore they walk carefully, not as fools, but rather as being wise (Eph 5:15). “He will speak peace unto His people, and to His saints: but let them not turn again to folly” (Ps 85:8).


----------



## Smeagol

Lastly for today, hear Brakel call us back to Spiritual Peace, pg. 452 - 453 (a longer quote but one that is hard to stop reading):



> Secondly, calmly search out the cause for the unrest of which we have spoken before. Having discovered this (or if you cannot discover this), labor to humble yourself deeply; that is, sink away in the sense of your sinfulness and the impotency of your soul. It is appropriate to set apart a day of fasting for this purpose, and then do as much as it pleases the Lord to enable you to do. If you have been very barren, dull, listless, and insensitive, you ought to resume this after some days, or after a week or two, bringing yourself before the Lord as you are, and as much as possible make known before Him your desire for peace. The Lord knows the intent of your spirit and for what purpose you have set apart that day, and He will at last speak peace to your soul.
> 
> Thirdly, lift up your soul to the covenant and to its Mediator, Jesus. Reflect upon former days, considering how you then were accustomed to wrestle and pray, how you received Him, how you surrendered to Him, but also the exercises and refreshment you indeed enjoyed at that time. This is suitable to quicken your soul in the exercise of faith and to receive Jesus by renewal, as a ransom for sin and as the Prince of Peace. A soul is frequently restored in this way and may receive a greater measure of peace.
> 
> Fourthly, do not expect, at first, to receive again the measure of peace and intimacy which you had prior to losing your peace, for that rarely happens; rather, remain humble and acknowledge the crumbs of grace whereby at one time you have been able to pray, weep, and pour out your heart before the Lord in order that some hope may intermittently arise. Therefore, quietly follow the leading of the Spirit who turns His hand to the little ones, comforts the humble ones, and gives them grace.
> 
> Fifthly, strictly adhere to your times of spiritual exercise; neither neglect it, nor engage in it hurriedly, as if you would only do so to satisfy your conscience; rather, remain prostrate before the Lord, however barren you may be, and wait to see if some light may not dawn. If not, be not discouraged, but keep your soul humble as a weaned child, and maintain that quiet hope that God will return. Let there be a determined resolution to nevertheless be willing to seek the Lord as long as you live, being desirous rather to die at His feet than to depart from Him. And the Lord who is good to the soul that seeks Him will at last say, “Mary! My child, here am I,” upon which the soul will rejoice. “Now the Lord of peace Himself give you peace always by all means” (2 Thess 3:16).


----------



## Smeagol

Brothers and Sisters may this Lord’s Day morning be a most joyous time for you and your family. Here Brakel has been dealing with the Christian teaching of Spiritual Joy. Brakel explains that the key to Spiritual Joy is always founded on a fear of God. The below quotes are a little longer, but I implore you to take the time to read especially if you presently are dealing with mourning, sorrow, or even a pattern of melancholy.

From Vol. II, Pg. 462:


> (3) To mourn over sin at the appropriate time, and in an appropriate measure and manner is needful, and does not prevent one from living cheerfully. However, those who accustom themselves to be sorrowful, consume the strength of their body, and frequently acquire an illness from which they suffer their entire lifetime. This ailment is in turn the cause of sorrow and melancholy, and this sorrow in turn worsens the ailment. “... a broken spirit drieth the bones” (Prov 17:22); “... by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken” (Prov 15:13).



Pg. 462-463:


> (4) It is very harmful for spiritual life, injuring it. It not only impedes its growth, but exhausts it; if God by His omnipotence did not preserve it, this sorrow would extinguish it. If one gives in to such mourning, he can progress so far that he finds no delight in anything except in mourning and in consuming his own heart. He is then not fit for anything—not for prayer, believing, battling and overcoming sin, the practice of virtue, nor for being beneficial to other people—and makes himself unfit to be restored by the common means, since he refuses to be comforted (cf. Ps 77:2). “A wounded spirit who can bear?” (Prov 18:14). Therefore conduct yourself valiantly, for it is as easy to yield to a mournful frame, as it is to collapse for a person who is fainting. However, the harmful consequences are too dangerous. Therefore, lift up your head and endeavor to break out of this.



Lastly, for encouragement for Christian’s that need a reminder of their reason for Spiritual Joy, Pg. 463:


> Secondly, believers (even the most feeble) are entitled to and have reason for joy, for it is one of the promises of the covenant of grace. Let those of the world be troubled and fearful, and tremble about their present and future state. You, however, who have been delivered from the devil, hell, and wrath, for whom God is a reconciled God and is your portion, who have been adopted as a child of God, and have become partakers of justification, sanctification, and eternal glorification, what reason do you yet have for sorrow? If you say, “This is still lacking, namely, the actual and effectual enjoyment of all those promised spiritual benefits; and not only the comforts, but also the deliverance from sin itself,” then I respond, “Is God‟s promise null and void with you? Are future benefits of lesser value because they are reserved for the future, where they will be an eternal and unchangeable reality—as if in the future you would be able to get by without them? Is not God a God of truth to you? Would His promises be able to fail? Or do you consider the promises of future blessings to be excuses for not presently fulfilling the promises that supplicants will be heard, that hungry ones will be filled, etc. Be ashamed that you entertain such thoughts about the only wise God who makes all things well at His time.” If a great inheritance has been bequeathed to someone, and the testator subsequently dies, would it then be considered worthless because he does not yet see and have the treasures in his hands, knowing, however, with certainty that he will receive them within a short time? Behold, a natural man will convince you. Therefore, value the excellency of the promised benefits, the infallibility of the testament which is confirmed by the death of the testator. Rejoice therefore in your title to the inheritance and in the certainty of future possession, even though you do not enjoy it as yet. “Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Rejoice in the Lord, ye righteous” (Ps 97:11-12). It is sown, and it has been sown for you, and therefore you will also harvest at the appointed time; rejoice in this hope: “We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Thy house, even of Thy holy temple” (Ps 65:4).

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Smeagol

Brakel regarding Immersion or Sprinkling in Holy Baptism, pg. 494-494 (spoiler, he concludes both):


> _The Ceremony or the Manner of Administration: Immersion or Sprinkling_
> In early times, and in countries with a warm climate, immersion was used most frequently. The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death” (Rom 6:4). Subsequent to this, however, sprinkling has come into use, just as sprinkling is now generally in use, be it once or three times. The Greeks and Russians still use immersion. One need neither argue about this nor be concerned, however, since it is one and the same as far as the matter itself and the assurance it yields. First, the verb “baptize” can also be translated as “sprinkle.” “... except they wash, they eat not” (Mark 7:4). The washing of hands generally occurs by allowing water to be poured upon the hands. “... Here is Elisha ... which poured water on the hands of Elijah” (2 Kings 3:11). Secondly, the matter signified, namely, the blood of Christ as cleansing the soul, is expressed as sprinkling. “And to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling” (Heb 12:24). Thirdly, the relationship between the sign and the matter signified is expressed both by sprinkling and immersion, for one cleanses the body by both methods. Concerning sprinkling or pouring out we read, “Then shall I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” (Ezek 36:25). Fourthly, it is obvious that the apostles also have used sprinkling in baptizing the three thousand upon the day of Pentecost, the jailor, as well as at other occasions. It also makes no difference if one sprinkles the person to be baptized once or three times. If one sprinkles but once, the reference is to the Trinity of the divine Being; if one sprinkles three times, the reference is to the three Persons.



And here Brakel discusses the Question of the necessity of pronouncement, pg. 495 (spoiler he says the omission of the express mention of all 3 persons does not necessarily invalidate the external sign in some circumstances):


> In considering the ceremony or manner of sprinkling, one may also consider the pronouncement of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” as belonging to this since 1) Christ in issuing His command to baptize uses these words; 2) it is a certainty that one must be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, for there is no other God but He; 3) the person baptized is declared to be the property of a triune God; 4) the pronouncement of these words has at all times been used in the church; 5) there is a special relationship between each Person and the person being baptized: that the Father is his Father, the Son is his Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is his Comforter and Sanctifier; and 6) the Holy Trinity is expressly confessed in this manner. One must therefore preserve the pronouncement of these words.
> If, however, the church acknowledges and confesses the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and if the adult to be baptized does likewise, I would neither consider such a baptism to be unlawful nor deem it to be null and void, even if the words in question were not expressly pronounced at his baptism. I neither consider the pronouncement of the words to be relevant to the essential nature of baptism, nor does it validate baptism as such. I do not know, however, if such a case has ever transpired, for the baptism of heretics is not baptism, regardless of whether they mention the Trinity or not. When the apostle exhorts the people in Acts 2:38 to let themselves be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and when it is related in Acts 8:16 that those of Samaria were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, this neither proves that baptism was administered upon the pronouncement of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ,” nor that the names of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost were not used; rather, these expressions only indicate that baptism was administered upon the command and according to the ordinance of Christ. Baptism in the name of Christ does not exclude, but includes, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

A clear and concise defense from Scripture for the Baptism of the children of believers, pg. 508-510 (a little long, but a truly excellent summary of the position) :


> _The Scriptural Defense for the Baptism of Children_
> Having said this by way of introduction, we must now consider the following question:
> Question: May and must children of members of the covenant be baptized?
> Answer: Anabaptists, Socinians, and Brownists answer negatively, but we answer in the affirmative for the
> following reasons:
> First, in the Old Testament children of members of the covenant had to be circumcised; therefore they must also
> be baptized in the New Testament. The first part of the statement is above controversy. The argument for the conclusion is as follows:
> (1) Since there is one and the same covenant in both testaments, and this identical covenant also pertains to the children of the Old Testament who were obligated to receive the seal of circumcision, this is also true in the New Testament and they must therefore be baptized.
> (2) Baptism has come in the place of circumcision; the external sign has changed, but the seal is the same. “In whom also ye are circumcised ... buried with Him in baptism” (Col 2:11-13). He who is baptized is said to be circumcised, since they are in essence one and the same sacrament.
> (3) In both sacraments the same matter is signified and the purpose is identical: cleansing by the blood and the Spirit of Christ. If children had to be circumcised then, they must also be baptized today.
> Secondly, children were baptized in the Old Testament. “... that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor 10:1-2). It is irrefutable that all their children were included here (Exod 10:24). In a manner comparable to being baptized by immersion in water, they were all in the sea, and the water in the cloud which was always above them, covered them. This baptism was a seal of their spiritual deliverance, having escaped from the hands of Pharaoh by the water of the sea. They were overshadowed by the cloud—and thus protected against the heat of the sun and the Lord Jesus was present in this cloud (Exod 14:24). If children were then baptized as members of the covenant, they must also presently be baptized, for they are as much members of the covenant now as they were then.
> Thirdly, the children of members of the covenant are in the covenant, and they therefore are also entitled to the seals of the covenant. Their inclusion in the covenant is evident in Gen 17:7, “And I shall establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations.” This was not only true in the Old but also in the New Testament, for believers from among the Gentiles also are Abraham‟s seed and are thus included in that covenant. “... that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised” (Rom 4:11). Peter also confirms this: “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed” (Acts 3:25). Add to this 1 Cor 7:14, where we read, “... else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” They do not have internal holiness, as has been proven in the above; rather, they are called holy because one of the parents is a believer, thereby being in the covenant. The holiness of such children is therefore a covenantal holiness.36 An external covenant does not exist, for there is but one covenant between God and believers: the covenant of grace. The children of members of the covenant are therefore in the covenant. In this respect the Lord calls them His children. “Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto Me ... that thou hast slain My children” (Ezek 16:20-21). If they are in the covenant, they must also indeed receive the seal of the covenant. This is evident in Acts 2:38-39, where we read, “... be baptized every one of you ... for the promise is unto you, and to your children.”
> Fourthly, children are partakers of the benefits of the covenant, the merits of Christ, the promises, and salvation itself. “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me
> for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:14). These were not children in the spiritual sense of the word, characterized by humility, but rather natural children who were brought to Jesus, and who were kept away from Him by others, since they were deemed to be too unimportant. The Lord Jesus declares them to be partakers of the kingdom of heaven, of which one cannot be a partaker except through Christ. Who then would dare to exclude those children from heaven who die in infancy? Consider also Acts 2:39, where we read that the promise is to your children. Those who are partakers of the promises of the covenant are also entitled to the seal of the covenant and its promises.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

From pg. 534-535 where Brakel is discussing aspects of the Lord’s Supper, namely the communion of believers:



> Thirdly, there is the mutual communion of believers. “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor 10:17). Communion does not occur with all who go to the holy table, for the communion which believers have with the unconverted does not go beyond a common confession. There is only communion with the godly—with those they know as well as those they do not know, and with those that are present as well as those who are absent—and thus not only with those of this particular church, but also with all who are dispersed over the entire world, for they unite themselves with Christ, and in Him with His body which is the church. Their love extends toward them all, and being thus united with them, they are in agreement with all of them in their confession of Christ and His truth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

From pg. 552 where Brakel summarizes the distinction of the Reformed view of the Lord’s Supper against the view of Rome and the Lutherans:



> It now being a certainty that the bread and the wine are not changed into the body and blood of Christ, and that the body and blood of Christ are not physically present in, with, and under the bread and the wine, the sentiments of both have necessarily been invalidated, namely, that the body and blood of Christ are physically present in the Lord‟s Supper and are in a physical manner eaten and drunk with the physical mouth. We maintain that Christ, as to His suffering and death, is spiritually present in the signs of bread and wine. These signs, by reason of and on the basis of Christ‟s institution, are partaken of by faith. Believers are thus united to Christ in His suffering and death—this being the matter signified—and partake of these as seals of the forgiveness of sins. We furthermore maintain that the partaking of Christ by faith is immediately applied to the heart, and that spiritual communion is exercised with Christ by virtue of the operation of the Holy Spirit. Christ is thus truly present and believers truly exercise communion with Christ; however, they do so in a spiritual rather than a physical manner—for that which is spiritual is as real as that which is physical. We reject with abhorrence, however, the physical presence of Christ, and the physical eating and drinking of His natural body and blood by way of the physical mouth.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Brakel dealing very bluntly with what I call Wafer Worship, pg. 555-556


> Secondly, in the entire Word of God there is neither a command, example, nor the least semblance of the practice of worshipping the bread of the Lord‟s Supper. Everyone will have to acknowledge that the worship of the wafer is a matter of the greatest significance upon which the salvation of man hinges, for idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 6:10). Since the worship of the wafer is the entire pith of popish religion, everyone must be convinced that it is a matter of the greatest import; for a matter which is the foundation of an entire religion, and is a daily activity, must be commanded in God‟s Word with utmost clarity, and one ought not to engage in this without an express command. However, there is neither a word, trace, nor example of this practice to be found in God‟s Word—which the Papists themselves know and until now they have not been able to produce one text. Furthermore, since the time of the apostles as well as all the hundreds of years afterwards, the church did not know of the practice of worshipping the wafer. It is thus clear that one must reject the practice of worshipping the wafer as an accursed idolatry (which it is), and desist from founding his salvation upon it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

From pg. 569 and dealing with the Lord’s Supper



> Everything that is of the greatest benefit to a child of God is most severely attacked by the devil and his cohorts; this is also true of the Lord‟s Supper. A heavy cloud of numerous heresies has ascended from the abyss of hell to obscure the essential nature of this sacrament—a cloud which we have driven away in the previous chapter by means of the light of the truth. When the devil can no longer obscure the truth, he then endeavors either to prevent or corrupt the exercise concerning this truth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Some solid reminders from Brakel in my reading today as I am within 100 pages of finishing Volume II:

Regarding a reminder about our own strength, pg. 607:


> A believer, a converted person, who now desires to increase in this life must carefully guard against any notions about his own strength. Instead, he must habitually endeavor to discern his impotence, for then he will be more dependent upon the Lord in every deed. He will then gratefully acknowledge every good thought, be kept from much falling into sin, avoid many temptations, and be steadfast in the ways of the Lord.



Regarding our own hearts, pg. 608:


> Furthermore, take note of your heart and deeds and observe:
> (1) How impotent you are to do anything aright—to do it by faith, in union with Christ as one‟s life and strength. You are impotent to comply with the law as being the will of God—incapable of doing so out of pure love, to the honor of God, and without inclination toward a seeking of self.
> (2) Consider how the heart is repulsed by that which is spiritual, how difficult and troublesome it is for the unregenerate old nature to live in the presence of and continual communion with God, and how inclined it is to the world. It seems as if the old nature is naturally inclined to rest and delight in these thoughts. This is an indication that the old nature is here in its element and that spiritual life is thus supernatural, having been wrought, not by them, but by an almighty power.



Waiting on God’s promises in HIS timing, pg. 630:


> God may possibly have decreed a long period of time between the initial moment when the desire concerning a certain matter arose in your heart and the moment of fulfillment. Abraham had the promise that he would have a son from Sarah; the fulfillment was so long in coming, however, that it was no longer probable. What a long time span there was ere David received the kingdom! Zacharias had long before prayed for a son in his youth and his prayer was heard in his old age. We must thus not always expect the promised matter as soon as the promise comes to mind, nor should we become discouraged if it is not fulfilled immediately; instead, patient waiting is necessary at such a time.



May we rest in His promises, for He is always faithful, pg. 635:


> How frequently we must thank the Lord for not giving us our desire, subsequently perceiving that it would not have been good for us! Therefore, believe the promises, expect their fulfillment, and joyfully leave the time, measure, and manner to the Lord. You will then trust as a child and be established. Take the following text to heart: “Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the lovingkindness of the Lord” (Ps 107:43).


----------



## Smeagol

In the last chapter of Vol. II, Brakel devotes many words to helping believers understand the difference between true spiritual life and those whole ONLY have the external appearances of being Pietist. One of many marks, which Brakel points out, is a supposed “believer” having not love or care for the Church. May we remember the joy and love which we should have towards the Church. pg. 648:


> Who can reflect upon the church without being ignited in love toward her? Of all that is found upon earth, she excels in glory, purity, and excellency. What would the world be without the church other than Sodom? Yes, the world would not exist if there were no church. The church is “... the joy of the whole earth” (Ps 48:2) and “... a praise in the earth” (Isa 62:7). It is the chief joy of God‟s children—yes, it exceeds all that is joyful. “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy” (Ps 137:5-6). All David‟s love, joy, care, and desire were focused upon the church. When he was driven away from her, he said, “My tears have been my meat day and night” (Ps 42:3); “Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech” (Ps 120:5). His only desire upon earth was to be where the church was. “One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life” (Ps 27:4). He rejoiced exceedingly when this was his portion. “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord. Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem” (Ps 122:1-2).




And a reminder that plenty a lost soul has had the external appearance of being spiritual. From pg. 660:


> If heathen who do not have the Word of God can be that religious, this is much more true for the unconverted who are externally illuminated by the Word. You must therefore not immediately consider to be spiritual what appears to be spiritual—for there is a natural and a spiritual piety.


----------



## Smeagol

From page: 678. A distinction regarding self-seeking:



> There can be either a sinful or a holy seeking of self. A sinful seeking of self is when one seeks honor, esteem,
> love, respect, advantage, etc. in order that all men and everything would end in them. A holy seeking of self is to promote one‟s own physical welfare for the purpose of being fit to serve God in whatever capacity that may be. In our seeking after God, it is not sinful to have the welfare of your soul, and thus light, life, love, joy, delight, and salvation in view. Rather, it is evidence of being engaged spiritually in the right way.



Well that’s it, I have finished reading Vol. II. The End.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Thanks for posting all these. I don’t think I caught every one, and didn’t always respond, but I enjoyed what I read and some of them were particularly helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Jeri Tanner said:


> Thanks for posting all these. I don’t think I caught every one, and didn’t always respond, but I enjoyed what I read and some of them were particularly helpful.


On to Vol. III next week. I’m not sure if I will do the same here or not. However I enjoyed this and it served as a quote catalog and I can see it took me 6 months to read Vol. II.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JOwen

G said:


> On to Vol. III next week. I’m not sure if I will do the same here or not. However I enjoyed this and it served as a quote catalog and I can see it took me 6 months to read Vol. II.


PLEASE do!! I love reading your posts, even if I never respond. Keep it up, brother!

Reactions: Like 2


----------

