========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF WALTER CHANTRY
  by Walter Chantry
========================================================================

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Walter Chantry,
compiled for study and devotional reading.

  Chapters: 6

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. S. BAPTISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY
    2. S. Joy Beyond the Cross
    3. S. Man's Will-Free Yet Bound
    4. S. Myth of Free Will
    5. S. Take Up Your Cross
    6. S. The High Calling of Motherhood

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: S. BAPTISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY
========================================================================

BAPTISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY by Walter J. Chantry No Baptist begins to seek an
answer to the question "Who should be baptized?" by studying the Bible’s
doctrine of the covenants. Rather, he begins with New Testament texts which deal
directly with the term "baptize." In a later study of Covenant Theology, he
finds confirmation and undergirding of his conclusions.

1. In the New Testament, we discover the nature of baptism defined. In the
definition, something must be said about the person baptized. Its central
significance is that the one baptized is said to be savingly joined to Christ.
We agree that the definition in the Westminster Confession of Faith is
essentially biblical: "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by
Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the
visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of
grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and
of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life . .
." (Chapter XXVIII)

2. In every clear New Testament example, the person baptized made a credible
confession of faith in Jesus Christ prior to receiving the sacrament. This has
been called the Baptist’s argument from silence. But that is an unfair charge.
To refrain from a practice on which the Bible is silent is not wrong. But to
build a positive practice on supposed but unwritten premises is to build on
silence.

Every New Testament text cited to support infant baptism appears empty apart
from a strong predisposition to find such texts and presuppositions to impose
upon them.

A) Amazingly, Matthew 19:13 : "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and
forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," has been used frequently
by serious theologians to support infant baptism. We share the indignation of
B.B.Warfield who said, "What has this [verse] to do with infant baptism?" Some
point has been made of the related passage in Mark where Jesus is said to bless
the children, and note has been taken of his placing his hands upon them. But,
again, we find no solemn ceremony in this passage indicating that the children
were acknowledged to be in the covenant of grace. Prayerful calling of God’s
blessing upon any child would be most natural apart from such restricted
significance.

B) Acts 2:39 has also been pressed into service to support infant baptism. "For
the promise is unto you and to your children . . ." Usually the sentence is not
completed. But the Scripture goes on, "and to all that are afar off, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call." The context has in view specifically
spiritual promises, namely remission of sins and filling with the Holy Spirit.
These promises cannot be said to attach themselves to all the crowd before Peter
(the "you " of the text), but only to "as many as the Lord our God shall call."
They could not be said to belong to "all that are afar off", but only to "as
many as the Lord our God shall call." If that phrase qualifies the first and
third parties mentioned, it must also qualify "your children". The promises do
not belong unto the children of believers apart from effectual calling. Only
those children who receive this saving grace of God may be conceived of as being
heirs of the spiritual promises.

C) Household baptisms are called upon, by paedobaptists, as evidence of infant
baptism in the New Testament. There are four references: Cornelius (Acts
10:1-48), Lydia (Acts 16:1-40), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:1-40), Stephanas
(1 Corinthians 1:1-31). None of the references say that infants were in these
houses. Finding infant baptism here is built upon the dual assumption that there
were infants in the houses and that household must have meant every individual
in the household without exception. The last of these is a road we Calvinists
have been down with the term "world " in Scripture. The first is very untenable.
But the two together cannot be held; for we find in the Bible itself, the
pattern of these household baptisms. All Cornelius’ house gathered to hear
Peter’s preaching. The Holy Ghost fell upon all--they all received the
extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Then, all were baptized. Paul first preached
to the jailor’s household. Then, all were baptized. After the baptism, all
rejoiced believing in God. Hearing the Word and believing upon that preaching
can scarcely be attributed to infants. No doubt, the same pattern adhered to
other cases of household baptisms. In Lydia? case, there is the most doubt that
a woman in business would be nursing an infant. The Bible does not tell us she
had a husband, let alone children. Infant baptism can be found here only by
those most anxious to do so.

D) 1 Corinthians 7:14 is another favorite verse. There we are told that children
are "holy". The text does not have even vague reference to church membership or
baptism. It is talking about mixed marriages in which one spouse is a believer
and the other is not. The question is whether such a relationship is proper,
moral, or holy for those who were converted after marriage to the unbeliever.
Paul reasons from the obvious to the doubtful. It is obvious that your children
are not bastards. They were born in wedlock. They are holy. Therefore, it ought
to be clear to you that your marriage relationship is holy. Don’t feel guilty
about it or wish to be free from your obligations. If the word ?oly?suggests a
covenant relationship or cultic purity, making the children proper objects for
baptism, then the unbelieving spouse is also a valid candidate for the
sacrament. The verb "sanctify" has precisely the same root and signification as
the adjective "holy." And it is the holiness of the spouse that the passage
belabors. With such appalling lack of New Testament evidence for infant baptism,
those who support such a practice have rapidly retreated to Old Testament texts
and an argument from the unity of the covenants. The practice of baptizing
infants of believers is founded on Old Testament Scripture, or upon texts of the
New Testament where suitability for baptizing infants is read into them with a
predisposition and presupposition drawn from the Old Testament.

I. HISTORIC COVENANT THEOLOGY AND INFANT BAPTISM The argument has hung upon a
syllogism that goes something like this: There is a unity between the Old and
New Covenants. Circumcision in the Old is parallel to baptism in the New.
Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old. Therefore, infants of
believers should be baptized in the New. Many tell us that this syllogism is so
strong that New Testament silence is a major argument in favor of their
position. The New Covenant is so like the Old, and baptism so parallel to
circumcision, that unless the New Testament absolutely forbids the baptism of
infants, it must be practiced. As B.B. Warfield said, "It is true that there is
no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of
the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must
infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were
necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely
unjustified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of
forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the church through all ages can be
made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New
Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted and nothing
short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our
omitting it now."

1. Immediately we Baptists raise our first objection. There is here a serious
hermeneutical flaw. How can a distinctively New Testament ordinance have its
fullest--nay, its only foundation--in Old Testament Scripture? This is contrary
to any just sense of Biblical Theology and against all sound rules of
interpretation. To quote Patrick Fairbairn in The Interpretation of Prophecy,
"There cannot be a surer canon of interpretation, than that everything which
affects the constitution and destiny of the New Testament church has its
clearest determination in New Testament Scripture. This canon strikes at the
root of many false conclusions and on the principle which has its grand
embodiment in popery, which would send the world back to the age of comparative
darkness and imperfection for the type of its normal and perfected condition."
If you allow Old Testament examples to alter New Testament principles regarding
the church, you have hermeneutically opened the door to Rome’s atrocities. It is
upon such rules of interpretation that the priest and the mass have been
justified. We find the clearest expression, of that which is normative for the
New Covenant’s ordinances, in the New Covenant relation.

2. Beyond this, there is a theological flaw. It is nothing new for Baptists to
adhere to Covenant Theology. They have done so since the Seventeenth Century. We
conceive of God’s dealings with man in a covenantal structure. We believe that
every covenant made with man since the Fall is unified in its essence. In all
ages there has been one rule of life--God’s moral law. God’s standard of
righteousness was the same before Moses received the Ten Commandments, and it is
the same today. There has been but one way to salvation in all historic
covenants since the Fall. The Gospel by which Adam was saved is the same as that
by which we are saved. Genesis 3:15 declares a salvation that is wholly of grace
through faith in Christ. The basic differences between the covenants of history
in these essential matters are those of Biblical Theology. The promises of the
Gospel have become more clear with each succeeding age of revelation, though the
promises have been identically the same. The moral law has been more fully
expounded, though never changed. So we agree about the unity of the covenants
recorded in the Bible. But paedobaptists have been negligent in defining the
diversity in the administrations of the Covenant of Grace. As dispensationalism
has erred when it has failed to see the essential unity of the covenants since
the Fall, many serious errors have arisen from a failure to acknowledge
diversity in these historic covenants. An example may be seen in the
Reformers?failure to distinguish church and state. In the administration under
Moses, the church was coextensive with the state. In the administration of
Christ, the extent of church and state are not to be thought identical. In the
Mosaic economy, magistrates administered the church and prophets made their
authority felt in government. In the Christian administration of Grace, a strict
sense of the church separate from the state must be maintained. We must define
the diversity as well as the unity.

Paedobaptists have unconsciously recognized a difference between the Old
Testament and New with respect to the constitution of the church and subjects of
their ordinances. In the Old Covenant, adult sons and servants were circumcised,
and thus incorporated into the visible church. Now, only the infants of
believers are baptized. In the Old, children came to the Passover at a very
young age. Now small children are not admitted to the Lord’s Table. Whence this
change? When the principle of diversity is formulated, it will exclude infants
from the sacrament of baptism. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is pivotal to expressing the
diversity of covenant administrations. It is quoted in Hebrews 8:1-13 and again
in Hebrews 10:1-39 to prove that "Christ is mediator of a better covenant."
There is an emphatic contrast made in Hebrews 10:31-32. The differences are so
striking and dramatic that one covenant is called "new" and it is implied that
the other is old. The Jews under the Old Covenant were warned that revolutionary
changes would be made. The covenant in force was inadequate except to prepare
for the New. So surpassing is the glory of the New, that it should lead them to
look for the demolition of the Old. The passage suggests two vital distinctions
ushered in by the effusion of the Spirit. This effusion made a change in
administration possible. The first difference is found in Jeremiah 31:33. The
Old Covenant was characterized by outward formalism. The New would be marked by
inward spiritual life. This is not an absolute distinction but it is a marked
contrast. Of course, there was spiritual religion and heart commitment to God in
the Old Testament. Abraham’s faith would put ours to shame. We must wonder if
any but Christ Himself ever equaled the prayer life of David addressed in the
Psalms. Moses spoke to God as face to face. Yet, these are refreshing streams in
the midst of Old Testament attention to outward, formal, national religion.
There is a mass of outward rules, a history of formal religion, a ponderous
identification of church and nation. Relatively little attention is given to
inward life. If a man is circumcised, he is counted a Jew. If he is conformed to
outward practices, he is called clean and welcome at the ceremonies of worship.
Paul tells us that this system of religion was like the strict tutor who tells a
child what to do at every turn. But the New Testament church is come of age. It
is, by way of contrast, inward, spiritual and personal. Certainly there is
outward formality in the New Covenant, but it is minimal; and the most formal
ceremony calls attention to the inward. The New Testament presses personal
self-examination everywhere and constantly makes spiritual application of its
truths. There is a notable shift to questioning experience of grace at every
point.

Jeremiah 31:34 suggests the second distinction. There will be a marked contrast
in the knowledge of those in the New Covenant. As the coming of the Spirit will
add a new dimension of life to the church, so He will add a new dimension of
light. "From the least to the greatest" in the New Covenant will know the Lord.
The subject matter of their knowledge will not be shadows but the living reality
of Christ. The mysteries hidden in the Old will be made known to them. The
manner of instruction will shift from repetitious ceremonies, for they will all
know the Lord. So then, we will expect the New Covenant to stand in contrast
with the Old in that its members have greater life and light. This diversity is
nowhere more evident than in the ceremonies of worship. New Testament worship
presents us with a most striking contrast with Old Testament ordinances. This
can be illustrated by looking at the Lord’s Supper, which finds a counterpart in
the Old Testament Passover. The great spiritual truth of redemption by blood is
figured in the Passover, but it is somewhat obscured beneath an outward and
formal atmosphere. Then, too, the ceremony mixes the figures of personal
redemption and national deliverance. Even those who had no acquaintance with
spiritual redemption observed it. This they should have done; for their national
life arose from the historic event remembered. Very young children came to the
Passover as participants that, by it, they might ask the significance and as
they grew older, come to understand the redemption figures. (cf. Exodus
12:24-27, etc.) In the New Testament, things are quite different. 1 Corinthians
11:23-30 gives instruction for the most formal ceremony of the New Covenant.
Here very young children must not come. Only the "worthy" with "discernment" are
welcome at the feast remembering our redemption. It is not marked by any of the
nationalism of the Old Covenant. Each person is charged to "examine himself"
before daring to partake. He must find himself "worthy"--a personal recipient of
grace. He must have "discernment"--that inward, spiritual light that peculiarly
marks this covenant. Light and life are prerequisites of joining this most
outward and formal act of worship. The same is true of the waters of baptism.
This ceremony does not desert the New Covenant’s pattern to revert to the Old.
It belongs to those who are "worthy" and have "discernment". Repentance and
faith are everywhere demanded as prior conditions for baptism. To summarize: IN
THE OLD COVENANT, ALL THAT WAS SPIRITUAL WAS IDENTIFIED WITH AN OUTWARD NATION.
IN THE NEW COVENANT, ALL THAT IS OUTWARD IS IDENTIFIED WITH A SPIRITUAL NATION.

3. Then, there are a number of exegetical flaws in the paedobaptist theology.

A) Many have reasoned thus: "Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old
Covenant. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New." Though
in Abraham’s case faith preceded circumcision of his children, this cannot be
said to be the rule of the Old Covenant rite. There were times when faith in the
subjects of circumcision or in their parents was all but ignored. In the time of
Joshua, an entire nation was circumcised in a day. There was no concern for
personal election or personal faith. It was clearly administered as a sign of
the outward privileges in belonging to the elect nation. Circumcision was never
withheld because a parent had no faith. Even when the prophets denounced the
Jews for being uncircumcised in heart, they did not suggest that the sons of
these unconverted Jews be excluded from the rite of circumcision. To attempt to
find a warrant for seeking faith in the fathers of those who are baptized in
these Old Testament texts is wholly unsatisfactory.

B) It is also said that just as baptism is a sign of heirship to the spiritual
promises of grace in the New Covenant, circumcision was a sign of heirship to
the same spiritual promises in the Old. This is only partially true. Baptism is
a sign of spiritual blessing in Christ and only that. Circumcision, too,
depicted unity with Christ in His death and heirship to spiritual blessings (cf.
Colossians 2:11-13). But there was more to its significance. The distinctive
aspects of the covenants cling to their signs just as surely as the common
elements of the covenants do. In the Lord’s Supper and the Passover, redemption
by blood is signified. Yet, they differ in this: The Old ceremony suggested the
outward and national aspect of that administration. The New ceremony stresses
the inward and personal aspect in its administration. So circumcision could be
given to 13-year-old Ishmael, who, Abraham was assured, would not be a partaker
of the spiritual blessings. But for him and other non-elect Jews, it was proper
by circumcision to be identified with the outward aspects of blessing and
administration. It was proper to be circumcised as the literal seed and heir of
the literal land and as one by whom, according to the flesh, the Messiah would
come, while not being of the spiritual seed and heir of heaven. Baptism has no
merely earthly significance. There are no blessings figured in it that can be
conceived of apart from an experience of grace.

C) Much weight has been placed on the formula "Thee and thy seed" in Genesis
17:1-27. Paedobaptists insist upon an outward, literal significance of the term
"seed." In their scheme, the New Covenant counterpart to Abraham’s seed is the
physical offspring of believers. This is done while totally ignoring the fact
that the New Testament says a great deal about the Covenant with Abraham, for it
is central to New Testament religion. Romans 4:1-25, Romans 9:1-33, and
Galatians 3:1-29 and Galatians 4:1-31, especially Galatians 3:7, belabor the
point that believers, and believers alone, are the seed of Abraham. These texts
further insist that the promises which are spiritual and eternal belong to no
physical seed.

Romans 9:1-33 discusses Abraham’s immediate, physical offspring. Some were of
the flesh; some of the spirit. There was a personal election within the family
election. Abraham could not look upon his own immediate seed as heirs of the
promises. "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children
of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Romans 9:8)
How can believers today lean upon the promise to Abraham which is clearly
interpreted in the New Testament and find for themselves a greater expectation
for their children than Abraham had a right to? The New Testament is not silent
about this seed. It tells us they are believers alone!

4. Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who
sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the
definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual
union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach
infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one
must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If
some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of
Christ’s body, there is a great deal of stress with the New Testament’s view of
membership and fellowship. If the second course is chosen, one’s pedagogy will
be affected. How are parents and pastors to address the children if they are
viewed as joined to Christ? Unfortunately, much paedobaptist literature written
for children reflects a tendency to address them as believers, not as in need of
evangelism. Note the interesting historic dispute on this subject by
paedobaptist theologians J.H.Thornwell and R.L.Dabney on one hand, and Charles
Hodge on the other.

II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

I can sympathize with students who are wrestling with the problem of baptism. I
can remember when I wished to be convinced of the paedobaptist position. There
would be many practical advantages. Another forceful factor is the great history
of godly men who were paedobaptists, especially the Reformers and Puritans. But
as history gave me the problem, so it has suggested a solution. Paedobaptism is
clearly tied to sacralism in church history. After Constantine and his
associates succeeded in getting across the idea that church and state are
coextensive, baptism identified a person not only as a member of Christ? church
but also as a citizen of the state. The Anabaptists in the Middle Ages were not
so concerned about the subjects and mode of baptism as they were about the
purity of the church. Believer’s baptism has always naturally followed the
concept of a believer’s church. When Zwingli worked closely with Anabaptists
(whom he later helped to condemn to death), he had a rather different view of
the church from that which he adopted later. Consequently, he had a believer’s
baptism view. But when he moved to the concept of a state church, he vigorously
defended infant baptism.

So, too, in England. So long as the concept of a state church reigned, there was
very little interest in a baptism position. But as soon as the separatist
movement arose, the Baptists emerged naturally from the paedobaptist midst. Just
as the sacralist principles were drawn from the Old Testament improperly, so the
retreat from national religion to family religion has rested upon Old Testament
practices. Once the constitution and discipline of the New Testament church has
been rightly conceived, the hangover of infant baptism must fall way.

These are issues over which we do not wish to lose fellowship with paedobaptist
brethren. Yet, they are principles which we will not jettison for the sake of
fellowship.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: S. JOY BEYOND THE CROSS
========================================================================

Joy Beyond the Cross by Walter Chantry

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left
house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s
sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world
to come life everlasting." (Luke 18:29-30)

Confronted with the unrelenting demands of the cross, some begin to think of
Christianity as a grim and undesirable existence. When a truth lies ignored and
forgotten, great emphasis must be given to it. But emphasis on "daily"
self-inflicted pain sounds austere if not gruesome. Gospel calls to take up
one’s cross may seem to be an invitation to take pleasure in self-abuse. It must
then be made manifest that our wise Lord’s demands cast no bitter pall over the
Christian life.

Mention of self-denial is essential if we are to be faithful to any who are
attracted to the benefits associated with trusting the Lord Jesus. Danger lurks
for those who do not carefully count the costs of forsaking this present world
to follow him. Enchanted with the bright prospects of the kingdom of God, some
receive its announcement with JOY. But "when tribulation or persecution arises
because of the word, by and by they are offended’ (Matthew 13:21). To avoid
misrepresentation and to turn men from apostasy our Lord must clarify the
reality of losing one’s life to enter his kingdom.

Still, in our Lord’s view, his own cross was not all bleak. Hebrews 12:2 tells
us that he "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross." Even when
his soul was troubled from taking full measure of the terrors of Golgotha, the
only Saviour of sinners never lost sight of the joy beyond. Travail of soul
would bring satisfaction. He would gather great spoil by his cross (Isaiah
53:11-12). "Wherefore (because he became obedient unto the death of the cross)
God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Php 2:9-10). just so, the
only lasting and fully satisfying joys for any man lie on the other side of a
cross.

Luke 18:18-30 preserves an outline of our compassionate Lord’s interview with
the rich young Ruler, and of a subsequent discussion occasioned by it. "Come,
take up the cross and follow me" were Jesus’ final words to the seeker (Mark
10:21). Abhorring the cross of denying self its beloved riches, the young man
sadly abandoned the great Prophet. This inquirer would not inflict pain on
himself in order to find eternal life. He desired heaven and all the pleasures
of earth too. Then, it seems, the disciples sensed Christ’s disappointment with
the departure of the sinner. As if to encourage our Lord, who himself was
feeling the painful cross of spurned love, Peter spoke. "We have left all, and
followed thee." Some men do not snub the cross, but will deny themselves,
esteeming companionship with Christ a great boon at any price. Peter meant to
console our noble Lord. But a selfless Jesus turned the occasion into an
opportunity to comfort his disciples. Attention was given to the blessedness of
those who suffer for the kingdom of God’s sake. Not one man has ever sacrificed
for his Lord without being richly repaid. If the cross is only contrasted with
earthly pleasures lost, it may seem hard and threatening. But when the cross is
weighed in the balances with the glorious treasures to be had through it, even
the cross seems sweet. As Samuel Rutherford wrote, "Christ’s cross is the
sweetest burden that ever I bore; it is such a burden as wings are to a bird, or
sails to a ship, to carry me forward to my harbour." Or as the self-denying
apostle wrote, "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for
us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" (2 Corinthians 4:17).

Perhaps the most astonishing part of our Lord’s teaching to the disciples on
this occasion was his reference to "this present time". Blessings for the
cross-bearing servants of Christ are not all reserved for another world. Though
their great inheritance is "reserved in heaven" for them (1 Peter 1:4), God has
granted his people a foretaste of heaven "in this present time". A clear
comparison is drawn, "manifold more in this present time", "more" than was left
behind of houses, lands, parents, brothers, wife or children! The man who has
denied self for Christ can never say he is a loser by it, even if the comparison
is merely between benefits in this world as compared with losses. Careful
auditing of each Christian’s ledger arrives at confirmation of this balance:
"manifold more in this present time". Though the pains of self-denial are
nonetheless real, the fraternity of the cross is a bright and cheery society
even now in life on earth.

Often our Lord grants manifold more in kind. More is given of the very object
sacrificed. Peter had left all to follow Jesus. He had left a quiet fishing
village for a tumultuous life of constant pressure by the crowds. He never again
returned to the tranquil life of a fisherman. Yet he received a peace which the
world cannot give (John 14:27). Peace with a reconciled God, peace concerning
the future, and peace flowing from the assured presence of the Son of God,
filled his soul.

Peter was severed from a beloved father and other relatives. Many Christians
have lost the affection of parents in confessing Christ. Some have been cut off
from brothers, sisters and friends. Yet who are more deeply loved in the church
than those who have paid the dearest price to declare their faith boldly.
Saintly old men become fathers and older women mothers to the cross-bearer. What
a vast number of brothers and sisters await him at the Lord’s house! How many
have found fellowship in the assembly of the redeemed more intimate and
gratifying than a home lost for Christ’s sake. We are replete with "manifold
more" in this present time.

Some Christians have found that a financial cross awaits them. It was this
expectation which the "Good Master" had set before the rich young ruler. His
actual loss of gold would have been felt. But had he taken up the cross, thereby
losing houses or lands, he would have received ’manifold more’. This is not a
crass materialistic promise that our Lord will eventually multiply the bank
account of any who follow him. But "the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness
thereof" (Psalms 24:1). And the God of all the earth has promised to add food,
clothing and all other needs to those who seek first his kingdom (Matthew 6:33).
Rich men have seen their riches take wings and fly away. Some who once were
wealthy are at this very moment destitute. But David could say, "I have been
young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed
begging bread" (Psalms 37:25).

Whatever your losses ’"for the kingdom of God’s sake" it will not take much
imagination to discover "manifold more" in kind given to you. With that in the
background our Lord adds even greater bliss, "and in the world to come life
everlasting." Ah! the world to come!

Ugly as the cross appeared in Gethsemane, do you think our Lord Jesus regrets
his cross? While he sits upon the throne of God, around which many angels, the
four living creatures, the twenty-four elders and thousands of spirits of men
render perfect worship to him and sing "Worthy is the Lamb", can there be any
fretting over the cross? Do you imagine that those who live in his glorious
presence complain of crosses? When Stephen walks in his resurrected body in the
heavenly Jerusalem where God himself shall dwell with him, how light an
affliction will his stoning seem to be! If in this life Paul could say, "For I
reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared
with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18), then a thunderous
"Amen" will brush aside crosses as nothing in glory.

Count it as a profound truth which Christ taught: ’"Blessed are ye, when men
shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against
you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your
reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you"
(Matthew 5:11-12). Some become hypnotized by crosses. Their eyes are riveted on
the cost of self-denial. Or they grumble that others have not such heavy crosses
as they. Then comes the temptation to abandon the cross as the rich young Ruler
did. Our Lord counsels, "Rejoice and be exceeding glad"— think of your reward in
heaven! You have joined the noble ranks of the prophets. joy in his kingdom
comes with a cross. Most of those who fail to experience the joy of the Lord
have refused to take up a cross!

Taken from The Shadow of the Cross, © 1981 by Walter Chantry. Used by permission
of Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: S. MAN'S WILL-FREE YET BOUND
========================================================================

Man’s Will-Free Yet Bound by Walter J. Chantry For more than fifteen hundred
years the Church has engaged in a heated debate over the freedom of man’s will.
The major issues came to general attention in the early fifth century when
Augustine and Pelagius did battle on the subject. Through medieval times the
nature of man’s freedom received a great deal of attention. As they studied the
Scriptures, Bernard and Anselm made significant contributions to the doctrine of
the human will. In the sixteenth century the freedom or bondage of the will was
one of the chief issues dividing Reformers and Roman Catholics. To the mind of
Martin Luther, it was the key to his dispute with Rome. In the seventeenth
century the nature of man’s freedom was at the heart of the debate between
Arminians and Calvinists. The conflict surfaced again in the eighteenth century
during the Great Awakening. Finney’s approach to revival in the nineteenth
century led the church astray through a misunderstanding of the human will. So
too the nature of man’s will continues to bring intense disagreement between
Reformed and Fundamentalist believers.

A proper understanding of the content of the gospel and the use of GOD-honouring
methods in evangelism are dependent on one’s grasp of this issue.

Some theologians, both Arminian and Calvinistic, have been quite lucid in their
discussions concerning man’s will. Others, for example, Jonathan Edwards, have
soared into the lofty clouds of philosophy where many a believer faints in the
thin air of difficult logic and complex thought. But none is so refreshingly
clear as our holy LORD. His instruction on the subject is laced with vivid
illustrations to assist our groping minds:

Matthew 12:33-37 says, ’Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else
make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his
fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For
out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good
treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the
evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, that every idle
word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of
judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned.’ In this passage are three verbal windows through which the light
of Christ’s lesson passes. Each presents a familiar scene. (1) A tree that has
fruit - Matthew 12:33. (2) A man who brings treasures out of a chest - Matthew
12:35. (3) A stream that overflows from a fountain. This last is rather more
obscure than the first two, but it is suggested by our LORD’s choice of words in
Matthew 12:34. The word ’abundance’ suggests superfluity or overflow.

I. Man has a will and that will has a certain freedom. Our LORD clearly teaches
that man has a power of choice. It is important to begin here to disarm
opponents of all the foolish accusations that have been brought against the
Biblical doctrine of man’s will. Every man has the ability to choose his own
words, to decide what his actions will be. We have a faculty of
self-determination in the sense that we select our own thoughts, words, and
deeds. Man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires. No one ties fruit
on a tree’s branches, not even GOD. The tree bears its own fruit. Evil men sin
voluntarily; they take evil treasures out of their chests, that is, evil words
and deeds. Righteous men are holy by choice; they select good treasures, that
is, good words and works. The person who is speaking and acting is completely
responsible for his moral behaviour. This power of the will is a vital part of
human personality. It always exists in you and me and in all to whom we witness
or preach.

GOD never forces men to act against their wills. By workings of outward
providence or of inward grace, the LORD may change men’s minds, but He will not
coerce a human being into thoughts, words or actions. When GOD in His holy wrath
sent the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from their land, He also sent
hornets against them. There is a children’s song which tells the story of these
hornets stinging the Canaanites, causing the pagans to flee the land. The chorus
then sings:

GOD never compels us to go, Oh no, He never compels us to go;

GOD does not compel us to go ’gainst our will, but He just makes us willing to
go. When Saul was converted, the LORD did not compel him to edify the church
instead of persecuting it. He added a new factor of inward grace in his soul,
consequently Paul changed his decision. GOD may renew the will but He never
coerces it. The Westminster Confession is very careful to assert the liberty of
the human will. When it speaks of GOD’s eternal decrees, we are told, ’GOD from
all eternity did . . . freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:
yet so, as thereby neither is GOD the author of sin, nor is violence offered to
the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes
taken away, but rather established.’ When discussing Free Will, the Confession
begins, ’GOD hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is
neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or
evil.’ Neither by creation nor by subsequent acts of GOD are man’s decisions
made for him; he is free to choose for himself. This sort of freedom of the will
is essential to responsibility! Having a will is a necessary ingredient to being
morally accountable. This is clearly implied in our LORD’s words in Matthew
12:36-37 : ’I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they
shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt
be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.’ A man can be condemned
only because the words are his own. He was free to bring them out of his
treasure chest. They were the overflow of the fountain of his own heart. They
are the fruits of his own tree of nature. No one imposed the words on his lips.
He chose them. Society, companions, parents cannot be blamed. Idle words are the
product of the man’s own will.

It is vital for every minister to appreciate the importance of man’s will. For
in evangelism the will must be addressed. In preaching the gospel we are not
only to shine the light of truth upon darkened minds. We are also to appeal to
men’s perverted wills to choose Christ. Faith is as much an act of the will as
it is of the mind. When by the Spirit a mind understands essential truths, by
the same Spirit the will must trust Christ. Repentance is a selecting of good
and a refusing of evil. Volition is central to faith and repentance.

Indeed, in conversion, a man must make a decision. We shy away from that term
because in modern jargon a ’decision’ has come to be identified with an outward
expression, such as raising the hand or going forward to the front. While such
external acts have nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, the heart must make a
decision to be saved. When Christ stood to cry ’If any man thirst, let him come
unto me and drink,’ He was soliciting a willing choice of Himself as satisfying
drink for the soul. GOD urges all sinners to come just because they may come.
And it is our duty to inform the sinner that he has a warrant, a right to choose
Christ. Beyond this, we must assure him that he has a positive duty to embrace
the Saviour. The great guilt of sinners under the gospel is that they will not
come. Christ complained in John 5:40 : ’Ye will not come to me that ye might
have life.’ And to Jerusalem He sobbed, ’O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would
I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens
under her wings and ye would not !’ There is in the unregenerate hearer of the
gospel an obstinate, wilful choice not to come. Hence it is that in flaming fire
Christ will come to take vengeance on them that obey not the gospel [2
Thessalonians 1:8]. In the free exercise of their uncoerced wills men have
rejected the Son of GOD. In speaking of responsibility we have implied nothing
regarding ability, as will be seen below. But the point is that men have wills
which must be addressed as powerfully and directly as their minds and emotions
in gospel preaching. Men must be confronted with their responsibility. ’This is
the work of GOD, that ye believe into Him whom He hath sent’ [John 6:29].

II. Man’s Will is not a Sovereign Faculty. Although man does have a will, it is
neither independent of all influences nor supreme over all other parts of his
personality. This is the next point to be seen in our LORD’s teaching.

Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Arminians and Finneyites have all held one common
view of the nature of man. They suggest that the will of man is in some way
neutral, that it exists in a state of moral suspension. It is their
understanding that with equal ease the will can choose good or evil; it can
receive or reject Christ. With only degrees of difference and variety of
explanation, this is their common opinion. Pelagians have taught that the will
is neutral because man’s heart is morally neutral. Arminians, on the other hand,
acknowledge the human heart to be evil. But they suggest that prevenient grace
has hung the will upon a ’sky hook’ of neutrality from which it can swing either
to receive or to reject the gospel. The common ground, however, is this idea of
neutrality. The will, they tell us, is disinterested. Ultimately this controls
their entire view of conversion and of sanctification.

It will be noted that our Master taught that the human will is not free from the
other faculties of the heart. Far from the will reigning over a man, the will is
determined by the man’s own character. It is not raised to a position of
dominance over the entire man.

Man is like a tree. His heart, not his will alone, is the root. There is no
possible way by which the will can choose to produce fruit contrary to the
character of the root. If the root is bad, the tree is bound by its very nature
to produce evil fruit. Man is like a person standing alongside his treasure
chest. There is no possibility of bringing pure gold out of a box filled only
with rusty steel. The contents of the heart determine what words and deeds may
be brought out. Far from being neutral, the will must reach into the heart for
its choices. Every thought, word and deed will partake of the nature of the
treasure within. Man is like a stream which cannot rise above its source. If the
fountain is polluted, the outflow will be evil. If the source be sweet, the
stream will not be bitter and cannot choose to be so.

These three illustrations alike contain the same lesson. What a man is
determines what he chooses. Choices of the will always reveal the character of
the heart, because the heart determines the choices. Men are not sinners because
they choose to sin; they choose to sin because they are sinners. If this were
not so, we could never know a tree by its fruits, nor could we judge a man’s
character by his acts. In modern times we observe rockets fired so that they
escape from the earth’s gravity. To accomplish this there is a great complex of
electrical wires all woven into one control centre, called in the U.S. ’Mission
Control.’

According to the Bible, the heart is the Mission Control of a man’s life. The
heart is the motivational complex of a man, the basic disposition, the entire
bent of character, the moral inclination. The mind, emotions, desires, and will
are all wires which we observe; none is independent but all are welded into a
common circuit. If mission control is wired for evil, the will cannot make the
rockets of life travel on the path of righteousness. The will cannot escape the
direction of thoughts, feelings, longings and habits to produce behaviour of an
opposite moral quality. ’Will’ may be the button which launches the spacecraft.
But the launching button does not determine the direction. Direction is
dependent upon the complex wiring system.

If the will were able to make decisions contrary to reason, and to the likes and
desires of the heart, it would be a monster. You would find yourself in a
restaurant ordering all the foods you detest. You would find yourself selecting
the company you loathe. But the will is not a monster. It cannot choose without
consulting your intelligence, reflecting your feelings, and taking account of
your desires. You are free to be yourself. The will cannot transform you into
someone else. This is most profoundly true in the moral and religious realms.
When the mind is at war with GOD, denying His truth; when the emotions hate
Christ His Son; when the desires wish GOD’s law and gospel were exterminated
from the earth; the will cannot be in a position to choose Christ. If it were, a
man would not be truly free to be himself. Here is the tragic truth about man’s
will. While free from outward coercion, it is in a state of bondage. It is not
in a stated neutrality. It is not a lever with which to move a man’s personality
from sin to righteousness, from unbelief to faith. This brings us to the third
element in Christ’s words.

III. Man’s Will is in Bondage to Sin. The chains which bind a man’s will to sin
do not result from the actions of the Omnipotent GOD. The binding chains are the
man’s own depraved faculties. The prison is his own nature. Our LORD’s
rhetorical question in Matthew 12:34 brings this home with force: ’O generation
of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things ?’ Our wise LORD is
suggesting that a man must speak as he does because of what he is. To sinners He
was saying ’You are unable to choose good words because you possess an evil
heart. If the tree is bad, if the treasure chest is filled with evil things
alone, if the fountain is bitter, your will cannot produce good words [fruits,
treasures, overflow].’ At this point there are very many scriptures which attest
to a man’s bondage to sin by his own nature. To mention but a few - Jeremiah
13:23 : ’Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may
ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil;’ John 6:44 : ’No man can come
to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him;’ Romans 8:7 : ’The carnal
mind . . . is not subject to the law of GOD, neither indeed can be.’

Pelagian, Arminian and modern Fundamentalist support for the moral and spiritual
freedom of the will usually centres on one point. We have admitted that man has
a responsible freedom. He is free to be himself. He is held accountable for his
words and deeds, especially for his receiving or rejecting Christ. On all of
this we agree. They use this toehold to argue that the will is not in bondage to
sin but has the power of contrary choice. It can do either good or evil, at
least when confronted with the gospel. They insist that the responsibility of
the will to choose Christ implies ability of the will to choose Christ.

There is no scriptural defence of this belief, none that I have ever seen in
print. The argument is completely philosophical. It runs as follows: If a man
cannot do good, it would be unjust to punish him as evil. Furthermore, if a
sinner cannot repent, it would be foolish to command all men everywhere to
repent. GOD is not foolish and He has commanded repentance. Therefore men are
able to repent.

We can only reply that those who applaud the powers of the will with such
arguments have not read the Bible very carefully. To maintain their
philosophical premises they will have to argue with Christ their LORD. For our
Prophet tells us in verses 36 and 37 of our text that in the day of judgment men
will be held responsible for their evil words. Yet in verse 34 our Teacher tells
the very same men that they cannot speak good words because they are bound by
their evil character.

Lazarus in his tomb had no ability to respond when our LORD commanded, ’Come
forth.’ The man who had been impotent for 38 years had no native ability to obey
when Jesus commanded him to take up his bed and walk. Nor have modern sinners
ability to believe when we preach. ’This is his commandment, that we believe on
the name of his Son Jesus Christ’ [1 John 3:23]. When a sinner refuses to come
to Christ, he is guilty because he has made a free choice. It reflects his own
state of mind, feeling and attitude toward GOD and His Son. He has acted
voluntarily without coercion. It is his decision. But the poor sinner, dead in
trespasses and sins, could not do otherwise, being evil. It is not necessary for
him to have a neutral will, or the ability to do both good and evil, for his
action to be held accountable before the Judge of all hearts.

Anselm is very helpful on this matter. This medieval theologian points out that
if ability to sin is necessary to true liberty or responsibility, then GOD is
neither free nor praiseworthy. For the scriptures teach us that GOD cannot lie.
Similarly, saints in glory will be neither free nor responsible; for in eternity
the LORD’s people have confirmed righteousness. Anselm goes on to show the
Biblical emphasis of freedom. True liberty rests in the ability to do good
whereas he that does sin is the slave of sin. If true liberty rests in the
ability to do good in GOD’s sight, then the highest liberty rests in the
inability to do otherwise. This highest freedom belongs to the sons of GOD in
glory. How Biblical were Anselm’s insights! No doubt Anselm’s thinking has
influenced the Westminster Confession’s wording in the chapter ’Of Free Will.’
For it says that Adam ’had freedom and power to will and to do that which is
good and wellpleasing to GOD.’ Yet this freedom was mutable, subject to change.
Man could and did lose his liberty in the sense of being able to do good. This
is not the same as a man’s liberty to be himself. ’Man, by his fall into a state
of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying
salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead
in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or prepare himself
thereto.’

Bernard was very near the truth when he wrote of our condition in Adam: ’The
soul, in some strange and evil way, is held under this kind of voluntary, yet
sadly free necessity, both bond and free; bond in respect of necessity, free in
respect of will: and what is still more strange, and still more miserable, it is
guilty because free, and enslaved because guilty, and therefore enslaved because
free.’

We have seen that man is free to be himself and therefore is enslaved to sin by
a wicked heart. And this brings us to the most profound truth regarding the
salvation of souls. It is crucial to our preaching. It is vital to saving
impressions in our hearers.

IV. Man’s Will is not his Hope. Our LORD has taught that the tree must be made
good. Man must be renewed in his entire character. He must have a new heart to
bring forth good fruit; the will cannot make the tree good; it may only exercise
liberty to be what the tree already is. The will cannot reload the treasure
chest with a new kind of goods; it may only freely bring forth what is there.
The will cannot cleanse the fountainhead; it may overflow only with the waters
available in the soul.

Any gospel preaching that relies upon an act of the human will for the
conversion of sinners has missed the mark. Any sinner who supposes that his will
has the strength to do any good accompanying salvation is greatly deluded and
far from the kingdom. We are cast back upon the regenerating work of the Spirit
of the living GOD to make the tree good. Unless GOD does something in the
sinner, unless GOD creates a clean heart and renews a right spirit within man,
there is no hope of a saving change.

While we address the wills of men in gospel preaching, they are wills bound in
the grave clothes of an evil heart. But as we speak, and the LORD owns His word,
sinners are quickened to life by divine power. His people are made willing in
the day of His power [Psalms 110:3]. All who are adopted as sons of GOD were
’born not of the will of man, but of GOD.’ [John 13:1] We stand to preach with
no power to make the tree good. The ’trees’ before us cannot make themselves
good, so no gimmicks or policies of men can persuade them to make the change.
But our glorious GOD, by inward, secret, transforming power, can make the tree
good, the treasures good, the fountain good. Thus all glory be to GOD and to the
Lamb! Salvation is of the LORD!


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: S. MYTH OF FREE WILL
========================================================================

Myth of Free Will by Walter Chantry

Most people say that they believe in "free will." Do you have any idea what that
means? I believe that you will find a great deal of superstition on this
subject. The will is saluted as the grand power of the human soul which is
completely free to direct our lives. But from what is it free? And what is its
power? THE MYTH OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL FREEDOM No one denies that man has a will—that
is, a faculty of choosing what he wishes to say, do, and think. But have you
ever reflected on the pitiful weakness of your will? Though you have the ability
to make a decision, you do not have the power to carry out your purpose. Will
may devise a course of action, but will has no power to execute its intention.

Joseph’s brothers hated him. They sold him to be a slave. But God used their
actions to make him a ruler over themselves. They chose their course of action
to harm Joseph. But God in his power directed events for Joseph’s good. He said,
"You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good" (Genesis 50:20). And how
many of your decisions are miserably thwarted? You may choose to be a
millionaire, but God’s providence is likely to prevent it. You may decide to be
a scholar, but bad health, an unstable home, or lack of finances may frustrate
your will. You choose to go on a vacation, but an automobile accident may send
you to the hospital instead. By saying that your will is free, we certainly do
not mean that it determines the course of your life. You did not choose the
sickness, sorrow, war, and poverty that have spoiled your happiness. You did not
choose to have enemies. If man’s will is so potent, why not choose to live on
and on? But you must die. The major factors which shape your life cannot thank
your will. You did not select your social status, color, intelligence, etc.

Any sober reflection on your experience will produce the conclusion, "A man’s
mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). Rather than
extolling the human will, we ought to humbly praise the Lord whose purposes
shape our lives. As Jeremiah confessed, "I know, 0 Lord, that the way of man is
not in himself: it is not in man to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23).

Yes, you may choose what you want, and you may plan what you will do. But your
will is not free to accomplish anything contrary to the purposes of God. Neither
have you any power to reach your goals but that which God allows you. The next
time you are so enamored with your own will, remember Jesus’ parable about the
rich man. The wealthy man said, "I will do this; I will pull down my barns, and
build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods... But God
said to him, Fool! This night your soul is required of you" (Luke 12:18-21). He
was free to plan but not free to accomplish; so it is with you. THE MYTH OF
ETHICAL FREEDOM But freedom of the will is cited as an important factor in
making moral decisions. Man’s will is said to be free to choose between good and
evil. But again we must ask, from what is it free? And what is man’s will free
to choose? The will of man is his power to choose between alternatives. Your
will does decide your actions from a number of options. You have the faculty to
direct your own thoughts, words, and deeds. Your decisions are not formed by an
outside force but from within yourself. No man is compelled to act contrary to
his will, nor forced to say what he does not wish. Your will guides your
actions.

Yet this does not mean that the power to decide is free from all influence. You
make choices based on your understanding, your feelings, your likes and
dislikes, and your appetites. In other words, your will is not free from
yourself! Your choices are determined by your own basic character. The will is
not independent of your nature but the slave of it. Your choices do not shape
your character, but your character guides your choices. The will is quite
partial to what you know, feel, love, and desire. You always choose on the basis
of your disposition, according to the condition of your heart.

It is just for this reason that your will is not free to do good. Your will is
the servant of your heart, and your heart is evil. "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). "No one does
good, not even one" (Romans 3:12). No power forces man to sin contrary to his
will, but the descendants of Adam are so evil that they always choose the evil.
Your decisions are molded by your understanding, and the Bible says of all men,
"Their senseless minds are darkened" (Romans 1:21). Man can only be righteous
when he desires to have fellowship with God, but, "No one seeks for God" (Romans
3:11). Your appetites crave sin, and thus you cannot choose Good. To choose good
is contrary human nature. If you chose to obey God, it would be the result of
external compulsion. But you are free to choose, and hence your choice is
enslaved to your own evil nature.

If fresh meat and tossed salad were placed before a hungry lion, he would choose
the flesh. This is because his nature dictates the selection. It is just so with
man. The will of man is free from outside force but not from the bias of human
nature. That bias is against God. Man’s powers of decision are free to choose
whatever the human heart dictates; therefore there is no possibility of a man
choosing to please God without a prior work of divine grace.

What most people mean by free will is the idea that man is by nature neutral and
therefore able to choose either good or evil. This simply is not true. The human
will and the whole of human nature is bent to only evil continually. Jeremiah
asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also
you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jeremiah 13:23). It is
impossible. It is contrary to nature. Thus do men desperately need the
supernatural transformation of their natures, else their wills are enslaved to
choosing evil. In spite of the great praise that is given to "free will," we
have seen that man’s will is not free to choose a course contrary to God’s
purposes nor free to act contrary to his own moral nature. Your will does not
determine the events of your life nor the circumstances of it. Ethical choices
are not formed by a neutral mind but always dictated by your personality. THE
MYTH OF SPIRITUAL FREEDOM

Nevertheless many assert that the human will makes the ultimate choice of
spiritual life or spiritual death. Here the will is altogether free to choose
eternal life offered in Jesus Christ or to reject it. It is said that God will
give a new heart to all who choose by the power of their own free will to
receive Jesus Christ.

There can be no question that receiving Jesus Christ is an act of the human
will. It is often called "faith." But how do men come to willingly receive the
Lord? It is usually answered, "Out of the power of their own free will." But how
can that be? Jesus is a prophet. To receive him means to believe all that he
says. In John 8:41-44 Jesus made it clear that you were born of Satan. This evil
father hates the truth and imparted the same bias into your heart by nature.
Hence said Jesus, "Because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me." How
does the human will jump out of man to choose to believe what the human mind
hates and denies? To receive Jesus further means to embrace him as a priest—that
is, to employ,and depend on him to sue out peace with God by sacrific and
intercession. Paul tells us that the mind with which we were born is hostile to
God (Romans 8:7). How can the will escape the influence of human nature which
was born with a violent enmity to God? It would be insane for the will to choose
peace when every bone and drop of blood cries out for rebellion.

Then too, receiving Jesus means to welcome him as a king. It means choosing to
obey his every command, to confess his right of rule, and to worship before his
throne. But the human mind, emotions, and desires all cry out, "We will not have
this man to reign over us" (Luke 19:14). If my whole being hates his truth,
hates his rule, and hates peace with God, how can my will be responsible for
receiving Jesus? How can such a sinner have faith?

It is not man’s will but God’s grace that must be thanked for giving a sinner a
new heart. Unless God changes the heart, creates a new spirit of peace,
truthfulness, and submission, man will not choose to receive Jesus Christ and
eternal life in Him. A new heart must be given before a man will believe, or
else the human will is hopelessly enslaved to evil human nature—even in the
matter of conversion. Jesus said, "Marvel not that I said to you, you must be
born again" (John 3:7). Unless you are, you will never see his kingdom.

Read John 1:12-13. It says that those who believe on Jesus have been "born, not
of the will of man, but of God." As your will is not responsible for your coming
into this world, it is not responsible for the new birth. It is your Creator who
must be thanked for your life, and if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation
(2 Corinthians 5:17). Who ever chose to be created? When Lazarus rose from the
dead, he chose to answer the call of Christ, but he did not choose to come to
life. So Paul said in Ephesians 2:4-5, "When we were dead in sins God has
quickened us with Christ (by grace you are saved)." Faith is the first act of a
will made new by the Holy Spirit. Receiving Christ is an act of man just as
breathing is, but God must first give life. No wonder Martin Luther wrote a book
entitled The Bondage of The Will which he considered one of his most important
treatises. The will is in the chains of an evil human nature. You who extol the
free will as a great force are clinging to a root of pride. Man, as fallen in
sin, is utterly helpless and hopeless. The will of man offers no hope. It was
the will choosing the forbidden fruit that brought us into misery. The powerful
grace of God alone offers deliverance. Cast yourself upon God’s mercy for
salvation. Ask for the Spirit of Grace that he may create a new spirit within
you.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: S. TAKE UP YOUR CROSS
========================================================================

Take Up Your Cross by Walter Chantry

"And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself,
and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life
shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save
it." (Luke 9:23-24)

Only one entrance may be found to the Kingdom of God. There is a narrow gate set
at the head of the path of life. "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,
which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matthew 8:14). No one
with an inflated ego can squeeze through the door. There must be
self-effacement, self-repudiation, self-denial even to become a disciple (a
student) of Jesus Christ. Our Saviour made his demand quite clear by explicitly
requiring self-denial. He then re-emphasized the point by using a vivid
illustration of renouncing one’s self—an illustration he would soon seal with
his blood, "Let him deny himself, and take up his cross". Six times in the
Gospels our great Prophet refers to his followers’ taking up a cross. It was one
of his favourite illustrations of self-denial. At other times he would speak of
selling all, or of losing one’s life.

"Cross" is a word that first brings to our minds the picture of our Lord on
Calvary. We think of him bleeding while fastened to an instrument designed to
inflict an agonizing death. Then perhaps we expand the idea of taking up a cross
by thinking of Stephen who was stoned to death, or of Peter and John, who were
beaten and put into prison, and of other martyrs across the ages. In the light
of such courageous physical suffering, the Christian at ease may say to himself,
"I don’t have any cross to bear". Perhaps this repeated demand of Christ even
brings alarm to your consciences as you read it over and over in Scripture.

Some who call themselves "Christian" in fact have never taken up their crosses.
Being ignorant of the experience of self-execution, of self-denial, they are of
necessity strangers to Christ. Our Lord himself intended his illustration and
his demand to deepen alarm in such individuals. If this is your condition, then
there can be no relief to conviction but in taking up your cross and following
him.

Others, however, are true servants of Christ but feel a sense of dismay through
a misunderstanding of our Lord’s demand. It is quite possible to have taken up
your cross and not to know it. Careful examination of our Lord’s meaning will
then be an encouragement. In either case, the subject is vital to you. Your
Master’s life was dominated by a cross. He has called you also to a life with a
cross. This clear gospel note is so easy to forget in flabby Western society.
With a great chorus of custom, advertisement and temptation this world is
beckoning you to a life of self-indulgence. Your flesh is drawn to that appeal,
and will fall in with the world’s suggestions. But the Lord of glory has called
you to a life of self-denial, to a cross. The demand of bearing a cross is
universal. It is made of all who follow Christ, without exception. Our Lord
addressed these words "to all", not to a select few who walked nearer to Christ.
Mark 8:34 indicates that this mandate was not issued to the twelve alone. It was
spoken ’when he had called the people unto him with his disciples’. The cross is
required for "any man" who will go after him. There are no peculiar cases
released from this necessity. Repeatedly our Lord was emphatic that none could
be considered his disciple in any sense unless he bore a cross. "And he that
taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me" (Matthew
10:38). Again in Luke 14:27 our Saviour turned to a multitude following him, to
insist, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my
disciple". It is an absolute impossibility to be a Christian without
self-denial. Whether you live in a Christian land or in a culture hostile to
God’s Word, you must bear a cross. The only way to avoid the cross is to follow
the world to hell. As Luke 14:24 explains, "For whosoever will save his life
shall lose it". The "for" indicates a connection with the preceding verse.
Religion without self-denial will not endure the judgment.

It is this most obvious aspect of our Lord’s teaching which has been forgotten
or ignored by modern evangelism. Anxious to bring sinners to life, peace and Joy
in the Lord, evangelists have failed even to mention that Christ insists upon
denial of self at the outset. Having failed to pass on our Lord’s requirement,
and forgetting it themselves, evangelists have never questioned whether their
"converts" with self-centred lives are true followers of Christ. Assuming that
it is possible for a man to be self-indulgent and yet heaven-bound, Bible
teachers look for some way to bring ego-centric men to a higher spiritual plane.
Then self-denial is taught as the requirement for a second work of grace. But
our text will show that unless a man lives a life of self-denial, he has not
received a first work of grace.

Those who save texts demanding a cross for "the deeper life" have cheated their
hearers in evangelism. Without a cross there is no following Christ! And without
following Christ there is no life at all! An impression has been given that many
enter life through a wide gate of believing on Jesus. Then a few go through the
narrow gate of the cross for deeper spiritual service. On the contrary, the
broad way without self-denial leads to destruction. All who are saved have
entered the fraternity of the cross. Christ’s summons to a cross is perpetual.
Self-denial is not an initiation-fee, once paid and for ever forgotten. Old
Christians as well as new converts must bear a cross. One’s cross is not a
disposable item of Christian experience but a life-long burden in this world.
This conversation apparently took place after Caesarea Philippi. It was near the
end of our Lord’s earthly ministry. Almost three years earlier, Jesus had called
the disciples. We read a partial account of the call in Luke 5:1-39. When they
began to follow the Messiah, there was a painful price of a cross to be weighed.
For Peter it was leaving a beloved father and abandoning a good fishing business
in a quiet village. For Matthew it was turning his back on the lucrative tax
bureau he directed. Throughout more than two years there was the painful
experience of poverty, tumult and disgrace in following the Master. Now, as they
near the completion of their training, our Lord holds before them the
expectation of a cross. Whether you have walked with Christ one year or forty,
you must deny yourself still.

You will notice that the text uses the word "daily". For a true believer the
cross is ubiquitous, lifelong, a daily weight. There is but one depository of
the cross, that is the cemetery. We shall not carry the pain of self-denial into
the celestial city. But our Lord holds out no hope that the cross will cease to
afflict us in this life. It is "daily", for "any man". You must ask yourself,
"Am I bearing a cross today?" As has been suggested, the cross is painful. The
term "cross" has lost all significance if the element of dreadful suffering is
taken away. Our Lord endured the most cruel pangs ever inflicted upon a man. But
we must recognize that the cross represented inward as well as outward pains. To
our perfect Lord the inward torture of the cross was far greater than the
outward.

Hebrews 12:2 teaches us that Jesus "endured the cross, despising the shame". The
shame was much more painful to his noble dignity than were the nails and the
bleeding to his body. Some have failed to estimate what the cross was to him:
the confusion of being made sin before the Father, the embarrassment before his
enemies of open ’udgment by a righteous God. The shame of nakedly identifying
with filthy transgressions before men, angels and God, cut his sensitive soul to
the quick.

Inward suffering must be the focus of our Lord’s teaching in this passage. Our
cross is not merely physical suffering. Stephen was not stoned "daily", yet the
Saviour said we must bear a "daily" cross. Even in the worst of times apostles
were not imprisoned "daily". There is a cross to bear on the best of days as
well as on the worst. Peter carried a cross during civil peace as well as in
times of strife. A failure to comprehend that inward pain is the worst part of
the cross has led some believers to misunderstand our Lord’s demand of a daily
cross. It is this misunderstanding which may lead to unnecessary alarm and
dismay when true saints read our Lord’s demand. You may bear a cross unseen by
all but your heavenly Father. How often a pastor is surprised to learn of the
cross borne by members of the congregation, through trials never imagined by
him. The deepest pains of the cross are not publicly visible.

Furthermore, taking up your cross is an intentional act. In every passage which
records our Lord’s mention of a cross for his disciples, he commands them to
"take it up". The Lord does not force a cross upon any man against his will. He
does not strap the cross to a man’s back. There are great afflictions for God’s
people which are imposed by providence. Irresistible sufferings may be the hand
of chastisement or of refining mercy. These are trials but not crosses. A cross
must be taken up by the one whose self is to be denied painfully.

It was a voluntary submission on Christ’s part which brought him to Calvary. "No
man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John 10:18). Armed
soldiers could not seize him. The Son of God delivered himself into their
custody. just so is the daily cross of his disciples. It is the conscious choice
of a painful alternative motivated by love for Christ. It may be preceded by an
inward struggle similar to that which our Lord knew in Gethsemane. But it is a
voluntary choice.

Lastly, the taking up of a cross is mortal. It is deadly. Death on the cross may
be very slow, but a cross has one objective—it ruthlessly intends to bring death
to self. Two parallel ideas in John 10:23-24 show us that our Lord has this in
mind. "Let him deny himself". Put to death self-importance, self-satisfaction,
self-absorption, self-advancement, self-dependence. And "whosoever will lose his
life for my sake". That’s it! Death to self-interest because you serve Christ’s
honour! Even capitulation of those things which men call legitimate interests,
for God’s glory!

It is now apparent that Jesus’ figure of bearing a cross is an elaboration of
his demand for self-denial. Bearing a cross is every Christian’s daily,
conscious selection of those options which will please Christ, pain self, and
aim at putting self to death. It is a teaching for the recruit, not merely for
the seasoned warrior. It is a requirement for entering the army of God, not
merely a call to an elite corps of super-saints with a deeper life. Yet it does
hold the clue as well to deepening maturity in Christ. At each stage of growth,
more self-denial is required, more painful blows to self, more reckless decision
to serve the Lord Christ with consequent abandonment of one’s own life. The
shadow of the cross falls upon all those vital aspects of Christian experience
which perplex true hearts. If only the cross were understood, many complaints
would be silenced which murmur against God’s providence. Many a counselling
session in the pastor’s study would be cut short by applying the meaning of the
cross. It answers so many questions, not easily but profoundly.

If you have struggled to worship the Almighty, you will have learned that there
is no satisfying communion with the Most High without a cross. Our Saviour arose
a great while before it was day to draw near to his Father. Having no central
heating, it is no stretch of the imagination to think that he shivered while his
metabolism was still sluggish in early morning hours. Perhaps he felt the pain
of prying his eyes open, for he was a true man who had spent long days and
nights instructing the ignorant, convincing the gainsayers and healing the sick.
He did not have a good night of sleep before his secret hours of worship.
Perhaps he had to stand lest he fall asleep. Perhaps these struggles led to his
sympathy for his disciples in the Garden. When they slept spirit is instead of
praying, he gently said, "The willing but the flesh is weak". Oh, he had felt
the weakness of human flesh! A cross greets the Christian who is determined to
rise early to meet his God. It begins with the alarm clock. Self desires another
hour of sleep. It is only reasonable to remain in bed since the baby woke up
twice last night. But if the love of Christ burns in your soul, you would rather
inflict pain on yourself than plunge into the demands of business at home and
office, and end the day with the sad realization that you had not been with him
in quiet at all. Furthermore, to rise early in the day you must deny self of
pleasant social evenings which tend to last into late hours. And when you have
managed to bring yourself to your devotions, stubborn self intrudes still.
Thoughts of your affairs demand attention from your mind so that honest
contemplation of the glory of God is crowded out. A thousand selfish interests
prevent true prayer from ever beginning. Our Lord taught us that prayer begins
when the heart cries "Hallowed be thy Name". It cannot be uttered until
self-interest is ruthlessly yanked from the soul as a tooth is from your jaw.
This is painful and pinching.

Preachers meet sad-eyed saints who would like them to recommend a good book on
devotions, I something to pick up my drooping spirits’. The place of private
retirement has grown dull or unrewarding. Often behind the request is a desire
to find a new secret to approaching God’s courts, a little device or an easy
step back to the place of joyful fellowship with God and the Lamb. There are no
such books or devices. You must bear a cross! Take aim on self. Set your sights
on putting self to death. Deny self! Fast! Rise earlier! Cry with a fresh
uniting of all your energies for the one purpose of knowing the Lord. And
tomorrow? The cross will be there again. And if you do not choose to inflict
pain on self, you will relapse once more into coldness. You will withdraw to a
distance from the Lord.

Some poor creatures have stopped seeking the joys of God’s presence. Perhaps you
have assumed that God will not show you his glory. On the contrary, he delights
to make himself known. But there is a cross at the threshold of the secret place
of the Most High. To come under the shadow of the Almighty you must put self to
a slow, agonizing death. The long shadow of the cross will follow you from your
home to your field of service for the Lord. Faithful witnesses to Christ face
dreadful pains. When you arrive at your shop, fellow workers may be gathered in
a corner laughing and slapping shoulders. You know you dare not approach to join
in. The subject of the good humour is filthy. During the day, as serious
opinions are discussed, there is an opportunity to give the biblical view on
issues of sin and righteousness or the purpose of life. But each time you speak,
you have seen rejection of yourself with your views. Each testimony for truth
makes you more unwelcome. Will you be bold for truth today?

Christians are sensitive. We want to be liked and accepted. It is pleasant to be
agreeable and peaceful. It is our longing to become more intimate with fellow
men. Some brutes witness with an attitude of "I don’t care what anyone thinks of
me". That is to be callous, not gracious. As God’s grace quickens in us love for
men, a sense of courtesy is heightened, a longing for gentleness and peace is
increased. But with all of this our Lord’s honour is at issue in the discussion.
The eternal welfare of men’s souls hangs in the balance with their understanding
of truth.

What must the Christian do if he is to witness? He must consciously choose words
that pain his own social consciousness and love of peace. He must purposely
drive the wedge between self and fellow workers deeper! There are no easy steps
to witnessing! No painless, unembarrassing methods! You must bring men to see
that they are filthy sinners under the wrath of God who must flee to Christ for
mercy. That is offensive. And there is no way to coat it with honey. When a
young woman explains the gospel to her mother, she may almost anticipate the
cool reception. Whichever way the truth is presented, implied is the life-long
error of mother. It is all a denial of her religion, her views, her life-style
from a daughter. It cuts her heart like a knife. Yes, but when the sword of the
Word cuts mother’s heart, a sensitive daughter has at the same time chosen to
drive spikes into her own flesh. Self has had to be crucified. Two hearts are
broken, not merely one. As the cross casts a shadow over worship arid
witnessing, its shades also fall upon all service to God. Questions like, "Will
you teach a Sunday School class?" become, "Will you relinquish tranquil and
amusing evenings which follow frenzied days in the office? Will you sacrifice
relaxation seriously to study God’s Word in preparation for the class? Will you
spend scarce time to pray for your students?" Each duty assumed for the good of
the Church imposes restrictions elsewhere. An image of the cross is discernible
everywhere in the Christian life. Our Lord was not speaking in hyperbole when he
set before us a daily cross. To turn from it is to revert to the broad way which
leads to destruction.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: S. THE HIGH CALLING OF MOTHERHOOD
========================================================================

The High Calling of Motherhood By Rev Walter J Chantry

"But women will be saved through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and
holiness with propriety." (1 Timothy 2:15)

One of the greatest issues in our society today is the status and role of women.
"Too often" writes Rev WJ Chantry, women have been "held in contempt... subject
to verbal, social and physical abuses."

But, how are women to respond? How can a woman find a role in life which will
bring real dignity and fulfilment, and stretch all her abilities to the full?
Rev Walter Chantry gives an answer which would revolutionise our society if it
were put into practice.

Rev Walter Chantry is Pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
USA. He is married with two daughters and a son, and is the author of Today’s
Gospel, The Shadow of the Cross and God’s Righteous Kingdom, all published by
the Banner of Truth Trust. Our generation has highlighted the oppression of
women. The symptoms are not difficult to identify. Women have too often been
held in contempt. Large numbers of them have been subjected to verbal, social
and physical abuses. Women’s magazines and social activists have pointed the
finger at very serious ill-treatments which subject multitudes to misery. Our
world has little difficulty describing the quandary of women. But it has
completely mistaken the root cause. Consequently, women are being offered a
faulty solution to their real troubles. False diagnosis usually leads to
improper measures of correction. In this case the cure proposed by the world
simply compounds female misery.

SCRIPTURE SPEAKS

Contrary to popular assumption, the Bible has a number of things to say very
directly about this issue: Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, alludes to the plight of
woman. He suggests that she needs to be saved (1 Timothy 2:15). This cannot mean
salvation from sin and God’s everlasting wrath. In this context Paul joins
salvation to childbearing. He must have in view a deliverance from some other
extremity. In fact he is referring to the circumstantial calamities which attend
a woman’s life. In the passage Paul gives a solution. His views are not simply a
parroting of the social philosophy current in his own age. Under divine
inspiration he wrote not a private opinion but the very Word of God. CREATION
AND FALL "Women’s rights" proponents become livid when God’s directives to women
are read to them from this passage: "A woman should learn in quietness and full
submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, she
must be silent" (1 Timothy 2:11-12). "That is the very cause of woman’s
distress", they tell us. "She has been subject to man. We must go directly to
the source of grief. Liberate woman from man’s dominance". The Apostle Paul
vigorously disagrees. Woman’s problem is not her social position of
subordination to man. That is not her trouble. The Apostle Paul first notes the
reasons why full submission to man is expected of woman:

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:13). Man existed before
woman. Woman was taken out of man. This priority of man to woman and the
derivation of woman from man were not incidental details of creation. They were
intended to establish human social order. Woman was made for the man [Genesis
2:18]. She was formed to fill the role of a help suited to the man. In Paradise,
Eve found perfect happiness for a time in a role which was supportive of man in
a social position which was subject to him. A woman’s griefs, therefore, are not
the consequence of her social rank but a direct result of the fall. The
experience of being subject to a sin-filled husband is not identical to
submission under innocent Adam. It is sin in the man which makes him thoughtless
of woman and abusive toward her. Sin in woman spawns discontent with even
legitimate and ideal treatment in her true role. Satan was the serpent who
brought every sting of displeasure to the woman. The Apostle Paul then reminds
women of the history of the Fall: And gives the reason for the curse which they
feel so keenly. "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was
decieved and became a sinner" (1 Timothy 2:14). Scripture is not here heaping
all of the blame of this world’s suffering and confusion on woman. If anything,
man is more directly incriminated. But Paul does expect woman to understand her
share of the responsibility in the Fall which has ever since plagued her.

Adam was not deceived. This does not clear man of all responsibility in the
tragedies which have haunted the human race. Adam walked into the evil rebellion
against God with his eyes wide open. He took the fruit from Eve with no false
illusions. His was the deeper sin. He transgressed fully knowing what he was
about. But Eve was duped by Satan. She had "the wool pulled over her eyes".
There is generally in the female constitution a confiding simplicity (which can
become gullibility). This characteristic perfectly suits her to the role of
help-for-man just as God had designed. There is in this constitutional
difference of woman from man a beauty which defines feminity and is attractive
to men. The Apostle Paul’s chief reason for directing woman’s attention to her
deception in the Fall was not to "rub it in". It was to reinforce the necessity
of her being subject to man. The Fall with all of its consequences harmful to
woman did not arise from her being subject to man. The exact opposite is the
case! When she abandoned her role of submission to Adam, and decided to take
matters into her own hands, the Fall came! Eve determined to lead man rather
than follow. She became a temptress instead of a help. Stepping out of her
God-given place and rebelling against the divinely instituted social order, she
brought the world - and womanhood - to ruin. She is not a poor innocent victim
of resulting desolations. Woman under the influence of Satan is the perpetrator
of them all. Her restless defiance of man’s authority is at the crux of human
calamity! This world’s opinion is that there should be no distiction between man
and woman in the social order. If only woman were emancipated from man’s rule,
her suffering would cease! Such an analysis indicts God’s creation order and his
post-garden directives as the culprits in woman’s distress. God’s Word cites the
precise opposite as the cause of her trouble. This is no mere academic matter.
Woman’s liberation from oppression and suffering depends upon finding measures
which correct the root of the malady. If the disease is fed instead of combated,
her last end will be doubly wretched. THE HOPE OF SALVATION The Apostle Paul
does not abandon woman with an indication that her misery is self-inflicted. A
promise is given from the Most High: "But women will be saved" (1 Timothy 2:15).
This is not a text on remission of sins but deliverance out of sin-related
suffering and oppression. Woman will triumph over and emerge from the misery and
curse under which she is held by forces of evil. But how are women saved? By
their joining militant organisations which demand rights equal to man’s? By
proving that women can "make it" in the world of business, politics, sports, and
even the pastorate? By escaping from home where she has been buried in obscurity
and where so many evils have been perpetrated by abusive husbands? Never! That
approach only institutionalises her rebellion against her God-given place. Her
pathway to real salvation was appointed by the Almighty. It is motherhood. "She
shall be saved through childbirth" (1 Timothy 2:15). The first gospel promise
was given before any curse was pronounced on man or woman. And the promise
wonderfully involved the means of motherhood. "I will put enmity between you
[the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush
your head, and you will strike his heel" [Genesis 3:5]. God our Maker would not
allow the human race to perish. Now that Adam and Eve had sinned and Paradise
was shattered, the only hope lay in God himself. "I will" is the message of
grace. One means was mentioned as the instrumental course of salvation from the
devil’s clutches. It was childbearing! Deliverance comes, not through man’s
vocational efforts in the cultural mandate, but through woman’s childbearing.
How wrong women are when they imagine that their hope lies in imitating men’s
careers. As they abandon motherhood for the office and factory, they despise
God’s carefully designed means of breaking the devil’s yoke and fleeing the
miseries he has inflicted.

It is to woman, not man, that God assigned this high calling. But her hope is
not identified with her political savvy, her business acumen, or her social
activism. It is in childbearing! Women today are so eager to abandon "mere"
motherhood to duplicate male labours. How tragic, when the hope God has given
woman and for all of our race is tied to childbearing! Of course the central
attention of Genesis 3:15 is upon one seed of the woman, Jesus Christ. He who
was born of the Jewess, Mary, delivered the decisive death blow to the head of
the serpent on Calvary. He purchased salvation for all who are redeemed.

Yet, even before Christ came, a godly seed of the woman was set against Satanic
forces. Childbearing prepared the way of the Lord. When about to raise up mighty
leaders, Jehovah God, often sought out peculiarly able women. Jochebed, the
mother of Moses; Hannah, mother of Samuel; Manoah’s wife, mother of Samson, are
leading examples. Through their childbearing the course of history was
wonderfully altered. Since Christ has come, a godly seed carries the gospel to
all the earth to gather God’s elect and hasten Christ’s return. Raising a godly
seed is still of the profoundest importance to the cause of God in the earth.

Adam saw at once that the most profound work of the ages - God’s work of grace -
is directly related to motherhood. Appreciating God’s purpose, "Adam named his
wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living" [Genesis 3:20].
Today, through contraceptives and abortions, women can avoid the "nuisance" of
having children. Using these means, they are free to seek what they think are
higher and more noble callings. What relief to the forces of darkness! Nothing
crushes the cause of sin like godly childbearing.

TRUE MOTHERHOOD

It is obvious that more is intended by "childbearing" than the physical process
of conceiving, carrying a child in the womb, and bringing him into the world,
but mothering that person is assumed. More is expressly stated by Paul. "Women
will be saved through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness
with propriety" [1 Timothy 2:15]. Conscientious motherhood cannot follow the
selfish pattern of having a child only to send him off as soon as possible to a
day-care centre. Of course, at times this is essential for survival! But at
other times it is produced by a selfish interest in one’s own career or in
acquiring more wealth. Women want to get on to more exciting things. This low
view of a mother’s task is damaging the church.

Many are saved out of homes in which parents did not care for their children.
These have lived useful lives for the Lord. But most of the greatest servants of
God who have dealt the mightiest blows to Satan’s kingdom were raised in stable
homes. It is almost always a mother who makes it stable. Today nothing can
replace the care and training of a faithful mother. Those who lack this blessing
in their childhood carry a burden throughout life. Emotional scars and character
flaws from mother’s neglect are handicaps in serving the Lord. Even grace at
conversion does not eliminate these liabilities. Our world sets its wares before
women: Look at the money you can make! A pay-cheque is an immediate and tangible
reward for labour. Look at the influence and respect you can command in a
successful career! There is fun and excitement in the work world - the social
stimulation of interesting people, the excitement of travel, the glamour of
attention from others, the intellectual challenges, and so on. But in reality
these often prove to be the baubles of Vanity Fair.

God has assigned a nobler work to woman than merely to parallel man’s
activities. There is no more pitiful person in the world than the woman who "has
it all together" in business but whose family has fallen apart. She is the
epitome of energy, organisation, talent, and efficiency - only her children have
not turned out well.

Loneliness and non-recognition attend motherhood for a time. But that is the
perspective of this world only. How does the Judge compare the socialite, the
dynamic business "success" in comparison with the mother who is selflessly
training children with an eye of faith fixed on a spiritual kingdom and her hope
firmly fixed upon the Lord? Some will think this is an emotional appeal to put
women down once again. Rather, it is a conviction that many women have abandoned
their highest dignity and hope for lesser things.

What is involved in motherhood? After birth pangs bring children into this
world, there come years of life pangs. It is a mother’s task and privilege to
oversee the forging of a personality in her sons and daughters. For this she
must set a tone in the home which builds strong character. Hers it is to take
great Christian principles and practically apply them in every-day affairs -
doing it simply and naturally. It is her responsibility to analyse each child
mentally, physically, socially, spiritually. Talents are to be developed,
virtues must be instilled, faults are to be patiently corrected, young sinners
are to be evangelised. She is building men and women for God. Results may not be
visible until she has laboured for fifteen or twenty years. Even when her task
ends the true measure of her work awaits the full maturity of her children.
Moses would be much more than an Egyptian rebel and an obscure shepherd, but
Jochebed would not live to observe the consequences of her motherhood. A HIGH
CALLING

If a godly mother is to succeed at this task, she must be a woman filled with
faith, love and holiness. These must not be occasional, but consistent qualities
of life [1 Timothy 2:15]. It is no wonder that women spurn this task, preferring
the halls of government, the materialistic empire or the busy office. There is
no more demanding work in all the world, no more awe-inspiring job-description
than raising a godly seed! It will challenge all the genius, talent, and grace
that any human being could possess. Should women be educated? Assuredly the
moral educators, psychologists, spiritual shepherds, and advisers of future
generations must be well-trained!

Woman’s hope, the church’s hope, the world’s hope is joined to childbearing with
continuance in faith, love and holiness. Young women, here is a life-long
calling! It is the highest any woman can enter. There is much more to it than
the worldly images. Take it seriously and God will bless the generation to come.

Work at it spiritually and the Lord will give you the liberation you desire.
Some day the glamour girls who leave their children in a nursery will reap their
reward. They will sit in their plush houses holding fat bank accounts and will
look with envy at a godly seed. This is why Proverbs 10:1 tells those who are
children that "A foolish son is the heaviness of his mother". Immorality is a
public shame to the mother of one who breaks God’s law. Her whole life was
devoted to raising her son and daughter. Father has a career as well as a home.
But all of mother’s eggs have been placed in one basket. Motherhood could not be
a part-time hobby. If you become a fool, you will break your mother’s heart.
Godly women do not live for kisses and nice little gifts, but to see their
children walking with the Lord in righteousness. All of a godly woman’s hopes in
this world are bound up with the children of her motherhood.

SIGNS OF HOPE

One of the most encouraging signs in our age is an increasing number of young
women who aspire to being godly. They are serious about motherhood. They have
ordered their priorities biblically and already demonstrate the traits of faith,
love and holiness. But they will come under fierce attacks. "Feminist"
literature will belittle them as doing nothing significant. As sacrifices mount,
temptations will increase to fall in with the world’s system.

Young men, to follow the Lord fully your wife will need to be reminded that you
share her vision for pleasing God through rearing a family. You must let her
know that you admire her labours in motherhood. And churches must combat the
deluge of worldly propaganda. They must continually hold out the biblical ideal
of women’s service to God and humanity in childbirth, and continuance in faith,
love, and holiness. In due time faithful mothers will have the seal of God
blessing on their labours.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-walter-chantry/
========================================================================