The Chiastic Structure of the Bible and History and an Immediately Appearing Earth (Young Earth)

 How did the physical universe get here?  When you read Genesis 1, it reads like what I am titling, an "Immediately Appearing Earth" (IAE).  In other words, the creation of or origin of the earth wasn't a process.  There are many arguments for the young earth or immediately appearing earth.  What does the Bible say?  Or what does God say?  Let's admit, no one was there to see it, except for God, so we should trust what He said.  God created the universe and He gave the account of what He did.  If we believe He created it, we should also believe how He said He did it.

Genesis 1 doesn't indicate a process to the origin of the earth.  What we read is immediate appearance.  This is seen in the grammar and syntax of Genesis 1, but it's also portrayed in the structure of the entire Bible.  Very often the narratives of Old Testament or Hebrews texts or passages were written in what is called a chiastic structure, also called an inverted parallelism.

The entire book of Lamentations takes the chiastic structure as well as it's middle chapter.  The chiastic structure of the whole book emphasizes the third chapter of five, and then the third chapter, the lengthiest of the five, three times longer than the other chapters, is also chiastic, giving a clue to the point of Lamentations.  The central axis of the book is Lamentations 3:22-36.    With none to comfort Jerusalem in her affliction, she comforts herself when she remembers that the LORD is merciful and compassionate, faithful and good to those who seek Him.

The Bible also has a point to it as seen in its structure.  One could go much more detailed than the following, but consider this schematic.

The Bible starts with creation and ends with creation.  The chiastic structure moves forward from the first creation, which is the doctrine of first things, and moves backward from second creation, the doctrine of last things.  The Bible and history pivots on Jesus Christ.  He is the beginning and the ending, the alpha and omega, but He is also everything in between.  In the diagram above, the chiasm forms an apex, where Jesus stands at the top.  That's what this structure shows more than anything. 

God creates in the first creation and in the second creation.  They are parallel in the chiasm.  If the second creation is an immediate appearing earth, which it is, then the first also is.  It must be.  There are other parallels to indicate all this is an existing structure.  One that supports the position of an immediate appearing earth is that the first creation and the second creation have light provided directly by God.  It's a kind of tip that says God doesn't need our science.  He does want our faith though.

Does anyone question the immediate appearance of the second earth?  Does anyone posit a process for the future earth?  They argue for a very slow process for the first earth and for reasons unnecessary if they believe in creation in the first place.

The ground out of which God formed Adam in Genesis 2:17 is the same ground out of which He formed the animals in Genesis 2:19, both Hebrew words for ground related to the Hebrew word for man, Adam.  Animals appear instantaneously, as does Adam.  None of this is a process.  It doesn't read like so.  What makes Adam unique to the animals is the breath of God, the spirit in man (Genesis 2:7), breathed into him, which is the image of God in man (Genesis 1:26).  This is not a development.  Both animals and man appear with age at a necessary degree of difficulty, one of impossibility without the power of God, that is the same as the original appearance of the heavens and the earth.  The Hebrew verb bara, to create something out of nothing, is used with heavens and earth (1:1), animals (1:21), and man (1:27).

Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

*************

I wanted to have the above post out last night and wasn't sure I could write more.  There are a few more chiastic structure points that relate, I believe, to an Immediately Appearing Earth.   Man immediately appeared with his own creation in Genesis 1 and the expansion on that account in Genesis 2.  Man immediately is recreated in his resurrection and glorification.  This structure matches that of the earth.  Man waits for His redemption as does creation groan for its day of redemption (Romans 8:22).

Derek Cooper's Latin Grammar reviewed

 I wrote a review of Derek Cooper's helpful grammar of Christian Latin in my newest blog post here.

John 3:36, the Second "Believeth" (Apeitheo), and English Translation of the Bible

The King James Version (KJV) of John 3:36 reads:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The English Standard Version (ESV) reads:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

When you read the two, you see a few differences, one major one that may or may not affect or change doctrine, that being "he that believeth not the Son" versus "whoever does not obey the Son."  Which is the better translation or right?  Or are they both right?

When you read the English of the KJV, you might think that the first "believeth" and the second "believeth" are the same Greek words translating into the same English word.  That makes sense.  However, they are not the same Greek words.  The first "believeth" translates pisteuo and the second, "believeth not," translates apeitheo.  For that reason, the ESV and the NASV translate it "does not obey" and the NIV translates it "rejects."

Can apeitheo be translated "believeth not"?  Why would the KJV translators not translate apeitheo differently than pisteuo?  How much does this translational difference matter?

In a very, very long post in which he mocks those who use the King James only, Mark Ward treats the difference very seriously, like a good reason to change the King James translation.  You can know with great certainty that the King James translators knew that these were two different words in John 3:36.  They, however, still translated them the same, "believeth."

The modern version translators also sometimes translate apeitheo with "believe" and not "obey."  The next example of its usage is Acts 14:2 and all the modern versions translate it "unbelieving," "disbelieve," and "refused to believe," the same as the KJV, "unbelieving."  They do not translate, "not obey" or "disobey."   The very next usage is Acts 19:9.  The ESV translates the imperfect, "continued in unbelief," the NIV, "refused to believe," the KJV, "believed not," and the NASV alone, "disobedient."  

In Romans 2:8, like all the modern versions, the KJV translates it, "do not obey."  I give you this last example because, it shows that the KJV translators knew they could translate apeitheo, "do not obey," rather than, "believeth not."  In 1 Peter 3:1, the KJV and the modern versions translate apeitheo, "obey not," but the NIV translates it, "believe not."

Here's what Friberg Lexicon, a modern lexicon, says apeitheo means:

(1) in relation to God disobey, be disobedient (RO 11.30); (2) of the most severe form of disobedience, in relation to the gospel message disbelieve, refuse to believe, be an unbeliever.

Thayer writes in his lexicon:

not to allow oneself to be persuaded; not to comply with; a. to refuse or withhold belief

The typical or normal Greek word translated "obey" in the New Testament is hupakouo.  akouo is normally translated, "to hear," but with the addition of the prefix hupo, it means "to obey."  Forms of that word are translated 21 times in the New Testament.  It is the word used in Ephesians 6:1, "Children, obey your parents."  It is always translated, "obey."

The Greek word peitho without the "a" prefix of apeitheo is translated "persuaded" in Matthew 27:20, the first usage in the New Testament, and the KJV and the modern versions all translate it, "persuaded."  If persuasion is negated, it would be "not persuaded."  If someone is persuaded, he believes.  In Matthew 27:43, all the versions translate peitho, "trusts."  "Persuaded," "convinced," and "trusted" are normal understanding of peitho.  You can see this in the translation in all the versions in its 55 usages in the New Testament.

When apeitheo appears in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word is translated a majority of the times "rebelled" or "rebellious" (Dt 1:26, 9:7, 23, 24, 21:20; Josh 1:18; Ps 68:18; Is 1:23, 36:5, 50:5, 63:10, 65:2; Ez 3:27), which is compatible with "unbelief."

In the near context of John 3:36, John the Baptist preaches the superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples, so they'll follow Jesus and not John.  In verse 28, John says, "I am not the Christ."  The gospel of John testifies that Jesus is the Christ.  Why?  So that people will believe that Jesus is the Christ and have eternal life (John 20:30-31).  "The Christ" is the Messiah, a Kingly figure.  John's disciples needed to believe in Jesus Christ, that is, submit to Him, follow Him, or obey Him as the Christ.  This is the same as believing in Jesus Christ and not being rebellious against Christ.  Louw-Nida Lexicon, another modern lexicon, says concerning apeitheo:  "unwillingness or refusal to comply with the demands of some authority."  This is not the same as "not obey."  It is a description of unbelief, especially referring to Jesus as Messiah, the Christ, in the context.

Jesus gives testimony or witness as to why He is the Messiah.  John argues for this. He wants people to be persuaded by the testimony or witness of Jesus and his own testimony or witness.  The greatest reason is that someone is granted everlasting life if he believes or is persuaded by the evidence or testimony or witness.  In the near context, apeitheo means, "believeth not."  It is an example of a good translation. 

The greater context of John presents the plan of salvation, the gospel.  In the context of the gospel, apeitheo means, "believeth not."  Lexicons make note of this.  Those not persuaded that Jesus was the Christ by the evidence and the testimony were not believing He was the Son, Who had come from heaven.  The Son points back to many Old Testament Messianic allusions, including Genesis 3:16, Genesis 12:1-3, 2 Samuel 7:12-14, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 9:6.

When preaching, I believe it is good to let people know that the second "believeth" of John 3:36 is a different Greek word.  It expands on the understanding of the English word "believeth," which is more than intellectual, but also volitional.  Someone cannot remain rebellious against the Son, not be submitting himself to the Son, the Christ, and have everlasting life.

If the translators had translated apeitheo, "obeyeth not," that would have resulted in a lot more necessary explaining.  Today, it would be regularly used to argue for works salvation by those who teach that.  They would say, "You're saved by obeying the Son. So, if you don't obey Him, you won't have eternal life."  On the other hand, "believing" is not in contradiction to "obeying."  Unsaved people are said to "obey not the gospel of God" (1 Pet 4:17), and "obey not" translated apeitheo.

I was thinking about translators translating two different Greek words with the same English word in the same verse.  One came to mind, James 1:17:  "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above."  The two words translated "gift" are two different Greek words, dosis and dorema.  They have two different nuances of meaning.  The ESV translates it identically to the KJV.  The NIV doesn't even translate the first "gift, so it's translation is "every good and perfect gift," as if there weren't even two words used.  The NASV seems to take in the difference, "every good thing given and every perfect gift."

The difference between the two Greek words is that dosis puts an emphasis on the giving of the thing and dorema on the thing given.  The use of both words elevates the praise to the giving and gifts of and from God the Father.  The NASV tries to show that difference, but I think very few people would catch the difference in the mere reading.  There are two different adjectives used too, "good" and "perfect."  I know that this occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, two different Greek words translated with the same English word.  I believe someone should rely on the original language understanding to define them.  It's very difficult for the meaning to show up in an English word.  This will happen.

Ward strains so much to argue for modern versions from John 3:36, that I'm concerned he could pull or tear a muscle.  It's not worth 9 pages and over 4,500 words, like he uses.  Let us rejoice that by the grace and providence of God the King James translators knew what they were doing in John 3:36 for the evangelism and then edification of English speaking people.  May you be edified by reading this post in contrast to the fear and unbelief caused by that of Ward.

What Is the Primary Cause of Division in the United States?

Our country is divided.  Many say it is more divided than any time since the Civil War.  Most of you readers live here, so this is no surprise to you.  Many articles and even whole books have been written in the last decade on the division in the United States, but the present situation provoked some to write in the last month on the subject.  The following paragraph represents writing in the last month on severe division in America.

The City Journal published an article by Andrew Klavan, titled, "At the Heart of Our Divisions."  Klavan, part of Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, tries to explain the division as others have. Newsweek reports that a "Majority of Trump Voters Want to Split the Nation Into 'Red' and 'Blue' Halves."  The Las Vegas Sun reported it this way:

A new political poll offers an alarming look at the state of American unity and our population’s respect for some of the nation’s core values.

The poll, conducted by the University of Virginia’s nonprofit Center for Politics, shows that 52% of respondents who voted for former President Donald Trump were in favor of splitting the country into red and blue states, while 41% of voters for President Joe Biden agree with the idea. More than 2,000 voters participated in the poll, nearly equally divided between those supporting Trump and Biden.

Ed Kilgore at The Intelligencer, part of New York Magazine, writes, "No, We Can’t Get a National Divorce There’s growing sentiment for secession, particularly on the right. It should be rejected."  At Substack, Claremont senior fellow David Reaboi writes, "National Divorce Is Expensive, But It's Worth Every Penny."  Karol Markowicz writes at the New York post, "Sorry, but a national split up just won’t work."  Steven Malanga at the City Journal writes, "The New Secession Movement."  Conservative commentator Rich Lowry writes at Politico of all places, "A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong."  Dan Rodricks writes at the Baltimore Sun, "Civil war unlikely, but the nation’s present course could still be disastrous."  Most of these were written in the last week, and there are more.

Okay, so there's division.  Everyone can agree with that.  Putin of Russia and Xi of China smile.  Why though?  I've read or heard a lot of different reasons:  media, tribalism, the education system, the deep state, and more.  Klavan lists reasons in the first paragraph of his post.  Those are typical, whole books written about them, but I believe they are surface reasons, I would call, non-worldview reasons, that are superficial and don't dig deep enough.

My take on the acute and bitter division between states, people, and parties in the United States, I want to give credit, corresponds to something Nancy Pearcey writes about in her book, Total Truth.  She explains a division portrayed by the lower and upper stories of a building or house with the lower story being "facts" and the upper story being "values."  Today you hear a lot about facts in the media, news, and schools today.  This is the "science is real" at the top of the leftist value sign.  In this upper and lower story bifurcation, values are probably not what you think they are.  Let me explain.

God is One.  Truth, which proceeds from God, is also one.  Pearcey's proposition is "total truth," the title of her book.  There are not two stories that treat facts different than values, where values are constructed, personal and subjective.  You can't really know these with certainty.  No, with God His natural laws, facts or science, are no different than moral laws.  If you fall from the edge of a cliff, gravity sends you down to destruction.  Breaking moral laws also destroys.  Worse even.  God is the Author of both.

Premoderns took a transcendent view of the world.  Truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, all related to God.  God transcending the world is the basis of the transcendentals. He's not part of the world.  He created it and having created it, He is separate from it.  As James 1 says, that with God there is no shadow of turning.  God is holy.  He is Self-existent and immutable.  Nothing affects Him.  All meaning comes from God, so truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, are objective.

This world is God's world. Even if someone doesn't believe in God, they are living in His world.  This is reality.  The division breaks down into those who live in reality, recognition that this world functions according to laws according to which everyone must live, even if they reject the God of the Bible, and then those who don't live in reality.

The ones not living in reality, which are one side of the division in the United States, see the top story, values, how they want to see them.  It's one reason they are called "values," and not "morals" or "moral laws."  Using "values" is using language with power. 

Looking at the world like two sides of the campus, religion, art, etc. on one side and then science, math, and engineering on the other, the blue part of the country thinks they can assign their own meaning on one side of the campus. They ultimately don't want God in charge.  They don't want objective values that clash with what they want, so they make up their own and dismiss God or make up their own god that approves of their values.  This is the basis for the Democrat party booing God when voting on their political platform in 2012.  This is also how they justify killing babies.

The truth is that the blue states, people, etc. now assign their own meaning to science as well.  They call it science like hanging out a shingle, pulling science out of a Cracker Jack box.  Their subjectivity on the upper story, think of it as bad plumbing, has burst through into the lower story like a broken pipe.  That side can't tell you that a girl is a girl.  This is one reason why many don't want to go to college in this country anymore.  They know it's a racket that is not living in reality.

One side of the division in the country wants the nation to be called like it really is.  Borders are representative of this.  You can't be a nation when you don't protect, not just protect -- how about acknowledge that you have a border.  Whatever one thinks about the virus and masks and the vaccination, it's understandable why a big chunk of the country doesn't trust authority on this.  I'm not going to even get into what Fauci has said.  He doesn't speak science and this is demonstrative on multiple occasions.

The government, the media that supports it, and now even corporations are all in on the lies. They allot whatever meaning they want and they expect you to receive it.  If you don't, now they'll even prosecute you.  They'll fire you.  If you don't put on their particular pin, which supports whatever lie that they deem correct, you might lose your job.

I believe most churches too have succumbed to the two stories I've described.  They put beauty, music, dress in the personal, the subjective, the top story.  They capitulate on basic doctrine and practice to accommodate for popularity and numbers.  Their targets see the world according to the lie of these two stories.  They know it and they concede to it.  This does not bode well for the country.  Even if the nation does split into two parts, what will happen to the red side when the churches have taken the same basic approach to truth? This is the most fundamental aspect of worldliness in churches today.

Another metaphor to demonstrate what the division of truth, the two story view, does to the country is a rudderless ship.  The country has no certain belief to hold it together or to give it direction.  It moves according to whatever current or wind produced by the world, like a float or a bob on an aimless sea.  The force of popularity, what scripture would call lust, the combined desires of the population, decides what is it's truth, it's goodness, and it's beauty, whatever each of these is in their own eyes.

Everything above explains the division in the country.  Maybe the next question is, what is the solution to this division?  That, my friend, is much more difficult.

Binding and Loosing: What are they?

 Find out what the Bible teaches on binding and loosing in my latest blog post here.

What Does "Led By or Of the Spirit" Mean?

If you are a professing Christian, you have heard such a sentence as, "I was led by the Spirit."  I've heard it in the form of a question, "Are you led of the Spirit of God?"  It can be put in the negative, "He isn't led of the Spirit," very often speaking of a believer, implying that some believers are led of the Spirit and others are not.

"Led by the Spirit" or "led of the Spirit" are both in the New Testament, each one time.

Romans 8:14, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Galatians 5:18, But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

The Greek words behind "led by" and "led of" are the same.  "By the Spirit" and "of the Spirit" both translate one Greek word, pneumati.  Even though the English translates them differently, they are the identical Greek words in both places.

The Greek word translated "led" is the same in both verses (ago), except in Romans 8:14 it is third person plural and in Galatians 5:18 it is second person plural.  In Romans 8:14, those led are spoken about and in Galatians 5:18, they are spoken to.  This does not change the meaning of "led."

If the language is in scripture, which it is, the language of the above two verses is not intended to be vague, amorphous, or malleable in quality.  It has a meaning and isn't an instrument to be used in whatever way convenient.  It isn't to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.  So what does it mean?

I very often hear "led of" or "led by" the Spirit to be the Holy Spirit speaking to someone directly.  The Holy Spirit informs someone of what he is to do, where he is to go, or how he is to operate.  This is separate from scripture.  This is a common understanding of this phraseology today.  Someone can just make "led by the Spirit" something equivalent to the Holy Spirit telling someone something.

If the Holy Spirit does talk to people and this is His leading, how does He do it?  How does someone know it is the Holy Spirit doing the talking to him?

To be "led of the Spirit," I've also observed of and from others, is about synonymous to be "filled with the Spirit," very little to nothing differentiating the meaning of these two, filled or led.  Do they mean something different?

I've found that the same people who think that being led by the Spirit means the Holy Spirit talks to you, also think that if He isn't talking to you, then you are not led by the Spirit.  If you were to say, the Holy Spirit doesn't still talk to people, they might ask, and they've asked me, "Then how does the Holy Spirit lead you?"  Many people don't think the Holy Spirit can lead you without revealing something to you.  In a technical way, that's called revelation.  They think revelation continues from the Holy Spirit today.

One historical occurrence that got me thinking about being "led by the Spirit" is the story of Joseph Smith and Mormonism.  Part of the Mormon story is that God spoke directly to Joseph Smith, including what Mormons call his first vision in a grove of trees in New York.  As you continue reading the history of LDS (the Mormons, the title:  Latter Day Saints), continued revelation is a big part of their theology.  Many Mormons say God has spoken directly to them.  This is a big part of their understanding, that God can and does keep talking to people, even today.  Almost every split in Mormonism, however, has also been between one group that says God did speak and the other rejecting that He did say something to them.  How do you know?

Late nineteenth and early twentieth century Princeton Theological Seminary theologian, Benjamin (B.B.) Warfield, wrote a large chapter (pp. 151-179) on "The Leading of the Spirit" in his book, The Power of God Unto Salvation.  I recently read an article online that quoted Warfield on this subject.  I agreed. In that chapter, Warfield wrote about the usage in Romans 8:14:

In the preceding context Paul discovers to us our inherent sin in all its festering rottenness. But he discovers to us also the Spirit of God as dwelling in us and forming the principle of a new life. It is by the presence of the Spirit within us alone that the bondage in which we are by nature held to sin is broken; that we are emancipated from sin and are no longer debtors to live according to the flesh. This new principle of life reveals itself in our consciousness as a power claiming regulative influence over our actions; leading us, in a word, into holiness.

In this chapter, Warfield is saying that "led by the Spirit" is referring to or means "sanctification."  He says, "a synonym for sanctification."  He continues:

When we consider this Divine work within our souls with reference to the end of the whole process we call it sanctification; when we consider it with reference to the process itself, as we struggle on day by day in the somewhat devious and always thorny pathway of life, we call it spiritual leading. Thus the “leading of the Holy Spirit” is revealed to us as simply a synonym for sanctification when looked at from the point of view of the pathway itself, through which we are led by the Spirit as we more and more advance toward that conformity to the image of His Son, which God has placed before us as our great goal.

It is not that some believers are led by the Spirit and some are not.  Every believer is led by the Spirit.  Whoever the Lord justifies, He also sanctifies.  Being led by the Spirit isn't something mysterious and inexplicable.  It isn't a unique dosage of the Spirit's power or a higher life with the Spirit.  It is the normal Christian life.  Every believer is led by the Spirit.  It is not a unique experience that someone seeks for and receives as a special blessing for certain believers.

You do know that someone is saved because He is led by the Spirit.  When someone is not led by the Holy Spirit, that is, he isn't being scripturally sanctified, then he also isn't justified.  He's never been saved.  One of the ways you know you've been saved is that you are led by the Spirit of God.  As Romans 8:13 says:

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Being led by the Spirit in verse 14 is parallel to 'through the Spirit mortifying the deeds of the body' in verse 13.  Those who live after the flesh, they die.  Those who are led by the Spirit, they live.

How does the Holy Spirit sanctify?  He does that through scripture.  Like Jesus said, we're sanctified by the truth, and God's Word is truth (John 17:17-19).

Hearing voices in your head is not being led by the Spirit.  The Holy Spirit does not continue giving new revelations.  The Holy Spirit leads by your following the Words of Christ, which dwell in you richly (Colossians 3:16).  Someone led by the Spirit is characteristically obedient to scripture.  He has a living faith and walks by faith.  Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

Sleepy Habits

In the early 17th century, Puritan Richard Sibbes preaches a sermon entitled, "The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax," published in 1630 in a book with the same name, The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax, in which he said:

Keep grace in exercise; it is not sleepy habits but grace in exercise that preserveth us. Whilst the soul is in some civil or sacred employment, corruptions within us are much suppressed, and Satan's passages stopped, and the Spirit bath a way open to enlarge itself in us, and likewise the guard of angels then most nearly attend us; which course often prevails more against our spiritual enemies, than direct opposition. It stands upon Christ's honour to maintain those that are employed in his works.

I was drawn to his words, "sleepy habits," recently, their meaning and their historic usage.  Sibbes preached, believing that some of the church members were not really saved, or some that he thought were saved, but really were not.  Even though God keeps all of His own, the ones God kept would also endure or overcome.  They would not endure with "sleepy habits," but "grace in exercise."

Another Puritan, Thomas Brooks, used the same language in a book published in 1670, entitled (you'll like this one), London's Lamentations Or, A Serious Discourse Concerning that Late Fiery Dispensation that Turned Our (once Renowned) City Into a Ruinous Heap. Also the Several Lessons that are Incumbent Upon Those Whose Houses Have Escaped the Consuming Flames. He wrote:

Secondly, God by severe Providences and by fiery trials designs a further exercise of his childrens graces; sleepy habits bring him no glory. nor do us no good.  All the honour he has, and all the advantage we have in this world, is from the active part of grace.

On another page, he wrote:

Sleepy habits will do you no good, nor bring God no glory; all the honour he hath, and all the comfort and advantage you have, is from the active part of grace.

Another Puritan, Thomas Manton (1620-1677), wrote:

A man is not to keep grace to himself, but to exercise it for the glory of God and the good of others. Therefore is the presence of the Holy Ghost necessary, that the grace which he hath wrought may not lie dead in sleepy habits, but be continually acted and drawn forth, in such lively operations as may demonstrate the cause whence they do proceed.

He also wrote in his Sermons on the Twenty-Fifth Chapter of Matthew:

All Grace is stirring, and would fain break out into action; for 'tis not a dead and sleepy habit, but seeketh to break forth, and is called by the Apostle, "The Lustings of the Spirit," Gal. 5.17.

Later in the same book, he wrote:

 'Tis not a naked and empty Profession, 'tis not sleepy habits, or a little Grace, but when Grace hath a deep power and sovereignty over our Hearts and Lives, that bringeth God into request, and commendeth him to the Consciences of men. The Knowledge of Christ is reproached as a low Institution by carnal men; but to the truly wise, no such excellent and noble Spirits, as they that are bred up under him.

Sleepy habits seem to be those when we are going through the motions, what we might call, "punching the time clock." We are sleepwalking our way like a kind of mindless zombie with the aspects of our life.  These writers call this something that does not resemble the grace of God or could not be fueled or energized by the grace of God.

Good habits sound good and bad habits sound bad.  They are.  What would be so bad about having habits in the Christian life?  In a true relationship with God, the Christian life must be more than just a habit.  "Sleepy habits" is a good way of describing when its only a habit.  Habits aren't bad, but there's more to it when it's a relationship.  It's not just doing what you're supposed to do.

If the Christian life for you is a sleepy habit, maybe you're not saved.  As the Apostle Paul wrote, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Sermons on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day

 Please click here to learn more about my sermon series on the Sabbath, the Lord's Day, and false views thereof, including an extensive examination of Seventh-Day Adventism.