John Owen on the Deadly Deceptiveness of Sin

Sin is always deceptive and deadly. It may start looking harmless enough, but it will stealthily lead towards utter destruction. We need to kill sin or be killed by it! Here is a quote from the English Puritan, John Owen:

Sin will not only be striving, acting, rebelling, troubling, disquieting, but if let alone, if not continually mortified, it will bring forth great, cursed, scandalous, soul-destroying sins. The apostle tells us what the works and fruits of it are, Gal. v. 19–21, “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.” You know what it did in David and sundry others. Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head. Men may come to that, that sin may not be heard speaking a scandalous word in their hearts, — that is, provoking to any great sin with scandal in its mouth; but yet every rise of lust, might it have its course, would come to the height of villany: it is like the grave, that is never satisfied. And herein lies no small share of the deceitfulness of sin, by which it prevails to the hardening of men, and so to their ruin, Heb. iii. 13, — it is modest, as it were, in its first motions and proposals, but having once got footing in the heart by them, it constantly makes good its ground, and presseth on to some farther degrees in the same kind. This new acting and pressing forward makes the soul take little notice of what an entrance to a falling off from God is already made; it thinks all is indifferent well if there be no farther progress; and so far as the soul is made insensible of any sin, — that is, as to such a sense as the gospel requireth, — so far it is hardened: but sin is still pressing forward, and that because it hath no bounds but utter relinquishment of God and opposition to him; that it proceeds towards its height by degrees, making good the ground it hath got by hardness, is not from its nature, but its deceitfulness. Now nothing can prevent this but mortification; that withers the root and strikes at the head of sin every hour, so that whatever it aims at it is crossed in. There is not the best saint in the world but, if he should give over this duty, would fall into as many cursed sins as ever any did of his kind.

[src: Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers, Chapter 2, heading 3]

Tim Keller via Dan Stevers Video on how Jesus is the True and Better

Saw this video at church last Sunday.. great summary video of how the Old Testament looks ahead to Jesus (I think the words are based on a talk by Tim Keller). 

John Calvin on "Heaven", the Resurrection, and the Immortality of the Soul

As usual, Calvin has some helpful comments regarding the human "soul" and what happens after death. These days a number of people have high-lighted the fact that as Christians we often speak too much about heaven in a sense that is less than fully Biblical, with an emphasis on our disembodied spirits "going to heaven" immediately after we die. As Calvin reflected in his commentary on the parallel passages of Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-40, we see that this concern is not just novel for our times. This is what he says:

And, indeed, if we consider properly the doctrine of Scripture, the life of the soul, apart from the hope of the resurrection, will be a mere dream; for God does not declare that, immediately after the death of the body, souls live, — as if their glory and happiness were already enjoyed by them in perfections — but delays the expectation of them till the last day. I readily acknowledge that the philosophers, who were ignorant of the resurrection of the body, have many discussions about the immortal essence of the soul; but they talk so foolishly about the state of the future life that their opinions have no weight. But since the Scriptures inform us that the spiritual life depends on the hope of the resurrection, and that souls, when separated from the bodies, look forward to it, whoever destroys the resurrection deprives souls also of their immortality.

The apostolic church was captivated with the hope of the resurrection, at Christ's return. May that also be our hope, and may we not be so short-sighted, as to merely look forward to that imperfect, temporary state, in between the death of the body and the resurrection of the body.

What are you enslaved to, Mr Rudd?

I was appalled when I heard the brief response of our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to a Christian Pastor on ABC's Q&A last night. The snippet is on YouTube here:



I don't want to have disrespect for our Prime Minister, but if he claims to be a Christian I wish he would show more respect for God and his word, and at least try to interpret the Bible more sensibly and responsibly. His comments regarding what the Bible says about slavery and homosexuality are at best very naive...

Kevin Rudd's reasoning was sound if he wanted to say things that many people like to hear, and that are in step with a non-Christian way of looking at things. But I think it would be very difficult to intelligently show how his words could really be consistent with what Christ intended (or his apostle Paul etc).

Not sure how to put this briefly. The PM's logic seems to be this:

1. Slavery is not a bad condition in the Bible.
2. Now we have advanced in Christian love to a changed view, understanding slavery is actually bad.
3. Homosexuality is a bad condition in the Bible.
4. Now we have advanced in Christian love to a changed view, understanding homosexuality is actually not a bad condition.
5. In both cases they follow the same pattern, and this is consistent with the central trajectory of the Gospel.

Non sequitur, Mr Rudd. Here a just a few of the problems with this logic:

1. In OT and NT freedom from slavery is one of the main motifs used, saying that slavery is a bad condition
2. As above, fighting against human slavery is actually consistent with what is seen throughout the Bible, not a surprising advance or change.
3. Homosexuality is not portrayed as a good condition in the Bible.
4. Nothing anticipates a future acceptance of homosexuality as being consistent with Bible teaching
5. The Bible does consistently teach freedom from both slavery and homosexuality as consistent with the central trajectory of the Gospel, which is about rescue by Jesus to free us from bad conditions so that we can truly and freely love others.

I think if one was to read through all the references to both slavery and homosexuality in all the Bible, and properly consider what each one says in context, I can't see how Mr Rudd's logic could honestly be justified as consistent with the Bible.

If the PM was merely making a naturalistic case concluding that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality etc, ignoring the Bible, then what he said has some internal consistency and logic. My problem with Mr Rudd is that he didn't do that. He tried to say that his view was consistent with Christian teaching, aka the Bible. It makes no sense to say something is Christian which ignores or rejects the Bible. The Bible defines Christianity. It is like saying something is Moslem which ignores or rejects the Quran. Or saying something is socialist which really espouses capitalism. Or like the "atheist" I once met at a uni Atheist Society, who later told me he was really a pantheist. Etc.

And by the way, the Bible doesn't give "natural condition" as an "out" for immorality etc. The Bible also talks about people who have a tendency to be abusive and hot-tempered (or we could pick any number of other things). But the Gospel is about the possibility of being freed from such "natural conditions", and being forgiven and empowered to make a clean start. It really is good news :D

Okay, that wasn't brief. Oops!

A Model of the Covenants (Old vs New etc)

The question of the distinctions and inter-relationships between the "covenants" in the Bible is complex and far from simple. Issues of continuity vs discontinuity etc. It is not spelled out neatly or simply in the Scriptures, and hence our difficulty in coming to grips with it all. Definitely lots of nuancing required. Back in 2000, out of discussions with an old friend, I tried to articulate some of my position on this matter. I decided to dig it up again and post it here for posterity (with only minor changes/clarifications). It is in the form of two diagrams with some accompanying dot points, reproduced below.

One other comment about my approach to all this sort of thing, a slightly-reworded note of what I said to my friend at the time: This may be a cop-out, but I tend to try to hold the whole complex thing in 'tension', without simplification or minimalization. I guess because I'm more of a details man than a 'big picture' person. Hence I tend to think either way we start systematizing into a model we lose some information, and end up with an imperfect model (like all models - science background speaking). The trick is working out which things are 'reducible' and which are not (borrowed that concept from IT background, "elementary facts" and all that). When we try to make things simpler and more clear-cut than the Bible we tend to lose information, and reduce the irreducible. In other words, I think models ("gospel economy", moral/civil/ceremonial, etc) are useful to emphasise and teach one aspect, but will always fall down if we want them to replace the real thing. If God wanted to make it simpler, he would have done it for us in the Scriptures. If he didn't, we need to be careful not to presume we can do a better job of it than him!

Diagrams of Model:

Notes on the Model:

• The ‘eternal truth’ relating to the character of God and how He relates to creation, is common to all covenants
• Purest and fullest revelation of this ‘eternal truth’ occurs now in the New Covenant. However, this is not final or perfect, and there will be a different temporal administration in the consummation, in the new heavens and new earth after the resurrection at Christ's return.
• In previous covenants (eg Abrahamic, Mosaic) that revelation is shadowy and incomplete, with some aspects clearer than others. A particular covenant may emphasise different aspects from another covenant. This preserves the progressiveness of revelation.
• The ‘temporal administration’ of a covenant is the outworking of the ‘eternal truth’ in a necessary and binding way appropriate to that time, place and extent of revelation. (Principles of anthropomorphism, condescension, ‘context sensitive revelation’ etc.)
• Such a model allows for different particular outward administrations, obligations and promises from covenantal ‘epochs’, while maintaining consistent aspects of revelation (eg a common ‘covenant of grace’, ‘way of salvation’, etc).
• Consistency of ‘eternal truth’ allows for continuity of moral principles (ie law), as well as similarities between different ‘temporal administrations’ (eg Passover/Lord’s Supper, Circumcision/Baptism, Sabbath/Lord’s Day, Temple Cultus/Church Worship, etc).
• Clear revelation in an earlier covenant of the same ‘eternal truth’ can be assumed in the New Covenant (and thus promotes a ‘whole Bible’ attitude, and does not need everything to be explicitly restated in the New Testament for it to be contemporary).
• Differences in ‘temporal administrations’ allow for ‘discontinuities’ in outward observances associated with a particular ‘epoch’.

A Reflection after William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss Debate: Why are atheists so passionate?

This week I attended the Brisbane instalment of the William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss debate. Craig was generally patient and tried to engage Krauss on important and relevant issues. He made good points about the importance of God and Christianity in providing an environment and framework in which science can flourish and have an ethical framework. To these Krauss just seemed to take cheap shots and not really engage with the core arguments. (Krauss wanted to say “thanks for what you’ve done for us, but now you can go and we’ll take it from here”, but I suspect he doesn’t properly appreciate the “hand who feeds him”.)

Sadly, Craig’s theology let him down with the “genocide” issue. From when I have looked at his website previously, he seems too committed to libertarianism, and perhaps overemphases the place of rationality vs revelation. (I was a little surprised that AFES/CBF/QTC invited Craig, given his different theological perspective, but good on them for ecumenism!) However, I was glad that Craig clearly declared God’s prerogative to give and take life, although some more proclamation, especially about Christ, may have been better.

However, as I reflected afterwards on Krauss' attitude, I wondered how he rationalized his passionate atheism. I may well be ignorant on this, but he, like Dawkins, seem to espouse an evolutionist materialism, yet at the same time vigorously demanding the value of logic, reason, and "scientific process". What I don't get is, how can you justify putting value on anything, if everything is just a matter of physical and chemical processes etc? If any sense of value, worth or passion is just an illusion, some evolutionary "benefit", really just some kind of existential vapour of electrochemcial sparks in the brain, about to become meaningless history at some arbitrary point in the future, then who should really care? What is "care" afterall? How do they justify such moral high-ground, and give their own reason such a high standing? How do they really know that "religion" is not a better evolutionary product? It seems to me that the true logical conclusion of materialism is uncaring nihilism. There is no place for moral high-ground, even the moral high-ground of having no moral high-ground.

I remain illumined by the wisdom of God, who tells us that, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1)

Big prayers? (Quote from John Newton)

I was online watching a talk and panel session from Desiring God conference, both of which had lots of good and challenging stuff. One of the things I found especially convicting and uplifting was the call to prayer and to trust in the power of our God (rather than our plans, schemes, theology, "slickness", technique, control, charisma, facilities, etc etc, whatever you want to add to the list...). During the panel session Jason Meyer quoted these words from a hymn by John Newton:

Thou art coming to a King,
Large petitions with thee bring;
For His grace and power are such,
None can ever ask too much

Our God is not too small. May our prayers not be too small either.

About Adoption: Have you heard of Augustus Caesar?

My ancient history is pretty weak, and I was just reading recently about the Roman Emperors, or Caesars. I was surprised to discover that the great Augustus Caesar, who was emperor from 27BC to 14AD, and said to be the founder of the Roman Empire, was actually adopted by the Emperor Julius Caesar in his will, and Augustus Caesar became emperor of Rome by virtue of that adoption after Julius Caesar's assassination. So what?

Well, I don't really know how big a deal it was in those days, but given that Augustus Caesar was so important (ie top dog of the whole Roman Empire), I'm guessing people were aware of that fact of his adoption. It made me wonder about all of the apostle Paul's use of adoption language in the Scriptures. As Christians we become adopted sons of God, and co-heirs with Christ. I wonder if Paul thought about Augustus Caesar's situation when he talked about that. Certainly a powerful illustration of what he was talking about. Surely the Christians in Rome would have recognised this real-life example? Here are Paul's words from his letter to the them:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:14-17]

You can't get much better than adopted son and heir of Caesar can you? Oh yeah, you can actually become sons of the one true and living God, and if you are already a Christian, then you already are. Yes, that does sound better :)

Psalm 130:4 and John Murray on the Fear of God

In Psalm 130:4 we have a curious and intriguing sentence: "But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared." If it had just said that the LORD may be loved, or thanked, or praised, or worshipped, that may have been more expected. But why "feared"? Often we have a conception of fear which pushes away from rather than drawing us near to God. How does an apprehension of forgiveness lead us to fear the LORD?

I think John Murray's little treatment on "the Fear of God", the last chapter within his book, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, is helpful here. Murray first distinguishes between two Scriptural senses in which we are to fear God, which he describes in a footnote as: "the fear of being afraid of God and his punitive judgments" and "the fear of reverential awe and adoration". And then he makes this important point which helps us to understand Psalm 130:4...

The fear of God which is the soul of godliness does not consist, however, in the dread which is produced by the apprehension of God’s wrath. When the reason for such dread exists, then to be destitute of it is the sign of hardened ungodliness. But the fear of God which is the basis of godliness, and in which godliness may be said to consist, is much more inclusive and determinative than the fear of God’s judgement. And we must remember that the dread of judgement will never of itself generate within us the love of God or hatred of the sin that makes us liable to his wrath. Even the infliction of wrath will not create the hatred of sin; it will incite to greater love of sin and enmity against God. Punishment has of itself no regenerating or converting power. The fear of God in which godliness consists is the fear which constrains adoration and love. It is the fear which consists in awe, reverence, honour, and worship, and all of these on the highest level of exercise. It is the reflex in our consciousness of the transcendent majesty and holiness of God. It belongs to all created rational beings and does not take its origin from sin. The essence of sin may be said to be negation of God’s fear.

It is only through an apprehension of God's mercy and forgiveness, and the restored relationship that results from that, that we will really be able fear God in the second sense. Without it, we will only turn away from God, and even the first sense of fear will only further push us away from God instead of drawing us closer to him in reverential fear.

I am further reminded of how the Westminster Confession of Faith describes true repentance in turning to God, which must also include a proper apprehension of God's mercy in Christ...

Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.

[WCF 15:1-2]

Why the green grass when Jesus feeds the 5000 (Mark 6:30-56)?

Recently I was preparing to lead a Bible study on Mark 6:30-56, including the miracle of feeding the five thousand and also Jesus walking on water. Especially because we are told that "they did not understand about the loaves", I thought that there must be something more to the significance of the feeding of the five thousand than simple a display of power, another kind of miracle to add to Jesus' repertoire. There must be some common theme or thread that runs through the whole text, linking the accounts together.

With the help of some commentators, I saw that Jesus' compassion toward the people because "they were like sheep without a shepherd" (Mark 6:34) was not coincidental to the following miracle that was performed. This same expression (more or less) is used a number of times in the Old Testament, eg in these passages: Numbers 27:12-23; 1 Kings 22:17, Ezekiel 34:1-31; Zechariah 10:1-12. There is the emphasis that the people needed a shepherd, sometimes that shepherd is a human leader (eg Moses or Joshua or Davidic king), and other times the LORD himself is their shepherd.

And what is one of the significant tasks of the shepherd, if not to feed his sheep (cf Ezekiel 34:2, 34:3, 34:8, 34:13, 34:14, 34:23, etc, also John 21:15-17)? And here the green grass comes in. In the midst of a miracle of Jesus feeding the people, Mark records for us that Jesus "commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass" (Mark 6:39). Although the commentators I read didn't mention it, I couldn't help but be reminded of Psalm 23, where the LORD my shepherd "makes me to lie down in green pastures" (Psalm 23:2; cf also Ezekiel 34:14-15). While the mention of green grass could just be a detail of fact, that is what it was and where they were, within a whole context of Jesus as shepherd feeding the people, how could there not be a connection?

So what then should we "understand about the loaves"? Mark shows us Jesus the shepherd who feeds his sheep (first through teaching, Mark 6:34, since "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God", Matthew 4:4/Deuteronomy 8:3), and that Jesus is the Christ, in one person the successor to Moses, the Davidic King, and the LORD God himself. This is what we need to understand by the miracle of the loaves.

Throughout the passage there seems to be a question of identity. Who is this Jesus, really? In the walking on water, again the closest Old Testament referent must be the crossing of the sea in Exodus, with the waters parted, a signature miracle of the LORD. So when Jesus says, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid" (Mark 6:50), whether directly or indirectly, he is saying that he is the "I AM", he is the LORD their shepherd. (Cf also the connection between shepherding and walking through the waters in Zechariah 10:1-12 and Psalm 77:7-20.)

So that is why the grass is green!

Should every Christian Speak in Tongues?

There are always those groups within Christianity who claim that every Christian should speak in tongues (GLOSSOLALIA is the transliteration from the Greek). It seems to have been a problem during the apostolic church, and history has a tendency to repeat itself, often (because humans continue to have the same nature, giving rise to the same problems...) The precedent of course are the instances in Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19, and perhaps 1 Corinthians 14:5. However, there is always increased difficulty (although not complete invalidity) in proving your case from the implications of narrative accounts as in Acts (compare for example the question of precedent regarding multiple wives from Old Testament narrative accounts), as compared to more direct teaching of say the Epistles (although these are not without their complexities either, and context etc must always be taken into account). Without at this point touching on the question of "What is tongues" and when and how it should be exercised etc, we must surely say that the clearest teaching regarding the spiritual gift must come from 1 Corinthians 12 (assuming, as seems to make the most sense, that the teaching on tongues in 1 Corinthians is also relevant to the manifestations of the Spirit evidenced in Acts), where certainly not everyone is expected to have that gift...

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.   

[1 Corinthians 12:4-31; ESV]

Without doubt Paul is making a strong point that there is unity in one Spirit, through whom the spiritual gifts are given, but there is variety and not uniformity regarding who has what gift, as to "each one" the Spirit gives "individually as he wills". To "one" is given "various kinds of tongues", not to all. And the answer to the question "Do all speak with tongues" is clearly intended to be "no". And with tongues and interpretation at the end of the lists in verses 8-10 and 28-30, Paul is also intending that these are not the "higher gifts" that we should most "earnestly desire".

And so even when we come to 1 Corinthians 14:5, where Paul says "Now I want you all to speak in tongues", we must allow him at least to complete his sentence, "but even more to prophesy". Do tongues advocates equally, or rather more so (according to Paul), advocate that all should prophecy? Perhaps some do (and perhaps some others don't because it is easier for someone to appear to speak in tongues than to speak prophetically...). But I strongly doubt Paul is contradicting his emphatic point already established earlier, in chapter 12. I think it is more likely that he is simply saying in other words "I am happy for anyone to speak in tongues, and receive that gift, and don't want anyone to forbid or discourage a genuine gift of the Spirit". And further, "But if you want my opinion as to whether tongues or prophecy is better, go for prophecy" (and that may have been one of the issues from the Corinthians to which Paul was responding, 1 Corinthians 12:1, "Now concerning...", cf 1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote"). Again, not that Paul really though all would become prophets (chapter 12), but if you are going to emphasise wanting something, at least aim high (and asking for more prophets is about as high as you can go, I don't think it is realistic for everyone to ask to become an apostle...).

May the Scriptures always be our guide.

D A Carson on Speaking in Tongues/Glossolalia

Given that it is mentioned in the Bible, I think the issue of tongues/glossolalia will be with us until the Lord returns. I was thinking about it again recently and re-reading some of Don Carson's old book, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (my edition is copyright 1988, by ANZEA). So what exactly is "speaking in tongues"? Is it unintelligible, meaningless words? Is it known human language? Is it the language of angels, unintelligible to humans? Is the tongues in Acts the same as the tongues in 1 Corinthians? Here is a conclusion from Carson (taken from pp86f in my edition):

[T]here is a category of linguistic phenomenon that conveys cognitive content, may be interpreted, and seems to meet the constraints of the biblical descriptions, even though it is no known human language. Of course, this will not do for the tongues of Acts 2, where the gift consisted of known human languages; but elsewhere, the alternative is not a s simple as "human languages" or "gibberish," as many noncharismatic writers affirm. Indeed, the fact that Paul can speak of different kinds of tongues (12:10, 28) may suggest that on some occasions human languages were spoken (as in Acts 2), and in other cases not--even though in the latter eventuality the tongues were viewed as bearing cognitive content.

This is a very sensible conclusion from the Scriptural data.

Vern Poythress on Historical Adam versus Claims from Genetics

Historical Adam versus Claims from Genetics? Visiting one of the blogs from the Gospel Coalition site, I found this very useful article evaluating DNA evidence in relation to claims about historicity of Adam. It is by Vern Poythress, who is both a solid and sharp theologian, as well as holding a PhD in Mathematics from Harvard University. Here are the section headings he uses in the article:

1. Ninety-Nine Percent Common DNA
2. Or Less
3. The Challenge of Interpreting Data
4. No Purpose?
5. Gradualism
6. Interpreting the Evidence
7. Miracles and Solidarity
8. Do Percentages Matter?
9. Junk DNA
10. The Function of the Framework
11. Does Nonfunctionality Matter?
12. The Minimum Population Bottleneck
13. How Long Ago Did Adam and Eve Live?
14. Three Sides to the Analysis
15. Commitments
16. Understanding the Creation of Human Beings

I like the article because he tackles and analyses the assumptions with clear and careful logic, as well as understands the issues and deals with questions that are significant. A key point that he makes is the distinction between evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. Often these these are merged together too much, and interpretation is smuggled in as if it were as evident as the evidence itself. However, there are logically lots of opportunities for different interpretations of the same evidence, depending on presuppositions and assumptions, etc. Section 3 begins with these words:

"The data from the human genome project and similar projects for chimpanzees and other animals has to be interpreted. It does not interpret itself. What is the significance of the similarities? Do they in fact show that human beings have ape ancestry? Do they imply that we are little more than naked apes? Do they tell us who we are as human beings?"

If you are like me, then you will like to read the conclusion first, to know where something is headed, decide if it is worth reading all of it. So here are some snippets that show the directions Poythress heads in...

"In the midst of rapidly expanding research, popular claims made in the name of science easily fall victim to one of three failings: they overreach or exaggerate the implications of evidence, they misread the significance of technical research, or they argue in a circle by assuming the principle of purely gradualistic evolution at the beginning of their analysis."

"I am a follower of Christ. So I do not come to this issue in a religiously neutral way. But neither does anyone else. Science itself cannot be practiced without a prescientific faith or trust. For example, scientists must believe (1) that the world displays regularities, (2) that human beings have minds so attuned to these regularities that they have a chance of discerning them, (3) that examination of the world and experimentation concerning its regularities are ethically legitimate, and (4) that scientists ought to and for the most part do remain honest in their examination of the world and their reports of their conclusions."

"This view of God’s involvement has implications for Adam and Eve. It is up to God how he wants to go about creating the world. He is sovereign. He specifies all the laws that scientists later explore. He is not a victim or a prisoner of his own laws! He may if he wishes create new species through gradual processes; he may also create in unique ways."

Excellent Biblical diagrams, illustrations and infographics

I was looking today for a chart or table that showed the kings of Israel/Judah, and found a real gold mine. It is a site called visualunit.me, with stacks of very well done charts, diagrams, illustrations, infographics etc to help teach and explain Bible content and theology etc. It is by an AFES staff worker, named Mark Barry, as well as others. I remember 20 years ago seeing the various ZondervanCharts books by H. Wayne House etc. I haven't looked at any recent updates to the Zondervan ones, but these online ones at visualunit.me are excellent - very clear, well-coloured and presented, slick and modern looking.

Here are a few samples, including the one I found about the kings...

Genesis 1:1-2:3... Seeing the light of day*

I was reflecting on Genesis 1:1-2:3 again today (and surprisingly found that I preferred the RSV translation in this case). Particularly my thoughts were around the meaning of the repeated refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning, [xxx] day". It is often telling to compare different translations, and verse 1:5 is a case in point, eg:

"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." [RSV]

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." [KJV]

"God called the light ‘day’, and the darkness he called ‘night’. And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day." [NIV]

"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." [ESV]

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." [ASV]

"God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day." [NET]

Of course, there are all sorts of discussions about the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1. There are at least two distinct and clear meanings in Genesis 1 & 2 (and neither of which equals exact 24-hour period):

• "God called the light ‘day’, and the darkness he called ‘night’" (Genesis 1:5; NIV) = the light period during a 24-hour period, as opposed to the dark period
• "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2:4; RSV) = indistinct period or point in time, not one 24-hour period

So what does God intend to convey to us when he says that "there was evening, and there was morning, one day" etc?

First, a few grammatical, structural and translation points to highlight:

• The repetition in 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 (and lack of use in 2:1-3) is surely significant.
• In the Hebrew, the verb "to be" (eg "there was") is repeated twice, so literally RSV translation seems more literal than say the KJV.
• Also notable in the Hebrew is the use of a cardinal number for the first day, but ordinals for the other days (which the RSV conveys; admittedly this is not straight forward and there is dispute here about how much to make of it).
• Something which the RSV doesn't fully convey is the use of the Hebrew article only for the sixth and seventh days (cf ASV). This also is likely significant, pointing to climax.
• "Evening" is mentioned before "morning" (often misquoted by people who say "morning and evening" instead).
• "Evening" and "morning" may refer to points in time (ie nightfall/sunset and daybreak/dawn) rather than periods or durations of time.

Previously I had thought the meaning was about a "work-day", and God spoke here in a pattern and structure that people would readily recognise, working during the day and not at night (cf John 9:4). So God did his day's work, then night falls, and morning comes, ready for the next day's work. In this view the evening and morning do not refer to the time of the day of work that was just done, but rather to the sequence of events that follow that day's work. But there are some problems with this, and I am re-thinking. For one, it seems to be a common Jewish understanding (although I still need to research the Biblical perspective) that a 24-hour day starts at sunset and ends at the following sunset. This might give a sense that when evening came, the next day had begun, and so if that were intended, it would have been better sequence to say something like "The Nth day, then evening came and then morning came", but that's not how the text puts it.

So now I'm thinking that a better understanding may be to take the whole sentence "there was evening and there was morning, one day" to refer as a kind of summary statement of what just happened. Certainly the reference to "one day" or the "nth day" indicates what had just happened and not what follows (clear because in 2:1-3 the seventh day follows the six days, otherwise it would be the sixth day not the seventh). In  this case the coming of evening and morning also refer to what had happened rather than what followed. This seems consistent with the use of the cardinal in 1:5 as well as the definition of "day" at the beginning of the verse, and also the whole situation conveyed in 1:2-4. In 1:2 there was darkness which is followed by the coming of light, the same sequence of evening followed by morning (or daybreak).

This fresh (at least for me) understanding has a lot of potential richness associated with it. There is a theme of progression from darkness/night to light/day, with light and day being by far the better of the two. And with the seventh day of rest, there is no repeated refrain, and the implication of continuing day of rest, with no nightfall ever coming to that day. And so throughout the whole creation account, from the first declaration of a day, there is progression of improvement until reaching endless perfection (what was formless and empty becomes formed and filled, day after day, being good, then very good, then holy and finished). And this has wonderful resonance with the trajectories in Scripture of the day of rest (cf treatment in Hebrews 3:7-4:11),  of everlasting light/day in the new Jerusalem (cf Isaiah 60 especially eg 60:1-3, 60:11, 60:19-20, and where it is picked up again in Revelation 21:23-25 and 22:5), as well as other pictures in Scripture of day vs night (eg John 1:4-9, John 3:19-21, John 9:4, Romans 13:11-13, Ephesians 5:8-14, 1 Thessalonians 5:4-7, 1 Peter 2:9 etc).

Well, maybe more on this another day...!


* Had fun thinking about a post title, but hard to decide :) Some other contenders that may also see the light of day... "Plain as day", "Will you give me the time of day?", "As different as night and day", "From day one", "All in a days work", "Let's call it a day", "The good old days", "As honest as the day is long", "One day at a time", "Not enough hours in the day". Actually, even thinking about all these common English phrases sparks all kinds of thoughts about Genesis 1:1-2:4..!

Methodists and Church Buildings

Came across this interesting blog post about Pastors’ Salaries and Church Buildings. Brief but resonating. Here is some historical Methodist policy that he quotes...

It shall be the duty of every preacher belonging to this conference to use his influence against constructing expensive meeting houses.
[Source: 1816 New England Conference of the Methodist Church] 

Let all our chapels be built plain and decent; but not more expensive than is absolutely unavoidable: otherwise the necessity of raising money will make rich men necessary to us. But if so, we must be dependent upon them, yea; and governed by them. And then farewell to the Methodist discipline, if not doctrine too.
[Source: Discipline (of the American Methodist Church), 1784]

J I Packer and Mistakes We Make in Seeking God's Guidance

I'd have to say that J I Packer is my long-time favourite Christian writer and teacher. Always one of the first people I'll check with if I can. And one of his most classic books I've had for a long time, and known about for longer, is Knowing God. But of course, I've never read it cover to cover :O! So today I was doing some more dipping into it, and read some of the stuff about discerning God's will, or getting guidance from God. I'm sure I've never read it before, but even more certainly there is great stuff to read there, lots of sound wisdom. Here is a section he wrote about "Six Common Pitfalls", or mistakes we often make as Christians, when trying to seek and follow God's will for our lives...

First, unwillingness to think. It is false piety, super-super-naturalism of an unhealthy and pernicious sort, that demands inward impressions that have no rational base, and declines to heed the constant biblical summons to ‘consider’. God made us thinking beings, and He guides our minds as in His presence we think things out – not otherwise. ‘O that they were wise…that they would consider…’ (Deuteronomy 32:29).

Second, unwillingness to think ahead, and weigh the long-term consequences of alternative courses of action. ’Think ahead’ is part of the divine rule of life no less than of the human rule of the road. Often we can only see what is wise and right (and what is foolish and wrong) as we dwell on its long-term issues. ‘O, that they were wise…that they would consider their latter end.’ 

Third, unwillingness to take advice. Scripture is emphatic on the need for this. ’The way of the foolish is right in his own eyes; but he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsel’ (Proverbs 12:15, RV). It is a sign of conceit and immaturity to dispense with taking advice in major decisions. There are always people who know the Bible, human nature, and our own gifts and limitations, better than we do, and even if we cannot finally accept their advice, nothing but good will come to us from carefully weighing what they say. 

Fourth, unwillingness to suspect oneself. We dislike being realistic with ourselves, and we do not know ourselves at all well; we can recognise rationalisations in others and quite overlook them in ourselves. ‘Feelings’ with an ego-boosting, or escapist, or self-indulging, or self-aggrandising base, must be detected and discredited, not mistaken for guidance. This is particularly true of sexual, or sexually conditioned, feelings. As a biologist-theologian has written: 

The joy and general sense of well-being that often (but not always) goes with being ‘in love’ can easily silence conscience and inhibit critical thinking. How often people say that they ‘feel led’ to get married (and probably they will say ‘the Lord has so clearly guided’), when all they are really describing is a particularly novel state of endocrine balance which makes them feel extremely sanguine and happy (O. R. Barclay, Guidance, p. 29). 

We need to ask ourselves why we ‘feel’ a particular course to be right, and make ourselves give reasons – and we shall be wise to lay the case before someone else whose judgment we trust, to give his verdict on our reasons. We need also to keep praying, ‘Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting’ (Psalm 139:23f.). We can never distrust ourselves too much. 

Fifth, unwillingness to discount personal magnetism. Those who have not been made deeply aware of pride and self-deception in themselves cannot always detect these things in others, and this has from time to time made it possible for well-meaning but deluded men with a flair for self-dramatisation to gain alarming domination over the minds and consciences of others, who fall under their spell and decline to judge them by ordinary standards. And even when a gifted and magnetic man is aware of the danger and tries to avoid it, he is not always able to stop Christian people treating him as an angel, or a prophet, construing his words as guidance for themselves, and blindly following his lead. But this is not the way to be led by God. Outstanding men are not, indeed, necessarily wrong, but they are not necessarily right, either! They, and their views, must be respected, but may not be idolised. ‘Prove (test) all things; hold fast that which is good’ (1 Thessalonians 5:12). 

Sixth, unwillingness to wait. ‘Wait on the Lord’ is a constant refrain in the Psalms, and it is a necessary word, for God often keeps us waiting. He is not in such a hurry as we are, and it is not His way to give more light on the future than we need for action in the present, or to guide us more than one step at a time. When in doubt, do nothing, but continue to wait on God. When action is needed, light will come. 

[Source: Knowing God with Study Guide (1993), pp269-271.] 

Bill Donahue and Leadership that Kills Community

I came across a brief but helpful blog post on dangerous kinds of leadership, "Leadership the kills community". It is by Dr Bill Donahue, a Christian who works in the area of developing leadership. Here is a copy of the four types of deadly leadership that he mentions...

Blinded by Vision
A vision is only as good as the reality it produces. Leaders obsessed with an ideal picture of what “could be” fail to embrace what is. They live on vision fumes. Teammates and followers become frustrated, and trust in the leader vaporizes. It’s reminiscent of Bonhoeffer’s dictum that “he who loves his dream of community more than the community itself destroys the latter.” We could paraphrase: “He who loves his vision more than the people to whom he is casting it, alienates them.”  It is easy to idealize a neighborhood community, for example, and ignore its socio-economic realities, relational challenges, stages of life issues, and leadership needs. 

Pre-occupied with Structure
When the model becomes the master community life’s a disaster (a cute rhyme but a deep truth). I have witnessed this in too many churches led by model-driven (versus value-led) point leaders and pastors. This happens when we forget a mantra we used at Willow for years: The structure serves the people; the people don’t serve the structure. 

Decidedly Irresponse-able
Any initiative requires strong leadership from the point person designated to carry out the venture. He or she is the voice for the initiative and the guide to others seeking to build it. But there’s more. A leader who shuns the input of others and fails to consider their collective wisdom and insights is no longer response-able, leaving followers disconnected and devalued. 

Focused on “Self”- Improvement
The inclination to use people instead of empowering them kills any community. When a leader makes decisions out of self-interest or self-promotion others lose respect for the leader and passion for the mission fizzles. Group leaders design meetings to meet personal needs or interests; staff members focus mostly on numbers and events; senior leaders make decisions to enhance their platform or promote their materials, often at the expense of the community they are called to shepherd.

J C Ryle on Zeal (Jealousy) for God

I was reminded today of this old quote by J C Ryle, from Practical Religion, about have a zeal or jealousy for God..

Zeal in religion is a burning desire to please God, to do His will, and to advance His glory in the world in every possible way. It is a desire, which no man feels by nature--which the Spirit puts in the heart of every believer when he is converted--but which some believers feel so much more strongly than others that they alone deserve to be called "zealous" men.

This desire is so strong, when it really reigns in a person, that it impels them to make any sacrifice-to go through any trouble-to deny themselves anything--to suffer, to work, to labour, to toil, to spend themselves and be spent, and even to die--if only they can please God and honour Christ. 

A zealous man in religion is pre-eminently a man of one thing. It is not enough to say that he is earnest, hearty, uncompromising, thorough-going, whole-hearted, fervent in spirit. He only sees one thing, he cares for one thing, he lives for one thing, he is swallowed up in one thing; and that one thing is to please God. Whether he lives, or whether he dies—whether he has health, or whether he has sickness—whether he is rich, or whether he is poor—whether he pleases man, or whether he gives offence—whether he is thought wise, or whether he is thought foolish—whether he gets blame, or whether he gets praise—whether he get honour, or whether he gets shame—for all this the zealous man cares nothing at all. He burns for one thing; and that one thing is to please God, and to advance God’s glory. If he is consumed in the very burning, he cares not for it--he is content. He feels that, like a lamp, he is made to burn; and if consumed in burning, he has but done the work for which God appointed him. Such a one will always find a sphere for his zeal. If he cannot preach, work, and give money, he will cry, and sigh, and pray. Yes: if they are extremely poor, on a perpetual bed of sickness, they will make the activity of sin around him slow to a standstill, by continually interceding against it. If he cannot fight in the valley with Joshua, he will do the work of Moses, Aaron, and Hur, on the hill (Exodus 17:9-13). If he is cut off from working himself, he will give the Lord no rest till help is raised up from another quarter, and the work is done. This is what I mean when I speak of ‘zeal’ in religion.

Augustine via Calvin on False Humility

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" [Colossians 2:18, tr. Calvin]

Calvin takes an insightful quote from Augustine in his Commentary on Colossians 2:18, regarding the puffing up that comes from false humility. He writes, "as Augustine elegantly writes to Paulinus, by wonderful means, as to the soul of man, that it is more puffed up from a false humility than if it were openly proud".

[The quote comes from Augustine's letter to Paulinus, #149/CXLIX, 2.28, fit enim miris modis in anima hominis, ut de falsa humilitate magis infletur, quam si apertius superbiret]

Quoting Hymns in Sermons

I was at the last day of QTC's preaching week, and sat in on the last session of Mike Raiter's elective on preaching from Hebrews. In one of his sample sermons, it ended with a lengthy quote of four or five verses or so from an old hymn. It got me wondering about the quoting of hymns in sermons. Perhaps more in the past, it was quite a common practice. I remember being in a church where we basically only sang hymns, so you were quite familiar with a lot of hymns. When someone quoted a hymn, often you could think, "Yeah, I know that one". I wonder in the past if preachers quoted hymns because they knew people were familiar with them and sang them, or just because of the powerful choice of words etc in a particular hymn? And what about today? Hymns aren't so common any more. When preachers quote them, do they expect people to be familiar with them? Or do they hope to introduce them to songs they hadn't heard before? Recently I led communion at our church, and I quoted from a modern song, which perhaps our people were not familiar with, but I thought the expressions were quite potent, and captured the sense I wanted to convey. And I liked the song as well (and I suppose it would be nice if the church learned that song some time..!)

I also just looked up an old sermon, which happened to come with my selection of songs for that service. It included a hymn that I liked, but haven't sung for a long time. I share the words here to enjoy them again in this moment :D

Lo! he comes, with clouds descending,
Once for favored sinners slain;
Thousand thousand saints attending
Swell the triumph of his train:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
God appears on earth to reign.

Ev'ry eye shall now behold him,
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold him,
Pierced, and nailed him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

Ev'ry island, sea, and mountain,
Heav'n and earth, shall flee away;
All who hate him must, confounded,
Hear the trump proclaim the day;
Come to judgment! Come to judgment!
Come to judgment, come away!

Now Redemption, long expected,
See in solemn pomp appear!
All his saints, by man rejected,
Now shall meet him in the air:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
See the day of God appear!

Yea, Amen! let all adore thee,
High on thine eternal throne;
Saviour, take the pow'r and glory,
Claim the kingdom for thine own:
O come quickly, O come quickly:
Alleluia! come, Lord, come.

(Original Trinity Hymnal, #237)

A song inspired by Psalm 119:57

There was a fair bit of cringing going on in my house recently, when I announced to my family that I had written a song, or at least some lyrics. Along with the cringes were cries of "Cliche!" and "Lame!" etc. Oh dear! Well I've never really been into song-writing, so why a song? I'm sure the fact that I'd been reading Simone's blog posts (here and here) about song-writing had a lot to do with it. But also there was just something about when I was reading some of Psalm 119, particularly verse 57, I just felt inspired that it should be sung (it is a Psalm I guess...!), and for some reason some words starting coming to mind. So here it is (I was never good at "killing my darlings")...

You are my portion
You are my peace
You are everything that I need
Teach me LORD to follow your way

My life is full of burdens
But you can carry the load
I am wearied and weighed down
But you can give me wings

A hole is in my heart
But you can fill the void
My life is full of sin
But you have paid the price

I don't know where to go
But you have paved the road
I cannot speak the words
But you have made my mouth

I stumble and I fall
But your Spirit raises me
My enemies surround
But my sword and shield you'll be

I cannot see my hope
But Christ will return for me
Our world seems such a mess
But when you speak all will be new

(Sorry Simone, I'm sure I broke all the rules of good song-writing!)

Calvin vs Cessationism

I'm not yet sure about Calvin's full view of miracles, spiritual gifts, etc. But it seems clear that he was not a 100% pure cessationist. At the least, he allowed for the possibility of apostles, prophets and evangelists after the New Testament apostolic age:

According to this interpretation, which appears to me consonant both to the words and the meaning of Paul, those three functions [ie apostles, prophets, evangelists] were not instituted in the Church to be perpetual, but only to endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed, or at least where churches were to be transferred from Moses to Christ; although I deny not, that afterward God occasionally raised up Apostles, or at least Evangelists, in their stead, as has been done in our time. For such were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist. [Institutes 4.3.4]  

Also, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, he didn't interpret 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 in the common cessationist manner. Calvin did understand these gifts as temporary, but not to the apostolic age, but rather in this whole period prior to the final judgement:

Now our imperfection will one day have an end. Hence the use, even of those gifts, will, at the same time, be discontinued, for it were absurd that they should remain and be of no use. They will, therefore, perish...  But when will that perfection come? It begins, indeed, at death, for then we put off, along with the body, many infirmities; but it will not be completely manifested until the day of judgment, as we shall hear presently. Hence we infer, that the whole of this discussion is ignorantly applied to the time that is intermediate. [Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:9-13]

Of course, Calvin does not see such gifts as necessary, normative, or permanent, for every church and every period of history etc. But that does not necessarily make him a cessationist either.

Preaching on the Trinity

I'm not usually one for topical sermons, but I thought it would be useful for myself, and hopefully also for others, to preach a sermon on the Trinity. Many times I have been asked about the Trinity, and I have never quite been satisfied with the answers I gave. Especially how to show the practical relevance, without just being all philosophical and abstract. (Although of course, if the Bible taught something like that, than that would be enough...) I made use of a lot of online resources in preparation, and especially was helped by some stuff by Tim Keller. I am thankful for the things God taught me, and the fresh perspectives.I am more than ever convinced that the Trinity is something we need to be clear about as Christians, as a fundamental point of orthodoxy, even if we will never fully comprehend it :)

(The final result is available at our church website here.)

John Owen on Christ's Satisfaction, not "ipso facto" or pecuniary

I was just reading through John Owen's tract on the Trinity, where he also considers the nature of Christ's satisfaction for our sins, and goes into further detail in an appendix. I was reminded of previous discussions with friend of mine (and his supporters), who argued that Owen's view of the satisfaction necessitated an "ipso facto" justification etc, and that Owen really had a pecuniary view of the atonement, and that hence God's pardon was not really free (see also this previous post).I think the quote below is fairly clear of Owen's position, and representative of the latter part of his life (the tract was published in 1669). Essentially Owen says that the satisfaction cannot automatically justify or save since it is not like a pecuniary (monetary) debt. There needs to be some kind of compact or agreement by God to accept the satisfaction, and part of that agreement can therefore include stipulations, such as faith on the part of the sinner etc. We find the same kind of understanding in Dabney etc. Here is the extended quote:

Neither does it follow, that, on the supposition of the satisfaction pleaded for, the freedom, pardon, or acquitment of the person originally guilty and liable to punishment must immediately and “ipso facto” ensue. It is not of the nature of every solution or satisfaction, that deliverance must “ipso facto” follow. And the reason of it is, because this satisfaction, by a succedaneous substitution of one to undergo punishment for another, must be founded in a voluntary compact and agreement. For there is required unto it a relaxation of the law, though not as unto the punishment to be inflicted, yet as unto the person to be punished. And it is otherwise in personal guilt than in pecuniary debts. In these, the debt itself is solely intended, the person only obliged with reference whereunto. In the other, the person is firstly and principally under the obligation. And therefore, when a pecuniary debt is paid, by whomsoever it be paid, the obligation of the person himself unto payment ceases “ipso facto.” But in things criminal, the guilty person himself being firstly, immediately, and intentionally under the obligation unto punishment, when there is introduced by compact a vicarious solution, in the substitution of another to suffer, though he suffer the same absolutely which those should have done for whom he suffers, yet, because of the acceptation of his person to suffer, which might have been refused, and could not be admitted without some relaxation of the law, deliverance of the guilty persons cannot ensue “ipso facto,” but by the intervention of the terms fixed on in the covenant or agreement for an admittance of the substitution.

It appears, from what has been spoken, that, in this matter of satisfaction, God is not considered as a creditor, and sin as a debt; and the law as an obligation to the payment of that debt, and the Lord Christ as paying it; — though these notions may have been used by some for the illustration of the whole matter, and that not without countenance from sundry expressions in the Scripture to the same purpose. But God is considered as the infinitely holy and righteous author of the law, and supreme governor of all mankind, according to the tenor and sanction of it. Man is considered as a sinner, a transgressor of that law, and thereby obnoxious and liable to the punishment constituted in it and by it, — answerably unto the justice and holiness of its author. The substitution of Christ was merely voluntary on the part of God, and of himself, undertaking to be a sponsor, to answer for the sins of men by undergoing the punishment due unto them. To this end there was a relaxation of the law as to the persons that were to suffer, though not as to what was to be suffered. Without the former, the substitution mentioned could not have been admitted; and on supposition of the latter, the suffering of Christ could not have had the nature of punishment, properly so called: for punishment relates to the justice and righteousness in government of him that exacts it and inflicts it; and this the justice of God does not but by the law. Nor could the law be any way satisfied or fulfilled by the suffering of Christ, if, antecedently thereunto, its obligation, or power of obliging unto the penalty constituted in its sanction unto sin, was relaxed, dissolved, or dispensed withal. Nor was it agreeable to justice, nor would the nature of the things themselves admit of it, that another punishment should be inflicted on Christ than what we had deserved; nor could our sin be the impulsive cause of his death; nor could we have had any benefit thereby. And this may suffice to be added unto what was spoken before as to the nature of satisfaction, so far as the brevity of the discourse whereunto we are confined will bear, or the use whereunto it is designed does require.

[Source: Brief Declaration and Vindication of The Doctrine of the Trinity, pp443-445.] 

There was also a wonderful remark by the Editor in the Prefatory Notes, regarding Owen's writing style :) Here it is:

This little work is farther remarkable for the almost total absence of the tedious digressions, which abound in the other works of Owen. Such logical unity and concentration of thought is the more remarkable, when we find that the treatise was written, as he tells us, “in a few hours.” But it was a subject on which his mind was fully stored, and his whole heart was interested. The treatise which follows, therefore, was not the spark struck in some moment of collision, and serving only a temporary purpose, but a steady flame nourished from the beaten oil of the sanctuary.
[Source: Brief Declaration and Vindication of The Doctrine of the Trinity, Prefatory Note.]

J I Packer on the Need to Know about Sin

Striking quote by J I Packer on the importance of understanding sin...

The subject of sin is vital knowledge. To say that our first need in life is to learn about sin may sound strange, but in the sense intended it is profoundly true. If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God's answer to the problem of human sin, and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says. Apart from the first two chapters of Genesis, which set the stage, the real subject of every chapter of the Bible is what God does about our sins. Lose sight of this theme, and you lose your way in the Bible at once. With that, the love of God, the meaning of salvation, and the message of the gospel, will all become closed books to you; you may still talk of these things, but you will no longer know what you are talking about.
[from God's Words (1981; also 18 Words)]

Amy Carmichael on Saving Body and Soul Together

Heard this quote in a talk last Sunday evening, about more than just a "bare words gospel"...

"One can't save and then pitchfork souls into heaven...Souls are more or less securely fastened to bodies... And as you can't get the souls out and deal with them separately, you have to take them both together."
[Amy Carmichael, 1867-1951]

A W Tozer on how God doesn't need us...

A W Tozer writes in his book from 1961, about the self-sufficiency of God. Interesting how he perceived things back then. What would be different today..?

"Were all human beings suddenly to become blind, still the sun would shine by day and the stars by night, for these owe nothing to the millions who benefit from their light. So, were every man on earth to become atheist, it could not affect God in any way. He is what He is in Himself without regard to any other. To believe in Him adds nothing to His perfections; to doubt Him takes nothing away.

"Almighty God, just because He is almighty, needs no support. The picture of a nervous, ingratiating God fawning over men to win their favor is not a pleasant one; yet if we look at the popular conception of God that is precisely what we see. Twentieth century Christianity has put God on charity. So lofty is our opinion of ourselves that we find it quite easy, not to say enjoyable, to believe that we are necessary to God. But the truth is that God is not greater for our being, nor would He be less if we did not exist. That we do exist is altogether of God’s free determination, not by our desert nor by divine necessity.

"Probably the hardest thought of all for our natural egotism to entertain is that God does not need our help. We commonly represent Him as a busy, eager, somewhat frustrated Father hurrying about seeking help to carry out His benevolent plan to bring peace and salvation to the world, but, as said the Lady Julian, “I saw truly that God doeth all-thing, be it never so little.” The God who worketh all things surely needs no help and no helpers.

"Too many missionary appeals are based upon this fancied frustration of Almighty God. An effective speaker can easily excite pity in his listeners, not only for the heathen but for the God who has tried so hard and so long to save them and has failed for want of support. I fear that thousands of younger persons enter Christian service from no higher motive than to help deliver God from the embarrassing situation His love has gotten Him into and His limited abilities seem unable to get Him out of. Add to this a certain degree of commendable idealism and a fair amount of compassion for the underprivileged and you have the true drive behind much Christian activity today.

"... To be right we must think worthily of God. It is morally imperative that we purge from our minds all ignoble concepts of the Deity and let Him be the God in our minds that He is in His universe. The Christian religion has to do with God and man, but its focal point is God, not man. Man’s only claim to importance is that he was created in the divine image; in himself he is nothing. The psalmists and prophets of the Scriptures refer sad scorn to weak man whose breath is in his nostrils, who grows up like the grass in the morning only to be cut down and wither before the setting of the sun. That God exists for himself and man for the glory of God is the emphatic teaching of the Bible.

"... Let us not imagine that the truth of the divine self-sufficiency will paralyse Christian activity. Rather it will stimulate all holy endeavor. This truth, while a needed rebuke to human self-confidence, will when viewed in its Biblical perspective lift from our minds the exhausting load of mortality and encourage us to take the easy yoke of Christ and spend ourselves in Spirit-inspired toil for the honor of God and the good of mankind. For the blessed news is that the God who needs no one has in sovereign condescension set Himself to work by and in and through His obedient children.

"... our inner fulfilment lies in loving obedience to the commandments of Christ and the inspired admonitions of His apostles. “It is God which worketh in you.” He needs no one, but when faith is present He works through anyone. Two statements are in this sentence and a healthy spiritual life requires that we accept both. For a full generation the first has been in almost total eclipse, and that to our deep spiritual injury."

[From the Knowledge of the Holy]