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]

J I Packer on the Bible as God's Torah or Law

Another quote from J I Packer's book Truth & Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life (1996)...

It needs to be said, before we move on, that living by biblical torah can be costly. Society will press Christians to do things that God's law forbids and to omit things that God's law requires. Christian nonconformity to others' ways will be felt as an insult and a threat. In the early centuries Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire because they would not join in emperor worship. Persecution is rife today in Muslim and Marxist countries where toleration is not part of the culture and Christians are seen as subversive of national goals. In the West, Christian physicians who will not do abortions are marginalized in their own profession, and in many circles Christians who still see homosexual practice as sin are, to say the least, disliked. Christians, however, must obey God rather then humans when there is a clash (see Acts 4:19; 5:29), and if that means trouble, so be it: we have to learn to commit our cause to God and stand steady, seeing the situation as a testing of our faith. But living by Scripture as one's law in this way can cost a great deal, and we must face that fact realistically.

Further, it needs to be said that living by biblical torah can be disturbing. It has been said that either the Bible will keep you from sin or sin will keep you from the Bible. What is meant is that the Bible will jolt us to the roots of our being by zeroing in on our weaknesses, shortcomings, vices, disobediences and neglects and will sensitize our consciences to the displeasure of God and the imperative need to make changes. At such times we will find that the temptation to stop taking the Bible seriously will be very strong indeed.

... Also it needs to be said that living by biblical torah can be very humbling. Pride is the sinful infection of all our hearts, and to a degree we are all proud of our opinions. But if, as we let Scripture instruct us, we find it teaching something different from what we have hitherto assumed and contradicting what, as we say, we "like to think" (ominous phrase!), then it is so much the worse for our former thoughts, and we have to change our minds. To admit that you were wrong can be painful, but those who take Scripture as law for their lives must be prepared for this.

(Packer in this book offers seven ways to think of the Bible as we approach it: A Library, A Landscape, A Letter, A Listening Post, A Law, A Light, A Lifeline. Packer describes torah as "affectionate instruction on behaviour as from a father to his family, given in the expectation that the children will take it to heart and faithfully obey their father's directives".)

J I Packer on knowing God's will in life

From J I Packer's book Truth & Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life...

... a Christian can always find in the Bible guidance as to the next step in obedience, whatever perplexities his or her life situation may currently present. Walking by the light of Scripture is not like walking by daylight, any more than shining your flashlight is like the rising of the sun. Beyond the little circle of vision that your flashlight gives you, the darkness remains, and it is through this continuing darkness that you travel. You are regularly in the dark, in the everyday slang sense, unable to find meaning in the things that happen around you. But Scripture enables you to see each next step that you must take, so on you are able to go. All of us, I am bold to say, walk through life with a quiverful of unanswered questions about the ways of God. Why this? Why that? What is really going on here? We don't know, for God does not tell us. All he tells us, as we consult his Word, is how to cope Christianly with this and that as it comes and to get on with our life of worship and service through it all.

J I Packer on Christian Fellowship

Great quote from J I Packer on the Biblical concept of fellowship:

A body in which the blood does not circulate well is always below par, and fellowship corresponds to the circulation of the blood in the body of Christ. The church gains strength through fellowship, and loses strength without it... Christians today need fellowship. All Christians of every age do. None is spiritually self-sufficient; God does not make us so. Without fellowship, whether we are conscious of this or not, we shall be and remain feeble Christians. This is a law of the spiritual life.

(from God's Words, also 18 Words)

Matthew Henry quote, "I AM THAT I AM"

Great Matthew Henry quote I heard in a C J Mahaney talk...

the greatest and best man in the world must say, By the grace of God I am what I am; but God says absolutely--and it is more than any creature, man or angel, can say--I am that I am.

[taken from Matthew Henry's commentary on Exodus 3:14]

J I Packer on Holiness and Materialism

Neat quote by J I Packer from the chapter on "Holiness and Sanctification" in his book, God's Words...

A holy person's life will not centre on things: instead, a certain frugality will mark it, an eschewing of luxury and display, a sense of stewardship of all possessions, and a readiness to let them go if need be for the Lord's sake. Holy people do not undervalue this world's good things, as if God did not make or provide them (Manicheism, the belief that material things are bad, is no part of holiness), but they refuse to be enslaved to them. Nor do they squint sideways to compare their material showing with that of others; they know that keeping up with the Joneses is not holiness, even if Jones goes to their church or is in orbit in some Christian celebrity circuit. The holy person lives free from the passion for possessions, just as he does from other forms of self-seeking and self-indulgence. His treasure is with God, and his heart too (cf. Mt. 6:19-21). The cheerfulness of his disregard of the world's scale of values, and the straight-forward, single-minded, spontaneous ardour of his love for God may make him somewhat unnerving company, though if so it is because he is so much more honest and human than we who watch him, not because he is odd and we are normal.

D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the state of the Christian Church (Ephesians 5:2)

Quote from D Martyn Lloyd-Jones from her sermon on Ephesians 5:2 (preached sometime between 1954 and 1962):

I can tell you why the Christian Church is as she is. She has been evacuating the biblical doctrine of the cross from the death of the cross, and has been describing it as some vague manifestation of love. Then she has been weeping in sorrow and in sympathy for Him. But he said to the women of Jerusalem, "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves"; do not be sorry for Me, he said, I have come to do this. "I am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." All the Scriptures, from beginning to end, emphasise the same thing, that it is in Christ's sacrificial work that we see the love of God; that God sent, and gave Him up even to the death of the cross, and laid upon Him, His only begotten Son, the sins of men. "God so loved the world that he gave" - to the shame, the agony, the suffering, the separation between His Son and Himself when He was made sin - "He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". That is the measure of the love!
["Darkness and Light: An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17-5:17", The Banner of Truth Trust (1982), pp309-310]

Paul's formula, of Christ's love and giving of himself

There is a phrase Paul uses three times in the New Testament, almost like a formula, and I can't help but think it is a favourite phrase or expression of his, something he loved to dwell-on, and a "game-changer" for his life. It is simple but profound, and occurs these three times:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me [Galatians 2:20]

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [Ephesians 5:2]

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her [Ephesians 5:25]

Often the Scriptures speak of God giving his one and only Son, and also of the those evil men who gave Jesus over to be crucified. But in Paul's expression he makes clear that Jesus gave himself, and that was a measure of his great love for sinful, undeserving people. The LXX uses some similar wording in Isaiah 53:12, and perhaps Paul's phrase arose out of a meditation upon that verse, as well as a consideration of Jesus' own words in John 10:18 etc. Whatever the origin may have been in Paul's thinking, it is a truth that God has recorded in the Scriptures to change our lives. How much are we willing to give to him who loved us so?

The Church in the House in Dura-Europos

Came across this interesting article by Ben Witherington about the extensive archaeological evidence of one of the oldest known church meeting places. The article has lots of brief but interesting analyses of the site, as well as a few pictures and diagrams :)

There is also a wikipedia entry on oldest churches discovered. (And similar entry on oldest synogogues.)

Sometimes we make things too complicated..

Just a somewhat random reflection.. sometimes we make our theology too complicated! I think especially as "Reformed" and "Evangelical" types we are excessively careful to be too academic and too analytical etc. I suspect it also some kind of hang-over from Modernism or Foundationalism or Idealism something like that. (Hmm, not really sure what I'm talking about here, right, haha!) It seems we always want to have our theology in neat boxes, with perfect straight edges, very controllable etc. We seem to want our theology to be clearer than Scripture is. Maybe actually it is driven by a fear of the unknown, or perhaps a pride in being (more) right. Worse is when we spend all out time making sure we are (more) right, and neglect the basics of prayer (with emphasis on being relationals with God!), Bible reading, obedience. We can be afraid of experience because it is not objective enough, but perhaps we often don't have enough experience in the basics, such that all our theologizing smacks too much of ivory tower syndrome. Well, no more details today. Will just say, I'm a control freak, very particular and analytical, but hopefully reforming... semper reformanda!

Jim Boice on Christian Singing in Worship

A quote from James Montgomery Boice's Commentary on Romans (relating to 1:1-2)...

Have you ever considered how characteristic it is of Christianity that such large portions of our worship consist of singing praises to God? There is singing in other religions, of course; but it is usually mere chanting, which is itself a religious exercise designed to make the worshiper more "holy" or bring him closer to the deity. Christians do not sing as a good work or as a spiritual discipline. We do not sing to find God. We sing because he has found us and we are happy about it.

D A Carson comments on Australia & Individualism

I stumbled across this snippet by Don Carson, commenting on Australia. Thought I'd file it here...

But a very open country like Australia, in which the “cut down the tall poppy syndrome” flourishes, allows plenty of freedom for gospel ministry but really dislikes individuals who stand out too strongly—and it too is not very hospitable to the gospel. Isn’t something to be said in favor of individualism?

[Source: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/35-3/editorial-contrarian-reflections-on-individualism]

NT Worship & 1 Corinthians 14:24-25

The debate has resurfaced again about the propriety of the use of the word "worship" to describe things the church does when it gathers. This time it was triggered because some Sydney Anglican Evangelical types invited a Sovereign Grace Ministries type to speak at a TWIST conference. The trail began when my wife saw something in a friend's blog, and you can see some of the resurfacing here and here. Part of the argument is around the use (or lack thereof) of the Greek word proskynein which is often translated in English as worship. The argument basically says that because we don't see proskynein used in association with the assemblies of the church, therefore we shouldn't use the English word worship to describe singing or other activities in the assemblies, or to describe the assemblies in general. Pardon my disrespectfulness in all this, but it just seems like a no-brainer. Apart from the issues of semantic range of overlap between words in different languages, how odd it seems that someone can argue from silence that Christians don't worship God when they gather, even though the Bible does give examples of and exhortations to worship by individuals and assemblies in the OT, Jesus is worshipped in the Gospels, Paul as an apostle can still worship in Jerusalem (Acts 24:11), Jesus is to be worshipped by angels (Hebrews 1:6), and there are the great assemblies of worship in the book of Revelation (eg 4:10, 5:14, 7:11, etc). And on top of that, in the midst of one of the few sections which specifically talk about what happens when Christians gather in their Lord's Day assemblies, 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 talks about an unbeliever coming amongst them, being convinced by the believers, and then responding in worship, presumably a very fitting response amongst those other believers. And yet it is as if some want to say that unbeliever would be the only one worshipping because all the believers certainly wouldn't be worshipping during one of their assemblies??? Anyhow, for some reason this inspired me to sketch a cartoon about this passage and here it is :P

Calvin on God's Will and Permitting Adam's Sin

Sometimes we are a bit too soft when we speak of God "permitting" sin and evil to enter the world through Adam (as well as ongoing suffering etc). Yes we are right to so distance sin and evil from God, as to never attribute evil and sin to God. He is perfect in purity, holiness, goodness and love. In him is light and there is no darkness at all. But at the same time, we do not have to sacrifice his perfect sovereignty and control, just because we can't make it all fit in our heads, in our philosophising or thinking. As if in some way we think we have a better idea of what constitutes what would be right and fair and good, more than God does. And the Bible is not backward in many places asserting God's absolute authority and right to do whatever he pleases, and leave us in our part to trust him fully in his perfect fairness, righteousness and goodness.

Below is a quote from Calvin, from his commentary on Genesis chapter 3, where he touches on this issue, as he considers the fact that God allowed Satan to tempt man...

All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by his permission. For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so. But in speaking of permission, I understand that he had appointed whatever he wished to be done. Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will? I wish that men would rather suffer themselves to be judged by God, than that, with profane temerity, they should pass judgment upon him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test. I hold it as a settled axiom, that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt; wherefore I conclude, that, as it became the Creator, he had before determined with himself what should be man’s future condition. Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice. For he himself perceives, being convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been too free in sinning.

Calvin on the Death of Animals Before the Fall

I have heard people say before that John Calvin didn't support the idea of no death of animals before the fall.

Here are his comments on Genesis 1:28...

"Some infer, from this passage that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter. Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification. For they judge prudently who maintain that the earth was so marred by the deluge, that we retain scarcely a moderate portion of the original benediction. Even immediately after the fall of man, it had already begun to bring forth degenerate and noxious fruits, but at the deluge, the change became still greater. Yet, however this may be, God certainly did not intend that man should be slenderly and sparingly sustained; but rather, by these words, he promises a liberal abundance, which should leave nothing wanting to a sweet and pleasant life. For Moses relates how beneficent the Lord had been to them, in bestowing on them all things which they could desire, that their ingratitude might have the less excuse."

So it seems here that his main argument is about whether it was lawful to kill animals for food before the flood (not before the fall). His main argument seems to be that the lawfulness of killing animals for sacrifices would imply that it cannot ever be inherently wrong or sin to kill animals (before or after the flood or fall). And therefore Genesis 1:28 does not *necessarily* say that animals could not be eaten for food before the fall.

However, his comments on Isaiah 11 seem pretty clear of his view (at least at the time of writing) of animals killing other animals before the fall:

Calvin's comments on Isaiah11:6..

"But the Prophet’s discourse looks beyond this; for it amounts to a promise that there will be a blessed restoration of the world. He describes the order which was at the beginning, before man’s apostasy produced the unhappy and melancholy change under which we groan. Whence comes the cruelty of brutes, which prompts the stronger to seize and rend and devour with dreadful violence the weaker animals? There would certainly have been no discord among the creatures of God, if they had remained in their first and original condition. When they exercise cruelty towards each other, and the weak need to be protected against the strong, it is an evidence of the disorder (ἀταξίας) which has sprung from the sinfulness of man... For this reason, he says, that straw will be the food of the lion as well as of the ox; for if the stain of sin had not polluted the world, no animal would have been addicted to prey on blood, but the fruits of the earth would have sufficed for all, according to the method which God had appointed. (Genesis 1:30.)"

Similarly his comments on Isaiah 65:25..

"“The lion” shall eat harmlessly, and shall no longer seek his prey. The serpent, satisfied with his dust, shall wrap himself in it, and shall no longer hurt by his envenomed bite. In a word, all that is disordered or confused shall be restored to its proper order. Yet beyond all controversy the Prophet speaks allegorically of bloody and violent men, whose cruel and savage nature shall be subdued, when they submit to the yoke of Christ. But first we must carefully consider that confusion which befell all the creatures in consequence of the fall of man; for if this were not taken into view, it would be impossible for us to have sufficiently just and correct views of this blessing of restoration. "

Calvin on the Testimony of the Spirit in our lives

Here are some great quotes from Calvin concerning the testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit in our lives, giving us assurance of our sonship, eternal life, election and salvation...

[from Commentary on Romans 8:14...] The import of the whole is this — “all those are the sons of God who are led by God’s Spirit; all the sons of God are heirs of eternal life: then all who are led by God’s Spirit ought to feel assured of eternal life. But the middle term or assumption is omitted, for it was indubitable. But it is right to observe, that the working of the Spirit is various: for there is that which is universal, by which all creatures are sustained and preserved; there is that also which is peculiar to men, and varying in its character: but what he means here is sanctification, with which the Lord favors none but his own elect, and by which he separates them for sons to himself.

[from Commentary on Romans 8:16...] But Paul means, that the Spirit of God gives us such a testimony, that when he is our guide and teacher, our spirit is made assured of the adoption of God: for our mind of its own self, without the preceding testimony of the Spirit, could not convey to us this assurance. There is also here an explanation of the former verse; for when the Spirit testifies to us, that we are the children of God, he at the same time pours into our hearts such confidence, that we venture to call God our Father.

[from Commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:12...] It is a passage that is most abundantly clear, for refuting that diabolical doctrine of the Sophists as to a constant hesitancy on the part of believers. For they require all believers to be in doubt, whether they are in the grace of God or not, and allow of no assurance of salvation, but what hangs on moral or probable conjecture. In this, however, they overthrow faith in two respects: for first they would have us be in doubt, whether we are in a state of grace, and then afterwards they suggest a second occasion of doubt — as to final perseverance. Here, however, the Apostle declares in general terms, that the elect have the Spirit given them, by whose testimony they are assured that they have been adopted to the hope of eternal salvation. Undoubtedly, if they would maintain their doctrine, they must of necessity either take away the Spirit of God from the elect, or make even the Spirit himself subject to uncertainty. Both of these things are openly at variance with Paul’s doctrine. Hence we may know the nature of faith to be this, that conscience has from the Holy Spirit a sure testimony of the good-will of God towards it, so that, resting upon this, it does not hesitate to invoke God as a Father