Forfeit.

Herman Witsius has written:

“Adam in departing from the prescribed rule, forfeited the ornament of the image of God, in which he was formed, for himself and all his posterity. And whilst he wickedly affected a forbidden equality with God, came most to resemble the devil, and, like that evil spirit, deformed himself by his own crime: than which we can imagine nothing more hideous or base. The soul of the sinner is a horrid monster, mis-shapen, huge and devoid of light; mere darkness, mere confusion, everything disjointed and out of order there; nothing properly placed; the things we should despise are esteemed, and what we should value most are neglected. Was any to take a clear view of his inward disposition in a faithful mirror, he would certainly, with the utmost horror, fly from himself as from a most terrible spectacle. And indeed, if holiness is the most beautiful ornament of the divine perfections, that thing must needs be the most deformed, which is not only the most unlike, but diametrically opposite to that ornamental beauty. This is that [greek phrase] mentioned Jam. i. 21. Filthiness and superfluity or naughtiness; to this it is owing, that man is become abominable in the sight of God, who cannot but turn away the radiant eyes of his unspotted holiness, Hab. i. 13.”

(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume II, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, p. 7-8)

Holiness and purity.

Herman Witsius has written:

“Holiness denotes that purity of a man, in his nature, inclinations and actions, which consists in an imitation and expression of the divine purity or holiness. God is the great pattern of his rational creatures. His will is expressed in the law, which was the pattern shewn to Moses in the mount, according to which the sanctuary of our soul ought to be framed. But his divine virtues or perfections are a pattern, which we are to contemplate with so much diligence, attention, and devotion, as to be ourselves transformed according to that, 1 Pet. i. 16, 17. “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation: because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Virtue or holiness may be considered in different respects. As it agrees with the prescription of the law, it is call righteousness; but as it is conformity to God, and an expression of his purity, it is termed holiness.”

(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume II, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, p. 5-6)

God's possession.

Herman Witsius has written:

“The godly therefore are God’s excellent possession, which he claims and preserves, and in which he boasts, as his crown of glory and royal diadem, Isa. lxii. 3. Which he esteems as his riches, and suffers not to become the property of another: and in this sense also may holiness by ascribed to them: a holy nation, a peculiar people, are joined together, 1 Pet. ii. 9."

(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume II, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, p. 4)

No disguises.

J.I. Packer has written:

“And the honest way to commend God’s revealed truth to an unbelieving generation is not to disguise it as a word of man, and to act as if we could never be sure of it, but had to keep censoring and amending it at the behest of the latest scholarship, and dared not believe it further than historical agnosticism gives us leave; but to preach it in a way which shows the world that we believe it wholeheartedly, and to cry to God to accompany our witness with His Spirit, so that we too may preach ‘in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power’. The apologetic strategy that would attract converts by the flattery of accommodating the gospel to the ‘wisdom’ of sinful man was condemned by Paul nineteen centuries ago, and the past hundred years have provided a fresh demonstration of its bankruptcy. The world may call it compromise ‘progressive’ and ‘enlightened; (those are its names for all forms of thought that pander to its conceit); those who produce them will doubtless, by a natural piece of wishful thinking, call them ‘bold’ and ‘courageous’, and perhaps ‘realistic’ and ‘wholesome’; but the Bible condemns them as sterile aberrations. And the Church cannot hope to recover its power till it resolves to turn its back on them.”

(Packer, J.I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, Eerdmans, 1972, p. 167.)

A sinful outlook.

J.I. Packer has written:

“And this same outlook has been natural to man ever since. Sinners are no more ready to acknowledge God in their thinking, by allowing his utterances authority over their judgment, than they are to acknowledge God in their action, by allowing His utterances authority over their behavior. Sin has its root in the mind, and this attitude of mind is its very essence. And when men become Christians, they are still prone in their pride to lapse in the assumption that there is no rationality or wisdom in merely taking their Creator’s word; they are still apt to demand instead that their reason be permitted to make its own independent assessment of what He says and to have the last word in deciding whether it is credible or not. This is as real and gross a moral lapse as any, though it is not always seen as such; and the temptation to it is strong and insidious. And once one succumbs, and relapses to any degree in this sinful habit of mind, one is instantly drawn to the conclusion that Christians who continue to base their thinking on an unquestioning belief of what God has said are fettering reason and stifling free thought. No doubt the serpent would have gold Eve as much, had she asked him.”

(Packer, J.I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, Eerdmans, 1972, p. 139.)