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.)

Reason.

J.I. Packer has written:

“‘Reason’ means reasoning, as ‘faith’ means believing and trusting. The first is the mark of men, as distinct from beasts; the second, of Christians, as distinct from unbelievers. As there can be no faith without thinking (for truth must be known before there can be trust), so for the Christian there should be no thinking without faith (for thoughts that do not express faith are sin¹). The Christian’s intellectual vocation is to think about all things in such a way that his life of thought is part of his life of faith and homage to God. Whereas the non-Christian is led by faithless reason, the Christian should be guided by reasoning faith.”

(Packer, J.I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, Eerdmans, 1972, p. 128.)
¹ Cf. Rom. xiv. 22, 23.

Certainty.

J.I. Packer has written:

“Now, it is this catholic doctrine that explains the certainty and confidence of Evangelicals as to the divine truth and trustworthiness of the Bible, some, as we saw, think this robust confidence unwarrantable, and explain it as a sociological phenomenon—a piece of wishful thinking prompted by the craving for certainty which we all feel, adolescents especially, in our unsettled and rootless age. Evangelicals, it is said, cling to the idea of biblical infallibility as drowning men cling to a straw—not because it is worthy of their trust, but because they want something to cling to and there is nothing else within reach. We can now see how perverse a misunderstanding this is. The evangelical certainty of the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is of exactly the same sort, and rests on exactly the same basis, as the Church’s certainty of the Trinity, or the incarnation, or any other catholic doctrine. God has declared it; Scripture embodies it; the Spirit exhibits it to believers; and they humbly receive it, as they are bound to do. It is not optional for Christians to sit loose to what God has said, and treat questions which he has closed as if they were still open. The truth is that the evangelical doctrine of Scripture is an article of catholic faith, and the evangelical confidence in its truth is part of the Church’s Spirit-given assurance of faith. It is strange that those who think Evangelicals odd for being sure of the biblical doctrine of Scripture do not see that so-called ‘biblical theologians’ who are not sure of it are much more odd. It is stranger still that those who accuse Evangelicals of ‘heresy’ for their view of the Bible should fail to grasp that it is not Evangelicals, but they themselves who have parted company with the historic catholic faith. One recalls the fond mother who watched the parade and concluded that all were out of step except her Johnny.”

(Packer, J.I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, Eerdmans, 1972, p. 122-123.)

Biblical criticism.

J.I. Packer has written:

“A century of criticism has certainly thrown some light on the human side of the Bible—its style, language, composition, history and culture; but whether it has brought the Church a better understanding of its divine message than Evangelicals of two, three and four hundred years ago possessed is more than doubtful. It is not at all clear that we today comprehend the plan of salvation, the doctrines of sin, election, atonement, justification, new birth and sanctification, the life of faith, the duties of churchmanship and the meaning of Church history, more clearly than did the Reformers, or the Puritans, or the leaders of the eighteenth-century revival. When it is claimed that modern criticism has greatly advanced our understanding of the Bible, the reply must be that it depends upon what is meant by the Bible; criticism has thrown much light on the human features of Scripture, but it has not greatly furthered our knowledge of the Word of God. Indeed, it seems truer to say that its effect to date has been rather to foster ignorance of the Word of God; for by concentrating on the human side of Scripture it has blurred the Church’s awareness of the divine character of scriptural teaching, and by questioning biblical statements in the name of scholarship it has shaken confidence in the value of personal Bible study. Hence, just as the Mediævals tended to equate Church tradition with the Word of God, so modern Protestants tend to equate the words of scholars with the Word of God. We have fallen into the habit of accepting their pronouncements at second hand without invoking the Spirit’s help to search the Scripture and see, not merely whether what they say is so (in so far as they lay Bible student is qualified to judge this), but also—often more important—whether God’s Word does not deal with more than the limited number of topics with which scholars at any one time are concerned. The result of this negligence is widespread ignorance among Churchmen as to what Scripture actually says. So it always is when the Church forgets how to search the scriptures acknowledging its own blindness and looking to God’s Spirit to teach it God’s truth. There is no more urgent need today than that the Church should humble itself to learn this lesson once more.”

(Packer, J.I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, Eerdmans, 1972, p. 112-113.)

A need to know basis.

J.I. Packer has written:

“God, then, does not profess to answer in Scripture all the questions that we, in our boundless curiosity, would like to ask about Scripture. He tells us merely as much as He sees we need to know as a basis for our life of faith. And He leaves unsolved some of the problems raised by what He tells us, in order to teach us a humble trust in His veracity. The question, therefore, that we must ask ourselves when faced with these puzzles is not, is it reasonable to imagine that this is so? but, is it reasonable to accept God’s assurance that this is so? Is it reasonable to take God’s word and believe that He has spoken the truth, even though I cannot fully comprehend what He has said? The question carries its own answer. We should not abandon faith in anything that God has taught us merely because we cannot solve all the problems which it raises. Our own intellectual competence is not the test and measure of divine truth. It is not for us to stop believing because we lack understanding, or to postpone believing till we can get understanding, but to believe in order that we may understand; as Augustine said, ‘unless you believe, you will not understand.’ Faith first, sight afterwards, is God’s order, not vice versa; and the proof of the sincerity of our faith is our willingness to have it so.”

(Packer, J.I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, Eerdmans, 1972, p. 109.)

The Word of God.

J.I. Packer has written:

“Because Evangelicals hold that the biblical writers were completely controlled by the Holy Spirit, it is often supposed, as we saw, that they maintain what is called the ‘dictation’ or ‘typewriter’ theory of inspiration—namely, that the mental activity of the writers was simply suspended, apart from what was necessary for the mechanical transcription of words supernaturally introduced into their consciousness…”

“Those who credit Evangelicals with belief in ‘dictation’ often appeal to the thought of accommodation as the correct alternative to that view, but in so doing they misunderstand the biblical idea of accommodation no less seriously than they misunderstand the biblical idea of complete divine control. They speak as if it were self evident that a revelation of truth transmitted through the instrumentality of sinful men would suffer in the process. We are told that, since the biblical writers were imperfect creatures, morally, spiritually and intellectually limited, children of their age and children of Adam too, it was inevitable that crudities, distortions and errors should creep into what they wrote. It is claimed that this is a liberating notion which throws a flood of light on the real character of Scripture, and makes possible a great advance in theological understanding…”

“The twin suppositions which liberal critics make—that, on the one hand, divine control of the writers would exclude the free exercise of their natural powers, while, on the other hand, divine accommodation to the free exercise of their natural powers would exclude complete control of what they wrote—are really two forms of the same mistake. They are two ways of denying that the Bible can be both a fully human and fully divine composition. And this denial rests (as all errors in theology ultimately do) on a false doctrine of God; here particularly, of His providence. For it assumes that God and man stand in such a relation to each other that they cannot both be free agents in the same action. If a man acts freely (i.e., voluntarily and spontaneously), God does not, and vice versa. The two freedoms are mutually exclusive. But the affinities of this idea are with Deism, not Christian Theism. It is Deism which depicts God as the passive onlooker rather than the active governor of this world, and which assures us that the guarantee of human freedom lies in the fact that men’s actions are not under God’s control. But the bible teaches rather that the freedom of God, who works in and through His creatures, leading them to act according to their nature, is itself the foundation and guarantee of the freedom of their action. It is therefore a great mistake to think that the freedom of the biblical writers can be vindicated only by denying full divine control over them; and the prevalence of this mistake should be ascribed to the insidious substitution of deistic for theistic ideas about God’s relation to the world which has been, perhaps, the most damaging effect of modern science on theology. When the critics of Evangelicalism take it for granted that Evangelicals, since they believe in complete control, must hold the ‘dictation’ theory, while they themselves, since they recognize accommodation, are bound to hold that in Scripture false and misleading words of men are mixed up with the pure word of God, they merely show how unbiblical their idea of providence has become. The cure for such fallacious reasoning is to grasp the biblical idea of God’s concursive operation in, with and through the free working of man’s own mind.”

(Packer, J.I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, Eerdmans, 1972, p. 78-82.)

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Psalm 12:3-4 Jehovah will cut off all flattering lips, The tongue that speaketh great things; (4) Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; Our lips are our own: who is lord over us? (ASV)

C.H. Spurgeon has written:

“Total destruction shall overwhelm the lovers of flattery and pride but meanwhile how they hector and fume! Well did the apostle call them ‘raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame.’ Free-thinkers are generally very free-talkers, and they are never more at ease than when railing at God’s dominion, and arrogating to themselves unbounded license. Strange is it that the easy yoke of the Lord should so gall the shoulders of the proud, while the iron bands of Satan they bind about themselves as chains of honour: they boastfully cry unto God, ‘Who is lord over us?’ and hear not the hollow voice of the evil one, who cries from the infernal lake, ‘I am your lord, and right faithfully do ye serve me.’ Alas, poor fools, their pride and glory shall be cut off like a fading flower! May God grant that our soul may not be gathered with them. It is worthy of observation that flattering lips, and tongues speaking proud things, are classed together: the fitness of this is clear, for they are guilty of the same vice, the first flatters another, and the second flatters himself, in both cases a lie is in their right hands. One generally imagines that flatterers are such mean parasites, so cringing and fawning, that they cannot be proud; but the wise man will tell you that while all pride is truly meanness, there is in the very lowest meanness no small degree of pride. Cæsar’s horse is even more proud of carrying Cæsar, than Cæsar is at riding him. The mat on which the emperor wiped his shoes, boasts vaingloriously, crying out, ‘I cleaned the imperial boots.’ None are so detestably domineering as the little creatures who creep into office by cringing to the great; those are bad times, indeed, in which these obnoxious beings are numerous and powerful. No wonder that the justice of God in cutting off such injurious persons is matter for a Psalm, for both earth and heaven are weary of such provoking offenders, whose presence is a very plague to the people afflicted thereby. Men cannot tame the tongues of such boastful flatters; but the Lord’s remedy if sharp is sure, and is an unanswerable answer to their swelling words of vanity.”

(Spurgeon, C.H. The Treasury of David, Volume I, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988, p. 142.)

The Redeemer and predestination.

John Calvin has written:

“Should any one object, that in this there is nothing to prevent the same Christ who redeemed us when condemned from also testifying his love to us when safe by assuming our nature, we have the brief answer, that when the Spirit declares that by the eternal decree of God the two things were connected together, viz., that Christ should be our Redeemer, and, at the same time, a partaker of our nature, it is unlawful to inquire further. He who is tickled with a desire of knowing something more, not contented with the immutable ordination of God, shows also that he is not even contented with that Christ who has been given us as the price of redemption. And, indeed, Paul not only declares for what end he was sent, but rising to the sublime mystery of predestination, seasonably represses all the wantonness and prurience of the human mind. "He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved: In whom we have redemption through his blood," (Eph. 1: 4-7). Here certainly the fall of Adam is not presupposed as anterior in point of time, but our attention is directed to what God predetermined before all ages, when he was pleased to provide a cure for the misery of the human race. If, again, it is objected that this counsel of God depended on the fall of man, which he foresaw, to me it is sufficient and more to reply, that those who propose to inquire, or desire to know more of Christ than God predestinated by his secret decree, are presuming with impious audacity to invent a new Christ. Paul, when discoursing of the proper office of Christ, justly prays for the Ephesians that God would strengthen them "by his Spirit in the inner man," that they might "be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge," (Eph. 3: 16, 18); as if he intended of set purpose to set barriers around our minds, and prevent them from declining one iota from the gift of reconciliation whenever mention is made of Christ. Wherefore, seeing it is as Paul declares it to be, "a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," (1 Tim. 1: 15), in it I willingly acquiesce. And since the same Apostle elsewhere declares that the grace which is now manifested by the Gospel "was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (2 Tim. 1: 9), I am resolved to adhere to it firmly even to the end. This moderation is unjustly vituperated by Osiander, who has unhappily, in the present day, again agitated this question, which a few had formerly raised. He brings a charge of overweening confidence against those who deny that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not fallen, because this notion is not repudiated by any passage of Scripture. As if Paul did not lay a curb on perverse curiosity when after speaking of the redemption obtained by Christ, he bids us "avoid foolish questions," (Tit. 3: 9). To such insanity have some proceeded in their preposterous eagerness to seem acute, that they have made it a question whether the Son of God might not have assumed the nature of an ass. This blasphemy, at which all pious minds justly shudder with detestation, Osiander excuses by the pretext that it is no where distinctly refuted in Scripture; as if Paul, when he counted nothing valuable or worth knowing "save Jesus Christ and him crucified," (I Cor. 2: 2), were admitting, that the author of salvation is an ass. He who elsewhere declares that Christ was by the eternal counsel of the Father appointed "head over all things to the church," would never have acknowledged another to whom no office of redemption had been assigned.”

(Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998, p. 404-405.)

The reason for the Mediator.

John Calvin has written:

“Then when he actually appeared, he declared the cause of his advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death unto life. To the same effect was the testimony of the Apostles concerning him, (John 1: 9; 10: 14). Thus John, before teaching that the Word was made flesh, narrates the fall of man. But above all, let us listen to our Saviour himself when discoursing of his office: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Again, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” "The Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Again, "They that be whole need not a physician.” I should never have done were I to quote all the passages. Indeed, the Apostles, with one consent, lead us back to this fountain; and assuredly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his priesthood would fall, seeing it was his office as priest to stand between God and men, and "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins," (Heb. 5: 1); nor could he be our righteousness, as having been made a propitiation for us in order that God might not impute to us our sins, (2 Cor. 5: 19). In short, he would be stript of all the titles with which Scripture invests him. Nor could Paul's doctrine stand "What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh," (Rom. 8: 3). Nor what he states in another passage: "The grace of God that bringeth salvation has appeared to all men," (Tit. 2: 11). In fine, the only end which the Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming our nature, and even receiving it as a command from the Father, is, that he might propitiate the Father to us by becoming a victim. "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer;" - "and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.” "Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.” - "This commandment have I received of my Father.” "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” "Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.” Here he distinctly assigns as the reason for assuming our nature, that he might become a propitiatory victim to take away sin. For the same reason Zacharias declares, (Luke 1: 79), that he came "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers," "to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death.” Let us remember that all these things are affirmed of the Son of God, in whom, as Paul elsewhere declares, were "hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and save whom it was his determination "not to know any thing," (Col. 2: 3; 1 Cor. 2: 2).”

(Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998, p. 403-404.)

God and man in one.

John Calvin has written:

“Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in the same flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us the victory. Those, therefore, who rob Christ of divinity or humanity either detract from his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness. On the other hand, they are no less injurious to men, undermining and subverting their faith, which, unless it rest on this foundation, cannot stand. Moreover, the expected Redeemer was that son of Abraham and David whom God had promised in the Law and in the Prophets. Here believers have another advantage. Tracing up his origin in regular series to David and Abraham, they more distinctly recognize him as the Messiah celebrated by so many oracles. But special attention must be paid to what I lately explained, namely, that a common nature is the pledge of our union with the Son of God; that, clothed with our flesh, he warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the just anger of his Father.”

(Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998, p. 402.)

The nature of the Mediator.

John Calvin has written:

“This will become still clearer if we reflect, that the work to be performed by the Mediator was of no common description: being to restore us to the divine favour, so as to make us, instead of sons of men, sons of God; instead of heirs of hell, heirs of a heavenly kingdom. Who could do this unless the Son of God should also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to become ours by grace? Relying on this earnest, we trust that we are the sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bones of our bones, that he might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of man. Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own lips, when he says, "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my God, and your God," (John 20: 17). In this way, we have a sure inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, because the only Son of God, to whom it entirely belonged, has adopted us as his brethren; and if brethren, then partners with him in the inheritance, (Rom. 8: 17). Moreover, it was especially necessary for this cause also that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly God and man. It was his to swallow up death: who but Life could do so? It was his to conquer sin: who could do so save Righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of the air and the world: who could do so but the mighty power superior to both? But who possesses life and righteousness, and the dominion and government of heaven, but God alone? Therefore, God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son.”

(Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998, p. 401.)