He was a man of God’s Word, and hence considered that ‘one Scripture, in its plainness and simplicity, will be of more use for the end I aim at than twenty academic arguments, pressed with never so much accurateness and subtlety’ (April 7). Accordingly, he warns against reading theologians and neglecting the Scriptures, and even cites the Jesuit, Acosta: ‘The one who reads the Scriptures with the purity of their soul will have more advantage than the one who attempts to unravel mysteries with many commentaries’ (June 8). Verses such as Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 5:39, 46-47; Luke 16:29 imply that the Scripture is above the Church.

In recent times, daily readings have swamped the Christian book market, and eventually someone was bound to tackle John Owen, the most exhaustive and (usually) unquotable of the Puritans. Lee Gatiss has, however, done a fine work in providing the reader with a diet of Owen each day.
There are some surprises in store for anyone who has been raised to be fearful of Owen. He displays a generosity of spirit that many consider he did not possess. He was a man of God’s Word, and hence considered that ‘one Scripture, in its plainness and simplicity, will be of more use for the end I aim at than twenty academic arguments, pressed with never so much accurateness and subtlety’ (April 7). Accordingly, he warns against reading theologians and neglecting the Scriptures, and even cites the Jesuit, Acosta: ‘The one who reads the Scriptures with the purity of their soul will have more advantage than the one who attempts to unravel mysteries with many commentaries’ (June 8). Verses such as Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 5:39, 46-47; Luke 16:29 imply that the Scripture is above the Church.
Owen recognised that the term ‘irresistible grace’ could give the wrong impression, and so he spoke of ‘a sweet effectual working’ (January 14). Furthermore, ‘Many people receive more grace from God than they understand or will own. People may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which, in opinion, they deny to be imputed’ (Sept.25). One would not want to run too far with that, but Owen said it.
Read More
Related Posts:

John Murray wrote in his book Principles of Conduct, “And the import is that the holiness of God demands holiness on the part of those who enter into such a covenant relation with Him.” Therefore, any desire to see or know the Lord must be accompanied by the wiliness to be holy. John Murray further states, “The holiness which is demanded by the covenant fellowship is expressed concretely in obedience to the divine commandments.”

As youngsters, my brother and I visited an uncle serving as an army colonel at Fort Huachucha, Arizona. One evening, we had dinner at the Rancho Grande Hotel in Nogales where Gordon McCrae and Shirley Jones were staying. They were starring in “Oklahoma,” which was filmed in Arizona because Arizona was more like what Oklahoma used to be –- so we were told! We were thrilled to see these and other movie stars close-up.
While having a malt at a sidewalk café in Denver one evening last summer with my brother and his family, a couple of movie stars with roles in Dynasty (a TV soap opera) came and sat down at a table next to us. My niece and nephew were quick to recognize them. This time I didn’t! I’m not an evening soap fan. Years later, a younger generation is just as thrilled at seeing the stars.
It is a natural human desire to want to see someone we love or someone famous or powerful. Does this normal desire manifest itself in our Christian lives? Does it go beyond wanting to see some famous Christian preacher or writer? How many of us desire to see God? Even if a few of us were able to admit that we desire to see Him (Many of us aren’t ready to pass through death’s dark veil or do not feel spiritually prepared yet.), there remains a foreboding warning, “. . . without holiness no one will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12: 24)
Proximity and opportunity may enable us to see a great or famous person. However, as John Murray wrote in his book Principles of Conduct, “And the import is that the holiness of God demands holiness on the part of those who enter into such a covenant relation with Him.” Therefore, any desire to see or know the Lord must be accompanied by the wiliness to be holy. John Murray further states, “The holiness which is demanded by the covenant fellowship is expressed concretely in obedience to the divine commandments.”
While living in today’s materialistic, hedonistic, and humanistic culture, both the idea of holiness and obedience to God’s commandments appear outmoded, antiquated and passé. Some consider “walking in the light” as “living in the dark ages.” In days gone by, many who sought to be holy isolated themselves from the surrounding culture by withdrawing from society altogether. Others formed communities and cloistered themselves off from the world. Some withdrew to an isolated spot and became hermits. But God’s demand for holiness and obedience was meant to be practiced in the midst of life, not outside of it—and for the sake of the world, not in spite of it. One wonderful and awesome fact for which we should be grateful is that the standard remains constant and the same for all peoples and all ages. This should comfort us as and if we pursue holiness.
Are we giving God priority in our lives, maintaining Him as our one and only God and overcoming any competition for first place in our lives with things or people? He expected this of all people from the very beginning. Even success should not be our number one pursuit. Is it difficult to keep the Lord’s Day holy? In some societies, Sunday is a common workday, yet believers there strive to keep the commandment. Is it difficult to lead pure, moral lives? It never was easy; yet the commandment has remained the same. Are we uneasy or frustrated with what we have, wanting more? It is no easier for believers in the Third World to be content with their pittance in life.
This is a time for renewal for us. Let’s pray A Disciple’s Renewal prayer which has been handed down to us from the Puritans:
O MY SAVIOR,help me.I am so slow to learn, so prone to forget, so weak to climb.I am in the foothills when I should be on the heights:I am pained by my graceless heart,my prayerless days,my poverty of love,my sloth in the heavenly race,my sullied conscience,my wasted hours,my unspent opportunities.Give me increase and progress in grace so that there may bemore decision in my character,more vigor in my purposes,more elevation in my life,more fervor in my devotion,more constance in my zeal.As I have a position in the world,Keep me from making the world my position.May I never seek in the creaturewhat can be found only in the Creator.We desire to see the Lord—Holy, Holy, Holy – Amen.
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

Related Posts:

As a society, we should question why we’re extending social and government benefits to a group based on sexual behavior while excluding other, nonsexual unions that are more worthy. Why allow civil unions for the lesbian couple down the street but not for the widowed daughter and mother-in-law who live next door?

David French recently sparked a lively debate by addressing marriage in “Why I Changed My Mind About Law and Marriage, Again.” French, a conservative evangelical, explains his “flip, flop, and flip back again on civil marriage” (emphasis in original).
“I emphasize the word civil because my view on the religious nature of marriage has not changed,” says French. “It is a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman, sealed before God, and breakable only on the limited conditions God has outlined in his Word.”
Not surprisingly, French’s article has received considerable backlash. Dozens of articles, blog posts, and Twitter threads have pushed back against his change of heart. While some of the responses are motivated by personal dislike of French (some have said he’s not even a Christian), I think the general reaction is due to a broader frustration with evangelicals who share his viewpoint. And that group is growing larger every day.
A Gallup poll taken in May revealed that “support for legal same-sex marriage reflects steady increases among most subgroups of the population, even those who have traditionally been the most resistant to gay marriage.” One of the last remaining groups to hold the line are Americans who report they attend church weekly. But even in that group, 40 percent are in favor of such “marriages” and only 58 percent are opposed. Many of us are frustrated because we’re losing the argument even among people who share our faith and values.
The tide of public opinion is unlikely to be turned by publishing another article pointing out why French and the other 40 percent of churchgoers are wrong. Still, there’s a solution to the problem that is easily implementable and that should be acceptable to almost every Christian (and most secular Americans)—yet no one’s talking about it.
5-Legged Dog of Marriage Law
Before we get to the solution, though, we must point out why same-sex civil marriage is a problem in need of correction. The essential problem, as many people have consistently pointed out, is that there is not and can never be such as thing as same-sex “marriage.” This is true even for civil marriage. Here’s why.
As Abraham Lincoln was fond of asking, “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” “Five,” his audience would invariably answer. “No,” he’d politely respond, “the correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”
Like Lincoln’s associates, many of our fellow citizens—including many Christians—appear to fall for the notion that changing a definition causes a change in essence. The attempt to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is a prime example. Simply calling such relationships “same-sex marriages,” many believe, will make them marriages. Such reasoning, however, is as flawed as thinking that changing tail to leg changes the function of the appendage.
Consider the change that must occur in our tail/leg example. A dog’s tail cannot perform the same functions as its leg. He can’t use his tail to run or swim or scratch an itch. In order to use the term for both parts, we must discard all qualities that make a tail different from a leg. The new meaning of leg will require that we exclude any difference in form (for example, we can no longer say that a paw can be found at the end of a leg) or function (for example, legs are not necessarily used for standing). In other words, by redefining the term tail we have not made it equivalent in form or function to a leg; we’ve merely stripped the term leg of its previous meaning and made it as generic a term as “appendage.”
The same is true with the attempts to redefine marriage. Because marriage requires the specific form of a union of man and woman (Gen. 2:24), applying the term to same-sex unions alters the very concept of what a marriage is for and what functions it takes.
Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions doesn’t make it more inclusive but rather more exclusive, since it requires excluding all the functions previously believed to be essential to the institution of marriage (for example, permanence, fidelity, and sexual complementarity).
But doesn’t that fall back on a religious argument? Can’t governments determine the standard for civil marriages? No, they cannot, because marriage is both a prepolitical and prereligious institution that was instituted by God before any formal government or religious institutions were created.
Read More
Related Posts: