At some point, the natural law must be made concrete, inserted into real human life in real context, and applied. This, I maintain, is impossible without some kind of discernible tradition of Christianity governing that process.

Can “Mere Christianity” stem the tide of societal dissolution?
Craig Carter (not without some impassioned campaigning by the American Reformer staff on Twitter) wrote a thoughtful piece back in November 2022 on liberal democracy vis-à-vis Christian Nationalism from a Baptist perspective. A few highlights: “But what if I told you that liberal democracy only works in nations that recognize natural law as true, which historically means almost exclusively Christian nations?” Liberal democracy has “worked” for a while, says Carter, because of the residual conditions of Christendom. “But can we not all agree on the existence of God, the existence of a moral law, and the need to base law on human nature? No? Well, we won’t be able to keep liberal democracy.”1 And so,
Liberal democracy needs Christianity, or it collapses into anarchy. The state requires a healthy Christian church that does evangelism and discipleship effectively. Only those able to control their own desires and impose discipline on themselves make adequate citizens for a liberal democratic nation. Belief in God and a moral order is necessary as the foundation of a free society.
Predictably, then, “As individuals become more atomized and less personally disciplined, the need for social controls increases.”
This is all fairly unobjectionable, as far as it goes, but also not unique to liberal democratic regimes. Any regime requires a healthy Christian church to direct men to God and virtue. And this is part of the point.
A just regime is not merely neutral or indifferent toward higher truths, toward religion. Indifference by the temporal power toward the spiritual power may actually harm true religion and religious vibrancy because indifference (neutrality) relegates religion to the sidelines. Under liberal democratic regimes with a high level of plurality—something relentlessly fostered by all western liberal democratic nations—neutrality is praised as a cure to religious conflict. But when all religions are leveled and further categorized as one among many subsidiary, voluntary associations, the persuasive, pedagogical influence of true religion, of the church, is increasingly diminished. That is, in a sense, by design.2
At the same time, the temporal power suffers for absence of a central cult. Laws, too, are supposed to lead men gradually to virtue. This is right and inevitable. But within a pluralistic playing field, what mechanism can temporal power use to select the undergirding morality to inform its laws?
Now, Carter (or Andrew Walker) will answer, “natural law, of course.” This is basically correct. The question, however, is how natural law is known and taught, especially according to secondary conclusions (i.e., specific applications) which are not immediately ascertainable to all men equally. In a sense, the natural law is known; in another sense, it is learned. John Owen and Johannes Althusius, among others, instructed that the best way to arrive at a fully-orbed understanding and use of the natural law is through the study of good human laws that already reflect higher law, through the teaching of the church, and through scripture.
The problem with regard to how natural law will determine the state’s governing morality is 1) people aren’t great at grasping and applying the natural law; and 2) the temporal power needs the church to promulgate the summary of the natural law republished in the Decalogue as scripture as well as those parts of special revelation that bolster understanding of the natural order. Positing an absolute bifurcation between church and state–far beyond a proper recognition of their separate realms of authority–usually goes hand in hand with an absolute bifurcation between scripture and natural law.3 Neither antithesis helps us faithfully apply natural law today. Also, 3) the particular instantiations of natural law are necessarily contextualized by the polity and culture in which they are applied. If said polity is not already conditioned by a central, governing morality then the extent to which natural law supplies authoritative guidance will be limited, abstract, and largely anemic.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Daniel B. Miller |
Monday, December 20, 2021
While much has been written on the sinful state of man prior to conversion, Owen’s treatise is a deep exploration of the nature and effects of sin in those who belong to the community of faith. Far from being a purely academic treatise, Owen’s goal throughout this work is the devotional and spiritual health of the reader. As he states at the onset, “How much it should concern believers to have a full and clear acquaintance with the power of indwelling sin – to stir them up to watchfulness, diligence, faith, and prayer, and to call them to repentance, humility, and self-abasement.”

In 1616, ninety-nine years after Martin Luther began his reforming work in Wittenberg, John Owen was born in Oxford, England. John Owen, it may be said, contributed as much to the theological landscape of the 17th century and Martin Luther did in the century prior.
Like Luther, the Owen’s life and work was set within and shaped by a complicated period of political, theological, and ecclesiastical upheaval. Also, like Luther, Owen was deeply concerned with the doctrine of justification by faith and the corresponding theological implications. Where Owen differed from his 16th century counterpart was in his theological emphasis on the moral, spiritual, and practical implications of the doctrine of justification. Owen, like most of his fellow Puritans, was deeply concerned with the practical implication of theology on the Christian life. Perhaps in no area is this more evident than in his work on the Christian’s struggle with indwelling sin.
As Owen himself, speaking about the importance of the doctrine of indwelling sin, states in his introduction to Indwelling Sin in Believers, “Without this doctrine, none of the great truths concerning the Person of Christ, his mediation, the fruits and effects of it, and our partaking of them, can be rightly known or savingly believed.”[1]
For Owen, if one does not grasp the importance of understanding, identifying, and mortifying indwelling sin it is nearly impossible that one has taken hold of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
This holds true today. To have a confused view of indwelling sin is to have a confused view of the gospel. Right now, in my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church of America, the question of the nature  and mortification of indwelling sin is at the center of several important ecclesiastical conversations. Specifically, the questions “what is indwelling sin?”  and “is there actual hope for mortifying any and every sin?”  are of particular consequence.
I will seek to address the first of these questions, what is indwelling sin, in this post.  In doing so, I will review the doctrine of indwelling sin which was central to Owen’s understanding of the Christian life. My goal will be to show how his doctrine of indwelling sin is deeply influenced by the theology of the Reformation and a Reformed understanding of the Gospel – and why it is essential to us as Christians today.
What is Indwelling Sin?
Owen’s work on indwelling sin was significantly influenced by his own meditations on and experience of his sin. As Andrew Thompson states in his biography of Owen, John Owen: Prince of Puritans, “Nothing is more certain than that some of the most precious treasures in our religious literature have thus come forth from the seven-times-heated furnace of mental suffering.”[2]
For Owen, the “seven-times-heated” furnace was most likely his own struggle with weakness and sin despite his academic and theological prowess. This led to Owen penning such deep devotional works such as his Exposition of the 130th Psalm which was in many respects an autobiography of his own struggle with sin and God’s mercy.[3]
This personal struggle also led Owen to write one of the texts that is at the center of our present discussion, Indwelling Sin in Believers. While much has been written on the sinful state of man prior to conversion, Owen’s treatise is a deep exploration of the nature and effects of sin in those who belong to the community of faith. Far from being a purely academic treatise, Owen’s goal throughout this work is the devotional and spiritual health of the reader. As he states at the onset, “How much it should concern believers to have a full and clear acquaintance with the power of indwelling sin – to stir them up to watchfulness, diligence, faith, and prayer, and to call them to repentance, humility, and self-abasement.”[4] This section of our discussion, then, will be concerned with the Owen’s text on Indwelling Sin, with primary attention being given to the nature of indwelling in and the implications of this study to the life of the believer.
The Law of Sin
The textual focus of Owen work on indwelling sin is Romans 7: 21, “So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.” According to Owen, the “law” spoken of by Paul here refers back to “the sin that dwells within me” in Romans 7:20. For Owen, indwelling sin is best understood as a law, which he defines as, “an inward principle that moves and inclines constantly to any action.”[5] This means that, according to Owen, “there is a great efficacy and power in the remains of indwelling sin in believers, and that its constant working is towards evil.”[6]
This understanding of sin, rooted in, chapter 7 of Romans, illuminates and gives clarity to the nature of the Christian life. Rather than sin being something that the Christian experiences momentarily and intermittently from without, sin lives in the heart of the believer as a law within – influencing and impacting all their efforts and energies in this life.
Does this mean that Christians are still slaves to sin? Are we not free in Christ, as the next chapter of Romans states? This is certainly true, and Owen states clearly how the presence of the law of sin in the heart of the Christian relates to their freedom in Christ. He writes, “This is the way indwelling sin works in believers. It is a law in them, but not to them. Its rule is broken, its strength weakened and impaired, its root mortified, but it is still a law of great force and efficacy.”[7] The law of sin, while never exercising absolute power over the believer, is nonetheless present and efficacious in the heart of the believer. Sin, while it can never condemn a true believer, can certainly harass them and cause them harm.
This theological construct, indwelling sin as a law, is central to understanding Owen’s theology of indwelling sin, both its nature and mortification. Sin exists as a law within the Christian, resisting the work of grace that was begun at regeneration and justification. As the Christian grows in grace and in sanctification, the Christian life is one of resisting the law of sin.
But the Christian does not resist the law of sin alone, and this truth is equally essential to understanding Owen’s theology of indwelling sin. The Christian resists the law of sin by the power of another law, the law of the Spirit. Owen cites Paul in Galatians 5:17 to establish this truth, “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.”
The law of sin does not fight from a position of strength within a believer, it is antagonistic, attacking of the Gospel forts held by the law of the Spirit. The law of the Spirit, which is dealt with more fully in Romans 8 and in Owen’s The Mortification of Sin, has the final word in the life of the believer. The law of the Spirit is the vehicle for resisting the law of sin and for obeying Christ. According to Owen, it is this struggle, between the law of sin (often described as the flesh) and the law of the Spirit which makes up much of the Christian life. And, according to Owen, it is only when the law of sin is resisted that it is actually seen for what it is. He writes, “He that swims against the stream finds it to be strong, but he that rolls along with it is insensible to it.”[8] This is why it is so important to resist the law of sin, lest the believer be swept away by the stream of indwelling sin while thinking themselves safe.
Owen goes on to say that like any other law, the law of sin exercises dominion over those under its jurisdiction. Sin exercises this dominion like any other law: with rewards and punishments. Owen writes, “The pleasures of sin are the rewards of the law of sin – rewards that most men lose their souls to obtain…Whatever trouble or danger in the world attends gospel obedience, whatever hardship or violence to the sensual part of our natures is involved in a strict course of mortification, the law of sin makes use of these as if they were punishments for neglecting sins commands.”[9] This dominion of the law of sin, exercised by rewards and punishments, is compounded by the internal nature of the law of sin. The law of sin is not an external, commanding law, but an internal compelling law. As Owen writes, “A law proposed to us from the outside is much weaker than a law bred into us.”[10] Because the law of sin is bred into the believer, while it is weakened and can never ultimately control them, it is still vicious and powerful in them.
In this truth we see how Owen connects his theology of indwelling sin with his understanding of the Gospel. To paraphrase his thoughts: The law of God was once inbred and innate to the heart of man, it made right worship and obedience of God possible. Because of Adam’s first sin, the law of God was cast out of the heart of man such that they became unable to worship or obey God rightly.[11] The eschatological hope of the Gospel, promised in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36, is that God would one day make his law internal again by implanting it on our hearts by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
The law of Spirit of life is God’s law dwelling in the hearts of believers which allows them to worship and obey him rightly. This one of the major truths of the Gospel: God’s people are set free from the power of the law of sin so that they might worship, obey, and love him with all their hearts. The law of sin, which is now dethroned in the heart of the believer, still wages war against this law of the Spirit. The Christian life, then, is living in the Spirit and by the Spirit waging war against the law of sin.
The Enmity of Sin
So, what is the nature of indwelling sin? First, it is a law which operates within us and exercises dominion. Second, it is enmity against God. As Owen puts it, “It is not only an enemy, but enmity itself.”[12] We are not God’s enemies, Christ has made peace between us and God by his blood.[13] Sin is the enemy of God, and by its nature it is enmity against him. This is to say that sin exists in opposition to the will of God. It cannot be bargained with or mollified – it can only be destroyed. In this we see sin for how dangerous and powerful it really is. As Owen writes, “When a man has enmity itself to deal with, nothing is to be expected but continual fighting, to the destruction of one of the parties. If it is not overcome and destroyed, it will overcome and destroy the soul…You cannot bargain with fire to take only part of your house; all you can do is put the fire out.”[14] This is an incredibly practical teaching, given the Christian’s proclivity to placate and appease their sinful nature. We say, “I will go this far, and no further”, and sin makes a fool of us. To make allowances for sin to keep it at bay is, as Owen puts it, “to douse a fire using combustible materials.”[15]
The enmity of sin works itself out in the life of a believer as an aversion to everything good. As Owen states, “Whenever we seek to do anything spiritually good, we will find this aversion working.”[16] This is the aversion spoken of in Romans 7:21, that when we would seek to do good, we find the law of sin present in our hearts, averse to the workings of the law of the Spirit.
This understanding of the aversive nature of sin should lead us to watchfulness over our own hearts and lives. Owen gives us two areas in which we should be on guard against the aversive nature of sin: our affections and our minds.
First, we see this aversion in the affections. As Owen writes, “There will be a secret opposition to close and warm dealings with God, unless the Spirit strongly influences the soul.”[17] No doubt we have all felt this aversion in our own affections toward God. It feels as though whenever we seek to draw near to God in our hearts, there is something working against our efforts. This is the enmity of sin, which is averse to God and so is averse to our drawing near to him with our whole hearts.
Second, we see this aversion in our mind. We struggle to pray and meditate as we ought. We struggle to focus on the Word of God. When we would pursue God with our minds, we find there this secret aversion. This lives us in a sorry and perilous state. As Owen says of this danger, “Not knowing how to overcome their secret aversion, they neglect private prayer, first partially, then totally, until, having lost all conscience about it, they go on to all kinds of sin and looseness, and finally to complete apostasy.”[18] The first step in fighting against the aversion of sin in our affections and our minds is to keep watch and to acknowledge the reality of our condition.
This is the nature of indwelling sin, it is a law within us (but not to us), and it is a grievous enemy which wages war against the law of the Spirit at work within us. In the next post, I will continue on with what hope there is for the Christian as they wage war against the law and enmity of sin.
Daniel B Miller is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Assistant Pastor at First PCA in Lansing, IL. This article is used permission.

Bibliography 
Owen, John. Indwelling Sin in Believers. Reprint edition. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2010.
———. The Mortification of Sin. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012.
Thomson, Andrew. John Owen: Prince of Puritans. Christian Focus Publications, 2016.
 Footnotes  
[1] John Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, Reprint edition. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2010), iv.
[2] Andrew Thomson, John Owen: Prince of Puritans (Christian Focus Publications, 2016), 24.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, viii.
[5] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 1.
[6] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 2.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 2.
[9] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 8.
[10] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 9.
[11] Ibid., 9
[12] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 21.
[13] Romans 5:10
[14] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 22.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 27.
[17] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 27.
[18] Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, 28.

John Calvin’s works are a true gift to the church. If you have never read anything he’s written, I encourage you to try using one of his commentaries in your private studies. They often read like a devotional and can be wonderfully helpful for the Christian.

When it comes to Christianity, few theological subjects are more controversial and polarizing than Calvinism. Since the time of the Reformation, Christians, historians, and theologians all over the world have fiercely debated these doctrines. Subsequently, this has created all kinds of claims about what Calvinism teaches (some accurate and some not). Having been a Calvinist for almost 20 years, I have experienced this firsthand; I have heard it all. From robot analogies to man-worship, to even gross misunderstandings about God’s love and justice. In turn, I thought it would be useful to directly address some of the common misconceptions about the Doctrines of Grace.
This article is intended to be the first in a series on the topic of Calvinism as a whole. As stated, I will begin by addressing many of the misconceptions, then in future articles. I will build scriptural cases for several of the core doctrines represented within Calvinism.
Misconception #1: Calvinism is the Worship of John Calvin
To some (me) this might seem silly, however, I have heard the misconstruction dozens of times. I gather it is rooted in the thinking that because Calvinism is named after a specific man (John Calvin), then this implies some innate level of worship or veneration for the person. At face value, I suppose I can understand this. After all, the term “Christian” is used to describe people who worship Christ.
To put it bluntly, Calvinism does not teach the worship, adoration, or veneration of John Calvin. Rather, I would strongly argue that it teaches the exact opposite! The term “Calvinism” exists because the doctrines contained within gained popularity under the writings of Calvin. However, Calvin did not create them. His teaching large mirrors concepts taught by Saint Augustine, and the Apostle Paul before him. If anything, Calvin rediscovered scriptural truths once suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church.
Contrary to this common misconception, at the heart of Calvinism, is a principle wholly focused on the glory, holiness, and worship of God alone. Reformed Theology teaches that man is completely devoid of being worthy of any type of worship. Additionally, John Calvin never sought any worship or any type of adoration; his focus was fully on directing all praise and honor to God. If you have met a person who seems to carry some undue adoration for Calvin, this is that person’s error and has nothing to do with the person or the theology of John Calvin – he taught the opposite.
As a type of exclamation point to this misconception, I will offer a small anecdote. When Calvin was dying, he requested that his grave be unmarked. He did so because he did not want people making pilgrimages to his burial site to pay him homage. Calvin never sought the attention he has received. His concern was only to honor God through the faithful teaching of Holy Scripture.
Misconception #2: People are Robots/God’s Sovereignty Undermines Man’s Responsibility
I have heard many times this notion that if God is completely sovereign then people are like programmed robots. Implied in this accusation is that because God is sovereign man is not responsible for his actions. This is simply not true. Any casual reading of God’s Word demonstrates that man is an independent moral agent completely responsible for their actions; Calvinism would agree. However, moral responsibility does not always automatically equate to ability.
In John 6:44, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”. He is effectively saying that no one, outside of the working/drawing of God, has the ability to come to Christ. Christ also taught condemnation for those outside of Him. Both are true. Paul makes this point extensively in Romans 1-5. All men are dead in sin because all men are naturally in Adam. At the same time, God is completely sovereign in salvation. Both realities are true.
Undoubtedly, there is an element of deep mystery in this. That’s OK. God never promised that we would know everything in this life. Rather, such mysteries allow us an opportunity to die to ourselves and trust God’s Word/truth to be correct even if we can’t fully grasp it. Likely, this relationship (God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility) is some of what Paul had in mind when he exclaims in Romans 11, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (11:33).
Humans are not robots controlled by God. Instead, we are moral agents made in the image of God. We live, move, and act according to our natural ability (more on this when I come to Total Depravity).  Yet, in all of this, God remains sovereign and just; He uses our brokenness and sin to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps one of the best examples of this in scripture comes to us in the last chapter of Genesis. Joseph, when confronting his brothers on their sin against him, famously says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (50:20).
Misconception #3: Calvinists Don’t Believe in Evangelism
This claim is rooted in some faulty logic that suggests since God elects those whom He wants to save, there is no need for Christians to evangelize. What’s the point? God will do it and save anyway. This thinking is not merely wrong, it is heretical (Hyper Calvinism). Scripture is clear: Christians are called to evangelize and share the truth of God’s love with the world; it is a fundamental role of the church.
Read More
Related Posts: