In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

-          Genesis 1:1

April 15 of this month marked the 109th anniversary of the sinking of the RMS Titanic.  In commemoration of the event, one of the YouTube channels I followed put out a multi-part series covering the events of the April 14 and 15 1912, the night of the sinking. 

One of the videos featured and interesting fact that I had heard about previously but had not appreciated its importance.  As part of the evacuation, Charles Lightoller, the Titanic’s second officer and senior surviving officer, opened the gangway door on D-Deck to help with the lowering of one of the lifeboats. As it turned out, the door was never used during the ship’s evacuation, and in the chaos, was forgotten and left open. This, as it turned out, was a significant oversight.

The D-Deck gangway door was about halfway up on the port (left) side of the ship and normally well above the waterline.  According to one article, it was the ‘front door’ for first class passengers boarding the ship.  But as Titanic settled, eventually the water made its way up to the door and started pouring in.  The way it was explained in the video, the area the gangway afforded to the advancing water was actually larger than the sum of area of the original punctures made by the iceberg on the starboard (right) side at the time of the collision.  With this additional route for water to enter the ship, the sinking of the Titanic rapidly accelerated.    

So just what does this bit of Titanic trivia have to do with today’s subject at hand, marriage?  I admit, the connection may not be immediately obvious, but hear me out.

The stated purpose of this series, going back to Part 1, is, “to apply the revealed history found in Genesis to the current moral, political, scientific and economic problems of our day, refuting the contemporary confusion and setting forth the mind of God on these issues.” 

This brings us to the subject of marriage. 

Back in the day, and we don’t have to go very far back for this, most Americans accepted the Biblical definition of marriage, whether they themselves were Christians. 

But all that has changed in recent years.  If recent polling is to be believed, a full seventy percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage.  As one measure of how things have changed, I recall that the State of Ohio amended its constitution in 2004 to specifically define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  There was widespread public support for the amendment and the measure was adopted with little public outcry.  This was a mere seventeen years ago. 

The Ohio amendment and all other state-level prohibitions of same-sex marriage were overturned in 2015 by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, which originated right here in river city, my hometown of Cincinnati. 

To return to my earlier point about how the mistake of leaving the D-Deck gangway door open sped up the sinking of the Titanic, in like fashion, I believe, the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision sped up the sinking of the America’s ship of state, which already was well under way in 2015.  It’s not as if leaving the gangway door open is what sealed Titanic’s fate.  The ship was going to sink anyway based on the damage already done by the iceberg.  But leaving the door open sped things up.  The same with America.  American’s have been losing their liberties since the Progressive Era – I always thought it should be named the Regressive Era – so the process has been going on for well over a century at this point.  The loss of liberty was well underway even in 1912 when the Titanic sunk.  But the rate of our loss of liberty, almost imperceptible at first, has sped up greatly in recent years.  In my opinion, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision can be likened to the leaving open of the D-Deck gangway door.  We were well on our way to sinking before that, but same-sex marriage sped things up. 

I say this because it allowed evil to access new parts of our society that had remained untouched until that time.  Over the years, there was greater and greater acceptance of same-sex marriage, but the legal recognition of it has seemed to speed up, not only the rate of acceptance of same-sex marriage, but also other parts of the homosexual agenda such as the recognition of transgenders as the new Brahmins of  the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion movement. 

But despite what the wokesters would have you believe, there is a valid definition of marriage that is binding on all men and women for the very reason that it is God’s definition of marriage.  And God’s definition does not agree with the Supreme Court’s. 

What is Marriage?         

Genesis 2:24 gives us a definition of marriage with the words, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Based on this and other verses, the Westminster Confession of Faith gives this definition of marriage, “Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.” 

As we can see, there’s no confusion at all as to the Bible’s definition of marriage, nor is it a thing hard to understand.  You don’t have to be at the level of a Martin Luther, John Calvin or Gordon Clark to get it.  And the Bible’s definition of marriage was so widely accepted even as recently as twenty years ago that, as noted above, Ohio was able to amend its Constitution to define marriage using the same words as the Westminster Confession.

Ohio’s decision and the decision of other states – Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee in this part of the country - to define marriage in a way that is consistent with the Scriptures is the very essence of good government.  But all this was preempted by the evil 2015 decision of the Supreme Court. 

Is Government Free to Define Marriage as It Sees Fit?

Now some may say that to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman is all well and good, but in the end, it’s only your opinion and you don’t have a right to impose your opinions on others.  Put a bit differently, some people like to argue that “you can’t legislate morality!” 

To which I would answer, the Christian definition of marriage is not an opinion, it is the Law of God.  And Christians have, not only the right to impose the Law of God upon the nation, but the duty to do so.  As to the objection that “you can’t legislate morality,” this is nonsense.  All criminal justice codes are, by definition, attempts to legislate, at least in the outward sense, morality.

Government is not free to define marriage as it sees fit for the simple reason that civil government is a creature of God.  The Apostle Paul asked the rhetorical question, “Does the thing formed say to him who formed it, why have your made me like this?” To which the obvious answer is, no, it does not.  And if civil government is a creature of God, and it is, then magistrates are not free to define terms as they see fit.  The Apostle Paul describes the civil magistrate as “God’s minister.” And if he’s God’s minister, his job is to carry out God’s will, which as a civil magistrate means punishing those who practice evil and rewarding the good.  And it is God who defines what is good and what is evil. 

When civil magistrates, and this includes Supreme Court justices, pass laws or give rulings that are contrary to the Law of God, they come under God’s judgment for calling good evil and evil good.

One way in which civil magistrates punish evil and reward the good is by enforcing just contracts.  Jesus gave an example of this in his Sermon on the Mount, where he told his hearers to agree quickly with those who are taking them to court, lest they be turned over to the magistrate for punishment. 

But what if the terms of a contract are unjust?  For example, we’ve probably all heard of cases where someone hired a “hit man” to murder someone for them.  In this case, the two parties agree to the terms of the contract, what is to be done the amount to be paid, but would the government be right to enforce such a contract if the hit man was not paid the agreed upon amount.  Of course not, for the simple reason that the terms of the contract themselves are immoral. 

For this same reason, the civil magistrate cannot recognize same-sex marriage or enforce the terms of such unions for at least two reasons.  First, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage, and civil magistrates are not free to redefine marriage to include such unions.  Second, because the terms of the same-sex marriage contract themselves are immoral. Not only do the Scriptures define what marriage is, they also explicitly condemn Sodomy.  It was expressly outlawed in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament we read that persons who practice it, as Paul makes clear to the Corinthians, “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” 

Calling Evil Good and Good Evil          

In Chapter 5 of Isaiah, the prophet pronounces woe on those who call “evil good and good evil.”  Even a cursory glance at the news should tell you that this is a common occurrence in our own day.  As the men of Judah in Isaiah’s day, Americans in the 21st century have “gone away backward.”  That is to say, not only have we as a nation gone wrong, we’ve gone 180 degrees wrong to the point where we think darkness is light and light is darkness and seek to punish anyone who says otherwise.    

We have, in short, lost our ability to discern good from evil. 

What accounts for this lack of discernment, the ability to make distinctions?  In his Trinity Review “The Church Irrational,” John Robbins tells us the fundamental answer is the will of God.  Men lack discernment because God causes them to lack it.  There’s an old saying Robbins quotes in “The Church Irrational” which reads, “Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.”  Translated into Christian terms, one can find this idea expressed several times in Scripture.  One such example is in Romans Chapter 1, where the Apostle, after calling the readers’ attention to the reasons for God’s revealing his wrath against all ungodliness, writes, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (or “fitting” as the NKJV reads).”

In looking at the moral, economic and political landscape in which we live in America in the early 21st century, it is clear that God has given many of my fellow countrymen over to a reprobate or debased mind for their refusal to honor him to “retain God in their knowledge.”  The widespread acceptance of homosexuality, the successful demands to change the law to allow for same-sex marriage, and explosion of interest in transgenderism in our time are clear demonstration of the curse of God Paul wrote about in Romans.

As Christians we mut pray, in the first place, that God would grant us discernment that we also are not deceived.  “Don’t be deceived,” was a consistent injunction of both Jesus and Paul.  As modern day Americans, we are subject to perhaps the most sophisticated and powerful propaganda machine the world has ever seen in the form of the media, entertainment and educational complexes, all which have repeatedly shown themselves hostile to Christ and all that is called God.  We must pray for discernment.

We must also pray for courage.  Near the end of 1 Corinthians, Paul tells his readers, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.”  I always liked the King James translation of this verse, because it really does capture the sense of the Greek with the turn of phrase “quit you like men.”  The Greek verb translated by these words literally means “act like a man.”  It reminds me of Hugh Latimer’s heroic last words.  While the executioners were lighting the fires to burn him, he said to his fellow martyr Nicholas Ridley, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man.  We shall this day light such a candle by God’s grace in England that as I trust shall never be put out.”   Who knows, maybe Latimer had Paul’s words in mind when he said this. 

Latimer’s courage, as great an example as it is of steadfast Christian faith, was not of him.  It was a gift of God.  And it is to the Lord we must look for the courage to fight the good fight of faith in these difficult days as well.    

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

-          Genesis 1:1

“The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”  Thus reads Chapter 1, Section 4 of The Westminster Confession of Faith. 

Last week it was mentioned that it would be both foolish and impious of me to attempt to prove that the 66 books of the Bible are the infallible and inerrant Word of God.  The foolishness of this project, as you may recall, was found in the axiomatic position the Bible plays in the Christian system of thought. 

An axiom is a first principle, an unproven and unprovable first principle.  The reason an axiom is unproven and unprovable lies in the very definition of the term “axiom” itself.  If one were to prove a first principle, then it would no longer be a first principle.  Whatever argument used to prove the axiom would take the original axiom’s place as the new first principle.  

Some Christians may be concerned by the assertion that we do not prove the axiom of Christianity – The Bible Alone is the Word of God – supposing that somehow this puts Christianity on a shaky footing.  But this concern can be assuaged by remembering that all systems of thought – and this includes all secular systems of thought of the sort the world delights to throw at Christians – have their axioms.  In this case, the Christian with his axiom is no worse off than the secular scientist or philosopher with his axioms.  The Christian begins his thinking in one place, the 66 books of the Bible.  On the other hand, the scientist begins his thinking in another place, perhaps on the axiom of the general reliability of the senses.

In addition to it being foolish to attempt to prove that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God, it was also mentioned that it would be impious to do so.  “Impious” is not a term we use often, so perhaps a definition is in order.  Merriam Webster defies it as irreverent or profane.  The notion that the fallible words of sinful man are better testimony of the truth than God’s Word itself is the very definition of impiety.  

The Westminster Confession citation above refers to several passages from Scripture to supports its claims.   

-          1 Peter 1:19, 21 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

-          2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

-          1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.

It was Augustine who famously wrote, “For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that you may understand” (Tractate 29 on John 7:14-18).  In this statement, Augustine shows himself a Scripturalist.  He attempts not to prove the Bible is the Word of God, but accepts it as true – that is, he accepts the Bible as his axiom - and his understanding of God and his works follows from this.

With all this said, let us turn to the subject at hand, which is Genesis as history.

Genesis as History  

Accepting that Genesis is history – all of Genesis is, of course, history; but in our study the special emphasis is on Genesis chapters 1-11 – is fundamental to a correct understanding of the whole of Scripture.    

The stance of this author on the doctrine of creation is that Genesis 1 teaches, and teaches clearly, that the Lord created all things of nothing by speaking them into existence in the space of six literal, 24-hour days, and that the creation was all very good.

Among Christians, this was doctrine was not seriously challenged, “until,” as Gary Crampton noted in his Trinity Review “The Days of Creation,” “the late 18th and early 19th centuries with the onslaught of evolutionary thinking.” 

In reading the works of the Reformers of the 16th century and the Puritans, one will find, as far as this author is aware, no hint of a question about the historicity of the events recorded in Genesis 1-11.

In his Annals of the World published in 1650, James Ussher began by writing, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. {Ge 1:1} The beginning of time, according to our chronology, happened at the start of the evening preceding the 23rd day of October (on the Julian calendar), 4004 BC or 710 JP [Julian Period]…On the first day {Ge 1:1-5} of the world (Sunday, October 23), God created the highest heaven and the angels.” 

It may be that Ussher is right about the day on which the world was created.  But whether he is right about this or not, this is not the main reason I quote this passage from his book.  The reason I cite it is to illustrate the point that Ussher, as was typical of those in his day, accepted without question that Genesis teaches not only that God created the world in six, literal 24-hour days, but also the closely connected point that the earth itself is about 6,000 years old.  Note that Ussher gives 4004 BC as the year of creation. 

Above it was mentioned that the doctrine of creation out of nothing, in the space of six, literal 24-hour days, and all very good, was, as far as this author is aware, the universal, or near universal testimony of the church until the about 200 years ago.  With that said, it’s worth noting that there were some in the days of John Calvin who did not accept this teaching.  This may come as a surprise to some, but the challenge to the doctrine of creation in six 24-hour days made the opposite error of today’s scientists or theistic evolutionists.  In the 21st century, we’re used to hearing theologians attempt to square the Bible with modern science by coming up with various schemes to reinterpret the creation account in Genesis to accommodate long periods of time.   For example, the day-age theory posits that the days of Genesis 1 are long periods of time, perhaps millions or billions of years. 

But those who went astray in John Calvin’s time did not do so with the day-age theory.  No.  They made the opposite error.  Instead of making the days of Genesis into millions/billions of years, they erred by claiming that God created the whole world in an instant! Writes Calvin,

Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment.  For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction (Commentaries, Genesis).

In reading Calvin’s remarks, I am reminded of a colorful quote, often attributed to Martin Luther, which reads, “History is like a drunk man on a horse.  No sooner does he fall off on the left side, does he mount again and fall off on the right.”  Modern scholars fall on the horse on one side by positing millions or billions of years in the place of the days of Genesis, while 500 years ago scholars fell off the horse on the other by claiming that God created the world in a moment. 

Both groups are wrong.  For both have failed in their duty of taking God at his word. 

The Westminster divines, on the other hand, got it right.  In their words, “The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.” 

On 12/15/2019, the sermon preached by Pastor Joe Rosales was based on Romans 10:14-21.

We read the account of Christ’s birth:

Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (‭‭Luke‬ ‭2:4-11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The church must remember her first love—Christ: “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Revelation‬ ‭2:4-5‬ ‭NKJV).

Pastors are called to preach the Word and not be concerned with trends to draw people in. We draw people in with the Truth. On the other extreme, Hyper-Calvinists deny the necessity of preaching the Gospel for men to get saved. But God ordains both the ends and the means, and uses means to achieve His ends:

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans‬ ‭10:14-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

Don’t expect for a voice from Heaven to come down and automatically convert the elect. In fact, the pastor noted that the preaching of God’s Word is the voice from Heaven! The reformers believed that faithful biblical preaching carries the same weight and authority as the Words of God Himself. Here’s Calvin:

The word goeth out of the mouth of God in such a manner that it likewise “goeth out of the mouth” of men; for God does not speak openly from heaven, but employs men as his instruments ….

When a man climbs up into the pulpit, is it so that he may be seen from afar and that he may have a higher place than the rest? No, no! But so that God may speak to us by the mouth of man and be so gracious to us to show himself here among us and will have a mortal man to be his messenger. (Qtd. in Glen Clary, “John Calvin: Servant of the Word of God,” https://reformedforum.org/john-calvin-servant-of-the-word-of-god/)

It’s also common for churches to stray whenever the founders pass away. If a strong biblical plurality of elders is not installed in the church, it’s only a matter of time till they fall away or close down, as some of the very first church plants in the Book of Revelation attest:

When Christ said, “I will build my church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it,” he was not speaking of any institutional church. The Gates of Hell have prevailed against thousands of institutional churches in the past two millennia. They have become apostate and in most cases have disappeared. The churches to which Paul wrote his letters—Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, Galatia, Philippi, Colosse—no longer exist as Christian churches. The Gates of Hell prevailed against the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Lutheran Church. Christ’s church is not be be confused with any visible organization. (John Robbins, “The Church Irrational,” http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=290)

The Apostle Paul lost some of his battles. When Paul preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the synagogues, he was persecuted by the original antichrist, Judaism. We do not know, but tradition says that Paul died a violent death. (Jesus himself was almost murdered on the Sabbath by devout synagogue-going Jews who did not like his sermon; see Luke 4.) Most of the Jews of the first century rejected Christ; only the remnant was saved. The wrath of God, exercised through an unbelieving and unwitting General Titus, ended the apostate Temple cult – the vaunted Second Temple Judaism of the New Perspective on Paul. It was only through the writing of new Scriptures, the divinely inspired New Testament, and the establishment of new institutions – churches to propagate the doctrines of the Scriptures, both Old and New – that the Gospel survived the first century. As a Christian, Paul did not use force (as Saul he had). He lost battles, but he won the war. (Robbins, “Why Heretics Win Battles,” http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=207)

Dave Harvey. When Sinners Say “I Do”: Discovering the Power of the Gospel for Marriage. Wapwallopen, PA: Shepherd Press, 2007.

The Good

This book has thoughtful research and excellent quotes from writers such as Charles Spurgeon; Thomas Watson; Matthew Henry; and John Owen, Newton, Calvin, Edwards, and Wesley. It's also refreshing how this book explains that a biblical mystery is not something that we can never understand, as Romanists and pietists claim; rather, it is something that God obscured in the Old Testament but reveals or explains in the New. Harvey cites George Knight:

Unbeknownst to the people of Moses' day (it was a "mystery"), marriage was designed by God from the beginning to be a picture or parable of the relationship between Christ and the church. Back when God was planning what marriage would be like, He planned it for this great purpose: it would give a beautiful earthly picture of the relationship that would someday come about between Christ and His church. This was not known to people for many generations, and that is why Paul can call it a "mystery." But now in the New Testament age Paul reveals this mystery, and it is amazing. (qtd. in 27. Italics always in original unless noted otherwise)

Harvey furthermore does a good job of stressing how important it is for believers to solidify a biblical worldview, for no Christian can avoid theology, nor should he want to. "What we believe about God determines the quality of our marriage.... Your theology governs your entire life" (20, 21). Theory always precedes practice. It's great that Harvey emphasizes sound doctrine and the power of the gospel for maintaining a healthy Christian walk and marriage. His treatment of spousal death and difficult situations such as spousal abuse was instructive as well.

The Bad

Unfortunately, the book is too imbalanced to recommend. A major problem is that Harvey has an inadequate view of regeneration. There are two extremes. The first is instant or entire sanctification, or sinless perfection, the belief that Christians are instantly perfected at conversion—or can eventually achieve a state of perfection in this life—and thus no longer sin, so they don't need to grow in holiness and grace every day of their lives. The problem here is an unbiblical view of sin and of the flesh, for believers do still sin, and when sin is not repented of it gets worse and eventually leads to death; and even shows that the person may not be regenerated to begin with.

The second extreme is the belief that Christians are forgiven but don't really change after their conversion. They remain wicked sinners in constant rebellion against God. This view undermines the power of God in our lives, and implies that believers never really mature or grow in holiness, even as they get older and learn more about God. It ignores the Bible's clear teaching about believers becoming a “new creation” with a renewed nature, continuously growing in sanctification and holiness till the day they die.

Harvey leans far towards the second extreme:

We are all the worst of sinners, so anything we do that isn't sin is simply the grace of God at work.... As the worst of sinners...I should be primarily suspicious and regularly suspicious of myself!... [M]y heart has a permanent tendency to oppose God and his ways.... You see, your wicked heart and mine are amazingly similar. They both crave vindication. They want to insist that something else made us sin...something outside of us...beyond our control. Aha—our circumstances!" (43, 64, 70)

The apostle Paul, however, affirms the opposite of what Harvey claims in Romans 7. Believers sin—not because of their circumstances—but because the law of sin, something outside of the believer, works through their flesh: "So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.... Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me" (Rom. 7:17-18, 20). Believers still sin—not because their hearts are wicked—but because their unredeemed bodies can be triggered by sensual, sinful temptations. We must therefore “die daily” (1 Cor. 15:31) because we “have crucified the flesh” (Gal. 5:24). Part of the problem is that Harvey doesn't adequately define what a sinner is. This is all I could find:

Now recall that the Bible has a specific way of describing human beings—as sinners.... We are all in this category together. It's hardly an exclusive club. To accept the designation of "sinner" is to acknowledge who I am in relation to God. It also says who I am not: I am not a neutral actor. By my very nature (which is sinful), I am an offense to God's very nature (which is perfectly holy). So the term "sinner," when used in Scripture, clearly implies there is one (at least one) who is sinned against. (41)

But believers are no longer sinners in relation to God; they are given a new "designation"—saints. A sinner—which is a legal term—is designated a criminal by God for violating His Law “in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Rom. 5:12-21) and for personal sins committed. A saint is a former sinner who has been forgiven by Christ's blood atonement, has a renewed nature, and is being perfected through the Holy Spirit. A saint also becomes legally adopted into the family of God (Gal. 4, Heb. 12), hence God is no longer his Judge, but his Father. When a believer sins it is no longer a legal issue, but a family/domestic issue requiring fatherly correction and discipline instead of condemnation and judgment, for Christ has propitiated the wrath of God that was formerly on the believer. Formerly we were unrighteous wrongdoers, "such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

The Sinfully Ugly

It is disappointing, then, that Harvey's most emphatic point throughout the entire book, which is evident in the title itself, is that "by the gospel we understand that, although saved, we remain sinners" (25). I think he stresses this far too much and makes the Bible say what it doesn't, resulting in several doctrinal imbalances. Later Harvey cites 1 Timothy 1:15: "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."

Harvey claims Paul "is saying, in effect, 'Look, I know my sin. And what I've seen in my own heart is darker and more awful; it's more proud, selfish, and self-exalting; and it's consistently and regularly in rebellion against God than anything I have glimpsed in the heart of anyone else' " (36). But this sounds like a description of an unregenerate, God-hating sinner! For "whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4). How then can a born-again Christian's "heart" be "consistently and regularly in rebellion against God"? Especially when God Himself promises to sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Eze. 36:25-27)

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col. 2:11-12)

For "even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2 Cor. 5:16-17; cf. Gal. 6:15). And how can God "give you the desires of your heart" (Ps. 37:4) if your heart is perpetually evil, as Harvey claims?

Previously in verses 12-14, Paul writes, "I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." Both before and after verse 15 Paul asserts that he received mercy, and in verse 13 he says that he formerly was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent.

1 Timothy 1:15 gave me a hard time. I couldn't understand why Paul would say he is the chief of sinners in the present tense, even though twice in that passage he said he received mercy, past tense. Especially since God also promises that He "will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more" (Jer. 31:34, Heb. 10:17). If God forgives and forgets our sins, why then did Paul call himself the chief of sinners? Then I remembered that "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.... Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.... For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Jas. 4:6, 1 Pet. 5:5, Matt. 5:5, Luke 14:11). Paul therefore was humbling himself. He's saying that without God's grace and Holy Spirit he is the very worst of sinners, "but by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me" (1 Cor. 15:10).

Countless verses negate the notion of I'm-just-a-sinner-saved-by-grace: "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" (Rom. 5:8-9). But wait, there's "more than that": "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation... For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:10-11, 19; bold emphasis always mine). Several other verses clearly distinguish sinners from saints, or the righteous (Psa. 1:5; Prov. 11:31, 13:21-22; Ecc. 9:2, Matt. 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32, 15:7; John 9:31; Rom. 3:7; 1 Pet. 4:18).

Simul justus et peccator, meaning “simultaneously righteous and a sinner,” is a strongly embedded concept in the Reformed tradition in general (see the confessions of eminent believers that A.W. Pink cites in “The Christian in Romans 7,” http://www.chapellibrary.org/book/cirs/christian-in-romans-7,-the) and Lutheranism in particular, which is why I was pleasantly surprised when I saw what John Calvin has to say on the matter:

[F]or as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner.... He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness.... [A] man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous.... We must always return to the axioms that the wrath of God lies upon all men so long as they continue sinners....

When the Lord, therefore, admits him to union, he is said to justify him, because he can neither receive him into favor, nor unite him to himself, without changing his condition from that of a sinner into that of a righteous man. We add that this is done by remission of sins. For if those whom the Lord has reconciled to himself are estimated by works, they will still prove to be in reality sinners, while they ought to be pure and free from sin. It is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins.... But if there is a perpetual and irreconcilable repugnance between righteousness and iniquity, so long as we remain sinners we cannot be completely received. Therefore, in order that all ground of offence may be removed, and he may completely reconcile us to himself, he, by means of the expiation set forth in the death of Christ, abolishes all the evil that is in us, so that we, formerly impure and unclean, now appear in his sight just and holy.... [A]fter the Lord has withdrawn the sinner from the abyss of perdition, and set him apart for himself by means of adoption, having begotten him again and formed him to newness of life, he embraces him as a new creature, and bestows the gifts of his Spirit." (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xi.2, 21; IV.xvii.3, 5)

Calvin rightly recognizes that the Bible uses the term sinner to describe the legal standing of a person in God's court, namely, an unpardoned criminal. Later on, however, he writes:

As God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be the enemy and judge of man so long as he is a sinner. Wherefore, the commencement of love is the bestowing of righteousness, as described by Paul: “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5:21). He intimates, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain free justification, and become pleasing to God, though we are by nature the children of wrath, and by sin estranged from him.... But because believers, while encompassed with mortal flesh, are still sinners, and their good works only begun savor of the corruption of the flesh, God cannot be propitious either to their persons or their works, unless he embraces them more in Christ than in themselves. (Institutes IV.xvii.2, 5)

The Bible clearly teaches that we "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph. 2:3). But Calvin seems to mean that believers are still sinners—i.e., believers still sin, not that they are criminals—because we are still "encompassed with mortal flesh," the part of us that has yet to be redeemed. The difference is that a believer is no longer a sinner by nature, not in the same sense that an unforgiven sinner is, because the believer's very nature has been regenerated. So he no longer sins by his inner man, but by the "law of sin that dwells in [his] members" (Rom. 7:23); in other words, by the law of sin working through what's left of his old nature, the “old man”—primarily his physical body. This is why "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal. 5:24) by mastering sin (Gen. 4:7), abstaining "from every form of evil" (1 Thess. 5:22), and fasting when necessary (Matt. 6:16 ff.), "for God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness" (1 Thess. 4:7).

The flesh still wars against the Spirit but no longer has dominion over us if we walk by and are led by the Holy Spirit. This is what Paul refers to in Galatians 5 and Romans 7, though Romans 7 primarily refers to Paul’s pre-conversion experience rather than his Christian walk, yet the passage can apply to believers because they still have unredeemed bodies: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25).

Martin Luther—who supposedly said believers are like snow-covered dung (if anyone finds out where he said that, please let me know)—in his Bondage of the Will wrote:

For if there be nothing by which we are justified but faith only, it is evident that those who are not of faith, are not justified. And if they be not justified, they are sinners. And if they be sinners, they are evil trees and can do nothing but sin and bring forth evil fruit—Wherefore, "Free-will" is nothing but the servant of sin, of death, and of Satan, doing nothing, and being able to do or attempt nothing, but evil! (Sect. 154)

In other words, what we do does not determine who we are; what we do is a reflection of who we already are. But the more an unbeliever sins, the worse he becomes because of the corrosive nature of sin and because "every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit...for what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person" (Matt 7.17, 15.18; cf. 1 Tim. 4). I like how John Robbins puts it in his review of Chuck Colson's Loving God:

You [Colson] write that faith is “not just knowledge, but knowledge acted upon. It is not just belief, but belief lived out—practiced.” This blurring of the distinction between faith and practice is fatal to Christianity, for it makes the conclusion inescapable that we are justified by faith and works. Augustine defined faith as knowledge with assent. So should you. Practice is the result of faith, not part of faith. Faith is the cause; practice is the result. Bonhoeffer’s statement is precise and true: Only he who believes is obedient; only he who is obedient believes. If a person does not believe, he cannot be obedient, no matter how “good” his behavior is; and if a person believes, he will be obedient, as James says. To put it in more technical language, sanctification is a necessary consequence of justification; and justification is a necessary precedent for sanctification. But justification and sanctification are not the same. To confuse them is to be ignorant of the Gospel. (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=187)

I think Harvey should've defined what a sinner is more carefully and not apply it so indiscriminately to born-again believers. I understand that he's trying to make Christians realize that they still sin, and that sin can ruin marriages and lives. But claiming that we are wicked sinners who constantly rebel against God seriously undermines what God has already done for us through Christ's finished work on the cross and continues to do for us through his Spirit. Theology is all about making proper distinctions, and Harvey should strive to be as careful as, for example, John Knox was in the Scots Confession:

Chapter 15: The Perfection of the Law and The Imperfection of Man

We confess and acknowledge that the law of God is most just, equal, holy, and perfect, commanding those things which, when perfectly done, can give life and bring man to eternal felicity; but our nature is so corrupt, weak, and imperfect, that we are never able perfectly to fulfill the works of the law. Even after we are reborn, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth of God is not in us. It is therefore essential for us to lay hold on Christ Jesus, in his righteousness and his atonement, since he is the end and consummation of the Law and since it is by him that we are set at liberty so that the curse of God may not fall upon us, even though we do not fulfill the Law in all points. For as God the Father beholds us in the body of his Son Christ Jesus, he accepts our imperfect obedience as if it were perfect, and covers our works, which are defiled with many stains, with the righteousness of his Son. We do not mean that we are so set at liberty that we owe no obedience to the Law—for we have already acknowledged its place—but we affirm that no man on earth, with the sole exception of Christ Jesus, has given, gives, or shall give in action that obedience to the Law which the Law requires. When we have done all things we must fall down and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servants. Therefore, whoever boasts of the merits of his own works or puts his trust in works of supererogation, boasts of what does not exist, and puts his trust in damnable idolatry. (Qtd. in https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/simuliustus.html)

Oddly enough, Harvey also claims that Jesus never got "irritated or bitter or hostile" (71), even though he detested religious hypocrites like the Scribes and Pharisees, cursed and condemned them almost every time he encountered them (John 8, Matt. 23); and even fashioned a whip to beat money-changers out of the temple (John 2) on more than one occasion, according to some commentators (see Chapter 8 of John MacArthur’s The Jesus You Can’t Ignore). Not to mention that He's coming back "in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess. 1:8).

His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Rev. 19:12ff.)

Other than that the book was ok. I recommend Tommy Nelson's teachings on marriage and the Song of Solomon (http://dbcmedia.org/), Gary Smalley's If Only He Knew, G. Craige Lewis’ teachings on creation roles and fasting (http://www.exministries.com/sermons/atcp-archive/), and Paul Washer's sermon on Romans 6, “Being What You Are: Having Too Low a View of Regeneration” (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=428082310290).