our fall in Adam —Charles Simeon

"The great Charles Simeon of Cambridge wrote more than a century ago that if each human being were asked whether he would prefer to be judged in Adam or in himself, every thinking person would answer “in Adam” (Romans 5:12-19). After all, Adam faced only one temptation and that a mere trifle. He was not to eat of one tree. Besides, he was as yet unfallen. He did not have a sinful nature. He was possessed of his full faculties (which were undoubtedly superior to our own). He lived in a perfect environment and had a perfect companion. For our part, we are sinful, weak, and ignorant, and we live in a world filled with all kinds of temptations. Was it not merciful of God to judge us in Adam? Was God not gracious in that choice?"

—James Montgomery Boice (1991–). Romans: The Reign of Grace (Vol. 2, pp. 567–568). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

and here is quote from Charles Simeon:

"From the doctrine of our fall in Adam and our recovery in Christ, we cannot but OBSERVE (Romans 5:12-19),

1. How deep and unsearchable are the ways of God!

[That ever our first parent should be constituted a federal head to his posterity, so that they should stand or fall in him, is in itself a stupendous mystery. And it may appear to have been an arbitrary appointment, injurious to the whole race of mankind. But we do not hesitate to say, that if the whole race of mankind had been created at once in precisely the same state and circumstances as Adam was, they would have been as willing to stand or fall in Adam, as to have their lot depend upon themselves; because they would have felt, that, whilst he possessed every advantage that they did, he had a strong inducement to steadfastness which they could not have felt, namely, the dependence of all his posterity upon his fidelity to God: and consequently, that their happiness would be more secure in his hands than in their own. But if it could now be put to every human being to determine for himself this point; if the question were asked of every individual, Whether do you think it better that your happiness should depend on Adam, formed as he was in the full possession of all his faculties; subjected to one only temptation, and that in fact so small a temptation as scarcely to deserve the name; perfect in himself, and his only companion being perfect also, and no such thing as sin existing in the whole creation; whether would you prefer, I say, to depend on him, or on yourself, born into a world that lieth in wickedness, surrounded with temptations innumerable, and having all your faculties only in a state of infantine weakness, so as to be scarcely capable of exercising with propriety either judgment or volition: Would any one doubt a moment? Would not every person to whom such an option was given, account it an unspeakable mercy to have such a representative as Adam was, and to have his happiness depend on him, rather than on his own feeble capacity and power? There can be no doubt on this subject: for if Adam, in his more favourable circumstances, fell, much more should we in circumstances where it was scarcely possible to stand. Still however, though we acknowledge it to be a gracious and merciful appointment, we must nevertheless regard it as a stupendous mystery."

—Charles Simeon (1833). Horae Homileticae: Romans (Vol. 15, p. 135). London: Holdsworth and Ball.

why did our Lord weep? — Martyn Lloyd-Jones

"We are modern people, are we not, men and women of great understanding? So I am going to ask you the question that Philip put to the Ethiopian eunuch. I am going to test your understanding. The poor eunuch was dealing with Isaiah 53, which all expositors agree is an extremely difficult passage to expound. So we have every sympathy with him. But here is a very simple problem. I am asking you to expound a verse of two words, the shortest verse in the whole Bible: "Jesus wept" (John 11:35). Do you understand it?

"Oh, yes," you say, "it's quite simple."

All right, what does it mean?

"Well," you say, "this happened at the grave of a man called Lazarus, a friend of the Lord Jesus Christ, who had been dead for four days. And it was there, standing by that grave, that Jesus wept. Next to him were Lazarus's two sisters-Martha and Mary-and other people were also weeping and bewailing their loss. So the reason Jesus wept was because He had lost a great friend. It is very natural that when one loses a close friend one is filled with sorrow; and He was but a man, after all, and He wept as others weep."

 Yes, that is one suggested explanation.

"Not only that," says somebody else, "He wept also because of His sympathy with the sisters. They had lost their darling brother, and it was only natural that He should be sympathetic toward them."

I believe those explanations are all wrong. I can prove that to you quite simply from John 11. The first reason I would give is that when our Lord was first told about the illness of His friend Lazarus, instead of at once setting off to heal him, He delayed going-deliberately. Check the account for yourselves. He even gave the reason for not going. When the message of Lazarus's illness reached Him, He said, "This sickness is . . . for the glory of God" (v. 4). So He deliberately did not go to save the man's life. And John says, "When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was. Then after that said he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee" (vv. 6-8), and so on. So there is the first answer.

But there is a greater answer, of course, which is this: when our Lord did go to the grave, He knew perfectly well that He was going to raise this man Lazarus. This is what we read: "Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him" (vv. 14-15). He went in order to raise Lazarus from the dead. So if He knew He was going to raise him from the dead, why waste time weeping because he was dead? Why waste tears in sympathy with the sisters when He knew that in the next moment He would restore Lazarus to them? That is not why Jesus wept!

So why did our Lord weep? It is the reason why he was "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief." It was not natural human sympathy or concern about the loss of His friend. It was this terrible thing called death, this thing that comes in and robs a man of his friend and sisters of their brother, this thing that breaks people's hearts and spoils life-this horrible thing! What causes death? Is it the course of nature? No, it is sin, it is evil, it is hell, it is the devil; it is this thing that is fighting His Father. He saw it there, and it made Him weep. Not only that, He realized that before He could deal with it He had to die Himself.

So never interpret "Jesus wept" sentimentally. I say again that it was this horror of sin, this horror of evil, this terrible problem of the human race that made Him cry. It is there in the shortest verse in the Bible: "Jesus wept." And that was not the only time. I read in John 12, the very next chapter, that when He was dealing with the whole question of His death, He said, "Now is my soul troubled" (v. 27). Indeed, I should have pointed out to you that over this very question of the resurrection of Lazarus we read, "When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled" (John 11:33). Why? Because He knew He was going to raise him? No. Again it was because of this terrible, evil problem of sin, the thing that gets us down and makes us fools and the slaves of sin and causes death. It is this thing that has raised itself up against God and brought about the ruination of God's universe. He saw it, and knowing that He had to die, He said again, "Now is my soul troubled."

Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Compelling Christianity (Studies in the Book of Acts)

Christianity is the easiest and the hardest religion in the world — Francis A. Schaeffer

"We must realize that Christianity is the easiest religion in the world, because it is the only religion in which God the Father and Christ and the Holy Spirit do everything. God is the Creator; we have nothing to do with our existence, or existence of other things. We can shape other things, but we cannot change the fact of existence. We do nothing for our salvation because Christ did it all. We do not have to do anything. In every other religion we have to do something — everything from burning a joss stick to sacrificing our firstborn child to dropping a coin in the collection plate — the whole spectrum. But with Christianity we do not do anything; God has done it all: He has created us and He has sent His Son; His Son died and because the Son is infinite, therefore He bears our total guilt. We do not need to bear our guilt, nor do we even have to merit the merit of Christ. He does it all. So in one way it is the easiest religion in the world.

But now we can turn that over because it is the hardest religion in the world for the same reason. The heart of the rebellion of Satan and man was the desire to be autonomous; and accepting the Christian faith robs us not of our existence, not of our worth (it gives us our worth), but it robs us completely of being autonomous. We did not make ourselves, we are not a product of chance, we are none of these things; we stand there before a Creator plus nothing, we stand before the Savior plus nothing — it is a complete denial of being autonomous. Whether it is conscious or unconscious (and in the most brilliant people it is occasionally conscious), when they see the sufficiency of the answers on their own level, they suddenly are up against their innermost humanness — not humanness as they were created to be human, but human in the bad sense since the Fall.  That is the reason that people do not accept the sufficient answers and why they are counted by God as disobedient and guilty when they do not bow.

People are living against the revelation of themselves. They are denying the revelation of God they themselves and all reality are.  They are denying it and yet they have to live with it. When the person comes to see that there are good and sufficient reasons, then he or she is faced with a problem; either they bow before those good and sufficient reasons, and bow to the Person behind the reasons, or they refuse to bow.
It is not that the answers are not good, adequate and sufficient.  Unless one gives up one’s autonomy, one cannot accept the answers."

— Francis A. Schaeffer (1982). The complete works of Francis A. Schaeffer: a Christian worldview. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

suffering, futility, sin and hope — John Piper

Sermon text: Romans 8:18–25

"The meaning of all the misery in the world is that sin is horrific. All natural evil is a statement about the horror of moral evil. If you see a suffering in the world that is unspeakably horrible, let it make you shudder at how unspeakably horrible sin is against an infinitely holy God. The meaning of futility and the meaning of corruption and the meaning of our groaning is that sin – falling short of the glory of God – is ghastly, hideous, repulsive beyond imagination.

Unless you have some sense of the infinite holiness of God and the unspeakable outrage of sin against this God, you will inevitably see the futility and suffering of the universe as an overreaction. But in fact the point of our miseries, our futility, our corruption, our groaning is to teach us the horror of sin. And the preciousness of redemption and hope."

— John Piper, Subjected to Futility in Hope, Part 1

Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist — Francis A. Schaeffer

"From the biblical answer flow four important facts.

Firstly, the God who is there is a good God.

Secondly, there is a hope of a solution to the dilemma of man.

Thirdly, there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a whole is right). However, neither of these alternatives corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and some things are really wrong.  Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic man starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs.  But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist.  Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.

Fourthly, there is an adequate reason for fighting wrong.  The Christian never faces the dilemma posed in Camus’ book La Peste.  It simply is not true that he either has to side with the doctor against God by fighting the plague, or join with the priest on God’s side and thus be much less than human by not fighting the plague. If this were an either-or choice in life, it would indeed be terrible. But the Christian is not confined to such a choice.  Let us go to the tomb of Lazarus.  As Jesus stood there, He not only wept, but He was angry.  The exegesis of the Greek of the passages John 11:33 and 38 is clear. Jesus, standing in front of the tomb of Lazarus, was angry at death and at the abnormality of the world the destruction and distress caused by sin.  In Camus’ words, Christ hated the plague.  He claimed to be God and He could hate the plague without hating Himself as God.

A Christian can fight what is wrong in the world with compassion and know that as he hates these things, God hates them too.  God hates them to the high price of the death of Christ.

But if I live in a world of nonabsolutes and would fight social injustice on the mood of the moment, how can I establish what social justice is?  What criterion do I have to distinguish between right and wrong so that I can know what I should be fighting?  Is it not possible that I could in fact acquiesce in evil and stamp out good?  The word love cannot tell me how to discern, for within the humanistic framework love can have no defined meaning.  But once I comprehend that the Christ who came to die to end “the plague” both wept and was angry at the plague’s effects, I have a reason for fighting that does not rest merely on my momentary disposition, or the shifting consensus of men.

But the Christian also needs to be challenged at this point.  The fact that he alone has a sufficient standard by which to fight evil, does not mean that he will so fight.  The Christian is the real radical of our generation, for he stands against the monolithic, modern concept of truth as relative.  But too often, instead of being the radical, standing against the shifting sands of relativism, he subsides into merely maintaining the status quo.  If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross, and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong — including man’s inhumanity to man."

— Francis A. Schaeffer (1982). The complete works of Francis A. Schaeffer: a Christian worldview. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

To make no decision is always to make a decision against God — Martyn Lloyd-Jones

"There are only two ultimate possibilities in life. We are, all of us, either for God or else we are against Him, and nothing else matters. The color of your skin does not matter at all; you may be very clever, you may be very learned, or you may be ignorant and illiterate—it does not matter. The one question is: Are you one of God’s people, or are you one of the people who are against Him?

There is no other possibility. There is no such thing as neutrality in the realm of the spirit.

To make no decision is always to make a decision against God, for we are all by nature against Him.

“The carnal [natural] mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). We are all born God-haters; we are all against God. Some people, I know, say, “I’ve always believed in God.” But that means that they have never believed in Him. What they have believed in is some figment of their own imagination. If you confront such people with the God of the Bible, they will soon begin to show their hatred of Him. They have a God whom they can manipulate and handle, a God made after their own image and likeness, and they hate the living God who is revealed in the Bible.

So there is no such thing as neutrality. I repeat that we are either for God or we are against Him. There is no no-man’s-land in this matter. We all of us are inevitably in one of two camps. Our Lord Himself said it: “He that is not with me is against me” (Matt. 12:30)."

— Martyn Lloyd-Jones (2004). Vol. 4: Glorious Christianity (1st U.S. ed.). Studies in the Book of Acts (252–253). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

love your enemies — St. Augustine

“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” — Matthew 6:12

“…You have enemies. For who can live on this earth without them? Take heed to yourselves, love them. In no way can your enemy so hurt you by his violence, as you hurt yourself if you love him not. For he may injure your estate, or flocks, or house, or your man-servant, or your maid-servant, or your son, or your wife; or at most, if such power be given him, your body. But can he injure your soul, as you can yourself? Reach forward, dearly beloved, I beseech you, to this perfection. But have I given you this power? He only has given it to whom you say, “Your will be done as in heaven so in earth” (Matthew 6:10). Yet let it not seem impossible to you. I know, I have known by experience, that there are Christian men who do love their enemies. If it seem to you impossible, you will not do it. Believe then first that it can be done, and pray that the will of God may be done in you. For what good can your neighbor’s ill do you? If he had no ill, he would not even be your enemy. Wish him well then, that he may end his ill, and he will be your enemy no longer. For it is not the human nature in him that is at enmity with you, but his sin. Is he therefore your enemy, because he has a soul and body? In this he is as you are: you have a soul, and so has he: you have a body, and so has he. He is of the same substance as you are; you were made both out of the same earth, and quickened by the same Lord…” — St. Augustine

At the heart of every relationship is law — Timothy Keller

"At the heart of every relationship is law, and, at the same time, the purpose of law, really, in God is relationship. Let me give you an illustration to show you what I mean. It’s going to be a little funny. I hope it makes it obvious, though. Let’s just say a man and a woman are dating, and they’re getting serious. They’re thinking about each other, thinking about marriage, so one night they sit down and say, “Let’s really find out what our passions are and what’s really important to us.”

So she begins to pour her heart out, let’s say. She says, “Let me tell you three things that are very important to me. Some of them seem trivial, but, first of all, I can’t stand cigarette smoke. My nose, my eyes … I just can’t be in the same room. I’m just in a lot of trouble with it. I just can’t stand it. I can’t even be around it. You need to know that.”

He says, “Okay. Well, I’m going to smoke. I’m going to smoke three packs a day. I’m going to smoke all the time. I’m going to smoke in bed. I’m going to smoke when we eat. I’m going to smoke. I’m glad you told me about that, but I’m going to smoke.” She says, “Well let me tell you something else.” She says, “I feel very, very strongly … You make a lot of money and I make a lot of money, and together we’re going to make a lot of money, but here’s what I believe.

I feel very strongly that we should set our living expenses significantly below those which we could afford, and I would like to be deliberately and creatively and intentionally and significantly generous with our money. I would like to be very intentional in finding causes and charities and things we can be involved with and we can give our money to in significant proportions. It’s very important that we do that.” He listens, and he says, “Well, no. What I want to do is I would like to buy three or four homes and condos in luxurious places, and I will go into debt if necessary in order to afford that.”

She says, “Let me tell you one more thing. I would like to live in an interracial neighborhood. I believe in cross-cultural relationships. I think that’s very, very important.” He says, “Oh, no. For goodness’ sake. You can’t trust those people. I would have to lock all my doors. Oh no, no. We’re not going to do that at all.”

Then he says, “I’m so glad we had this little talk. This is wonderful. Now let’s get down to business. Honey, will you marry me?” She would go, “No.” Now, what is she doing? At the heart of every relationship is law. What is the law? Well, if you’re in love and you want to have a loving relationship, you can’t live any old way you want to. You have to get to know the passions and the convictions of the person you love, and the only way for you to possibly have that love relationship is to honor that. You can’t just live any old way. You can’t just trample on, in a sense, the laws of love, the passions of the heart.
In the Old Testament whenever there’s a relationship between a man and a woman in marriage, between God and a human being, between kings, between peoples, it’s always covenantal. They say, “We can have a relationship, but we won’t have a relationship unless there are some rules, unless there are some commonalities. We honor that, and if we honor it … blessing, love, embrace. If we do not … curse, which is always to be cut off. ‘Sorry, we can’t have a relationship.’ ”

There are people who love without any covenantal structure at all. We call them codependent people. That’s what we used to call them. Now we call them “people without boundaries.” I don’t know what you call them now. What it means is I enter into a relationship, and I don’t care whether you trample on everything. I don’t care if you smoke. I don’t care if you trample on my values. I don’t care what you do to me. I still love you. I’ll still be in a relationship. I’ll just let you walk all over me.

See, no covenantal structure, nothing you hold the other person to, no real blessing, by the way. There’s no real intimacy in that kind of relationship. And of course, no curse. You never cut them off. Now, here’s the difference. When you enter into a relationship with a man or a woman to get married and there has to be a cutting off because the other person will not honor, like in that funny illustration, that’s painful.

Here’s the problem. God is different than any other person. This tells us your relationship with God is not optional. I don’t have to marry you, I don’t have to be your friend, but I do have to have a relationship with God. I was built for that. That’s the reason it says in verse 12, “The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things [the law] will live by them.’ ” What that means is unless you’re willing to hear the law of God and commit to that, unless you’re willing to obey that, you’re cursed. It’s like any other relationship.

God says, “I am holy.” God says, “Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not be selfish.” The Golden Rule. He tells you these things, and if you don’t do that, there has to be a curse. God is not codependent, like so many of us are. Here’s the problem. Without God we die. We die forever. We cannot live unless we fulfill the covenant. We cannot live if we’re cut off from him. We cannot live. We have to have him. But Paul says we don’t. We’re under a curse. That’s why something has to be done. That’s why we need the cross, but what actually happened?"

— Timothy Keller, Self-Substitution of God