Welcome to the electronic edition of the Banner of Truth

magazine.

We trust that you find this format helpful. Should you

experience any difficulties, please feel free to contact us.

We are currently working on a new edition of the Marcus

Loane book ‘They were Pilgrims’. One of the people
featured in the book is Ion Keith-Falconer, who was a
pioneer missionary to Aden. At the end of the magazine
we have included a short section from the book which is a
fascinating account of his prowess as a cyclist! We hope
that it whets your appetite to learn more of this man and
his work for Christ in Aden.

THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST

3 Murrayfield Road PO Box 621, Carlisle

Edinburgh EH12 6EL Pennsylvania 17013
UK USA

www.banneroftruth.co.uk
The Banner of Truth
Contributors
PETER BARNES Minister of Revesby Presbyterian Church,
Sydney, Australia

MARK G. JOHNSTON Minister of Grove Chapel, Camberwell, London

JOHN J. MURRAY Retired Minister of the Free Church of Scotland
(Continuing)

Book Reviewer:
Iain H. Murray

Cover Picture:
Dorset Pond, Vermont. Dorset was a summer haunt of Elizabeth Prentiss, the
subject of a new biography by Sharon James to be published in May: ELIZABETH
PRENTISS: ‘MORE LOVE TO THEE’ (ISBN: 0 85151 926 1, 272 pp., clothbound). [Photo
courtesy of Sue Ritchie, Dorset, VT.]

Editor Walter J. Chantry, 25 Cross View Trail, Carroll Valley,

PA 17320, U.S.A.; e-mail: waltjoie@aol.com
Assistant Editors John R. de Witt; Sinclair B. Ferguson; A. N. Martin; Iain H.
Murray; John J. Murray; Maurice J. Roberts; Geoffrey
Thomas
Review Editor Jonathan Watson (Books for review should be sent direct to
the Review Editor at the Edinburgh office)
Production Editor Douglas Taylor
General Manager John Rawlinson
General Editor Jonathan Watson
Trustees Ian S. Barter, Sinclair B. Ferguson, Ian Hamilton,
Mark G. Johnston, Iain H. Murray, Frederick Raynsford,
Thomas E. Richwine and John R. de Witt.
e-mail U.K.: info@banneroftruth.co.uk;
U.S.A.: info@banneroftruth.org
World Wide Web www.banneroftruth.co.uk
UK Office telephone: 0131 (+44 131) 337 7310; fax: 0131 (+44 131) 346 7484
US Office telephone: (717) 249 5747; fax: (717) 249 0604

The Banner of Truth magazine is published monthly, 11 issues per year with a
double issue normally appearing in August/September, by the Banner of Truth
Trust, and in electronic form as a portable document format (pdf) file.
Annual Subscription: £15.00, U.K.; £20.00, Overseas;
$27.50, U.S.A.; $35.00, Australia
Two Year Subscription: £28.00, U.K.; £35.00, Overseas;
$48.50, U.S.A.; $64.00, Australia
Canadian subscriptions are payable in U.S. funds to the United States office.
To subscribe please contact the Banner offices or visit the website:
www.bannerof truth.co.uk, and follow the link to magazine information.
Through the Power of the Spirit

SANCTIFICATION: 3
THROUGH THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT1
John J. Murray

‘T he loss of the Spirit and the restoration of the Spirit, the

former the result of the fall and the latter the result of the
atonement, are the two most momentous facts in the history of man.’
These words of George Smeaton give us the focus for an under-
standing of our absolute dependence on the Holy Spirit. John Owen
declared: ‘There is no good that we receive from God but it is
brought to us and wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Nor is there in
us any good toward God, any faith, love, obedience to his will, but
what we are enabled to do by the Holy Spirit’.
God made all things for His own glory. The climax of that
creation was when the triune intelligence declared: ‘Let Us make man
in our image; according to our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26). God delighted
in the reflection of himself in man. Adam delighted in God. There
was a fellowship of love. The Spirit of God occupied the heart. It was
his temple. The law of God was written on man’s heart. He was
created holy. Adam had the power and ability to live such a life as
would truly show forth God’s righteousness and holy character.

Man without the Spirit

Adam did not remain upright. He rebelled against his Maker and his
God. The Holy Spirit departed from the temple and the image of God
was defaced. The beautiful palace became a ruin. God was dethroned
and self and Satan enthroned in the heart. In the words of ‘Rabbi’
Duncan, ‘We are de-throned princes.’ Man is now described as ‘not
having the Spirit’ ( Jude 19) and, in consequence of this, as sensual or
natural. Man has become perverse, depraved and alienated from the
life of God. The natural man is said to be ‘in the flesh’. The flesh
stands for what we are by natural birth. ‘That which is born of the

1
The first two articles in this series appeared in the February 2006 issue of The Banner of
Truth (Issue 509).

1
 The Banner of Truth
flesh is flesh’ ( John 3:6); ‘those who are in the flesh cannot please
God’ (Rom. 8:8). Man by nature exists in the realm where sin reigns
unto death.
The obstacles that stood in the way of the Spirit’s return to the
human heart were of such a kind that they were insurmountable by
any finite resources. But they were put out of the way by Christ’s
vicarious sacrifice and royal priesthood. He is the Surety of those the
Father has given him. The forfeited presence of the Spirit is restored
by Christ’s mediatorship and obedience to God’s law in precept and
penalty. As George Smeaton says, ‘The second Adam, by fulfilling the
conditions, and complying with all the requirements of the law,
received as his reward an inexhaustible supply of the Spirit, which is
imparted to all his people and dwells in them for ever.’

The Spirit Unites Us to Christ

The Holy Spirit, who was active in the first creation, brings into
being the new creation. ‘Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new
creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have
become new’ (2 Cor. 5:17). At the very outset of that magnificent
chapter on ‘Life in the Spirit’ (Romans 8) Paul speaks of the believers’
union with Christ, ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to those
who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:1). The Westminster Shorter
Catechism declares: ‘The Spirit applies to us the redemption
purchased by Christ, by working faith in us and thereby uniting us to
Christ in our effectual calling.’ Paul says of the Christians at Corinth:
‘But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from
God – and righteousness and sanctification and redemption’ (1 Cor.
1:30). Later on in the same epistle, after listing the prevailing sins of
the city, he says, ‘Such were some of you. But you were washed, but
you were sanctified, but you were justified.’ We are used to thinking
of justification as a once-for-all judicial act. But Paul puts
sanctification in the same category and places it before justification.
It is clear that Paul is speaking there about what Professor John
Murray so helpfully expounded as ‘definitive sanctification’. This
marks the decisive break with the old life. The Christian experiences
death to sin by union with Christ in his death, and newness of life by
union with him in his resurrection. Paul’s whole argument in Romans

2
Through the Power of the Spirit
6–8 is that, although the law could condemn sin, it could not execute
judgment upon sin so as to destroy its power. This is exactly what
God did; ‘By sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on
account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh’ (Rom. 8:3). The
judicial judgment was executed upon the power of sin in the cross of
Christ. The result is that all who have died with Christ are the
beneficiaries of this judgment executed and are therefore quit of sin’s
dominion. ‘Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him,
that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no
longer be slaves of sin’ (Rom. 6:6). In the light of that, Paul exhorts
the Christians at Rome: ‘Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin,
but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Rom. 6:11).
‘The apostle declares that the link between the justification of the
man and the sanctification of his nature is as close and inseparable
as that by which God connected Christ’s atoning death and his
resurrection to a new life. The link between the two is secured, not
by the mere force of gratitude or by the influence of truth, but by
something immeasurably more powerful, which touches the deepest
foundations of the divine government – viz. by the righteous
restoration of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2). There
cannot be the application of redemption in the way of pardon and
acceptance without the accompanying Spirit of holiness’ (George
Smeaton).

The Spirit Indwells

In uniting us to Christ by faith, the Holy Spirit, who had left the
temple of man’s heart in the Fall, returns to take up his abode in the
redeemed, and occupies them with a personal, hidden, indwelling
presence. This is the fulfillment of the promise of the new Covenant:
‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you . . . I will
put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes’.
(Ezek. 36:26–27). By his presence in the heart the Holy Spirit
executes the first part of the new covenant promise: ‘Then I will
sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you
from all your filthiness and from all your idols.’ The Holy Spirit is the
chief worker of holiness in us on the basis of the blood shed by Christ
on the Cross. by which the right for the Holy Spirit to work holiness

3
 The Banner of Truth
in us was purchased. It is the blood of Christ applied to our souls by
the Holy Spirit that actually purges our souls from sin. He makes it a
fit habitation for himself. ‘Do you not know that your body is the
temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God,
and you are not your own’ (1 Cor. 6:19).
The Holy Spirit indwells us not only as a person but also as a life-
giving power. Paul speaks of ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus’ making us free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2). ‘Law’
here refers to a principle – the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit,
ruling as a law within the heart. He puts into our minds, wills and
hearts a gracious supernatural principle which fills us with a holy
desire to live to God. This is the restoration of the image of God.
‘That you put on the new man which was created according to God,
in righteousness and true holiness’ (Eph. 4:24). It does not bring
forth deeds of holiness by its own innate ability, as in ordinary
physical habits. It does so by the Holy Spirit’s enabling it to produce
them. The whole power and influence of this supernatural habit is
from Christ our Head through the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit Leads

‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of
God’ (Rom. 8:14). The promise in Ezekiel 36:27 of putting ‘My Spirit
within you’, is followed by, ‘and cause you to walk in My statutes’.
The verb translated ‘led’ in Romans 8:14 is used of a farmer herding
cattle, of a shepherd leading sheep, of soldiers escorting a prisoner to
court or prison, and of wind driving a ship. As our Leader, the Holy
Spirit takes the initiative. We are so worked on and influenced by the
Holy Spirit as to be kept from being worked on and influenced by
vicious, depraved principles arising from our corrupt nature. ‘For the
flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh; and these
are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you
wish’ (Gal. 5:17). The Spirit acts upon the renewed soul to bring it
under his guidance and government. To be led by the Spirit of God
is to be governed by him from within, to be subject to his secret but
real impulses or strivings.
The following illustration has been used to depict the change that
takes place. There are two factories on an industrial site. Both are

4
Through the Power of the Spirit
showing signs of neglect and mismanagement. In one of the factories
a new manager is appointed. The sign goes up: ‘Under New
Management’. The effects begin to be seen. Rubbish is removed.
Buildings are demolished, and new ones are built. Products are seen
leaving the factory. A transformation has taken place. So it is with
the ruined heart of man. His heart comes under the new management
of the Spirit of God. A work of restoration is under way. Gradually
the old habits are disappearing, and new ones are taking their place.
Fruit is being produced to the glory of God.

We Walk in the Spirit

While we are constantly dependent on the supernatural agency of
the Holy Spirit, we must also take into account the fact that
sanctification is a process that draws within its scope the conscious
life of the believer. The exhortation of Paul to the Philippians is:
‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God
who works in you both to will and to work on behalf of His good
pleasure’ (Phil. 2:12–13). God works in us by his Holy Spirit and
we also work. But the relation is that because the Spirit works we
work.
In writing to the Romans Paul describes the Christians as ‘those
who live according to the Spirit’ (Rom. 8:5). In his Epistle to the
Galatians he twice exhorts the believers ‘to walk in the Spirit’ (Gal.
5:16, 25). In verse 16 the word in the Greek is the ordinary one ‘to
walk’ but the word in verse 25 refers literally to people ‘being drawn
up in line’. The idea is of marching in file with others, as, for
example, a soldier might be called to do on a parade ground. The
Holy Spirit is to be obeyed and followed precisely.

We Mortify the Deeds of the Body by the Spirit

‘If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live’
(Rom. 8:13). When Paul refers to the body here he means the flesh.
It is that corrupted flesh or indwelling sin which remains in the
believer. Corruption does not lie dormant in the Christian. Although
it does not reign because of the principle of grace which opposes it
yet it molests and troubles and even prevails to a considerable extent.
Because of this the Christian is called to wage a constant warfare

5
 The Banner of Truth
against it: to mortify it, to struggle against its inclinations and to deny
its solicitations. He is to ‘make no provision’ for it. To mortify means
to put any living thing to death. It is to take away the principle of all
its strength, vigour and power. It is to drain the life out of indwelling
sin.
Paul says ‘we are debtors’ to live in accordance with our new
standing in Christ. We owe nothing to our old sinful, corrupt nature
(Rom. 8:12–13). It brings only trouble and death. But sin can be
mortified only ‘through the Spirit’ for he alone makes men willing
and able for the task. When the Christian fights sin, therefore, he is
indebted to the work of Christ and of the Spirit. The believer opposes
a dethroned and debilitated foe; he is animated by what is now the
deepest and most powerful instinct in his nature, and he goes to the
work in the strength of the Holy Spirit of God. Says John Owen: ‘Set
your faith upon Christ for the killing of your sins. His blood is the
sovereign remedy for sin-sick souls. Live in the light of Christ’s great
work, and you will die a conqueror. You will, through the good
providence of God, see your lust dead at your feet.’
At every stage in the renewal of our nature we are dependent on
the work of the Holy Spirit. The ultimate goal of our sanctification
is conformity to the image of God’s Son. ‘We . . . are being
transformed into the same image from glory to glory just as by the
Spirit of the Lord’ (2 Cor. 3:18). Says Thomas Watson: ‘The Spirit of
God in a man perfumes him with holiness and makes his heart a map
of heaven.’ We need to adopt the prayer of Robert Murray
M‘Cheyne: ‘Lord, make me as holy as a pardoned sinner can be
made.’

M‘Cheyne’s Last Months

‘All this month [January 1843] he was breathing after glory. In his letters
there are such expressions as these: “I often pray, Lord, make me as holy
as a pardoned sinner can be made.” “Often, often I would like to depart
and be with Christ –to mount to Pisgah-top and take a farewell look of
the Church below, and leave my body and be present with the Lord. Ah,
it is far better!”’ [He died on 25 March.]
ANDREW BONAR, The Life of Robert Murray M‘Cheyne,
ISBN 0 85151 085 X (recently reprinted), pp. 184–5.

6
Alone, But Never Alone

SANCTIFICATION: 4
ALONE, BUT NEVER ALONE!
Mark G. Johnston

F ides sola est quae justificat; fides quae justificat non est sola.
Latinisms can have a wonderful way of crystallizing issues in
theological reflection – so with this one: ‘It is faith alone that justifies;
but faith that justifies is never alone!’ This isn’t just a statement about
the alone-ness of faith as the means by which we receive God’s
justifying grace, but something much more far-reaching. It highlights
the crucial distinction we need to grasp as we try to understand what
it means to be justified, namely, that a person who is truly justified is
never merely justified!
This may sound like theological hair-splitting, but actually it is tied
in with one of the most vexed issues of Christian experience that goes
back to the earliest days of the New Testament church and further
back still. Because that is so, we are reminded that every pastoral
problem has theological dimensions and every theological problem
has pastoral implications, and we dare not lose sight of either.
In a nutshell, it is the issue raised by the Galatian problem. Paul
flags up the problem in his introduction to Galatians by pointing to
‘a different gospel’ that was in opposition to ‘the grace of Christ’
(1:6). He spells out the problem later on when he says,
We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a
man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus
Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Jesus Christ, that we
may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law,
because by observing the law no-one will be justified’ (2:15–16).
These people, whose experience of salvation had begun through
their being justified by faith in Jesus Christ, were now being misled
into thinking that their new standing could only be sustained by
observing the law. They were confused over the relationship between
justification and sanctification: where the Christian life begins and
how it goes on.

7
 The Banner of Truth
The Recurring Problem
It isn’t just that this confusion was a recurring problem in the
New Testament churches (hence the careful and repeated strand of
teaching in Romans, Ephesians and elsewhere), but that it has
surfaced again and again during the history of the church.
As the Western Church descended into the dark ages of Mediaeval
Catholicism, its whole understanding of salvation was warped almost
beyond recognition by its blurring of the distinction between grace
that is imputed and grace that is imparted. So, even though in one
sense the Roman Catholic Church could quite happily assent to the
fact that it is ‘grace alone’ that saves, what Rome meant by that
was quite different from the definition given by its Protestant
counterparts in the Reformation. For Catholicism (as with the
Galatians), the grace that justifies was confused with the grace that
sanctifies.
It would be wrong to pretend that this was and is a problem only
for Roman Catholics, either then or now. Sadly, it has been and
continues to be an all too pervasive problem for Protestant churches
as well. From the theological Liberalism of the nineteenth century to
the ‘Social Gospel’ of the early twentieth century, there was a wide-
ranging belief that our standing before God was determined as much
by what we do as by what or in whom we believe.
For our generation the issue has surfaced again in the debates
surrounding the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul propounded by E. P.
Sanders and N. T. Wright, the ‘Federal Vision’ theology of Auburn
Avenue, and Norman Shepherd’s neo-nomianism. All these debates
converge most significantly in the two questions of how a person gets
in to God’s family on the one hand and how he stays in on the other
– the relationship between justification and sanctification.

The Root of the Issue

The reason for this recurring confusion highlights just how deep the
roots of sin extend into our fallen human nature. There is something
in all of us that wants to claim the merit for what we are and where
we stand. Whether it be heard from our well-meaning neighbour who
says his hope of heaven rests in the fact that he has tried his best and
has never done anyone any harm, or whether it exists in ourselves

8
Alone, But Never Alone
when we subconsciously allow our enjoyment of communion with
God to be performance-related, the root is identical. By nature we are
self-justifying creatures.
The gospel strikes at the very heart of that notion. It tells us in no
uncertain terms that ‘There is no-one righteous, not even one’ (Rom.
3:10), ‘For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom.
3:23). Even ‘all our righteous acts are like filthy rags’ (Isa. 64:6), and
all of this is true as much for those who are believers as for those who
are still outside God’s family.
In practical terms this means that there is an overwhelming
temptation for all of us to look to self for the hope that God will
accept us. It is the most fundamental pastoral problem a minister can
ever address, because it has the profoundest implications for our
eternal destiny. Knowing of man’s love for himself will affect the way
we deal with those who are seeking salvation, and it will also affect
the way we handle those who are troubled over assurance of
salvation. There is something in them that points them in the wrong
direction for answers.
However, there is something in the gospel that points them in an
altogether different direction; that is where we need clear
understanding ourselves. The two great questions, ‘What must I do
to be saved?’, and ‘How do I know I am saved?’, are the most
important a minister will ever have to answer.

Confusion over Concepts

Tracing out the history of these issues right down to the present
reveals a significant confusion over concepts and terminology that
crops up again and again. All too often the concept of justification
has been confused with salvation. O. Palmer Robertson brings this
out in his critique of Norman Shepherd’s paper, ‘The Relation of
Good Works to Justification in the Westminster Standards’. He says,
‘Mr Shepherd interchanges the concept of “salvation” with the
concept of “justification”.’ In so doing, the precise and narrow focus
given to justification in Scripture is lost in the wider web of truth
bound up with salvation as a whole.
This confusion has been made worse for the present generation
of Bible students by a breakdown in the hermeneutical circle that

9
 The Banner of Truth
controls the way we interpret its message. Historically, that task has
been seen to begin with certain presuppositions about Scripture that
in turn feed through into exegesis, biblical theology, and historical
theology, and then finally culminate in dogmatics, or systematic
theology. Increasingly, in many training institutions today, that circle
has been broken at the point of biblical theology, thus creating an
excuse for open-endedness on theological certainty. So we hear even
leading biblical scholars refusing to be pinned down on precise
theological formulation on the pretext, ‘I’m only a biblical
theologian!’ Such vagueness is no comfort to a sinner troubled by his
guilt who asks, ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’, or to a saint
who asks, ‘How can I be sure?’
It was an older generation of theologians (who were in reality
pastor-preacher-theologians, not mere academics) who recognized
the precision of the God of revelation that is mirrored in the truths
he reveals in his Word. The finest of their formulations are still to be
found in the Westminster Standards. Their value is acknowledged
trans-culturally around the world in the many churches that continue
to subscribe to these great summaries of Bible teaching. When it
comes to what they say about justification and sanctification and
how they are connected, they have yet to be bettered.

Similar, but Significantly Different

All three major documents that comprise the summary of doctrine
produced by the Westminster Assembly – the Confession, and the
Larger and Shorter Catechisms – address the doctrines of justification
and sanctification as separate entities. However, given the connection
between the two, the Larger Catechism contrasts them for the sake
of further clarity. It reads as follows:

Q. 77 Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?

A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with
justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth
the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth
grace, and enableth the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is
pardoned; in the other it is subdued; the one doth equally free
all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly
10
Alone, But Never Alone
in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is
neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing
up to perfection.

Both of these elements of salvation spring directly from the grace

of God and are the fruit of the regenerating work of his Spirit. In that
sense, in all our understanding of salvation there is a priority given to
the new birth as the source from which every part of our experience
of redemption flows. The contrast drawn by the Westminster divines
in this part of the Catechism is designed to demonstrate that
justification is an act of God’s free grace, whereas sanctification is its
work. Both begin at the same moment and in the same place, but one
has a forensic priority over the other.
The former – justification – is the once-for-all declaration of the
court of heaven in the future, applied to the believing sinner in the
present, on the basis of the finished work of Christ in the past. In it
sin is pardoned, guilt removed and the righteousness of God in Christ
reckoned to the one who believes the promises of God in the gospel.
Justification changes a person’s legal standing before the Judge of all
the earth; but in itself it does not change his moral condition. He is
justified, but he is still a sinner; therefore he is still prone to
temptation and failure.
In sanctification, however, God works by his Holy Spirit to make
those who are righteous in his sight in principle, righteous in reality
through their new obedience to Christ. He provides them with the
ability to make their moral and spiritual choices no longer according
to the enslaving sinful instinct with which they were born, but
instead according to the freedom given them in Christ. They are a
‘new creation’ (1 Cor. 5:17) – people with new desires and new
potential who ‘are being transformed into his [Christ’s] likeness with
ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord who is the Spirit’
(2 Cor. 3:18).
The contrast between these two elements of saving grace is further
developed by Wilhelmus à Brakel – one of the key figures in the
Dutch Second Reformation. In The Christian’s Reasonable Service
(Vol. 3, p. 4) he says:
Justification and sanctification always coexist in a believer;
where the one is, the other will also be present . . . Nevertheless,
11
 The Banner of Truth
these two matters are in essence entirely different. First,
justification is executed by God as righteous Judge; sanc-
tification is executed by God the Holy Spirit as re-creator.
Secondly, justification is executed towards man as the object;
sanctification transpires within man as being the subject.
Thirdly, justification removes guilt and punishment, and
establishes man in a state of felicity; sanctification removes
pollution and restores the image of God. Fourthly, justification
is executed perfectly each time; sanctification always remains
imperfect as long as man is upon earth. Fifthly, in natural order
justification comes first, and sanctification follows as
proceeding from justification.

As with all in the Puritan mould, à Brakel’s concern in writing

was primarily pastoral. He was seeking to address practical needs
common to all Christians with a synthesis of gospel truth expounded
from all of Scripture. His starting point was not an atomistic view of
the Bible in all its component parts, according to their human
authors, but rather the fact that this book speaks with one voice: the
voice of the living God. Since that is so, it is both right and
reasonable to expect that voice to speak in harmony on single themes
as well as on the relationship between connected themes, as the
message of the Bible unfolds. He does not begin with the apparent
tensions in Scripture, as so many contemporary academics so often
do. Rather, he starts with what is clear and consistent. The effect of
such an approach was to foster confidence in even the weakest of
saints, whereas it is doubts that are encouraged in even the strongest
today.
J. C. Ryle, that latter-day Puritan of the Nineteenth Century, has
provided one further strand of reflection on this subject. In his book
Holiness he not only sets out the differences between justification and
sanctification, he highlights also where they are alike. He highlights
five important similarities: both justification and sanctification
proceed from the free grace of God, both are rooted in the eternal
covenant and supremely in Christ, both are found in the same
persons, both begin at the same time, and both are necessary to
salvation.

12
Alone, But Never Alone
In the eight contrasts he draws, there are three which add to what
has been summarized above already: the righteousness we have by
our justification is not our own, while that found in sanctification is.
In justification our works have no place at all, while in sanctification
they are of vast importance. And justification is a finished and
complete work, whereas sanctification is imperfect and will never be
perfect till we reach heaven.

Does It Really Matter?

We hinted at the outset that discussion of the issues covered in
these pages can easily be construed as some kind of theological self-
indulgence. However, the central issue at stake in all we have covered
could not be of greater significance. Whenever the lines that
distinguish these two dimensions of saving grace are blurred, it is
salvation itself that becomes the casualty. If we lose sight of the
distinctiveness of justification as being, according to Martin Luther,
the mark of a standing or falling church, and allow it to become
confused with sanctification, then the focus of faith is inclined to
shift from Christ to self. This has been borne out in Catholicism
historically as much as in neo-nomianism more recently.
The irony in it all is that in every instance where this blurring of
distinctions has occurred, it has been motivated (at least in its
inception) by the desire to produce better Christians. However,
history demonstrates that it almost invariably ends by producing
people who are not Christians at all. The only way guaranteed to
produce better Christians is by a focus on the primacy of justification
through faith alone, in Christ alone, which, if it is truly grasped, must
lead to new obedience worked out in our being made increasingly
like Christ as we journey home to heaven.

Saving Faith
Do you believe the gospel of Jesus Christ? . . . Have you ‘rolled yourself’
upon him, as the Puritans would say? Have you repented of your sins,
renounced your idols, and committed yourself to him unconditionally?
All this is what is meant by true faith.
TERRY L. JOHNSON, The Case for Traditional Protestantism
(ISBN 0 85151 8885, 192 pp., paperback), p. 95.

13

NEWS & COMMENT
Annual Conference of the Reformed
Congregational Fellowship
In 2006 conscious heirs of New
England Puritanism will convene
April 25-27 in Sharon, Massachu-
setts, USA. They will study together
chapters nine and ten of The Savoy
Declaration of Faith: ‘Of Free Will’
and ‘Of Effectual Calling’. Further
details can be obtained by e-mail
from davidg@cornerstonebeverly.
org, or by calling (508) 596-6862.
Scottish Reformed Conference
The seventeenth Scottish Reformed
Conference is due to be held on Sat-
urday 13 May 2006 at Hamilton
College, Bothwell Road, Hamilton.
The speakers are Edward Donnelly,
Trinity RP Church, Newtownabbey,
and Richard Brooks of Matlock,
Derbyshire. The conference costs £5
for adults and £4 for students, but
17s and under go free. Booking
forms are available from Robert
Walker, 2 Waterside Cottages, Bank-
head Road, Kirkintilloch G66 3LH,
or book online at www.scottishref-
ormedconference.org.
Westminster Presbyterian Church
in the United States
On January 13–14, 2006, a new
Presbyterian denomination was
formed. During delegate meetings in
Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted
the name Westminster Presbyterian
Church in the United States
(WPCUS). The founding churches
came together because of perceived
equivocation toward important bib-
lical doctrines and because of
tolerance of excesses in contempo-
rary worship in other Presbyterian
14
The Banner of Truth
denominations. Details of their
principles may be found at http://
www.WPCUS.org.
Sibbes Appreciated
In January a reader in the U.K.
wrote to us:
Over the Christmas break I was
greatly blessed by reading The
Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes.
Apart from Scripture, I have never
read a more wonderful book. I
would be interested in purchasing
another five copies of the book.
[This work, in the Puritan Paper-
backs series was recently reprinted;
ISBN 0 85151 740 4, 138 pp. In it
Sibbes expounds from Isaiah 42:3
the tender ministry of Christ, who is
‘a physician good at all diseases,
especially at the binding up of the
broken heart’.]
Electronic Edition of the Magazine
As most readers will know, the
magazine can be obtained by e-mail
in electronic form as a portable
document format (pdf) file – see
subscription information on the
website, www.banneroftruth.co.uk.
A pastor in the Dominican Republic
wrote, ‘Thank you very much. It
looks awesome.’ Another reader
wrote, ‘Thank you for the first elec-
tronic version of the Banner
Magazine. It is a good way to cel-
ebrate and mark the first 50 years
of the Trust.’
On the subject of the fifty-year
landmark, a reader in the U.S.A.
wrote in appreciation of the recent
reprint of Issues 1–16 : ‘I am already
dipping into it and finding it abso-
lutely fascinating. Our God has
really blessed and used the work
over these past fifty years. I am
deeply grateful for the Let’s Study
Series and look forward to more.’
The Australian Riots

PERSPECTIVE ON CURRENT EVENTS:

EXPLAINING THE AUSTRALIAN RIOTS
Peter Barnes

T he vicious riots that began at Cronulla beach, Sydney, Australia,

on Sunday 11 December 2005, spilled over into pay-back
outbursts of violence in Maroubra and Sans Souci the next night, and
continued to splutter and fizz for the next few days. We were all
confronted with some ugly scenes. Both sides – mainly drunken and
hedonistic ‘surfies’ versus testy and vengeful Lebanese youths – were
full of venom and hatred. Two lifesavers had been assaulted by a
Lebanese gang a week before the riot; a surfing lout had chased a
Muslim woman, ripped off her hijab, and then waved it around in a
display of what he obviously supposed was triumph; the Uniting
Church at Auburn was burnt down; and, also at Auburn, there were
shots fired in the direction of a Roman Catholic school as parents
and students were singing carols. We had read of riots in France, and
thought that it would not happen in multicultural Australia. But it
has.
Gurus of all kinds have offered their spin on events. The media,
including even the New York Times, have blamed racism, even
attaching the prime responsibility to white supremacist activists.
Somewhat similarly, Mike Carlton and David Marr have blamed
sections of the media, especially 2GB’s popular loudmouth, Alan
Jones.
Others – notably the retired detective Tim Priest – have blamed the
rise of Middle Eastern gangs of criminals who are disaffected from
Australian culture. Many Lebanese males have exhibited a ‘chip on
the shoulder’ attitude to the wider community, and an addiction
to portraying themselves as the victims of anti-Muslim sentiment.
They cannot see that Wahhabism and thuggery are scarcely
distinguishable.
Suggestions for solving the problems have abounded – more
police, less alcohol, more laws against vilifying other nationalities or

15
 The Banner of Truth
religions, more multiculturalism, less multiculturalism, more inter-
faith dialogues, more secularism, an Anti-discrimination Board on
every street corner, and so it goes on. Platitudes and clichés have been
trotted out, but the most incisive comment that I read came from one
disgruntled letter writer who stated: ‘Let us concentrate on those
things that unite us, not those that divide us. Except for a few
superficial differences in appearance, a Middle-Eastern-looking idiot
is pretty much the same as a blond, blue-eyed idiot.’
In the 1990s Samuel Huntington wrote of ‘the clash of
civilizations’, but these riots have looked more like the end of any
civilization – rather like Munich in the 1930s when Communist and
Fascist mobs tore into one another. The truth is that what was once
called Christendom is now that part of the world where the Christian
faith is mocked and scorned in schools, academia, and much of the
public arena.
The West has embraced what Meic Pearse has called the ‘anti-
value’. This is affluence without meaning – Coca Cola cans, a culture
of rap music and fashion, immodest dressing, coarse language,
homosexual marriages (now in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada,
and Britain), and the glorification of the trivial. Birth-rate levels in
the West are catastrophically low, and illegitimacy rates are
catastrophically high. One is obliged to be ‘progressive’ – a vague
term which is actually another example of an anti-value. Christianity
teaches both humility and self-worth; humanism proclaims self-
esteem but achieves self-loathing. To cite Meic Pearse again: ‘The
anti-culture begins by pleading tolerance for its anti-values and ends
by devouring all who will not say its shibboleths.’
In mid-2005 a Muslim named Salmaan sent an email to Miranda
Devine. Here he stated: ‘Most Muslims who have migrated to this
country have been shocked by how universal values [and] gender
etiquettes lasting a thousand years have been tossed aside in an
orgiastic free for all in the last twenty years. This is not what my
parents expected when they came to this country. I am also sure that
this is not what John Locke envisaged when he championed
individual liberty.’ That is a most perceptive comment. Life surely
consists of more than watching episodes of Big Brother Uncut and
other such gems.

16
The Australian Riots
In 2001, as the Australian parliament discussed the issue of
embryonic stem-cell research, Senator Amanda Vanstone claimed
that religion had no place in the debate: ‘Let me turn to some of the
objections which have their basis in a religious view. My own
position is this: if you lead a good life, any god worth knowing will
accept you into his or her heaven. I do not think – since I went to an
Anglican school – that there will be any St Peter at the gates
dispatching infidels to another place, smirking behind his hand that
this sucker made the mistake of going to a Catholic, an Anglican or
a Baptist church or of being a Jew, a Hindu or a Muslim. If the basis
for getting into heaven is that you pick the right church, then frankly
I’m not terribly interested in going there. It could be a very boring
place.’
Senator Vanstone’s outlook reflects a predilection for lazy
thinking, but it is in fact a common view. Indeed, it is the prevailing
one in the West. When France banned Muslim head scarves and large
crosses in schools and government offices, President Jacques Chirac
claimed that ‘Secularism guarantees freedom of conscience. It
protects the freedom to believe or not to believe.’
It, of course, only protects the freedom not to believe, and it
conveniently sidelines all Christians – and for that matter, all
adherents of other faiths – from the political arena, leaving it
available only for the humanists.
Recently, Janet Folger has spoken, not of the marginalizing of
Christianity but, The Criminalization of Christianity (Oregon:
Multnomah, 2005). Quoting the Bible in public can be illegal in
Canada; a town in California has removed a nativity scene but spent
$500,000 of public money on constructing a statue to an Aztec god;
Google recently banned an advertisement on a Christian group’s
website because it was critical of homosexuality; two women who
advertised for a roommate in Madison Wisconsin declined to take in
a lesbian, and were forced by the Equal Opportunity Commission to
attend ‘sensitivity training’, pay the lesbian $1500, write a formal
apology, and have their housing situation ‘monitored’ for two years;
while here in NSW representatives of the Board of Studies have told
Christian schools that they cannot cite to parents biblical verses in
favour of corporal discipline.

17
 The Banner of Truth
Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw this from his prison cell: ‘The west is
becoming hostile towards Christ. This is the peculiar situation of our
time, and it is genuine decay.’ Australians are likely to bemoan the
loss of what some call ‘Australian values’. That kind of patriotism is,
said Dr Johnson, ‘the last refuge of a scoundrel’. It misses the point.
The problem is that Australia has descended into a huge moral and
spiritual vacuum. Democracy will not save us, nor will education
schemes to promote multiculturalism and inter-faith harmony. The
silliest, and ultimately the most dangerous, interpretation of the
Cronulla riots came from Rev. Bill Crews of the Uniting Church. He
blamed the ‘fundamentalists on both sides’, as if Cronulla beach on
11 December was just crawling with strict Bible-believing
evangelicals who were on the look-out for unbelievers to evangelize.
The riots have demonstrated the truth that for decades now we
have been trying to build a society on foundations of fairy floss. The
American evangelist D. L. Moody stated: ‘I don’t believe that a
republican form of government can last without righteousness.’ A
few decades later, this warning was echoed by the learned American-
cum-English poet, T. S. Eliot: ‘If Christianity goes, the whole of our
culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot
put on a new culture ready made . . . You must pass through many
centuries of barbarism.’ That is about where we are.

Standing Fast in Dark Days

The life of Robert Bruce [c. 1555–1631] is a testimony to the manner in
which joy in Christ can be known whatever the times. Certainly, he knew
some dark days and occasional times of ‘desertion’, but the tenor of his
life was the opposite of gloom and sorrow. ‘He that has God with him
has enough’, was the witness of his early ministry and he proved it true.
‘Sometimes,’ Calderwood says, ‘he felt God’s presence so sensibly with
him, that he could not contain himself in the night from breaking out in
these words: “I am the happiest man that ever was born; happy that ever
I served God.”’ Said Bruce, ‘My sweet Lord has not left me. I never
foregathered with a better Master: I never got a sweeter fee and better
wages, and I look for a very rich reward. So ye have cause, not only to
pray for me, but to praise God greatly for me; that he is so bountiful, and
that he meets me above my very expectation.’
From a major new book by Iain Murray,
A SCOTTISH CHRISTIAN HERITAGE, to be published this summer.
18
Christian Orthodoxy

CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY1
Prof. John Murray

A distinguished writer and speaker has recently given utterance

to the following statement:
The second level of the knowledge of God is evangelical
commitment to God. Bear in mind two important things. It is
perfectly possible to accept all the great redemptive facts about
God, to hold the most orthodox beliefs about Jesus Christ, the
Redeemer, and yet not be Christian, and be utterly devoid of
any personal acquaintance with God. For it is one thing to give
the assent of our minds to true doctrines, and quite another
thing to give the consent of our wills to Him who is the Truth.
It is a most unhappy fact that some who make a great boast of
their Christian orthodoxy, make formulas their God. In doing
so they are idolaters, manifesting in their lives that self-
righteousness, bigotry and fanaticism which have been
associated with idolatry in every age. Such people accept truth
about God, and passionately adhere to it, but they do not
commit themselves to God Himself. It is much easier and less
costly to substitute ideas about God for commitment to Him
(Princeton Seminary Bulletin, December 1943, p. 7).
This statement is typical of a great deal that is being written
today by those who claim to espouse the interests of genuine piety.
Admittedly there is a great deal of truth in this plea for ‘evangelical
commitment to God’. The truly orthodox person can properly
give warning and make an appeal in terms that closely approximate
to that which has just been quoted. It must never be forgotten

1
This address by Professor John Murray was delivered on 30 June 1944, to the University
of Pennsylvania chapter of the Inter-Collegiate Gospel Fellowship. The chapter met in
Eisenlohr Hall of the University of Pennsylvania. The address was printed in the October
1944 issue of Christian Opinion, a briefly-published periodical of the above-mentioned
gospel fellowship. It was called to our attention by Dr Curt Daniel, minister of Faith Bible
Church of Springfield, IL, U.S.A.

19
 The Banner of Truth
that true faith is much more than formal assent to propositions of
truth.
But I fear that the statement of the case given above does not ring
true to the proper relations that orthodoxy of belief sustains to true
and living faith. More accurately I should say that it does not ring
true to a proper conception of orthodoxy.

1. What Is Orthodoxy?
Orthodoxy is straight thinking; it is to ‘think straight’. When we are
‘thinking straight’ we are thinking in terms of the truth, and truth is
woven into the texture of our whole life – heart, mind, will, and
conduct.
We must not think that we can ‘think straight’, that is, be
orthodox in our beliefs, unless our hearts and wills are subject to the
truth, unless there is personal commitment to the truth in heart,
mind, will, and conduct. Our Lord expressed this truth when he said,
‘If anyone willeth to do his will he shall know of the doctrine,
whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself’ (John 7:17). Jesus
here was speaking of his own Person and teaching. He expresses the
inviolable principle that there is a necessary complementation of will
to do, and knowledge of, the truth. Unwillingness to do blinds our
vision of the truth; it raises in our minds a prejudice that prevents us
from ‘thinking straight’. It renders us insensitive to the appreciation
of the truth; it makes us impervious to the truth.
To put the case in other words, the intellect is not a faculty or
function that can act truly irrespective of the condition of our hearts
and wills. There is always an interpermeation of knowing, of feeling
and of willing. Only as we, in the whole range of personal life, are
brought into conformity with the truth do we truly apprehend and
understand the truth. Only as we are subject to the truth do we ‘think
straight’.
But not only is it true that, when we are ‘thinking straight’, the
truth is woven into the texture of our whole life. It is also true that
only when we are ‘thinking straight’ can the truth be woven into the
texture of our life and personality. This is because if we are not
‘thinking straight’, we are ‘thinking crooked’, and if we are ‘thinking
crooked’ we are not thinking in terms of the truth. If we are not

20
Christian Orthodoxy
thinking in terms of the truth, the truth cannot be woven into the
texture of our life. ‘As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he’ (Prov.
23:7).
It becomes apparent, therefore, that it is a false antithesis to
contrast the orthodox person with the pious person, or, at least, to
think that piety can be dissevered from orthodoxy. The person who
is pious is pious only in the measure in which he is orthodox, and the
person who is orthodox is orthodox only in the measure in which he
is pious.
To sum up, if we are orthodox, then we ‘think straight’. If we
‘think straight’ then we think in terms of the truth. If we think in
terms of the truth, we think in terms of God. If we think in terms of
God, then we relate everything to God and God to everything –we
are governed in all of life by the consciousness of our dependence
upon and relation to God. That precisely is godliness. God is in all
our thoughts, and to Him we are committed in all. In a word, truth
is according to godliness, and godliness is according to truth.

2. What Is the Demand of Orthodoxy?

The standard and norm of orthodoxy is, of course, the Word of God.
It may seem simple and easy for us to be orthodox since we have an
infallible rule of faith and practice. But to achieve and maintain
orthodoxy is an exceedingly exacting discipline, and even an ordeal.
It is so for a few reasons.
It is difficult, first of all, because we are not naturally orthodox.
We are naturally depraved, and ‘the carnal mind is enmity against
God’ (Rom. 8:7). Secondly, even though believers are regenerate and
have been set in the straight and narrow path, yet they are not
perfect, and consequently they have to strive against the world, the
flesh and the devil in themselves. There is still the evil heart of
unbelief which seeks to depart from the living God. Thirdly, we are
living in an imperfect and sinful world. The influences of unbelief and
of error are constantly playing around us, and they are always
making their attack upon us. ‘Our wrestling is not against flesh and
blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the
world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritualities of wickedness
in the heavenlies’ (Eph. 6:12).

21
 The Banner of Truth
For these reasons orthodoxy requires earnest, careful, prayerful
and persistent study of the Word of God. We must be with that
Word day by day, and it must be with us constantly, hid in our heart
that we may not sin against God. We need to guard against
perfunctory, superficial, hurried study of God’s Word. It requires
diligent, devoted and sustained meditation and application. It is thus
we shall become saturated with the Word in its richness and fullness.
It is thus that we shall become assimilated to it and that it will be
assimilated by us.
It is a prodigious mistake for us to think that we can have a
reservoir of truth, filled once for all, and that, without further effort,
it will supply our needs all our days. If we ever think that we have
attained to sufficient knowledge and can afford to rest upon our lees,
we have already, at least in part, become the victims of the conceit
that is Satan’s deceit. It is only as we constantly replenish our minds
and refresh our souls with the pure Word of God that we shall
continue on the path of straight thinking and therefore of true
orthodoxy.
We must, indeed, climb the great peaks of divine revelation, and
we must dwell much and long on these peaks. From these vantage
points we shall be able to survey, or at any rate get satisfying
glimpses of, the grand vistas of God’s infallible counsel. We shall be
filled with all the fullness of God.
But we must not forget the valleys and lower elevations of God’s
counsel. Every peak has a base, and there are no mountain ranges
without valleys. We do well to range the valleys as well as climb the
peaks. Many earnest and good Christians concentrate practically all
their attention upon the commanding heights and yet have very
impoverished and even distorted notions with respect to the great
system of truth revealed in the Scripture. We need to be reminded
that, ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in
righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto every good work’ (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).
We are living in a world of sin, of unbelief, of error. The
comprehensive philosophy of this world leaves no area untouched. If
we are to be orthodox we must be orthodox all along the line. We

22
Christian Orthodoxy
know enough of the modern strategy of battle to understand how
perilous for the whole line is penetration at one point. We must hold
the whole line. How shall we do it? Only as we hold the whole line
of God’s revelation to us. And the price of holding the whole line is
to neglect no part of Scripture. We shall often find the answer to
some of our most difficult problems, to some of our severest
temptations, and to some of the most violent attacks of unbelief in
those parts of Scripture which we are often disposed to think less
important and more incidental. ‘All scripture is inspired of God.’
God’s truth is his glory. Above all let us be jealous for the whole
compass of his manifested glory, and let us not shirk meticulous care
for the most precise definition and formulation.
As students in any department of culture, coming into daily
contact with the philosophy of this world in its many subtle and
plausible forms, we are compelled to appreciate how indispensable it
is to bring all into the light of the wisdom that is from above. We
know too well how easily we may be trapped, how easy it is for man
to spoil us through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of
the world and not after Christ. But we also know that the Word of
God is pure, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. ‘Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from
this generation for ever’ (Psa. 12:7).

Ryle on John 7:17

The principle here laid down is one of immense importance. We are
taught that clear knowledge depends greatly on honest obedience, and
that distinct views of Divine truth cannot be expected, unless we try to
practise such things as we know. Living up to our light we shall have
more light . . . We learn from these words how greatly they err who
profess to be waiting till their mental difficulties are removed before they
become decided Christians . . . knowledge comes through humble
obedience as well as through the intellect . . . We learn, furthermore, that
God tests men’s sincerity by making obedience part of the process by
which religious knowledge is obtained. Are we really willing to do God’s
will as far as we know it? If we are, God will take care that our
knowledge is increased. If we are not willing to do His will, we show
clearly that we do not want to be God’s servants. Our hearts and not our
heads are in fault.
Expository Thoughts on John, vol. 2 (ISBN 0 85151 5053), pp. 22–3.

23
 The Banner of Truth

MORE GOOD BOOKS!

Iain H. Murray

I f all the evangelical books currently coming on to the market were

reviewed it would need a very substantial monthly magazine to
contain them. All I mean to do here is to comment briefly on some
recent titles.
Works on Isaiah continue to appear. Allan Harman, an established
commentator on the Old Testament, has produced what is perhaps
his most helpful work so far in a commentary on ISAIAH (pbk., Focus
on the Bible series, Christian Focus, 2005). Dr Harman is familiar
with all the major works of the last decade, but no small part of the
value of this book is the absence of many references to other authors;
his concern is rather to deal directly with making the meaning of the
Hebrew text clear to the modern reader. For quick help, in readable
style, and undergirded by biblical doctrine, these 450 pages of serious
but not academic exposition may not be matched for many years to
come.
Raymond C. Ortlund’s somewhat larger book ISAIAH: GOD SAVES
SINNERS (Crossway Books, 2005) is a very different volume. Now
taking its place in Crossway’s ‘Preaching the Word’ series, it shows
how the whole of Isaiah should become alive in the hands of a
preacher. Not that Dr Ortund’s work has been prepared as a ‘how-
to’ book; the forty-eight sermons were rather first prepared to deal
with the minds and hearts of the hearers before him. There is a
disturbing, prophetic element here of which we all stand in need.
Although not written for preachers this will surely be a real
stimulus to expository and evangelistic preaching from the Old
Testament.
Before leaving Isaiah, it will interest a more particular group of
readers to know that a book has appeared from Iain D. Campbell on
one of the best-known nineteenth century commentators on that
prophecy, FIXING THE INDEMNITY: THE LIFE AND WORK OF SIR GEORGE
ADAM SMITH (Paternoster, 2004). But Smith’s work on Isaiah was

24
More Good Books!
vitiated by his standpoint as a Higher Critic, and the ‘Indemnity’, of
which he spoke to his hearers at Yale, referred to what he regarded
as owing from those guilty of ‘the narrow doctrine of inspiration’
that had necessitated a ‘war’. That war, he judged, the ‘scholars’ had
won by 1899. This is a salutary book on the tragedy of unbelief in
the Free Church of Scotland to which G. A. Smith belonged. Dr
Campbell does not share Smith’s doctrine, and that is indicated, but
we fear that the limitations placed upon him, in preparing what is a
doctoral thesis, has made him rather too gentle with a brilliant and
kind man who was, nonetheless, a false teacher.
On the subject of preaching Stuart Olyott’s latest book, PREACHING
– PURE AND SIMPLE (pbk., Bryntirion Press, 2005) is, for its size (164
pp.) the best guide for preachers that this reviewer has ever seen.
There should be a copy, if not many copies, in every church!
Numbers of biographical books continue to appear. We read with
interest J. SIDLOW BAXTER, A HEART AWAKE by E. A. Johnston (Baker
Books, 2005). Sidlow Baxter is best remembered in Britain for his
eighteen years of ministry at Charlotte Chapel, Edinburgh (1935–
52). He moved to the United States in 1955 and engaged in a fruitful
itinerant ministry until 1991, dying in 1999 at the age of ninety-six.
This is a slender work, and reflects something of the disinterest in
Calvinistic belief pervasive in evangelical circles, but it catches the
Christ-centredness and prayerfulness of a man who gave himself to
preaching based on Scripture.
Ian J. Shaw’s book A NDREW REED: T HE G REATEST IS CHARITY
(Evangelical Press, 2005) is, by any standard, an outstanding
biography. I had only known of Reed (1787–1862) as a preacher,
hymn-writer, and author of a report on churches visited by him in the
United States in the 1830s. But he was a great deal more than that.
As minister of a Congregational Church in the East End of London,
he pioneered social work among the poor; founded orphanages and
hospitals for orphan children; and challenged consciences from the
throne downwards. A personal experience on 16 October 1838
prepared Reed for revival in his church and his convictions on that
subject were not those popularized in ‘revivalism’. We admire the
way Dr Shaw keeps his story-line moving, with much information,
and sometimes statistics, woven in. Highly commended.

25
 The Banner of Truth
W AR A ND G RACE : S HORT B IOGRAPHIES FROM THE W ORLD W ARS
(Evangelical Press, 2005), by Don Stephens, gives the record of
thirteen people involved in the First and Second World Wars,
including British, German, and Japanese; some were Christians
during the Wars, and others, including Mitso Fuchida (chief pilot in
the attack on Pearl Harbour) were converted afterwards. Much
careful research has gone into this gripping book. There is no
reliance on third-hand information or mere anecdotes. The result is
compelling reading, and it could well be a good book to give to a
non-Christian.
MISSING , BELIEVED KILLED (Day One, 2002) is the autobiography of
Margaret Hayes during the 1960s Revolution in the Congo.
Somehow we missed this stirring testimony at the time of its
publication and want to call attention to it now. There is no better
demonstration of the authenticity of the Christian faith than the
record of such facts as are to be found in these pages. Why does
anyone want to read fiction when there are thrilling books like this
at hand? Thrilling, and yet not sensational.
Many Christians at that time lost their lives, but whether delivered,
as Miss Hayes was, or put to death, all were kept by God and proved
his presence in the darkest hours. If anyone is going on a long journey
and needs a book that will hold their attention, then this may be the
one to choose.
My space is gone, but there are two other titles to be mentioned
briefly. Jerry Bridges, THE PRACTICE OF GODLINESS (pbk., NavPress) is
another title we should have known years ago. In small compass, and
in a fresh, appealing style, Bridges deals with the main graces in the
life of the Christian. This is old-school teaching in new clothes. We
are not surprised that over four hundred thousand copies have been
sold.
For a simple introductory manual on Christian doctrine, one of the
best will be found in Archibald Alexander, A BRIEF COMPENDIUM OF
BIBLE TRUTH (Reformation Heritage Books, 2005).
If this textbook by Princeton Seminary’s first professor of
theology had not been forgotten and overlooked, it would surely
have been reprinted long since. We are indebted to Dr Joel Beeke for
this printing.

26
The Civil War (2 Sam. 18–19:8)

THE CIVIL WAR

2 SAMUEL 18:1–19:8
Walter J. Chantry

T here was only one battle between Absalom and David. Absalom
directed the attack against his father. He had a much larger
force in the field which he placed under the command of Amasa.
David divided his smaller defensive forces into thirds, appointing
Joab, Abishai (Joab’s brother), and Ittai the Gittite as captains. The
two forces engaged in combat on the east side of the Jordan River in
a wooded area.
Absalom’s army suffered the death of twenty thousand men in a
day, and Absalom himself was killed. The soldiers loyal to him then
fled, realizing that their attempt to overthrow David was doomed
and that they might well go the way of Absalom. The first casualty
of the battle actually had been the very wise man Ahithophel. When
Absalom had refused to conduct the war as he had advised and chose
instead a scheme which could not succeed, Ahithophel took his own
life.

History’s Lessons
When we visit famous battlefields we often observe monuments.
Children are especially fond of those monuments which realistically
represent the scene of history. There may be a statue of a hero in
battle attire astride a mighty horse. Or there may be carved panels
picturing opposing forces rushing toward one another with drawn
swords. From these we receive an idea of the excitement and
fearfulness of a war which has long ago passed into history.
Bible history is filled with picturesque monuments from ancient
times. Absalom is carved into the Bible in hideous scenes to impress
upon us all that God was serious in commanding, ‘Honour your
father and mother that it may be well with you and you may live long
on the earth’ (Eph. 6:2-3). Absalom, on the contrary, was active in
attempting to end his father’s life. He had assembled a mighty army

27
 The Banner of Truth
for the purpose of destroying his father. As a consequence God cut
off Absalom’s life on the earth before he had lived very long. It did
not go well with Absalom. Thus we see that God has made Absalom
a monument by which one can understand this foundational moral
principle of life.
At the foot of this monument is an inscription. It is either,
‘Whoever curses his father or his mother, his lamp will be put out in
deep darkness’ (Prov. 20:20), or it is, ‘The eye that mocks his father
and scorns obedience to his mother, the ravens of the valley will pick
it out, and the young eagles will eat it’ (Prov. 30:17). The monument
itself has two sides.
One side depicts a very handsome Absalom whose head is caught
in an oak tree, his feet helplessly hanging above ground level.
Approaching him are Joab, carrying three sharp spears, and his
armour bearers (young men), who carry swords. These men are
about to slay Absalom. On the other side of the monument is
displayed a pit in the forest upon the top of which we see a heap of
stones.
Absalom had decided that David, his own father, must die so that
he could take the king’s throne. For years this faithless son had
plotted to win the favour of the people whom David ruled. He had
slandered his father and had boasted that he would rule the kingdom
more wisely (2 Sam. 15:1-5). His efforts to turn the nation against his
father had succeeded so well that most able men in Israel actually did
volunteer to help Absalom fight against their king.
We must remember the Scripture which says, ‘When the wicked
spring up like grass, and when all the workers of iniquity flourish, it
is that they may be destroyed forever’ (Psa. 92:7), and, ‘He who . . .
hardens his neck will suddenly be destroyed and that without
remedy’ (Prov. 29:1). As Absalom’s scheme came together, he led a
huge army into combat against David’s lesser numbers. David’s place
of exile had been clearly identified.

God’s Attention to Every Detail

However, God caused the battle to turn against Absalom’s forces. As
was mentioned earlier, twenty thousand of his mighty warriors were
slaughtered (2 Sam. 18:7). In order to escape from the troops of

28
The Civil War (2 Sam. 18–19:8)
David, Absalom himself fled, riding a mule. His mount ran swiftly
under the thick branches of the forest. At the direction of the
Almighty, Absalom’s head was jammed into the branches of an oak,
as the mule ran out from under him.
Joab and his men executed Absalom, for God made Joab think
that the death of David’s son would make his army lose heart.
Following that a trumpet was blown to disengage the armies, so that
no further slaughter of fellow-countrymen would occur. Kingdoms
are given and withheld by the Lord. ‘The authorities that exist are
appointed by God’ (Rom. 13:1).
Absalom, who was so vain in his life, came to a shabby end. He
was without a proper burial and without any honours at his death.
His body was unceremoniously hurled into a pit in the woods, and
rocks were cast over that body until it was covered.

Graves and Memories

What a contrast there is between this memory of Absalom and the
one he had planned for himself! Having no son to carry on his name,
he had erected a pillar in his own honour in ‘The King’s Valley’
(2 Sam. 18:18). No doubt this refers to the valley between the temple
mount in Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. There, kings and
prophets were buried.
In our day one can still find, in the Kidron Valley, ‘The Tomb of
Absalom’. The present structure so named dates from many years
after Absalom shamefully perished with his arm raised against his
own father. Scripture does not tell us if David’s family had the
remains of Absalom removed from the pit and buried near the pillar
which Absalom had built. Nor do we know if ‘The Tomb of
Absalom’ is built upon the exact site of that pillar.

Sorrow for the Dead

As the one battle was being staged, David had publicly charged his
captains, ‘Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom’
(18:5). It was no surprise, therefore, that when the two messengers
brought David tidings of the battle, his one concern was to ask, ‘Is
the young man Absalom safe?’ (18:29, 32). When the second
messenger responded, ‘May the enemies of my lord the king, and all

29
 The Banner of Truth
who rise against you to do harm, be like that young man’ (18:32),
‘The king was deeply moved.’
For some time the overwhelmed father cried, ‘O my son Absalom
– my son, my son Absalom – if only I had died in your place! O
Absalom my son, my son’ (18:33)! Never was it more evidently
displayed that war may be almost as tragic to the victor as to the
vanquished.
David’s worst fears before the combat had now become dark
reality. Death had swallowed another of David’s sons. His first son
by Bathsheba and his son Amnon had preceded Absalom in death.
Having experienced the grave’s swallowing of one’s children does not
ease the anguish of a new incident of this affliction.
An object of the father’s love was painfully and permanently
snatched away from earthly fellowship. In such an hour, there floods
into a parent’s heart a felt awareness of the vanity and the deplorable
brevity of life since the Fall. Despite all of Absalom’s faults, David
loved him still.
Worse still, death had seized Absalom without his ever having
expressed a word of regret or repentance for his many crimes against
his father and other family members. Any gesture of remorse might
have eliminated the sting of his contempt for and rebellion against
David. How many have injured family members and then have
hastened to their tombs with never an apology to diminish the pain
of the one who is left! The survivor is bereaved of one whom he loved
dearly, yet one who remained at enmity with him.
However, the sharpest ache in David’s heart arose from his full
awareness that Absalom had hastened away to the judgment of
Almighty God. His death came because of rebellion against his
parents.
A sudden destruction. A violent assault. A shameful disposal of his
body in a pit. Infamy. Disgrace. The hand of the Lord had seized a
hardened sinner, and that sinner was his own son.
It is a strange contradiction of life that our faith leads both to
exalted joys and to precipitous sorrows. Being informed by Scripture
that the wicked shall be cast into hell but the righteous shall never
perish has two consequences for the believer. The first is that he feels
jubilant gratitude for a Saviour who delivers from the deserved curses

30
The Civil War (2 Sam. 18–19:8)
of the Most High. Yet the same beliefs intensify our misery when
someone we love goes away to judgment leaving us with no reason
to believe that he has found God’s mercy in Christ.
The wicked will spin dreams of pleasant things awaiting those like
themselves after death. The saint cannot indulge in such delusions
without denying the essence of his faith. He must suffer a peculiar
agony when a wicked family member dies. He suffers this because he
loves righteousness and hates iniquity; he was taught to do so by the
Lord Jesus. But the one who has died in his sins has never listened to
the gospel with faith.

High Costs of Prominence

Sometimes we imagine that to gain popularity and to rise to
prominent leadership are things greatly to be desired. Yet often the
eminent can find no place to hide from public view. Their pre-
eminence exacts a fee of embarrassment in those delicate moments
when they are overwhelmed with misfortune and grief. Celebrities
are denied private hours to weep and to recover composure. In just
this manner all of David’s sorrow for Absalom, even his excessive
sadness, was observed and noted by many.
There was no time to indulge his sorrow. Men had risked their
lives against an army of overwhelming proportions to deliver their
ruler from grave danger. Brave patriots and loyalists required David’s
attention, commendation and thanks. An evil, bloodthirsty, vain,
traitorous rebel must not have his sympathies, even if it was his
son.
Joab, who had dispatched Absalom, spoke to David roughly with
arguments and threatenings to awaken the king from his over-
indulgence of compassion for Absalom. Brought to his senses by the
shocking rebuke of Joab, David saluted the victorious band who had
restored the kingdom to him.
We see another example of this necessity much earlier in Israel’s
history when Aaron and his sons were conducting worship in the
tabernacle (Lev. 10:1-7). Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu,
‘offered profane fire before the Lord’– a fire which God had not
stipulated for his worship. As a consequence, ‘fire went out from the
Lord and devoured them’ (Lev. 10:2). Moses ordered some Levites to

31
 The Banner of Truth
carry the bodies of Nadab and Abihu out of the sanctuary. However,
Aaron and his two other sons were commanded not to react to this
traumatic double death in the family with ordinary expressions of
mourning. They had higher responsibilities, to conduct tabernacle
worship for the whole congregation.
It is clear from these Scriptures that excessive indulgence of grief
over the death of the wicked may interfere with higher obligations in
the service of God. All that we do is before the eyes of the Ruler of
all providence. We must not provoke the Lord with intemperate
outpourings of emotion as though we are fundamentally dis-
approving of divine justice.
God had many years before called David ‘a man after His own
heart’ (1 Sam. 7:11). This surely did not mean that David would not
sin nor take mistaken steps. Yet when he went astray he humbled
himself before the Lord and his prophets, repenting and returning to
the ways of the Lord. With all God’s chastening of his servant, God
was still making a house and an everlasting throne for David. The
kingdom shook. Then it was returned to David’s grasp.

Matthew Henry on 2 Samuel 18:19–33

By directing David to give God thanks for his victory, Ahimaaz prepared
him for the news of his son’s death. The more our hearts are fixed and
enlarged, in thanksgiving to God for our mercies, the better disposed we
shall be to bear with patience the afflictions mixed with them.
[David] . . . seems to have spoken without due thought. He is to be
blamed for showing so great fondness for a graceless son. Also for
quarrelling with Divine justice. And for opposing the justice of the
nation, which, as king, he had to administer, and which ought to be
preferred before natural affection.
The best men are not always in a good frame; we are apt to over-
grieve for what we over-loved. But while we learn from this example to
watch and pray against sinful indulgence, or neglect of our children, may
we not, in David, perceive a shadow of the Saviour’s love, who wept
over, prayed for, and even suffered death for mankind, though vile rebels
and enemies?

32
 BANNER OF TRUTH MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE
GRANTHAM, PENNSYLVANIA, MAY
. 23–25, 2006
TUESDAY, MAY 23 WEDNESDAY, MAY 24 THURSDAY, MAY 25

THE NEED FOR REFORM- THE BASIS OF REFORMATION

9:00 a.m. ATION TODAY ( Jer. 7:1–15) TODAY (Eph. 2:19–22)
Philip Ryken Philip Ryken

REGISTRATION BEGINS THE CHURCH’S PRESENT THE CHURCH’S PRESENT

10:45 a.m. AT 11.00 AM, NEED – MATURE FAITH NEED – MATURE MINISTERS
HOSTETTER Joel Beeke Joel Beeke
CHAPELLOBBY
THE IMPORTANCE OF PREACHING IN THE
3:15 p.m. PASTORAL VISITATION INNER CITY
Ian Hamilton Mark Johnston

CONFERENCE SERMON CHARLES HODGE: PUBLIC PANEL

3:30 p.m. CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN ON PREACHING
Matt Kingswood Ian Hamilton

JESUS CHRIST THE JESUS CHRIST THE CONFERENCE SERMON

7:00 p.m.
CHURCH BUILDER (1) CHURCH BUILDER (2)
Mark Johnston
Sinclair Ferguson Sinclair Ferguson

For conference information phone 1-800-263-8085.

Register online at www.banneroftruth.org/reg/us.php
 Issue 511 April 2006 £1.85 or $3.50

Sanctification: 3 – Through the Power of

the Spirit
John J, Murray
page 1

Sanctification: 4 – Alone, But Never Alone!

Mark G. Johnston
page 7

News and Comment

page 14

Perspective on Current Events:

Explaining the Australian Riots
Peter Barnes
page 15

Christian Orthodoxy
Prof. John Murray
page 19

More Good Books! – A Review Article

Iain H. Murray
page 24

The Civil War

(2 Samuel 18:1– 19:8)
Walter J. Chantry
page 27

THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST

THE GREY HOUSE P.O. BOX 621 P.O. BOX 29
3 MURRAYFIELD ROAD CARLISLE SYLVANIA SOUTHGATE
EDINBURGH PA 17013 N.S.W. 2224
EH12 6EL U.K. U.S.A. AUSTRALIA
A short extract about
pioneer missionary to
Aden, Ion Keith-Falconer,
taken from Marcus L.
Loane’s forthcoming book,
They Were Pilgrims (ISBN
0 85151 928 8) hbk

Champion Cyclist

Cycling was a novelty in the 1870s, and bicycles were

only just coming into fashion when Ion Keith-Falconer first
went up to Cambridge. But he was an enthusiast, and had
begun cycling while at Harrow; and when he left school,
the boys always thought him a sight to see when dressed
in his riding costume, and sitting astride his huge
machine. It was the old style of bicycle, on which he rode
like a giant and was to defeat all the leading professionals
of the decade. It was not until 1885 that the first bicycle
with both wheels of equal diameter was made, nor until
1888 that pneumatic tyres were employed. Better roads
and better machines have brought about revolutionary
changes since the days of Keith-Falconer, and speed
beyond the dreams of the early cyclist is now quite the
normal experience. His time records have been broken,
and his distance exploits have been surpassed. But he
was a pioneer, and for two years at least, he was the best
cyclist in all England: ‘and’, said Mr Bowen, ‘his delight in
success only showed in more than common relief the
charming modesty with which he carried his honours.’1

He was always ready to give encouragement, and he was

on terms of pleasant friendship with the professionals
against whom he had to compete. He loved cycling for its
own sake as a form of exercise and a means of
adventure, and a cycling tour of Scotland with a friend of
like mind gave him boundless pleasure. But he was an

1
Sinker, ibid. p. 19.
ardent competitor in the cycle races which were becoming
popular, and he revelled in the discipline as well as the
excitement which hard training and keen riding imposed.
There were several occasions when he had no time for
special training, and some of his greatest races were won
after weeks of gruelling study. But, as Mr Bowen
observed, ‘he had a real delight in feats of strength and
endurance for their own sake.’2 He had a wonderful
staying-power and was at his greatest at the finish; he
would often cover the last hundred yards at a pace and
with a verve which left other competitors at a comparative
stand-still. One might compare him with Eric Liddell some
fifty years later – an Edinburgh student, an Olympic
athlete, who was to lay down his life as a missionary in
China: both men were singularly modest in athletic
achievement and noble in Christian character.3

Keith-Falconer was elected Vice-President of the

Cambridge University Bicycling Club in June 1874 before
he had even gone up. On 10 November, he won a ten-
mile race in the record time of thirty-four minutes. ‘I was
not at all exhausted’, he wrote; ‘the road was splendid,
and a strong wind blowing from behind.’4 He won the Lent
Term race in 1875 over a distance of forty-two miles from
Hatfield to Cambridge, and he won a fifty-mile race from
St Albans to Oxford in a contest between Oxford and
Cambridge in May. In April 1876, he won the Amateur
Championship Four-Miles Race at Lillie Bridge in the
fastest time then on record, and in May he won the
Cambridge fifty-mile race at Fenners. In May 1877, he
became President of the London Bicycle Club, an office
which he was to hold for nearly ten years. In the
Cambridge races that month, he won the two, ten, and
twenty-five-mile events, and in the Inter-University races
2
Ibid.
3
Cf. D. P. Thomson, Eric Liddell, The Making of an
Athlete and the training of a Missionary.
4
Sinker, ibid. p. 37.
held at Oxford, he made record times to win the two and
ten-mile events. In May 1878, he won the title of Short
Distance Champion in the two-mile race held by the
National Cyclists’ Union at Stamford Bridge.

Perhaps his greatest race was one which took place in

the ensuing October, a five-mile race between
professionals and amateurs. It proved to be a duel
between Keith-Falconer and John Keen, who was the
professional champion; Keith-Falconer won by five yards.
‘The time was by far the fastest on record’, he wrote. ‘. . .
the last lap (440 yards) we did in 39 seconds . . . The
excitement was something indescribable. Such a neck
and neck race was never heard of. The pace for the last
mile was terrific, as the time shows (two minutes 52 2/5th
seconds); and when it was over, I felt as fit and
comfortable as ever I felt in my life . . . I did not perspire
or blow from beginning to end.’5 In May 1879, he met
Keen at Cambridge in a two-mile event and won by three
inches in record time. Three days later, he made a fresh
record to win a twenty-mile event. He was absorbed in
hard study all the morning and quite forgot the race. Other
competitors were on the course ready to start when he
rushed into the dressing room. He rode several miles
before he recovered his breath. Then one by one all the
competitors dropped out except Keith-Falconer and one
other. He was content to ride behind until two hundred
yards from home; then ‘with a spurt which the Cantabs
were expecting but which simply astonished all others, he
came right away and won as he liked.’6 His last major
race was the fifty-mile Bicycle Union Amateurs
Championship at the Crystal Palace on 29 July 1882. He
won the race in a fraction of a second less than two
hours, forty-four minutes, and broke the record by nearly
seven minutes.

5
Sinker, ibid. p. 62.
6
Ibid. p. 63.
Copyright Notice

We are aware that copies of the paper magazine are often

read by more than one person. In this electronic form, the
passing around of the magazine is even easier. We have
also deliberately left the pdf files unprotected so that they
can be printed and text can be copied and pasted from
them. However, we would like to make the following
observations:

The magazine is protected by copyright. If you wish to

use anything from the magazine in republished form,
(eg church newsletters, websites, etc) this requires our
permission. Please email us at info@banneroftruth.co.uk.

The magazine does cost us money to produce and this

is covered by subscriptions. If you regularly pass on
your magazine to someone else, could we encourage
you to ask them to consider subscribing to the
magazine themselves.

Thank you.

THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST

3 Murrayfield Road PO Box 621, Carlisle

Edinburgh EH12 6EL Pennsylvania 17013
UK USA

www.banneroftruth.co.uk