Christ According to the Flesh and Spirit

There has been something of an intramural debate*–over the past Century and a half–concerning Paul’s use of the sa??/p?e?µa (i.e. flesh/Spirit) distinction in relation to the Person and work of Christ in Romans 1:3-4. The old school, represented by Warfield, Hodge, Cranfield et al, held that Paul was merely referring to the two natures of Christ when he declared that He was “the seed of David according to the flesh” and “declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness through the resurrection of the dead.” Warfield explained his understanding of these verses when he wrote:

This is fundamentally, then, how Paul preached Christ – as the Son of God in this supereminent sense, and therefore our divine Lord on whom we absolutely depend and to whom we owe absolute obedience. But this was not all that he was accustomed to preach concerning Christ. Paul preached the historical Jesus as well as the eternal Son of God. And between these two designations – Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ – he inserts two clauses which tell us how he preached the historical Jesus. All that he taught about Christ was thrown up against the background of His deity: He is the Son of God, our Lord. But who is this that is thus so fervently declared to be the Son of God and our Lord? It is in the two clauses which are now to occupy our attention that Paul tells us.

If we reduce what he tells us to its lowest terms it amounts just to this: Paul preached the historical Christ as the promised Messiah and as the very Son of God. But he declares Christ to be the promised Messiah and the very Son of God in language so pregnant, so packed with implications, as to carry us into the heart of the great problem of the two-natured person of Christ. The exact terms in which he describes Christ as the promised Messiah and the very Son of God are these: “Who became of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was marked out as the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead.” This in brief is the account which Paul gives of the historical Christ whom he preached.

Of course there is a temporal succession suggested in the declarations of the two clauses. They so far give us not only a description of the historical Christ, but the life-history of the Christ that Paul preached. Jesus Christ became of the seed of David at His birth and by His birth. He was marked out as the Son of God in power only at His resurrection and by His resurrection. But it was not to indicate this temporal succession that Paul sets the two declarations side by side. It emerges merely as the incidental, or we may say even the accidental, result of their collocation. The relation in which Paul sets the two declarations to one another is a logical rather than a temporal one: it is the relation of climax. His purpose is to exalt Jesus Christ. He wishes to say the great things about Him. And the two greatest things he has to say about Him in His historical manifestation are these – that He became of the seed of David according to the flesh, that He was marked out as the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead.

In contrast to Warfield’s ontological view, Geerhardus Vos explained the redemptive-historical view in the following way:

The analogy, and its bearing upon our problem become most clear when the passage, Rom. 1.3-4, is somewhat closely analyzed. Here we read that Jesus was ???s?e?t?? ???? ?e?? e? d??aµe? ?ata p?e?µa a???s???? e? a?astase?? ?e????. The clause stands in parallelism to the one in vs. 3: ?e??µe??? e? spe?µat?? daß?d ?ata sa??a. It will be noticed that the following members correspond to each other in the two clauses: ?e??µe???————???s?e??; ?ata sa??a————?ata p?e?µa a???s????; e? spe?µat?? daß?d————e? a?astase?? ?e????. The reference is not to two coexisting states in the make-up of the Savior, but two successive stages in his life. There was first ?e?es?a? ?ata sa??a, then a ???s???a? ?ata p?e?µa. The two prepositional phrases have adverbial force, yet so as to throw emphasis on the result no less than on the initial act: He became, as to his sarkic (fleshly) existence, and He was “of the seed of David.” The ???s???a? Paul refers to is not an abstract determination, but an effectual installation, with bestowal of the requisite energy pertaining to the new state. Paul seems to avoid the repetition of ?e??µe???, not so much for stylistic reasons, but because it might have suggested, even before the reading of the sentence to the end could correct this, that at the resurrection the sonship of Christ, as such, first originated, whereas his actual meaning is that the sonship ?ata d??aµ?? there began to enter into operation. By the twofold ?ata the manner of each state of existence is contrasted, by the twofold e? the sphere of origin of each. As to the one He was “from the seed of David,” as to the other He was “out of resurrection from the dead.” The resurrection (both of Jesus and believers) is therefore according to Paul the entering upon a new phase of sonship characterized by the possession and exercise of unique supernatural power. That this should apply to Christ’s body alone, or to the exertion by Chris of somatic power on the bodies of believers alone, while not here expressly denied, is in itself highly implausible.

The above interpretation does not, of course, imply that Paul denied the supernatural conception of Jesus by the Spirit. Precisely because speaking of the pneuma-state in the absolute eschatological sense, he could disregard here the previous Spirit-birth and the Spirit-endowment at the baptism.2

Following Vos’ exegesis, the late John Murray also held that Romans 1:3-4 was teaching two progressive stages in the redemptive-historical experience of Jesus. He helpfully explained what the shift in the two stages of experience meant in the life of Jesus–and for believers–when he wrote:

Just as “according to the flesh” in verse 3 defines the phase which came to be through being born of the seed of David, so “according to the Spirit of holiness” characterizes the phase which came to be through the resurrection. And when we ask what that new phase was upon which the Son of God entered by his resurrection, there is copious New Testament allusion and elucidation (cf. Acts 2:36; Eph. 1:20–23; Phil. 2:9–11; 1 Pet. 3:21, 22). By his resurrection and ascension the Son of God incarnate entered upon a new phase of sovereignty and was endowed with new power correspondent with and unto the exercise of the mediatorial lordship which he executes as head over all things to his body, the church. It is in this same resurrection context and with allusion to Christ’s resurrection endowment that the apostle says, “The last Adam was made life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). And it is to this that he refers elsewhere when he says, “The Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17). “Lord” in this instance, as frequently in Paul, is the Lord Christ. The only conclusion is that Christ is now by reason of the resurrection so endowed with and in control of the Holy Spirit that, without any confusion of the distinct persons, Christ is identified with the Spirit and is called “the Lord of the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18). Thus, when we come back to the expression “according to the Spirit of holiness”, our inference is that it refers to that stage of pneumatic endowment upon which Jesus entered through his resurrection. The text, furthermore, expressly relates “Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness” with “the resurrection from the dead” and the appointment can be none other than that which came to be by the resurrection. The thought of verse 4 would then be that the lordship in which he was instated by the resurrection is one all-pervasively conditioned by pneumatic powers. The relative weakness of his pre-resurrection state, reflected on in verse 3, is contrasted with the triumphant power exhibited in his post-resurrection lordship. What is contrasted is not a phase in which Jesus is not the Son of God and another in which he is. He is the incarnate Son of God in both states, humiliation and exaltation, and to regard him as the Son of God in both states belongs to the essence of Paul’s gospel as the gospel of God. But the pre-resurrection and post-resurrection states are compared and contrasted, and the contrast hinges on the investiture with power by which the latter is characterized.3

John Skilton, in his outstanding 1996 WTJ article “A Glance At Some Old Problems in First Peter,” appealed to the redemptive-historical take on Romans 1:3-4 for arriving at a conclusion on the difficult exegesis of 1 Peter 3:18-20 :

Readers of the NT have been puzzled at times by statements that seem to indicate that our Lord has become something that he already had been before. For example, in Matt 28:18, Jesus says: “All power has been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” The reader asks, “Did he not have all power previously?” In Acts 2:36, Peter says: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ.” One inquires, “Was not Jesus both Lord and Christ already?” Other verses raise similar questions. The answer to these questions will be found in a right understanding of 1 Pet 3:18. At the close of that verse Peter writes:?a?at??e?? µ?? sa??? ???p????e?? d? p?e?µat?. Here we have a balanced structure that contributes substantially to the interpretation. For example, in their tight parallelism we expect both sa??? and p?e?µat? to be used in the same way. Mounce claims that the translation in the NIV, “in the body…by the Spirit,” has two faults:

First, the words “body” and “spirit” are parallel and should be translated in the same manner (both are in the dative case and the NIV’s “in the body…but…by the Spirit” is misleading). Second, the capital S on “Spirit” interprets the word to mean the Holy Spirit. In other words the clause is made to say that Jesus died physically but was resurrected by the Holy Spirit. While this theology is certainly orthodox, it is not what the text actually says. Flesh and spirit represent two spheres of existence or two successive conditions of Christ’s human nature…

…Marked off in 1 Pet 3:18, as in Rom 1:3–4, would be two successive stages in our Lord’s messianic work. These different stages are reflected also in such verses as Matt 28:18 and Acts 2:36, which were mentioned earlier. The second stage, introduced by the resurrection, was “one all-pervasively conditioned by pneumatic powers.” The p?e?µat? in 1 Pet 3:18 accordingly refers not only to the resurrection, but also to the state of power that followed it.4

While Warfield’s position falls entirely within the realm of the analogy of Scripture and analogy of faith, it does not do full justice to the exegetical construct of Romans 1:3-4. Much more satisfying is the explanation provided by Vos, Murray, Skilton, Gaffin et al. Understanding the sa??/p?e?µa (i.e. flesh/Spirit) distinction in redemptive history helps us understand more of what we have as believers living in the new age (i.e. the age of the Spirit).

1. B. B. Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” in The Person and Work of Christ (ed. Samuel G. Craig; Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 73-90.

2. Geerhards Vos The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1961) n. 10 pp. 155-156. For a continued treatment of this passage see Vos’ chapter, “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Concept of the Spirit” in the Princeton Seminary Biblical and Theological Studies p. 228ff.

3. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 6.

4. John H. Skilton, ”A Glance At Some Old Problems in First Peter,” (Westminster Theological Journal 58:1 (Spr 96) p. 6

*See Lee Irons 10 posts defending Warfield’s position.

Mommy Wars Are Spirit Wars

As a part of American jargon, the “mommy wars” have raged for more than 20 years. The term was coined in the late 1980s by Child magazine to describe the tension that existed between working and stay-at-home mothers. Since then, numerous books and articles have been published about the so-called mommy wars, feeding the talk show circuit and fueling blogosphere brushfires.

But our history of cultural ambivalence about motherhood is much longer. Allow me a moment for a quick overview.

Shortly after our nation was founded, motherhood hit a high note. As historian Glenna Matthews writes in Just A Housewife, this new political experiment needed mothers:

There were no precedents for a republic on the scale of the United States. Many people believed that the new nation would require the support of a uniquely public-spirited citizenry. If citizens must learn to place a high value on the public interest, this was a lesson they would need to begin in childhood. Thus the home became crucial to the success of the nation and women — whose education began to be taken much more seriously than ever before — gained the role of ‘Republican Mother.’

Soon the Republican Motherhood concept began to spill out of the home into the public square as women organized benevolent agencies to combat drunkenness, slavery, gambling, and other problems of the age.

But Republican Motherhood met its demise when Charles Darwin released his 1859 publication, On the Origin of Species. Darwin viewed women as lesser beings in the system of evolution. His ideas were immediately embraced by Social Darwinists, who claimed that since men had always fought for survival in the world, they were honed by competition and natural selection. In comparison, women were sheltered from this process because they were at home with the children — thus, they “evolved” more slowly.

With motherhood thus devalued, children became the next targets. Margaret Sanger, who founded what later became Planned Parenthood, believed that most evils stemmed from large families. As she wrote in her 1920 book, Woman and the New Race, “the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Sanger was a vocal proponent of eugenics — the theory of race improvement that was the cornerstone of Nazi Germany. Her monthly magazine, Woman Rebel, was published under the slogan, “No gods; no masters!” For Sanger, the birth control movement was founded on two goals: limiting the reproduction of the “unfit” and challenging Christian teaching by creating a “new morality.” She campaigned against women who “with staggering rapidity” were breeding “those numberless, undesired children who become the clogs and the destroyers of civilization.”

Sanger’s scorched-earth writing left no one guessing about her views. Confidently, she predicted a future that never materialized — and arguably was precisely the opposite in the century that followed.

When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race. There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion, nor through neglect in foundling homes, nor will there be infanticide. . . . Child slavery, prostitution, feeblemindedness, physical deterioration, hunger, oppression and war will disappear from the earth. . . . When the womb becomes fruitful through the desire of an aspiring love, another Newton will come forth to unlock further the secrets of the earth and the stars. There will come a Plato who will be understood, a Socrates who will drink no hemlock, and a Jesus who will not die upon the cross.

On the contrary, there is no hope for “child slavery, prostitution, feeblemindedness, physical deterioration, hunger, oppression and war to disappear from the earth” if the Father’s righteous anger against these terrible sins is not satisfied! Where would justice be in the universe if such sins go overlooked? There is no hope of a new heavens and a new earth, free from the effects of the fall, without the atonement of our sinless Savior. There is no hope for mercy to triumph over judgment unless it be found at the foot of that cross. Our only hope is the cross!

Therefore, the real “mommy wars” are not against other people and their parenting styles, nor even against Darwin, Sanger or those who promote similar ideologies. As Ephesians 6:12 says, “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” The real mommy wars are spiritual. And this conflict began with the very first mother, Eve.

Her initial assignment, along with her husband Adam, was to be “fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). But after the Fall, childbearing became painful and opposed. When the Lord God cursed the serpent that deceived Eve, he said, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15).

Ever since, Satan has labored to destroy the offspring of those who are made in the image of God. The real mommy wars are not against flesh and blood, but against the one who seeks to destroy the next generation of those who would rise up to praise God.

You may be a mother and in the thick of rearing children right now. Perhaps it took you several attempts to read this blog post, thanks to the constant interruptions of young children. Your daily life may consist of dozens of repetitive tasks that feel mundane and irrelevant. This is absolutely not true! You are engaged in spiritual warfare. You are standing against those who believe heinous lies, like “the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” By bearing and nurturing life, you are reflecting the life-giving characteristics of our holy God! Made in his image, you are reflecting him when you care for the lives he has created.

This applies to those of us who are childless, too. Whether you are not yet married, or married but not yet pregnant, or past the age of bearing children — whatever season of life you are in, you are still part of the great community of believers who are called to witness to the majesty of God: “One generation shall commend your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts” (Psalm 145:4).

It may be quite bitter not to have children of your own, but I ask you to be strategic about the battle. Where can you stand against the devil’s schemes and invest in the children God has already put in your life? Where can you reach out? So many hurting children exist and so many are being discarded.

The real “mommy war” needs every believing woman to enlist. The battle is more significant and more costly than we truly perceive.

________

The Spirit of Steps

 The Spirit of Steps

With the occasion of U.S. Memorial Day in my mind, I was thinking about my grandfather. For years he marched in our small hometown parade, proudly representing the United States Air Force. I have not made it home for the parade in the past few years, but in my mind are countless parades past. I recall the serious look on his face as he carried himself and the uniform on his back with stately regard. When I was among the cheering crowd I loved to watch his official countenance momentarily dissolve as the veterans marched past our house. For those of us waving from the front porch my grandfather always reserved a warm smile and a distinguished nod. 

 

But one thing that would remain meticulously unaffected—whether grinning at grandchildren or honoring the flag with his attention—was his careful propensity to march in step. Carrying the weighted memories of all that our nation attempts to pause and remember on Memorial Day, a veteran could perhaps do nothing less. 

 

But when the roles were reversed, and my sister and I were marching in the junior high band while my grandfather was looking on, we were the slouching targets of his disgust. "Did you realize that no one in your marching band was actually marching? Not one of you was in step." While the etiquette of carrying oneself with proper time and rhythm may have been lost on teenagers, to my grandfather, marching in step was as necessary as remembering to wear shoes.

 

To this day, I cannot watch a parade without duly noticing if its participants are in step with the drummer. And I realize now that to march in step one must first want to march in step. It requires a willingness to hear the cadence and align oneself with it accordingly. Subsequently, our unwillingness to march in step said something about our band, our commitment and unity, our respect for what we were doing, and our willingness to follow the authority of the drummer. And it was true; while we prided ourselves on performing in concert, we did not see ourselves as a marching band, and it showed in our walk. Moreover, the attitudes with which we carried ourselves ultimately affected our sound. 

 

Christianity uses a similar imagery where it speaks of keeping "in step" with the Spirit as it relates to fruit and authority. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control... Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.  Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit" (Galatians 5:24-25). The apostle Paul wants followers of Christ to recognize that the fruit we produce as his followers is directly related to the cadence we pursue. If our desire is to march to our own beat and direct our own way, we are likely to be out of step with Christ and out of touch with the Spirit.    

 

There are so many ways to walk through life. There are so many drummers to choose as guiding authorities of life's parade. The question of cadence is related to every aspect of life; from the way we carry ourselves to the tune we produce as we go along. In the earnest prayer of Psalm 119, the psalmist recognizes both his heartfelt need for a "drummer" and a desire to walk in his better way. "Direct my footsteps according to your word; let no sin rule over me." Like marchers who align themselves with one calling out the better cadence, the Christian pilgrim aligns herself with the enduring voice of God and the victorious life of Christ. She is being led further into the house of heaven by the very one who is preparing her room. 

 

Since it is in Christ's steps the Christian follows, by the Spirit that he lives, and by God's voice that he is directed, his steps are aligned by the Spirit accordingly, walking forward in faith, treading where the saints have trod. No doubt, like my grandfather, the heavens rejoice at the sight of the great cloud of witnesses, who, in following hard after Christ by the Spirit who enables them, find themselves marching in step.  

 

The Mysterious Spirit of the Living God

It may be, that during a sermon two men are listening to the same truth; one of them hears as attentively as the other and remembers as much of it; the other is melted to tears or moved with solemn thoughts; but the one though equally attentive, sees nothing in the sermon, except, maybe, certain important truths well set forth; as for the other, his heart is broken within him and his soul is melted. Ask me how is it that the same truth has an effect upon the one, and not upon his fellow—I reply, because the mysterious Spirit of the Living God goes with the truth to one heart and not to the other. The one only feels the force of truth, and that may be strong enough to make him tremble, like Felix; but the other feels the Spirit going with the truth, and that renews the man, regenerates him, and causes him to pass into that condition, that gracious condition which is called the state of salvation. This change takes place instantaneously. It is as miraculous a change as any miracle of which we read in Scripture. It is supremely supernatural. It may be mimicked, but no imitation of it can be true and real. Men may pretend to be regenerated without the Spirit, but regenerated they cannot be. It is change so marvelous that the highest attempts of man can never reach it. We may reason as long as we please, but we cannot reason ourselves into regeneration; we may meditate until our hairs are gray with study; but we cannot meditate ourselves into the new birth. That is worked in us by the sovereign will of God alone.
–Charles H. Spurgeon

On the Unction of the Holy Spirit

The last chapter of Lloyd-Jones’ book on Preaching talks about the unction of the Holy Spirit, and how it is an essential element of the preacher’s ministry. Thomas Murphy makes a similar point early on in his very important Pastoral Theology.

These men quote passages such as in Acts where Barnabas is said to be a good man, full of the Holy Spirit, and that (presumably) many were added to the Lord (i.e., converted) through his ministry (Acts 11:24). Further, we are told that after the baptism of Jesus, he receives the Spirit that he might preach the Good News of the Kingdom. And so forth and so on.

These passages are supposed to teach that there is a special, additional measure of the Spirit – that is, in addition to the giving of the Spirit in our regeneration – which is needed and required to bless the ministry of the minister of the Word. This is the anointing of the Spirit, which gives the preacher the kind of zeal and . . . well . . . unction, needed to minister effectively.

What do you all think of this? I haven’t read much on this subject. So I am curious to learn from those who have reflected somewhat on this issue. Do you think its biblical? Is it problematic to speak of an additional measure of the Spirit given by God to some to equip them for a special ministry in the church?

View the original article here

The Power of the Holy Spirit to Save the Worst of Sinners — J.C. Ryle

J.C. Ryle (1816-1900)
J.C. Ryle,
While there is life there is hope. The oldest, the vilest, the worst of sinners may be saved. Only let him come to Christ, confess his sin, and cry to Him for pardon,—only let him cast his soul on Christ, and he shall be cured. The Holy Spirit shall be sent down on his heart, according to Christ’s promise, and he shall be changed by His Almighty power into a new creature.
I never despair of any one becoming a decided Christian, whatever he may have been in days gone by. I know how great the change is from death to life; I know the mountains of division that seem to stand between some men and heaven; I know the hardness, the prejudices, the desperate sinfulness of the natural heart; but I remember that God the Father made the glorious world out of nothing. I remember the voice of the Lord Jesus could reach Lazarus when four days dead, and recall him even from the grave; I remember the amazing victories the Spirit of God has won in every nation under heaven; I remember all this, and feel that I never need despair. Yes! those very persons who now seem most utterly dead in sins, may yet be raised to a new being, and walk before God in newness of life.
Why should it not be so? the Holy Spirit is a mighty, merciful, and loving Spirit. He turns away from no man because of his vileness. He passes by no one because his sins are black and scarlet.
There was nothing in the Corinthians that He should come down and quicken them. Paul reports of them that they were “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners.” “Such,” he says, “were some of you.” Yet even them the Spirit made alive. “Ye are washed,” he writes, “ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
There was nothing in the Colossians that He should visit their hearts. Paul tells us that they walked in “fornication, uncleanliness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Yet them also the Spirit quickened. He made them “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Col. 3:5-10).
There was nothing in Mary Magdalene that the Spirit should make her soul alive. Once she had been possessed with seven devils; time was, if report be true, she had been a woman proverbial for vileness and iniquity: yet even her the Spirit made a new creature,—separated her from her sins, —brought her to Christ,—made her last at the cross, and first at the tomb.
Never, never will the Spirit turn away from a soul because of its corruption. He never has done so;—He never will. It is His glory that He has purified the minds of the most impure, and made them temples for His own abode. He may yet take the worst of those who read this tract and make him a vessel of grace.
Why indeed should it not be so? The Spirit is an Almighty Spirit. He can change the stony heart into a heart of flesh; He can break the strongest bad habits like tow before the fire; He can make the most difficult things seem easy, and the mightiest objections melt away like snow in spring; He can cut the bars of brass, and throw the gates of prejudice wide open; He can fill up every valley, and make every rough place smooth. He has done it often, and He can do it again,
The Spirit can take a Jew,—the bitterest enemy of Christianity, the fiercest persecutor of true believers, the strongest stickler for Pharisaical notions, the most prejudiced opposer of Gospel doctrine,—and turn that man into an earnest preacher of the very faith he once destroyed. He has done it already.—He did it with the Apostle Paul.
The Spirit can take a Roman Catholic monk, brought up in the midst of Romish superstition,—trained from his infancy to believe false doctrine, and obey the Pope, —steeped to the eyes in error,—and make that man the clearest upholders of justification by faith the world ever saw; He has done so already.—He did it with Martin Luther.
The Spirit can take an English tinker, without learning, patronage, or money,—a man at one time notorious for nothing so much as blasphemy and swearing,—and make that man write a religious book, which shall stand unrivalled and unequalled in its way by any since the time of the Apostles. He has done so already—He did it with John Bunyan, the author of “Pilgrim’s Progress.”
The Spirit can take a sailor, drenched in worldliness and sin,—a profligate captain of a slave ship,—and make that man a most successful minister of the Gospel; a writer of letters which are a store-house of experimental religion; and of hymns which are known and sung wherever English is spoken. He has done it already. —He did it with John Newton.
All this the Spirit has done, and much more, of which I cannot speak particularly. And the arm of the Spirit is not shortened: His power is not decayed. He is like the Lord Jesus,—the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is still doing wonders, and will do to the very end.
from the J.C. Ryle Tract, The Power of the Holy Spirit. (which can be found at Evangelical Tracts)
View the original article here