…we may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or (much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case, you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events.  Indeed, if they are both to be read literalistically, why would the author have combined the accounts, since they are (on that reading) incompatible? The best answer is that we are not supposed to understand them that way.

- Tim Keller from the Biologos website.

Some have put forward the theory that Genesis does not claim to be a scientific treatise, but is just allegory or poetry, that the Bible does not pretend to be scientfically accurate but is a typical, poetical, allegorical way of describing creation. To this the answer is, of course, that there is not a trace of poetry in these early chapters of Genesis. The form is not poetical at all. It claims to be history. It claims to be giving facts, and the history that follows immediately and directly out of it is certainly true history and not allegory.

- Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, from God the Father, God the Son, pg 134.

Another new book, Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones, has some new reviews. Still no word on availability in the USA.

Review by Jeremy Walker
Review by Andrew Roycroft
Review by Guy Davies
Review by Adrian Reynolds

You can also read the Contents and Foreword at IVP.

There’s no word yet on availability in the USA.

I think it is quite without scriptural warrant to say that all these gifts ended with the apostles or the apostolic era. I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then. At the same time most of the claimed miracles by the Pentecostalists and others certainly do not belong to that category and can be explained psychologically or in other ways. I am also of the opinion that most, if not all, of the people claiming to speak in tongues at the present time are certainly under a psychological rather than a spiritual influence. But again I would not dare to say that ‘tongues’ are impossible at the present time.

- from a letter dated 18 September 1969, pg 202, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: Letters 1919-1981.

Another doctrine which is most important when cultic matters are evaluated is the biblical doctrine of sin. The absence of a belief in sin is the hall-mark of the cults. That is what I meant earlier when I said cults are often preached from so-called Christian pulpits. Certain men have become very popular through preaching that there is no such thing as sin, that it is very wrong to talk about sin, and that the Church, by preaching a doctrine of sin, has kept the people from truth. Instead of a belief in sin, they say, you must believe in yourself. ‘Positive thinking’, as it is termed, is very popular in America today, and it is being preached in this country also. It sounds so marvelous – ‘There is no such thing as sin; you must not speak against yourself, you must not look down on yourself. Believe in yourself; you are wonderful if you only realized it! What the Bible calls sin is an insult to mankind; we now understand all these things psychologically.’

None of the cults like the doctrine of sin; and, of course, for the very good reason that you are never going to be popular if you preach the biblical doctrine of sin. But the cults must be popular, otherwise they cannot succeed. God is not in them, so something has to keep them going. The men and women who keep going do so by pandering to people, pleasing them and praising them.

It is exactly the same with regard to the doctrine of salvation. Obviously if the cults do not believe in sin you would not expect them to be right about salvation. They do not believe that the Son of God came from heaven to earth in order to take sin upon Himself and bear the punishment… They do not believe in substitutionary atonement.

Ephesians 6:10-13 – The Christian Warfare, pg 129-130.