Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts
Sunday, February 21, 2010
John Owen: Those who deny imputation of original guilt from Adam cannot appreciate the depth and wonder of Christ's person and work
"By some the imputation of the actual apostasy and transgression of Adam, the head of our nature, whereby his sin became the sin of the world, is utterly denied. Hereby both the grounds the apostle proceeds on in evincing the necessity of our justification, or our being made righteous by the obedience of another, and all the arguments brought in the confirmation of the doctrine of it, in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, are evaded and overthrown. ... Some disease and distemper of the soul they will acknowledge, arising from the disorder of our affections, whereby we are apt to receive in such vicious habits and customs as are in practice in the world; and, as the guilt hereof is not much, so the danger of it is not great. And as for any spiritual filth or stain of our nature that is in it, it is clean washed away from all by baptism. ... And small hope is there to bring such men to value the righteousness of Christ, as imputed to them, who are so unacquainted with their own unrighteousness inherent in them. Until men know themselves better, they will care very little to know Christ at all." (John Owen, "Justification")
Thursday, February 4, 2010
R. Scott Clark: Limited Atonement (excerpts)
The doctrine of definite atonement holds that Christ has saved a great multitude. This is the teaching of several places in Scripture (Heb 12:22-23; Jude 1:14; Rev 7:9-10). It is not that we expect only a few to be redeemed, but rather we simply reject the teaching that Jesus has either redeemed everyone who ever lived or that he has only made it possible for everyone to be saved. In fact, the doctrine of definite atonement is not narrow at all since we hold that Scripture teaches that every single person whom Jesus intended to redeem he has redeemed.
... We also reject the moral government theory of the atonement that Jesus died primarily as an example. To be sure Jesus did set an example (1 Pet 2:21) but Scripture makes clear that the work of Christ was much more than that. He was our substitute, as 1 Peter 3:18 says explicitly, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous".
... A robust doctrine of sin is essential to understanding the doctrine of the atonement. To the degree one tends to downplay the nature or effects of sin (original or actual) then to that degree one also tends to downplay the need for a substitutionary Savior.
... Thus choice which the Christian faces then is not between a "limited" and "unlimited" atonement, but between a "definite" or "indefinite" or between a "person" or an "impersonal" atonement. It is the Reformed contention that God's Word teaches that Christ died for persons, his sheep, those whom he loved, from all eternity. It is our view that Jesus did not die to make salvation available or merely possible, but that when he said "It is finished" (John 19:30) he was declaring that, as the once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27), he had completed the work which his Father gave him to do (John 6:57; 10:17-18).
... Since in Adam we have all sinned we must make satisfaction to that justice either by ourselves or by another. We, however, cannot make satisfaction by ourselves since we sin daily and thus daily increase our guilt.
Romans 5.12-21 also makes it clear that Adam's sin is also our sin, that is it has been imputed (credited) to everyone who has ever lived. We are biologically connected to Adam, but Scripture is much more concerned about our legal union with him and its consequences, chiefly, death.
... Scripture consistently makes God the moral standard against which all moral acts and claims are measured. The law is an expression of God's nature and so sin is an offense against God personally. God does not clear the guilty.
... Thus there must be a satisfaction for that sin. Since the earliest recorded moments of human history after the fall, man has known that there must be a substitute, a just representative to take the place of sinners. Righteous Abel (Gen 4:4; Matt 23:35) brought a living offering, a blood offering. Hebrews 12:4 teaches that Abel brought a better sacrifice than Cain. Why was Abel's better? Is there something inherently better in a blood offering than in a grain offering? One would think not, but Hebrews goes on to say that "God spoke well of his offerings." Abel's offering was superior because it was a blood offering, because the blood testified our need of a Savior, of the principle of justice, "eye for eye" (Ex 21:24) hence Hebrews 12:24 teaches that Abel's bloody sacrifice was a pointed picture, shadow or type of the better, perfect blood offering to come, that of the Lamb of God himself, Jesus.
... One of the reasons that there is confusion about the extent of the atonement is that Christians do not always understand well what it is that Christ came to do.
... Why is God "faithful" and "just" when he forgives us? Because Jesus Christ the righteous has paid the penalty for his people, he has turned away God's wrath for his people and therefore they may enter boldly into the Holy of Holies (Hebrews 10:19). We are not able to stand before God because he averts his eyes or overlooks our sins, but rather, because Jesus Christ has paid the debt in full and satisfied God's righteousness.
... The Apostle Paul teaches precisely the same thing in Romans 3:25,26:
God presented Him (Jesus) as the place of propitiation, through faith in His blood, for of a demonstration of His Righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins committed beforehand in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of His righteousness now in this season in order that He might be just--righteous, and the one--declaring righteous--the one (having) faith in Jesus (my translation).
... Underlying much of our discussion thus far has been the assumption that Jesus came intentionally to redeem his people. That is, it was never his intention to propitiate the wrath of God for everyone who ever lived. Rather it was his intention to redeem all of his people completely.
... This Biblical particularism is perhaps no where so powerfully evident as in the Servant Song in Isa 52:13-53:12. Beginning in 52:13 God presents his "servant" (Ebed). His work benefit "many nations (52:15)." As the prophecy is progressively disclosed, the servant is "despised" and "we esteemed him not." The relations are now considered between "us" and the servant. Thus in 53:4 he took up "our" infirmities" and in v.5 he was "pierced for our transgressions." Thus the expression "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" has a definite context. The "all" here refers to those for whom the servant will suffer and die, but this is not everyone who ever lived. This is clear in v. 11 where the Servant is said to "justify many." Again in v. 12 the Servant "bore the sin of many." We know of course from the Gospels and from Acts 8:26-35 that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 8 is none other than Jesus Christ. Thus the Servant Jesus is said to have suffered and died the "many", i.e., his people, not for everyone who ever lived.
... As one can see, a problem arises in the interpretation of "world" in John's writings. What if neither Jesus, the speaker, John the writer nor the Holy Spirit who caused John to write meant to communicate "everyone who ever lived" but, something else? In fact, he did mean to communicate something else. Just as the opening clause is not about the quantity (if one can speak of such things) of God's love, so kosmos does not speak of the quantity of those for whom Jesus died, but the quality. Even though he used it 78 times in his writings, the Apostle John used the word kosmos consistently in this qualitative sense.
... In fact the word "all" is frequently used in a relative sense to describe a certain class or kind of person. In Titus 2:11, Paul says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Has saving grace actually appeared to everyone who ever lived? No. Therefore "all" (pas) here must be taken in some restricted sense. Paul simply means, "has become widely available." We could multiply examples. Does "all" in Titus 1:15 mean that "everything possible" is "pure"? No, rather "all things" (panta) means "everything of certain already proscribed set of things." In Matt 10:22 Jesus says that "all men shall hate you because of me." Did he mean to say, "everyone who ever lived"? No, this is an example of the sort of hyperbole which Jesus used frequently to make a point.
What of Hebrews 2:9, which clearly says that Jesus "suffered death so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." How will the Calvinist/particularist wriggle out of this noose? By reading v.9 in the context of v.10! The text continues to say, "In bringing many sons to glory..." so that the "everyone" of v.9 refers to the "many" of v.10, for whom Jesus did not just make salvation possible, but whom he "bringing" to glory.
The best illustration of this is perhaps a passage which some have seen as proof positive that Jesus must have intended to die as the substitute for everyone who ever lived, is a passage which many have taken to contradict the doctrine of definite atonement,1 Timothy 4:10. Scripture says in part, "we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior (soter) of all men, and especially of those who believe." At first blush it would seem that, if Hebrews 2:9 did not put and end to definite atonement, surely this passage must.
Recent research by Steve Baugh has shown, however, that, read in context, this passage is not concerned with the extent of the atonement. The key is Paul's use of Soter. Firstly, he notes, what does it mean to juxtapose "Savior" (one who saves eternally) of believers but especially of believers? Of course believers are saved, but if "all men" means everyone who ever lived, then, they are all saved and we should become absolute universalists, in which case it is not just Calvinists who must change their views, but also Arminians who must abandon their half-way position and become absolute universalists.
The answer is that, in this passage, soter does not mean "one who saves eternally" but rather means "benefactor." As Steve Baugh notes, in "Paul's day, soter was a common title or description of men, emperors and deities." In fact, there was a statue in Ephesus, where Paul ministered for a considerable period, dedicated to Julius Caesar, on which he was hailed as "the universal benefactor of human life." Paul's point, in the flow of his argument, is that, no, it is the ascended King Jesus, who rules at the right hand of the Father, who is the "benefactor of all men especially of those who believe." Taken in the sense of common grace, this passage is not about the extent of the atonement, universal or otherwise.
... If one accepts that Jesus died as a propitiatory substitute for all his people, there are really only two alternatives, definite atonement or absolute (total) universalism. Either he saved everyone who ever lived, or he saved all those whom he loved.
... Indeed, Calvinism and Arminianism agree that Christ did not actually redeem everyone who ever lived, thus the question is not even whether there is a "limit" to the extent of the atonement, but rather, what is the nature of the limit? Is limited by God's choice and design or by free human choices?
It is our contention that Scripture teaches that Jesus did not fail. Rather where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. As the Second Adam (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 44) Jesus actively obeyed God's perfect Law perfectly, and suffered all the wrath which was due to us, his people, for whom he died (Phil 2:5-11).
... In itself, Christ's death is not limited in its potential, rather it is definite in its intent and personal in its application.
(Excerpted from: R. Scott Clark, Limited Atonement)
... We also reject the moral government theory of the atonement that Jesus died primarily as an example. To be sure Jesus did set an example (1 Pet 2:21) but Scripture makes clear that the work of Christ was much more than that. He was our substitute, as 1 Peter 3:18 says explicitly, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous".
... A robust doctrine of sin is essential to understanding the doctrine of the atonement. To the degree one tends to downplay the nature or effects of sin (original or actual) then to that degree one also tends to downplay the need for a substitutionary Savior.
... Thus choice which the Christian faces then is not between a "limited" and "unlimited" atonement, but between a "definite" or "indefinite" or between a "person" or an "impersonal" atonement. It is the Reformed contention that God's Word teaches that Christ died for persons, his sheep, those whom he loved, from all eternity. It is our view that Jesus did not die to make salvation available or merely possible, but that when he said "It is finished" (John 19:30) he was declaring that, as the once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27), he had completed the work which his Father gave him to do (John 6:57; 10:17-18).
... Since in Adam we have all sinned we must make satisfaction to that justice either by ourselves or by another. We, however, cannot make satisfaction by ourselves since we sin daily and thus daily increase our guilt.
Romans 5.12-21 also makes it clear that Adam's sin is also our sin, that is it has been imputed (credited) to everyone who has ever lived. We are biologically connected to Adam, but Scripture is much more concerned about our legal union with him and its consequences, chiefly, death.
... Scripture consistently makes God the moral standard against which all moral acts and claims are measured. The law is an expression of God's nature and so sin is an offense against God personally. God does not clear the guilty.
... Thus there must be a satisfaction for that sin. Since the earliest recorded moments of human history after the fall, man has known that there must be a substitute, a just representative to take the place of sinners. Righteous Abel (Gen 4:4; Matt 23:35) brought a living offering, a blood offering. Hebrews 12:4 teaches that Abel brought a better sacrifice than Cain. Why was Abel's better? Is there something inherently better in a blood offering than in a grain offering? One would think not, but Hebrews goes on to say that "God spoke well of his offerings." Abel's offering was superior because it was a blood offering, because the blood testified our need of a Savior, of the principle of justice, "eye for eye" (Ex 21:24) hence Hebrews 12:24 teaches that Abel's bloody sacrifice was a pointed picture, shadow or type of the better, perfect blood offering to come, that of the Lamb of God himself, Jesus.
... One of the reasons that there is confusion about the extent of the atonement is that Christians do not always understand well what it is that Christ came to do.
... Why is God "faithful" and "just" when he forgives us? Because Jesus Christ the righteous has paid the penalty for his people, he has turned away God's wrath for his people and therefore they may enter boldly into the Holy of Holies (Hebrews 10:19). We are not able to stand before God because he averts his eyes or overlooks our sins, but rather, because Jesus Christ has paid the debt in full and satisfied God's righteousness.
... The Apostle Paul teaches precisely the same thing in Romans 3:25,26:
God presented Him (Jesus) as the place of propitiation, through faith in His blood, for of a demonstration of His Righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins committed beforehand in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of His righteousness now in this season in order that He might be just--righteous, and the one--declaring righteous--the one (having) faith in Jesus (my translation).
... Underlying much of our discussion thus far has been the assumption that Jesus came intentionally to redeem his people. That is, it was never his intention to propitiate the wrath of God for everyone who ever lived. Rather it was his intention to redeem all of his people completely.
... This Biblical particularism is perhaps no where so powerfully evident as in the Servant Song in Isa 52:13-53:12. Beginning in 52:13 God presents his "servant" (Ebed). His work benefit "many nations (52:15)." As the prophecy is progressively disclosed, the servant is "despised" and "we esteemed him not." The relations are now considered between "us" and the servant. Thus in 53:4 he took up "our" infirmities" and in v.5 he was "pierced for our transgressions." Thus the expression "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" has a definite context. The "all" here refers to those for whom the servant will suffer and die, but this is not everyone who ever lived. This is clear in v. 11 where the Servant is said to "justify many." Again in v. 12 the Servant "bore the sin of many." We know of course from the Gospels and from Acts 8:26-35 that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 8 is none other than Jesus Christ. Thus the Servant Jesus is said to have suffered and died the "many", i.e., his people, not for everyone who ever lived.
... As one can see, a problem arises in the interpretation of "world" in John's writings. What if neither Jesus, the speaker, John the writer nor the Holy Spirit who caused John to write meant to communicate "everyone who ever lived" but, something else? In fact, he did mean to communicate something else. Just as the opening clause is not about the quantity (if one can speak of such things) of God's love, so kosmos does not speak of the quantity of those for whom Jesus died, but the quality. Even though he used it 78 times in his writings, the Apostle John used the word kosmos consistently in this qualitative sense.
... In fact the word "all" is frequently used in a relative sense to describe a certain class or kind of person. In Titus 2:11, Paul says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Has saving grace actually appeared to everyone who ever lived? No. Therefore "all" (pas) here must be taken in some restricted sense. Paul simply means, "has become widely available." We could multiply examples. Does "all" in Titus 1:15 mean that "everything possible" is "pure"? No, rather "all things" (panta) means "everything of certain already proscribed set of things." In Matt 10:22 Jesus says that "all men shall hate you because of me." Did he mean to say, "everyone who ever lived"? No, this is an example of the sort of hyperbole which Jesus used frequently to make a point.
What of Hebrews 2:9, which clearly says that Jesus "suffered death so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." How will the Calvinist/particularist wriggle out of this noose? By reading v.9 in the context of v.10! The text continues to say, "In bringing many sons to glory..." so that the "everyone" of v.9 refers to the "many" of v.10, for whom Jesus did not just make salvation possible, but whom he "bringing" to glory.
The best illustration of this is perhaps a passage which some have seen as proof positive that Jesus must have intended to die as the substitute for everyone who ever lived, is a passage which many have taken to contradict the doctrine of definite atonement,1 Timothy 4:10. Scripture says in part, "we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior (soter) of all men, and especially of those who believe." At first blush it would seem that, if Hebrews 2:9 did not put and end to definite atonement, surely this passage must.
Recent research by Steve Baugh has shown, however, that, read in context, this passage is not concerned with the extent of the atonement. The key is Paul's use of Soter. Firstly, he notes, what does it mean to juxtapose "Savior" (one who saves eternally) of believers but especially of believers? Of course believers are saved, but if "all men" means everyone who ever lived, then, they are all saved and we should become absolute universalists, in which case it is not just Calvinists who must change their views, but also Arminians who must abandon their half-way position and become absolute universalists.
The answer is that, in this passage, soter does not mean "one who saves eternally" but rather means "benefactor." As Steve Baugh notes, in "Paul's day, soter was a common title or description of men, emperors and deities." In fact, there was a statue in Ephesus, where Paul ministered for a considerable period, dedicated to Julius Caesar, on which he was hailed as "the universal benefactor of human life." Paul's point, in the flow of his argument, is that, no, it is the ascended King Jesus, who rules at the right hand of the Father, who is the "benefactor of all men especially of those who believe." Taken in the sense of common grace, this passage is not about the extent of the atonement, universal or otherwise.
... If one accepts that Jesus died as a propitiatory substitute for all his people, there are really only two alternatives, definite atonement or absolute (total) universalism. Either he saved everyone who ever lived, or he saved all those whom he loved.
... Indeed, Calvinism and Arminianism agree that Christ did not actually redeem everyone who ever lived, thus the question is not even whether there is a "limit" to the extent of the atonement, but rather, what is the nature of the limit? Is limited by God's choice and design or by free human choices?
It is our contention that Scripture teaches that Jesus did not fail. Rather where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. As the Second Adam (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 44) Jesus actively obeyed God's perfect Law perfectly, and suffered all the wrath which was due to us, his people, for whom he died (Phil 2:5-11).
... In itself, Christ's death is not limited in its potential, rather it is definite in its intent and personal in its application.
(Excerpted from: R. Scott Clark, Limited Atonement)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
J. Gresham Machen on the Atonement (excerpts)
The one place where the word [atonement] occurs in the King James Version of the New Testament is Romans 5:11 … Here the word is used to translate a Greek word meaning ‘reconciliation.’ This usage seems to be very close to the etymological meaning of the word, for it does seem to be true that the English word ‘atonement’ means ‘atonement.’ It is, therefore, according to its derivation, a natural word to designate the state of reconciliation between two parties formerly at variance.
In the Old Testament, on the other hand, where the word occurs in the King James Version not once, but forty or fifty times, it has a different meaning; it has the meaning of ‘propitiation.’ [See Leviticus 1:4, 16:6, 16:15f.]
... In these passages the meaning of the word is clear. God has been offended because of the sins of the people or of individuals among His people. The priest kills the animal which is brought as a sacrifice. God is thereby propitiated, and those who have offended God are forgiven.
… All that I am saying is that that word in the Old Testament clearly conveys the notion of something that is done to satisfy God in order that the sins of men may be forgiven and their communion with God restored. … In our ordinary usage the word certainly conveys the idea of something like compensation for some wrong that has been done. … God is offended because of sin; satisfaction is made to Him in some way by the sacrifice; and so His favour is restored. … We mean by the word [atonement], when we thus use it in theology, not the reconciliation between God and man, not the ‘at-onement’ between God and man, but specifically the means by which that reconciliation is effected — namely, the death of Christ as something that was necessary in order that sinful man might be received into communion with God.
… However, there is another word which would in itself have been much better, and it is really a great pity that it has not come into more general use in this connection. That is the word ‘satisfaction.’ If we only had acquired the habit of saying that Christ made full satisfaction to God for man that would have conveyed a more adequate account of Christ’s priestly work as our Redeemer than the word ‘atonement’ can convey. It designates what the word ‘atonement’ — rightly understood — designates, and it also designates something more.
… You cannot possibly understand what the Bible says about salvation unless you understand what the Bible says about the thing from which we are saved.
If then we ask what is the Biblical doctrine of sin, we observe, in the first place, that according to the Bible all men are sinners. … Sin, [the Bible] tells us, is disobedience to the law of God, and the law of God is entirely irrevocable. … When the law of God says, ‘The soul that sinneth it shall die,’ that awful penalty of death is, indeed, imposed by God’s will; but God’s will is determined by God’s nature, and God’s nature being unchangeably holy the penalty must run its course. God would be untrue to Himself, in other words, if sin were not punished; and that God should be untrue to Himself is the most impossible thing that can possibly be conceived.
… How then can sinful men be saved? In one way only. Only if a substitute is provided who shall pay for them the just penalty of God’s law.
The Bible teaches that such a substitute has as a matter of fact been provided. The substitute is Jesus Christ. The law’s demands of penalty must be satisfied. There is no escaping that. But Jesus Christ satisfied those demands for us when He died instead of us on the cross.
… The law demanded that we should suffer eternal death because of our sin. Christ paid the penalty of the law in our stead. But for Him to suffer was not the same as for us to suffer. He is God, and not merely man. Therefore if He had suffered to all eternity as we should have suffered, that would not have been to pay the just penalty of the sin, but it would have been an unjust exaction of vastly more. In other words, we must get rid of merely quantitative notions in thinking of the sufferings of Christ. What He suffered on the cross was what the law of God truly demanded not of any person but of such a person as Himself when He became our substitute in paying the penalty of sin. He did therefore make full and not merely partial satisfaction for the claims of the law against us.
… No, God Himself paid the penalty of sin — God Himself in the Person of God the Son, who loved us and gave Himself for us, God Himself in the person of God the Father who so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, God the Holy Spirit who applies to us the benefits of Christ’s death. God’s the cost and ours the marvellous gain! Who shall measure the depths of the love of God which was extended to us sinners when the Lord Jesus took our place and died in our stead upon the accursed tree? (Excerpts from: J. Gresham Machen, The Doctrine of the Atonement)
In the Old Testament, on the other hand, where the word occurs in the King James Version not once, but forty or fifty times, it has a different meaning; it has the meaning of ‘propitiation.’ [See Leviticus 1:4, 16:6, 16:15f.]
... In these passages the meaning of the word is clear. God has been offended because of the sins of the people or of individuals among His people. The priest kills the animal which is brought as a sacrifice. God is thereby propitiated, and those who have offended God are forgiven.
… All that I am saying is that that word in the Old Testament clearly conveys the notion of something that is done to satisfy God in order that the sins of men may be forgiven and their communion with God restored. … In our ordinary usage the word certainly conveys the idea of something like compensation for some wrong that has been done. … God is offended because of sin; satisfaction is made to Him in some way by the sacrifice; and so His favour is restored. … We mean by the word [atonement], when we thus use it in theology, not the reconciliation between God and man, not the ‘at-onement’ between God and man, but specifically the means by which that reconciliation is effected — namely, the death of Christ as something that was necessary in order that sinful man might be received into communion with God.
… However, there is another word which would in itself have been much better, and it is really a great pity that it has not come into more general use in this connection. That is the word ‘satisfaction.’ If we only had acquired the habit of saying that Christ made full satisfaction to God for man that would have conveyed a more adequate account of Christ’s priestly work as our Redeemer than the word ‘atonement’ can convey. It designates what the word ‘atonement’ — rightly understood — designates, and it also designates something more.
… You cannot possibly understand what the Bible says about salvation unless you understand what the Bible says about the thing from which we are saved.
If then we ask what is the Biblical doctrine of sin, we observe, in the first place, that according to the Bible all men are sinners. … Sin, [the Bible] tells us, is disobedience to the law of God, and the law of God is entirely irrevocable. … When the law of God says, ‘The soul that sinneth it shall die,’ that awful penalty of death is, indeed, imposed by God’s will; but God’s will is determined by God’s nature, and God’s nature being unchangeably holy the penalty must run its course. God would be untrue to Himself, in other words, if sin were not punished; and that God should be untrue to Himself is the most impossible thing that can possibly be conceived.
… How then can sinful men be saved? In one way only. Only if a substitute is provided who shall pay for them the just penalty of God’s law.
The Bible teaches that such a substitute has as a matter of fact been provided. The substitute is Jesus Christ. The law’s demands of penalty must be satisfied. There is no escaping that. But Jesus Christ satisfied those demands for us when He died instead of us on the cross.
… The law demanded that we should suffer eternal death because of our sin. Christ paid the penalty of the law in our stead. But for Him to suffer was not the same as for us to suffer. He is God, and not merely man. Therefore if He had suffered to all eternity as we should have suffered, that would not have been to pay the just penalty of the sin, but it would have been an unjust exaction of vastly more. In other words, we must get rid of merely quantitative notions in thinking of the sufferings of Christ. What He suffered on the cross was what the law of God truly demanded not of any person but of such a person as Himself when He became our substitute in paying the penalty of sin. He did therefore make full and not merely partial satisfaction for the claims of the law against us.
… No, God Himself paid the penalty of sin — God Himself in the Person of God the Son, who loved us and gave Himself for us, God Himself in the person of God the Father who so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, God the Holy Spirit who applies to us the benefits of Christ’s death. God’s the cost and ours the marvellous gain! Who shall measure the depths of the love of God which was extended to us sinners when the Lord Jesus took our place and died in our stead upon the accursed tree? (Excerpts from: J. Gresham Machen, The Doctrine of the Atonement)
Saturday, January 9, 2010
A.W. Pink: We are desparate as condemned sinners before God, based on our failure to uphold the Law in our every thought, word, deed, and motive
“The law demands personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity to its precepts, in heart and act, in motive and performance. God charges each one of us with having failed to meet those just demands, and declares we have violated His commandments in thought and word and deed. The law therefore pronounces upon us a sentence of condemnation, curses us, and demands the infliction of its penalty, which is death. The One before whose tribunal we stand is omniscient, and cannot be deceived or imposed upon; He is inflexibly just, and swayed by no sentimental considerations. We, the accused, are guilty, unable to refute the accusations of the law, unable to vindicate our sinful conduct, unable to offer any satisfaction or atonement for our crimes. Truly, our case is desperate to the last degree.” –A.W. Pink, “Justification” (ch. 3)
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Lorraine Boettner: Three Essential Imputations in Christian Theology
Lorraine Boettner on the biblical doctrine of imputation:
In Christian theology there are three separate and distinct acts of imputation. In the first place Adam's sin is imputed to all of us, his children, that is, judicially set to our account so that we are held responsible for it and suffer the consequence of it. This is commonly known as the doctrine of Original Sin. In the second place, and in precisely the same manner, our sin is imputed to Christ so that He suffers the consequences of it. And in the third place Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and secures for us entrance into heaven. We are, of course, no more personally guilty of Adam's sin than Christ is personally guilty of ours, or than we are personally meritorious because of His righteousness. In each case it is a judicial transaction. We receive salvation from Christ in precisely the same way that we receive condemnation and ruin from Adam. In each case the result follows because of the close and official union which exists between the persons involved. To reject any one of these three steps is to reject an essential part of the Christian system. (Lorraine Boettner, The Atonement; quoted in Rushdoony's Systematic Theology, p. 593)
Monday, December 21, 2009
James Buchanan: Biblical justification answers the most pressing questions regarding sinful man's standing before a just God
James Buchanan on the importance of the biblical doctrine of justification:
[The biblical doctrine of justification] is an attempt to solve the deepest problem, and to answer the most anxious question, which conscience continually prompts men to raise, but which their minds strive in vain to determine--'How shall a man be just with God?' or, 'How can God be just,' and yet 'justify the ungodly?' That great problem may seldom occur to those that are habitually unmindful of God, and of their relation to Him; and should it be suggested to their minds, it will probably be lightly dismissed, as long as they cherish slight views of sin, and have little or no sense of their solemn responsibilities and prospects as subjects of the righteous government of God. ... The Gospel of Christ alone has presented that problem in all its magnitude, and in its just proportions; and the Gospel of Christ alone has offered a solution of it, based on a full view of the Attributes of God,--of the unalterable requirements of His Law,--of the principles and ends of His Moral Government,--and of the state, character, and prospects of man, as a dying yet immortal being, chargeable with past guilt, and still depraved by inherent sin. (James Buchanan, Justification, pp. 405-406, Banner of Truth, 1997 -- reprinted from the 1867 original)
. . .
The mere statement of such a problem, and of its indispensable conditions,--including the glory of God, the honour of His law, and the ends of His moral government, as well as the pardon of sin, and the salvation of sinners,--is peculiar to the Gospel of Christ, and may well be regarded as a proof of its superhuman origin: but the solution of it, by the Incarnation, Substitution, and Satisfaction of the Son of God Himself, is such a marvellous manifestation of divine wisdom as 'it could never have entered into the mind of man to conceive.' For none other than the infinite mind of God was capable of such a conception, either of Love, or of Justice, as that on which it is based; and far less of carrying it into effect in the stupendous work of Redemption. It may be esteemed as 'foolishness' by those who have never seriously considered, or sufficiently realised, the conditions of the great problem; but no sooner is any one brought, under the teaching of the Word and Spirit of God, to apprehend them aright, and to apply them in earnest to the case of his own soul, than that which hitherto seemed to be 'foolishness,' is seen to be the 'wisdom of God.' Hence,--while the very repugnance with which it is regarded by many affords ample evidence that it could never have been invented by men,--the best and most convincing evidence of its divine origin is discerned, when it is seen to be worthy of the infinite perfections of God, as well as adapted to the most urgent wants of man; and when 'He who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, shines into our hearts, to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.' (Ibid., pp. 407-408).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)