reformed blogging.

“If the doctrine of imputation be given up, the whole doctrine of original sin must be abandoned, and if this doctrine be relinquished, then the whole doctrine of redemption must fall, and what may then be left of Christianity they may contend for that will; but for ourselves, we shall be of the opinion that what remains will not be worth a serious struggle.”
- Archibald Alexander, taken from David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary (Volume 1): Faith and Learning, 218.

Objection. But it may be said, “Surely this course of procedure can never be acceptable to Jesus Christ. What! shall we daily come to him with our filth, our guilt our sins? May he not, will he not, bid us keep them to ourselves? they are our own. Shall we be always giving sins, and taking righteousness!”
Answer. There is not any thing that Jesus Christ is more delighted with, than that his saints should always hold communion with him as to this business of giving and receiving. For,–
This exceeding honours him, and gives him the glory that is his due. Many, indeed, cry, “Lord, Lord,” and make mention of him, but honour him not at all. How so? They take his work out of his hands, and ascribe it unto other things; their repentance, their duties, shall bear their iniquities. They do not say so; but they do so… Herein, then, I say, is Christ honoured indeed, when we go to him with our sins by faith, and say unto him, “Lord, this is thy work; this is that for which thou camest into the world; this is that thou hast undertaken to do. Thou callest for my burden, which is too heavy for me to bear; take it, blessed Redeemer Thou tenderest thy righteousness; that is my portion.” Then is Christ honoured, then is the glory of mediation ascribed to him, when we walk with him in this communion.
- John Owen, Works, Vol. 2: Communion With God, 195.

Never was sin seen to be more abominably sinful and full of provocation, than when the burden of it was upon the shoulders of the Son of God. God having made his Son, the Son of his love, his only begotten, full of grace and truth, sin for us, to manifest his indignation against it, and how utterly impossible it is that he should let the least sin go unpunished, he lays hand on him, and spares him not… is it not most clear from hence, even from the blood of the cross of Christ, that such is the demerit of sin, that it is altogether impossible that God should pass by any, the least unpunished? If he would have done it for any, he would have done it in reference to his only son; but he spared him not.
- John Owen, Works, Vol. 2: Communion With God, 96.

Speaking very generally, I think most Christians can fall into either of two extremes. One side overemphasizes the love of God to the neglect of God’s holiness, while the other emphasizes holiness to the neglect of love. I’ll be honest and just say from the start that, more often than not, I fall into the latter category. In this day and age when the name of God is so often profaned, and holiness abandoned because of its lack of appeal to the masses, it seems natural that those who recoil would jump to the other side and do away with any sort of love or anything even slightly “emotional.” There certainly is fault in this and it is a misrepresentation of God only to portray His holiness without portraying His love.

I do not believe, however, that both sides err equally. Those who emphasize the love of God while neglecting His holiness are in greater error and completely misrepresent God. The God of the Bible is in no way a compromising God, He does not allow sin to go unpunished. Proverbs 17:15 says, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” I daresay that anyone who downplays the holiness of God creates an idol and does not worship God at all. Without condemnation of sin there is no need of salvation, and if there is no need of salvation then there is no need for the gospel. God never ceases to be holy and even in His greatest act of love we see His greatest act of holiness.

Having said that much, I do believe that those who downplay the love of God seriously err. There is, however, an order in our approaching God. We cannot understand the love of God without first understanding His holiness. Where the holiness-type people often fail is that they stop at holiness while leaving out love for fear of becoming like the love-type people. This results in many despairing Christians who squirm before a holy and just God rather than approach the throne of grace with confidence. I’ve been there, fearful of God’s holy wrath, the same that came down upon Nadab and Abihu for burning strange fire before God rather than having that love that casts out fear. This is very serious because it deals with assurance of salvation. A high view of God’s holiness is always good, but without a proper view of His love things tend towards despair and despondency. It is here that one wonders whether God can really forgive every single sin, or if enough has been done to show repentance. Just from that you can see how dangerous it is to lack or have an improper view of the love of God. This is all necessary in order for the gospel to do its work. Everyone must come to a point of hopelessness in his own righteousness before the righteousness of Christ is all that we hope in and cling to. Yet, having been justified by faith alone, we are not to remain in this state of hopelessness.

The solution seems to be in rightly “balancing” God’s love and holiness. The love-type people seem to ignore God’s holiness and are falsely assured that all is well with God when it is not, and the holiness-type people give heed to it rightly, but see nothing of the love of God so that there is no hope.

I suggest that it is not a matter of balance, but a matter of perspective. For God’s holiness is not in competition with His love, both are essential attributes of God, and God does not contradict Himself. How do we fix our perspective? Well, in Pierced for Our Transgressions the authors confront this very issue. It is vital that we confront our sin head on without ignoring God’s absolute hatred towards it, but there is only one way to do this without succumbing to despair. Our solution lies in the atonement of Christ, or what is called penal substitution:

that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. - Pierced for Our Transgressions, 21.

Thus, the cross of Christ does two things, first it “stands as a memorial to the inexpressible horror of sin; it will not allow us to escape into self-deceiving optimism” but “…at the same time, the cross banishes our despair by declaring God’s comprehensive solution to our plight” (159). At the cross the love and holiness of God meet. There is no greater act of love than Christ, the righteous, dying for His enemies, the ungodly and wicked, who in no wise deserve such mercy and grace. Herein does the Christian stand: on an uncompromising, holy love of God. In this we see His faithfulness to do all that He says, He will maintain His righteousness and punish every sin becoming just and justifier, and we also see very clearly His love for us, that He would send His Son to bear our sin, and become sin for us.

Trembling sinner, look to Jesus, and thou art saved. Dost thou say, ‘My sins are many’? His atonement is wondrous. Dost thou cry, ‘My heart is hard’? Jesus can soften it. Dost thou exclaim, ‘Alas, I am so unworthy’? Jesus loves the unworthy. Dost thou feel, ‘I am so vile’? It is the vile Jesus came to save. Down with thee, sinner; down, down with thyself, and up with Christ, who hath suffered for thy sins upon Calvary’s cross. Turn thine eye thither; see Jesus only. He suffers. He bleeds. He dies. He is buried. He rises again. he ascends on high. Trust Him, and thou art safe. Give up all other trusts , and rely on Jesus alone, alone on Jesus, and thou halt pass from death unto life. This is the sure sign, the certain evidence of the Spirit’s indwelling, of the Father’s election, of the Son’s redemption, when the soul is brought simply and wholly to rest and trust in Jesus Christ, who ‘hath once suffered for sins, the Just of the unjust, that He might bring us to God.’” - C.H. Spurgeon, Our Suffering Substitute: A Sermon on 1 Peter 3:18.

The cross keeps us from ignoring the holiness of God thus downplaying sin, or from ignoring God’s love and becoming despondent or Pharisaical. Our boast is nothing but the cross.

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand.

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. - Colossians 2:13-14

In the quoted passage Paul speaks to the Church in Colossae, reminding them of their pre-Christian state. He writes so that the believers might not be taken captive through worldly philosophy or empty deception but rather that they might be taken captive by Christ. To this end Paul speaks of the gospel, namely, that they were dead in transgressions and uncircumcision, that they were utterly hopeless, for what can a dead man do? But while in such a state of spiritual deadness God made them alive together with Him. We, as Christians, share in this work of God’s grace. For all apart from Christ are dead in sin. Yet, while in such a sad and pathetic state He made us “alive together with Him.”

And how could a just God do such a thing to those who were in transgressions, those who were defiled, impure, who are described as uncircumcised in the flesh? For God to give life to one undeserving would be unjust if there is no forgiveness. But God made us alive, “having forgiven us all our transgressions.” Thus, as Paul says in Romans, God, through Christ, is both “just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

The next question arises: how did God forgive us all our transgressions, for such is no small feat. Paul responds: “having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us.” Those decrees against us, which condemned us for our transgressions, God canceled so that we no longer are indebted to Him. For these decrees were “hostile to us” and showed us to be, by nature, “children of wrath.” And here I would like to dwell for a short while. It is difficult to imagine that which is taking place in the mentioned passage: namely, that God cancels out our debt. To anyone who understands the holiness of God as well as the sinfulness of sin, it is a hard thing to believe that our sins, which are many, can be removed at all. And God has not only forgiven us of our wrong-doing towards Him, but He has completely put aside that which was owed to Him by us. Thus, what was once a dividing wall between us and God has been removed and no longer stands. What, then, exists that will keep us from God but repentance and faith? And once God has forgiven us, what do we owe but praise? For our debt has been canceled. It is not as though Christ has simply paid a debt which we can again fall into, but through Christ our debt has been put aside! Therefore those who are in Christ Jesus have every right to come before God with confidence.

There are, however, those who yet remain wondering how a just God can simply let sin go. Wouldn’t this be akin to pardoning a serial killer? How has our debt been canceled? How has it been taken away? God canceled it “having nailed it to the cross.” Here, every mouth is stopped. For it is not as though God simply forgot about our sins and swept them under the rug, for anything resulting from that would be no grace at all but unrighteousness, and God cannot be unjust. But we see here that God nailed them to the cross. What does that mean? How can sin, something intangible, be nailed to a cross? We would be left in darkness unless we saw through Scripture what this means. For in the Gospels we see Christ, the Son of God nailed to a cross. The only way that any man has a right standing before God is through Christ, our substitute. Because Christ was nailed to the cross, and He did so as our sin are our transgressions justly forgiven. Here we see the complete atonement of Christ, that all was accomplished on the cross. For it was not merely as an example that Christ died, but He accomplished something on the cross, through which we have forgiveness, and righteousness before God. It was because our transgressions were nailed to the cross that we are set free and forgiven and not only that, but made alive together with God. And on this truth do we as Christians stand, and on this truth do we gain full assurance of our salvation, that Christ paid our penalty.

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. - Romans 5:6

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” - Ephesians 2:10

How Ephesians 2:10 reveals God’s sovereignty in salvation:

1. We are His workmanship - in this is implicit that man is not playing any active role, but that God is the one who is doing the working. To be God’s workmanship literally means to be made by Him. Now, in this context the reference is not to physical creation alone, but (as is evidenced by the passage) spiritual rebirth. This is evident in the next fragment of the sentence, namely, “created in Christ Jesus.” The synergistic view, that man participates with God, or cooperates with God in order to be saved is debunked here. The idea of the regenerate man as God’s workmanship means that he is God’s creation. Just as Adam and Eve were created without their prior consent (for that is in itself an impossibility) and just as newborn babies are not born because of their own agreement to be born, so the regenerate Christian is changed in heart because he is God’s workmanship. Salvation by God’s monergistic work alone presupposes total depravity, that man, on his own, will never seek God, being dead in sins and separate from the life of God. And if our spiritual rebirth is not according to our own righteousness but according to God, then His election must be unconditional, not based on any merit in us, but based solely on His good pleasure.

2. We are created in Christ Jesus - This specifies how God has made us. In what sense are we God’s workmanship? In that we are created in Christ Jesus. A thing created is completely subjected to its Creator. Thus if God desires to create us, we will be created. “So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16). The necessity of God’s monergistic work, that is, His work in us without our prior consent is evidenced here. The necessity of Christ Jesus as our mediator is also seen. If it were not for the atoning work of Christ, reconciling sinful man to God we could have no hope of being reborn. For God, in his holiness, is both just and justifier of those who have faith in Christ. We cannot be God’s workmanship unless we are created in Christ Jesus. Thus, we see here that it is absolutely necessary for Christ’s atonement to be for the elect and completely saving, not simply making salvation available.

3. We are created in Christ Jesus for good works - The fact that we are created for good works displays God’s sovereignty not only in regeneration (the changing of our hearts to love Him) and justification (our right standing before God through Christ) but also in our sanctification. God is sovereign over the end, that is salvation to Himself, and also the path that we take to get there. This is one reason why historic Protestant Christianity holds the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. For those who were called and chosen by God were called and chosen to good works, to perseverance and will not fall away. Therefore, God’s absolute sovereignty in delivering sinful man from condemnation as well as from the bondage of sin is herein seen. And it is also evidenced that God could not have chosen us based on works since He created us for good works. Thus, good works are the result, not the cause of God’s election. The Arminian notion of foreseen faith is then also debunked.

4. Good works are a result of grace, not our own efforts -Now God prepared the good works that we would perform in Christ beforehand. That is, we are God’s workmanship as are our good works. Thus, it is the case that no one can boast. And He prepared these so that we “would” walk in them. Not that we “could,” but there is an inevitable obedience that is shown in the life of the elect of God. Had God not prepared such good works, it would be utterly impossible for us to walk in them. For we, in ourselves, are absolutely helpless. Paul describes us as “dead” in transgressions, but now in Christ we have life.

“For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” - Ephesians 2:8-9

The Reformers held to the doctrine of Sola Fide or justification by faith alone which means that God saves us, not on the basis of any deeds we have done, but on the basis of faith alone in Christ alone. We are properly saved through Christ’s mediating work on our behalf, that He died as our ransom and sacrifice. He was put in our stead and by faith our sins are placed on Him and His righteousness becomes our own. Yet they also believed in the absolute necessity of works. Not as grounds of justification but as a result of it. True faith will produce fruit. Or as Jonathan Edwards would put it, “God would have it deeply impressed on all, that good works are the only satisfying evidence that we are truly possessed of grace in the soul.”

The issue then arises, how do we rightly judge ourselves? For Scripture indicates that no one is sinless, and if anyone claims that he is, he is a liar. Yet, we are also told that “no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” How do we reconcile these passages?

Some have gone to one extreme of ruling out the necessity of works, saying that verbal profession is enough, while others have gone to the other end of works-based righteousness. Neither extreme is scripturally warranted, nor glorifying to God. How, then, do we walk the fine line between antinomianism (lawlessness) and legalism? How do we gain assurance without ruling out good works and without depending on our works? We work, knowing that we have been saved by Christ’s righteousness. A.W. Pink rightly says that “the quickest road to full assurance is full obedience.” Yet, we do often fail in obedience and the Christian who understands that the Law is more than external but a matter of the heart will always find sin in himself.

To remedy this, Jonathan Edwards provides seven guidelines so that true Christians do not despair in self-examination:

1. Has your supposed grace such influence as to render those things in which you have failed of holy practice, loathsome, grievous, and humbling to you?

2. Do you carry about with you, habitually a dread of sin?

3. Are you sensible of the beauty and pleasantness of the ways of holy practice?

4. Do you find that you do particularly esteem and delight in those practices that may, by way of eminence, be called Christian practices, in distinction from mere worldly morality?

5. Do you hunger and thirst after a holy practice?

6. Do you make a business of endeavoring to live holily, and as God would have you, in all respects?

7. Do you greatly desire that you may know all that is your duty?

If you can honestly meet these tests, then you have the evidence that your grace is of the kind that tends to holy practice, and growth in it. And though you may fall, through God’s mercy you shall rise again. He that hath begun a good work in you will carry it on until the day of Jesus Christ. Though you may be at times faint, yet, if pursuing, you shall be borne on from strength to strength, and kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. - Jonathan Edwards, Charity and Its Fruits, pp. 246-50

We ought strive for the full assurance of faith, without contenting ourselves with anything unbiblical. Crucify any notion in yourself that God will be had by anyone immoral or ungodly , as well as the notion that you, by your own works can meet the standards set by an infinitely holy God. Seek only to come to God by the mediation of Christ Jesus, knowing that a true faith in Him will produce a righteous and holy fruit.

One thing that cannot be reconciled with the Arminian notion of “free-will” is physical birth. If Arminians will not accept God’s sovereignty in spiritual rebirth, one wonders how they deal with natural birth. After all, not every person has equal exposure to the gospel. In fact, there are some countries where there is no gospel at all! How, then, can Arminians reconcile this to God’s call? For many are called but few are chosen. None will deny that physical birth is due solely to God’s sovereignty, for what choice does a man have in where he will be physically born? That a man is born in the Middle East in a prominently Muslim country is not because God “foresaw” that they would not believe and placed them there, is it? Those who have not heard the gospel and are thus condemned to hell, was there no foreseen faith? Will God condemn these? It is no surprise that so many Arminian churches have turned to Liberalism and Universalism, since there is no way to reconcile man’s “free-will” to respond to God’s grace and the fact that not all have heard/will hear the gospel.

Arminians, to be fair, do not deny that God’s grace is absolutely required for salvation, but so is man’s free-will. That man must choose God as a response to His grace, and this choice must not be coerced or forced by God in any way lest it be a breach of man’s so-called free-will. They hold that predestination and election speak mainly to those with foreseen faith, that God saw down the “tunnel of time” those who would believe and “chose” them. How does this account for those who will die having never heard the gospel? Were they “foreseen” to not have faith? If that be the case, it is still difficult to understand how God will hold them accountable to something they have not heard. Though they hypothetically rejected Christ they never did it in reality never having had the proper opportunity. Thus their rejection, having never occurred in reality cannot be said to be a foreseen lack of faith, unless God foresaw a different world.  An Arminian might object that they are still sinners and thus condemned to judgment, but the next question would be, then, how has Christ properly died for these? Are they not in the world? If Christ did, in fact, die for the whole world without exception, how is His the benefit of His death displayed in these unsaved people? Since they have never heard the gospel the opportunity won by Christ through the atonement (according to Universal Atonement) is not present. In which case an Arminian will either resort to absolute absurdity saying that such people hear the gospel after they die (inclucivism) or universalism. The Arminian is forced to compromise God’s justice, saying that these will not be condemned or to compromise Christ’s atonement saying that Christ’s death for the world was not really for all the world without exception. One cannot have a “universal” view of the atonement and believe in free-will.

The correct view is this, that God unconditionally elected sinners to be saved before the foundation of the world. So that God’s grace is absolutely necessary and is absolutely sufficient to save whoever He desires. God is no respecter of man, there is no “dignity” too great for God to overcome. And though some may resist God’s grace, none can resist it when God wills to save a sinner. For who can thwart God’s plan? Thus the wills of such sinners will (without their own consent) be changed by God to long and desire Him. Therefore, those elect by God are atoned completely through the redemptive work of Christ so that all those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ’s death will not have been in vain for anyone. He will not have died for those in hell, but will have saved completely to eternal life (eternal meaning that the elect can never die or be condemned) those who are the elect. As for those who never heard the gospel they are condemned by their own sinfulness, since, apart from God’s grace, and by their own “free-will” they would never choose God.

I first heard about Smeaton’s book titled, “The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement” from The Shepherd’s Scrapbook, picked it up not really knowing what to expect, but at this point I think I can say that this book is one of my favorites this year. As the title suggests, Smeaton goes through all the epistles exegetically interpreting specific passages in order to show the apostles’ view of the atonement. His style of writing is clear, and what I really appreciate is how faithful Smeaton is to the text of Scripture. In reading, one does not get the uncomfortable suspicion that Smeaton may be milking a certain passage to read in a way that he wants, or that he is basing his interpretation on unwarranted presuppositions. He clearly proves what he says through thorough exegesis while countering the more popular arguments against the reformed view. The clarity of his writing and exegesis as well as the constant repetition of the basic doctrine of the atonement really do get ingrained into one’s head, and I think it is impossible to read this without being much affected by what God has done in Christ. In addition, one discovers that all this talk about the Reformers getting it wrong has no real warrant. The Reformation did not begin simply because a guilt-laden monk eisogetically interpreted scripture to get what he wanted to hear, but began though the true gospel as found in scripture. Here is an excerpt that cannot but leave the reader with a much deeper view of and greater appreciation for the atonement:

…by God’s appointment [Christ] was made sin, not in mere semblance, but in reality, not before men, but before God, on the great foundation of a federal unity between Him and His people. He was, as it were, the embodiment of sin or incorporated guilt; and we may well affirm that never was so much sin accumulated upon a single head. He was not made sin in a vague, indefinite, abstract way; but the very sins of which we are painfully conscious in the moment of our conviction–that is, our own sins of nature and life–were laid on Him, or transferred from our head to His. He bore their burden; and this rendered it possible to visit Him with the recompense due to sin, and with its necessary punishment, which would otherwise have been impossible. - George Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p.226

What imputation is not:

1. Imputation does meant to judge or esteem people to be righteous “who truly and really are not so.”

2. God cannot simply declare a person to be righteous, as if the words alone could change the actual state of affairs. “God declares no man to be righteous but him who is so.”

3. Imputation is not the transmission or transfusion of the righteousness of another into them that are to be justified, that they should become perfectly and inherently righteous thereby; for it is impossible that the righteousness of one should be transfused into another, to become his subjectively and inherently.” While forgiveness does allow a person to be “not guilty” that alone is insufficient grounds for entrance into eternal life: “We must also be actually righteous.” Not only must sin be dealt with, but “all righteousness is to be fulfilled.”

What, then, is imputation?

Imputation is an act of God…–of his mere love and grace; whereby, on the consideration of the mediation of Christ, he makes an effectual grant and donation of a true, real, perfect righteousness, even that of Christ himself, unto all that do believe; and accounting it as theirs on his own gracious act, both absolves them from sin and granteth them right and title unto eternal life. - John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith

(Taken from Kelly M. Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen, pp. 137-138)