I am picking up that topic of the Covenant of Redemption after a long hiatus. See the first post to get caught up on the flow of the topic thus far.
Even though Robertson would not hold to what has been historically now called the covenant of redemption, it has become the nomenclature of covenantal theology. So then we must define what exactly the reformed see the covenant of redemption to be and the Scriptural proofs that are used to support such a covenant.
It is expressly noted that the understanding of the covenant of redemption, whether or not we give it covenantal language, is to be considered part of the covenant of grace. What do I mean? Charles Hodge states: “There are in fact two covenants that relate to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people.”[1] The covenant of grace incorporates all of God’s redemptive actions decrees through consummation to redeem His elect. Though Hodge would argue that the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption should not be confounded, he does state that they are inseparably linked. The covenant of grace is founded on the covenant of redemption. Of the one, Christ is the surety and mediator; of the other He is one of the contracting parties.
Louis Berkhof notes, “Though the covenant of redemption is the eternal basis of the covenant of grace, and as far as sinners are concerned, also its eternal prototype, it was for Christ a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace.”[2] Notice how Berkhof closely links the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace.
The Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms also seem to imply that the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are closely connected as the Shorter Catechism states as an answer to the twentieth question: “God having out his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” This most closely intimates what we know as the covenant of grace. And we see here that it is God entering into covenant with His people.
The Larger Catechism, on the other hand, asks in question 31, “With whom was the covenant of grace made?” The answer to this question is “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as his seed.” This would seem to have in view the covenant of redemption. The covenant is entered into with Christ. This would seem also to disprove what Robertson had stated that the 16th and 17th century confessions did not have in view an inner-Trinitarian covenant, but more will be stated on this objection shortly. I will agree it is not explicit, but it must be implied, especially in light of the answer to the Larger Catechism.
Using the questions and answers for the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as stated above, I lead to the historicity of the teaching of the covenant of redemption. This in answer to Robertson’s objection that the covenant of redemption finds no ground in creeds or confessions as well as any others who would assault the historicity of this teaching.
The Canons of the Synod of Dordt give a clear statement that this understanding of an inner-Trinitarian covenant was something that was taught in the Reformed church creeds and statements. Notice the language that a certain number were appointed to redemption in Christ and Christ was appointed both Mediator and Head
Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from the primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. This elect number…God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him. (First Head: Article 7).
John Owen speaks in no uncertain terms in the Greater Catechism. Question: By what means did Jesus Christ undertake the office of an eternal priest? Answer: By the decree, ordination, and will of God his Father, whereunto he yielded voluntary obedience; so that concerning this there was a compact and a covenant between them.
[1] Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 4, p. 358-9
[2] Berkhof, Systematic Theology. p. 268.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Interview With Steve Lawson
After a long hiatus I am back. The second part of the covenant of redemption is forth coming. It should be out this week. However, in the stead I would like to direct you to an interview a good friend of mine had with Dr. Steven Lawson, one of my favorite preachers of this current era. Check out some of his sermons that can be found at www.newreformationministries.org.
Here is the link to the interview: http://www.monergism.com/iawsoninterview.html
Blessings and grace to you all.
Here is the link to the interview: http://www.monergism.com/iawsoninterview.html
Blessings and grace to you all.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Covenant of Redemption (Part 1)
I am beginning today to post a multi-part series on the covenant of redemption. If you would like more reading on this topic I would commend a number of books to you. 1) The God of Promise by Michael Horton. 2) The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man by Herman Witsius. 3) Systematic Theology Volume 2 by Charles Hodge.
Covenant language is the language of the Bible. The idea of covenant stretches from the beginning of the Bible to the end. The idea of covenant is bound into the commands and prohibition found in Genesis with regard to God and Adam. Though the covenant is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis with regard to Adam, it is intimated in other portions of the Scripture. God makes a covenant with Abraham, through his seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed. God makes a covenant with David. His throne will endure forever. Then, finally, there is the New Covenant. Inaugurated in Christ’s blood and extended through the proclamation of the gospel to all the nations, tribes, and people.
It is also indicative of covenant theology that there is the covenant of grace, which is the whole plan of redemption that God manifests throughout redemptive history and culminates in Christ. Furthermore, there is a covenant that is referred to as being the foundation of which the covenant of grace is built. This is called the covenant of redemption.
The focus of this paper is to first explain and define the covenant of redemption and then to discuss the different covenant stipulations that are said to be a part of this covenant. Finally, there will be a discussion as to the validity of using covenant language with regard to this pre-temporal covenant.
Let us define a covenant. O. Palmer Robertson defines a covenant this way: a covenant is a bond in blood sovereignly administered.[1] He goes on to say that at its most essential aspect, a covenant is a bond that binds people together. The other two aspects put forward by Robertson that it is a bond in blood and the sovereign administration. The bond in blood “expresses the ultimacy of the commitment between God and man in the covenantal context.”[2] This primarily refers to the idea of “cutting a covenant that is found throughout the Scriptures (Gen. 15:18; 21:27; Ex. 23:32, 34; Deut. 4:23; 5:2-3; 31:16; Josh. 9:6ff; Judges 2:2; 1 Sam. 11:1-2; 2 Sam. 3:12ff; Job 31:1; Ps. 50:5; Ezra 10:3; Neh. 9:8). This phrase accords ideally with the emphasis by the Scripture that apart from the “shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22).
The sovereign administration pertains to the unilateral nature of God’s covenant dealings with man. “The Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth dictates the terms of the covenant.”
John Murray in his marvelous work The Covenant of Grace defines a covenant is somewhat more succinct terms for our purposes in this paper. He writes, “From the early times in the era of the Reformation and throughout the development of the covenant theology the formulation has been deeply affected by the idea that a covenant is a compact or agreement between two parties (emphasis mine).
In the work Sealed With an Oath, Paul Williamson borrows from the work of S.L. McKenzie entitled Covenant: Understanding Biblical Themes. Here McKenzie states that defining covenant in the Bible is not as easy as it may seem. However, he does imply one thing can be agreed upon by all regarding the definition of a covenant. It, broadly speaking, “refers to an arrangement of some kind between two or more parties.”[3]
Charles Hodge would define a covenant in these terms: “One person assigning a stipulated work to another person with the promise of reward upon the condition of the performance of that work.”[4]
It is the definition put forth by McKenzie, Hodge, and Murray that seems most operative when discussing what is termed the covenant of redemption. The essence of the covenant, especially as we speak of the covenant of redemption, is an agreement between two parties in which some work is stipulated and upon completion of that work blessing or reward is promised.
Palmer Robertson’s definition does indeed give a definition of a covenant for sure, but this definition needs to be used not with any inter-Trinitarian agreement, but with regard to the salvation and the entering into covenant with man. As there is no bond in blood that is alluded to between the Father and the Son in eternity past. The closest thing that could possibly said about this is that the Son’s sacrifice of Himself as was part of the obedience He was to perform in fulfilling the will of the Father and redeeming a people for Himself. However, a portion of the obedience of the Son could not be said to be a bond between the Father and Son in the way Robertson describes it. Robertson seems to dismiss and discount calling any pre-creation decree of God as having any merit it calling it a “covenant.” He notes, first of all, “This particular covenant finds not specific development in the classic creeds of the Reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”[5] I will show that this is not necessarily true. Although it is not specifically stated, I believe it is certainly alluded to. Secondly, he remarks, “affirming the role of redemption in the eternal counsels of God is not the same as proposing the existence of a pre-creation covenant between Father and Son. A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the mysteries of God’s eternal counsels.”[6] Third, he states the to speak in any type of definitive terms of an inner-Trinitarian covenant “with terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the world is to extend the bounds of Scriptural evidence beyond propriety.”[7]
We will pick up with an assessment of Robertson's comments and further our understanding of the covenant of redemption in our next post.
[1] Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 4.
[2] Ibid. p. 7
[3] Williamson, Sealed With an Oath. p. 35
[4] Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 2, p. 360
[5] Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, p. 54.
[6] Ibid. p. 54.
[7] Ibid. p. 54.
Covenant language is the language of the Bible. The idea of covenant stretches from the beginning of the Bible to the end. The idea of covenant is bound into the commands and prohibition found in Genesis with regard to God and Adam. Though the covenant is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis with regard to Adam, it is intimated in other portions of the Scripture. God makes a covenant with Abraham, through his seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed. God makes a covenant with David. His throne will endure forever. Then, finally, there is the New Covenant. Inaugurated in Christ’s blood and extended through the proclamation of the gospel to all the nations, tribes, and people.
It is also indicative of covenant theology that there is the covenant of grace, which is the whole plan of redemption that God manifests throughout redemptive history and culminates in Christ. Furthermore, there is a covenant that is referred to as being the foundation of which the covenant of grace is built. This is called the covenant of redemption.
The focus of this paper is to first explain and define the covenant of redemption and then to discuss the different covenant stipulations that are said to be a part of this covenant. Finally, there will be a discussion as to the validity of using covenant language with regard to this pre-temporal covenant.
Let us define a covenant. O. Palmer Robertson defines a covenant this way: a covenant is a bond in blood sovereignly administered.[1] He goes on to say that at its most essential aspect, a covenant is a bond that binds people together. The other two aspects put forward by Robertson that it is a bond in blood and the sovereign administration. The bond in blood “expresses the ultimacy of the commitment between God and man in the covenantal context.”[2] This primarily refers to the idea of “cutting a covenant that is found throughout the Scriptures (Gen. 15:18; 21:27; Ex. 23:32, 34; Deut. 4:23; 5:2-3; 31:16; Josh. 9:6ff; Judges 2:2; 1 Sam. 11:1-2; 2 Sam. 3:12ff; Job 31:1; Ps. 50:5; Ezra 10:3; Neh. 9:8). This phrase accords ideally with the emphasis by the Scripture that apart from the “shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22).
The sovereign administration pertains to the unilateral nature of God’s covenant dealings with man. “The Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth dictates the terms of the covenant.”
John Murray in his marvelous work The Covenant of Grace defines a covenant is somewhat more succinct terms for our purposes in this paper. He writes, “From the early times in the era of the Reformation and throughout the development of the covenant theology the formulation has been deeply affected by the idea that a covenant is a compact or agreement between two parties (emphasis mine).
In the work Sealed With an Oath, Paul Williamson borrows from the work of S.L. McKenzie entitled Covenant: Understanding Biblical Themes. Here McKenzie states that defining covenant in the Bible is not as easy as it may seem. However, he does imply one thing can be agreed upon by all regarding the definition of a covenant. It, broadly speaking, “refers to an arrangement of some kind between two or more parties.”[3]
Charles Hodge would define a covenant in these terms: “One person assigning a stipulated work to another person with the promise of reward upon the condition of the performance of that work.”[4]
It is the definition put forth by McKenzie, Hodge, and Murray that seems most operative when discussing what is termed the covenant of redemption. The essence of the covenant, especially as we speak of the covenant of redemption, is an agreement between two parties in which some work is stipulated and upon completion of that work blessing or reward is promised.
Palmer Robertson’s definition does indeed give a definition of a covenant for sure, but this definition needs to be used not with any inter-Trinitarian agreement, but with regard to the salvation and the entering into covenant with man. As there is no bond in blood that is alluded to between the Father and the Son in eternity past. The closest thing that could possibly said about this is that the Son’s sacrifice of Himself as was part of the obedience He was to perform in fulfilling the will of the Father and redeeming a people for Himself. However, a portion of the obedience of the Son could not be said to be a bond between the Father and Son in the way Robertson describes it. Robertson seems to dismiss and discount calling any pre-creation decree of God as having any merit it calling it a “covenant.” He notes, first of all, “This particular covenant finds not specific development in the classic creeds of the Reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”[5] I will show that this is not necessarily true. Although it is not specifically stated, I believe it is certainly alluded to. Secondly, he remarks, “affirming the role of redemption in the eternal counsels of God is not the same as proposing the existence of a pre-creation covenant between Father and Son. A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the mysteries of God’s eternal counsels.”[6] Third, he states the to speak in any type of definitive terms of an inner-Trinitarian covenant “with terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the world is to extend the bounds of Scriptural evidence beyond propriety.”[7]
We will pick up with an assessment of Robertson's comments and further our understanding of the covenant of redemption in our next post.
[1] Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 4.
[2] Ibid. p. 7
[3] Williamson, Sealed With an Oath. p. 35
[4] Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 2, p. 360
[5] Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, p. 54.
[6] Ibid. p. 54.
[7] Ibid. p. 54.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Book Review: The Expository Genius of John Calvin. By Dr. Steven Lawson
When we think or talk of John Calvin it may be safe to assume that we often think of the theologian of the Reformation that wrote the Institutes, which continues to be a mainstay of Reformed theology. It is not often, however, that we think of John Calvin the preacher. I am not saying that we don’t know of Calvin’s preaching, but it is not often we look at Calvin’s method of preaching. This is exactly what Dr. Steven Lawson has given us a look at in his new book The Expository Genius of John Calvin.
The first chapter of this marvelous little book deals with an overview of the life of John Calvin. Lawson gives a brief synopsis of Calvin’s life from birth to death. In the course of this synopsis he marks the high spots of the life of John Calvin such as his conversion, his arrival, dismissal, and re-entry into Geneva, and his continued faithfulness to the Scriptures in the midst of adversity over the Lord’s Table with the Libertines. Calvin’s life was marked by one of continued influence in the life of people. And his life continues to make and impact and have influence on the lives of people, especially those who desire to be faithful teachers of the Word of God.
Lawson has broken down the preaching style of Calvin into seven broad categories. These categories include: 1) Approaching the Pulpit. 2) Preparing the Preacher. 3) Launching the Sermon. 4) Expounding the Text. 5) Crafting the Delivery. 6) Applying the Truth. 7) Concluding the Exposition. These seven categories form the chapters of the book following chapter 1 that gives the brief overview of Calvin’s life. Within the chapters, Lawson articulates with brevity and yet clarity thirty-one distinctives of Calvin’s preaching.
It is, within this book, a virtual trove of insight into the expositional preaching of John Calvin. Lawson has done his homework with regards to Calvin. Which, to me, comes as no surprise. Lawson is a consummate scholar who does his due diligence to accurately portray Calvin, as he does with anything he sets his hands to. Just as an aside here, I commend anything by Steve Lawson. He is a biblical expositor extraordinaire and the same diligence and manifold grace of God seen in his preaching transfers to his written material as well.
The value of this book is that we have the opportunity to study the preaching style of one which none of us have had the privilege of sitting under. We have the opportunity to sit under the preaching and study the preaching style of great preachers of our own day, such as John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul, but in the Expository Genius of John Calvin, Lawson truly gives us a lucid insight into, as the book title states, the expository genius of John Calvin.
The book covers the sermons of Calvin from introduction to conclusion. How he prepared to preach the truth of God’s Word and how he applied the truth of God’s Word to the lives of his hearers.
One of the greatest instructions and insights into Calvin’s preaching has to do with his application of the text. We may be tempted to think that due to Calvin’s great theological mind that he just expounded great biblical doctrines, but had little application. This is not the case. Listen to what Lawson quotes Calvin himself as stating. “Listeners, he said, should cultivate a ‘willingness to obey God completely and with no reserve.’ The Reformer added, ‘We have not come to the preaching merely to hear what we do not know, but to be incited to do our duty.’ For this reason, Calvin believed it was incumbent upon him, as a preacher, to make careful application. He saw it his pulpit responsibility to connect the Word to those allotted to his charge” (p. 104). How instructive for preachers to know that you can both have a great theological mind and yet bring that greatness of God down to a point in the life of the hearers with precision in order that they may be incited to live as God would have them to live.
In short, I would commend this book for any student of the preaching of God’s Word as it gives insight to the preaching of one of the great men of church history. This is the first in a series of forth coming books on other preachers, men such as Luther and Whitefield. I look forward to more of these in order that we may learn from the great heroes of faithful preaching who have gone before.
A copy of this book can be purchased at www.monergismbooks.com
The first chapter of this marvelous little book deals with an overview of the life of John Calvin. Lawson gives a brief synopsis of Calvin’s life from birth to death. In the course of this synopsis he marks the high spots of the life of John Calvin such as his conversion, his arrival, dismissal, and re-entry into Geneva, and his continued faithfulness to the Scriptures in the midst of adversity over the Lord’s Table with the Libertines. Calvin’s life was marked by one of continued influence in the life of people. And his life continues to make and impact and have influence on the lives of people, especially those who desire to be faithful teachers of the Word of God.
Lawson has broken down the preaching style of Calvin into seven broad categories. These categories include: 1) Approaching the Pulpit. 2) Preparing the Preacher. 3) Launching the Sermon. 4) Expounding the Text. 5) Crafting the Delivery. 6) Applying the Truth. 7) Concluding the Exposition. These seven categories form the chapters of the book following chapter 1 that gives the brief overview of Calvin’s life. Within the chapters, Lawson articulates with brevity and yet clarity thirty-one distinctives of Calvin’s preaching.
It is, within this book, a virtual trove of insight into the expositional preaching of John Calvin. Lawson has done his homework with regards to Calvin. Which, to me, comes as no surprise. Lawson is a consummate scholar who does his due diligence to accurately portray Calvin, as he does with anything he sets his hands to. Just as an aside here, I commend anything by Steve Lawson. He is a biblical expositor extraordinaire and the same diligence and manifold grace of God seen in his preaching transfers to his written material as well.
The value of this book is that we have the opportunity to study the preaching style of one which none of us have had the privilege of sitting under. We have the opportunity to sit under the preaching and study the preaching style of great preachers of our own day, such as John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul, but in the Expository Genius of John Calvin, Lawson truly gives us a lucid insight into, as the book title states, the expository genius of John Calvin.
The book covers the sermons of Calvin from introduction to conclusion. How he prepared to preach the truth of God’s Word and how he applied the truth of God’s Word to the lives of his hearers.
One of the greatest instructions and insights into Calvin’s preaching has to do with his application of the text. We may be tempted to think that due to Calvin’s great theological mind that he just expounded great biblical doctrines, but had little application. This is not the case. Listen to what Lawson quotes Calvin himself as stating. “Listeners, he said, should cultivate a ‘willingness to obey God completely and with no reserve.’ The Reformer added, ‘We have not come to the preaching merely to hear what we do not know, but to be incited to do our duty.’ For this reason, Calvin believed it was incumbent upon him, as a preacher, to make careful application. He saw it his pulpit responsibility to connect the Word to those allotted to his charge” (p. 104). How instructive for preachers to know that you can both have a great theological mind and yet bring that greatness of God down to a point in the life of the hearers with precision in order that they may be incited to live as God would have them to live.
In short, I would commend this book for any student of the preaching of God’s Word as it gives insight to the preaching of one of the great men of church history. This is the first in a series of forth coming books on other preachers, men such as Luther and Whitefield. I look forward to more of these in order that we may learn from the great heroes of faithful preaching who have gone before.
A copy of this book can be purchased at www.monergismbooks.com
Monday, April 23, 2007
The Brightest Light Attracts the Biggest Bugs
Every year at the church we hold a Men's Conference/Retreat. We were blessed this year to have Dr. Art Azurdia be our guest to exhort us from the Word of God. Dr. Azurdia is a professor at Western Seminary here in Portland, Oregon. He is a gifted preacher and a friend. If you have not had an opportunity to be blessed by Art's preaching I would encourage you to visit his website and take a listen. You can find the link in "recommended sites." His site is "Spirit Empowered Preaching." The three messages that he delivered were phenomenal and will be available at www.monergism.com to listen to within a couple of days. Check them out, you will be blessed.
In one of the messages that was given, Art was talking about churches experiencing difficulty and persecution for the proclamation of the gospel and the clear exposition of the Word of God. The phrase he used that continues to resonate in my head is, as the post indicates, the brightest light attracts the biggest bugs. So I write this as an encouragement to those who are preaching their hearts out and by God's grace leading the church according to the Scriptures, and experiencing persecution, internal resistance, and external insults.
All people have an aversion to pain. I think we can all face the reality that none of us like being hurt, whether physically or emotionally. But, the reality of the matter is life involves pain. As Christians, our lives may involve more pain than the ordinary Joe on the street who lives his life according to his own wants and likes without a care for any one else. It seems though that much time and energy is spent either trying to avoid pain, either physical or emotional, or if one does experience pain much time is spent trying to anesthetize that pain. When pain comes into our lives, our knee-jerk response is something is wrong. I have done something wrong. This is, in my opinion, most true with emotional pain; the kind of heavy pressure that one feels in the midst of persecution, specifically.
I would put forth this premise: Sometimes the pain that is experienced, the pressure that is felt, in gospel ministry is because we are doing something right. When we feel pain, the first thing we want to do is alleviate it, so we may be tempted to stop plowing ahead in authentic gospel ministry as to stop the pain. However, I would point us to the words of the apostle Peter:
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. (1 Peter 3:12-14, ESV)
Or the apostle Paul:
For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. Fro we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely no on ourselves bu ton God who raises the dead. (2 Cor. 1:8-9, ESV).
Friends, as Peter says, we should not be surprised at any fiery trial that comes upon us. The brightest light will always attract the biggest bugs. Those who stand for righteousness will be persecuted for righteousness sake. Those who stand for the gospel, the true gospel, will be persecuted for the gospel's sake. Those who stand for Christ will be persecuted for Christ's sake.
The apostle Paul writes to young Timothy: "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from who you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:12-15, ESV).
Friends, despite the difficulty and our own sinful inclination to bow to internal or external pressure, we must heed the words of the apostle Paul to Timothy. "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed." Those big bugs will be attracted to the light. And, sometimes, they are really a nuisance. Understand, that the Lord blesses true gospel ministry and it is the true gospel ministry that has the greatest impact in the advancement of the Kingdom. That same bright light God will use to draw His people and by God's grace they will be saved and come to faith in Christ Jesus.
Let us continue to be faithful stewards who will not bow the knee except to the Lordship of Christ alone.
In one of the messages that was given, Art was talking about churches experiencing difficulty and persecution for the proclamation of the gospel and the clear exposition of the Word of God. The phrase he used that continues to resonate in my head is, as the post indicates, the brightest light attracts the biggest bugs. So I write this as an encouragement to those who are preaching their hearts out and by God's grace leading the church according to the Scriptures, and experiencing persecution, internal resistance, and external insults.
All people have an aversion to pain. I think we can all face the reality that none of us like being hurt, whether physically or emotionally. But, the reality of the matter is life involves pain. As Christians, our lives may involve more pain than the ordinary Joe on the street who lives his life according to his own wants and likes without a care for any one else. It seems though that much time and energy is spent either trying to avoid pain, either physical or emotional, or if one does experience pain much time is spent trying to anesthetize that pain. When pain comes into our lives, our knee-jerk response is something is wrong. I have done something wrong. This is, in my opinion, most true with emotional pain; the kind of heavy pressure that one feels in the midst of persecution, specifically.
I would put forth this premise: Sometimes the pain that is experienced, the pressure that is felt, in gospel ministry is because we are doing something right. When we feel pain, the first thing we want to do is alleviate it, so we may be tempted to stop plowing ahead in authentic gospel ministry as to stop the pain. However, I would point us to the words of the apostle Peter:
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. (1 Peter 3:12-14, ESV)
Or the apostle Paul:
For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. Fro we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely no on ourselves bu ton God who raises the dead. (2 Cor. 1:8-9, ESV).
Friends, as Peter says, we should not be surprised at any fiery trial that comes upon us. The brightest light will always attract the biggest bugs. Those who stand for righteousness will be persecuted for righteousness sake. Those who stand for the gospel, the true gospel, will be persecuted for the gospel's sake. Those who stand for Christ will be persecuted for Christ's sake.
The apostle Paul writes to young Timothy: "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from who you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:12-15, ESV).
Friends, despite the difficulty and our own sinful inclination to bow to internal or external pressure, we must heed the words of the apostle Paul to Timothy. "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed." Those big bugs will be attracted to the light. And, sometimes, they are really a nuisance. Understand, that the Lord blesses true gospel ministry and it is the true gospel ministry that has the greatest impact in the advancement of the Kingdom. That same bright light God will use to draw His people and by God's grace they will be saved and come to faith in Christ Jesus.
Let us continue to be faithful stewards who will not bow the knee except to the Lordship of Christ alone.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Upcoming Stuff
I am holding off on posting for a couple of days. I am in the process of writing a lengthy treatment on the covenant of redemption. I will post as a multi-part series when I am done.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Does the Resurrection Prove Particular Redemption?
The topic of Limited Atonement, or better termed "Particular Redemption," has the ability to provoke the most ardent and sometimes hostile discussions. But to those who trust in the accomplished work on the cross, the trust that redemption was actually accomplished, and not just the theoretical possibility of redemption, particular redemption is the most comforting, most gracious, most loving, and most confident doctrine in which one can stand.
We, I think, can all agree that everyone limits the atonement. Either it is limited in its effect or in its extent. Either that atonement is limited in what it accomplishes, that is it does not really secure salvation for anyone, but only makes it potentially available should the person respond in faith or perhaps more accurately not resist the grace of God as it is extended to all. Or the atonement actually does secure the redemption of individuals, but only those in the eternal counsel of God, who chose to redeem our of His divine love, divine mercy, and divine goodness, which are all seen in His sovereign grace to sinners. Which we could then say limits the extent of the atonement. It is extended and is efficacious only to the elect.
Michael Horton writes, "To affirm a universal atonement, then, one is left with only two options: either to limit the atonement in its effect - that is, what it really accomplishes - or accept at face value the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of redemption by embracing universal salvation. In other words, if Christ's death secured the redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction of divine justice on behalf of each and every individual, we must either affirm that each and every individual will therefore be saved since the atonement is effective in nature or that the work of Christ itself must be limited in its scope. Otherwise it is limited in its nature" (Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, pg. 137).
Loraine Boettner also chimes in on this: "The nature of a ransom is such that when paid and accepted it automatically frees the persons for whom it was intended. Otherwise it would not be a true ransom. Just demands that those for whom it is paid shall be freed from any further obligation. If the suffering and death of Christ was a ransom for all men rather then for the elect only then the merits of His work must be communicated to all alike and the penalty of eternal punishment cannot be justly inflicted on any. God would be unjust if He demanded this extreme penalty twice over, first from the substitute and then from the persons themselves. The conclusion then is that the atonement of Christ does not extend to all men but that it is limited to those for whom He stood surety; that is, to those who compose His true Church" (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pg. 155).
Surely when we discuss and debate the atonement, we argue and look to the nature of the work of Christ on the cross and also look to the justice of God, as Boetner notes above. But, does the resurrection also prove particular redemption?
What moved me to ponder again this beautiful doctrine is reading the fourth chapter of the book of Romans. And what, in particular, that prompted me to pose this question is the statement that Paul makes in verse 25 of this magnificent book. "Who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Rom. 4:25, ESV).
As you well know, chapter 4 is Paul's wonderful treatise on justification by faith. In this chapter he uses Abraham as the example of justification by faith versus works. In verse 20 Paul states, "No distrust made him (Abraham) waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith and gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised." Then he quotes from Genesis regarding the statement that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. This, Paul states, was written not only for Abraham's sake, but for ours also. And the bottom line is found in verse 24. "It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord." To those of us who believe the promises of God, who raised Christ from the dead, we will be counted as righteousness. Essentially speaking of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
So here again I come back to the question. Does Christ's resurrection prove particular redemption? Paul states that He (Christ) was delivered up for our trespasses. That is to say, He was crucified in order that He would satisfy the justice of God and to pay a ransom for our sin. But Paul does not stop there. Christ was raised for our justification. Paul is saying that the resurrection is the proof that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient in that it accomplished all that it was intended to accomplish. Justification was secured for the elect. The resurrection shows this. Therefore, would it not stand to reason that Christ did not die and therefore was not resurrected for those who would never be justified? And therefore the atonement was limited to those whom God graciously chose to save.
Elsewhere Paul states that "those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, an those whom he justified he also glorified" (Rom. 8:30, ESV). Those whom God predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, God will call, and those whom are are called, will be justified. This also notes a particular redemption because the gospel call goes out to all of mankind (often called the external call) so not all that called (externally) will be justified. Only those who are called by the mysterious, secret working of the Holy Spirit will be justified. It was only these who Christ died for and it is only these whom His resurrection makes certain their justification.
Therefore, it would stand to reason that Christ's resurrection as well shows the particular redemption of a people who God, before the foundation of the world, set His sovereign, gracious, and effectual love upon. It is this confident understanding that, in Christ, we have assurance of the forgiveness of sins and assurance of recieving the inheritance that is stored up for us, and assurance of an eternity spent serving and worshipping the God who is. To God alone be the glory and in Christ alone is redemption.
We, I think, can all agree that everyone limits the atonement. Either it is limited in its effect or in its extent. Either that atonement is limited in what it accomplishes, that is it does not really secure salvation for anyone, but only makes it potentially available should the person respond in faith or perhaps more accurately not resist the grace of God as it is extended to all. Or the atonement actually does secure the redemption of individuals, but only those in the eternal counsel of God, who chose to redeem our of His divine love, divine mercy, and divine goodness, which are all seen in His sovereign grace to sinners. Which we could then say limits the extent of the atonement. It is extended and is efficacious only to the elect.
Michael Horton writes, "To affirm a universal atonement, then, one is left with only two options: either to limit the atonement in its effect - that is, what it really accomplishes - or accept at face value the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of redemption by embracing universal salvation. In other words, if Christ's death secured the redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction of divine justice on behalf of each and every individual, we must either affirm that each and every individual will therefore be saved since the atonement is effective in nature or that the work of Christ itself must be limited in its scope. Otherwise it is limited in its nature" (Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, pg. 137).
Loraine Boettner also chimes in on this: "The nature of a ransom is such that when paid and accepted it automatically frees the persons for whom it was intended. Otherwise it would not be a true ransom. Just demands that those for whom it is paid shall be freed from any further obligation. If the suffering and death of Christ was a ransom for all men rather then for the elect only then the merits of His work must be communicated to all alike and the penalty of eternal punishment cannot be justly inflicted on any. God would be unjust if He demanded this extreme penalty twice over, first from the substitute and then from the persons themselves. The conclusion then is that the atonement of Christ does not extend to all men but that it is limited to those for whom He stood surety; that is, to those who compose His true Church" (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pg. 155).
Surely when we discuss and debate the atonement, we argue and look to the nature of the work of Christ on the cross and also look to the justice of God, as Boetner notes above. But, does the resurrection also prove particular redemption?
What moved me to ponder again this beautiful doctrine is reading the fourth chapter of the book of Romans. And what, in particular, that prompted me to pose this question is the statement that Paul makes in verse 25 of this magnificent book. "Who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Rom. 4:25, ESV).
As you well know, chapter 4 is Paul's wonderful treatise on justification by faith. In this chapter he uses Abraham as the example of justification by faith versus works. In verse 20 Paul states, "No distrust made him (Abraham) waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith and gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised." Then he quotes from Genesis regarding the statement that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. This, Paul states, was written not only for Abraham's sake, but for ours also. And the bottom line is found in verse 24. "It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord." To those of us who believe the promises of God, who raised Christ from the dead, we will be counted as righteousness. Essentially speaking of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
So here again I come back to the question. Does Christ's resurrection prove particular redemption? Paul states that He (Christ) was delivered up for our trespasses. That is to say, He was crucified in order that He would satisfy the justice of God and to pay a ransom for our sin. But Paul does not stop there. Christ was raised for our justification. Paul is saying that the resurrection is the proof that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient in that it accomplished all that it was intended to accomplish. Justification was secured for the elect. The resurrection shows this. Therefore, would it not stand to reason that Christ did not die and therefore was not resurrected for those who would never be justified? And therefore the atonement was limited to those whom God graciously chose to save.
Elsewhere Paul states that "those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, an those whom he justified he also glorified" (Rom. 8:30, ESV). Those whom God predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, God will call, and those whom are are called, will be justified. This also notes a particular redemption because the gospel call goes out to all of mankind (often called the external call) so not all that called (externally) will be justified. Only those who are called by the mysterious, secret working of the Holy Spirit will be justified. It was only these who Christ died for and it is only these whom His resurrection makes certain their justification.
Therefore, it would stand to reason that Christ's resurrection as well shows the particular redemption of a people who God, before the foundation of the world, set His sovereign, gracious, and effectual love upon. It is this confident understanding that, in Christ, we have assurance of the forgiveness of sins and assurance of recieving the inheritance that is stored up for us, and assurance of an eternity spent serving and worshipping the God who is. To God alone be the glory and in Christ alone is redemption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
