Reformed Ruminations: God saves sinners! (part 1)

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

God saves sinners! (part 1)

One of the things I appreciate about the technical aspects of blogging is that you can keep editing and revising already existing posts. I really envy those folks who seem to effortlessly get it right on the first attempt, but I’ll never be one of them. Therefore, expect that I may continue to revise posts that are a week (or several) old!

God saves sinners … but what does “save” mean?

I had said at the end of the previous post that I would try to unpack some of the items that I had listed as “crucial truths.” I think the one I want to start with is the first on the list (though I may not follow the listed order in future posts). I hesitate to prioritize these items in terms of importance, but the first one is definitely near the top, and at the beginning of my Reformed “conversion,” it was the one that really began the process of turning my poor evangelically-muddled brain inside out. It is that God does not merely provide an opportunity for sinners to be saved, but He actually saves sinners, the three Persons of the Godhead concurring in the work of salvation--the Father electing, the Son redeeming, and the Holy Spirit applying redemption to the elect.

God saves sinners! Now the fact that God saves sinners would hardly be a controversial notion among evangelical Christians, but once we get down to articulating exactly what we mean by this, and what is the precise nature of that salvation whereby God saves sinners, we find ourselves right smack in the middle of one of the most important doctrinal controversies that ever shook the Protestant church, the Arminian controversy of the seventeenth century. The controversy arose over the question of whether salvation was entirely a sovereign work of God acting to rescue spiritually dead sinners who couldn’t lift a finger to help themselves--or whether God in Christ merely made salvation a possibility contingent upon whether a sinner would employ his freewill and choose to believe. (The followers of a minister named Jacob Arminius argued for the latter position.)

In other words, the debate was over the question: What exactly does “save” mean? One way to get a handle on the issue at stake is by asking yourself the following question: If you have trusted in Christ for your salvation, can you attribute your faith to the fact that you were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (and nothing else)? Or did God “choose” you on the basis of His foreknowledge that when confronted with the gospel, you would exercise your own free will and “decide for Jesus”? Does your faith flow from your election? Or your election from your faith? (Though it may appear to be, this is not simply a "chicken or the egg" type of question!)

To put it another way (and here I’m stealing a very helpful illustration used by R.C. Sproul in his excellent article, On the Pelagian Captivity of the Church): Can we best compare God’s saving of sinners to someone rescuing a drowning man by throwing him a life preserver and helping him to grab hold of it? Or is it more like someone diving to the bottom of the ocean to rescue a stone cold corpse, bring it to the surface, and then breath life into it? It has often amazed me that many (most?) Christians, in my experience, don’t consider this to be an important question. As you've probably figured out, I have become convinced that it is crucial, and I want to argue vehemently for the latter option!

(In order to keep this post “bite-sized,” I’ll continue the discussion in the next one …)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Choice Quotes

The Apostle Paul on justification sola fide:

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."
—Paul, Romans 4:5

The Apostle Paul on the contrasting federal headships of Adam and Christ:

"But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."
—Paul, Romans 5:15-19

Wilhelmus a Brakel on the importance of the doctrine of the covenant of works:

"We shall now speak of Adam as being in covenant with God—the covenant of works. Acquaintance with this covenant is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect. This is to be observed with several parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works, must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well."
—Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service

Wilhelmus a Brakel on the two aspects of Christ's obedience:

"The active obedience of Christ in subjecting Himself under, and fulfilling, the law is not only a necessary requisite for Him who would be Mediator (all of which is true for Christ), but this active righteousness of Christ is a part of His satisfaction for His own. As He delivered them from all guilt and punishment by His passion, by His active obedience, fulfilling the law on their behalf, He has also merited a right unto eternal life for them. These two aspects coalesce in Christ and neither may nor can be separated from each other. Christ has merited salvation atoningly and has made atonement meritoriously. Likewise the elect, in being delivered from guilt and punishment, receive a right to eternal life, and in receiving that right are delivered from guilt and punishment. Nevertheless these two aspects of His humiliation—the atonement for guilt and punishment, and the meriting of eternal life—are not identical, but essentially differ from each other. The active and passive obedience of Christ are equally beneficial to the elect."
—Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service

C.H. Spurgeon on Calvinism:

“I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.”
—Charles Haddon Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism

C.H. Spurgeon responding to the accusation that Calvinism leads to licentiousness:

“I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace; or what will he say of the Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they as the orthodox. … No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it ‘a licentious doctrine’ did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things, they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under Heaven. If they knew the grace of God in truth, they would soon see that there was no preservative from lying like a knowledge that we are elect of God from the foundation of the world. There is nothing like a belief in my eternal perseverance, and the immutability of my Father’s affection, which can keep me near to Him from a motive of simple gratitude. … Of all men, those have the most disinterested piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent devotion, who believe that they are saved by grace, without works, through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God."
—Charles Haddon Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism

John Calvin on effectual calling:

"[I]n vain were light offered to the blind, did not that Spirit of understanding open the intellectual eye; so that he himself may be properly termed the key by which the treasures of the heavenly kingdom are unlocked, and his illumination, the eye of the mind by which we are enabled to see: hence Paul so highly commends the ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3: 6), since teachers would cry aloud to no purpose, did not Christ, the internal teacher, by means of his Spirit, draw to himself those who are given him of the Father."
—John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.1.4

Theodore Beza on the distinction between the Law and the Gospel:

"[T]he Law and the Gospel are not contrary in that which concerns the essence of the righteousness with which we must be clothed in order to be accepted before God and to participate in eternal life; but they are contrary with regard to the means of having this righteousness. For the Law justly seeks in us this righteousness; it has no regard to what we can do but to what we ought to do (Gal 3:12). Man, indeed, by his own fault alone, has made himself unable to pay; nevertheless, he does not cease to be a debtor even if he is unable to pay. And consequently, the Law does us no wrong in demanding from us that which we owe, although we cannot pay it. But the Gospel, softening this righteous rigour as with the honey of God's mercy, teaches us to pay by Him who has made Himself our Surety, who has put Himself, I say, in our place and paid our debt, as principal debtor, and to the last farthing (Col. 2:13,14). So that the rigour of the Law which made us tremble in ourselves and struck us down completely, now confirms us and accepts us in Jesus Christ. For, since eternal life is due to those who have obeyed the Law perfectly, and Jesus Christ has fulfilled all righteousness in the name of those who should believe in Him and take hold of Him by faith (1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9), it follows that, even according to the rigour of the Law, salvation cannot fail those who, by faith, have become united and incorporated with Jesus Christ."
—Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith

Ebenezer Erskine on the danger of misconstruing the role of faith in the act of justification:

"Others again, will pretend to renounce all their works and duties, and own, with their mouths, that it is by faith in Christ only that they hope to be accepted: but though they own this with their mouth, yet still their hearts cleave fast to a covenant of works; they were never 'through the law, dead to the law'; and when nothing else will do, they will make their own act of believing the righteousness on which they lean for acceptance; which is still a seeking righteousness in themselves: whereas, if ever we be justified before God, we must have it in the Lord Jesus, saying, 'In him' will we 'be justified,' and 'in him alone' will we 'glory.' Faith carries the soul quite out of itself; yea, faith renounces its own act in the point of justification. All these, and many other rooms and lying refuges, have the devil and our own hearts devised, to lead us off from Christ. But, O sirs, believe it, these are but imaginary sanctuaries, and the hail will sweep them away. Nothing but the doing and dying of the Surety, apprehended by faith, will ever exalt you into favour and fellowship with God, or acquit you from the curse and condemnation of the broken law."
—Ebenezer Erskine, sermon on Psalm 89:16 entitled "The Believer Exalted in Imputed Righteousness"

Meredith G. Kline on the works principle in the creational covenant:

"A principle of works—do this and live—governed the attainment of the consummation-kingdom proferred in the blessing sanction of the creational covenant. Heaven must be earned. According to the terms stipulated by the Creator it would be on the ground of man’s faithful completion of the work of probation that he would be entitled to enter the Sabbath rest. If Adam obediently performed the assignment signified by the probation tree, he would receive, as a matter of pure and simple justice, the reward symbolized by the tree of life. That is, successful probation would be meritorious. With good reason then covenant theology has identified this probation arrangement as a covenant of works, thereby setting it in sharp contrast to the Covenant of Grace."
—Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 107

Meredith G. Kline on the active obedience of Christ:

"The active obedience of Jesus is his fulfilling the demands of the covenant probation. By the passive obedience of his atoning sacrifice he secures for us the forgiveness of sins. But he does more than clear the slate and reinstate us in Adam's original condition, still facing probation and able to fail. Jesus, the Second Adam, accomplishes the probationary assignment of overcoming the Devil, and by performing this one decisive act of righteousness he earns for us God's promised reward. By this achievement of active obedience he merits for us a position beyond probation, secure forever in God's love and the prospect of God's eternal home."
—Meredith G. Kline, Covenant Theology Under Attack

Meredith G. Kline on the importance of defining grace as demerited favor:

"Theologically it is of the greatest importance to recognize that the idea of demerit is an essential element in the definition of grace. In its proper theological sense as the opposite of law-works, grace is more than unmerited favor. That is, divine grace directs itself not merely to the absence of merit but to the presence of demerit. It addresses and overcomes violation of divine commandment. It is a granting of blessing, as an act of mercy, in spite of previous covenant breaking by which man has forfeited all claims to participation in the kingdom and has incurred God’s disfavor and righteous wrath. It bestows the good offered in the covenant’s blessing sanctions rather than the evil of the threatened curse even though man has done evil rather than good in terms of the covenant stipulations."
—Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 113

Meredith G. Kline on the works principle in the Mosaic economy:

"[C]ontradicting the contention that no divine covenants have ever been governed by the works principle is the irrefutable biblical evidence that the Mosaic economy, while an administration of grace on its fundamental level of concern with the eternal salvation of the individual, was at the same time on its temporary, typological kingdom level informed by the principle of works. Thus, for example, the apostle Paul in Romans 10:4ff. and Galatians 3:10ff. (cf. Rom 9:32) contrasts the old order of the law with the gospel order of grace and faith, identifying the old covenant as one of bondage, condemnation, and death (cf. 2 Cor 3:6-9; Gal 4:24-26). The old covenant was law, the opposite of grace-faith, and in the postlapsarian world that meant it would turn out to be an administration of condemnation as a consequence of sinful Israel’s failure to maintain the necessary meritorious obedience. Had the old typological kingdom been secured by sovereign grace in Christ, Israel would not have lost her national election. A satisfactory explanation of Israel’s fall demands works, not grace, as the controlling administrative principle."
—Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 109

Meredith G. Kline on the works principle as it governed Israel's retention of the promised land:

"What we have found then is that once the typological kingdom was inaugurated under the Mosaic Covenant, Israel’s retention of it was governed by a principle of works applied on a national scale. The standard of judgment in this national probation was one of typological legibility, that is, the message must remain reasonably readable that enjoyment of the felicity of God’s holy kingdom goes hand in hand with righteousness. Without holiness we do not see God. But if the ground of Israel’s tenure in Canaan was their covenant obedience, their election to receive the typological kingdom in the first place was emphatically not based on any merit of theirs (cf. Deut 9:5,6). Their original reception of this kingdom, as well as their restoration to it after the loss of their national election in Babylonian exile, is repeatedly attributed to God’s remembrance of his promissory commitments of grace to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 2:24; 3:6ff.; 6:2ff.; 32:13; Deut 9:27; 10:15; Lev 26:42), pointing to the coming Messiah and the new covenant."
—Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 323

Meredith G. Kline on the provisional nature of the old covenant kingdom of Israel:

"According to God’s promise rightly understood, the old covenant kingdom was only provisional. The sovereignty of God’s promise assured the development of the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob line into the people Israel who should experience the national election to become the holy kingdom in the promised land and so continue until Christ should come of them as to the flesh. But there was no guarantee of an unbroken continuance of this privileged national status within the premessianic period nor of a harmonious transition to the messianic, antitypical phase of the kingdom. For in the old covenant, which articulated the national election, it was stipulated that tenure in the enjoyment of the theocratic kingdom was predicated on national fidelity to the Lord. In this restricted sense and sphere a principle of works was introduced under the law economy. Unlike the individual election, which was purely a matter of God’s grace in Christ, the surety, the national election could, therefore, be lost. Or, coming at the matter from the opposite direction, the very fact that God finally repudiated the elect nation by desolating judgment compels us to recognize that a principle of works had been injected into the typological phase of fulfillment under the old covenant."
—Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 306

Reformed Ruminations

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

God saves sinners! (part 1)

No comments:

About Me

Blog Archive

Blogroll

Websites

Online Essays

Apologetics

Biblical Theology

Christ and Culture

Christian Life

Christology

Covenant Theology

Doctrine

Ecclesiology

Eschatology

Heresies

Justification

Law-Gospel Distinction

Ministry

Soteriology

Worship

Online Books

Reformed Confessions and Catechisms

Choice Quotes