God saves sinners! (part 4)

Adam's Fall

In the last post, we began to set the stage for our upcoming discussion of total depravity (to take place in the next post) by talking about man's original state of righteousness and the covenant of works. Now we’ll continue with the tragic sequel. This post will discuss Adam's sin; the next will focus on the imputation of that sin to his posterity (and especially the depravity entailed therein).

Adam’s fall

Everyone knows the outcome of Adam's probation. The serpent got to him through his wife Eve, and he succumbed to the temptation to transgress God’s holy covenant. Pride entered and the royal priest charged to guard the holy sanctuary of Eden allowed it to be defiled by an evil intruder.

Though Adam had been created with knowledge, righteousness and holiness, in the words of the Canons of Dordt,

rebelling against God at the devil's instigation and by his own free will, he deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions.

Instead of coming to “know good and evil” through triumphing over evil, Adam came to know it through yielding to it. R.C. Sproul, in his excellent introduction to Reformed soteriology entitled Chosen by God, points out that describing Adam's sin as a "fall" is a bit of a misnomer. The problem is in the danger that this label implies that there was something accidental about it, whereas in fact there was not. Adam dove headlong into sin, knowingly, willingly, and determinedly.

Adam’s depravity and guilt

But once Adam made the fateful and fatal choice to break God’s covenant and ally himself instead with the evil serpent, there was no going back. His holy nature was now irrevocably corrupted, mind, heart and will--body and soul. To put it in terms of Augustine’s taxonomy of man’s fourfold state, Adam was now non posse non peccare (“not able not to sin”).

It is important to keep in mind two distinct but inseparable aspects of the reign of sin. Having forfeit his holiness, Adam was now under the dominion of sin. That is, it now controlled him from within, and he could not help but sin. (I'll elaborate in the next post.) But he was not merely under sin's dominion. Having forfeit his righteousness, he was now also under the guilt of sin--that is, he was under God's wrath. Hence, there was now a mutual enmity.

The fall before the fall

Adam's transgression was immediately followed by God's judgment, but before discussing the penalty for Adam's sin (at the end of this post), we will take most of the remainder of the post to face up to an oft debated philosophical question regarding his fall, namely: How is it possible that evil ever entered into God's good creation in the first place? This is an important question, but before attempting an answer, we should touch briefly on the fact that there was actually a fall prior to man's fall. The narrative account of Adam's transgression is clear that evil did not enter history for the first time with the sins of humans; the satanic serpent became wicked first. Elsewhere in scripture, it is clearly revealed that prior to the fall of man, there had been a fall of angels.

We have relatively little scriptural data concerning this fall before the fall. Like man, the angels had been created holy, righteous, and good. Some of them God had willed to confirm in righteousness; but others He had not. This latter group, apparently comprising one third of their number, Satan led in rebellion against their Creator. Their demonic hostility would henceforth be channeled into the foolish and futile project of attempting to subvert God’s eternal purposes with respect to the creature made in His image.

The "problem" of evil and the mysteries of the Christian faith

Now back to our question: How could evil have entered into God's good creation? He's good, right? He's sovereign, right? He's wise, right? Then how could it have happened? Sometimes this issue is raised in the form of the skeptic's attempt to skewer the believer on the horns of a dilemma--to the effect that the presence of evil in the world necessarily implies that either God is less than all-powerful, or He is less than all-good.

Before facing up to this "dilemma," it is helpful to recall that this is not the only difficult philosophical problem Christians face--there are others. For example, How can God be one and yet subsist in three Persons? How can Christ be one Person and yet possess two natures? These are profound mysteries, and we may never receive answers sufficient to satisfy our curiosity. But since we have no natural knowledge of, or experience with, an eternal self-existent Being, we should not expect the message of scripture to conform to our finite reason and experience. Divine revelation can neither be squeezed into a preconceived rationalistic grid, nor can it be subjected to the scientific method.

With this caveat concerning the Creator/creature distinction and the limitations of finite reason and experience in mind, we will now briefly ponder the questions raised by the problem of evil with respect to God's sovereignty, goodness, and wisdom.

The fall and God's sovereignty

First, does the fall call into question the absolute sovereignty of God? Did He merely “wait in the wings,” as it were, to see what Adam would do? It seems that an increasing number of Christians today might answer yes, though many of these would concede that God "foreknew" that Adam would choose to disobey.

However, R.C. Sproul observes that it is a basic tenet of theism in general (let alone Christian theism) that God's sovereign decree embraces whatsoever comes to pass, including the responsible actions of His creatures. No, the fall did not take God by surprise. Nor is it enough to say that the fall was merely a matter of His foreknowledge. He did not merely permit the fall. For wise purposes known fully only to Himself, and for His own glory, He decreed to permit the fall. We cannot fully wrap our minds around this truth, but as we contemplate the fall, we must not lose sight of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

The fall and God's goodness

Secondly, does the fall call into question God's goodness? If He created all things, must He not also be the author of evil? This is a question about the very nature and origin of evil. There is great mystery here, but Augustine helpfully pointed out that since all that God created is good; we ought not think of evil as a created thing. It is rather a privation of the good. Man, though created good, was given the freedom to deprive himself of goodness.

Hence, the source of evil is not the Creator, but rather the sinful creature. God’s sovereignty over man's sinful actions notwithstanding, He is not the author of sin; rather, all the blame lies with the sinner. God is absolutely sovereign; man is absolutely responsible. In spite of the difficulties involved, we must insist on both of these truths. Our questions are not all answered, but as we contemplate the fall, we must not lose sight of the absolute purity of God.

The fall and God's wisdom

Thirdly, does the fall call into question God's wisdom? Why would He allow evil into His creation when (being all-powerful) He could have prevented it and (being all-good) would want to? This is a question about God's eternal purpose.

Some Christians (particularly those operating from within an Arminian frame of reference) respond by positing that the presence of evil is the necessary price that God paid for a world filled with free creatures. Dwelling on the problems with this paradigm is what this current blog series is all about! (I plan to include a discussion of “freewill” in the next post.) Not least problematic is that this model views man’s freedom as an autonomous freedom--a notion not consistent with Christian theism by any stretch. Adopting this solution is tantamount to being skewered on one of the above-mentioned horns.

Reformed Christians on the other hand point out that the presence of evil allows for a fuller display of God’s attributes—both His justice and His mercy. This is helpful, but ultimately does not answer all questions. In any case, for wise reasons which He has not revealed to us, and for His own glory, God has allowed evil into the world. It may help to remember that what is hidden from us now will be clearer later. Luther pointed out that just as the inauguration of the kingdom of grace (at Christ's first advent) unraveled many mysteries, so the inauguration of the kingdom of glory (at His second) will clear up many more. As we contemplate the fall, we must not allow our necessarily limited understanding to cause us to doubt God's wisdom.

Revealed truths and hidden mysteries

So how could evil have entered into God's good creation? A complete answer is impossible this side of the eschaton. But the "dilemma" is a false one. The skeptic asserts on his own authority that God cannot be both all-powerful and all-good; the believer confesses on the authority of the word of God that (in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith)

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (WCF 3.1).

Though we are faced with mysteries that cannot be penetrated by finite reason, we have ample grounds for trusting in the sovereignty, goodness, and wisdom of God. And while it is true that God's revelation cannot be fitted to the skeptic's rationalistic expectations, scripture does present us with a rational revelation. All that is necessary for us to know has been clearly revealed. Thus, we will want to be receptive to revealed truths rather than delving into hidden mysteries.

The Westminster Confession summarizes these revealed truths about God’s power, goodness, and wisdom, as they relate to the apparently contradictory truths concerning the apostasy of men and angels, in the following succinct and balanced way:

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin (WCF 5.4).

Adam’s exile and death

I've digressed for awhile in order to deal with some important philosophical questions concerning Adam's fall. I would like to now finish up this post with a brief return to my overview of the narrative account. With this in mind, we will now return to the scene of Adam's crime.

Immediately following Adam's transgression, the Lord of the covenant came to the site of His holy sanctuary in righteous judgment. Since Adam had failed his probation, he was now exiled from the garden of Eden, stripped of his royal priestly vocation, and consigned to live out his days east of Eden, toiling and sweating to produce food for his family. And though the race would be propagated, his wife too would suffer. Instead of inheriting life, they would inherit death.

They would experience a foretaste of this death immediately, in their banishment from the tree of life and God's presence, in their consciousness of His holy displeasure, and in the toil and misery of a mortal life under the sun. In time, their bodies would grow old and lose strength. Eventually, they would return to the dust from which Adam had been created.

But physical death would be far from the worst of it. Afterwards, they would face final judgment, and under the relentless terms of the covenant of works, their destiny would be to bear God's eternal curse, the justly deserved penalty for Adam's transgression. Within the constitution of this covenant, there would be no possibility of forgiveness; no place for repentance. Adam and Eve were on death row, as it were. There would be no hope for them, nor for us--no hope that is--apart from God's intervention to establish another covenant, a covenant of grace.

But as Adam and Eve would quickly learn, the Judge of all the earth was to prove Himself to be a gracious and merciful Redeemer. And in the divine judgment curse pronounced on the serpent, there was also contained the promise of a triumphant Deliverer to come--the Seed of the woman. And in the divinely supplied covering of their nakedness and shame, Adam and Eve possessed a sign that they would, by grace alone through faith alone, share in that promised deliverance.

In the next post, we will see how God's justice was manifested in the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. In future posts we will see how God's mercy is manifested in His covenant of grace with sinners, grounded on the obedience and suffering of the second Adam, Jesus Christ.

(To be continued ...)

God saves sinners! (part 3)

Original righteousness and the covenant of works

The first point of doctrine in the TULIP mnemonic (though it's the third one articulated in the Canons of Dordt) speaks of the spiritual condition of fallen man. He is not only worthy of condemnation (i.e., under the guilt of sin). He is also “totally depraved” (i.e., under the power of sin). I had originally intended to talk about exactly what is entailed in "total depravity" in this post, but then it occurred to me that instead of starting with our sin and misery, I should start with a post about our original righteousness and the covenant of works.

Original righteousness

Reformed theology and the bible teaches that man was created good, with true knowledge of God, righteousness and holiness. God’s moral law was written on his heart, and thus his will was naturally inclined toward spontaneous obedience to God’s will. The divines of Dordt put it this way:

Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy.

As holy and righteous as Adam was in his original integrity however, he was not yet confirmed in his righteousness and holiness. That is, he was liable to fall. Reformed theology agrees in this with the great church father, Augustine of Hippo, who asserted that man as originally created was posse peccare, posse non peccare (“able to sin” and “able not to sin”). In other words, he had free will (more on this later). He had the power to obey God, and also the power to disobey God.

Probation and the heavenly inheritance

Scripture tells us that when Adam was created, he was placed in a beautiful garden paradise that was to serve as a type of the heavenly inheritance, and the arena for a trial of his faithfulness. As beautiful and overflowing with abundance as Eden was, it pointed to something far better. It was a holy sanctuary, but it was not heaven. Man had been created for eternal blessedness in union and communion with his Creator, a state in which he would be non posse peccare ("unable to sin") in the words of Augustine. But divine wisdom deemed it necessary that he first undergo a probationary trial of his obedience. After all, man had been created in the image of God, and just as the Creator had worked first and then entered His rest, so too the creature made in His image must work and then enter into the heavenly inheritance.

Therefore, in addition to the natural law written on his heart, Adam was given a commandment, a prohibition, by special revelation, which would serve as a test of his fidelity to his Creator and Lord. The question at issue was whether he would keep his covenant with the Creator, or instead succumb to the temptations of a satanic usurper, violate the holy covenant, and in its place form an unholy alliance with the tempter. Would he remain faithful to God and His word? Or would he despise the word of the Lord and prefer the lies of the serpent?

The covenant stipulated that if Adam remained faithful, then he would receive the eternal heavenly inheritance (sacramentally signified by the tree of life) as a justly earned reward. But if he broke the covenant, then he would receive the justly deserved eternal condemnation that comes as the wages of sin to those who transgress the Law imposed by an infinite Creator. Just as God Himself (the Archetype) had entered His rest only after His work had been pronounced “very good,” so Adam’s (ectypal) work must also be perfect in order for him to enter the heavenly rest. Hence, although Adam was created righteous, he had not yet been justified. And according to the terms of the creation covenant, he was to be justified by his works – that is to say, the principle involved was “do this and live.”

Federal representation and imputation

Scripture also reveals that the constitution of the creation covenant was such that Adam was not merely to undergo his probationary trial for himself; rather, he was to serve as the federal representative of all his descendants. If he succeeded, then his righteous standing before God would be imputed to all his posterity. But if he failed, then his unrighteous standing would be imputed to them. His triumph would be their triumph; his failure, their failure. That is, all humanity would stand or fall with him.

There is a helpful analogy to Adam's federal representation in the ancient custom of representative combat. When faced with the alternative of suffering severe casualties in all-out warfare, armies would sometimes instead choose to settle their hostilities by having each side select a champion to represent it. These two champions would then face off in mortal combat. The biblical example of this that springs most readily to mind perhaps is the representative combat between David and Goliath. Goliath's death at the hands of the young Israelite spelled the defeat of the entire Philistine army, which demonstrated this in its terrified flight from the field of battle.

It is very difficult for us modern individualists to see the justice in an arrangement such as this whereby one man's success or failure would determine our destiny as well. Our notions of justice, however, are warped by the fall, and our sinful hearts are prone to forget that it is we, not God, who are on the dock. We do not always understand God's ways, but ultimately we must bow before the justice of the Judge of all the earth.

But it is also important for us to see that humanity could not hope for a better representative than Adam, who by nature possessed perfect righteousness and holiness, and whose will was wholly inclined toward the love of God. If he had succeeded, and merited the heavenly inheritance for us, would we still complain that this arrangement is unjust?

And of course we haven't yet discussed the federal representation of Christ, the second Adam (a subject for a future post!). If you know the joy of being "under grace"--that is, if you have experienced the mercy of God displayed in the vicarious obedience and suffering of Christ on your behalf--then you also realize that this knife cuts both ways.

Reformed theologians refer to this covenant of man’s original creation as the “covenant of works” because man’s perfect obedience, that is, his works, would be the judicial ground of his inheritance of eternal life. By his works alone Adam would stand or fall, and so would we who are represented by him.

(To be continued in the next post ...)

God saves sinners! (part 2)

An ages-old threat to the gospel of grace

There is not much new under the sun and the Arminian controversy of the seventeenth century really turned out to be yet another revival of the age-old battle fought between the Apostle Paul and the Judaizers in the first century, Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth century, and the Protestant Reformers and the medieval church in the sixteenth century. In all of these debates, the main question at issue was whether salvation is entirely attributable to the sovereign grace of God, or whether the sinner contributes just a little bit too (even if it’s only the decision to believe).

An international synod of Reformed ministers convened in the city of Dordrecht in Holland to decide the question, and they reached an overwhelming consensus that Arminianism was false teaching and “another gospel.” Their conclusions are eloquently, thoroughly, precisely, and pastorally articulated in a confessional statement known as the Canons of Dordt, which remains to this day one of the greatest statements of the gospel ever penned. It is still part of the doctrinal standards of Reformed churches.

What many do not realize (I sure didn't) is that the same essential controversy that has raged throughout church history is still alive and well in today's conservative evangelical church. I was entirely unaware of this for my first 15 or more years as a Christian, unknowingly wallowing in the mire of a confused and darkened understanding of the gospel. I thought I understood it, but I really did not. What I did understand often did not seem like particularly good news. I now realize that in my muddled thinking, I was unknowingly succumbing to a very standard temptation to mix the gospel with some law, creating a volatile combination that at least one contemporary Reformed theologian refers to as "g'-law-spel."

The light finally began to dawn for me through reading J.I. Packer’s wonderful (and paradigm-shattering) introductory essay to the classic defense of the doctrine of limited atonement (I'll post more on this soon), The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, written by the great British Puritan theologian and pastor John Owen. If you are coming to the conclusion that evangelicalism leaves something to be desired, if somehow the gospel has ceased to really seem like good news to you (really good news), then you simply must read Packer’s essay.

Packer’s burden in the essay is to contrast the “old gospel” (i.e., that of the Reformed faith and historic Protestantism) with what he labels the “new gospel” (that of contemporary evangelicalism) to demonstrate that what passes for the biblical gospel today is actually a serious distortion and dilution of the biblical message, and that “one of the most urgent tasks facing Evangelical Christendom today [is] the recovery of the gospel.”

There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. … This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty.

Packer goes on to argue that this “substitute” gospel proclaimed in today's evangelical pulpits is essentially the same old distorted Pelagian/Arminian doctrine once again reasserting itself. If he is right (and I am convinced that he is), then we would do well to have some familiarity with the controversy, and especially with the biblical doctrines handed down to us by our Reformed forefathers in the Canons of Dordt, the classic statement of Reformed soteriology (the doctrine of salvation).

The main five points of doctrine at issue are popularly represented in the mnemonic “TULIP,” standing for “total depravity,” “unconditional election,” “limited atonement,” “irresistible grace,” and the “perseverance of the saints.” For a wonderful introduction to the five points, you can do nothing better than to read Packer’s essay. I certainly can't approach Packer's eloquence, clarity, and power; nevertheless I will now attempt my own brief and rough statement of the five main points of doctrine at issue (which, as Packer helpfully points out, are really just five different aspects of one main point, that is: God saves sinners!). I'll do this in a series dealing with each of the five points individually (beginning with the next post).