Buchanan and Substitution

Some time back on another blog, an atheist by the name of Mr. Ellis made the assertion (if I remember correctly) that denied the possibility of Jesus dying for the sins of others or Substitutionary Atonement. Now he did not get the chance to formulate his arguments, but I assume his arguments would have been consistent with others, who have made the same assertion.

At this point, granting his assumptions, I would agree. The Penal Substitution "theory" (if we may call it that) does have serious problems if we allow the false presuppositions of natural man. The Gospel is certainly foolishness to the "natural man". However, just as other objections raised by atheists such as "Do we stone people for breaking the Sabbath?", the answer is quite simple if we understand the Covenantal nature and presuppositions of the Bible.

This morning, I continued reading Buchanan's Doctrine of Justification. In Lecture XI, proposition XII, he asks,

But is has been asked, can there be any real substitution of one for another under a system of moral government? Does not the Law require personal obedience, and threaten personal punishment? and must it not, therefore, be exclusive of vicarious agency, whether in the shape of obedience, or of suffering?

To which he responds,

We answer, that the Law of God, in its covenant form, recognised from the first the principle of representation, by constituting Adam the federal head of his race; and that it is only the transference of the same principle to a new relation, when the Gospel reveals the fact that Christ, as Mediator, was constituted the legal representative and surety of His people. The 'first Adam' gives place to the 'second Adam, the Lord from heaven;' and, in either instance, the welfare of others is made to depend on them. For 'as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' For as Adam was 'made under law,' the representative of his posterity; so Christ was 'made under law,' the substitute of His people. 'God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.'

Buchanan proceeds on to explain that the law that all men are under is the moral law. This is something the atheist can't even begin to explain except to assert their "metaphysics" as some form of revelation which we should believe just because they say so. So it is true that all men are accountable for their sins. However, Mr. Ellis misses the Biblical truth of the covenants, and that God has appointed covenant representatives. This is God's creation, and we are His covenant children. Therefore, Mr Ellis is either a man bound under the Covenant of Works and will soon abide under the full brunt of the wrath of God, or Mr. Ellis is a man bound under the Covenant of Grace and delivered from the wrath to come.

On the Last Day, under which Covenant will you be found? Is Adam your representative or Jesus of Nazareth, the Last Adam.

Paul Washer on the Wrath of God

On this day, millions of Christians worldwide remember the death of Christ on the cross. What was actually accomplished there? Paul Washer proclaims the truth of what Christ has done and also offers a stern warning.

Gordon Clark: The Atonement

I am currently about to finish Gordon H. Clark's The Atonement. The book is basically set up as one long chapter broken down into sections. Each section leads into the next section. The doctrine of Redemption leads to the doctrine of grace which leads to a discussion on the doctrine of the incarnation and so on.

One of the lengthiest chapters is on the subject of Traducianism. It is great to know that I stand in the company of brilliant men for he defends Traducianism with sound argumentation. I only wish I had this book at the time I wrote my paper in 2008.

In the second to last chapter, Clark deals with God's sovereignty, especially as it deals with God's justice. Clark raises the issue which reminds me of David Ellis' question in one of the comments section.

And, again, I ask: would you judge God, if he made the claim that sadism is good, to be evil?

Clark interacts with Grotius and the Hodges on this very point. He states on page 128,

Hodge, who rejects Grotius' view of the atonement, is perhaps a little, but not much, better. God, he says, "wills the precept because it is intrinsically right.... There must be an absolute standard of righteousness." Such a statement places a standard of justice outside of God.

To which he notes,

It raises the question as to the difference between will and nature.

He then discusses in some sense that God's will is not the same as human will.

If we speak of the human will, we refer to a somewhat momentary act of choice. After having considered the relative desirability of this versus that line of action, or (what is the same thing) between an action and doing nothing...We decide and do it. Then when we start to study theology and to consider the will of God, we are apt to think or subconsciously suppose that God makes decisions.

Clark then argues sufficiently that we may not divorce God's nature from God will. Then argues,

From the immutability and omniscience of God it follows necessarily that there is indeed no other possible method of salvation--not however, for the reason Hodge gives, but simply because of this immutability.

This relates to Ellis' question simply because there is nothing higher than God to which one may appeal. On page 133, Clark "settles the question",

As previously asserted by the present writer, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross satisfied the justice of the Father. But now it should be clear that justice is one facet of sovereignty. There is no moral principle superior to God. I can say that there is no moral principle superior to the will of God. God's will and God's intellect are identical. Justice is what God thinks. To suppose that anything could have been otherwise is to suppose that God could have been otherwise than He is. [emphasis mine]

Perhaps this may in part answer Ellis' question, although based upon the repeated assertions and questions, I doubt his presuppositions will allow him to see that.