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.

James Verses Paul

TOA has commented (on my own Blog) that James’ usage of justification proves that the Protestant’s understanding of Paul’s use of it in Romans 4 must be in error. Of course this begs the question. How do we know TOA’s interpretation is correct? Did he exegete the text or did Rome? Perhaps he could provide Rome’s dogmatic exegesis for us?

Nevertheless, it also begs another question. Why does James’ usage have to be exactly that of Paul’s? Is it not possible that different writers of the New Testament could be using similar terminology while addressing very different issues? I must again cite from Leon Morris’ work, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.

“St. James takes up rather a different position when he expressly says that ‘by work a man is justified, and not by faith’ (Jas. 2:24), and when he uses the examples of Abraham and Rahab to reinforce his position. But is should be noted that he recognizes implicitly the place of faith. His polemic is directed not against faith as such, but against faith without works. He reiterates that that sort of faith is dead, ‘faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself….For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead’ (Jas. 2:27, 26). Moreover the Epistle does not inculcate a demand for law-works I the accepted sense; there is no thought of accumulation of merit by the performance of deeds in accordance with the letter of the law. Rather there is a stress on love, humility, and kindred qualities. The ‘works’ of James are very much like “the fruit of the Spirit’ of Paul. While we must recognize that James has expressed his point of view in very unPauline language, yet the fact remains that he does not replace Paul’s scheme of Justification by another based on law-works. He does not mean by works what Paul means, and he does not mean by faith what Paul means. His demand is for a ‘faith that worketh by love’ (Gal 5:6), if we may borrow a Pauline phrase, and his polemic is directed against those whose faith is revealed to be a hollow sham, by the absence of lives of service.”

I am always amazed that the debate that has raged for nearly 500 years can repeat the same arguments as if the other side has never responded. So when you hear that James tells us one thing, therefore Protestants are wrong about Paul, keep in mind that Protestants have repeatedly answered the charges of Rome and all those who would seek to insert man into the finished work of Christ.

In the next post, I will try to contrast Morris’ understanding of Justification with the claims of Robert Sungenis.

Morris On Justification

Okay, I finally finished it. It has taken me several months to read this difficult book by Morris. So I thought I’d share a few thoughts from the last chapter on Justification. So many want a self help gospel that is presented by the Joel Osteens. However man doesn’t need help. He needs the righteousness of Christ.

From page 287

“G. O. Griffith reminds us, ‘It is often said that to speak of “justification by faith” is to use language which, to the modern man, is meaningless. What is often forgotten is that such language was as meaningless to ancient man also, apart from the Gospel which gave it significance…the heart of the Christian gospel is that, while no works of our hands will avail to make us acceptable before God, we are acceptable if we come in faith on the grounds of God’s own action in Christ. And this great truth St. Paul delighted to express in the forensic language of justification.”

Now many object to the forensic language of Paul citing other passages to override his plain teaching of the imputed righteousness of God in Christ. On page 291 Morris quotes Halliday:

“it has not always been seen that no man can be justified before God unless his nature is so changed that the assent of God is the assent to a reality.”

Many use James 2 as a counter argument against Paul’s teaching in Romans 4. Morris says on pg 285:

“Moreover the epistle does not inculcate a demand for law-works in the accepted sense; there is no thought of an accumulation of merit by the performance of deeds in accordance with the letter of the law. Rather there is a stress on love, humility, and kindred qualities. The ‘works’ of James are very like the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ of Paul.”

Even the common Muslim argument (one that Shabir Ally raised in the debate with White) offers a similar objection raised on page 280:

“It is objected to this interpretation that the bearing of penalty by one in place of another is not really just, so that when Christ suffers for us it is not a matter of fulfilling legal requirements.”

To which Morris replies:

“There is some force in this objection, and there would be more if we were dealing with human law. But the fact is that we are not. The law in question is the law of God’s holy nature, and that nature is merciful as well as just.”

Morris spends much time studying the justification word group and sees that it is overwhelmingly used in the forensic sense. So much so, that even his conclusion at the end of the book leads him to the ojective view of salvation. While modern preaching leads many to look inwardly, Morris concludes on page 299,

“This examination of the evidence has, I think, demonstrated that there is much support for objective as opposed to subjective views of the atonement. None of the concepts we have considered fits naturally into a subjective view. Something happened on Calvary quite objective to man, and it is because of this that we can have the completest assurance of our salvation. In the last resort it depends on what God has done, not upon some effect of that action upon the human heart (which is not to deny that there is such an effect, and that it is important).”

As the White Horse Inn program has articulated so many times, the preaching of the Law brings men to look inwardly. It is the preaching of the true Gospel that brings men to look outwardly to a Savior who is perfect and will save perfectly. It is Christ’s full and complete alien righteousness that is forensically imputed to me by faith alone.

But we took excellent notes to blog later...

This blog has been woefully silent for the following reasons:

1. The ship was without Internet for several days. We are still geeks, though.

2. We are mere, poor channel rats, and the internet on board is very expensive (and this post is only because I needed to use the minutes I planned on using in channel, since this ship won't allow for it).

3. We needed the time to meditate upon all the excellent teaching we have been receiving this week!

Miscellaneous

In light of Howard's previous post concerning Morris' treatment of "propitiation" as consistently used in the Scriptures, I thought it relevant to mention Don Carson's message where he sums up the argument Morris takes up against Dodd quite well here:

Why Trust a Cross?

And for those who haven't quite carved out the time to read Owen's classic, you might appreciate J. I. Packer's attempt to whet the reader's appetite for Death of Death:

Introduction to Death of Death in the Death of Christ

If you haven't been keeping up with the readings, these are both good and quick ways to familiarize yourself with some of the relevant subject matter.

Morris Old Testament Propitiation

Well, I’m up to chapter 6 in Morris’ book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. There is so much I’d like to quote as I go along or just comment on, but time has been short this week. So I will give some quotes on one of the two largest chapters in the book. Both chapters deal with Propitiation and the Wrath of God and both chapters are approximately 35 pages of small print in length. Clearly Propitiation of God’s wrath is a central thought in the work of the atonement. Chapter five is about propitiation in the Old Testament.

Christians are often accused of having a bloodthirsty God, who is just an evolved form of the pagan deities. After much argumentation the author has demonstrated:

“These are important conclusions and they are being increasingly accepted, for it is a relief to know that we have solid grounds for our conviction that the God of the Bible is not a Being who can be propitiated after the fashion of a pagan deity. That this point has been conclusively demonstrated is certain.”[i]

“There is a consistency about the Wrath of God in the Old Testament. It is no capricious passion, but the stern reaction of the divine nature towards evil.”[ii]

Much of the argumentation examines scholarship that seeks to make propitiation merely expiation. For instance, Dodd says, “’the Wrath of God’ is taken out of the sphere of the purely mysterious, and brought into the sphere of cause and effect.”[iii] In other words, as I understand the argumentation, God’s wrath isn’t being satisfied, but our sins are being expiated or done away with.

It is true, as Morris argues, that our sins are expiated, but he believes that both senses are true. After several pages of argumentation he states:

“Thus the propitiatory idea which we have seen to be involved in [ilaskomai] is to be discerned also in [ilasmos]. Wherever it means ‘forgiveness’, the circumstances indicate the turning away of the divine wrath.”[iv]

Morris also goes to the Hebrew Kopher in the Old Testament:

“The particular Kopher which is to be offered is not mentioned in Ezekiel 16:63, but the explicit mention of the wrath of God (verses 38, 42) makes it clear that we are still moving in the same circle of ideas. In Psalm 78:38 the parallelism makes ‘forgave (atoned) their iniquity’ almost equivalent to ‘turned he his anger away’, and similarly in Psalm 79:9, the removal of the wrath as the way of purging sins is clear from the references to the divine anger in the situation (verses 5,6,8).”[v]

Morris also explains the idea that a Ransom must be paid.

“From the foregoing examination of the evidence it appears that, when Kipper is used in the Old Testament to denote the making of an atonement by means other than the use of the cultus, it usually bears the meaning ‘to avert punishment, especially the divine anger, by the payment of a kopher, a ransom’, which may be of money or which may be of life.”[vi]

In Morris’ conclusion, there is an excellent paragraph summarizing the meaning of propitiation.

“It is against such a background that the Old Testament idea of propitiation is to be studied. Where there is sin, the Old Testament teaches, there is wrath. But this does not mean that all men are to be consumed, for that wrath is the wrath of a loving father who yearns for His children to come to Him. There is forgiveness with God, and this forgiveness necessarily involves the laying aside of wrath. But it is important to note that the removal of this wrath is due not to man’s securing such an offering that God is impressed and relents, but to God Himself. This alone is sufficient to show that we are not dealing with the pagan idea when we speak of propitiation.”[vii]

Praise God that He has sought to satisfy His own wrath against our sin. God truly reconciled the world to Himself through the vicarious substitutionary atoning work of Jesus Christ.

---

[i] 148

[ii] 150

[iii] 151

[iv] 159 Also, the Greek words are just my poor transliteration.

[v] 165

[vi] 166

[vii] 177

Twas the Night Before Debate

1. Twas the night before debate, when all through Seattle
Not a creature was stirring, not even in channel;
The chairs all were placed before tables with care,
In hopes that Doctor Oakley soon would be there;
The Calvies were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of cross-exam danced in their heads;
And Flamey in her jammies and I in mine too,
Had just settled down for an October snooze,

2. When outside the door there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the hallway as fast as a train,
Unfastened the dead bolt and unhooked the chain.
The laser pointer and sounds gave me a clue
And I heard Scottish accents, so surely I knew,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a laptop, an iPod, stacks of books by Shabir,

3. With a bright colored sweater, his bald head in sight,
I knew in a moment it must be James White.
More rapid than eagles the channel rats came,
And he chuckled, and chortled, and called them by name;
"Now, AO! Now, Tired! Now MrP! Shuey!
On, Uni! On, How2! On, Wifey, and Bluey!
The defense of the cross! And here that is our call
Now read away! Read away! Read away all!"

4. As dry dust that before the wild desert storm fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky,
So up to the book-stacks the channel rats flew,
With hearts full of prayer, and Doctor Oakley too.
And then, in a twinkling, Doc’s studious looks,
The rustling of pages in each of his books.
As I drew in my hand, and was turning around,
Down the hallway Doctor Oakley came with a bound.

5. He was dressed in Coogi, his tartan tie in hand,
And on his wrist, his bright blue “No Compromise” band;
All of his notes his trusty Blackberry stored,
Bible verses and quotes that could not be ignored.
His laptop-- how useful! Libronics- how geeky!
And he even brought AOMin’s faithful dog Zekey!
Total Recorder played something by Deedat,
No possible way it would be won by mere fiat;

6. The end of a pen he held tight in his teeth,
And his tablet PC, it displayed the Hadith;
BibleWorks was open, and Qur’an Reader Pro,
And his iPod was playing some songs by Mylo.
He was ready it seemed, he was fit for the task,
Could answer any question Muslims might ask;
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know we had nothing to dread;

7. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And packed up the books, changed his channel nick to “lurk”,
He finished up emails that needed to be sent,
And with a holy nod, to his room he went;
He stood by the door, to the channel rats he waved,
And I wondered if from the usual kick Greg was saved.
But I heard him exclaim, ere he went out of sight,
"HAPPY DEBATE TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD-NIGHT."

Written by Marie Peterson, 10/06/2007

Redeemed From the Curse of the Law

I have finally finished the first chapter of Morris' book on the study of Redemption. So I thought I'd share a couple of quotes. Quite often I hear Roman Catholics speak of the "legal fiction" of the Protestant's view of Justification. In speaking about the passage in Galatians 3:13:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--

Morris had this to say on page 58:

When, therefore, Paul speaks of Christ as having borne the curse of the law, he speaks of our removal from the legal plight into which we have fallen through our failure to keep the law of God.

and again on page 59:

It is wrong to separate the legal status, gained by the complete discharge of the claims the law had upon us, from the resultant life. The only redemption Paul knew was one in which the redeemed had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and in which they lived as those who had been adopted into the family of God.

Morris is in agreement with Piper's argument against the New Perspective on Paul. It is precisely because we have been legally freed by the justification of God in the imputation of Christ's righteousness to His people that gives the believer true peace with God and the freedom to serve Him.

Jesus "acts in this place as only He can, in our cause and interest, that we cannot add to anything that He does there [in the substitutionary atoning work] because the place where we might do so is occupied by Him, that anything further which might happen can result only from what is done by Him in our place and in our cause."

Praise be to God. Jesus is the Perfect Redeemer of His people.