The topic of today’s class was another of the Acts of God, namely The Doctrine of Redemption (Redemption Accomplished). We started at the beginning, in Genesis 3, and reviewed the fall of mankind–which established our need for a saviour. We briefly mentioned the idea that without the Fall, there would be no display of God’s grace, mercy, or justice. Without the Fall, there would be no Savior–no Christ. We then considered part of the old (pre-1960’s, that is) liturgy from the Roman catholic church’s Holy Saturday mass, commonly known as the felix culpa: “O blessed sin (or ‘happy fault’) that received as its reward so great and so good a Redeemer,” as well as Milton’s glorious felix culpa from Paradise Lost (available here–scroll to bottom).
Then we proceeded through questions 12-28 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which greatly helped in organizing and presenting the material.
Drawing largely from John Murray’s excellent little book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied
- The Necessity of the Atonement. “Was the death of Christ absolutely necessary?” No; because God didn’t have to save anyone. However, once God graciously decided to save some for himself, this way of going about it was absolutely necessary. Christ prayed three times, “Father if it be possible, remove this cup from me…nevertheless, not my will, but thy will be done.” “Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin.” This decision to save some, this Covenant of Grace between the members of the Trinity, is the basis of our salvation. In this covenant, the Father elects, the Son lives and dies to absorb (and thus to make full satisfaction for) divine wrath for those whom the Father gave him, and the Holy Spirit applies this salvation to his people.
- The Nature of the Atonement. Some of the various words and expressions used to describe what the life and death of Christ obtain for his people are “reconciliation,” “redemption,” “restoration,” “peace with God,” “justification,” “eternal life,” etc. It was a “sacrifice,” a “payment,” an “expiation,” a “propitiation,” etc. The overall work of the atonement includes not just his death on the cross, but his entire holy life (whereby his righteousness is counted to us), and his “continually making intercession for us.”
- The Perfection of the Atonement. The Atonement of Christ accomplished precisely and fully what it was meant to accomplish (Isa. 55:11; John 6, 10). He absorbed the full penalty of God’s wrath; there is no residual punishment left for us–” For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Heb. 10:14) He accomplished a full salvation; not 99% of a salvation, where the final determining factor is left to us (Ephesians 2:7-9). There is no need for a “purging” of any of our sins–the penalty for all of them has been fully and completely paid, once-for-all-time. There is also no need of a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, nor a re-application of it, nor a continual repitition of it (as is taught in the Roman catholic church’s “unbloody sacrifice”–a.k., the mass). (See 1 Peter 3:18, and the entire argument of Hebrews 8-10)
- The Extent of the Atonement. As John Owen points out in his monumental (and yet-to-be-refuted) work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
- Christ died for all the sins of all people (which is universalism, and thus in error).
- Christ died for some of the sins of all people (which leaves us with a works “gospel.”)
- Christ died for all of the sins of some people (which is the biblical view).
The long and short of it is, Christ accomplished a full and complete salvation for all those for whom it was intended. This is sometimes called “limited atonement,” though it is limited only in purpose, and not at all in power. I prefer the term particular or effectual redemption. Many people object to this view, and it is admittedly difficult upon first mention. But it is the glory of Christ’s high priesthood: he pays for his people, and he prays for his people–and “Surely Christ pays a dowry for none but his own bride.” (Cf. Ephesians 5). Even in the Arminian view, God knows exactly who will and who will not believe in Christ, and surely does not send Christ to suffer in vain on their behalf–Christ spilled not a drop of his blood in vain; he did not “overpay.” Also, if God pours out his wrath on Christ and on a sinner as well, he would be guilty of a double payment for sin–double jeopardy. Surely God is not only just, but the epitome of Justice itself. What’s more, Christ said “All that the Father has given me shall come to me–and I shall not lose a single one.” (John 6). As I’ve said before: “Christ did not die to purchase ’salvation’; Christ died to purchase me–and that’s called ’salvation’.” Christ came to actually save: it is impossible that he should fail, and it is impossible that God should make his success dependant upon man. This is why all that are his shall infallibly persevere unto the last day: the question is not ‘Can a Christian lose his salvation, but can Christ lose a Christian–to which the only answer is “No, Christ cannot lose a Christian.” (John 6, 10, etc.)
All this to say that Christ is an actual saviour–that he is our true Redeemer! He humbled himself and became a man for us, he lived a righteous life for us, he preached and prophesied and performed miracles for us, he proclaimed the gospel to us, he was tortured, beaten, spit upon, and crucified for us–that is he absorbed the full wrath of God for us, he died and was buried three days for us, he rose again for us, he ascended to the father where he makes continual intercession for us–and one day soon he is coming again for us! To these things he was appointed by the Father–and it is impossible that he should fail!
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
“This grace in which we stand” is truly, utterly amazing…
(Some other scriptures referenced in today’s teaching were John 2, 3:16, 6, 10; Acts 20:28; Romans 1, 5, 8; 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23; Ephesians 2, 5; Titus 2, etc.)
gmail.com
14 responses so far ↓
1 Luke Middleton // Nov 13, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Point 4 was helpful to me, thanks. I had come across something recently that made me need the verse in Hebrews you quoted, and now I have it. Thanks! How does discipline factor-in when we know that our total price has been paid?
2 Katrina // Nov 13, 2005 at 6:20 pm
I’m thinking about playing devil’s advocate next Sunday..thinking about it…maybe I will, maybe I won’t. ;-) (joke)
3 HollySue Dobson // Nov 13, 2005 at 6:45 pm
Aron,
Great class today. Is this passage related? (or is this what you alluded to?)
John17:6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
Jesus prays not for the whole world, but for the elect that the Father sends him?
Also: I have questions/concerns with WSC questions in the 80s. We’re in the 20s. What’s gonna happen with those?!
4 Katrina // Nov 13, 2005 at 6:57 pm
By the way, it’s been a privilege and blessing having you for a teacher. I have been encouraged by your faith and love for Jesus Christ, our saviour.
It brings me joy to hear that you have benefited from teaching this class. Hearing that reminded me of Romans 2:21 where it says. “you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?”
Thank you again for your service to God and for the imprint you have made in my relationship with Christ. You have a great gift Aron. It’s great to see you using the talents God gave you.
1 Peter 4:10-11 says:
“As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
5 Aron // Nov 13, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Wow! Thanks for all your feedback!
Luke: Great question. One way to think of it is like this: obedience does not earn eternal life, it expresses it. Christ made perseverance, growth in godliness, etc. the very mark of being a true disciple: “If you abide (future tense) in my word, then you are (present tense) my disciples indeed.” (John 8:31 KJV/ESV mixture) Hebrews has a couple similar verses: “And we are (present tense) his house if indeed we hold fast (future tense) our confidence and our boasting in our hope,” (Heb. 3:6) and “For we share in Christ (present tense), if indeed we hold (future tense) our original confidence firm to the end” (Heb. 3:14). (Cf. also Col. 1:21-23.) Remember that phrase “perseverance proves election–so persevere!” If this is confusing (which it probably should be at least a little) remember Phil. 2:13 and the idea of concurrence from last week’s post: it’s 100% God, and 100% man. (Grudem is good on this in his ST, as is Jerry Bridges in his The Pursuit of Holiness–both highly recommended.) Hope this helps.
Katrina: by all means, please do so! And thank you–very much–for your kind words of encouragement. It really has been a blessing to me, for which I’m very thankful to God.
Holly: Yes, that’s exactly the passage I was alluding to regarding the Covenant of Grace. Nice call! Regarding your questions about the WSC: though the class will most likely not continue into next quarter, we could continue to use the group email address for discussion, etc. Those who are not interested can just unsubscribe. Thanks again for your enthusiasm, Holly–it’s quite encouraging.
6 laur // Nov 13, 2005 at 7:51 pm
thanks for expressing the passion that comes from good theology. as john piper says, the more we learn about our great God, the more fully and deeply we can love Him. :)
7 Luke Middleton // Nov 13, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Thanks. What about God disciplining us?
8 Aron // Nov 14, 2005 at 8:22 am
Laur: You are too kind. Thanks.
Luke: Oh…that kind of discipline. I really whiffed that one–sorry. Think of Hebrews 9:3-11 and 1 Peter 1:6-7. Discipline isn’t punishment, it’s refinement. Even Christ “learned obedience” and was “made perfect” by suffering (Hebrews 5:7-10). Is that what you’re asking? If not, could you rephrase the question?
9 Luke Middleton // Nov 14, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Hey, free bonus info. Thanks on both accounts :)
10 laur // Nov 14, 2005 at 5:53 pm
i have a totally random question, but since you are so well-read i thought it worth a shot. can you refer me to a good commentary on calvin regarding natural knowledge of God, on barth(gag me, but it’s a comparative paper) regarding the same, and/or someone who solidly would debunk complete dogmatic mutability (ie, that all aspects of of theological understanding must be in flux in accordance with the times - barth again)?
thanks!
11 Aron // Nov 15, 2005 at 12:06 am
Laur: that’s a mighty tall order, and probably way out of my league. Having said that…you might check out John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (which covers that a bit), or perhaps Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, which also covers some of those issues. Frame is more of a philosopher, and goes more in depth; Berkhof is more concise, and helpful for the ‘big picture’ ideas. Of course, if you’re looking for Calvin’s view, you can’t really get much better than Calvin himself. The first few chapters of his Intitutes are simply excellent–theologically as well as devotionally.
I’ve never heard the term “complete dogmatic mutability” before, but it sounds like it’s a rather subjectivistic (if not nihilistic) perspective. Without an external, knowable, objective reality, one cannot know anything but himself and his own thoughts: everything reduces to self-knowledge. And that’s insane. But I have no idea; I’m not nearly as well-read as it may appear. And I failed philosophy in college. So I should’ve stopped writing two paragraphs ago.
On the good side, though, if your prof is a subjectivist, she may believe that “meaning” is determined by the reader of a work, and not its author. In which case, you should have her keep reading your paper until she gets an A on it…
By the way, I love that you said “gag me” and “complete dogmatic mutability” in the same comment…!
12 Aron // Nov 15, 2005 at 12:10 am
Oh, one more thing Laur: I would especially look into the idea of God’s transcendence and immanence in Berkhof (and Frame) if you can get a hold of his (or their) stuff…very helpful for me, at least.
13 laur // Nov 15, 2005 at 12:35 am
a friend of mine has the Frame book you referenced, and my parents are bringing my Institutes… thanks so much for the ideas…
and the reason you’ve never heard the term “complete dogmatic mutability” before is that i made it up. :) i couldn’t think of a better way to stick it in a sentence…
haha to the “gag me” comment - welcome to my life.
14 Gratitude & Hoopla // Nov 15, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Blogging the Cross (1)
Aron of some thoughts blogs about the doctrine of the atonement. After describiing the necessity, nature, perfection, and extent of the atonement, Aron writes,
Leave a Comment