Theological Sharpening

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 10)

2011-01-14T06:48:00.013-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Contextual Arguments Against the Reformed View: "Tense"

It cannot be overemphasized that Romans 6-8 is written by Paul to Christians about the Christian life. In Romans 7:7-13 Paul speaks in the first person past tense to describe his pre-Christian experience in order to vindicate false charges against the law. And in Romans 7:14-25 Paul changes tenses to the first person present to discuss the spirituality of the law and its relation to his own sinfulness and inability to live in perfect obedience to the fulfilled law of Christ as a Christian. The issue of tense in this passage has been addressed by interpreters opposing the reformed view. For example Daryl Wingerd states that “the switch to the first-person present-tense must be explained as a literary device, perhaps designed to help the reader “personalize” the experience, rather than a chronological shift to Paul’s present experience.”[33] This argument is multiplied by many who share his conviction that although it cannot be denied that Paul is speaking in the first person present, this passage absolutely cannot be describing Paul’s present experience as a mature believer in Christ. The explanation that this first person present tense passage is not as it seems but is really a literary devise is not in the least persuasive given the context of Romans 7:7-25. J.I. Packer explains that “the change from the aorist to the present tense at verse 14 remains unaccounted for. On this view, the change is exceedingly unnatural, occurring as it does in the middle of a passage which ex hypothesi, is dealing with a single unit of experience, and one, moreover, which is now past and gone. There is nothing comparable in Paul, and the use of the historic present in the gospels to give vividness to narrative does not provide a parallel, for here the narrative part is in the aorist, and what is in the present is not narrative, but generalized explanatory comment.”[34]

The Absurdity of the Non-Reformed View

The last point that will be made in terms of overall tense and context issues is the absurdity of the non-reformed view. As shown above, this view pictures Paul writing as a believer (from a Christian perspective) in the first person present tense about his pre-Christian experience. So we are to believe that Paul uses the personal pronouns “I am” to describe not himself at the time of writing but his past experience. Why Paul does not simply continue to use the past tense pronouns “I was” he used in verses 7-13 is still an unsolved mystery. And if this interpretation weren’t confusing enough it unconvincingly continues to attempt to evade yet another problem in verse 25 making this interpretation all the more absurd. Romans 7:24-25a says “wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Daryl Wingerd states that “this exclamation could have easily been intended by Paul the Christian as joyful parenthesis in the middle of recounting his pre-conversion despair.”[35] This interpretation is many things, but it is certainly not “easy” as Daryl Wingerd asserts. For the sake of “vividness” the argument will be summarized once again so that no confusion remains about the absurdity of this view. In this view Paul from his Christian perspective writes using present tense personal pronouns “I am” in order to describe his pre-Christian past experience as an unbeliever in verses 14-24. Paul then as a Christian inserts his present Christian understanding and answers his past problem in verse 25a “thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Paul then concludes in the first person present tense describing his past pre-conversion experience in verse 25b “so then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” This interpretation begins with the regenerate Paul discussing his unregenerate life in the first person, then moves to his regenerate answer to the problem in the same tense, and finally concludes back with an unregenerate description still in the present tense. It is amazing how far one’s presupposition of the impossibility of a certain undesired conclusion will take a person in order to justify a faulty interpretation.

The issue here of tense and context in this passage is one of the major problems that must be seriously considered before deciding which side of the Romans 7 debate you end up on. Other non-reformed interpretations of the context of this passage have been considered above and were found errant.[36] The issue of the tense changes in this passage is even more problematic for the non-reformed view than the earlier mentioned objections because their interpretation requires questionable exegesis to even begin to assert that Romans 7:14-25 is Paul as an unbeliever. In light of the inadequacy of the non reformed interpretation and due to the obvious and persuasive tense and context arguments for the reformed view of Romans 7 we could in theory end the discussion now confident that this passage is written by the apostle Paul speaking as a mature believer about his struggle with indwelling sin. However, for the sake of being even more certain about the validity of the reformed view of Romans 7 we will continue with arguments on both sides of the debate.
_______________________________
33. Daryl Wingerd. "Why Romans 7:14-25 Cannot Describe the Christian Life" Accessed 10 November 2009. Available from http://www.ccwtoday.org. pg. 6
34. J.I. Packer Keep in Step with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books 2005), 224
35. Daryl Wingerd. "Why Romans 7:14-25 Cannot Descibe the Christian Life" pg. 17
36. See the discussion of the question and answers argument as well as the discussion of Doug Moo's objections to the reformed view.

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 9)

2010-12-24T18:03:00.010-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

The Passage of Full Mention

It was stated in the thesis that Romans 7:14-25 is the passage of full mention dealing with the topic of remaining sin in the Christian life. This passage addresses why Christians still continue to sin even though they are no longer slaves to sin. It also deals with how a Christian should cope and understand temptations and inclinations to evil when they are inevitably confronted by them. A Christian can find other passages that teach the reality of remaining sin without Romans 7:14-25 but their understanding will be greatly deficient. Interpreters who fail to teach that this portion of Scripture is a description of a mature Christian have an incomplete and unbalanced view of the Christian life. They tend to emphasize the positive aspects of sanctification and have little to say about temptation and remaining fleshly inclination to sin that Christians daily experience. Removing this passage from the Christians understanding of life would be like taking away Romans chapters 4-5 for our understanding of justification. The Christian would be able to find teaching throughout scripture on justification elsewhere but removing the passage of full mention dealing with justification would be irresponsible and devastatingly harming.

Opposing Evangelical Views

There are two similar evangelical views that Christians take in understanding that the man in Romans 7:14-25 is not a mature believer. The first view has been briefly addressed above and teaches that the man in this passage is Paul as an unbelieving pious Jew delighting in the law but unable to keep it. It was argued that neither Paul nor Jesus had a category for a so called “pious” Jew. Instead they expressed that pharisaical Jews do not understand nor delight in the law of God because they are incapable of doing so as unbelievers under the condemnation of God.

Another similar view is most popularly presented by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He distinguishes that the language in this passage is not speaking of the typical unregenerate person nor can it be speaking of the Christian. In describing Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ position of the identity of the man in Romans 7 Dr. James Montgomery Boice observes that “Lloyd-Jones… is speaking of one who has been awakened to his personal lawlessness and spiritual inability by the Holy Spirit but who has not yet been made a participator in the new life of Jesus Christ.”[29] Pastor Charles Leiter articulates this same view by saying, “the man described in Romans 7:7-25 is not the typical lost “man on the street,” who knows nothing of the spirituality or real desirability of the law. The man in Romans 7:7-25 is the man to whom “the commandment has come.”[30] Also the reformed theologian Dr. Robert Reymond argues this exact point contra his reformed tradition contending that “Paul intended to employ his experience as the unconverted Saul of Tarsus, aroused from his spiritual torpor, convicted by the reality of his sinfulness, and struggling even more than before to please God through his efforts at law-keeping, as an illustration of the impotence of the law to sanctify the unregenerate heart and the frustration unto death that any and every unregenerate person will experience who would sincerely seek to achieve a righteousness before God on the basis of his own law-keeping.”[31]

The Conversion of the Apostle Paul

The same criticism given against the “pious Jew” position can be applied here especially the fact that there are no two tier unregenerate persons described in the Bible. Furthermore, when we observe the radical and immediate conversion of Paul on the Damascus road the view is highly doubtful. In Acts 9 Saul of Tarsus is scheming a plan to further persecute Christians when he is met by Jesus who blinds him and sends Ananias to explain the gospel to him. Luke recounts Ananius’ confrontation with Paul in Acts 9:17b-19 “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened.” There is not an intermediate section of Paul’s testimony where he desired to do good but was unable to carry it out. Paul went from being a blind unregenerate Pharisee whom Jesus calls a whitewashed tomb to a regenerated Christian without a transitional Romans 7 struggle in-between. With that being said, we now move to a discussion of the text considering arguments on both sides of the debate. For the sake of brevity we will refer to the view of Romans 7 that is defended in this paper as the reformed view.[32]
____________________________
29. James M. Boice, Romans Volume 2: The Reign of Grace Romans 5:1-8:39. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 760
30. Charles Leiter Justification and Regeneration, 154
31. Robert L. Reymond A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998) 1128
32. See John Calvin and Martin Luther's treatment of this passage in their commentaries and other theological works for this interpretation of Romans 7:14-25

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 8)

2010-08-27T17:21:00.006-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Contextual Arguments Against the Reformed View: "Allegory"

Another contextual argument that may persuade many to believe that Romans 7:14-25 is not the experience of Paul as a believer is made by the respected scholar Douglas Moo in his Romans commentary. Describing his view of Romans 7:7-25 he states that “Paul is describing his own, and other Jews’, experience with the law of Moses: how that law came to the Jewish people and brought them not “life” but “death” (vv.7-12); and how that law failed, because the reign of the flesh, to deliver Jews from the power of sin (vv. 13-25).”[26] There are some who argue that this passage only deals with Israel by itself and does not have anything to do with the person Paul. The arguments made by these interpreters are wholly allegorical and Dr. Moo uses them to describe especially his view of Romans 7:7-11.[27] The clearest example of this can be seen when he interprets Romans 7:11: “so sin, through the law, “killed” Israel. But although this happened in accordance with the intention of God (cf. 5:20 and Gal. 3:19-26), the ultimate intention this served was positive: that, being “bound under sin,” Israel might learn to look to God and His promise of a Messiah for life and salvation. Though it is the experience of Israel with the Mosaic law that Paul here describes, the Jews’ experience is symptomatic of that of all people who, in various ways, are confronted with God’s law.”[28] It must also be recognized that Dr. Moo adds the autobiographical aspect into his interpretation in order to make sense of the personal description Paul uses throughout Romans 7:7-25 lessening the overall bent towards allegory. However, as observed, there are portions where Dr. Moo’s exegesis is entirely allegorical.

In brief response, there is no reason to perceive Israel as a nation in this passage unless there is a desire to prove the unregenerate view of Romans 7:14-25. This interpretation has already been charged as an unwarranted allegorical explanation and it is better to view Paul’s personal past and present experience exclusively to be the theme of Romans 7:7-25. There are many nuances to Dr. Moo’s argument that cannot be delved into in the limited space of this paper however this preliminary conclusion should suffice to further continue with an exposition of the text.
_______________________________
26. Douglas Moo, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary: Romans 1-8 452
27. Ibid 452, 454, 455, 465
28. Ibid 456

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 7)

2010-08-22T03:21:00.030-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Contextual Arguments Against the Reformed View: "Questions and Answers"

Now that the presuppositions relevant to sanctification have been looked at it is fitting to move into an exploration of the context of Romans 7:14-25. A popular contextual argument against the view argued in this paper is given by Daniel Thompson in his article challenging the traditional reformed view of Romans 7:14-25.[22] Charles Leiter also uses this argument and summarizes it nicely:

“at the end of Romans 5, Paul makes two shocking statements that require defense and clarification. The first is that “the Law came in that the transgression might increase,” and the second is that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (v.20) Paul expects these statements to be misunderstood and distorted by others, so he sets out to clarify and defend them in chapter six and seven. He does this in terms of four questions and their corresponding answers. (6:1; 6:15; 7:7; 7:13) Each of these question-answer sections follows a very specific pattern. First, Paul poses the anticipated misunderstanding or distortion of his position. He then follows with a strong denial (“may it never be!) and a brief summary answer to the misunderstanding. This brief answer is then clarified and expounded in the verses that follow. This pattern is invariable throughout Romans 6-7.”[23]

It is to be agreed that there are questions and answers scattered throughout the book of Romans but this observation does not prove that Romans 7:14-25 is Paul describing his pre-Christian experience. It is also agreed that the vindication of the law is the main topic that flows out of the alarming statements that are made at the end of Romans chapter 5 as Charles Leiter observes. However it is Paul’s discussion of the law as it relates to the Christian life that is in view from the end of chapter 5 through chapter 8. Leon Morris rightly concludes that “the Christian life is the theme of Chapters 5-8, not that of an unbeliever.”[24] All of Paul’s questions and answers are tied to a distinctly Christian audience with Christian implication. In chapter 6 both of the questions and answers are in relation to false conclusions Christians might make about sin in relationship to the free gift of justification that was explained in Romans chapters 4 and 5. And in Romans Chapter 7 Paul is answering possible misunderstandings that Christians might have about the law due to his teaching that justification is apart from the law as well as his assertion at the end of chapter 5 that says that “the law came in to increase the trespass.” In Chapter 7 Paul anticipates this confusion and poses questions and gives subsequent answers proving that the law is not evil or sinful but that it is good. Daniel Thompson and Charles Leiter rightfully acknowledge that Paul raises questions in Romans but fail to show how these question’s necessarily makes verses 14-25 Paul’s past pre-Christian experience written in the present first person tense.

There may be an objection to Leon Morris’ argument that Romans 5-8 is the theme of the Christian life because Paul clearly speaks of his pre-Christian life in Romans 7:7-13. However, the apparent problem is solved after observing the context and reason that Paul discussed his past unregenerate life. The question in Romans 7:7 “what then shall we say? That the law is sin?” causes Paul as a Christian to discuss his pre-Christian life because the answer he gives is tied to his experience as an unbeliever. Paul begins to answer the first question in Romans 7 by observing that “if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” It is important to notice that Paul’s answer is in the first person past tense because in this passage he is describing when he came to know sin in his pre-Christian past. The culmination of Paul’s answer is a vindication of the goodness of the law. For Paul says in Romans 7:12 “so the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”

The second question is in Romans 7:13: “did that which is good, then, bring death to me?” Paul continues in the first person past tense to describe that is was not the good law that brought him death but that it was his sin that brought him death. In the second half of verse 13 Paul answers his question: “by no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond all measure.” Once again he is vindicating the law as holy and righteous and good and all of his questions and answers in Romans 6-7 are surrounding Paul’s goal to clarify his teaching in Romans 4-5 and show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the law is holy. Paul doesn’t want there to be any misunderstanding about this crucial point.

The argument that Pastor Leiter proposes that each question in Romans is met with a strong objection followed by a short answer and a subsequent longer answer does not disprove the reformed view especially when you consider the change of tense from the past tense short answer in 7:13 and the present tense long answer in 7:14-25. Each of the answers Paul gives to the questions in Romans is not limited to merely restating his short answer as if he had to follow a secret pattern in his argument. Paul is only limited so to speak to answer the hypothetical question. That is why he can naturally transition from his past pre-Christian testimony that he was discussing in Romans 7:7-13 into a discussion of his present Christian experience in Romans 7:14-25 answering the same question posed in verse 13. Paul simply poses hypothetical questions and answers them giving more than one example to clarify the possible confusion the reader might have. So in verse 13 Paul is vindicating the Law by giving past testimony of his pre-Christian life and in 14-25 Paul is vindicating the Law another way by comparing the holy and righteous law to his present sinful flesh in comparison. He answers the question using multiple examples and gives further clarification so that he will not be misunderstood in a similar way a preacher would do on Sunday mornings.

All of this is to show that the question and answer argument against Romans 7:14-25 being Paul’s Christian experience does not prove anything accept that there are questions and answers that Paul poses throughout Romans. Romans 5-8 is a discussion of the Christian life and Paul is answering questions to defend the holiness and goodness of the law in Romans 7. There is a dramatic change from the past to the present tense where Paul is first discussing his past pre Christian life and then his present Christian experience all for the purpose of vindicating the law. The structure of Romans 7 that is more faithful to the argument Paul is making is summarized by Fred Malone: “the shift from the past pre-converted state of every believer in 7:5 to the present converted state in 7:6 is illustrated by Paul’s personal experience in 7:7-13 and 7:14-8:4 respectively. The man of 7:14-8:4 is described in the first person, present tense. He is Paul as a Christian.”[25]
______________________________
22. Thompson, Daniel. "Romans 7:13-25: A Commentary" Accessed 10 November 2009. Available from http://www.solidrock.net
23. Charles Leiter, Justification and Regeneration, 150
24. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 287
25. Malone, Fred A. "The Man in Romans 7" In The Founders Journal Issue 2, summer 1990.

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 6)

2010-07-05T15:28:00.013-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Presuppositions: The Regenerate Man (continued)

The "Wretched Man" Straw Man

Some opponents of this view of sanctification will give a straw man argument that this view produces a wretched-man experience and defeated Christian life.[17] Again Charles Leiter articulates that “it is highly significant that this view of Romans 7 has led to the “wretched man” concept of the Christian life, where “wretchedness” and spirituality are almost equated, and the more holy we become, the more “wretched” we are.”[18] In response we must affirm that the Christian does fit this wretched man experience as understood when correctly interpreting Romans 7:14-25. However this affirmation does not mean that a Christian should participate in a manner of self loathing introspection that is being implied by this straw man objection. The Christian has much to hope for and to be content about in view of his justification and progress in the Christian life daily fighting sin and growing gradually in holiness. Indeed Paul himself asserts, “not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on towards the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”[19] As Christians we sin and always fall short even right now of the glory of God. However we have been redeemed and are being made into the likeness of Christ. We will never be perfect this side of glory but there is much to be joyful about “in Christ” and there is in fact much victory to be had in the Christian life. Christians are saved from their sins and at the same time continue to struggle with sin.

Justified Sinners

There is no doubt that Paul understood himself as a Christian as well as a sinner. In 1 Timothy 1:15-16 Paul says that “the saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who are to believe in him for eternal life.” Paul does not say “I was,” or “I used to be the foremost of sinners.” He says I am the foremost of sinners. We do not have to imply from this passage that Paul actually viewed himself as committing the most grievous and wicked sins over an above the most vile heathen on earth at the time he was living in order to understand his point. Paul’s point was that as Christians we should all follow his example in understanding our own sinfulness as it really is, which is to say utterly sinful. When we are mature in the Christian life we should still cry out to the savior in repentance because we are sinners just as much now as when we first believed. Of course we should be growing in the Christian life and our sin should not manifest itself in the exact same way that it did when we were unbelievers. But the point of the passages is simply to show that even the apostle Paul viewed himself as a saved sinner, and not just a sinner who needed a little forgiveness but a sinner who recognized the great depth of his sinfulness before the Lord even as a Christian. Paul boasts that he is a saved sinner in this passage and does not boast in his regenerated new heart though he did indeed have one. And it must be emphasized that clearly Paul had much victory and success in the Christian life, perhaps the most that any Christian will ever have in the history of Christianity. But at the same time he recognized that even as a mature Christian he was a sinner who needed the grace of God to save him.

Martin Luther on Justified Sinners

It is fitting to conclude this section of Biblical presuppositions of the Christian life with the words of Martin Luther; “The saints in being righteous are at the same time sinners; they are righteous because they believe in Christ whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them, but they are sinners because they do not fulfill the law and are not without sinful desires.”[20] And to make his view of the Christian life even more understandable he includes an analogy of the Christian life and the danger of Christians not understanding their own sinfulness. Luther continues by saying “they (Christians) are like sick people in the care of a physician: they are really sick, but healthy only in hope and in so far as they begin to be better, or, rather: are being healed, i.e., they will become healthy. Nothing can harm them so much as the presumption that they are in fact healthy, for it will cause a bad relapse.”[21] This dangerous presumption will not only lead to relapse in sin but even more seriously self righteousness, thoughts of suicide, and grave bouts of depression. It is this false and unrealistic assumption of perfect spiritual health that the Biblical view of the Christian life completely repudiates in Romans 7:14-25. Christians still struggle against serious temptations to sin and in fact continue regretfully to commit serious sins. It must be noted that the opponents addressed in this paper of the view of sanctification here expressed do not deny that Christians sin. However it becomes clear when reading their objections to Romans 7 that they have a deficient view of the seriousness and reality of remaining sin in the regenerate Christian life through their teaching that it is impossible for Romans 7:14-25 to be describing Paul as a Christian.
______________________________
17. This objection is also addressed in an appendix at the end of the paper
18. Charles Leiter, Justification and Regeneration, 148
19. Philippians 3:12-14
20. Luther, Martin. Lectures on Romans. ed. Wilhelm Pauck. In The Library of Christian Classics Volume XV, (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1961), 208
21. Ibid., 208

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 5)

2010-07-05T15:11:00.007-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Presuppositions: The Regenerate Man

The believer, in contrast to the unbeliever is in humble recognition of his own sinfulness, not only before he was a Christian but especially as a Christian. The believer recognizes and daily repents of his sins as a Christian. The presuppositions that we must observe from the Bible is that a Christian in his regenerated new nature loves the fulfilled law of God, desires to please the Lord and actually does please the Lord, but also fails miserably to live perfectly in light of the law of Christ. The Christian has not been released from the noetic effects of the fall completely and can still say with Jeremiah that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”[15] The Christian as exemplified in Paul’s life in Romans 7:14-25 is not seeking to obey the fulfilled law of Christ to be made righteous before God. In fact, there is not an external self-righteousness that the believer seeks to feel assured before God in his own works in order to exalt himself before man. On the contrary, the Christian has received Christ’s righteousness that is completely separate from any so called righteousness of his own. It is the imputed righteousness of Christ that the believer boasts in and trusts upon for salvation. This does not mean that the believer no longer desires and strives for obedience to God’s law. However, his obedience is not to the Old Covenant Mosaic letter of the law but to the fulfilled spiritual law of Christ that exposes the inner recesses of the human heart. Even the Christians regenerated new heart is exposed as sinful, fleshly, and incapable of living up to the perfect, holy, and pure law of God. Therefore, the Christian can also say of himself that he is carnal and fleshly, sold to sin, and that he is a wretched and sinful man. Christians sin, not because of who they are in Christ but because of the remaining effects of the fall that is found in their flesh. Christians should grieve over their sin and strive towards holiness to please God and live the way they are called to live according to Scripture. That is exactly what we see Paul recognizing in Romans 7:14-25.

Introductory Objections

Many object that this text is not dealing with remaining sin because there is no victory to be found in this passage only complete and total defeat. Charles Leiter observes that “…the man in Romans 7 is not just battling with sin but utterly defeated by it, in stark contrast with Paul’s description of all true Christians in Romans 6 and Romans 7:1-6.”[16] It is true that there is utter defeat in this passage but it does not negate Christian experience. There are many reasons why the Christian must be in view in this passage and will be argued latter in this paper but for now a central point must be made in this regard. Romans 7:14-25 is a description made by Paul as a mature believer that the law is spiritual, righteous, holy, and good, and that he himself is carnal or fleshly in relationship to it. The defeat is so drastic because Paul is discussing the flesh that remains in him as a believer that he can never get rid of in this life. In light of this flesh and sin that remains he will never this side of heaven be in perfect harmony with the holy and perfect law of God as fulfilled in Christ. He will remain defeated and unable to fully obey the law. The man in Romans 7 just keeps on sinning and cannot rid himself of his remaining sin like the rest of the elect past, present, and future. We should not expect there to be any complete victory because we will always have to struggle against the flesh in our life on earth and will always fall short of what we desire to do. We fall short of our desire to keep the law of Christ perfectly which simply means to obey God as Christians without the blemishes of sinful desires and corruptions. If we do not recognize our own serious sinful desires and tendencies like Paul does and repent daily we are in essence acting like the Pharisee who puts confidence in the flesh. This false confidence may even be in a regenerated heart set on pleasing the Lord, free from complete bondage to sin. But even if we trust in ourselves as Christians to the exclusion of recognizing the serious effects of the remaining sin in our flesh our lives will be nothing more than glorified Christian humanism trusting in the regenerated human heart as opposed to trusting God daily for the strength to fight remaining sin.
____________________________
15. Jer 17:9
16. Charles Leiter Justification and Regeneration (Hannibal: Granted Ministries Press, 2009) 149

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 4)

2010-07-05T14:46:00.012-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Pressupositions: The Unregenerate Man (continued)

Jesus' view of the so called "Pious Jew"

In case the above description of Paul’s testimony of pre-Christian life as a Pharisee is not compelling enough to weed out any false ideas of the pious Jew fallacy, we will observe a few words from our Lord and Savior on the topic. Jesus views the unregenerate Jewish Pharisees in an alarmingly different light than what we see in Romans 7:14-25. Jesus says that “they preach, but do not practice.”[10] Jesus also points out their sinful self-righteousness and hypocrisy by stating that “they do all their deeds to be seen by others.”[11] When describing the Pharisees Jesus does not portray an inner delight in the law of God or hatred of sinfulness. The Pharisee is simply not concerned with their own sinfulness, indeed they cannot even recognize that they are sinners in need of a savior because they are self deceived in their superior standing before God. The next quotation from Matthew 23 will obliterate the meek and mild view of Jesus that pictures him as a sensitive politically correct people pleaser. Jesus exclaims “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte (convert), and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”[12] Once more, Jesus does not view the Pharisee as loving righteousness and hating evil. As a matter of fact, Jesus has nothing positive to say about these “pious Jews.”

This passage does not get any better for the Pharisee for Jesus displays their hypocrisy and proclaims that though these men appear religious they are nothing but unregenerate sinners on their way to hell. Jesus says to them “you serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentences to hell?”[13] Again Jesus is relentless in making himself obviously clear how he views the unbelieving Jewish Pharisee as a wicked sinner who does not understand nor truly delight in the law of God. The “pious” Jews’ observance of the Law is nothing more than a show for others to see on the corner in the marketplace. Their religious practices are for their own confidence in the flesh as well as to parade their “good” works for others to see. Jesus solemnly proclaims “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”[14] Paul’s statement in Philippians that he counts it all loss for the sake of Christ is made abundantly clear after hearing the revealing woes of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. Hopefully it is clear after examining Paul’s teaching as well as Jesus,’ that the unregenerate so-called “pious Jew” is not the topic in Romans 7:14-25. Let us now move to an evaluation of the Biblical view of the Christian life.
___________________________
10. Matt 23:3b
11. Matt 23:5
12. Matt 23:15 the word "convert" was added by me for clarity and not in the ESV
13. Matt 23:33
14. Matt 23:27-28

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 3)

2010-04-10T19:41:00.021-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Presuppositions: The Unregenerate Man (continued)

We now move to a few key passages outside of the book of Romans clearly written by Paul about himself in his pre-Christian past. It must be emphasized here that there is a difference between a believers delight in the law of God and the pharisaical, proud, and idolatrous observance of the Mosaic Law in an external fashion. This is the twisted and sinful desire that the proud unbelieving Jew typified. They were confident of their righteousness in their own eyes and made sure that other people noticed their religious practices. This hypocritical confidence led to boasting that they were not like the other sinners who broke God’s law.[5]

In Galatians 1:13-14 Paul describes his pre-Christian life in exactly these ways by proclaiming, “You have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.” In commenting on this passage John Piper says that “Paul saw his life before his conversion as a life of unrivaled zeal for the law and the traditions. He doesn't give us any hint of torment or conflict or inner division as we see in Romans 7.”[6]

Put no Confidence in the Flesh

Likewise, Philippians 3:3-6 gives us an even clearer understanding of how Paul viewed himself prior to his radical conversion when he met Jesus on the Damascus road. In this passage Paul argues for the many reasons that he might have to put confidence in the flesh. Paul says that “though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under law, blameless.”[7] Pharisaical self-righteousness cannot be any clearer than it is in this passage. Paul is describing a wicked, evil, unregenerate self righteousness that he could have on the basis of his past Jewish religious merits. However, Paul fervently refuses to put any confidence in his flesh because of Christ's merits and his realization of how weak his flesh actually is. Paul teaches that we are to “glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”[8] If we look for a moment at Romans 7:14-25 it becomes obviously clear how little confidence Christians should put in the flesh because the sinful flesh will always be with believers this side of heaven and it will necessarily prevent them from obeying God’s law perfectly despite their intense desire to obey it. For Paul says in Romans 7:18 “for I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.” What Paul says in Philippians is echoed in Romans 7 that we are to put no confidence in the flesh because the flesh is weak. Concluding Paul’s discussion of the so-called confidence in the flesh that he could have he says; “but whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.”[9]

When Paul wrote Philippians and Romans he was a Christian and his view of himself in his past pre-Christian life was that of a man who put confidence in the flesh. On the contrary, his Christian understanding is that his old self-righteous confidence is only loss for the sake of Christ and that he can no longer put any confidence in the flesh. In conclusion, Paul’s teaching in Romans 7:14-25 about his divided struggle with sin and his teaching in Philippians 3 about the Pharisaical merits for self righteous confidence are not both describing Paul as an unbelieving Pharisee. For we see in Philippians Paul describing a self-righteous man with confidence in the flesh that he was innocent before God. On the other hand the exact opposite is found in Romans 7 in his description of his love and desire for true righteousness without a hint of confidence in his flesh to make him right before God.
________________________
5. See Luke 18:9-14 this parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector illustrates the evil of self righteousness and the need for believers to recognize and repent of their sin.
6. John Piper "Who is this Divided man?" Sermon notes (Part 3). Accessed 20 November 2009.
7. Philippians 4:4-6
8. Philippians 3:3b
9. Philippians 3:7

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 2)

2010-04-09T15:35:00.009-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Presuppositions

It is important to begin with Biblical presuppositions about the Christian life as well as a comparison with the life of unbelievers. Douglas Moo correctly acknowledges that “our identification of the person whose struggle Paul depicts in this text does have an impact on several theological and practical issues. One of the most important of these is the nature of the Christian life.”[2] An interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 carries a lot of theological baggage no matter who is giving the explanation of the passage. It is better to be honest with the assumptions that we bring to the text as opposed to ignoring the fact that the way a Christian understands life as a believer prior to coming to Romans 7 is going to make a difference on how he is going to interpret this passage. Again Douglas Moo states that “it may be generally said that the interpretation of few passages has been more influenced by one’s broad theological perspective, experience, and sheer a priori assumption than Romans 7:14-25.”[3] The question is not which interpreters are bringing theological baggage but whose baggage is more biblical.

Biblical Presuppositions: The Unregenerate Man

Perhaps the best way to discuss the Christian life versus the unregenerate life is to begin within the context of Paul’s own understanding of himself before and after his conversion. Of course for the sake of building a foundation for further interpretation of our passage we will omit the full exposition of Romans 7:14-25 from our initial observations. Though doing this is excluding one of the most important passages in the Bible that explains one aspect of the Christian life. Normally it is best to move from the clear passage of full mention to more obscure or less descriptive passages but due to the fact that Romans 7:14-25 is so controversial we will discuss that passage at length after laying our biblical presuppositions.

Beginning with our presuppositions about the unregenerate we see that in Romans 1-3 Paul communicates that all men both Gentiles and Jews are under the condemnation of sin and guilty before a holy God. In fact, even in light of Paul’s pre-Christian past as a zealous Pharisee he speaks of the Jewish people as being under sin by saying that “because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed."[4] Paul then goes on in Romans 3:9 as if he were not already clear enough answering the question “what then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” Paul makes it painfully clear that even the unbelieving Jews who are God’s Old Covenant chosen people are under the condemnation of sin along with the Gentiles whose condemnation was no surprise to the Jews.

Paul does not leave any room for a separation between unbelieving Jews and Gentiles when it comes to their sin and position before God. There is no two tier unregenerate person in Paul’s teaching let alone anywhere else in the Bible. This truth will become relevant when we move into our passage because there are some Christians who argue that Romans 7:14-25 is the experience of a pious Jew or more particularly the pre-Christian Paul who loved, rejoiced, and delighted in the law of God but could not keep it. The problem with this view is that not only does Paul put himself as a pre-Christian under the wrath of God with all of his Jewish contemporaries but he also exclaims in Romans 3:11-12 that “none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” The person in Romans 7:14-25 is not a blind man without understanding, nor is he a reprobate suppressing the truth of the existence of God. I dare proclaim that much of what we see in Romans 7:14-25 is pleasing to God and we must not forget that the man in Romans 7:14-25 is even blessed by God for we read in Psalm 1:1-2 “blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.” Notice the connection with Romans 7:22 when Paul says “for I delight in the law of God in my inner being.” In this passage Paul is speaking and his words cannot be twisted to depict an unbelieving Paul because it is clear that even in his divided struggle against sin Paul is delighting in the law of God and is therefore blessed by God according to Psalm 1. An unbeliever is never said to be blessed by God in the Scriptures. This point is insurmountable for the interpreter who teaches that Romans 7:14-25 is about an unregenerate Paul.
_________________________
2. Douglas J. Moo The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary: Romans 1-8. (The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1991), 469
3. Ibid, 470
4. Romans 2:5

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 1)

2010-04-06T20:49:00.010-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Introduction

What we believe as Christians about the Bible effects how we live in a fallen world. The Bible teaches that the remaining consequences of our sin are intimately related to the planet we live in as well as in our own lives. Our motivation for godly living should not be a worldly set of moral guidelines devoid of a Christian worldview that emphasizes mere virtuous living without Biblical presuppositions. Rather, we should look to God for help in the Christian life with a deep rooted recognition that sin is a problem that we cannot solve. This reality is not only for those outside of the faith but especially for those for those of the household of God. It is the Christian and not the unbeliever who must realize the great weightiness of his own fallen and corrupt nature before and after his conversion and praise God for definitively dealing with his sin problem. David exclaims “blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” [1] The Christian has been forgiven and his sinful actions will not merit him eternal death in hell. The great act of justification where God declares his elect to be righteous though they are not righteous in themselves because they are sinners must be in the forefront of our minds when we move forward as Christians to fight against sinful desires and fleshly temptations. The book of Romans deals with these and other important truths about the gospel.

We will narrow our discussion to one aspect of soteriology discussed in Romans, namely sanctification. The Christian life (sanctification) is a glorious reality to meditate upon and is quite miraculous indeed. The miracle is seen when a sinner deserving eternal conscious punishment in hell is no longer deserving of hell, not because he ceases to be a sinner but because his sins have been paid for by Jesus Christ. The passage in Romans that will be dealt with in this paper is not short of much controversy. The interpretation the Christian gives on this passage reveals a great deal about his view of the Christian life. Romans 7:14-25 has been a divisive passage of Scripture amongst Christians since the early church. It is the famous passage that describes the “wretched” and divided man who cannot do the good that he desires to do. There have been many interpretations as to what this passage actually means but the scope of this paper will be limited to a discussion of orthodox Christian interpretations. Pelagian arguments that deny original sin as well as Wesleyan sinless perfection interpretations of this passage are omitted as unbiblical explanations unworthy of consideration in the limited space of this paper. However, orthodox Christian explanations of this passage have differed and only interpretation that teach that Christians still struggle with remaining sin will be addressed in this paper. It will be argued that this passage is written by Paul as a Christian and is the passage of full mention dealing with the inevitable struggle every Christian has with indwelling sin. There are many objections to this view to be certain from godly men and it is the intention of this paper to address these objections as well as putting forth arguments from godly men who wholeheartedly agree and defend the thesis of this paper.
______________________________
1. Romans 4:7-8 All quotations use the English Standard Version of the Bible

Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 5 conclusion)

2009-05-25T12:59:00.008-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Objections to Revealed Theology

The popular defense of natural theology is that it is a helpful tool in apologetics to get people who do not accept the Bible to believe in god or adopt certain ethical principles. It is also claimed that they can reach this goal by ridding themselves of biblical revelation and arguing from nature and human reason alone. It has already been established that natural theology is unbiblical because it denies or at least ignores certain doctrines such as the total depravity of man. We have shown that natural theology is an empty pursuit because people are suppressing the truth that can only be unsuppressed for lack of better words through the preaching and reading of the Scriptures. It would be further proof of the futility of natural theology if it could be demonstrated that it is impossible for the professing Christian to conduct a completely natural theology that is not dependent on or influenced by the Bible for its content.

If you observe the arguments for the existence of God given by Christian natural theologians they would look very different from the heathen tribes in Africa who are not influenced by the Judeo Christian worldview. Heathens generally are not using the ontological, cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments for the existence of God. They do not think in these categories because they have not been enlightened by the Scriptures in order to observe God in human reason, creation, natural law, or morals. These are all categories that Christians have either retained from the Bible or have adopted from Greek Philosophy and are non existent in cultures outside of the western world that have been influenced by Judeo Christianity and western culture. The terminology used by Thomas Aquinas is sadly influenced to a greater degree by Aristotle than the Bible; however the Bible nonetheless has framed much of his thinking. The following quote from John Frame is very revealing; “…Aquinas is recommending autonomous reasoning, which is self-consciously removed from the authority of God’s Word, enabling us to argue from the same premises as Plato or Aristotle. I don’t believe that Aquinas succeeds in removing biblical assumptions from his argument. Aquinas is, after all, a Christian. But that is exactly what he tries to do. And that is a project that we must repudiate, as those who seek to think as covenant servants of God."[23] Arguing from the same premises as Greek philosophers all the while retaining the Christian name is foolish. It would be better for the church if natural theologians would abandon their Christian name and follow in the footsteps of Plato and Aristotle under the authority of human reason and experience. The truth is that the biblical witness is so pervasive and foundational for the Christian that it is impossible to separate the life changing principles and presuppositions of Christianity if a person is truly in the faith. Likewise, it is equally impossible to bring together and mix Greek Philosophy or any other worldview with the Scriptures without completely violating and perverting the Biblical witness. Consider the conclusion that Dr. Morey arrives at after years of researching heathen religions: “The only ones who can truly start from their own reason apart from the Bible are the heathen who never heard the Bible or any of the religions which refer to it. Such a person must be in total isolation from Judaism and Christianity, and any religions that borrowed material from those religions. When we look in history to see what isolated heathens have deduced from nature using their reason, we find nothing but gross idolatry and immorality. Thus natural theology is a complete bust. It has never worked in the past and it will never work in the future.”[24] Aristotle’s natural theology peddled by many modern evangelicals is as John Frame wrote and Robert Morey alludes to “a project that we must repudiate.”

Natural theology is incompatible with Biblical revelation and is not a helpful apologetic method as many evangelicals assume. Natural theology is humanistic and leads to the demise of the authority of Scripture in the believer’s life. If a Christian thinks that he can determine the nature and existence of God as well as the nature of man and morality apart from the Bible then ultimately the Scriptures lose its sole authority in determining doctrine and morals. Not only can the Christian be deceived by natural theology but so can the unbeliever. Millard Erickson wisely observes that if the natural theologians “proofs are inadequate, then in rejecting the proofs, the unbeliever may also reject the Christian message, assuming that they are the best grounds that can be offered for its acceptance. In rejecting one form of advocacy of the Christian message, a form that is not a matter of biblical revelation, the unbeliever may reject the message itself.”[25] There are many adequate rebuttals against the natural proofs for the existence of God given by both unbelievers and believers alike. Therefore the Christian must pick his authority. Should he pursue natural theology that is fallible and ever changing or the infallible and inerrant Word of God? The answer is clear to those who are in the truth. God’s Word as opposed to human reason and experience should be our ultimate authority in apologetics, preaching, doctrine, and living.
______________________________
23. John M. Frame Th Doctrine of God, 225
24. Robert A. Morey "Is Natural Theology Fideistic?" in Journal of Biblical Apologetics. Vol. 1 Num. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Christian Scholars Press, 2000. 5-6
25. Millard Erickson Christian Theology, 185

Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 4)

2009-05-25T08:56:00.008-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Support for Revealed Theology Continued

We now move to the second chapter of Romans to clarify some confusion about the text. Paul states that the gentiles have “…the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternatively accusing or else defending them…”[17] Many theologians interpret the work of the law as the Ten Commandments written on the hearts of every person past, present, and future. However, the text says that the work of the law has been written on every person’s heart describing the conscience and its function as opposed to the Ten Commandments. The work of the written law as we see in Romans is to bring the knowledge of sin.[18] The natural man through his conscience is convicted of sin while not having the written law which is special revelation. This does not mean that man has an infallible conscience that always reveals and convicts him when he is sinning and excuses him when he is behaving rightly. The conscience is affected by sin and therefore one man can think it completely reasonable to act in a way that another man would repulse. The point of this passage is to declare that the natural man has a conscience and not that he has the infallible word of God written in stone on his heart. Theologians must take a huge leap in this passage to get to the Ten Commandments. However it seems to be accepted quite easily a priori without any serious explanation. God revealed his law to his people by written communication and God’s law is infallible. We must be careful for if a person is willing to accept that special revelation is written on every lost sinner’s heart independent from the Bible it would be very easy to accept that people can be saved apart from the preaching or reading of the Bible. In other words if a person takes the huge leap to accept that the heathen have special revelation written on their hearts apart from the Bible, it would only take a small jump to get to salvation apart from the Bible. I am aware that there are many theologians holding this interpretation who would reject this connection. However, after examining the text I have found that the interpretation equating the “work of the law written on their hearts” to the Ten Commandments to be an erroneous reading going beyond what Paul intended.

Now that we have defined general revelation and the flawed biblical assumptions of natural theology, consider this statement from the prominent evangelical natural theologian J.P. Moreland in order to demonstrate the futility of natural theology, “the church may preach to unbelievers what Scripture says about some topic, but when believers argue for their views in the public square or defend them against those who do not accept the Scriptures they should use general principles of moral argument and reasoning.”[19] Moreland also states “that believers need not appeal to Scripture in arguing for certain ethical positions, say, in the abortion debate.”[20] First of all, moral argumentation is meaningless apart from a Biblical worldview. What good is reasoning and moral argumentation going to do when discussing certain issues like abortion with a moral relativist? And on what basis if not the Bible can a Christian argue for the life of the unborn? As a Christian, when exposing sin, is it right to appeal to common sense, intuition, the greater good, and the fact that abortion is unthinkable? I would submit it foolish to argue from these premises when we have God’s direct revelation to man written down in the sixty six books of the Bible. The reality is that arguing from these subjective premises does an injustice to our great God because these general ethical arguments function as a substitute to the infallible special revelation by failing to proclaim God’s law. Once again we see the humanistic tendencies of natural theology in the above argument made by Dr. Moreland who begins with man’s reasoning and experience and not God’s revelation. In Moreland’s view ethics and morality is not exclusively founded on the basis of God’s authority and law. On the contrary, his apologetic practice of arguing for morals and ethics apart from special revelation leaves open the false anti-Christian belief that morality is in the eye of the beholder. By beginning with subjective human reasoning and setting aside the Bible the natural theologian plays into the human centered worldview of the unbeliever and has lost the battle already. Obviously not everyone thinks that abortion is unthinkable because of the vast number of people who support it and practice the murder of unwanted babies. The reality is that people are sinful, wicked, depraved, and blinded to the truth. They need to be confronted with the reality that although abortion may be appealing to them it is an abomination to God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures and will judge them for their wickedness. Let the unbelievers mock. Isn’t that what we should expect? At least we are telling them the truth and most importantly honoring God. This is just one example of the ineffectiveness and unbiblical nature of the humanistic use of natural theology and natural apologetics.

It has been established that natural theology is humanistic in its very core because of its attempt to prove the nature and existence of God apart form the Bible. It has also been demonstrated that J.P. Moreland as well as many other natural theologians have committed a categorical fallacy by equating natural theology and natural law with general revelation. General revelation is simply that God has revealed that He exists in his creation and through human conscience but that every human being who is not a believer is suppressing the truth that God has made known in this revelation. It is also important to understand that while general revelation declares that there is a god it does not reveal who He is or how we are to relate to Him. Therefore we cannot know about the existence of the true God from creation and conscience so long as we are unregenerate and suppressing the truth. Once a person is born again and has accepted the truth about God found in Scripture he can then observe and appreciate the fact that “the heavens declare his righteousness, and all the peoples have seen his glory.”[21] In the Journal of Biblical Apologetics Robert Morey states that “having suppressed any knowledge that could have led to a natural theology, man’s depraved reasoning abilities led him into the darkness of vain, philosophic, speculations (Rom 1:21-22).”[22] Due to the presence of sin man cannot know the nature, existence, laws, and salvation of God in Christ Jesus for they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It takes an act of God through the Holy Spirit regenerating a person so that he can believe in the Gospel. Therefore, we conclude that natural theology is incompatible with the Biblical worldview and should be rejected and replaced with revealed theology.
______________________________
17. Romans 2:15b
18. Romans 3:20 "because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin."
19. J. P. Moreland Love Your God with all Your Mind. Colorado Springs: Navpress publications, 1997. 55-56.
20. Ibid 55
21. Psalm 97:6
22. Robert A. Morey "Is 'Natural Theology' a Form of Deism?" In Journal of Biblical Apologetics. 26

Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 3)

2009-05-24T08:04:00.006-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Support for Revealed Theology

God has revealed Himself to humanity through the written Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Holy Scriptures are the only infallible and inerrant guild revealing what God would have his people believe and how He demands that they should live. God’s special revelation found in Scripture is particular and limited because not everyone has access to the Bible. God has also made Himself known universally yet not specifically through His creation of the world and the human conscience. God’s natural or general revelation through creation is known and seen by all of humanity twenty four hours a day seven days a week.[9] There are many different interpretations of general revelation that exceeds what is found in the Bible and therefore must be rejected. Certain theologians claim that general revelation is every truth outside of the Bible that has been observed by psychologists, biologists, sociologists, and even going so far as including different religions and cults such as Islam or Mormonism.[10] The saying “all truth is god’s truth” is common amongst these theologians who define general revelation in this fashion. The problem with the above definition of general revelation is that it is nowhere found in the Bible. We must now turn to Scripture to define what we mean by general revelation.

According to the apostle Paul “…The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”[11] Paul reveals in this passage that the noetic effects of the fall have left man so completely distorted that he suppresses the natural revelation of God to man found in creation and conscience. Paul goes on to affirm “that which is known about God is evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are with out excuse.”[12] This revelation that men everywhere are suppressing is only sufficient to bring condemnation upon man as opposed to salvation. Every human being knows that there is a powerful divine creator god because as Millard Erickson points out “general revelation is God’s communication of himself to all persons at all times and in all places.”[13] Although they all know that there is a god in their heart of hearts they are suppressing that knowledge of the divine creator because of sin. Robert Morey sharply points out that “after sin entered the world, St. Paul argues in Romans that whatever knowledge man could have obtained from Creation is made void and null by his depravity.”[14]

The natural theologian must deal with the glaring effects of sin upon mankind. If the natural theologian is an evangelical and believes that man is suppressing the truth in nature because of their ungodliness and still proceeds to attempt to prove God from nature and conscience they are ultimately assuming that their natural apologetics apart from the Bible can reverse the noetic effects of the fall and lead people to salvation. Most evangelicals would firmly deny that man can be saved apart from Scripture but the use of natural theology in apologetics (which is a form of evangelism) leads me to believe that either the natural theologian is being deceptive by not claiming what he truly believes or that he is in fact deceived himself and ignorant of the truth in the Bible. Dr. Robert Morey rightly proclaims that the Biblical truth that must be established to all Christians whether they are pastors, evangelists, apologists or laymen is that “a fallen man in a fallen world can never by reason alone find the one true God in nature.”[15] The question must be asked “how then shall man be saved?” The revealed theologian would proclaim Sola Scriptura and preach from the Bible for it is the only means that God has determined to bring dead sinners who are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to life so that they may see the triune God of Scripture and be saved.[16]
__________________________________
9. Robert A. Morey Natural Theology: is it Biblical? Excerpts read by author. Disk 4 track 3.
10. In my undergraduate studies at Biola University I primarily heard these definitions of general revelation from my psychology professors and the philosophy department (though they did not include false religions and cults). The Bible and theology professors generally had a much more limited definition from Scripture.
11. Romans 1:18. All Scripture references are form the New American Standard Bible.
12. Romans 1:19-20.
13. Millard J. Erickson Christian Theology. Second edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007). 178
14. Robert A. Morey "Is 'Natural Theology' a form of deism?" In Journal of Biblical Apologetics. Vol. 1 No. 1.
15. Ibid 26
16. See Romans chapter 10

Romans lecture Part 22

2009-04-11T20:24:00.005-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 22

Lecture update:

The apostle Paul is being autobiographical in Romans 7 as he talks about his conversion in vs. 7 and struggle with covetousness.
Paul finally came to understand that he was a sinner through the law.

Romans 7:14

A dramatic change of tense is found in this passage changing from a past autobiographical discussion to the present autobiographical tense.
The law is spiritual because it is from the Holy Spirit and pertains to the inward heart of man as opposed to the merely external visible laws that the Pharisees focused on.
There is a dramatic break in terms of the grammar of the text moving from the autobiographical discussion of his conversion experience in the past when he came to know Christ to now talking about his present condition in the Christian life.
Vs. 14: “The law is spiritual but I “am” (not was, not used to be) of the flesh, sold under sin.”
It is often the case that the Arminian, Keswick, Higher life, deeper life, holiness, and charismatic movement fail to observe the grammar of this text and continue the interpretation that the apostle Paul was speaking of his unconverted and unregenerate state.
Others say that the apostle Paul was speaking about the past defeated Christian life when Paul was a “carnal” Christian. “I am of the flesh” the King James says “I am carnal” sold under sin. They particularly like vs. 25 to show that at that point Paul entered victorious living and no longer had a struggle with sin.
Both of these interpretations do not fit the context and grammar of the text. Many of those who believe that the apostle Paul is still discussing the unregenerate Christian life take the view of Pelagius. He was a monk in the early church, condemned as a heretic who taught that there is no such thing as original sin. We are all born in the perfected state like Adam and Eve in the garden and have our own opportunity to sin or obey God.

Is Romans 7:14-25 discussing the unregenerate man?

Vs. 22 “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man.”
Does this really sound like the unregenerate person?
When we were unregenerate did we rejoice in the Law of God when it told us we cannot do the sinful things that we wanted to do?
Is the world proclaiming “hallelujah for the Ten Commandments, lets put them on the walls of every school in the country?”
No! The unregenerate does everything to get away from the law of God and does not understand or seek after God because there is no fear of God before their eyes.
Is it true that the unregenerate person wants to do what is good and then struggles? No, it’s the other way around, they want to do evil and they sometimes find difficulty doing it because their conscience bothers them.
Therefore, the Pelagian interpretation is not proper, neither is the Keswick or “higher life” interpretation that teaches the “carnal” Christian life. This interpretation is false because it teaches that when you have “arrived” in the Christian life you no longer have a struggle with sin (at this point in the audio Dr. Morey asserts that “in this congregation you have never heard this idea or doctrine taught in the pulpit.” Amen to that! It was also my experience at FCC in Irvine that Dr. Bob never taught this heretical and confusing understanding of the Christian life. This is one of the many reasons that we appreciate Dr. Morey and his teaching ministry. He clears away much of the rubbish and false teaching that we were all fed at one point or another in other churches).

Dr. Morey’s biographical discussion about his early church years

The first eight years of his Christian life he was in a church that yearly had a Keswick meeting or conference where various speakers would come and preach the “victorious life” and “sinless perfectionism.”
They taught that it was possible to enter a stage in the Christian life when you no longer struggle with sin and “temptation rolled off your back like water off a ducks back.”
“Sin had no allurement or attraction any longer.” The Christian was capable of saying no to sin and they could go for days, weeks, months, and years without committing even one sin.
This view of the victorious sinless Christian life was presented to address the “carnal Christians” who were struggling with sin that they taught Paul was addressing in Romans 7:14-25.
They brought the “great news” that Jesus Christ can enable you to enter into the victory and then you will be set free from the body of death entering into the experience of Romans 8 which is one of victory instead of defeat.
Dr. Morey calls the above teaching a pipe dream that doesn’t work! He let go and let God, he practiced the know, reckon, yield, and obey method. And he followed the advice of Christian teachers like Alan Redpath, Steward Briscoe, Stephen Olford, and Major Ian Thomas and none of them led him to the sinless victorious life. While Dr. Morey wanted to live a sinless life he found it impossible and the only things this teaching gave him were health issues and sheer confusion.

The realistic view of sin found in the Bible

The Bible is utterly realistic portraying people just as they are.
If the Bible were the product of man’s ingenuity it would not include the sins of the saints. Some Muslims claim the fallibility of the Bible because it portrays sinful prophets while Muhammad was pictured as sinless. According to Islam prophets should be without sin. Dr. Morey flips it on them saying that the Koran is not true because it wasn’t honest because all of sinned and are right now falling short of the glory of God.

Romans 7:14-15

“for that which I am doing I do not understand”
In our Christian experience we all have to admit our own pangs of conscience. When we look into the mirror we cannot honestly pretend that we are sinless. We yell at our wives, husbands, kids. We lose our temper at work, we get greedy and covetous, tell white lies, say things we shouldn’t say and do things we shouldn’t do.
We may be dedicated Christians trying to live for the Lord but in the end we know that we are still carnal because when we look at our lives we find that there is a lot about us that isn’t spiritual.
In J.C Ryle’s book on holiness has a section where he quotes the great men and women of God. The greater they were the lower the view they had of themselves and they all said “I’m carnal.”
The deeper you go in the Christian life the deeper you understand your sin. The more you realize your wickedness and wretchedness the more you realize your need of Jesus. The more spiritual you are the more unspiritual you view yourself. The more Godly you become the more ungodliness you will see in your lives.
The most mature Christian is the one who senses his immaturity the greatest NOT the Christian who runs around claiming that they are sinless and haven’t sinned in 15 years. This type of Christian is shallow and not mature.
In verse 14 the apostle Paul say’s that he is carnal and sometimes he feels in bondage to sin. This is the experience of the Christian life. For example there are habits or besetting sins that we have not been able to completely be rid of in the Christian life.
In the Christian life when we sin we do not understand our actions. Not only is the action utterly sinful they are also downright stupid. “For that which I am doing I do not understand.” The apostle Paul admits that sometimes he does things that he does not understand why he did what he did. Paul says “I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.” If we are to be honest we experience the tension of knowing what we aught to do and then not doing it. Dr. Bob gives a honest personal experience of sometimes neglecting his family because of his preoccupation with work when he knows he should be paying attention to their needs but gets occupied with the next book he has to write “mulling over the problem of evil while his son is upset and he doesn’t even know it.”
It’s amazing that we know what do to and we don’t do it, and we know what not to do and we determine not to do and we still do it!
This is the conundrum that the apostle Paul was puzzled by.

Romans 7:16

“If I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the law confessing that the law is good.” The law is good because it points out sin in our lives because we shouldn’t have those kinds of thoughts and we shouldn’t be doing that.

Romans 7:18

“For I know that nothing good dwells in me.” Can we reach the point in the Christian life where we can smile and proclaim that “a lot of good dwells in me?” Of course not! The moment you think that you can put our head on the pillow not needed forgiveness is either the moment that you have apostatized from the Christ life or you are terrible deluded!

Romans 7:17

“So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”
Paul uses a literary device called personification where he speaks about sin as if there is another person inside of him.
Paul is talking about sin in a figurative way and is not literally saying that there are two Paul’s. We must not misunderstand what was meant to be metaphorical as literal.
Paul is using metaphorical language to describe the struggle with sin where half of him wants to do what is right and half of him wants to do what is wrong.
Verse 18: the wishing or desire is present in me but the doing of the good is not present.
For Christians there is a desire to do what is right but sometimes when we try to carry it out we find ourselves doing the opposite.
In the Christian life there are times when we consciously plan on having a godly attitude or handling a situation in a virtuous way and when we enter the situation we end up doing opposite of what we had determined to do.

Romans 7:19

“For the good that I wish to do I don’t do, but I end up practicing the very evil I don’t want to do.”
There is a difference between “the I want too’s” and what we end up doing.
This is a characteristic of a true Christian.
An unregenerate person does not have the I want too’s.
Unbelievers don’t say “oh that I could be godly,” “oh that I might be holy,” “oh that I might love the Lord more,” “that I might read your word more, or that I might pray more.”
It’s the Christian that gets guilty about not praying enough or that he or she is not being kind enough.
An unregenerate person doesn’t think this way. For example: an unbeliever at work does not worry about the sin of gossip and it doesn’t bother them to be mean or to lie.
Romans 7 is talking about the child of God who is wrestling with sin and struggling with iniquity because he does not want to sin.
The child of God does not want to sin but ends up doing what he does not want to do.

Romans 7:20

“Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.”
Paul is communicating that there is a set in him of habits and desire’s within that he cannot seem to control.
When you are born again God’s puts new desires in your heart: you hunger and thirst after righteousness, you want to love the Lord, you want to live a godly life, you really want to have family devotions and pray with your children every night.
If you are not a child of God you never think about these things because it doesn’t cross your mind because there is no want too.
If there is no struggle with sin it’s because you are dead in sin.
Dead people do not struggle with sin, if you are struggling with sin it’s because you are alive and that you are a child of God and you hate sin.

Romans 7:21

Evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.
If you are a child of God you know this problem because you want to do what is right and you know what is right because you have the Law of God.
The willing is there but you can’t seem to pull it off.

Romans 7:22

“For I joyfully concur with the Law of God in the inner man.”
Only a regenerate person can say this.
Unbelievers do not concur with the Law of God in the inner man. They are not secretly and inwardly for it because they are rebellious against God and don’t want the Law of God.
The child of God not only concurs but joyfully agrees with it.

Romans 7:23

“But I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.”
There are two sets of drives: one for good and one for evil and we are struggling and fighting to do what is right but end up doing what is wrong.

Romans 7:24

“Wretched man that I am, who will set me free from the body of this death?”
In Roman society one of the punishments for murder was to literally bind the body of your murder victim to you body arm to arm, leg to leg, so it rotted into your flesh and the one you killed would end up killing you in the end.
This is the illustration that Paul uses asking: who will deliver me from this deadly body of sin that is strapped to my body that is a rotting stinking corpse?

Romans 7:25

“Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The Keswick or higher life teachers will stop at this point proclaiming that it is possible to be delivered from the struggle with sin. How do you do it? “Just come down to the alter now and give your all on the alter to Jesus.” Just rest, resting in the joy of what though art.” “Know, reckon, yield, obey!” “There is a ten step plan, or the five step plan.” The trouble is that they don’t keep reading.
The rest of verse 25 says that “I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”
As Christians we know the right way to treat our wives and kids, we know how to live right and in our mind we agree that the law is holy and righteous and true.
But, on the other hand with my flesh I am serving the law of sin.
On the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God but on the other I myself with my flesh am serving the law of sin.
The apostle Paul throws us right back into the struggle at the end of verse 25.

Where is the victory?

What about the “thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord?”
There will be victory at death!
When you die the body of sin will be cut off of you.
What about the spirit? Hebrews 12:23b “the spirits of justified men and women now made perfect.”
They were justified or declared righteous on earth and made righteous in heaven. They had imputed perfection on earth and now they have constitutional perfection in heaven. The spirit is perfected in the presence of the king when you die and go to heaven.
What about the body? 1 Thessalonians 5:23 “now may the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete and without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
We are made complete and without blame at the coming and return of Jesus Christ not at “the alter, the camp meeting, the invitation system, by speaking in tongues, or letting go and letting God.”
When Christ returns our bodies will be totally sanctified.
What does this mean? Philippians 3:20 “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”
He will transform our humble or humiliated body into a glorious body. We are going to be transformed when Jesus returns so that our fleshly body will no longer be in a state of humiliation but in a state of glorification.
When is it that we receive this victory?
We get half of it when we die entering glory where we no longer struggle with sin and it is completed after the resurrection.
There is no hope that we will be sinless in this life prior to death and we will always have to struggle with sin.
Does this mean that we should just give into sin and temptation?
May it never be! We are supposed to struggle with sin. Don’t give into the evil motivations and drives, don’t yell and say things you aught not to say, don’t give into the impulses to immorality and to all the evil that simply floats around in your system.
Instead we are to have the attitude of the apostle Paul where he was struggling against sin.
What happens when you try and pray that you would not sin but end up doing what you tried so hard to refrain from?
You repent of it, pick up the pieces and you say that the law of God is good and “I was the one that was wrong, I sinned, and Lord I want you to help me that the next time I am tempted in this way I wont sin.”
We should emphasize in our Christian life the many occasions when we were tempted to do evil and we didn’t do it more than emphasizing the times we gave in.
If we dwell simply on the occasions in which we gave into evil and sinned we will end up in a morbid, sad, and depressed Christian life.
The wonder of the Christian life is not that we give into sin because anyone can do that. The amazement is when we don’t give into sin.
We have to emphasize, meditate, and reflect on the times when we were tempted to think certain impure thoughts and we turned to Jesus for help and we didn’t think them. Or when you turned the channel on the T.V. when something tempting came on the program.
We should thank the Lord when he enables you to refrain from sin because it is of his mercy.
By doing this we can take an upbeat view of the Christian life instead of a downbeat view, we can be more optimistic than pessimistic and we can be happy Christians. Joy is still found in verse 22 in the midst of the struggle because even though at times we may be down but not out, we may loose the battle but not the war.
We may sin at this particular point by giving into evil but that doesn’t mean that we will give into that same sin tomorrow. There will be another sin to struggle with tomorrow!
Thanks be to God that when Jesus returns we will be delivered from our struggle with sin.
The reality is that this deliverance will not happen until Christ returns and there will be a struggle with sin on this side of heaven.
If you are truly saved there will be a struggle with sin and if you do not struggle you are not saved. If there is a struggle at least there’s life.
Galatians 6 tells us that If we sow to the flesh we shall reap corruption, if we sow to the spirit we shall reap eternal life. Sow to the spirit, do those things which encourage your spiritual life.

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement Q & A

2009-03-17T22:55:00.002-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

1. Did Christ die to make a universal payment for sin? No
2. Was Christ's death a payment for sin in general making salvation possible to all? No
3. Did Christ die for each and every sinners individual sins specifically? No
4. Did Christ die for the sin of particular sinners? Yes
5. Did Christ die for sin in general for particular sinners? No
6. Did Christ die for specific sins of particular sinners? Yes
7. Is the atonement tied to God’s eternal election i.e. are those whom the Father elected the ones whom the son died? Yes
8. Is election effectual i.e. will those whom God the Father has elected as objects of mercy definitely be saved from their sins? Yes
9. Is the atonement effectual i.e. are all those whom God the Son died for definitely going to be saved from their sins? Yes
10. Are all men sinners and dead in their sins? Yes
11. Is every sinner equally able to produce faith in and of themselves? Of course not
12. Is every sinner capable of producing saving faith by their own free will? Negative
13. Is the application of salvation conditional upon the faith of sinners? Yes
14. Can a sinner produce faith by his own fallen nature? No
15. Do some sinners repent and have faith? Yes
16. Do all sinners repent and have faith? No
17. Then how can a sinner who is incapable of faith in and of himself produce saving faith that is necessary for salvation? He cannot! The answer is found in the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit bringing dead sinners to life so that they may understand, love, see, and hear the Gospel and repent and believe.
18. Does the Holy Spirit regenerate every person universally? No
19. For whom does the Holy Spirit regenerate? The elect of God
20. Why does he regenerate them? So that they may see their utter sinfulness and believe in the Gospel.
21. What is the Gospel? That Christ died to save sinners i.e. atone for specific sinners and specific sins effectually.

Doxology is the only appropriate response!

Praise God from whom all blessings flow, praise him all creatures here below, praise him above ye heavenly hosts, praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen!

Socinus Resurrected: Answering objections to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (part 2)

2009-03-13T15:47:00.006-04:00

by Peter Phillips

Mungo Man said: “Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.”

Peter Phillips response:

Most certainly, the God who is love willfully planned and sent His Son to die and suffer at the hands of sinners, according to his foreordained purposes to redeem a people unto Himself. Let me unpack this biblically:

Paul says, “31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 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? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 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 (Rom. 8:31-34)”

Please note that Paul says God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all. If God graciously gave up his own Son, how much more will He not freely give us everything we need? The Christian’s freedom from sin and death came at a price—God had to send his Son to be a propitiation for our sins, so that we might enjoy relationship with Him through believing on the crucified Messiah.

In order to hold to your objection, you would have to deny the testimony of Luke’s account of God’s determined purpose in the crucifixion (Peter actually preached the sermon that contains this):

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2:22-24).

Please note that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified, according to the “definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” But, this was not the end of the story; God raised Him from the dead, showing that he accepted Jesus sacrifice on behalf of sinners. The penal substitutionary atonement is a part of the willful plan of God to save sinners—that’s love, my friend. However, just in case we think that is a slip of the pen, we have many other texts that say the same kind of things.

When Peter and John were thrown into prison for preaching the gospel, they did not cease to trust in God’s plan. Notice how they pray upon their release. How do they view the events leading to the cross, and, of course, the crucifixion itself?

Acts 4:23-28 “When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”

It may come as a shock, but the ones who betrayed, handed over, and crucified Jesus, did “whatever God’s hand and plan had predestined to take place.”

Perhaps you might object that this is not fair to Jesus, but this objection would certainly ignore that He willfully went to the Cross in obedience to His Father’s desires (John 10:17-18). Jesus actually rebukes Peter for trying to correct him when he said he must suffer and die on the cross:

Mark 8:31-33 “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

In fact, according to the doctrine of penal substitution, Jesus died in this fashion to bring glory to himself (John 17:1; Phil. 2:8-9; Heb. 2:9) and to save his people (Rom. 5:8, 1 Pet. 3:18), as well as to glorify His Father. Jesus high priestly prayer, which takes place right before his crucifixion, conveys this sentiment well:

John 17:1-5 “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

This is a beautiful portrait of the Trinity at work in procuring the salvation of God’s people. The Father plans salvation in this way because it would satisfy his justice and demonstrate his love towards sinners. The Son joyfully and willfully accomplished the work of redemption with his perfect life, substitutionary death, and resurrection. The Son takes our sin upon Himself, dies in our place, and satisfies the demands of God’s just wrath against sinners. Lastly, the Holy Spirit applies the work of salvation to the believer by grace through faith in the Gospel.

Socinus Resurrected: Answering objections to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (part 1)

2009-03-04T17:44:00.016-05:00

by Peter Phillips

(This post was originally part of a debate that broke out over at Biblicalthought, regarding one of Danny's posts on the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, which was part of a larger paper on the nature and extent of the atonement [which you can find here on our Blog]. I hope to represent the discussion for you in full. But first, I will give you a bit of background to the sort of objection Mungo Man presents: he is presenting a less careful, largely incomplete, and diluted version of the 16th century arguments of Faustus Socinus. Who objected to the Penal Substitutionary atonement on moral, logical, and exegetical grounds. However, the Socinians were refuted decisively by none other than John Owen, who was henceforth referred to as the "Hammer of the Socinians." But, just so we don't think that Socinus's thought is a theological aberration that appears only once in history, we've decided to post this little clip of Emerging Church leader Brian Mclaren, who essentially says the same thing as Socinus and Mungo Man). Have a listen: Interview

Mungo Man said:

Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.

If God is Love, why can’t he just forgive us of our sins without killing something. It’s pretty barbaric, don’t you think? God’s self-image was so damaged by Adam’s sin; his “righteous anger” (does God get red in the face?), so enraged that he had to kill his only Son.

Is Jesus is asking us to be more mature than His Father? Christ told us to love our enemies . . . but God can’t? He hates with “righteous anger”. I have to pray for those who curse me . . . but God get’s to punish them eternally? And you’re calling that divine justice?

So, Salvation is God working out his own personal issues? His inner conflict of trying to figure out how he can love me?

I’m not feelin’ the love.

Peter Phillips response:

I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity and occasion to defend the glorious doctrine of penal substitution. Recently, I was discussing with Danny the importance of these issues, especially with respect to the Gospel. I hope to show you by the end of this post (or perhaps one more) that you really don’t have good news if Jesus did not die a substitutionary death for his people. Secondly, I want to address some of your objections to this biblical doctrine (I’ve decided to do this second, because it will make more sense after I give you the holistic biblical context).

Why should anyone believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ? The first and foremost reason is that it is thoroughly biblical. From the Old Testament sacrificial system (which looks forward to Christ’s atonement) to the New Testament teaching (Jesus as the Lamb of God) of Christ’s propitiation for our sins, it is clear that the bible makes the substitutionary atonement of Christ central to its message. When you consider the institution of Passover during the Exodus (see Exodus 12), you plainly see the idea of subsitutionary atonement in view. The peculiar thing about the last plague upon Egypt was—that it was not specific in application to Egypt alone. The 10 plagues were God’s judgment upon Egypt for their worship of false God’s and other abominable practices, and thus, clearly an instance of God’s wrath towards sin and rebellion. However, the last plague is not directed at Egypt alone, but all the firstborns, including the Israelites (because they were caught up in the worship of the false gods of their Egyptian masters—Ezekiel 20:4-10). The only way to avert the wrath of God was to (by faith in God’s promise) slaughter the spotless Passover Lamb and cover the doorposts with blood. Thus, the Passover lamb was propitiatory (it turned away wrath) in nature. God would spare all the people who atoned for their sin in this fashion, but everybody else had God’s judgment fall upon them (death of their firstborns). Thus, the Passover/Exodus account is telling the story of how God always deals with sin and rebellion. He mercifully spares his people from his wrath and judgment, and he delivers them from their oppressive enemies by means of Judgment. One scholar says, “First, by means of the judgment of God there is salvation from the tyranny of the Egyptians. Secondly, by means of the Passover sacrifice there is salvation from the judgment of God. “ Paul picks this theme up in the NT when he states “Christ is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7).” Christ died as an atonement for our sins, and in his death he turned away God’s wrath or satisfied his just wrath of God upon sinners (which we rightly deserve). The book of Romans says that “the wages of sin is death” and we have all sinned, thus we all are under the wrath of God’s judgment apart from Christ (Rom. 1-3). If God let people get away with sin and never judged it, then he would cease to be just. A god who is not just is capricious and immoral, but this is not the nature of the God of Scripture. He is just. But, He also loves, and He is love, John says. Here is the love of God, says the Apostle Paul, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Why did Jesus have to die for us? because apart from Christ we are all by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), namely, objects of divine wrath (as sinners who willfully rebel against their creator). In God’s love he sent his Son to be a subtitutionary sacrifice in our place, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.

Eph. 2:1-10 says it nicely:

2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

May I submit to you the proposition, “that you can’t really know the love of God, until you understand his just wrath upon you as a sinner.” He is the ultimate example of suffering love as a willing, innocent substitute for sinful people who deserve justice, but get mercy and grace. That, my friend, is the love of God for His people.

Let me close with a few explicit texts on penal substitution in the NT:

1 John 2:2- “He [Jesus] is the propitiation [turn away wrath] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

This last text is quoting from Isaiah 53, which is all about the Messiah dying in our place as a suffering servant. Another OT idea that is about substitutionary atonement is the Day of the Atonement, which is about sacrifice and substitution to avert God’s wrath upon Israel for sin, and subsequently bring God’s forgiveness. (Lev. 16). The doctrine of Penal substitution is Biblical, and there is no getting around it!

Although they knew God.....

2009-02-22T19:55:00.005-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

(This is my response to David's question about Calvin's Sensus Divinitatis)

David said…"I don't think you addressed my question about the Sensus Divinitatis. At this point I'm not really concerned with whether or not there is a law written on all men's hearts (which I would not identify with the 10 commandments, by the way), but with Paul's clear statement in Romans that all men know God. They don't just know some aspects of God, but God. All men are aware that THE God exists, even though they suppress that truth, and they will be held accountable for that on the last day."

My response: You did ask about natural law as part of your question which is why I brought that up. I am curious as to what you believe about a universal natural law on that note. I think this is an important part of the discussion.

Moving on, I think I did partially discuss the way in which unbelievers know about God from creation in the previous post on sola scriptura. Here it is again: "I deal with this on a very basic level in the paper I am posting on Natural Theology when discussing Romans 1 and 2. It will be up some time soon. But to give you a short answer, according to Romans 1 unbelievers are suppressing the truth of God that they are said to know. They exchange the truth for lies, they are futile in their thinking, and their hearts are darkened. So while general revelation condemns them it by no means has the power to save them or even to reveal the attributes and plans of God because the unbeliever has plugged their ears and closed their eyes as Dr. Robert Morey so cleverly teaches in his lectures on the topic. God has given them over to their confusion and darkness of mind and therefore they cannot know the triune God apart from Scripture. The only way the natural man can see general revelation for what it is “a testimony that the true God is clearly at work everyday in ruling and sustaining the world” is that they be saved by the preaching of the word or the reading of Scripture."

Even when Calvin's sensus divinitatis is granted that all men in their heart of hearts know God it does not prove the validity of Natural Theology because the natural man is suppressing that knowledge and is darkened in his understanding and the only way he will be unsupressed for lack of better words is by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit followed by faith in the Gospel as found either by reading Scripture or hearing the Gospel preached. Then and only then, will they accept, believe, love, and worship the Triune God that they had been suppressing. Rom 1:21 “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Therefore natural theology is not the answer, revealed theology is. The Biblical revealed theologian never divorces his apologetics from special revelation because it would be so unnatural and counter Biblical for him to even think that setting the Bible in the closet and going out and doing natural theology from human reason would be foolish. To be clear, the paper is not against using evidences in apologetics, it is against the practice of natural theology where as J.P. Moreland defines “the study of the nature and existence of God from creation and not from Holy Scripture.”

I know you don’t think that the natural man can be saved by the use of natural theology in apologetics which is great. I still do not think that natural theology can be a supported apologetic approach from a Biblical worldview. What I am concerned with is the practice of a Christian placing the Bible aside and arguing for God from his fallen reason as if his philosophic reasoning is sufficient to prove God to the depraved sinner who is suppressing the truth that they know. I believe that both general revelation and special revelation is God’s revelation (my definition of general revelation is very different from the one proposed by the natural theologians at Biola). However, I think that Natural Theology is unbiblical due to the sinfulness of man and the revealed plan of God in applying the atonement to the elect sinners through the hearing or reading of special revelation as found in the Bible. With that being said, I am not interested in becoming a natural theologian or even submitting that the project is Biblical.

Does A Universal Natural Law Exist?

2009-02-21T18:08:00.010-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

(This is a response to a question that Peter and David asked me here on this blog about natural law)

David and Peter asked..."If the reformers maintained a type of natural law and the Sensus Divinitatus, were they in danger of violating Sola Scriptura on Danny’s view?"

Quote from Calvin's Institutes...“Now the inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables. (II.viii.1)”

My response: Good question guys. The quote above from Calvin seems to be teaching a moral law of the Ten Commandments written universally on everyone's heart. I have not read enough primary resources thus far in my study of Calvin and Luther to determine their exact view on this topic. I know that Peter has taken a course on Calvin and maybe he can help answer this question. Also, its seems that David already has an opinion on the topic by the way he posed his question. It would be great to here what you think that Calvin taught on this topic. However, I am not necessarily as interested in whether or not Luther and Calvin taught something as the end all in theological discourse. Once again I repeat the Bible alone would be the determining factor for me when it comes to my beliefs about doctrine and morals. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the reformers views in church history to the highest degree as it is compared with other theologians but I am not going to be swayed out of my view against a universal natural law if Calvin held to it. He was not infallible and was wrong in some areas for example his belief in infant baptism (I know Nate Taylor will love this example:) lets save that debate for another time). Like I said in my second post on Sola Scriptura I deal with Romans 1 and 2 in my paper that is being posted on natural theology. As for now, I am truly interested in both of your thoughts on the topic of Calvin and natural law. However, I will not be persuaded unless I am convinced that the Bible clearly teaches that there is a universal natural law written on the hearts of every person past, present, and future.

Did Adam have the ten commandment written on his heart in the garden prior to the fall whereby he new that it was necessary to observe the Sabbath on Saturdays? Did unbelievers in the past get convicted about not honoring the Sabbath on Saturdays? Do unbelievers today universally know that Sundays are a day now set apart to worship God? Moreover, do the heathen universally everywhere have this moral law on their hearts that communicates God's law to them? It seems to me that everyone has a conscience to one degree or another but I would be hard pressed to find in Scripture or in experience of the world every unbeliever knowing in their heart of hearts that they should keep the Sabbath or the other commandments universally. I am inclined to want to keep God's special and particular revelation limited to the Bible. Adam did not know exactly what God commanded of him even before the fall and that is why God had to personally reveal to Adam what he wanted him to do in the garden. When Moses received the Law he did not tell God that it was unnecessary because the people already have the tables written on their hearts. Special revelation given by God is specific not universal therefore I reject this idea of a universal moral law.

If I were to concede to any form of a universal moral law it would be the universal law of a morally corrupt humanity. Every person is universally born sinners due to their solidarity to Adam as the head of the human race and the imputation of Adams sin to every person universally implies a universal moral law that all will be born sinning from the womb. It is because of the fall and human depravity that I think natural theology is useless as an apologetic and evangelistic tool. Men are by nature suppressing the truth from the womb; the truth found in Scripture as well as the truth found in creation. This is why a person must be regenerated to be able to understand the Gospel as found in Scripture and be saved. Once they are saved I will concede that they can rightly see general revelation as it is and praise the Triune God who created the universe.

Sola Scriptura: If You Are A Protestant You Should Believe This Doctrine (part 2)

2009-02-20T19:12:00.011-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

(This is a response to David's question in regards to knowing the existence of God)

David said..."I would certainly agree that the Bible alone is the "grounds for the Christians doctrine and morals."

My response: I am glad that you hold to Sola Scriptura! Now it will be interesting to observe how that emanates itself in our discussion. For clearly Aaron has claimed Sola Scriptura, Calvinism, Reformed thinking etc. He also pointed out that Bill Craig and Alvin Plantinga claim to one extent or another all of the above as well (except Calvinism of course). Of course I disagree with what Aaron has been communicating and find his discussion about Craig and Plantinga rather amusing. I’m curious, do you agree with how Aaron has articulated himself in the comments section following the posts on Natural Theology and in his blog article? As a protestant, do you have any concern with what he has been saying or are you on board with him?

Example: Aaron said: “But needless to say this is what myself, Plantinga, and Craig believe the foundation of theistic belief to be. We do not believe that Natural Theology, or science, or history, or even the Bible are the actual foundation of theistic belief. But that the way in which God created us to function, the way He created the world, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit are the ultimate grounding of the Christian's belief and faith in the truth of Christian theism.”

This would make clear if we have the same definition of Sola Scriptura or not. Like I said, Aaron claims the term but fails to show that he actually holds to it in his writing which is why I am concerned.

David said… “Are you denying that all men are aware of the existence of THE God apart from Scripture?”

My response: I deal with this on a very basic level in the paper I am posting on Natural Theology when discussing Romans 1 and 2. It will be up some time soon. But to give you a short answer, according to Romans 1 unbelievers are suppressing the truth of God that they are said to know. They exchange the truth for lies, they are futile in their thinking, and their hearts are darkened. So while general revelation condemns them it by no means has the power to save them or even to reveal the attributes and plans of God because the unbeliever has plugged their ears and closed their eyes as Dr. Robert Morey so cleverly teaches in his lectures on the topic. God has given them over to their confusion and darkness of mind and therefore they cannot know the triune God apart from Scripture. The only way the natural man can see general revelation for what it is “a testimony that the true God is clearly at work everyday in ruling and sustaining the world” is that they be saved by the preaching of the word or the reading of Scripture. I am against natural (classical) apologetics, theology, philosophy etc. because of its failure to be able to lead a person to the triune God of Scripture. And anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura should think it utterly foolish to put the Bible aside and go on a crusade arguing for God in debate, evangelism, and apologetics when the natural man is dead spiritually and can only be made alive by the preached word. What is apologetics? In short it is a defense of the faith to non-Christians and a means of evangelism which is the goal of saving sinners. Can you reason a person into heaven apart from the Bible? No! Is an unbeliever regenerated and then saved after hearing the Kalam argument? No! Is it not the purpose of the natural arguments to convince people of God? Of course it is. Does the Bible teach that someone can be convinced about God and be saved by the naturalistic proofs? No! Is the practice of Natural Theology in apologetics a big waste of time and functioning with unbiblical presuppositions? Yes!

Sola Scriptura: If You Are A Protestant You Should Believe This Doctrine (part 1)

2009-02-19T21:23:00.021-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

(This is a continuation of a discussion going on in the comments section on the posts dealing with natural theology).

Aaron said…“I mean the Holy Spirit isn't in fact scripture and yet as a Calvinist you believe He actually produces the force and content of your faith, no?”

Danny said…“And I reject the idea that the Holy Spirit produces the content of my faith and I don’t know any Calvinist who believes that either for that matter.”

When responding to this statement originally I was thinking about the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). I was thinking more along the lines of beliefs or set of doctrines and not saving faith and conversion. With that being said I also explained in response that I believe that “the Holy Spirit regenerated me in order to believe the gospel as found in Scripture and to repent of my sins. However, I do not affirm that the Holy Spirit works independently from the Bible in some mystical fashion to give content outside of the Bible.” I would not be a Christian if it weren’t for the work of the Holy Spirit giving me a new heart and giving me eyes to see and ears to hear so that I would believe the truthfulness of the Gospel found in Scripture. Likewise, I would not have understood my own wickedness on my own nor would I have been convicted of my sins on my own nor would I have finally repented of my sins if it wasn't for the effectual work of the Holy Spirit in my life. So I must retract my initial negativity to your above question. However, I still believe that the Holy Spirit does not work independently from the truthfulness of the Scriptures giving us beliefs systems or doctrines that are not found in the Bible. I also reject the fact that people are saved by the Holy Spirit presenting them the Gospel in dreams or visions apart from them also reading the Bible or hearing the preaching of the Bible as God has intended to spread the Gospel (Romans 10). There would be no need for evangelism and we can leave it up to the Spirit to share the Gospel with the unbelievers if He did in fact work apart from the Scriptures in a mystical way. I do think that the Holy Spirit could do this because He is God but that due to the plan of the Trinity including humans in spreading the Gospel found in Scripture, the Holy Spirit does not go against this plan of using humans to present the Gospel to the lost by preaching or the personal reading of the Bible to convert sinners.

Aaron wrote… “You have all sorts of beliefs that the scriptures do not directly address. Theological beliefs.”

My reply: You are wrong Aaron, when it comes to my doctrine about God, man, salvation, sin, etc. it comes directly from the inerrant Scriptures. And when it comes to my morals I do not decide what I feel is right or wrong but look to determine what the Bible teaches. Obeying the moral standard from Scripture is not an easy task that I nor anyone else accept for Jesus Christ has ever accomplished. To the problem of my sinfulness and guilt I have found a solution. In the Bible alone! The Gospel is written down in the Bible and that’s where we should turn as our authority for our doctrine and morals as well as our preaching, apologetics, and evangelism.

Aaron wrote… “He [God] speaks through our pastors and through each other to each other in many many ways.”

My reply: Insofar as my pastor’s preaching, exhortation, and counsel are in accord with the Word of God then I am responsible to obey the truthfulness, exhortation, and any conviction that the Holy Spirit brings through my pastor or any other Christian for that matter because they are proclaiming the truth from Scripture.

Aaron wrote (found on his blog asfilmgoesby)… “But needless to say this is what myself, Plantinga, and Craig believe the foundation of theistic belief to be. We do not believe that Natural Theology, or science, or history, or even the Bible are the actual foundation of theistic belief. But that the way in which God created us to function, the way He created the world, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit are the ultimate grounding of the Christian's belief and faith in the truth of Christian theism. I am not sure but I think that Danny disagrees with this. I do not think that he should, because he is a Calvinist and holds to Sola Scriptura.”

My reply: I agree with you that Natural Theology, science, and history are not the foundation of my theistic belief. I vehemently disagree with you, Plantinga, Craig et al. that the Bible is not the actual foundation of theistic belief! And anyone who understands and holds dearly the reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura should be right along with me in disagreeing with what you have written. I am a protestant and it is because of this that I reject what you are writting and am wondering where all of your nuances and objections are comming from if you are in fact a protestant as well. You are sounding more like a defender of Rome or even more so the Eastern Orthodox Church than you are a reformed protestant.

The Bible alone has the message of salvation and we could not be saved apart from its message nor could we know about the Triune God without it. I will add NOTHING, subtract NOTHING, and do my best not to distort ANYTHING that is found in the Bible for the Scriptures alone have the power of the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit testifies to the Gospel found in the Bible. I do not believe what you have articulated that tradition, creeds, my corrupt and fallen human nature, and the creation itself are the ultimate grounding of the Christian’s belief. And I positively affirm right now, and Lord willing until the day that I die, that the Scriptures are the ultimate grounds for the Christians doctrine and morals! And of course, as the Scriptures are being preached to the sinner or read by the sinner the only way that the sinner will repent and believe in what is written is by the effectual work of the Holy Spirit.

Is Natural Theology Compatible With Biblical Revelation? (part 2)

2009-02-18T07:24:00.006-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Position #2: Revealed Theology

Theologians who believe that the epistemological starting place for belief in God is found in the written revelation of Scripture are by and large against natural theology and proponents of revealed theology. It is affirmed by these theologians that natural theology is a worthless project because the Bible, as opposed to nature is the authority in determining what God would have his people believe and how he wants them to live. Due to this rejection these theologians are not in the least interested in reasoning apart from the Bible or using creation as the tool to convince sinners about the nature and existence of God. In the Encyclopedia of Practical Christianity Dr. Robert Morey asserts that “even though many today do not want to hear this, the Bible does not give one kind word about Natural theology or philosophy. The attempt to discover truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty apart from and independent of Scripture is everywhere declared a miserable failure due to the sinful nature of man (1 Cor. 1:25-31).”[6] Dr. Morey, unlike J.P. Moreland and Thomas Aquinas is interested in Biblical revelation as the means to establishing his apologetic method and evangelism as opposed to studying and arguing for the nature and existence of God from creation. Hence, he has concluded that the Biblical witness leaves no room for the practice of natural theology and philosophy. Among other things, his Biblical understanding of the total depravity or inability of man leads him to emphatically reject natural theology and its unbiblical assumptions. The reformation doctrine of sola scriptura is the foundational theme in the apologetics, preaching, and theology of those who adhere to Biblical revelation as the basis for their knowledge about God. This is in strike contrast to most natural theologians who have human reason and experience as their starting point in philosophy and apologetics.

Revealed theologians tend to look dimly upon non-Christian philosophies in general and Greek philosophy in particular because of their many unbiblical errors. Dr. Robert McGregor Wright states that “…the Bible contain[s] no encouragement to the Christian apologist to develop a “natural theology” independently from Scripture, but that in fact such a project is a reversion from the biblical world-view, in the direction of pagan philosophy.”[7] As McGregor Wright points out revealed theologians see many inaccuracies with pagan philosophy. The concept of “natural law” is the most prominent error in this discussion. Dr. John Frame proclaims that “…the idea that there is some impersonal mechanism called “nature” or “natural law” that governs the universe is absent from the Bible.”[8] According to the Scriptures God is providentially ruling over his creation and has not set up impersonal laws to govern the world as Aquinas and his mentor Aristotle would have us believe. Due to the prominence of this belief in our modern culture it would take a great deal to overthrow the theory of “natural law,” However, for Protestants the absence of the concept of “natural law” in divine revelation should be more than sufficient to reject it as false.
___________________________________________
6. Morey, Robert A. "Natural Theology vs. Revealed Theology." In The encyclopedia of Practical Christianity. (Las Vegas, Nevada: Christian Scholars Press, 2003) 531. I have been greatly influenced by the Biblical argumentation of Robert Morey through his preaching, lectures, and books dealing with but not limited to epistemological foundations, natural theology, and sola scriptura. I am indebted to him for the Biblical apologetics and teaching on these issues that has help me to formulate my position for this paper.
7. Robert K. McGregor Wright. "Greek Origins of Natural Theology." In Journal of Biblical Apologetics Vol. 1, No. 1 (Las Vegas, Nevada: Christian Scholars Press, 2000) 8.
8. John M. Frame the Doctrine of God. (New Jersey: P&R Publishing Company, 2002).

Is Natural Theology Compatible With Biblical Revelation? (part 1)

2009-02-13T06:23:00.013-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

The Issue

The pursuit and study of God is the most important enterprise that humanity can involve itself in. However, not merely any god will suffice for there are many pagans who strive after gods and goddesses in vain because they do not exist. The pursuit of and devotion to the triune God of the Bible is the sole religious endeavor that is worthy of serious attention for He is the only deity that exists. Therefore, it is essential to determine how a person is to learn about and worship God. Orthodox Christianity has always placed Scripture as the ultimate source of knowledge for the Christian to determine what to believe and how to live. However, there are many Christians today who call themselves natural theologians who attempt to prove the existence of God apart from the Bible. These professing Christians who have read and believed in the Bible have decided to put the Scriptures aside and prove God without special revelation. The goal of this paper is not to determine merely whether natural theology works but whether it is Biblical.

Position #1: Natural Theology

In a lecture on apologetics J. P. Moreland defines natural theology as “the study of the nature and existence of God from creation and not from Holy Scripture.” He goes on to say that “part of natural theology involves knowing there is a god from the created world in some way or another.”[1] J. P. Moreland correctly defines natural theology and at the same time commits a categorical fallacy by lumping natural theology and general revelation together as if they were the same thing. This is one major presupposition of natural theology that will be examined later. In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology J. Van Engen defines natural theology as “truths about God that can be learned from created things (nature, man, world) by reason alone.”[2] The focus of natural theology and more specifically the natural theologian is to attempt to prove God by looking within himself to his reason and observing the natural world. Natural theology is humanistic in that it views man as capable within his own reasoning capacities to get to the nature and existence of god apart from Scripture. Ultimately the Bible is no longer necessary to learn about the existence and nature of God because God can be found by reasoning in a dark room or through observing “nature.”

Within natural theology there is a foundational reliance upon the Greek philosophic presupposition that there is a so called “natural law.” J. Van Engen points out that “the first great proponent of a natural theology distinguishable from revealed theology was Thomas Aquinas, the synthesizer of Greek philosophy and the gospel, who also laid the groundwork for notions of “natural law,” the ethical equivalent of natural theology.”[3] Thomas Aquinas is not interested in proving from Scripture that there is a “natural law” because it is an a priori given that he adopted from Aristotle. Aquinas was heavily reliant upon Aristotle frequently referring to him as “the philosopher” as if he were an infallible guild.[4] The bulk of Aquinas’ discussion about the doctrine of God focuses on rational argumentation and philosophic speculations. He does quote Biblical passages as proof texts but serious exegesis is absent. Thomas Aquinas begins his theological enquiry with the ontological argument for the existence of God and then moves to his five a posteriori proofs for the existence of God. He does not start with the Bible, rather he begins with his Reason stating that “…everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists in the intellect.”[5] Although Thomas Aquinas is better known for his a posteriori arguments for the existence of god it is important to note that he begins his theological study with the ontological argument and moves to his demonstration of God’s existence in nature, human reason, and experience apart from and independent of the Bible.
______________________________________
1. J.P. Moreland Arguments for the existence of God excerpts read by author. Disk 1, track 1
2. Van Engan, J. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p. 815
3. Ibid 815
4. Thomas Aquinas The Summa Theologica Vol. 1. Great Books of the Western World Vol. 17 p. 21
5. Ibid 11

Is there a present reign of Christ? (part 4)

2009-02-11T22:04:00.006-05:00

by Peter Phillips

Practical Relevance

Since it has been established that Christ is reigning presently in some sense, what is the practical relevance of this notion to the life of the Christian. There are several things worth mentioning at this point. First, is that the Christian can be confident that God is working out his kingdom plan through the present reign of Christ. The reign of Christ is a foretaste of the future blessing that awaits the believer, and therefore assures the Christian that God will complete what he has begun. Secondly, as Gushee and Stassen point out, the King has demonstrated, taught, and invited us to participate in His Kingdom purposes. So, the Christian can joyfully participate in the reign of God in Christ.[1] Several of the Kingdom blessings are part of the Christian experience now as we live as citizens of the Kingdom. In other words, the Christian can exemplify Kingdom values as they serve the King as his image bearers. Thirdly, the King has bound Satan, and thus we are able to plunder his goods, and this is due to the reign of Christ. Evangelism and power of the demonic realm are a result of Christ’s present reign (which includes His life, death, and resurrection). Lastly, as the Church continues to learn more about the kingdom of God and its extent in this world, it must foster an atmosphere of charity in disagreements (over tertiary issues) and seek to come to a consensus on that which is essential. Carl F. H. Henry said it best at the close of his essay, Apprehension Over Kingdom Preaching:

Contemporary evangelicalism needs (1) to reawaken to the relevance of its redemptive message to the global predicament; (2) to stress evangelical agreements in a common world front; (3) to discard elements of its message which cut the nerve of world compassion as contradictory to the inherent genius of Christianity; (4) to restudy eschatological convictions for a proper perspective…[2]

[1] Ibid.

[2] Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company,1947), 57.

Does the Bible teach free will? (part 2)

2009-02-06T16:20:00.003-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Peter asked…
“I found the Clark quote to be very helpful, although I think our Arminian brothers would love to lay claim to the fact that God is in control of everything.”

Danny's response…
The main focus of my article was to point out the joy and confidence that a believer should have in the all powerful God who is in control of history including the actions of man. Although I know that you are a Calvinist and that we have both been blessed to come away from an Arminian world and life view I think we need to reflect back on the teaching, lifestyle, prayers, doctrine (or lack there of), and worldview that we once had before our reformed understanding of Scripture and doctrine. The issue is not the fact that Arminians deny that God is powerful and in control. They will say those very words and talk about the sovereignty of God. The issue as you and I both know is their interpretation of the will of man, the sovereignty of God, the atonement, and anthropology (doctrine of man).

Maybe I should not only include Arminians in the discussion but also processians, Molenists, Mormons, Pelagians, JW’s, and even many different kinds of evangelicals etc. We can add more to the list who deny the meticulous sovereignty of God and His decrees. I do not make this list to say that if you are an Arminian you believe exactly what a Mormon does because that is not true however the common denominator in all of the above systems is that they all hold to libertarian free will.

Peter asked…
“What do you say to their objection that God's foreknowledge and omnipotence can assure that all things will work out according to his purposes? So the idea being, that God can use evil for his good purposes without being causally connected to it, because he foresees it and has the power to use it for good. Thus, the text you sighted would be read in a fashion that supports this notion.”

Danny's response...
If they say that God foresaw men by their own libertarian free will crucifying Jesus then the atonement was not a predetermined decreed act of God to the problem of man’s sinfulness and guilt. Instead of God creating a way for sinners to be loosed from His wrath He simply looked into the future and responded to man’s autonomous acts and foresaw them crucifying the incarnate Son and then God decided “wow, what an opportunity to use this for the good of saving sinners from hell”. If they do in fact use foreknowledge of libertarian acts of man then I would say that their interpretation is utterly wrong and that God cannot assure HIS purposes at all and any assurance that they speak of is merely an illusion. All God can do is “assure” that he will in fact respond to the libertarian “free from God” acts of man as they chaotically come about and hopefully everything will work out in the end.

We both would ardently disagree with this interpretation of Acts 4 and realize that there is no room for it after further examining the text as well as countless other passages throughout the Bible.

The issue comes down to the libertarian free will farce that these systems adhere to. Despite the fact that this passage refutes it they still hold to their free will because anything else would be unthinkable to them. So it comes down to the disobedience of going beyond what is written and believing in a fairy tale doctrine of free will that does not exist in Scripture. I will conclude with a portion of my original post that discusses the Arminian interpretation of Acts 4. God bless brother!

Danny's said…“A libertarian free will interpretation of Acts 4:23-31 would be as follows: Judas had the libertarian free will not to betray Christ and Pilate had the libertarian free will to let Jesus go and discontinue the punishment of death on the cross. You see, if God is not in control of history and man really did have libertarian free will then the world would be in utter chaos. If we picture God as an incompetent grandfather “up there” who is simply crossing His fingers that things would work out then we might as well stop praying and hide in our basements for fear of random catastrophes ending our lives. However, if we think of God as found in Scripture as the almighty Sovereign who is working all things together after the council of his will (Ephesians 1) then we can live our lives and preach the Gospel with power and confidence that God’s purposes in history will in fact come about.”

Augustine's "On Nature and Grace"

2009-02-01T14:45:00.012-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Introduction
I read Augustine’s treatise 'On Nature and Grace' for my final primary resource reading assignment for my church history class. It has been a breath of fresh air because I was able to read with excitement and agreement more than being critical and in constant disagreement as I was with my past readings. For example Justin Martyr’s 'first apology' was very helpful from a historical perspective however I could not help but constantly disagree with many statements that he made throughout his writings due to his blending of platonic thought with Christianity, confused soteriology (baptismal regeneration, works righteousness, libertarian free will), inclusivistic beliefs about the philosopher’s eternal destiny, and his denial of the exclusivity of Christ. Surprisingly, there was also much to be cautious about in my second reading: Athanasius’ 'On the Incarnation of the Word.' Athanasius taught that God had to redeem fallen humanity from their “non-existent” evil state (contrary to Augustine) and restore the lost image or nature of God to man. He even goes so far as stating that God would be unjust if He had not become incarnate and redeem fallen humanity. Athanasius writes, “Surely it would have been better never to have been created at all than, having been created, to be neglected and perish; and, besides that, such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all. It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself”. Athanasius was dead wrong in concluding that God must have redeemed people or else he would be morally in question because it is due to God’s unmerited grace alone that he chose to save anyone to begin with. My third reading report was Thomas Aquinas’ 'Summa Theologica' which was more Aristotelian than it was Christian and his natural reasoning for the existence of God was unbiblical and should be rejected. All this to say that Augustine was truly a breath of fresh air to read because although there were some things I disagreed with there is much more solid Biblical substance in Augustine than all of the first three authors combined.

Background
Augustine is writing against the monk Pelagius who taught that man’s nature was not distorted by sin. Pelagius believed that every baby born was in the same spot as Adam and Eve prior to the fall. He completely denied the necessity of the grace of God for a person to be saved and taught that everyone could by their own free will live perfect if they were willing. Pelagius taught that man by nature can be saved by living rightly. Augustine thought that Pelagius was wrong about the nature of man. He believed that man was dead in sins and trespasses and cannot be saved let alone do anything good apart from the grace of God. Augustine argued that if people are whole and unblemished by sin then there would be no need of a physician to heal them because they are not sick but righteous. This debate was at the heart of the Gospel and for that reason Augustine spoke very pointedly against Pelagius’ heretical teaching. Augustine wrote this about Pelagius; “I only wish that the ability he has displayed were sound and less like that which insane persons are accustomed to exhibit.”

What About the Heathen?
When dealing with the question about the fate of the heathen Augustine does not take the popular evangelical Arminian position. I was glad to see that he let Scripture determine his beliefs on this topic as opposed to his feelings and experience as many are in the habit of doing when discussing this issue. In light of a discussion of the possibility of a person being saved by doing good works and observing creation without God’s special revelation of the Bible Augustine reasons;

“Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my
part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then
Christ died in vain." [1136] For if he said this about the law, which
only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be
said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If
righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however,
Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be
justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath--in a word, from
punishment--except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.”

After reading this quote I hope it is fairly obvious why I appreciated this reading so much more than any other reading assignment for this class. It is interesting that even though Augustine was writing so early (4th century) he was dealing with many of the same issues that are debated in our churches today. Praise God for Augustine’s example by standing up for the heart of the Gospel and proclaiming that the atonement would have been in vain if it were possible for people to be saved apart form divine revelation and faith in Christ. Augustine argued along with Paul that if man could be saved by works of the law then Christ died in vain. In the same way he argued that if man can be saved through nature apart from the Bible then Christ equally died in vain. It is an evangelical fairy tail that many pastors and theologians will tell that the heathen in unreached tribes are being saved through their observance of nature and conscience. This is simply unbiblical because only through faith in Christ can a man be saved and made right before God.

Concluding thoughts
There are many other aspects of Augustine’s thought that I would strongly agree with. He was particularly capable arguing his view and making known the foolishness of unbiblical beliefs on certain subjects. For example: many in the eastern tradition like Athanasius taught that man could be made divine (theosis). To this Augustine says that “all who maintain that our progress is to be so complete that we shall be changed into the substance of God, and that we shall thus become what He is, should look well to it how they build up their opinion; for myself I must confess that I am not persuaded of this.” Augustine’s point is amusingly valid that anyone who claims that a person can have the same substance as God (or become God) should look into how they came up with their position. This seems to be a very obvious point but many Christians today should heed Augustine’s advice. We should be testing others teaching with the word of God and insofar as their teaching aligns with Scripture we should commend and encourage them, but insofar as their teachings (as illustrated above) are contrary to the Scriptures we should as Augustine be skeptical at least and outspoken at best against these teachings. Let us speak out against heresy and keep close attention to our lives and teaching so that we would save both ourselves and those who hear us (emphasis added, see. 1 Tim 4:16). Augustine’s anti Pelagian treatise On Nature and Grace is the first book I have ever read by him and I look forward to much more in the future. This was a great introductory work indeed. I am thankful for the primary source reading assignments this past semester because I have been able to observe current theological issues in light of the formulations and debates about them throughout the history of the church.

What is heresy?

2009-01-31T18:52:00.007-05:00

by Peter Phillips

Roughly, I would define heresy as false teaching that would not be in keeping with Christian Orthodoxy. Biblically, the term (αἵρεσις) was used to point out sects within Judaism or even pejoratively of Christians by 1st century Jews. Paul used the term to speak of those professing believers that taught false doctrine or had habitual immorality in their lives. The Easton Bible dictionary defines heresy as follows: ‘heresy’ is derived from…

…a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14 ; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character.

Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19).

In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1).

As I did a bit of research, I realized that heresy has a really nuanced definition in the Catholic church. Here is something from their website, “Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy.” However we nuance the term, our final standard ought to be Scripture when determining heresy. Sola Scriptura should always be the definitive locus for any discussion of heresy.

Is the Council of Nicaea an adequate standard of Orthodoxy for a 21st Century Christian?

What about Nicaea? I think that Nicaea is helpful to define basic Christian belief, but for the 21st century Christian, it would not help him deal with several clearly heretical teachings. For instance, Pelagianism would not be considered heresy if one only held to Nicaea as their standard for Orthodoxy. Let me list a few more problematic teachings which aren’t addressed by Nicaea, and then we will be able to see the necessity of examining modern and post-Nicaean heresy in the light of Scripture. One could hold to Nicaea and be a universalist, inclusivist, and deny the existence of hell or Satan. He could deny justification by faith (alone), preach a works based gospel, deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, (and simply affirm a spiritual one), and many more modern heresies would get through. I propose what the church has done historically, and that is to respond to false teaching as it arises on the basis of scripture. We must recognize Nicaea’s limitations historically, but affirm it completely.

How does Paul respond to false teaching?

In light of Paul’s continual fight against false doctrine and false brethren, how should we approach these issues today in the church? Paul, in Gal 2:4, calls the Judaizers false brothers because they preached another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), so therefore we ought to handle those who preach a false gospel in a similar manner (Of course, false teachers are to be distinguished from those who believe them). We need to guard the purity of the gospel from all those that would seek to oppose sound doctrine. Paul handles the false teachers in a stern fashion, but he lovingly corrected those who were sucked into their heretical teachings. I think that is a good model. I even noticed that he makes a judgement about their spiritual standing, calling them false brothers. Can we judge a false teacher as not a Christian, if he or she distorts the gospel? I would say so, given what Paul tells us in this passage. We are called to judge teaching, doctrines and fruit, but not hearts (Mt. 7:1-7, 18: 15-20; 1 Cor. 6:1-11; 1 Thes. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1-4). Paul considered doctrinal apostasy grounds enough to exclude people from the Church, but always with a desire for their repentance, if possible. I am not advocating we all go on a heresy hunt or legalism, but the healthy biblical examination of doctrine and teaching, especially when it comes to the gospel. In our post-modern culture it is easy to lose sight of the vital need to examine doctrine in the light of Scripture, because heresy did not die out in Paul’s day, or even the 4th century, but it is alive and seeking to devour the truth. Although it may have been given a face-lift, Christians need to be able to recognize heresy when they see it.

Romans lecture Part 21

2009-01-17T16:30:00.003-05:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 21

Opening prayer

Lecture update:

Romans chapter 7 was written so that you might not draw the wrong inferences from chapter 6.
In Romans 6 Paul proclaims that the Christian has died to the legal bondage and slavery to sin and in Romans 7 Paul reminds the Christian that sin has not yet died to them.
Paul is dealing with the significance and implications of justification in chapter 6.
Many false teachings have arisen due to the lack of understanding about Romans 6.

Romans 7:1-3

Paul is addressing people who have an awareness of the law.
Paul gives a perfect example using marriage to illustrate his point.
When the wife’s husband dies she is no longer bound to him legally and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
In the same way Romans 6 is not dealing with how a person is made righteous before God through works. And it definitely isn’t teaching that Christians can attain sinless perfection. Rather, in Romans 6 Paul is showing how after a person is saved or justified they are free from the power and bondage to sin as their legal master the same way a wife is released from her legal union with her husband if he dies.

Romans 7:4

Through the body of Christ we died to the legal requirements to the dominion and rule of Moses’ law. We died to the Law so that we might be joined to another to him who was raised from the dead that we might bear fruit for God.
We are no longer under Moses following the kosher food laws and rigorous Sabbath keeping found in the Old Covenant, we are under the New Covenant and Christ is our master and we follow his commandments.
In the Sermon on the Mount we see Christ saying that “Moses said this but I say….”

Romans 7:5-6

Paul is saying that the Mosaic Law abiding Jews have been released from the Law of Moses which once aroused all kinds of sinful passions so that they can serve in the newness of the Spirit and not the oldness of the letter.
Jesus teaches that it is not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean but what comes out of your heart that makes you unclean. And Mark adds that Christ has made all foods kosher. We were released from the old Mosaic Law having died to that from which we were bound.
Under the Old Covenant there was no guarantee that you were a true believer with a regenerate heart. People kept the Law because of threats, fear, and punishment. “If you do this you will live.”
Under the New Covenant our obedience should be motivated by the Spirit of God because we love the Lord Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit moves us to obey Him. This is the difference between legal obedience and evangelical obedience and the difference between being motivated by the letter of the Law to live a holy life or by the Spirit of the law to live a holy life.

Romans 7:7

The apostle Paul is always having to think ahead to protect misunderstandings that may arise from his teaching.
Since we used to be bound by the Law, irritated by the Law, and now we have been set free from that Law people might come to the false conclusion that the Law was evil.
Was the Law evil? May it never be!
The problem is not the Law but the person that you see in the mirror.
Paul says that the Law has a good function and a good purpose. We would not have come to know sin accept through the law. Paul would never have known about coveting if the Law had not said “you shall not covet.”
This is dealing with the subject of epistemology.
Epistemology is the science of discovering how you know what you know or how can you know anything.
Paul is saying that if God had not revealed in Scripture certain Laws he would not have any idea what they were and he would continue breaking them never knowing what he was doing was wrong.

Romans 7:8

As Paul looked into his heart he thought he was a pretty good fellow, then when he looked into the mirror of the law (thou shall not covet) he realized that he was not a good person. The more that Paul understood the Law the more profoundly he understood how he has breaking that law.
Apart from the Law sin is legally dead meaning that we do not know that it exists and it is not there bothering you.

Romans 7:9-13

Paul was once alive apart from the Law and in the same way people who are apart from the Law can easily think they are good people who help their neighbor, who are not drug addicts or prostitutes. When the commandment came sin became alive and he died in his own estimation of himself. After the Law reveals sin we look at ourselves differently knowing that we are not spiritually alive but spiritually dead.
The commandment which as to its goal had life in mind proved to result in death. We have broken in principle all the commandments when we have violated one of them.
The law is holy, righteous, and good and reveals our sin to us, therefore we are the problem and our sin is the issue and not the law.
We broke the law and continue breaking it and cannot be saved through the law.
The only way we will ever get eternal life is as a gift of God by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Is there a present reign of Christ? (part 3)

2009-01-13T15:08:00.011-05:00

by Peter Phillips

The Present Reign of God in Christ

Some people tend to object to a present reign of Christ in the “Kingdom discussion,” because it is clear that Christ has not conquered in the fullest sense, specifically with respect to coercively reigning over his enemies.[1] However, when discussing this issue it is helpful to think of Christ’s reign as something that comes in degrees over time as God’s Kingdom plan is being worked out in history. That is why the claim is not to say that Christ is reigning entirely, but in some sense, and a sense that is definitely worthy of note. Therefore, the operative question is, in what sense is Christ reigning presently? To some extent, this question has been answered in the prior section, namely, that Christ is reigning in the sense that he has ushered in the last stages of God’s Kingdom plan. These include the inauguration of the blessings of the new age, which are salvific in nature, but will one day include the whole cosmos and a political Kingdom ruled by the King Jesus. In his book Progressive Dispensationalism, Craig A. Blaising points out, “Both physical and spiritual blessings are given by Jesus. He makes atonement and forgives sins. He will give the Spirit, and He will raise the dead. He will bring peace to the earth and make it fruitful. He will give both joy and gladness.”[2] Therefore, part of the salvific blessings that are apart of the present reign of Christ are his atonement, forgiveness of sins, His resurrection (which is a firstfruits of our own), peace with God, and the joy and gladness that is a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 15). After all, Paul speaks of the present reign of Christ in this context when he says, “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:25 ESV). It seems clear that Paul sees a present reign of Christ in some sense, and in light of the fact that His enemies have still yet to be put under His feet (Heb. 10:12-13). New Testament Scholar Darrell Bock gives us several clues as to what sense Christ is reigning:

Jesus rules in the present Kingdom over the whole earth, but it is not yet a full, direct rule over every person (Heb. 2:5-8), nor does it reflect its future political and sociological character. And yet as Acts 2 suggests and other passages make clear, Jesus does have authority over every person now, for those who do not join him now will one day face him as Judge. Then Jesus will visibly demonstrate and assert the rule he has now (Acts 10:42-43; 17:30).[3]

Therefore, regardless of the fact that Christ’s enemies are not “under his feet,” one still has good New testament grounds to say that Christ is reigning in a significant sense, yet not entirely or directly over every person. However, one does not even need these stronger claims to defend the thesis the author is proposing, but rather can demonstrate it from the life and teachings of Christ.

When one looks at the life and ministry of Christ they can also see clear signs of the present reign of God in Christ. Hoekema notes that there are at least five signs of the presence of the Kingdom, which for our purposes, can be seen as signs of the present reign of Christ—power over demons, the fall of Satan, the proliferation of miracles, the proclamation of the gospel, and the bestowal of the forgiveness of sins.[4] The first evidence of the present reign of Christ in some sense is the power and authority he displayed over demons. Jesus clearly demonstrated rule over the demonic realm (Mark 5, Mt. 12), even to the point that they displayed fear in his presence, because they knew he had the power and authority to cast them into judgment (Mark 5:1-20). After being accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus told the Pharisees, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt. 12:28). Here he equates the power to cast out demons as being evidence that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Therefore, in a certain sense, Christ is reigning over the demonic realm.

The second sign of the present reign of Christ is the defeat and fall of Satan, although not in the fullest sense. Hoekema points out that Luke’s Gospel speaks of Satan’s fall from heaven, and just after a demonstration of Christ’s power over demons.[5] Therefore, the Gospels go out of their way to point to the defeat of Satan by the Messianic King, but in what sense has Christ defeated Satan presently. The New Testament points to the death and resurrection of Christ as part of Satan’s undoing, which are clearly a part of our present reality (1 Cor. 15). However, the Gospel of Mathew goes so far as to say that Christ has bound Satan in some sense (Mt. 12:22-32). Perhaps it would be helpful to look at this text in light of the reign of Christ. After being accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus says:

Every Kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house (Mt. 12:25-29).

A few things are necessary to point out with respect to this passage. First, as has already been noted, Jesus declares that the kingdom is present as evidenced by his power to cast out demons. Second, he makes clear that Satan must be bound in some sense, in order to plunder his goods. Part of the reign of Christ then, includes the binding of Satan in such a way that the King can plunder the strong man’s goods. The present reign of God means that Christ has the power to plunder the souls of men from the kingdom of darkness and transfer them to the kingdom of light.[6]

A third sign that the reign of God had begun in the person of Christ was the performance of miracles by the Lord Jesus and his followers.[7] When John the Baptist begins to doubt the identity of Jesus as the Christ, Jesus points to his performance of miracles as a sign that the Messianic King had come, and the kingdom had arrived with him in some sense (Mt. 11:4-5). Christ’s miracles display that on one level His reign extends over all of creation. It is also worth noting that the fourth sign of the coming Kingdom would be that the poor would have the gospel preached to them, which Jesus regards as evidence worthy to share with John. The power of Satan has been curtailed on a significant level, because the gospel can set men free (Rom. 1:16).

Lastly, the ability of Christ to forgive sins and redeem humanity is a sign of the presence of the Kingdom of God.[8] After healing the paralytic in the second chapter of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus declares that the ability to forgive sins was proof “that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (2:10).[9] Furthermore, several places in the Gospels either equate the Kingdom of God with salvation or make clear that salvation is the entry point for the Kingdom (Mk. 10:30; Jn. 3, 5:39). Gushee and Stassen strongly emphasize the reign of God (in Christ) as being realized through the deliverance and salvation of God in their book. They state, “God’s salvation is the kingdom of God, and it means that—at last—God has acted to deliver humanity and now reign over all of life, and is present to and with us, and will be in the future.”[10] Admittedly, Gushee and Stassen can tend to speak of reigning language in a very strong sense, but in their book Kingdom Ethics there are plenty of arguments rooted in the fulfillment of Isaiah that can motivate the idea of a present reign of Christ in some sense.

After investigating this issue more fully one might be compelled to ask why so much evil exists if Christ is reigning. However, as has been noted before, Christ’s reign is not fully manifested in its present state, but He will eventually settle all accounts as Judge. Additionally, Christ taught parables that directly spoke to this issue, in which he describes the progressive nature of the Kingdom of God (Mt. 13). It would not be hard to motivate a progressive reign of Christ, in fact, that is exactly what this paper has argued. The reign of Christ is like a mustard seed, but it will become a giant bush eventually.[11] The Kingdom of God is advancing as God is executing His salvation program throughout history.

[1] Mark Saucy, Lectures on the Kingdom of God, 2008.

[2] Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993), 248.

[3] Darrell L.Bock,“The Reign of the Lord Christ”in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church:The Search for a Definition,ed.CraigA.Blaising,54.

[4] Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 46-47.

[5] Ibid

[6] Saucy, Kingdom of God Lecture, 2008.

[7] Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 46-47.

[8] Ibid., p. 47.

[9] Ibid., p. 47 This gave proof of His Messianic credentials (deity) and evidence of the Kindom.

[10] Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 29.

[11] Ibid., p. 29.

For whom did Christ Die (part 7)

2009-01-12T18:30:00.002-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part5 conclusion)

In the introduction to John Owens The Death of Death in the Death of Christ Dr. Packer eloquently communicates God’s effective plan of salvation, “Three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing."[17] The triune Godhead is unified in the plan of redemption. The four point Calvinists change the above quote to God elects some, Christ dies for all, and the spirit applies redemption to some. Therefore you have God the Father and God the Holy Spirit working for the elect and God the Son working for the whole world. This is a real problem because the Godhead cannot be in disunity whatsoever especially when it comes to the plan of salvation. Ware’s argument that the Bible specifically connects the atonement to the elect but does not directly leave out the non-elect fails to persuade me. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:6 “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” If Dr. Ware’s “plain reading of the problem texts” are incorrect as I began to try to portray in the discussion of 1 Timothy 2:4 about the meaning of the words “all” and “world” then his logic about the above point would be going beyond what is written. Dr. Ware teaches hermeneutics and the principle that one must not always interpret a passage at face value. He even deals quite competently with this subject refuting open theists in his book God’s Lesser Glory. Dr. Ware states that “…it is apparent that the underlying issue in the interpretation of these Jeremiah texts, as with all the proposed ‘openness’ texts here considered, is whether Scripture gives us sufficient warrant for looking beyond the straightforward understanding of these texts in order to discern their intended meaning."[18] It is my argument that Scripture does indeed give us good and sufficient warrant to interpret these so-called problem anti-Calvinist texts in a way that takes into account these interpretive principles.

Good exegetical work and faithful Biblical interpretation takes into account the entire revelation found in Scripture as well as the passages of full mention on certain Biblical doctrines. It is my desire to continue to study these texts as well as the doctrine of the atonement in order to correctly understand the Bible. I am not naïve enough to think that this discussion has exhaustively dealt with the Calvinists problem texts however; I have started to scratch the surface on some very plausible if not accurate ways of interpreting them. I also realize that my understanding and critique of Dr. Ware’s position is not exhaustive in the least. This is just the beginning of what I hope to be a constant polishing and sharpening of my beliefs about the wondrous doctrine of the atonement. Above all, I desire to understand the truth and I will continue to study and marvel about the nature and extent of the atonement.

[17] Packer, J. I. Introduction to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. P. 6

[18] Ware, Bruce Gods Lesser Glory P. 79

Is there a present reign of Christ? (part 2)

2009-01-12T01:20:00.008-05:00

by Peter Phillips

Already/Not Yet

The question regarding the timing of the Kingdom of God has been one of considerable debate throughout the centuries, and it will have a significant impact on whether one thinks Christ is reigning presently or not. However, to set the proper context for “the reign of Christ” discussion, it will be helpful to lay some theological groundwork. The problem of timing has everything to do with the seemingly contradictory body of textual support the Scriptures provide on this issue. Ladd introduces the threefold problem that scripture presents, as follows:

(1) Some passages of Scripture refer to the Kingdom of God as God’s reign. (2) Some passages of Scripture refer to the Kingdomof God as the realm into which we may now enter to experience the blessings of His reign. (3) Still other passages refer to a future realm which will come only with the return of our Lord Jesus Christ into which we shall then enter and experience the fullness of His reign. Thus the Kingdom of God means different things in different verses.[1]

Therefore, the task of the theologian is to have a broad enough view that can account for all the biblical data, yet be true to the context of each relevant passage. For the purposes of this paper, and the personal convictions of the author, the inaugurated eschatological view seems to make the most sense of the biblical data.

The basic idea behind an inaugurated eschatology of the Kingdom is the fact that there is a sense in which one clearly sees a present Kingdom in Scripture (primarily in the Gospels), and yet, one can readily see a body of evidence that the Kingdom is an event yet future. Thus, Jesus could say, “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven [God] is at hand” (Mt. 4:17), and without batting an eye, he could pray, “Your Kingdom come, your will be done” (Mt. 6:10). Jesus declared that the Kingdom of God had burst onto the scene of this world in His own person and ministry.[2] Hoekema explains, “We may say, therefore, that Jesus himself ushered in the Kingdom of God whose coming had been foretold by the Old Testament prophets. We must always see the Kingdom as indissolubly connected with the person of Jesus Christ.”[3] Therefore, inaugurated eschatology sees the Kingdom as “inaugurated” or brought into this world in the person and work of Christ, and yet still awaiting a future consummation when the Messiah King rules over the new heavens and earth. The Kingdom of God is actually in an “already here,” but “not yet” fully consummated state.

One important highlight of the inaugural view of the Kingdom of God is that it emphatically demonstrates that God’s Kingdom is present in the world in some sense, and dynamically so. Ladd maintains:

The Kingdom in this age is not merely an abstract concept of God’s universal rule to which men must submit; it is rather a dynamic power at work among men…. Before the apocalyptic coming of God’s Kingdom and the final manifestation of his rule to bring in the new age, God has manifested His rule, His Kingdom, to bring to men in advance of the eschatological era the blessings of His redemptive reign.[4]

Therefore, the “already” aspect of the inaugurated view is clearly showing that God is giving a foretaste of his not yet fully consummated Kingdom, in which the blessings of the age to come are spilling out into this age, and preeminently through the person and work of Christ. The reign of God, so to speak, has begun in Christ’s coming. In their book Kingdom Ethics, Gushee and Stassen attempt to show just how significant this foretaste of the Kingdom really is, “Our argument thus far has been that Jesus came announcing the reign of God; that the prophet Isaiah—to whom Jesus frequently referred—offers us a rich picture of the coming reign of God as a state of affairs characterized by God’s salvation and deliverance, God’s presence, justice and peace, and great joy.”[5] Gushee and Stassen argue that God is reigning now through Jesus Christ, because His person and work have ushered in the salvation blessings of the Kingdom, though they are careful not to say that the Kingdom is fully consummated. Yet, if this is true, which the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies seems to suggest, then one can confidently conclude that God is reigning in some sense through Christ.

[1] Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 22.

[2] Luke 4:17-30

[3] Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 43

[4] Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 139.

[5] Glen Stassen and David Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 28.

Is there a present reign of Christ? (part 1)

2009-01-09T16:10:00.013-05:00

by Peter Phillips

Introduction

The grand theme of the Scriptures is without a doubt the Kingdom of God as revealed through the Messiah, Jesus Christ.[1] From the opening verses of Genesis to the closing lines of Revelation, God’s Kingdom is being proclaimed. He is the Sovereign King of the universe, who rules over the cosmos, and yet, there is a specific Kingdom program being worked out in history. The biblical portrait is so clear that systematic theologian Robert Saucy says, “The establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth is, in fact, the ultimate goal of biblical history.”[2] However, many questions arise when thinking about a topic as broad as the Kingdom of God. For the purposes of this paper, I would like to focus on the present realities of the Kingdom, but not so as to downplay the significance of the yet future consummation of God’s Kingdom program. Specifically, I would like to argue that Christ is reigning now in some sense, but the fuller consummation of that reign has yet to be realized. My paper will take the following structure. Briefly, I would like to sketch the meaning of the Kingdom of God, illustrate the already/not yet portrait that the Scriptures give of the Kingdom, and then argue for the present reign of Christ in some sense. Lastly, I would like to discuss the practical relevance of my thesis to the life of the believer.

The Meaning of the Kingdom of God

Certain difficulties arise when discussing the nature of the Kingdom of God. To start with, Jesus never defines the Kingdom of God explicitly, although he discusses the Kingdom more than any other subject.[3] New Testament scholar George Eldon Ladd underlines this difficulty stating, “The critical problem arises from the fact that Jesus nowhere defined what he meant by the phrase. We must therefore assume either that the content of the phrase was so commonly understood by the people as to need no definition or that the meaning of Jesus’ proclamation is to be interpreted in terms of his total mission and conduct.”[4] In light of the lack of explicit definitions in the gospels, it is helpful to consult the biblical data as a whole to illuminate the meaning of the Kingdom. There are two words the Bible primarily uses to speak of the Kingdom: malkuth (Old Testament Hebrew) and basileia (New Testament Greek).[5] Ladd notes, “The primary meaning of both the Hebrew word malkuth in the Old Testament and of the Greek word basileia in the New Testament is the rank, authority and sovereignty exercised by a king.”[6] With respect to the Kingdom of God, then, it is clear that the main way in which the Bible uses the phrase is to speak of the reign or sovereign rule of God. Whether it is God’s reign over creation, His reign over His people or the subjection of His enemies, the Scriptural phrase means the reign of God as King. As the Psalmist says, “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His Kingdom rules over all” (Ps. 103:19).

Although it is clear that the primary meaning of the Kingdom of God is the “reign of God,” one cannot escape the idea that the Kingdom involves a realm as well.[7] After all, a king needs a realm in which his rule is being worked out. Therefore, any discussion of Kingdom is incomplete without acknowledging the fact that God’s rule implies a reign over a realm of some sort—whether it is cosmic, nationalistic, or in the heart of believers. Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema is helpful in this vein, as he notes, “The Kingdom of God, therefore, is to be understood as the reign of God dynamically active in human history through Jesus Christ, the purpose of which is the redemption of his people from sin and from demonic powers, and the final establishment of the new heavens and the new earth.”[8] Hoekema rightly points out that the temporal sphere in which the Kingdom of God is being worked out is human history, and Jesus is the Messiah King who was brought forth by God through the Israelite nation to redeem his people and conquer his enemies, the last of which is death. Therefore, in the Scriptures one can clearly see the ultimate cosmic reign of God in His restoration of a new heaven and earth (Rev. 20-21; Rom. 8:18-25), the nationalistic reign in and through His people (2 Sam. 7; Isa. 60), and the individual reign of God in the hearts of believers (Jer. 31:31-34).

[1] Robert Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 81.

[2] Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 81.

[3] Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 44.

[4] George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 122.

[5] George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Eerdmans. 1959) 19.

[6] Ibid, 19. However, basileia can mean sphere or realm in the NT, but this is a secondary usage of the term.

[7] Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 83

[8] Hoekema, The Bible and the Future,45.

Reflections on Calvin's Institutes (part 2)

2008-12-26T18:27:00.010-05:00

by Peter Phillips

How can we see Calvin's theology applied in some real situations that the church is facing today? For instance, what would Calvin say to the question of whether or not someone could be saved apart from Christ, or whether someone can be saved without faith in Christ, by simply being a “good” pagan? Personally, I think Calvin would have a theological coronary over the suggestion that there is salvation outside of a saving knowledge of Christ our Redeemer. Regarding this very issue, he says, “Surely, after the fall of the first man no knowledge of God apart from the Mediator has had the power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:24). For Christ not only speaks of his own age, but comprehends all ages when he says: “This is eternal life, to know the Father to be the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent” (John. 17:3). Thus, all the more vile is the stupidity of those persons who open heaven to all the impious and unbelieving without the grace of him whom the Scripture commonly teaches to be the only door whereby we enter into salvation (John 10:9). But if anyone would like to restrict this statement of Christ to the publishing of the gospel, there is a ready refutation: it was the common understanding of all the ages and all the nations that men who have become estranged from God (Eph. 4:18) and have been declared accursed (Gal. 3:10) and children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) without reconciliation cannot please God [Rom. 8:7-8].” (II.VI.1). Calvin has no place for people coming to God apart from Jesus Christ. In fact, we are totally unable to come to God on our own, because depravity and corruption has so twisted the hearts of mankind such that we universally rebel against God until we are transformed by grace (Rom. 3; Eph. 2). General Revelation is unable to save us, but it clearly reveals God and renders us inexcusable before Him (Rom. 1). Therefore, the Muslim or Hindu are held accountable for their sin and rejection of the true and living God, regardless of whether they adhere to the tenants of their respective false religion. Jesus himself said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44).” Furthermore, we cannot even know the Father unless we have the Son. As Jesus proclaims, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6).” If Jesus says there is no other way to the Father than through Him, then I would say the exclusive nature of Christianity and faith in Christ is a divine prerogative.

This issue reminds me of a conversation I got into recently as I was studying Calvin at the Java Co. A large man came up to me and asked if I was reading the Bible. I told him that I was reading the 16^th century Reformer, John Calvin. He sort of snickered and said, “Are you a Calvinist?” I replied in the affirmative, because you have got to represent! After that, the door was open, and I was able to share with him that Calvin had a high view of Scripture and has significantly impacted the Protestant tradition. After we talked for a bit, I found out that he was a professing believer and that he formerly attended a Calvary Chapel. About ten minutes into our discussion he hits me with a heavy dose of theological skepticism, and at the pinnacle of this he says, “I think it is kind of narcissistic for Christians to claim Jesus is the only way…you mean to tell me that Jesus is going to send people from all those other religions to hell?” Shortly after that, I began with a discussion of about the total depravity of humanity, and then worked right on through to Book Two of the Institutes, which deals with Christ the Redeemer. Finally I explained to him that confessing Christians should affirm what Christ Himself taught, because the Word of God is the final standard for what we believe about these issues. This is not simply my idea, but the sure testimony of Jesus and the whole New Testament. Nobody can be saved apart from a saving faith in Christ (Act. 4:12; Rom. 1:16, 3:23-26; Eph. 2:8).

By way of summary, I believe that evangelicalism is in desperate need of the theology of John Calvin, which is essentially a theology of the Bible. His writings are as Biblically rich as they are relevant for our day. Much of the theological problems that the Christian faces today have been answered over 400 years ago by Calvin, and the Christian would do well to read Calvin so that he can have the benefit of one of the greatest theological minds of Christendom. Calvin was a master exegete, a brilliant systematician, and well versed in historical theology. We only cut ourselves off from a great wealth of knowledge when we fail to read and reckon with this gifted teacher of God’s Word. He was a man who raised the banner of truth, defended the vitality of Sola Scriptura, and as the young folk say in our day, “He brought it!”

Reflections on Calvin's Institutes (part 1)

2008-12-21T19:34:00.011-05:00

by Peter Phillips

(This post is the product of spending 10 weeks studying Calvin's Institutes. It's a short musing on the importance and relevance of his theology and life for our day)

During the past ten weeks it has been a joy to explore the life and theology of John Calvin. I found myself continually thanking God for the amazing gifts He pours out on His people, especially gifting teachers such as Calvin to help us understand holistic Biblical theology. Taking the Bible in one hand and reading the Institutes along side of it has really helped me see the vital importance of understanding historical theology as it has come down to us over the centuries. Many people in the evangelical Church today are just plain ignorant of historical theology, which leads to an ignorance of theology in general. Within the (Visible) Church today there is massive confusion about the core truths of the historic Christian faith. There are people within evangelicalism who think that Christ is one of many ways to God, or that people can be saved through Christ without actually believing in Jesus, such as a faithful Muslim who never hears of Christ. But, what would Calvin think? Would not the leaders of the reformation be up in arms over such denials of the orthodox claims of Christianity and the plain teaching of Scripture? Sola Scriptura is no longer the banner of the average confessing evangelical. They would rather interpret scripture based on feelings or experience or pure philosophical speculation. Oh, how we need to hear the voice of John Calvin in our day! Calvin was a man who stood for the truth of the Gospel, and he would combat anything that perverted the purity and integrity of that Gospel. Evangelicalism has lost its doctrinal spine and has become so complacent that it is willing to allow core truths of the faith to be carried off in the postmodern current and swept into the abyss of relativism. May it never be so! May the Church wake up and continue to raise the banner of truth, defend the historic creeds, and stand upon the Scriptures.

Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is a rich display of a man with deep knowledge of the Bible coupled with a thoroughgoing understanding of historical theology. One sees Calvin defending orthodoxy, and at the same time, bringing to light the heretical doctrines of the day. He was not afraid to call out the deceptive teachers as “dogs” and “pigs,” and expose that which he felt was detrimental to the Church and distorting the truth of the Word of God. Today, many Christians do not know the difference between the Mormon gospel and the Christian Gospel; they would not know a “dog” if it bit them in the hindquarters. In fact, just the other day, I ran into an evangelical precisely as a cultist from the World Mission Society Church of God was seducing him with false teaching, and convincingly I might add. I happened to be reading Calvin in a coffee shop when they sat down next to me. Eventually we all got in a dialogue and discussed the theological position of the cult versus the historic Christian confession, and there were so many differences (life or death one’s, at that) that it was mind-blowing. God gave me the opportunity and wisdom to help that misguided brother into a right understanding of the gospel and out of the clutches of the cultist. What made me nervous about the whole situation was that this evangelical was a committed churchgoing Christian, and he could not distinguish blatant heresy and false teaching from the true gospel. It’s no wonder God is raising up a reformed resurgence in America and within evangelicalism. We need to address the theological ignorance within the evangelical community and stand up for the doctrines of the reformation and historic creeds when they are under assault in our cultural milieu. Calvin is just the sort of theologian and pastoral heart we need to hear again today.

For whom did Christ die? (part 6)

2008-12-16T08:28:00.010-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part 4)

Dr. Bruce Ware proposes an interesting set of arguments coming from a modified Calvinist position. He holds to what he calls the multiple intentions view of the atonement. He views the atoning work of Christ as being both limited and unlimited. According to his class outline and course lectures Bruce Ware views the extent of the atonement as being a complex act of God that is multifaceted.[9] Christ's death was made to secure the salvation of the elect as well as dying for the sins of the whole world so that anyone who believes will be granted salvation. The multiple intentions view of the atonement accounts for a variety of Biblical passages that seem to be contradictory. The atonement passages that use the language “world” and “all” can be read plainly to actually mean that he died for everyone (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 2:1). On the contrary, passages that speak about the atonement being applied to the elect of God, the sheep, or the church can also be affirmed (Ephesians 5: 25-27; Revelation 5:9; Titus 2:14). In defense of his position he would explain to the person who holds to particular redemption that although he realizes and wholeheartedly believes that Christ died specifically for the elect the Bible never says that he died only for the elect. Another argument Dr. Ware uses is that unlimited atonement makes a bona fide offer of salvation possible. If Christ did not die for everyone then we could not tell people with certainty that Jesus died for them personally.[10] Walter Elwell adds to this argument in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology in his representation of general redemption with the argument that the unbelievers “are lost, not because Christ did not die for them, but because they refuse God’s offer of forgiveness."[11] Ware goes on to explain that Christ’s death actually adds an additional basis of judgment to the people who reject Christ because they are rejecting the one who died for them.[12] The last argument that Bruce Ware uses is the necessity of saving faith argument.[13] He argues that if everyone, including the elect prior to their faith is under the condemnation of God then faith accompanied with the atonement is necessary for salvation (Ephesians 2:1-3). Therefore, the atonement alone makes salvation possible to all people and the subjective faith of sinners is required for it to be applied to them to appease the wrath of God. Bruce Ware is interested in correctly handling the scriptures and has found that this view of the atonement is the best way to interpret the whole scope of Biblical passages on the subject.

The limited atonement position has a wide variety of arguments; this first argument will specifically address Dr. Ware’s interpretation of scripture on the extent of the atonement. For example, passages that are found in the New Testament that use the language “world” and “all” do not have to apply to all people who ever existed. 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. William Hendriksen explains that, "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the Gentiles (v.7). He is thinking of rulers and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews, and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in [the] public worship [at Ephesus] not a single group be omitted."[14] This seems to be a better interpretation than saying that God’s desire is contradictory to his decree. God chose a specific people to show mercy and this eternal decree of God cannot be contradictory to His will. Gary Long brings up a great question and reply to the unlimited atonement interpretation of this passage that God desires the salvation of every person. “Can God decree something contrary to His inclination or nature? No, humanly speaking, God chooses (i.e., decrees) in harmony with His Holy nature. And is it not true that what God's soul "desireth [thelo], even that He doeth" (Job 23:13)? In summary, if God desires [thelo] to save all mankind absolutely, then each and every individual will be saved, for what He desires to do He does."[15] To be fair Bruce Ware and most four pointers would probably differentiate between God’s decree and his desire and agree that He only decreed the election of only some to be brought to salvation through their faith because the unregenerate is incapable of producing saving faith. With that being said it seems arbitrary for Dr. Ware to communicate that Christ died to make salvation possible for all people and that there is a “sense in which God desires all to be saved” when he affirms the special sense of Gods love for the elect.[16] If God chose to save some people then it should follow that he also died for the one’s whom He predestined to be the objects of His mercy. Now that some discussions about both the unlimited and definite atonement interpretations have been addressed I will give reasons and justification for the position that I hold in regards to the extent of the atonement.

____________________________________________

9 Ware, Bruce. Extent of the Atonement: Outline of the Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments. He does a very good job of presenting the different positions accurately giving both scriptural and theological arguments for Calvinism and Arminianism and concluding with his own multiple intentions view of the atonement.

10 Ibid This argument as well as the others will be addressed later in the paper when dealing with the arguments for limited atonement.

11 Elwell, Walter. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. P. 116

12 Ware, Bruce. Extent of the Atonement: Outline of the Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments.

13 Ibid

14 Hendriksen, William. Baker New Testament commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. P. 94

15 Long Gary, D. The Salvation of All Men, Grace Abounding Ministries, 1977. pp 1-6.

16 Ware, Bruce. Extent of the Atonement: Outline of the issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments.

For whom did Christ die (part 5)

2008-12-11T06:29:00.008-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part 3)

“Redemption is that priestly work of Christ wherein He delivered us from our bondage to the Law, Sin and Satan through purchase by the ransom of His substitutionary obedience in life and death.”[6] Scripture tells us that that redemption is the reason Christ came to the earth (Matthew 20:28). Jesus gave his life as a ransom to God in order to grant us freedom. Dr. Robert Morey explains that “Christ did not pay a ransom to Satan as some medieval theologians thought. But, rather, Christ’s ransom was paid to God to remove sin for it is by sin that Satan holds us captive. By removing our sins through the death of Christ, God delivered us from the power of darkness."[7] We are indeed set free from the bondage of sin for we read in Titus 2:14 that Jesus is the one “who gave Himself up for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed.” The work of Christ brought sinful men out of slavery and purchased them freedom by which they can rejoice.

Thus far we have discussed how Christ appeased Gods wrath as well as reconciling us to God. These two aspects of the atonement bring the believer true peace with God. Redemption follows bringing freedom to the elect. The final aspect of the nature of the atonement is expiation or payment that is made for sinners. Payment is discussed last not for any reason of the value or the order of application in the atonement because the whole work of Christ is equally valuable and comprehensive. The first three aspects of the atonement implicate a payment or cleansing however expiation is much more specific in that it implies the substitutionary act of Christ’s removal of our sin and guilt. We are actually viewed as being innocent before the Lord on the basis of Christ work on the cross. It is true that the subjective reality of justification or legal innocence before the Lord doesn’t happen until a profession of faith; however, no one could be justified without the work of Christ. It is also important to understand that even faith is a sovereign gift of God and all necessary applications of salvation was purchased on the cross (Ephesians 2:8). Therefore, I can say that through the atonement Christ made a complete sacrifice for the elect that secures their election, regeneration, faith, repentance, sanctification and glorification (Hebrews 9:12; Ephesians 2:8; Galatians 3:13;). Arthur Pink very graciously points out that the reason we can have remission and confidence that our sin was washed clean is on the basis of the atonement.[8] Our high Priest Jesus Christ has made a perfect and definite atonement for His sheep.

Now that the nature of the atonement has been discussed the extent of the atonement will be the topic for the remainder of the paper. When discussing the topic about those whom Christ died there are many differing views that are held. For the sake of brevity and personal interests I am only going to compare the five point Calvinists view of the extent of the atonement to the modified or four point Calvinist position. Either Christ died for the whole world (unlimited atonement) without exception, or He died for only the elect (limit atonement) who were chosen by the Father. The historic Calvinist position believe that Christ died a substitutionary death for those who were unconditionally elected by God the Father in order to give them free mercy and grace. The elect are the objects of His mercy; therefore the death of Christ was the sacrifice made for the elect alone. The modified Calvinist position on the extent of the atonement is that Christ died for the whole world yet His death is only applied to the elect on the condition of faith. We now turn to an exegetical and theological discussion about the passages and arguments that each camp uses to defend their position.

6. Morey, Robert. Studies in the Atonement. P. 35

7. Ibid

8. Pink, Arthur, W. The Satisfaction of Christ. P. 105

For whom did Christ die (part 4)

2008-12-11T05:35:00.019-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part 2)

God in his righteousness hates sin and must punish creatures both fallen man and demons on the basis of their wickedness. Although these fallen angels were created prior to man and are a higher and more powerful form of being, humans and not fallen angels (demons) are the objects of Christ’s sacrifice. In light of this truth Christian should worship and thank the Lord for choosing to show them free grace that was not given to all of God's fallen creatures. The nature of atonement in the New Testament is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is our perfect sacrificial lamb and high priest to make final atonement for the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 7:26-28). It is no longer necessary to make continual sacrifices like those found in the Old Testament because Christ’s death was the final and perfect substitutionary sacrifice. Christ’s death accomplished propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, and expiation. These four theological terms lay a foundation for further discussion about the nature of the work that Christ came to the earth to accomplish.

Dr. Robert Morey defines propitiation as, “that priestly work of Christ wherein He removed God’s anger and wrath by the covering over of our sins through the substitutionary sacrifice of Himself to God, thus securing our acceptance before God."[3] Christ appeased the Fathers wrath against the elect in order to show them free mercy and grace. God’s righteous anger could have been appeased in no other way. Our punishment was laid upon Christ who is a pure and sinless savior. God loves those whom he makes atonement for and at the same time needs to be propitiated in order to remain just (Romans 3:23-26). God cannot just overlook sin because it would contradict His justice and therefore make His love perverted. It would be impossible for God to forgive us if He merely left us in our sin and guilt without punishment. This would show a lack of wisdom, care, and love because He would be going against His holy nature and we would continue in our guilt. John Murray explains that “the doctrine of propitiation is precisely this that God loved the objects of His wrath so much that He gave His own son to the end that He by His blood should make provision for the removal of this wrath."[4] Knowing that God’s wrath and anger has been absorbed by Christ is an overwhelming thought. Jesus was perfect in every way and we were wicked but because of God’s unconditional love He chose to have his wrath propitiated in Christ as opposed to having His wrath poured out over us.

After God’s wrath is appeased through Christ as our substitute we are brought to reconciliation with God. In Romans 5:10-11 Paul states that “if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through who we have now received reconciliation.” Christ satisfied the wrath of God on the cross so that we might be brought into a harmonious relationship with God based on the righteous act of His Son. Some people believe that reconciliation is a two way process of God and man both initiating reconciliation. However, as Stan Norman indicates in the Holman Bible Dictionary, “The removal of alienation, created by man’s sin, is the work of God. The Bible never portrays man as reconciling himself to God or God being influenced by humans to reconciliation."[5] It was God’s choice alone to initiate the plan of redemption and any doctrine that teaches otherwise is humanistic in its nature and should be re-evaluated from scripture. Man is helpless when it comes to his sinfulness and guilt, only God the Son can propitiate divine wrath and bring complete reconciliation between God and man.

3. Morey, Robert. Studies in the Atonement. P. 27

4. Murray, John. The Atonement. P. 15

5. Norman, Stan. The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. P. 1368

For whom did Christ die (part 3)

2008-11-14T11:39:00.019-05:00

by Danny Pelichowski

-I wrote this paper a couple of years ago when I was doing my undergraduate studies at Biola University. I was taking a class on the incarnation and decided to write my paper that semester on the extent of the atonement (for whom did Christ die?) comparing Bruce Ware's four point Calvinist position with the traditional reformed understanding. I will be posting sections of my paper throughout the week until it is complete. Since writing this paper I have discussed this issue with professors, read more books, and matured in my understanding of the issues. I have also gotten married and moved to Louisville Kentucky to go to Southern Seminary. I am in a class this semester with Dr. Ware and will be taking another next semester. It is in that class that we will discuss the extent of the atonement. Lord willing I will write my paper that semester on this very subject. My understanding of Ware's position has gotten clearer by being in his class and asking questions and will get even more clear after we discuss this very topic next semester. I have thoroughly enjoyed him as a theology professor even though I disagree with him in some areas like the atonement. I pray that this paper will be helpful to understand not only the details of the atonement but also the Glory of our redeemer.

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part 1)

The Lord is good for He fashioned a plan of redemption that excluded human effort and exertion. His plan was the only realistic one for if He left it up to mankind to accomplish redemption; all would be lost and condemned to hell. The truth about the human condition in its depravity sets up the necessary and drastic actions that God had to make in order to accomplish redemption. The holy Trinity, eternally existing in complete glory and contentment decided to create a world and a people to inhabit it. All the people in that world are in a state of spiritual death that was initiated by the sin of Adam. They are all dead in their trespasses and sins and cannot do good or even desire to understand the truth about their holy maker; Yahweh. To make matters even worse, the eternal destiny of humanity is based on what they believe about God and their success in keeping His law. Romans 3:23 proclaims that “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” This is a devastating truth that is ignored by those who are under wrath for their wickedness is evident and their payment is inevitable. Every human being has sinned and broken the law and is therefore under just condemnation and the wrath of God is their due punishment. However, God rich in mercy sent His Son Jesus Christ to be a sacrificial lamb on behalf of those whom the Father chose to be the objects of His mercy. God the Son, who eternally exists added unto himself a human nature and became incarnate 2000 years ago. Jesus Christ lived a humble life as a carpenter and made atonement by sacrificing His life on a cross. Christ died for the ungodly and undeserving, accomplishing everything necessary for redemption and those who believe in him will not perish but will have everlasting life (John 3:16). Christ kept the law perfectly on their behalf and his righteousness is their justification. In light of the Gospel it is important to understand that God did not have to save anyone for he would be just to leave all of fallen humanity in their sins. He was not bound to save us but this is grace: that God took the initiative and chose in His great love and kindness to save sinners from the punishment of their sins. It is quite evident as to the importance of this doctrine for the drama of redemption includes our eternal destiny. It is my intent to further explore the nature and extent of the atonement in order to better understand the reality of salvation.

The nature of Old Testament atonement is important because it sets up Christ as the sacrificial lamb. In the Old Testament the atonement was the blood offerings of bulls and goats that were made to uphold Gods direct command found in Leviticus. The purpose of this practice among other things was to make payment for sins (Leviticus 4:35; 16:30). Loraine Boettner writes that “The priestly and sacrificial system was designed primarily to center the attention of the people on the coming Messiah, and to teach that there was a way of pardon and access to God."[1] A blood sacrifice was necessary to show the severity of Israel’s sins. God communicated clearly through the sacrificial system that sin was not going to be left unpunished. The reason that the sacrifice was a continual practice is because as the author of Hebrews tells us it is “impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). Therefore, the tedious process of sacrifice was a daily reminder of the constant guilt of sin, there was never a sense of cleansing or forgiveness. “The lesson taught was that the life of an innocent holy thing was to cover the confessed guilt of the erring one. The person who came bringing an animal to be slain thereby confessed himself deserving of death but made petition that God in His mercy would accept instead the life of this his substitute."[2]

The atonement in the Old Testament was only applied to specific people whom the priest made intercession. The Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians or any other Gentile nation was excluded in the Old Testament sacrificial system. Israel received God’s law and they appointed priests to make an offering for the people of God. The concept of universal atonement in the Old Testament is simply not found anywhere in the scriptures. The atonement was only made and applied to the nation of Israel. The extent of the Atonement is therefore particular as opposed to universal in the Old Testament. Now that the nature and extent of the atonement has been discussed as it relates to the Old Testament practice we turn to the nature of the atonement in the New Testament.

1. Boettner, Loraine. The Atonement. P. 99

2. Ibid

Romans lecture Part 20

2008-09-18T16:12:00.017-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 20

Opening prayer

Lecture update:

The book of Romans is the passage of full mention on God’s plan of salvation.
God has not only removed the penalty of sin (wrath, judgment, hell) but also deals with problem of the pollution of sin through sanctification.
In Romans 6 Paul is handling questions and objections that are thrown against the Gospel.
The book of Romans is not only a positive exposition of what God has done for us in Christ but also shows us how Paul handled nasty questions.
Jesus, the apostles, and prophets were never afraid of questions because they had the answers.
Sin was legally your master prior to conversion but now as a Christian we are no longer under slavery and mastery to sin but we are slaves God.

In Romans 6 Paul is refuting the idea that Christians can go on sinning and living like the devil once they have been justified.
We are legally under no obligation to serve sin because we have died to it hence we are freed from it. However, as we shall see in Chapter 7 while we have died to sin it has not died to us.
Being freed from sin does not mean we can go out and live like the devil. We are freed from sin that we might become the slave and servant of God.

Romans 6:23

The wages Paul speaks of here are what we deserve and what God owes us due to the sin that we have committed. Your boss is not doing you a favor when he gives you a paycheck because you have earned it. In the same way we have earned what our sinful wages have merited and that is death.
Some people think that God owes them a happy life and straight teeth but the only thing that God owes us is death, condemnation and judgment. God does not owe us salvation; if anyone gets saved it is a free gift of God alone.
There is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ 1 Timothy 2:5.
We have not merited salvation but deserve death. The gift of God (salvation) is eternal life that comes from none other than our mediator Christ Jesus our Lord.
Christ takes our record upon himself and dies for us. We get Christ record imputed to us. So our righteousness comes not from our own works but is imputed to us from Christ.
Eternal life is referring to a quality of life in everlasting bliss present with the Lord as opposed to the idea that the saved will live forever and the unbelievers will be snuffed out. Annihilationalism does not exist and this passage does not prove that some people have immortality and others simply cease to exist after death. Every human has an eternal soul and the soul at death with either go to eternal conscious punishment or eternal bliss present with the Lord.
Jesus Christ is our mediator and the only one who can make us right with God. Christ puts the good word in for us so that we may have eternal life.
Christ Jesus our Lord is our prophet, priest, and our king.
We are not to use the grace of God as a license to live like the devil and make excuses for our sins. When God works in your heart you change ownership and now belong to Him. Having been freed from sin means that we are now obligated to God to live our lives before Him. Never forget that the wages we earned while we were running around and committing all kinds of sin is death, but the free gift that comes from God comes only through the Lord Jesus Christ

Romans lecture Part 19

2008-09-18T16:12:00.016-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 19

Opening prayer

Sinless perfectionism: leads you into continual despair and distress because it is not livable because all sin and will continue to deal with sin. If your goal is to be sinless and perfect you are going to live a frustrated life. If the Christian leader places the standard at sinless perfection it is inhuman, unbearable, and cruel because it is unlivable. Perfection on this side of heaven is impossible!

The Biblical position is not if something works its true but that if it is true it will work.
There is a confusion between position and condition; justification and sanctification.
The context of Romans 6 is our position and justification as opposed to our condition and sanctification.

Romans 6:18

“Having been set free from sin” is not talking about a second work of grace but it is talking about regeneration, a changing of ownership from slavery to sin to slavery to Christ.

Romans 7:1

The illustration that Paul uses is a married woman bound by law to her husband but when he dies she is free from him legally. The illustration that Paul uses is legal and forensic, therefore dealing with justification and not sanctification.

There are implications for sanctification: Paul argues that it is wrong to view our unmerited salvation as a license to go out and live like the devil. Paul is arguing that we were at some point and time justified and freed from the demands and ownership of sin and in that sense we have died to sin. However, we must remember that sin has not died to us and every Christian continues to deal with sin.

Romans 5:3, 6:5

The key to the Christian life is knowledge

The idea that we find in the latter part of the 20^th century that the Christian life is to be found in feelings, emotions, experience, chills, thrills, being slain in the spirit, or flopping around like a fish is unbiblical.

Romans 6:6

The old self, or old man is not a different nature but symbolic language to refer to the old way of life when we were under the dominion and mastery of sin.
We do not have a good nature and bad nature or an old nature and new nature. We do not have an old man and new man inside of us, one doing evil and the other good.
When we sin its not as if the old man sinned and the new man did not as to put blame on the old man and to relinquish guilt from your new man. When you sin, you sin.
If you look at the tenses you will see that Paul is talking about a past time when the old self was crucified and dead so there should not be any talk about a dual nature as if he is split up in two. Paul is simply saying that our old way of living is done away with or crucified.
The Apostle Paul is teaching that when Jesus saves you, you are legally no longer under the dominion of sin. However, we must remember while we are in this life, the dead corpse of your old way of living is tied to you hand to hand, foot to foot, leg to leg, and arm to arm.
The Christian suffers in this life from the corruptions of his previous life eating into his present life.
Figuratively you have two sets of motives and conflicting drives. You have a new set of drives that says “I want to be godly, holy, and live for Jesus, and I hate sin and do not want to sin and would like to be perfect if I could for Jesus”. We also have another set of motives or conflicting drives that says “I like to sin, let us do evil”. That old set is what Paul is describing as the body of sin or the body of death that legally has no right to you anymore but it is still strapped to you. It is not your master but it’s tied to you and that is why you have problems in the Christian life.
Any view of the Christian life that is adequate must explain why the Christian life doesn’t work. That is why we aren’t sinless. The universality of the Christians failure to live up to his own standards has to be explained by every Christian worldview. There are those who deny that they sin but in the end (if we are to be honest) we all have to confess that with Paul “what I want to do, I don’t do, what I don’t want to do I end up doing”. Woe is me I am undone because I have this corpse strapped to me, I have this set of drives and motives that I don’t want in my heart but they are there anyway.
How I will deal with sin I do not know, one day Jesus will come and deliver me but until then I will have to deal with this corpse or body of sin.

Romans 6:7-11

Sin is no longer our master because death is no longer Christ’s master.
We are to be dead to the mastery of sin and alive to God in Christ.

Romans 6:12-14

Sin shall no longer be your master.
All false views of the Christian life try to interject the thought of the presence of sin as no longer being a problem. However Romans 6:12-14 teaches that the legal master of sin does not own you because Christ owns you not that the presence of sin ceases to exist in the Christian life.
The Bible does not teach that the presence of sin is gone once a person is converted. The reality is that even Christian’s sin and continues to wrestle with and fight against sin.

Romans 6:15-23

We are not under the law of sin but under grace.
Christians are no longer slaves to sin. Therefore, the term carnal Christian is a false expression.
Sin used to own you but now God owns you. You used to be a slave to sin, now you are a slave to God.
6:22 “now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God” every believer who has been set free or justified are slaves of God. This is true of every Christian and not a select few who have had a second blessing.
The wages that we earn from sin is death but the free gift (not wage) of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans lecture Part 18

2008-07-29T13:32:00.005-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 18

Opening prayer

Original sin and depravity continued…

We inherit from Adam more than our genetic make-up. We inherit condemnation and corruption from Adam so our record and nature is bad from conception. We are sinners by nature.
Universality of sinfulness: all have sinned and all are right now falling short of the glory of God.
Inevitability of sin: we sin because we are sinners we are not sinners because we sin.
Ephesians 2:3 we were by nature children of wrath (the wrath that comes from God not man). We were dead, dominated, doomed, and damned.

Romans 5:19

Original sin is more than simply being blamed for what Adam did. We are actually made sinners on the basis of what he did.

Roman 5:21

Grace reigns through righteousness leading to eternal life through “Jesus Christ our Lord”: All three titles are used at the end of chapter five to exclaim that Jesus is our priest, Christ our prophet, as well as Lord and king. He is our PROPHET, PRIEST, and KING!

How are we righteous?

Imputed righteousness comes to us in the act of justification whereby the good deeds of Christ are put to our account so that God views and judges us according to what Jesus did and our sins are put to Christ’s account so He gets treated in the light of what we did (the substitutionary death on the cross). Righteousness is not only limited to the switching of the books but we also become righteous via sanctification; we are changed and progressively become more like Christ.

Pelagius: a monk who denied the doctrine of original sin on the basis that imputed guilt is unfair and unjust. He reasoned that it would be wrong for God to treat us on the basis of what someone else did on our behalf. He taught that we were all born sinless and innocent and all of humanity has a clean slate and can freely choose to be sinless. His doctrine contradicts reality due to the universality and inevitability of sin. His teaching is not only experientially false it clearly contradicts scripture in particularly 1 John “he who says he is without sin is a liar”. Moreover, his reason for rejecting original sin can also be used to reject the substitutionary atonement. If it is immoral and unjust that people suffer for Adams sin then it is equally immoral and unjust for Christ to suffer for our sin. There are three great imputations as we have discussed before and each imputation must be rejected if the imputation of Adams sin to all of humanity (original sin) is rejected. You cannot have one without the other.

Moral government theology, neo orthodoxy, and process thought consistently not only rejects original sin but also the vicarious atonement and forensic justification.

Charles Finney: the so-called revivalist denied and argued against original sin and went on to deny the vicarious atonement, and forensic justification. He reasoned that it would be unjust for Christ to die for our sins the same way it would be unjust for humanity to die for Adams sin. If you deny original sin all three imputation will soon after follow suit and go out the window. Charles Finney ardently denied that Adams sin is imputed to us (original sin), our sin was imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness was imputed to us.

Imputation and impartation: Adams guilt has been imputed to us and his sinful nature has been imparted to us. Not only are we born guilty we are also born sinful.

Romans 6:1

Paul addresses an objection to original sin. In light of what Paul wrote about original sin in chapter 5 he wanted to clear the waters so that the unregenerate depraved people reading Romans would not pervert God’s special revelation to rationalize their sinful lifestyle. “Are we to continue to sin that grace may abound?”
We are in Adam by our physical birth and in Christ by our spiritual birth. We are born in sin inherited by Adam and we are justified and forgiven from our sins on the basis of Christ’s righteousness and work. If we are regenerate believers we have died to sin so the above question would be rejected. To say that we have died to sin does not mean that a Christian can become sinless on this side of heaven because as Morey quotes a puritan “you have died to sin but sin has not died to you”. Romans 7 will deal with the sin that remains in the Christian life right after Romans 6 that deals with the fact that Christians have died to sin at conversion.

Romans 6:2

“By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?”
What does it mean to say that we have died to sin? We have died to the dominion of sin, condemnation of sin, and the demands and tyranny of sin. At conversion sin no longer reigns over you. We are no longer slaves of sin and the devil. We are slaves of Jesus Christ.
Salvation means that we have forensically and legally died at justification to the power and the condemnation of sin and we are personally dying to it in sanctification everyday.
We have been set free from the slavery of sin!
We are dead to sin but sin is not dead to us.
The Bible does not teach that you no longer sin once you are saved. It emphasizes that if you are a true child of God you won’t live in it like a pig in a pigsty rolling around in your sin and feeling perfectly at home.
When someone is truly converted sin shatters their composure, peace of mind, and conscience. When a true child of God sins it’s like rocks or even little pebbles hitting an undisturbed pond. If you get up early to go fishing in a lake or pond the water looks like glass and is completely smooth and without ripples. If you throw a rock or even a little pebble into the water it causes ripples in the water that affects the whole pond. In the same way when a Christian sins even if it is not that big of a deal to the world like a white lie their consciences are disturbed and are uncomfortable due to their sin.

Romans 6:3-6

“All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death.”
Baptism: is a symbolic burial service or funeral for believers.
Baptism: is the visible symbol and ceremony that says that we have died to sin and are no longer under the demands, slavery, and tyranny of sin.
Baptism: symbolizes the fact that at regeneration we died to sin and were resurrected to serve Jesus Christ.
God’s power has broken the tyranny of sin over us and we are now the servant of Christ and we are no longer “enslaved to sin.” (see Romans 6:6)
Paul teaches that Christians are no longer under the dominion of sin he does not say that they are no longer affected by the presence of sin.
The Socinian Pelagian and neo-Pelagian interpretation of this passage says that we are free from the presence of sin and that we never sin after we are saved. This interpretation is incorrect because the passage teaches that we are freed from the slavery and tyranny of sin not the presence of sin. Paul is talking about being freed from living in sin and being a slave to sin. This passage cannot be used to prove that once you are saved you never sin again. There are many heretical interpretation in the past that have already been condemned like Pelagianism as well as modern interpretations that we will deal with today that interprets this passage as teaching sinless perfectionism.
If someone infers too much from chapter 6 they should simply wait for chapter 7 when Paul talks about being carnal sold under sin and what he wants to do he does not do and what he does he does not want to do.
Some people think that because the old man has been crucified this means that they are sinless… They are in for a big surprise.
Romans chapter 7 is given so that people don’t misunderstand Romans 6.

Romans lecture Part 17

2008-06-26T14:52:00.004-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 17

Opening prayer

Lecture update:

The book of Romans is the passage of full mention dealing with the plan of salvation.
Paul draws parallels between Adam and Christ through typology.

Romans 5:15-16

The only wages we earn is hell for we have sinned and deserve hell.
Certain denominations have creeds that talk about salvation as being by grace and a gift that needs to be earned.
Paul emphasizes in this passage that salvation is a FREE gift that we do not deserve at all and certainly cannot earn.
We are helpless, ungodly, sinners, who prior to justification were under the wrath of God and only deserving hell because we are enemies of a holy God.
God is not giving salvation to people because they have somehow earned it.
Amazing grace is that God would give salvation to the very people that hate Him in their hearts.
Until grace intervenes all of humanity hates God by nature.
Justification: taking the righteousness of Christ and putting it on our record as if we lived a perfect life. Our sins and failures are transferred over to Christ so that He dies on the cross for our sins so that we might be saved by His righteousness.
There is a switching of the books in justification: the righteousness of Christ is put to our account and our sins are put to Christ’s in two acts of imputation.
Notice that the free gift of grace is for “the many” and not all people.
The reality is that not everyone is going to be saved and people do go to hell.
God is not the Father of all mankind because not everyone is a child of God and not everyone will be saved.
The free gift that abounded for the many is referring to the elect.

A note on depravity, babies, and salvation

Babies are conceived in sin and go astray from the womb.
Children do not become sinners because they sin; they sin because they are sinners.
A parent does not need to teach their children to sin.
We have no choice in the matter but all humanity at birth inherits depravity and a sinful nature. We become sinners at conception because Adam is our representative and his sin is imputed to all of humanity.
Children are not born Christians and are not saved by being born in a Christian family.
Romans 9:8 “it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God”. Paul is addressing the Jew who thinks that their child who is circumcised is automatically a member of God’s family. Salvation is not automatically received at conception like the sinful nature. Faith and repentance is necessary for a person to be saved and this does not happen by being born into a believing family. God doesn’t have any grandchildren!
John 1:12-13 “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” -ESV
If you are saved it is a result of the work of God alone and not your parents or yourselves!

Romans 5:17

Only by receiving Christ’s righteousness are we saved for we don’t have any of our own.
We received death from Adam and life from Christ.

Romans 5:18

All men received condemnation and death through Adams disobedience.
All kinds of men from every tribe tongue and nation receive justification and life.
Notice that Paul is not teaching universalism (that all men are saved) and that in verse 19 he goes back to discuss the many who will be made righteous.

Romans 5:19

All who are in Adam (the many) will receive judgment and final condemnation in hell.
All who are in Christ (the many or the elect) receive justification through the one act of righteousness.

Romans 5:20

When the law was given sin increased because human nature is inclined to do that which they are told not to do.
Grace overflowed and was far greater than the sin that was abounding.

Romans 5:21

Paul is contrasting sin vs. grace, death vs. life, Adam vs. Jesus.
The parallels portray more of an anti-type.
Jesus was the anti-type of Adam: Adam fell, Jesus succeeded, Adam’s sin brought nothing but death, and Christ’s life brought us life, Adams sin and death is uputed automatically at birth, Christ righteousness is imputed and received by grace through faith, sin reined in death, but grace reigns in life!

Closing prayer

Romans lecture Part 16

2008-06-25T20:55:00.003-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 16

Opening prayer

Original sin: God imputes to us the guilt and sin of Adam because Adam is our representative.

As our representative when Adam sinned we sinned.
This doctrine is ignored because the typical evangelical does not have any doctrinal backbone or background.
Many evangelicals and so called reformed people have fallen for such terminology as innocent babies.
Despite the confusion about this doctrine God views and treats fallen humanity in light of what Adam did.

Three great acts of imputation (continued in later lectures):

The three imputations are linked together and you cannot have one without the other (the imputation of Adam’s sin to humanity is the only imputation discussed at length in this lecture. Our sin imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness imputed to us will be discussed more thoroughly in subsequent lectures).

Adams guilt, sin, punishment, and corruption are imputed and imparted to all of his descendants. According to Romans 5 Adams sin was not a private transgression. He acted as the head and representative of all of humanity and all of his descendents partake of his corruption and guilt. After the radical fall into sin we see in Genesis 5:3 that Adam “fathered a son in his own likeness”. We also see in Genesis 6:5 that “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”. This passage explains the human condition that we are not what we should be because what we are is not what we used to be. Before the fall every intent and thought of man was good continually. The first three things that God reveals to us in the Bible is creation (Gen. 1), the radical fall into sin (Gen 3), and redemption (Gen 3-4). Adam is our representative and his actions directly apply to humanity even though his descendants were not physically present for the fall. For example: our government officials that we have voted into office govern the U.S. make decisions as our representatives that directly make every U.S. citizen accountable for what their leaders do. If our government officials declare war against a certain country we are at war regardless if we were the ones making the decision to go to war.

Romans 5:12

John Murray rightly concluded that all sinned when Adam sinned
Sin entered this planet when the devil and the demons came to the earth.
Romans 5:12 “…just as sin came into the world through one man…” Whatever world means here it cannot mean that Adam’s sin was the first to enter the planet because the devil was evil and even tempted Eve in the garden to sin against God.
The passage says that sin and death entered the world through Adams sin. Once again there is an interpretive issue with the word world because even prior to the fall there was a natural order of animals eating other animals. The lion had its sharp teeth for the purpose of eating animals. Some people have suggested that the lions teeth was for shredding cabbage however there is no exegetical reason to conclude that God created every animal including the fish in the sea as herbivores. Adam also had to tend the garden and if there was no plant death as some have assumed then God’s command for Adam to tend the garden would be arbitrary. Adam had to rake the leaves because they died; he had to prune the bushes and plants just like a gardener today because plants and trees died from natural causes as well as animals eating them.
The issue comes down to the false interpretation of the word world in this passage to mean that in the planet sin and death of all forms began at the fall of Adam. Of course evil and sin was present prior to the fall in the garden because the devil who was evil tempted eve. Death was also a reality prior to the fall through the natural zoological system that God had created with animals as they ate one another as well as the natural death of plant life.
There is an ideal picture of humanity prior to the fall where evil was no where to be found and death was not a reality. The planet is seen as immortal as well as all the creatures that inhabit it. Morey says that we have to rid ourselves of the “Christian comic book ideas” of a planet where death and evil was not a reality.
There are several different types of death: spiritual death, physical death, second death, plant death, animal death.
Death is part of the mutability of the created order because it is a reflection of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. In other words the earth is winding down and decaying day to day. The scripture speaks of the immutability of God opposed to the mutability of a decaying and withering universe passing away. To make the universe immutable, perfect, eternal etc. would make the universe coequal with God or even greater than God. This simply cannot be. God is changeless and the universe has been changing and decaying from the moment God created it until now.
The death that has entered into humanity through Adam has moral and spiritual consequences through sin and does not include plant and animal death.
There is a death that is natural that is part of the ecological system that God set up where one animal eats another. When a carrot dies there is no carrot hell or heaven. There is not a dog heaven because they do not have an immortal soul and are not created in the image of God. Death for an animal means that they return to the dust of the earth and they no longer exist. When a plant, animal, or bug dies we do not conclude that they bore the wages of sin.
Human death is unique because it is the ripping apart of the soul from the body where you either go to a place of punishment or a place of blessedness.
The death and sin that Paul has in mind has to do with sin and death entering into humanity through the first sin of the fall of Adam.
The word garden in the Hebrew depicts an enclosed walled in preserve that protected Adam and Eve from dangerous animals that could harm them. The Garden of Eden had a gate which would presuppose walls and hinges that surrounded the garden. The idea that the Garden of Eden was the entire planet is false.
Should we assume that Adam named every single animal in the entire world? In the garden only domesticated animals were included and the naming of the animals did not include every single animal in the planet for that would take him his whole life.
In this passage Paul is talking about sin and death in the context of humanity and a spiritual and moral death. It isn’t a moral death when a rat or carrot dies. It is a moral death when a human being dies.
It is through Adam that sin entered into HUMANITY and death entered into HUMANITY because all sinned in Adam.
All sinned when their representative Adam sinned.

Romans 5:13-14

When Adam sinned he was not breaking the Mosaic Law because Moses wasn’t around.
Adam and all who sinned prior to the Mosaic Law had sinned because they violated the work of the law (conscience) written on their heart. They were guilty of breaking the law of God. Paul’s argument was for the Jew who thought that sin couldn’t have existed prior to the Mosaic Law. However, the fact that death reigned presupposes sin for the wages of sin is death.
The fact of sin leads to the consequences of death, the fact of death must be rooted in the reality of sin.
Some people think that we are guilty of sin only as we do as Adam did. They think that we are viewed as sinners because we fail just like Adam. This is false because we are guilty because our representative head Adam is the father of the human race and his sin is imputed to all of humanity. Original sin means that we are guilty on the basis of the person and work of Adam and his radical fall in the garden. In His fall we all fell!
The three great acts of imputation: Adams sin imputed to us, our sin imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness imputed to us.
Upon these three acts the entire Bible rests. The Biblical doctrine of salvation, the atonement, etc. If you deny one of the three imputations its like a three legged stool, it cannot stand.

Romans lecture Part 15

2008-06-19T23:46:00.006-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 15

Opening prayer

Lecture update:

The fact of justification has been established in chapter 4 and now the result of justification is going to be explained in chapter 5.
The result of justification: having been justified we have peace with God.

The nature of man

The humanist liberal view: everyone is really good at heart and people really want to do good things. The only reason that people do bad things is because of their surroundings and lack of money to live a privileged life.
The New age view: man is divine and we can do whatever we want to do because we have infinite potential. Man is in fact god divine.
The Biblical view: is a realistic view of human nature. Christians who look to the Bible in order to answer the question “what is man” are sometimes viewed as being pessimistic. Realism sometimes gives you bad news. Romans 5:6-11 gives a realistic view of human nature but not a pessimistic view. The Biblical view of man is not pessimistic because it includes hope as was discussed in Romans 5:5 last lecture. Pessimism is realism without hope. Realism is the truth plus hope.

Romans 5:6-11 a hopeful and realistic view of human nature

Four definitions of human nature from Romans 5:6-11

Helpless: a description of a human infant who is helpless on their own. Spiritually speaking we cannot save ourselves, work ourselves toward heaven, or defend ourselves before the devil because we are as helpless as a new born baby. We need a savior because we cannot provide for what we need spiritually.
Ungodly, un-god-like: we were created in the image of God to be like Him. Despite the fact that we are image bearers of God we are realistically the most ungodly and un-god-like creatures in the universe who are reflecting the character of the devil as opposed to the character of God. As humans we not only have the problem of being helpless but also the problem of being ungodly. We are not helpless and innocent, we are helpless and wicked. We do not reflect what we are supposed to reflect and we do that which is evil.
Sinners: Our ungodliness relates to our failure to reflect the nature of God and our sinfulness means that we have violated the law of God. Likewise, our ungodliness refers to the character of God and our sinfulness refers us to the law of God. John tells us that sin is the transgression of the law. God’s law is the lines drawn in the sand found in the word. We violate the law of God by living outsides the lines drawn in the scriptures. We are helpless, ungodly, and we are sinners.
Enemies: God viewed us prior to our justification as not only helpless, ungodly, sinners, but also His enemies. God is angry with the sinner everyday. Unregenerate men are not children of God, they are under His wrath and are actually his enemies.

Romans 5:6-11 man is helpless, ungodly, sinful, and the enemy of God, BUT GOD…

People are evil but God intervenes: four examples from Romans 5:6-11

Justified: God declares us righteous by taking the good works of Christ and putting them on our record. We do not have any good works because we are helpless, ungodly, sinners, who are enemies of almighty God.
At Peace with God: although we can experience the peace of God which includes the subjective feelings of assurance and hope that is not what is in view here. The peace WITH God is the objective fact that a treaty has been signed and we are no longer at war and under His wrath.
Saved: this means that we have been delivered from paying the penalty or the price for our sin. We are delivered from the consequences of our sin. Ours is the pleasure of our sin, His is the punishment for our sins. The Lord laid on Him our iniquity and by His stripes we are healed. Christ paid the penalty and the consequences for our sins that we committed. It’s not a good or “fair” deal for Christ but He chose to pay our penalty for sin. It is a good deal for sinners who repent of their sins and are saved because they deserve the penalty that Christ bore on their behalf. This is the way that forgiveness secures deliverance from the consequences of our sins.
Reconciled: Now that you have been justified, at peace with God, saved from sin, we are now reconciled to God. We are now friends with God and no longer enemies.

Just as there are four negative things about our nature now there are four positive things about us by grace.
It is astounding that we are reconciled to God!
We are reconciled to God as Christians even in view of our wickedness, ungodliness, helplessness, and when we are at times His enemies.

Can it be that even Christians sin?

Example #1: Romans 7:14- Paul says “I am carnal sold under sin.” We must recognize that we have not arrived at perfection and we still fail God.

Example #2 Romans 3:23- “for all have sinned and are right now falling short of the glory of God.” Everyone right now is missing the mark.
Jesus died for us even though he knows that we are sinners and will continue to be sinners.
Justification means that our record in heaven has been changed and God deals with us through the work of Christ.
Without Christ we could never come into the presence of God.
As Christians we sin and are at times ungodly.
Even Christians are depraved sinners.

The word saved is used in three tenses in the New Testament

Salvation is not only in the past tense but also in the future.

Past tense: Ephesians 2:8, 9 “for by grace you were saved.” 1 Thessalonians 1:10 “who delivered us from the wrath to come.”
Present tense: 1 Corinthians 1:18 “The preaching of the cross is foolishness to them who are perishing but to those who are being saved is the power of God.”
Future tense: Romans 5:10 “We shall be saved”
We have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved because we have sinned, we are sinning right now, and we will continued to sin until either we die or until Jesus comes for us.
Being delivered from the consequence and punishment of our sin has to be continuous past, present, and future, because our sin is past, present, and future.
Perfectionism is absurd because if we were perfected when we were saved then we would not have any need for Jesus presently and in the future.
We are helpless sinners in and of ourselves.
We have hope because we have the Holy Spirit, Christ is King, and God is reigning.
We are growing in the Christian life but we will never outgrow our need for Jesus.
We will always say “help Lord” and pray “God be merciful to me a sinner.”
Bishop Ryle proves in his book on holiness that the more spiritually mature you are, the more you see yourself as an ungodly wretch.
The most mature saints have the lowest view of themselves and this realistic view ultimately makes them a better person and more reliant on Christ.
The world teaches that we should have a very high esteem and view of ourselves.
Jesus said that if you exalt yourself you will be humbled but if you humble yourself you will be exalted.

Romans lecture Part 14

2008-06-19T12:40:00.012-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 14

Opening prayer

Lecture update:

Most evangelical churches emphasis experience as being the key to truth.
Knowledge, doctrine, and truth are looked down upon as being divisive.

Edmund Husserl: father of phenomenology and Neo-Kantianism.

Existentialism: A revolt against the concept that knowledge was king. A revolt against scholarship and intellectualism because they believed that the idea of knowledge is dead and you cannot know anything for sure. Everything is essentially relative.
Experience: The only thing leftover after taking away knowledge is our experiences.
Drug culture: the experience of LSD and other drugs are measured only on the experience that you get when taking the drugs. It doesn’t matter what the drugs are actually doing to harm your body or whether taking them is immoral.
Many modern evangelical or charismatic churches assume the experience of something is its own validity.
Example: a person can explain that they know that being slain in the spirit is true because of their experience of it.
The new age movement: Shirley McLain proves that her philosophy is true based on her experience of it.

Biblical position: experience needs to be interpreted

Experiences can be good as well as evil.

Experiences can be sinful as well as righteous.

Experience has to be evaluated and understood.

There must be a standard outside of experience to judge its validity.

The Bible emphasizes the importance of KNOWING scripture in order to interpret our experiences.

Romans 5:1-5 it is the knowing that enables you to do the living

5:3-5 “More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, KNOWING that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”
Dr. J. Chresham Machen: The foundation of the Christian life must be an accurate knowledge.
Knowledge is the basis and the acquisition of knowledge takes priority.
The Bible is the instruction book that teaches you not only what to believe but how to live and evaluate your experiences.
Paul is explaining how a believer should deal with tribulation so that Christians with right knowledge can act when trials arise as opposed to reacting and simply living in their experiences.
We know that every trial that we go through in life have been planned by God and are not a result of so called chance or bad luck.
God will never put you through a trial that you are not capable of handling (see 1 Corinthians).
We are responsible and accountable for how we deal with trials in the Christian life and we cannot point fingers and blame others for the way we deal with trials.
Progressive sanctification in light of Romans 5:3-4: as the Christian faithfully acts in light of trials with the knowledge that God is sovereign over every trial, their trials will eventually lead to maturity and growth in the Christian life.
Crisis sanctification taught in many modern church’s: Spiritual growth happens when an experience takes place in your life such as going to the alter, speaking in tongues, the second blessing, letting go and letting god, etc. The idea is that a person grows in the Christian life when you have the experience of “giving your all on the alter." People go from one religious experience to another in order to get holy all at once. The focus is getting emotionally worked up and having a significant experience week in and week out. The experience carries the person on through the week without really having any consistency day to day.

Fundamentalist: run down to the alter to dedicate your life to Christ.
Victorious life: let go and let God.
Charismatic’s: baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire, speaking in tongues, being slain in the Spirit, barking etc.
There are many more examples just fill in the blank.

The judge of whether the experience was valid and true is the degree of emotionalism. If you really cried and “whooped it up” then it must have been true and the tears make you more spiritual.
Progressive sanctification is a long road that happens throughout all of life day by day. Every minute of every day seven days a week the Holy Spirit is working to mold you like a lump of clay to the image of Christ. It is not a “get spiritual quick scheme."
Happy experiences come and go and are not a constant reality. These experiences are not discussed in scripture as high priorities or markers in “crisis sanctification” that we should strive for in the Christian life.
James 1:2-4 “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you KNOW that the testing of you faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
The sanctification process is in the context of the pressure cooker of trials.
Contemporary evangelical theology as well as charismatic’s and Pentecostals have everything backward because they assume that true growth in the Christian life happens when we have happy “experiences in Jesus."
The Bible is the exact opposite and says that we really take off in the Christian life as we handle trials correctly.
If you are a true believer God is going to sanctify you whether you like it or not.
God is committed to every Christian’s sanctification and it isn’t primarily up to us or the roll of the dice.
God will send trials in our lives in order to force growth in the lives of Christians.
Tribulation is the pruning process that brings about perseverance.
Perseverance is continuing under trial.
When you have opposition and trial you break right through it.
Character is when you exemplify virtues in your life. Character in a person’s life is proven during the trials of life.
Hope is a result of proven character in light of perseverance in the midst of the trial.
You can have perseverance and proven character and be without hope.
Part of good character and virtue is optimism even in view of trials.
Hope even in hopeless situations is the real test of true hope and leads to love.
Happy singing and religious experiences is not what makes you grow, it’s how you live day by day that makes you grow in the Christian life as well as how you cope with the trials of life.

Spiritual autobiography written for seminary

2008-06-15T22:25:00.012-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

-I think that hearing and sharing testimonies can be very beneficial. I just wrote my testimony as part of my application for seminary and thought I would post it here so that anyone reading this blog can know of my conversion and background. I am contemplating posting other Christians testimonies on my blog so that we can be encouraged hearing about the grace of God in the lives of believers. Just as baptism is a blessing to all who witness the profession of faith of a new convert, our testimonies of God's grace can serve as an ongoing reminder of Christ's work of redemption continuing everyday. I encourage you to take time and clearly write your testimony, wrestling with the interpretation of your conversion from Scripture so that you can better communicate what God has done in your life for His glory.

Spiritual autobiography: Please document your conversion, significant life events, understanding of your call to ministry, and reasons for applying to Southern Seminary. Please limit your paper to three typed, double-spaced pages.

I grew up in a non-denominational “seeker church” in Southern California. I cannot recall the first time I said the “sinner’s prayer” however I remember being baptized on my tenth birthday which was New Years Eve. I also remember walking down the isle to rededicate my life to Christ possibly every summer church camp throughout my teen years. I was a professing Christian as far back as I can remember however I did not truly know Christ or understand the Gospel.

I believed in God and thought that I was basically a good kid. And in my mind salvation could be boiled down to repeating a prayer, walking an isle, and going to church. I never understood the wrath of God or the utter sinfulness and depravity of man. And much to the dismay of seeker sensitive or emergent churches I did not even understand the love or grace of God despite how much the church I attended focused on those attributes of God. Don’t get me wrong, I believed that God loved me. How could I not? It was preached to me everywhere I went and I was even told that evangelism was merely telling people that “God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives”. To say that I believed that God loved me does not prove that I understood the love of God or even that I had right thinking about God’s love for me to begin with. I was a professing Christian who was ultimately unknowingly ignorant and deceived, believing that I was saved when in fact I was under the wrath of God in my unbelief. I was unregenerate and dead in my sins professing that I knew God and even believing that I was going to heaven. I had a perverted view of God’s grace because I believed that the grace of God was a license for immorality. I could comfortably have one foot in the world and the other in heaven without thinking twice about my eternal destiny. My wrong thinking directly determined how I would live my life and of course my lifestyle was a direct reflection of my distorted viewed of God and salvation. I believed that I wasn’t as bad as most people so I could rationalize all kinds of wicked living in view of the fact that I was basically a “good” Christian kid who was saved because I said a prayer “accepting Jesus in my heart”. In my understanding God was going to (like every pastor had told me) keep his end of the promise and grant me salvation because I repeated a prayer.

It wasn’t until the summer of 2003 that God was pleased to save me. At that time in my life I was at the pinnacle of my sinful lifestyle and disobedience to God. I was a cocky teenage high school graduate who was as self-centered as you can get. I can basically boil down my priorities at that time to girls, sports, and all the pleasure I could get out of those avenues. It is safe to say that I was not a God fearer. I was recommended to work at Hume Lake Christian Camps after I graduated high school from someone at the church I attended. They thought it would be a great opportunity for me to serve the Lord. I had never been to Hume Lake and it was pretty far away from where I lived. So, seeing that I was going to attend community college while living at home I thought it would be a great opportunity to get out of the house for a few months. I wasn’t in any fashion going there to be a great servant of God. By God’s gracious providence I was hired to work with the maintenance crew the summer after my high school graduation. During that summer my fast passed life and lack of self examination was slowed down. I began to meet people who loved God, knew what they believed from Scripture, and who could see right through my empty profession of faith. One young man by the name of Tyler Bloxham from Idaho really challenged me that summer to examine if I was truly in the faith in light of my obviously confused ideas about God as well as my blatantly sinful lifestyle.

That summer I began to read the book of Romans and I was shocked at what I found. I read about the sinful state of humanity and the utter rebellion of man. I was convicted about every thought that I had about God and challenged with what I was reading in the Bible. My idolatrous thoughts about God and salvation were contradictory to what I was reading in Romans and I was for the first time in my life truly convicted of my sin. I found in the pages of Scripture the truth about God and salvation realizing that I was a depraved sinner and did not deserve the grace of God but only deserved hell. I repented of my sins and realized that it was in the midst of my sinfulness that God the Son rich in his mercy died in my place. I no longer thought that the love and grace of God was a license for me to sin. I was overwhelmed by my sinfulness and transformed to hate my sin and strive towards obedience to Christ.

One year after my conversion while reading through the Gospel of Matthew I realized that as a believer I had not been baptized. I thought to myself, “If Jesus told the apostles to make disciples and baptize them I was certain that I should be baptized as a believer as well”. I was baptized by emersion as a public profession of my faith in obedience to the Scriptures at a men’s retreat immediately after reading the Gospel of Matthew.

Robert Morey, who was the pastor of the church I attended in Southern California always emphasized the importance of not only looking back to the date and time you were saved but also examining the evidences in your life currently that confirm that you are in the faith. I am thankful to be able to say that by the grace of God He has saved me and has sustained me to this day. I have new desires now than I did prior to my conversion. I care about studying the Scriptures in order to determine what I should believe and how I should live. I also desire to teach others sound doctrine as found in the Bible so that they would know the truth and that they would be uncomfortable making up their own ideas about God and salvation. I realize the utmost importance for a pastor and teacher to be well equipped and faithful to correctly handle the word of God.

I began my theological education during the two years I attended Biola University as well as being privileged to sit under the preaching and teaching of Dr. Robert Morey. He has continued to be a key influential teacher to me to this day through his audio lectures and books. I graduated from Biola may of 2007, married my wife in July, and moved to Louisville in September in order to go to seminary to further my education and prepare for the ministry. My wife and I have taken a year to get established in the community and transition from California to Kentucky. God has blessed us with friends, jobs, and membership at Immanuel Baptist Church in Louisville. I desire to attend Southern Seminary because of its professor’s high priority to scripture as well as the school’s doctrinal fidelity. I have witnessed first hand the central mission of bringing glory to God in all aspects of life this past year by sitting through classes with friends, going to chapel, and talking with people around the Seminary. It is for these reasons that I am applying to Southern Seminary for the glory of God and I am confident that an education at this seminary will better prepare me to faithfully exegete scripture and communicate Biblical truth to anyone I influence now and in future ministry.

Romans lecture Part 13

2008-06-15T16:31:00.006-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 13

Opening prayer

Lecture update:

Paul establishes the need for salvation in Chapters 1-3.
Chapter 3:21 a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law.
Justification is the very core of the Christian Gospel.
Justification is the deliverance of a righteousness which we never produced.
We are saved based on the works of someone else, namely Jesus Christ.
Justification is a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.
The rebellious prideful heart of man wants to take credit for salvation and believes that God chose us because He saw that we were special. The reality is that God has chosen us not because of anything special or good in us but on the basis of His grace alone.
This is the reason that people reject the doctrine of justification.

Romans 4:16 for this reason justification is by faith and the promise rests on grace

Even gentiles are Jews in a certain sense because we are decedents of Abraham through faith as opposed to the flesh or of the law.
Faith and grace are bound together so that the basis of salvation is to be obtained by grace and not works.
Paul proves to the Jews that justification is by faith alone through Christ alone by grace alone on the basis of scripture as opposed to his experience or feelings.
The liberal theologians presuppose that their advanced reasoning can rise above and go beyond the word of God.

Romans 4:17 Abraham is the father of many nations through faith

Genesis 17:15 “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be called Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations."
“Gives life to the dead”: some think that this passage refers to Isaac and Abraham’s belief that God would raise him from the dead even if he sacrificed his son based on God’s promise. Other commentators say that this passage is referring to Christ’s death. Morey’s position is that this passage is dealing with Isaac.
“Calls the things that do not exist as existing”: This phrase poses a translation problem.
The question arises between the difference between elocution and creation.
Paul is either saying God creates out of nothing that which he wants to create or is Paul saying that God talks about things before they exist as if they existed.
Example: in the book of Isaiah Syrus the king is mentioned years before Syrus was even born.
God can talk about people, events, and things which don’t exist at this time as if they did exist because He knows the future as well as the past and the present. (This is Morey’s position as well as the majority of interpreters)
When God told Abraham that through his seed many families and many nations would be blessed, God was speaking of something that was going to take place in the future.
When God told Abraham about the blessing Abraham believed God even though Christ who is the seed had not yet come and was a future reality.

Romans 4:18 hope against hope

Abraham was torn between despair and hope and he had to hope in his hope that his son would live.
Abraham had hope even though everything around him was the opposite of that which he was expected to believe (God promises had not been fulfilled before Abrahams eyes but he had to hope in God’s promises despite his present experience).
The irony of the Christian faith: we are expected to believe the opposite of the things we experience. For example: We continuously see the wicked triumphing however we should believe that the righteous are the one’s truly triumphing. Evil seems to be getting worse year after year yet Scripture says don’t worry, don’t be distressed because God is still on His throne and everything happens according to His plans and in the end the righteous will be vindicated and the wicked will be punished.
God is working all things together for your good even though sometimes it doesn’t seem that way.
Abraham was expected to believe that he was going to be the father of millions of people when he didn’t even have a single child yet he believed God.
No one would believe the Christian faith unless God gave them the faith because everything in life is calculated against them believing it.
When we do believe in the invisible God and put our faith in Him whom we have never seen, all of the sudden we are able to live life with meaning, significance, truth, valuing the eternal over our temporal satisfaction and our lives are changed.

Romans 4:19-21 old age and a barren womb

Everything that Abraham saw contradicted what he was supposed to believe.
Abraham was old and as good as dead and his wife was old and barren who even in here prime did not produce any children.
The outward experience of Abraham contradicted what God told him. Even Sarah his wife laughed when Abraham told her that she would bear a child.
Abraham did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith giving glory to God.
Reasons for believing in Calvinism: what other explanations can be given than that God put faith as a gift in the heart of Abraham in order to believe God. The same can be said about the natural man who is dead in sins. How in the world can a person who is dead spiritually and without faith all of the sudden believe the Gospel even though many of the claims of Christianity are foolishness to the natural man.
Prior to conversion Morey explains how he could not believe in Christianity because he did not have any faith in and of himself.
Faith is a supernatural act of God in which he creates in you the capacity to believe or else you would never believe.
When God gives you faith you see the truth, understand it, and love it.
Abraham did not waver in unbelief but oppositely grew strong in faith.
According to the five senses God’s promise to Abraham as well as the Gospel is patently absurd, ridiculous, and impossible.
The inward assurance and confidence comes only from the work of the Holy Spirit and there is no other explanation.
There is nothing impossible with the triune God for He is able to do what he promises!
A barren womb and an over the hill couple is nothing for the infinite God who created the universe.

Romans 4:22-25 Therefore his faith was counted to him as righteousness.

Abraham’s faith in God was accepted as the means whereby a righteousness not from him was delivered to him. This righteousness was the righteousness of Christ shooting backward just as well as it shoots forward.
Just as Abraham was justified by faith before his circumcision and works of obedience, in the same way we are justified the moment we believe.
Our faith is the empty hand that receives the gift of the righteousness of Christ. We are saved on the basis of what Jesus did.
We are justified and declared righteous by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to our account.
“He that sins must die." The consequence of our sin brought Christ to the cross because somebody had to “pay the piper."
Christ died and was raised from the dead and is at the right hand of God the Father. Christ’s resurrection was God’s stamp of approval of the work of Christ on the cross.
The atonement has been completed and is now being applied to us.
Jesus lived for me, died for me, and rose for me. So we lived when he lived, died when he died, and rose when he rose.

Romans lecture Part 12

2008-06-12T13:24:00.006-04:00

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 12

Lecture update:

The book of Romans has been used by God to induce great revival throughout history.
The wonderful story of God’s grace in the doctrine of justification becomes the battering ram that breaks through the works righteousness mentality that grips the natural heart of man.

Romans 4:13-14 The God of promise.

Faith is always necessary when dealing with God’s promise, covenant, and law. In order to obey the law you have to believe it to begin with.
The contrast between law and promise is discussed here as well as Galatians 4.
The law does not in any way negate the promise of God.
The promise was of a coming of a savior. The promise was of salvation and forgiveness of sin that would go forth to all regardless of racial distinction.
This promise could not be nullified by the coming of the law.
The promise was through faith and not through the Mosaic Law.
If our righteousness came through obedience to the law then faith is empty and unnecessary and the promise is nullified.
The book of Galatians is Paul’s commentary on certain aspects of the book of Romans
Galatians 2:21 “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”
If salvation comes through our obedience to the law then 4 things are true.

Faith is made void
The Promise is nullified
The Grace of God is nullified
Christ died needlessly

If we can be saved by our own performance then why did God send His Son?
The Muslim argument against Christianity is that they do not need a savior because through their obedience to Allah, through their prayers, pilgrimages, and giving of alms they save their selves. The Muslims are very proud of this position.
On the contrary the Scriptures tell us that Abraham cannot boast before God on the basis of his good works but that salvation comes to those who believe in Him who justifies the ungodly.

Romans 4:15 the law brings wrath

Certain commentators interpret this passage as meaning that when man hears God’s law, man in his fallen nature rebels and hates being constrained by God telling him what to do and not to do. Example: a Child who does the exact opposite that their parents tell them to do simply because they were told not to do it.
Other commentators point out that this passage is not talking about the wrath of man but the wrath of God. In the context Paul is talking about how the promise and the law are both viewed as means where blessings can come from God.
Paul explains that the law instead of bringing blessings from God only brings wrath and judgment.
Romans 5:10 “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
“While we were enemies” God viewed US as His enemies.
The wrath that is being spoken of here in Romans 4:15 is the wrath of God.
For the wrath of God is the only thing that we are going to get out of the law.
The law exacts full punishment for the full extent of the law and there is no mercy in law.
The purpose of the law is not salvation. (So those like John Wayne who think that they will make it into heaven because they have lived a “good life” will have no mercy before the law because the law will judge every man under the wrath of God.)
Through the law Paul finally understood that he was a sinner. Romans 7:7-12 ESV “what then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”
Paul was a Pharisee who used to view the law as a means to gain righteousness and now Paul has understood that the law is a mirror that reveals depravity.
All you will every get out of the law is how wicked you are.
The law is the hanging judge of the universe and will never let you off.
The only thing that God owes mans is judgment.
Paul is speaking about the revealed law, not the work of the law (conscience) written on the heart.
If there is no revelation of a specific law then there can be no violation of a certain law.

Romans 4:16-17 for this reason justification is by faith and the promise rests on grace

Salvation does not depend on whether you know the law. Even Abraham was saved before and without the Mosaic Law.
No other so called “scriptures” in other religions ever speak about grace and mercy.
God’s dealing with man can be divided into grace and justice
Faith was the virtue that was chosen by God because it was the “empty” virtue.
Other virtues like patience, obedience, kindness, love, goodness all depend on man’s performance and can sway back and forth depending on the day.
Faith is the “empty” virtue because it earns you no merit. Believing someone does not earn a person merit as if he or she did something on their own account.
Faith is the “empty” virtue because faith cannot earn a person a wage for faith is the empty hand that receives a gift and does not work (see Romans 4:4-8).
The promise of grace is for all the decedents, not only those who are under the law but those who share the faith.
God in justification declares us what we aren’t. We are declared righteous even though we ourselves are not sinless. God pronounces the ungodly godly.
The pronouncement is not based on our performance but on Christ’s, not on our works but on his.
The declaration of righteousness of the believer is not a legal fiction but a legal transference and a legal reality.

Closing prayer

We are never holy and righteous in and of ourselves, its Jesus and His righteousness, Jesus and His holiness! He is our hope, our beauty, and our foundation.

My primary concerns with Sean Anderson

2008-06-07T22:20:00.023-04:00

by Danny Pelichowski

Titus 1: 5-9 (ESV)

“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict.”

My primary concerns with Sean Anderson:

Sean spends so much time trying to diffuse my comments and concerns while letting blatant heretical statements made by his churchgoers slide by without any correction. He even goes so far as thanking and praising them for their input.
When challenged about Sarah’s statements about her husband he simply wrote the whole issue off because they are on a spiritual journey. He withheld a comment I had on the topic and said that I should respect their personal lives. Like I said before, I was simply responding to what had been written publicly and not prying into their personal lives.
When I asked Sean the question dealing with Mormons and Muslims he simply referred me to his doctrinal statement and remained silent on the issue. Sean’s dismissal of my question about the necessity of personal faith in Christ for eternal salvation is very concerning and needs to be addressed. Towards the end of the discussion like I said he sent me his doctrinal statement which is absent from his church’s website in order to respond to my questions. Upon reading the statement of faith I am still not convinced of Sean’s beliefs about sola scriptura and salvation. Just because he has this statement doesn’t mean that he believes it. A doctrinal statement does not make a person exempt from questioning and does not give them a license to say whatever they want. The implication of his writing and refusal to communicate his beliefs on the topic publicly in his blog so that his churchgoers can plainly read it is very concerning.
His belief that true knowledge comes from experience and engaging.
The twisting of history and scripture to mislead people to believe that right thinking is not foundational to right living. Sean said that they are two sides of the same coin however I have documented that he clearly believes that right action is foundational to right belief. What are the implications when this is applied to salvation ?

The phone conversation dealing with the above concerns:

After the blog discussion had been closed I spent a great deal of time praying, studying Scripture, and seeking advice and godly wisdom from mentors in my life. I thought long and hard reading the dialogue over in order to be prepared to call Sean Anderson to communicate my concerns and ask him these questions personally that were not answered in his blog. Like I said before Sean was my youth pastor and is a friend of mine. My goal in all of this is to be helpful as a Christian brother to him and those who were reading and participating in the blog discussion. Of course our phone dialogue was very cordial and anyone who knows Sean would expect that because he is a very nice guy. And if you know our relationship it did not take long to start off where we left off when he moved to Oregon to begin his ministry. He briefly shared about how his Church and family were doing in Bend, Oregon. I let him in on how my wife and I are doing in Louisville and my intention to begin Seminary in September of 2008. We spoke for over an hour and at times it admittedly got heated as we would both agree. But for the most part the conversation went quite smoothly. I tried to take a few notes while I was talking with him however it is obvious that in light of the above concerns not everything could have been clearly recorded.

A few words from Sean (not exact wording of course):

A person is on a spiritual journey, who doesn’t know Christ in their mind and they have their own version of what it right.

Community is important.

Sean asked me: Have you ever had a Mormon try to lead you to faith? The Mormons do it with the basic approach; Jesus died for you…. The Mormon does not have faith in Christ but, Can a Mormon share the Gospel and a person be saved by the message if they get hit by a bus or if they continue to live and practice their religion? (I have actually been witnessed to by Mormon's. I went to Utah for a mission trip when I was at Biola. I told Sean that the Mormon missionary does not present the true Gospel message so this question was founded on a false assumption by Sean. He conceded and we moved on in agreement).

A person can think right, try to abstain from continuing in sin, and go out and do nothing at all. That’s wrong as well. Inaction is also horrible. If we aren’t acting (doing good things like helping the poor, or loving your neighbor) at all it’s a bad thing. If we are not living out our calling its wrong. Sean says that 99.9 percent of Christians would agree that right living is important and they even make a list of what they do. Sean would ask them if that’s enough if we just tithe and go on a mission trip ext. He would challenge them if they are truly a disciple of Jesus.

In addition to these few side remarks and discussion with Sean and after a lot of prying on my part Sean did communicate that he did not believe that Mormons or Muslims can be saved by their good morals and works and that right belief in Christ was necessary for salvation. I wish he would have communicated this in the original blog discussion for everyone to see however this will do for now. You see, Sean admittedly highly values being ambiguous so our conversation went this way and that but in the end my questions were dealt with in one way or another. We both agreed that we have very different ideas about the Church and evangelism and have to come to a realization that we will have to agree to disagree. Although I am not completely satisfied with the discussion I had with Sean I am able to lie this to rest with a good conscience that I have communicated my concerns and challenged Sean in light of them. I do not know how Sean perceived our conversation but I hope that we will continue dialogging and that theological sharpening will be the result to all of this.

I want to conclude with a challenge that I brought up to Sean during our phone conversation in light of his above argumentation and his example of challenging people if their actions are enough, or if they are really truly disciples of Christ. I challenged him to be careful in how he communicated this to his people.

If our person and performance was the dividing line for who is going to merit God’s grace and who is going to merit his judgment, no one would pass the test and all would be under the just condemnation of God. For as we read in Romans, “all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” The only thing that we bring to the table is our sin. I question those professing Christians who are reading this at this point, “Do you believe that you are truly sinful and only deserving the just judgment and wrath of God because you have sinned and provoked the holy God to his face?” Or “do you believe that you are basically good and that God owes you his mercy and grace because of something you did or the way that you live?”

You see, I grew up with the false assumption that God owed me his grace because I “said the prayer” and that I was basically a good person. I did not understand the weight of the Gospel and while I was in the height of my sinfulness and depravity God was pleased to save me. God revealed Himself to me through the reading of Romans the summer after I graduated high school in 2003. I have nothing, and I mean nothing to boast about when it comes to the supposed “good that comes from me.” Anything God honoring that I do is a direct result of the grace of God and the Holy Spirit working in my life. I cannot boast for I know that I would be continuing in false assurance of salvation and gross sin had it not been for the grace of God saving me the summer of 2003 and continuing to preserve me in the Faith to this day. I am continually dependant on the grace of God in my life from now on to the day that I die.

The distinction that I do not think Sean was correctly making, and the errors that I observed from his arguments are the same errors found in Roman Catholic theology. Sean was failing to make a distinction between justification and sanctification. A man or woman's justification or right standing before God happens at the point of belief or faith in Christ. Sanctification is the process that begins from the time of conversion until the day that we die. In sanctification we are being matured in the faith and putting to death sin in our lives in order to be more like Christ. The process of sanctification has NOTHING to do with our acceptance before a holy God. Once a person is forgiven and justified before God he or she can then start to live for God and grow in maturity and obedience. Their obedience is not included or "added up" until the point of death and then weighed before God to determine whether they shall enter heaven or hell. Jesus Christ is our substitute and HIS obedience and death on OUR behalf is the heart and foundation of our right standing before God.

I want to leave you with the Romans lecture part 8 notes that I took from Dr. Robert Morey’s class that are available here on my blog in order to further highlight the doctrine of justification. I encourage you do download the lectures and follow along with the notes asking question or commenting on what you are learning. I pray that God would use this discussion of orthodoxy and orthopraxy that was started at the Sundeos blog to challenge our beliefs and glorify the living God. Once again, “let this be a place where good thinking and discussion happens about what we believe and how we then live. Let our theological beliefs and our lifestyle come from meditating on Scripture and Scripture alone! Let us sharpen one another, defend the faith, and bring Glory to the one triune God.”

Romans lecture part 8:

Romans 3:24-26 God’s provision to the problem of man

Our problem is that we have sinned against God’s grace, provoked him to His face, and suppressed any light that we had and are without excuse.
Man is incapable of self-salvation
Autosoterism- The belief that man through his own efforts can arrive to a place of righteousness and holiness before the gods and goddesses. Example: Hinduism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, legalism, Mormonism et al.
Romans 3:21- A righteousness from God has been revealed instead of man creating righteousness himself.
Justification is a gift on the basis of grace. It cannot be earned for it is a gift motivated by God’s grace.
The atonement was not necessary; it was a free gift that God chose to do on the basis of His grace. God did not have to save anybody but by His grace he saved His people through the atonement.
Romans 11:5, 6- Grace and works cannot be mixed together! The mixing of grace and works in Roman Catholicism is contradictory to this passage and all of Biblical religion.
God does not owe us anything. We must understand that God’s plan of salvation is a result of his grace toward sinners who do not deserve salvation at all.
Since God has established the law he cannot contradict it and arbitrarily forgive sinners without full punishment for their sin that is rightfully due.
The grace of God is the foundation but must have a meritorious cause through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus
We are chosen by the Father, purchase by the Son, sealed by the Spirit blessed God three in one (see Ephesians 1)!
The grace of God required the redemptive work of Jesus Christ
Redemption: purchase with a price
Galatians 4:2 Jesus was born under the law in order that he might redeem those under the law
In order for man to go from being a slave to sin and Satan to sons of God, it required a redemption in which the demands of the law were paid off.
We must be punished for our sin or a substitute provided by God must be punished in order that sin might be forgiven. God cannot simply arbitrarily forgive sinners without a punishment for their sin. God cannot lie or contradict the demands of His law.

Justification must be viewed as a gift and not an earned wage
Justification comes from God’s grace, thus it is free and is not something God had to do.
Justification is through redemption which is in Christ Jesus
Justification comes through faith

Faith is unmeritorious and the empty hand that receives God’s free gift of grace
Faith is the bridge that receives the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Propitiation: to give an adequate justification or price to avert the wrath of someone. It’s a word that changes someone’s attitude. To turn the anger of God away from us and look upon us with favor.
Christ’s perfect life symbolized by the shedding of his human blood satisfied the demands of the law and brought about redemption
Justification is through faith as the instrumental means by which we receive grace.
The atonement is a demonstration of God’s righteousness because this is the only way that God can be just and the justifier at the same time!