Contra Mundum

Notable Quotes 9

2012-02-16T10:30:00.000-08:00

A man is not free from a fault, as long as the fault is laid to his charge; he is then free from the fault, when it is not charged upon him. All the powers of the world united are not able to pronounce a person faultless and an innocent person, but only the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the way by which a poor sinner, even in this world, may be pronounced an innocent person; even in this world, I say, and be acquitted and discharged from the fault and guilt of his sin. It is impossible the law should do it; the apostle speaks of it expressly, Rom. viii. 2, "The law of the spirit of life in Christ hath freed me from the law of sin and death." Here it is put upon Christ, to free from the guilt of sin. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, for sin condemned sin in the flesh." "The law," saith the text, “could not do it;" not that the law could not pronounce innocence where innocency was: not that the law could not condemn sin, where it is condemnable by its authority: the law can do this, if it can find subjects whereupon to do it. But the law runs upon these terms, as it finds a person himself without fault, so it pronounceth sentence upon him; if it finds a fault in his person, then it chargeth this fault upon the person alone, as thus: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." Till then thou canst not be absolutely freed from the acting of a thing in its nature that is faulty; thou canst not hear it speak any otherwise but of faultiness, which it chargeth upon thee.

Tobias Crisp, Works, Sermon 1 on John 14:6

Notable Quotes 8

2012-02-13T10:30:00.000-08:00

It is a great folly in the children of God to question His love merely because of the greatness of their afflictions. We presently cry out, as Job, chapter 30:21, “Thou art become cruel to me; with thy strong hand thou opposeth thyself against me;” that He hath put off all fatherly affection, because we judge of the cross according to the sense of our own flesh. And therefore to question God’s love because of afflictions is folly. Rather we conclude the contrary of the two. Bastards are left to a looser disciple than sons; the bramble of the wilderness is suffered to grow and spread when the vine is cut, and pruned, and pared; the stones that are to be set in the building are most hewed and squared, others lie neglected in the quarry and are left to their own roughness. Multiplied afflictions are a sign God hath a care of you; He will not suffer you to run wild. And therefore, in defiance of the cross, learn to call God Father; look through the cloud of the present dispensation to the love of God towards you.

Thomas Manton – Sermon on Luke 23:34

Grounds of Saving Faith 3

2012-02-10T10:30:00.000-08:00

Having dispensed with what are not the grounds of justifying faith we must not ask: What then are the grounds of true justifying faith? This is what we now propose to answer.

The Covenant of Grace, or the gracious call of God in the Gospel - as it is held out in Scripture - is the only, adequate ground of faith. In this call, or offer of the Gospel there are six particulars to be considered which are the special grounds of believing:

A. The Gospel call declares that there is a sufficient Savior. This Savior is Jesus Christ. There is no other way. As the Heidelberg Catechism says, “either Jesus is not a complete Saviour; or that they, who by a true faith receive this Saviour, must find all things in him necessary to their salvation (Lord’s Day 11, Question 30).

B. Christ’s good-will and desire to confer the all-sufficient remedy. God gave His only Son, and the Son came to do the Father’s will. Not only is Christ a sufficient Savior, He is full of good-will and tender-heartedness toward the elect sinners for whom He atoned.

C. There is God’s promise of the all-sufficient remedy Christ’s satisfaction obtained. It is not just that we were dead in sin and in need of a Savior. We actually have the promise of God that all things we need for our salvation are to be found in Christ.

D. This promise is amply accomplished in that Christ both fulfilled the Law for His people and suffered the punishment their sins deserved. Christ perfectly obeyed God in our place, thus establishing the necessary righteous, perfect obedience to the Law of God, which Adam forfeited when He broke the Covenant of Works. Moreover, Christ paid the price of death which our transgressions incurred. So the two-fold requirement was met.

E. Furthermore, we have the explicit command of God to believe in Christ and to freely embrace the offer of salvation through His merits. More than merely being offered to poor sinners, the Gospel is actually commanded to be believed.

F We must also consider God’s faithfulness. Christ asserted that He would not drive away those who in saving faith came to Him (John 6:37).

Grounds of Saving Faith 2

2012-02-08T10:30:00.000-08:00

Having looked at a couple of things that are not grounds of justifying faith, let us consider a few more before passing on to the positive side of our study.

3. The attributes of God (His power, mercy, love wisdom, etc.) are not formal grounds of justifying faith. I say this for these reasons:

A. If these were sufficient ground of believing, then Adam would have had sufficient grounds before the Gospel was proclaimed to him. No one ever had a more intimate and personal experience of God’s attributes of power and goodness than Adam. He experienced at least some fellowship with God unsullied by sin. Even after the Fall, he had an immediate and intimate knowledge of God’s attributes, living as he had in unspoiled nature. As far as this is concerned, the devils and those who have never heard the Gospel might be said to have sufficient grounds for faith. Satan knows God is powerful; so what? Pagans the world over all throughout history have ascertained that God created the world, so what?

B. This would mean that the Gospel is not a supernatural revelation. This is the weakness of natural religion. Natural theology, that is, what can be known about God from nature, is sufficient to leave man without excuse at the tribunal of God, but not sufficient to give saving faith. Revelation is needed for that.

C. When we are called to believe, we are called to come boldly to the throne of grace, looking to be saved through the merits of Christ as held out to us in the Gospel. Believing that God is almighty and merciful (or whatever other attribute you can think of) comes short of this.

D. Jesus Christ, the God-man, dying for our sins, held out to us as a propitiation, is the only object of saving faith. We do not exercise saving faith in Christ’s offices or work, but in His person. A man can believe that Jesus is Mediator, without trusting in Him as Mediator. The demons who possessed the Gadarene man knew Christ was the Son of God, so what?

4. The inward objective witness of the Spirit is not the grounds of justifying faith. What I mean by this is: we are not to suspend believing till we obtain this experience. Much that passes for Evangelical Gospel preaching falls into this pitfall. So much is made of experience. Those who have had any experience with Pentecostalism or Charismaticism will know what I mean.

The reason why personal “experience” can be no measure of genuine faith is because it is not impossible for experience to contradict Scripture, or to convey doctrine which is contrary to Scripture. If this happens, one is thrown back on one’s self for assurance rather than the promises of God. I am fickle, changing and uncertain. If my faith is based on nothing better than my subjective personal experience, I am in deep trouble. One thinks of the Benny Hinns of the world who, through professed spiritual experience gain access to all kinds of new revelation. This jettisons the Scripture and substitutes in its place the unverifiable clams of egocentric weirdos. I have met people that claim to have seen ghosts and even to have photographed them. Scripture tells me that when a person dies, that person’s soul goes to heaven or hell. It does not wander the earth looking for justice or looking after living loved ones. Do I believe experience or Scripture? I get a tingle up my spine when I repeat the sinner’s prayer. Is this a reliable ground for faith?

There is no way to distinguish truth from falsehood on this basis, either. Mormons experience their “burning in the bosom.” Are we to assume that they believe savingly? And, no, I do not accept Joel Osteen as an authority on this subject. Scripture is God’s revelation and it is either sufficient or it is not sufficient. Looking for a sign is the mark of a “wicked and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39).

Besides, the witness of the Spirit comes after believing, not before it.

5. Conviction, Remorse, moral goodness and the like are not grounds of justifying faith. Our reasons for asserting this are:

A. The true grounds of faith are outside a man. Faith goes out of itself to the name of Christ. Whatever purpose conviction, remorse, joy, morality, etc., may serve, they are all within the man and thus are not grounds of faith. If they were, then the man would simply be believing in himself. This theory has more in common with the Wizard of Oz than Biblical Christianity.

B. Everyone is commanded to believe, but not everyone is humbled, weary and heavy laden. The obligation to believe precedes any awareness or sense of guilt or humility. Just because a man does not feel remorseful, this does not excuse him from the sinfulness of rejecting the Gospel.

C. The Gospel command to repent and believe is given to creatures who have no spiritual feeling. They are dead in sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1). Many in Laodicea felt the exact opposite of their true spiritual condition (Revelation 3:18).

6. Lastly, in honor (or rather dishonor) of the Hagin theory of faith. Faith is not to put in faith either. Anyone who has ever heard a Word of Faith preacher, has heard him/her claim that we must put faith in our faith, that is, have faith in our faith. Besides sounded stupid, this is ridiculous counsel. What else is this but faith in one’s self? Scripture curses such faith. Someone once remarked that faith in faith is like driving in the dark on a bridge that doesn’t reach the other side. Faith, as such, is not some mystical power in the universe that we can tap into once we know the secret. That has more in common with Wicca than Christianity. My faith in God is not what saves me, but rather the God in whom I have faith, is who saves me. There is a world of difference between those two things.

Grounds of Saving Faith 1

2012-02-06T10:30:00.000-08:00

Saving faith is perhaps one of the most undefined things in all of Christendom. In thousands of pulpits around the world, sinners are called to believe for their salvation. The need for faith is asserted over and over, but what exactly this faith is and what are its grounds, is seldom, if ever defined. In the absence of proper definition and explanation, false ideas slip in unawares.

So in answering this question regarding the grounds of faith, it seems profitable to start by showing what are not grounds of faith.

1. A sense of misery, considered by itself is not a ground of justifying faith. I have heard preachers bend over backwards to create in their hearers a sense of their miserable condition separated as they are from God. There is no doubt that a sense of one’s sinfulness before a holy God will create in the heart of a sinner a sense of misery. The Psalmist speaks of feeling that his sins have “gone over his head” (Psalm 38:4).

What we mean, however, is the simple sense of one’s misery and sinfulness. The sense of this is not the grounds of faith. No doubt, even the devil, his demons, and the damned souls in hell sense their misery. Preachers like Finney gave people the impression that this feeling of dread and misery was a prerequisite for faith. So that his listeners had the idea that they are not obliged to belief until they felt this, or that their belief was not real until they felt some extraordinary sensation of guilt and/or relief from it.

Think this through for a moment and you will see that it is nothing but works-righteousness. The only reason they wish to come to Christ is because they are weary and heavy laden. They fear hell and therefore they come to Christ as an escape hatch. This is mere legalism. I desire to be saved and I want to be happy, hence, I will go to Christ to make my dreams come true. This is the heart of the pseudo-gospel preached by the likes of Joel Osteen. “Come to Christ because He doesn’t want you to be unhappy and miserable. You’re a great guy and He wants to show you how much He thinks of you by making your wildest dreams become a reality.”

We are to believe, not so much because we find ourselves miserable sinners, but because we are miserable sinners and are commanded to believe. There is nothing wrong with Hell fire and brimstone preaching, per se. But when the objective is to simply intimidate people through servile fear to accept Christ, you are merely making false converts. Nobody loves parachutes simply as parachutes. No one wants one strapped to his back while he’s lounging in his recliner. But people will kill for one on a crashing plane. How can we, who would be insulted if we were treated this way, expect God to be pleased with this kind of faith?

2. Man’s testimony is no ground for justifying faith. I have been in hundreds of meetings where someone’s “testimony” was shared as a means of evangelizing the lost. It is true that a man’s testimony may serve as a motive to us to give assent to the truth of Scripture. The people of Samaria believed because of the woman’s report, but upon hearing Christ, they said, “Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves.” John 4:42

It is nice to hear how God has sovereignly worked in someone else’s life, but this is not the Gospel that it to be savingly believed. Our point is this, if a person “believes” merely on the strength of my personal testimony of my experience, that person’s faith is grounded in nothing better than his subjective acceptance of my experience. Unless faith is based upon Christ and His own word, it has shifting sand as a foundation.

How Christ Limits the Atonement 4

2012-02-03T10:30:00.000-08:00

Today we will conclude, for the time being, our look at the nature and extent of the atonement. We must first hasten to reiterate that the two things, nature and extent, are intimately connected. As we have asserted and will further assert, the nature of the atonement defines its extent.

Answering the question “Who are the objects of Christ's atonement?” would have been much simpler had men been satisfied with the statements of Scripture and the ideas derived from these statements of Scripture. The atonement is simply coextensive, as far as its saving effects are concerned, with the number of true believers. This should have been the last word, and indeed would have been, were it not for men who, being driven less by religious convictions than by speculative tendencies, deemed it necessary to extend the atonement to all men alike. Rather than contenting themselves with the Scriptural revelation that the atonement was coextensive with it effects, they insisted that it be coextensive with the entire human race, and for each member equally.

This brings us full circle to something I said at the outset of our discussion, that the issue at stake when this subject is broached is that what is really being questioned is not the extent of the atonement, but rather its nature. One need only to look at the various universalist theories to see that this is, in fact, the case.

There are four basic categories of universalist theories.

A. The thorough-going theory of universal salvation; that is, the belief that in virtue of Christ's work, all men will ultimately be saved. The only good thing that can be said about this theory is that it carries its presuppositions through to their logical consequences. It affirms that the actual restoration attained by Christ is coextensive with the actual ruin of the race. It overlooks justice simply falls back on a fuzzy idea of Divine benevolence. Though it is completely and utterly unscriptural, it is at least self-consistent.

B. Arminianism is the second universalist theory. It is far less consistent than the above theory. Its trademark is the notion of universal grace. This affirms that the atonement made by Christ was coextensive with the whole of humanity, whether they believe it or not. By looking only at one side of the equation, they completely undermine the atonement as a valid fact. By holding that on God's side the remedy is as universal as the disease they lose in at the center what they gain in breadth. The atonement does not actually secure anything; it merely makes possible the salvation of man who, of his own free-will, chooses to believe. At bottom, it is tantamount to saying that the atonement made it possible for man to save himself.

C. The Amyraldist view of universal grace, while differing in some respects from the Arminian scheme, has the same fatal flaw at its center. This theory asserts that because of God's love to fallen men He appointed Christ as a mediator for every single individual human being – and that by this means all barriers on the side of Divine justice have been removed. Salvation is thus said to have been made possible, but it adds the condition which switches the application of it to God's sovereign will: it is for all if they believe. It should be obvious that this theory alters the nature of the atonement. It holds that Christ, by His own intention and the Father's purpose, died for everyone, that a salvation was purchased for everyone though not applied to everyone. Moreover, the atonement, though not actually securing redemption or faith - by causal connection, made it possible for God to bestow salvation on anyone He pleased and to form a new covenant of grace with humanity in general. Thus the atonement is not a transaction in its own nature, involving a covenant or substitution and securing its own application. Again, note that, like Arminianism, this theory falsely assumes that a limitation to the extent of the atonement is somehow a limitation to the power of God and the love of God.

D. Finally, there is a form of the universalist theory that is not the result of any philosophical speculation at all. It is little more that an uninformed and roundabout way of representing the universal call of the Gospel. Preachers of this theory (which is not even really a theory, as such) are content to say that Christ died for all men without ever working out the ramifications of such a statement. They never think through the logical consequences and all they really mean is that the invitation, when it is given by the preacher, is given to all alike. Many good men, under a confused impression, express themselves in this way without ever considering or investigating that their universal call must have a universal provision underlying it. They never ponder that, regarding the completeness of the atonement, it is necessary that the three involved parties (the Father, the Surety, and the man needing salvation) concur. There must be a consent of all the concerned parties. The sinner's exercise of faith must be seen as his approval of this method of salvation and his consent to it. This was signified in the Old Testament when the worshiper laid his hand on the head of the sacrifice demonstrating his consent to this form of expiation and confessing his sins onto the animal victim.

Proponents of this last form of universal atonement, generally assume that to believe in Christ is equivalent to believing that Christ died for us. These two are not the same thing. The first mental act is an apprehension of a sufficient Savior; the second is an inference from this. First of all, no one is called to believe that Christ died for him any more than he is required to believe that his sins are pardoned before he believes. Conversely, regarding the responsibility for rejecting the Gospel, the condemnation or punishment is due to the sinner's refusal to accept a sufficient Redeemer and accept this way of salvation. He rejects the idea and method of it, whereas faith is the acceptance and approval of it. The sinner concurs and signifies his concurrence by faith, demonstrating that he approves of this way of salvation and desires to be saved in no other way. Then all concerned parties are concurred.

Those who promote an indefinite atonement make the whole transaction complete without man's consent. I fail to see what conceivable advantage is gained by making the atonement wider that the number of those who approve of it and are willing to be saved by it.

These theories fall apart when we allow Christ to define the nature of the atonement, because the real question is its nature not its extent. Once the nature is defined, the question of the extent answers itself.

How Christ Limits the Atonement 3

2012-02-01T10:30:00.000-08:00

Today we will look at the fifth title Christ affixes to the objects of redemption. We noted that first they are called the many, His sheep, His people, and the children of God scattered abroad.

Fifthly and finally, Christ calls them His friends, for whom He lays down His life (John 15:13). Clearly, the emphasis of this statement is the special love Christ has for His people, which here He calls friends.

The design for which He laid down His life is not mentioned here. But that had already been explained in the institution of the Lord's Supper. Christ's explanation of the Supper that His blood was to be shed for the remission of sins fully expresses the purpose and the effect of His atoning death. So when Christ wishes to teach His disciples mutual love, He appeals to His own example and points to the greatest proof that could be adduced of His love: His vicarious death.

Even without these considerations, it is clear that His death was in the stead of those He called His friends. Both the procuring of redemption and its application are stressed in this passage by the term friend and by the fact that He willingly lays down His life. This special love wins, finds, and rescues its object.

How Christ Limits the Atonement 2

2012-01-30T10:30:00.000-08:00

Today we pick up where we left off yesterday and will consider two more titles by which the objects of redemption are known. We noted previously that they are called the many and secondly, they are called His sheep.

Thirdly, Christ calls the objects of the atonement His people. This argues that they were already Christ's in the divine purpose. At His birth it was said, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). If Jesus saves His people, then they were already His by divine gift. This puts a bullet in the brain of the Arminian proposal that the atonement would have been equally complete even if no one would have been saved. That is completely incompatible with this text because it clearly says that He was the Savior of His people.

The two common objections to this interpretation are that (a) His people may refer to the Jews; and, (b) that this refers to the application of redemption, not its purchase. Both objections are easily refuted. To the first, we reply that God's people are two-fold, first the Jews as the people He foreknew (Romans 11:2), secondly, the true people of God, who belong to those given to the Son (John 6:37). As far as the second objection goes, both the purchase and the application of the redemption were in God's purpose and intention.

Fourthly, the objects of redemption are called the children of God scattered abroad (John 11:52). This phrase occurs in connection with Caiaphas' unwitting prophecy and is John's inspired commentary on it. John calls the objects of redemption “the children of God scattered abroad,” because they truly were so in God's purpose, though not yet actually ransomed. John intimates that they were fore-appointed children of God, and therefore, in some sense worthy of being called such before Christ's death. In other words, these “children of God scattered abroad” were the objects of the vicarious sacrifice, and the atonement carried with it the certain outcome of their being united to Christ. The special reference of the atonement and its particular extent is put beyond all question by this passage.

How Christ Limits the Atonement 1

2012-01-27T10:30:00.000-08:00

When considering the question of the extent of the atonement, it is important to state that most theories regarding it are quite out of bounds because they fail to see that the extent is defined by its nature.(Which is why we refuted objections to the doctrine of the atonement, thus defining its nature, before we took on this topic.) So the real question is regarding the nature of the atonement. The nature circumscribes its extent. It extends as far as its nature intends it to extend. Discussions on this subject are almost always carried on as if the extent of the atonement can be decided without reference to the nature of the atonement. But when we ponder the issue of the extent of the atonement, in other words, for whom did Christ die, by Christ's own words, if they carry any weight with us at all, the verdict is quite decisive. Christ uses several expressions in speaking of whom His death is efficacious for and for whom are its effects. Let us adduce five of them here and comment briefly on each.

First, he calls them the many (Matthew 26:28; 20:28). If we study across the scope of Jesus' teaching, we will find that this expression, the many, is used by Him exclusively to refer to those who are His own, a people given to Him. The word many would not be enough to prove the limited extent of the atonement were it not also for the fact that they are described by marks which cannot be applied universally.

In the 17^th century, a dangerous theory was contrived (a fan favorite of the Arminians), which held that when Christ was said to have died for all, this was referring to what had been done to procure redemption, and when He was said to have died for many, or for the Church, it was describing the actual participation of redemption. That this theory is not only false, but also dangerous, can be seen by the fact that our Lord describes the actual offering of the ransom and not just its application.

Secondly, Christ calls the objects of His atonement, His sheep. (John 10:15) We could repeat many of the remarks made above here as well. They are referred to as His sheep already, because they were given to Him by divine decree, and are therefore known as His own. Without a connection between Christ and the objects of redemption, such as that which obtains between shepherd and sheep, or head and body, no atonement could have been made. The Covenant of Redemption demanded such a union.

The phrase my sheep implies two things:

There was no uncertainty whether He would have a flock. His death already had in view special objects of redemption with whom He was already bound by a covenant necessary for His work of redemption.
They are His purchased property; they are the fruit of His atonement. This truth negates the Arminian objection that our doctrine assumes that certain people were already Christ's sheep before He died. They were sheep in the Divine purpose, and in Christ's work, though not actually till the ransom was paid for them. Christ declares that He died for the sheep (John 10:26) and the context shows that this refers to the elect given to Him.

The special reference of the atonement to the elect as well as the natural implication that this vicarious sacrifice secures the conversion of those for whom it was offered is incontrovertibly asserted by the words, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring” (John 10:16). First they are called His sheep, then they are described as the objects of redemption, for whom He laid down His life, that is, for whom atonement was actually made, and lastly, they must be led - as sheep led by their shepherd.

Our next post will pick up this theme and look at the next two titles by which Christ refers to the objects of redemption.

Answering Objections to The Atonement 5

2012-01-25T10:30:00.000-08:00

V. Finally, it is objected that the atonement of Christ was unnecessary. It is supposed that God could have maintained His Honor equally in acquitting sinners with or without a satisfaction.

Of course, we have already addressed this ridiculous assumption in part when we refuted the 3^rd objection. But we will take it head on now as a separate issue.

The problems with this objection:

A. It is presumptuous. It is not for us, on the ground of mere abstract reasoning, to say what is necessary or not necessary for Almighty God. We step way beyond our limits when we venture to say what would or would not be honorable for God to do. It is setting up our weak, erring, finite understandings as judges over the infinite mind of Jehovah.

B. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the necessity of the atonement could not be shown, it would not follow, even then, that we are at liberty to pronounce it unnecessary. There may be reasons for it which we have never discovered, or which we are not qualified to comprehend. We are not justified in assuming we know as much as God about the situation.

C. This objection works on a horridly imperfect and restricted view of the nature of man's sin against God. Inadequate views of sin are at the bottom of almost all doctrinal and practical errors in the world. Men are ready to regard it as something altogether different from what it is regarded by God. It is our natural bent to downplay the sinfulness of sin.

D. Further, this objection proceeds on an imperfect view of human salvation. Even assuming for argument's sake that God might honorably forgive sin without a satisfaction, it should be remembered that remission of sins is not the whole of salvation. In other words, salvation entails more than mere pardon of sins. Supposing that God could forgive sins without a satisfaction, this leaves completely untouched all the other areas of salvation.

Answering Objections to The Atonement 4

2012-01-23T10:30:00.000-08:00

IV. It is further objected that the innocent suffering for the guilty is inconsistent with reason and with the goodness and justice of God. How, so goes the objection, can it be imaginable that an innocent victim should suffer for the guilty?

Problems with this objection:

A. It must simply be admitted by all that, under the moral government of God, sometimes the innocent do suffer for the guilty.

B. This objection weighs against opponents of the doctrine of the atonement. They claim that Christ suffered for the benefit of mankind. They will admit that, at least as far as the alleged grounds of his sufferings, He was innocent. No objector has ever claimed that Christ was anything but perfectly upright and immaculately pure. Well, what is this but the innocent suffering for the guilty? We say He suffered in our stead; they say He suffered for our benefit. But at the end of the day, it is still the innocent suffering for the guilty.

C. The objectors overlook that, although Christ was personally innocent, He was viewed as legally guilty. In Himself, He could boldly defy His accusers: “Which one of you convinceth me of sin?” (John 8:46) But as the Surety and substitute of elect sinners, “the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” “He bore the sins of the many.” (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:6, 12)

D. Christ's sufferings, being of a voluntary nature, deflate this objection. An innocent person being compelled to suffer for the guilty would be the height of injustice. But this is not the case with the atonement. The Father did not put a gun to Christ’s head and force Him, against His will to die for the elect sinners. Christ voluntarily gave up His life for the elect sinners. Regarding His life, He Himself said, “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:18). Romans chapter 5 shoots this objection right between the eyes.

E. This objection appear even more futile when we note that in this arrangement (the innocent suffering for the guilty), the ends served by punishment are more fully attained by the innocent’s suffering than by the suffering of the guilty themselves. At the same time, no injury is done either to the Law or to the sufferer. The Law is neither harmed nor violated, and no ultimate harm comes to the Surety. The integrity of the Law is upheld and the retribution prescribed is meted out. The Surety fulfills the Law perfectly, pays the penalty for its violation, yet because He is God, He is able to bear the infinite wrath of God in the brief span of time He spent on earth. When He cried out, “It is finished;” it truly was finished. Christ no longer suffers for sin.

F. It ought also to be taken into consideration that, in respect of the substitutionary sufferings of the Son of God, the rewards of the Mediator for His suffering far outweigh the suffering itself. In other words, it is of such a compensative arrangement that it prevents all ultimate injury to the party concerned. (cf. Philippians 2:1-10). We rejoice in the cross of Christ as the source of our pardon. Our satisfaction is heightened by beholding it succeeded by the crown. He was for a only little while made lower than the angels for the suffering of death. But now He is crowned with glory and honor and now sits at the right hand of the Father while His enemies are made His footstool. His humiliation was followed by His exaltation.

G. Finally, it must be borne in mind that the substitution of Christ is a case which is absolutely peculiar. The substitutionary atonement of Christ is exactly of the nature required. It is an event that is unique, in the fullest sense of that word. We have no reason to imagine that anything like it ever existed before, or will ever exist again. It is a singular event in the divine administration. Christ has once suffered for sin. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of the many. Once in the end of the world did He appear to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (Isaiah 53:12; Hebrews 9:28)

Answering Objections to The Atonement 3

2012-01-20T10:30:00.000-08:00

III. It is further objected that the doctrine of the atonement is not compatible with the gracious nature of pardon.

Those who hold this objection assert that forgiveness of sins is always ascribed by the Scriptures to grace. It is an act of free favor, of sovereign goodness. But, they claim that it is no longer grace but an act of justice when it hinges on the supposition that Jesus made satisfaction for sin. Instead of it being merciful of God to pardon sin, it would be unjust of Him to withhold forgiveness. Simply put: grace and justice are so opposed to each other that if something is done in deference to justice, it cannot be of grace.

Problems with this objection:

A. This objection supposes justice and grace to be opposed to one another, not only in their nature but also in their exercise, so that both cannot have respect to the same object. We need only recall what we have already said about the perfect harmony of these perfections in the divine nature to dispel this objection. This is a nonsensical objection unless we are willing to argue that God suspends one of His attributes when He acts according to another. In short, this objection cannot be made unless you are willing to posit a God with multiple personalities.

B. This objection overlooks the origin of Christ's satisfaction. Man did not find a Surety for himself. If someone besides God had provided the ground on which pardon rests, there might be room to deny the graciousness of the act. But it is God who provides the Mediator and the work of the Surety. God manifests His grace in determining to pardon man and further demonstrates it by providing a legal ground on which pardon may proceed in a way that is completely consistent with justice.

C. This objection also overlooks an obvious fact: Although the satisfaction of Christ may be regarded as a legal purchase of forgiveness, the bestowing of forgiveness is completely act of grace as the recipient is concerned. It is free pardon to men. They have no claim to it. No satisfaction was made by them. They do nothing to procure forgiveness for themselves. If pardon is an act of justice at all, it is only so to Christ. To the sinner it is pure sovereign goodness.

D. It is also falsely assumed that God could have given a display of His grace by pardoning sin without satisfaction. In layman’s terms: If God wanted to, He could just forgive sins, because He’s a nice guy, and because that’s what nice guys do. There is actually no need to punish His Son so that He could forgive us. Couldn’t He just overlooked or sins and shown how loving He really is? This would be a display of His grace.

It seems to me that the opposite would be much truer. This would display no grace at all. Imagine for a minute that God had pardoned sin without an atonement, and pardoned not only some people, but all the family of man. What inference would intelligent and moral beings have been disposed to draw from this? That God is gracious, and that His grace is without limits? I think not. Wouldn't it be far more reasonable to infer that sin, the violation of His law, was no big deal, at least not as big a deal as had been imagined, considering it could be so easily passed over by a Being of such absolute moral perfection?

Answering Objections to The Atonement 2

2012-01-18T10:30:00.000-08:00

II. It has also been argued that the doctrine of the atonement is inconsistent with divine immutability. The atonement is supposed to effect a change in the mind of God: that He is reconciled, on account of the atonement, to those with whom He was formerly displeased, and compelled to love what He formerly hated.

The problems with this objection are:

A. Much of what we said above regarding the first objection could equally be applied to this one, because at heart it resolves into the same objection. But it should also be noted that whenever orthodox theologians have used language which seems to imply a change in God, this is nothing more than what is done by the inspired authors themselves. Scripture frequently uses that we call anthropopathism.

B. This may seem like we are shifting the difficulty from our shoulders to that of the authors of Scripture. But look at it this way: Are we to suppose, on the authority of Scripture, no less, that the atonement does effect a change on the immutable God? This would be blasphemy. What we affirm is that the texts of Scripture which do use anthropopathism only seem to imply a change in God. We do not say that they really imply such a thing.

Well, what then do they imply? To speak of a change in the nature, or attributes, or will of God is blasphemous and absurd. But it is neither blasphemous nor absurd to speak of a change in the mode of the divine administration. Anger, wrath and displeasure are not the same passions in God that they in man when we use those words. They are terms which denote the binding opposition of God’s rectitude to those who have violated the righteous law of the Lord who loves righteousness. They describe the relation into which iniquity brings transgressors to the Lawgiver and Judge of the universe. It is the language of government not the language of passion. Hence what the atonement effects is, not a change in God the Lawgiver, but a change in the administration of His government: a change in the relation that subsists between His creatures and Him.

C. This objection is an explicit denial of the doctrine of Election. It works on the supposition that God’s love for His elect is no different than for the non-elect, or that God has the same love for those He has reprobated as He has for the elect. God has set His chesed love upon the elect from before the foundations of the world, and therefore He was not compelled by the atonement to love elect sinners for whom He had previously had no chesed.

Answering Objections to The Atonement 1

2012-01-16T10:30:00.000-08:00

The term atonement is thrown around in Christian circles from time to time. We often hear about various theories and objections. In this series, we will define Atonement in the biblical sense and then handle the five most common objections to the doctrine.

I have had great difficulty in assigning a name to this definition because, although it is certainly fits the bill of Reformed, calling it “Reformed” would be selling it short because it is a definition that is represented in the writings of the Church Fathers and the best of the Church’s theologians prior to the Reformation. It might be best to call it a catholic definition of the Atonement, to signify its veracity universally and historically.

The Atonement means: That perfect satisfaction given to the Law and justice of God, by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, on behalf of elect sinners of mankind, on account of which they are delivered from condemnation.

I. Objection is made to the doctrine of the atonement that it represents God in a less than favorable light. Emphasizing as it does, the fact that God demands satisfaction for sin, as a just Judge, is said to destroy the attribute of mercy and resolve God’s whole character into strict, inexorable justice.

The Atonement is presented as if the death of Christ procures the mercy or love of God for sinners; as if Christ’s death is that which makes God willing to forgive the sins of his creatures – as if without it, He would not be willing. The atonement is thus portrayed as a motivator, or some kind of inducement which effects a change in God’s mind from wrath to compassion.

Problems with this objection:

A. The objection has a mistaken view of what the atonement is understood to produce. Let’s clear the decks: No one who understands this subject ever imagines that the work of Christ is, in any sense the cause of God’s love, mercy or grace; but the medium through which these perfections of God find expression to guilty creatures. The atonement is never regarded as necessary to produce love in God toward men, rather as necessary for His love to be manifested. Christ’s satisfaction for sin does not make God love the elect; it demonstrates the love He bore toward them in His heart from eternity past.

B. The objection proceeds on the mistaken assumption that God is ready to pardon sin without satisfaction, and, that retributive justice is not part of God's character. Our objectors therefore, falsely view forgiveness as the result of a purely arbitrary resolve of God’s will, which has nothing to do with law and government.

We must remind our objector that God is just as well as merciful. Rectitude is as essential a feature of the divine Being as is love. If the Scriptures represent God as a loving Father 'in whom compassions flow,' (Psalm 86:13) they no less conspicuously reveal Him as a Lawgiver 'who will by no means clear the guilty' (Exodus 34:7). These two things must never be set in opposition to each other. Rather they must be considered as equally essential, coexistent, cooperative, and congruent. It is a huge mistake to think of God as acting sometimes from the one attribute and at other times acting from the other. In other words, we must not imagine God at one time acting according to mercy, and at another according to justice. He acts in harmony with both at all times. Exercising the one never entails suspending the other. When God punishes the guilty, it is not at the expense of mercy. When God forgives the sinner, it is not at the expense of justice. Mercy operates on a principle that agrees with justice. So while mercy inclines God to forgive, justice must receive satisfaction in order for forgiveness to be given. Deny this, and you place in clashing opposition two essential attributes of God’s nature. But admit this, and the objection we are considering falls dead to the ground. The satisfaction which the doctrine of atonement supposes to be made by Christ is necessary, not to awaken the feeling of mercy in God’s heart, but to reconcile the merciful forgiveness of sin with the impartial demands of justice.

The Certainty of Heaven For The Elect

2012-01-13T10:30:00.000-08:00

Heaven is the great hope of Christians. However, hope with no certainty is no hope at all. No matter how excellent heaven may be, if there is no certainty of getting there, belief in it is of but little comfort. This is a look again at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are elect and have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, will undoubtedly be preserved by God and will certainly enter that blessed place. In the words of George Swinnock, “Know, to the joy of thine heart, that as heaven is a place of unspeakable excellency, so thy enjoyment of it, new-born creature, is of unquestionable certainty.” (Works, Volume 3)

Rather than fight against such a truth, we should rather show our gratitude to God for condescending to our frail capacities and affirming this certainty to us again and again. In His compassion, God confirms to us the certainty of our entrance into heaven when we die.

1. By explicit promise:

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Luke 12:32;

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. 2 Corinthians 1:20;

“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed.” Joshua 23:14;

In hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began... Titus 1:2;

We should also note the passages which also imply the certainty of the elect's obtaining heaven. This would include passages such as 1 Peter 1:3-5, which reads: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” What is the sense of God keeping our inheritance in heaven for us if there is no guarantee that we will get there to obtain it? That is why the passage also informs us that not only is our inheritance kept safe for us in heaven, but we also are guarded by God's power.

2. By a Divine oath:

As if it were not enough for God to simply promise something, He has also bound Himself to the fulfillment of this promise by making an oath to boot

For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable nature of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. Hebrews 6:16-18

The two unchangeable things are God's promise and God's oath. By confirming His promise with an oath, God demonstrated that the promise was indeed His eternal purpose. It is the Father's good pleasure to give us the kingdom. Not only has Christ explicitly promised us this, but God further confirmed it with an oath, as if there were any reason to doubt God's promise in the first place!

3. By His seals:

The Old Testament form of the New Testament sacrament of baptism was circumcision. On this point all Reformed have always been agreed. Colossians 2:11-12 confirms this. What are sacraments, but signs and seals of God's covenant promises. So in reference to the sacrament of circumcision, Paul writes: “He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Romans 4:11

Without going into a long exegesis of this passage, helpful as that may be, it is enough to note that righteousness was imputed to Abraham and that God swore to bear the punishment of being “cut off” (which circumcision signified), if the covenant were violated. Christ was, of course, “cut off” for sin, in fulfillment of this promise, when He was crucified. But circumcision was more than simply a sign. It also served as a seal of God's promise to Abraham. And this is the significance for us of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Table. They not only signify to us the promise of God's forgiveness of our sins and His promise to forever be our God, they also seal these promises to us. The sacraments are God's promise to us, not our promise to God. To make the sacraments signify our promise to God is like saying that the rainbow is our promise to God not to drown.

Ephesians 4:30 informs us that the Holy Spirit seals us to the day of redemption. So we are assured that if the hand and seal of God does it, heaven is guaranteed to all that are sanctified. Moreover, all who God regenerates, He unquestionably intends to sanctify and ultimately glorify (Romans 8:30).

4. By an earnest:

Not only has God sealed His promise to us in the sacraments, He has given us the Holy Spirit as an earnest, that is, a down payment, as a further guarantee of His promise to us of eternal life. When you make a down payment on a car or house, that is your promise and guarantee that you will not default on the transaction, but will faithfully and honestly pay it off completely. An earnest makes the transaction certain. Hence Scripture says: “And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (2 Corinthians 1:22). The King James renders this last word “earnest” The Greek word means “deposit” or “down payment.” It serves as a guarantee that the whole payment will be made.

5. By the first-fruits

In Romans 8:23, Paul call the gift of the Spirit to us a “first-fruits.” This is an allusion to the Old Testament feast of First-fruits. At the commencement of the harvest, the very first samples of the crops, ergo the cream of the crop, were given to God. This was done in gratitude to God and demonstrated as thankful certainty of the harvest. In similar fashion, the Spirit is given to us, switching the metaphor, as a first-fruit guaranteeing the promise harvest of eternal life in heaven.

6. By the death of Christ:

Heaven is given to the elect by virtue of a testament, or will. So Christ prays in John 17:24: “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me before the foundation of the world.” Here we find Christ, upon completing His part of the Covenant of Redemption, claiming His right to the promised reward (Isaiah 53:10 – “He shall see His offspring”). No doubt there is a tip of the hat here as well to Psalm 2:8.

Further, we find Scripture telling us: “For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will take effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive” (Hebrews 9:16-17). Here we see that Christ's death not only atoned for our sins, but it also established the “will,” so to speak. Because Christ, who made the will, died, the inheritance is guaranteed.

Perseverance of the Saints 5

2012-01-11T10:30:00.000-08:00

In our final (for the time being, anyway) look at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, we will prove it by looking at the immutability of the Covenant of Grace.

Again, we should define our terms. By Covenant of Grace, we mean that covenant which God made with Abraham, wherein God swore that He would be cut off for the sins of His people. This is what was signified when, in the ratification of the covenant, God passed through the severed carcasses of the animals in Genesis 15. The significance of this event can never be overestimated. By passing through the animal body parts, God was as much as saying that if His people violated His covenant, God would be “cut off” as payment for such sin. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a cutting off, as a seal of this promise.

God frequently mentions this covenant in Scripture, and whenever He does, the eternal nature and immutability of this covenant is always reiterated or implied. In the following passages I have underlined references to the eternal and immutable nature of the Covenant of grace in order to demonstrate what I have just stated.

“This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you. For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” says the LORD, who has compassion on you. (Isaiah 54:9-10 ESV)

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:26-27 ESV)

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:33 ESV)

I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jeremiah 32:40 ESV)

For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, (Hebrews 8:8 ESV)

All of the above passages refer to the Covenant of Grace. It is said to be an “everlasting” covenant which God Himself has established. He swears that that He will be our God and that this covenant will not be removed.

Although I have treated this subject over the course of five posts, it could easily be expanded into a treatment a hundred times larger. This is a subject that appears everywhere in Scripture.

No doubt, those who reject the Perseverance of the Saints do so for the supposedly noble intention of protecting God’s honor and emphasizing the need for holy living. But as we stated back in our first post, Perseverance of the Saints does not lend itself to antinomianism. The fact that my salvation cannot be lost should fill me with unspeakable gratitude to God for the magnitude of my deliverance for my manifold sins and miseries. Whenever we become legalistic or self-righteous it because we have forgotten how great our deliverance from sin is, or we have forgotten how great our sins and miseries are.

1 Corinthians 1:30 assures us that Christ is not only our redemption, but he is also our sanctification. The Arminian belief in a losable salvation is a denial of the connected nature of regeneration and sanctification. God regenerates no one He does not intend to glorify. Therefore, if God has regenerated a man, He will undoubtedly sanctify this man. To say that Perseverance of the Saints is a license to sin with impunity is anathema. In fact, Jude says the person who reasons in this manner does so because he is predestinated to perdition (Jude 4). Harsh words, perhaps, but nevertheless true.

To deny the Perseverance of the Saints is to affirm that God is not immutable, that His decrees are fallible, that Christ’s mediatorial work is insufficient and not satisfactory, that the Spirit’s seal is revocable, and that the Covenant of Grace can and in fact, does fail. These assertions all fall far outside the boundaries of the Christian faith.

Perseverance of the Saints 4

2012-01-09T10:30:00.000-08:00

This time our line of reasoning derives from the Spirit’s work in the life of believers. In Christ’s promise to the disciples that He would send the Spirit, He specifically states that the Spirit would abide with them forever (John 14:16). This is surely a significant statement.

Paul assured the Ephesian believers that the Spirit in us is a guarantee that we will in actual fact attain our inheritance. Here is how he put it: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14 ESV) He further states that the Spirit is the seal of our redemption (Ephesians 4:30).

Those familiar with Old Testament history will know that throughout many times of Israel’s history there was very little true worship. At one point Elijah thought he was the only true worshiper of God left. Because the Spirit abides in God’s people, it is impossible that there should cease to be a “remnant.” In fact, Paul says as much: So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. (Romans 11:5 ESV)

In the very context of Election, Paul asserts that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29 ESV). This is an extremely profound statement. It means that once God has called someone to Himself and granted them the Holy Spirit, He will never revoke it. Bear in mind that election is not coextensive with covenant. Just because someone was in the covenant community of Israel, it was not an iron-clad guarantee that this person was also elect unto salvation. This is why Paul mentions the “remnant.”

In short, the Spirit’s abiding work in the lives of believers is a proof of the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. The Spirit abides eternally in those He has sealed. His work is irrevocable and permanent. Therefore those who are sealed cannot apostatize and will most certainly be saved.

Perseverance of the Saints 3

2012-01-06T09:00:00.000-08:00

Today, we return to our subject of the Perseverance of the Saints. But this time we will prove our point from the efficacy or virtue of Christ’s work as Mediator, which is comprised of three parts: His satisfaction for our sin, His intercession for His elect, and His preservation of those for whom He has made satisfaction.

Let us first consider Christ’s mediatorial work of satisfaction. When Christ cried out “Τετέλεσται,” (It is finished), He declared that He had both fulfilled God’s law perfectly and had fully borne in His body God’s infinite wrath against sin. Nothing more remains to be done about sin. All the sins of God’s elect have been atoned for and Christ’s perfectly obedient righteousness is imputed to them. To say that future sins can cause one to lose his salvation is tantamount to saying: (a) Christ did not make full atonement for the sins of the elect; (b) Men can commit sins that God was not aware of when Christ died; (c) Christ’s death for sin only counts against the specific sins which the sinner must acknowledge individually.

When God raised Christ from the dead He was vindicating Christ’s perfect righteousness and acceptable sacrifice of Himself as a complete satisfaction for sin. If there were even one sin left to be atoned for, Christ would not have offered a complete satisfaction for sin. Hence His resurrection from the dead assures the Perseverance of the Saints. If one of the elect could actually perish if would have to be because of sin. No one perishes for any other reason than sin. This would mean that Christ would not have died as an atonement for all of that person’s sins.

Let’s look at a few relevant Scriptures:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7 ESV)

Notice that John claims we are cleansed from ALL sin.

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. (Romans 5:10 ESV)

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Colossians 2:10 ESV)

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV)

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14 ESV)

The second part of Christ’s mediatorial work is His intercession for those for whom He has made atonement. Here again we have an unbreakable chain. For one of God’s elect to actually perish it would require either Christ not making a full satisfaction for sin (which we have already refuted) or worse yet, having made a satisfaction, He cannot make effectual intercession for them. In other words, Christ can pray to the Father and have His prayer denied. If this is not blasphemy, nothing is.

When Christ stood at Lazarus’ graveside, He thanked the Father for hearing Him, and with the utmost confidence affirmed that He knew that the Father always hears Him (John 11:41, 42). Let that sink in. Christ intercedes only for those for whom He has made atonement. If one for whom He intercedes can finally fall away and perish, then Christ can intercede in vain, i.e., the Father does not always hear Him. This is not rocket science. In His high-priestly prayer in John 17, Christ explicitly states that He prays only for those whom the Father has given Him.

We present several relevant passages:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1 ESV)

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.

(Psalm 2:8 ESV)

And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

(John 17:11 ESV)

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

(John 17:24 ESV)

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

(Hebrews 7:25 ESV)

Finally, let’s look at Christ’s mediatorial work of preserving those for whom He made satisfaction and for whom He intercedes. For one of His elect sheep to finally fall away and perish, would mean that Christ is impotent to protect and preserve His own. Can anyone say that?

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (John 10:27-29 ESV)

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:39 ESV)

Perseverance of the Saints 2

2012-01-04T10:30:00.000-08:00

A couple of days ago, we looked at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints as demonstrated in two beautiful passages. Today we will approach the subject from another angle: the immutability of Election

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— (Romans 9:11 ESV)

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:30 ESV)

So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, (Hebrews 6:17 ESV)

But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” (2 Timothy 2:19 ESV)

“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6 ESV)

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17 ESV)

For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27 ESV)

These verses need very little explanation for our present purpose. Election is an eternal decree. Because it was done by God, who never changes, it is an immutable decree. To suppose election to be mutable is to make God less than an idol. The only possible reason election could be mutable is if God could be mistaken. Since this is a blasphemous assumption, we can rule it out.

This is also why election cannot be along the lines of the cart-before-the-horse Arminian version of election based on foreseen faith. This travesty of reason makes the actions of a finite being the cause of the knowledge of the infinite God. Stupidity!

Here’s the gist of the argument: God has chosen a certain number of people to salvation. This choice was made without any reference to works, good or bad. This is an eternal and immutable decree because God is not a man that he should change His mind, either by miscalculation or false assumptions. He is sovereign over all things – and that says everything. If God has immutably elected someone to salvation, then there is no way in heaven or on earth that this person can fail to be saved. If he could, God would be either mutable or less than perfect and almighty. Case closed.

Perseverance of the Saints 1

2012-01-02T10:30:00.000-08:00

We are going to look at the Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. First of we, we should define our terms. Perseverance of the Saints is not equal to the once-saved-always-saved (OSAS) doctrine held in certain evangelical circles. The latter lends itself to antinomian, that is, lawless behavior. The former does not. Let me explain. Both teach the impossibility of one’s salvation being lost, but the emphases are different. OSAS is easily perverted into a license for sin because the basic assumption underlying it is this: No matter what I do, I am and always will be saved. Once I have accepted Christ, that’s it. My salvation does not hinge on my actions, thus they don’t matter. So OSAS seems to frequently look at ‘me’ and discount my life altogether. Perseverance of the Saints, on the other hand, strives to emphasize God’s preserving power over the salvation of His elect. Perseverance of the Saints also strives to emphasize the doctrine of sanctification. God does not save anyone He does not intend to sanctify. Therefore with the Reformed presentation of the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints there is no question of antinomianism. We believe that behavior matters, but we also believe that God sovereignly brings trials into our lives to mold our character. Hence what matters is that our character is being molded into the image of His Son. Salvation depends on what Christ has done, not on what we do.

Having said that, let’s look at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. We will assess it from five different angles.

The first line of reasoning or form of argumentation for the Perseverance of the Saints is the express teaching of scripture. Although we will present numerous passages demonstrating this doctrine, we will first look at two main foundational passages.

I. The steps of a man are established by the LORD, when he delights in his way; though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong, for the LORD upholds his hand. Psalm 37:24

This Scripture speaks of a righteous man both walking and falling. The only presumable reason God casts anyone away is because of sin. Yet this verse explicitly tells of a man who God does not cast away because of his sins.

Much that passes for Christian teaching overlooks the basic underpinning of this passage of Scripture. Salvation from sin and regeneration do not guarantee a life of sinless perfection. This is not to say that we do not strive against sin. But we are not to expect sinless perfection in this life. God does not expect it either. He did not save us because of our moral uprightness. Many Christians profess to believe that salvation is by grace, that is the initial accepting of Christ and repentance of sins, but after that, you’re on your own. Salvation is not earned by works, they will profess. But they live as if they believed that salvation is maintained by works.

A second relevant passage is:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ... For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:35, 38-39

I have heard raving Arminians claim that this passage does not say the word “sin,” hence this is not a statement proving the Perseverance of the Saints. Of course, this is idiotic exegesis. The point of the passage is that there is NOTHING anyone can possibly imagine that can separate God’s people from his chesed love. Either sin is a thing or it does not exist. If it is a thing, then it cannot separate us from God’s love.

Moreover, Arminians always fail to take into account the extent of the atonement. I know that sounds like a crazy thing to say since they are the purveyors of the so-called universal atonement. But what I mean is this: Christ’s death paid for all of the sins of the elect. If all my sins: past, present and future are covered by the death of Christ, then of course my sins cannot separate me from the love of God!

Often an appeal is made to Matthew 24:24 as if this verse undermines the clear-cut teaching of the whole of Scripture. What is obvious to any impartial reader is this: It is impossible for the elect to be deceived or led away. To read it any other way is to contravene the gist of the passage.

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind (Part 5)

2011-12-19T10:30:00.000-08:00

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind, A Sermon by Augustine (354-430)

Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. Matt. 20:30.

XVI. It is to the love of this light that I would exhort you, beloved; that ye would cry out by your works, when the Lord passeth by; let the voice of faith sound out, that Jesus was standing still, that is, the unchangeable, abiding wisdom of God, and the majesty of the Word of God, by which all things were made, may open your eyes. The same Tobias, in giving advice to his son, instructed him to this, to cry out; that is, he instructed him to good works. He told him to give to the poor, charged him to give alms to the needy, and taught him, saying, "My son, alms suffereth not to come into darkness." The blind gave counsel for receiving and gaining sight. "Alms," saith he, "suffereth not to come into darkness." Had his son in astonishment answered him, "What then, father, hast thou not given alms, that thou speakest to me in blindness; art not thou in darkness, and yet thou dost say to me, Alms suffereth not to come into darkness?" But no, he knew well what the light was concerning which he gave his son instruction, he knew well what he saw in the inner man. The son held out his hand to his father, to enable him to dwell in heaven.

XVII. To be brief; that I may conclude this sermon, brethren, with a matter which touches me very nearly, and gives me much pain, see what crowds there are which rebuke the blind as they cry out. But let them not deter you. Whosoever among this crowd desire to be healed; for there are many Christians in name, and in works ungodly; let them not deter you from good works. Cry out amid the crowds that are restraining you, and calling you back, and insulting you, whose lives are evil. For not only by their voices, but by evil works, do wicked Christians repress the good. A good Christian has no wish to attend the public shows. In this very thing, that he bridles his desire of going to the theater, he cries out after Christ, cries out to be healed. Others run together thither, but perhaps they are heathens or Jews? Ah! indeed, if Christians went not to the theaters, there would be so few people there that they would go away for very shame. So then Christians run thither also, bearing the Holy Name only to their condemnation. Cry out then by abstaining from going, by repressing in thy heart this worldly concupiscence; hold on with a strong and persevering cry unto the ears of the Savior, that Jesus may stand still and heal thee. Cry out amid the very crowds, despair not of reaching the ears of the Lord. For the blind man in the Gospel did not cry out in that quarter where no crowd was, that so they might be heard in that direction, where there was no impediment from persons hindering them. Amid the very crowds they cried out; and yet the Lord heard them. And so also do ye even amid sinners, and sensual men, amid the lovers of the vanities of the world, there cry out that the Lord may heal you. Go not to another quarter to cry out unto the Lord, go not to heretics and cry out unto Him there. Consider, brethren, how in that crowd which was hindering them from crying out, even there they who cried out were made whole.

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind (Part 4)

2011-12-16T10:30:00.000-08:00

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind, A Sermon by Augustine (354-430)

Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. Matt. 20:30.

XIII. When he shall begin to do all this, all his kinsmen, relations, and friends will be in commotion. They who love the world will oppose him. What madness this! You are too extreme! What! Are not other men Christians? This is folly, this is madness. And other such like things do the multitude; cry out to prevent the blind from crying out. The multitude rebuked them as they cried out; but did not overcome their cries. Let them who wish to be healed understand what they have to do. Jesus is now also passing by; let them who are by the wayside cry out. These are they, who know God with their lips, but their heart is far from Him. These are by the wayside, to whom, as blinded in heart, Jesus gave His precepts. For when those passing things which Jesus did are recounted, Jesus is always represented to us as passing by. For even unto the end of the world there will not be wanting blind men sitting by the wayside. Need then there is that they who sit by the wayside should cry out. The multitude that was with the Lord would repress the crying of those who were seeking for recovery. Brethren, do you see my meaning? For I know not how to speak, but still less do I know how to be silent. I will speak then, and speak plainly. For I fear Jesus passing by and Jesus standing still; and therefore I cannot keep silence. Evil and unknown Christians hinder good Christians who are truly earnest and wish to do the commandments of God, which are written in the Gospel. This multitude which is with the Lord hinders those who are crying out, hinders those, that is, who are doing well, that they may not by perseverance be healed. But let them cry out, and not faint; let them not be led away as if by the authority of numbers; let them not imitate those who become Christians before them, who live evil lives themselves, and are jealous of the good deeds of others. Let them not say, "Let us live as these so many live." Why not rather as the Gospel ordains? Why dost thou wish to live according to the remonstrances of the multitude who would hinder them, and not after the steps of the Lord who passeth by? They will mock, and abuse, and call thee back; do thou cry out till thou reach the ears of Jesus. For they who shall persevere in doing such things as Christ hath enjoined, and regard not the multitude that hinder them, nor think much of their appearing to follow Christ, that is of their being called Christians; but who love the light which Christ is about to restore to them more than they fear the uproar of those who are hindering them; they shall on no account be separated from Him, and Jesus will stand still, and make them whole.

XIV. For how are our eyes made whole? That as by faith we perceive Christ passing by in the temporal economy, so we may attain to the knowledge of Him as standing still in His unchangeable eternity. For there is the eye made whole when the knowledge of Christ's divinity is attained. Let your love apprehend this; attend ye to the great mystery which I am to speak of. All the things which were done by our Lord Jesus Christ, in time, graft faith in us. We believe on the Son of God, not on the word only, by whom all things were made; but on this very word, "made flesh that He might dwell among us"; who was born of the Virgin Mary; and the rest which the Faith contains, and which are represented to us that Christ might pass by, and that the blind, hearing His footsteps as He passeth by, might by their works cry out, by their life exemplifying the profession of their faith. But now in order that they who cry out may be made whole, Jesus standeth still. For he saw Jesus now standing still, who says, "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more." For he saw Christ's divinity as far as in this life is possible. There is then in Christ the divinity, and the humanity. The divinity standeth still, the humanity passeth by. What means "the divinity standeth still?" It changeth not, is not shaken, doth not depart away. For He did not so come to us as to depart from the Father; nor did He so ascend as to change His place. When He assumed flesh, it changed place; but God assuming flesh, seeing He is not in place, doth not change His place. Let us then be touched by Christ standing still, and so our eyes be made whole. But whose eyes? The eyes of those who cry out when He is passing by; that is, who do good works through that faith which hath been dispersed in time, to instruct in our infancy.

XV. Now what thing more precious can we have than the eye made whole? They rejoice who see this created light which shines from heaven, or even that which is given out from a lamp. And how wretched do they seem who cannot see this light? But wherefore do I speak, and talk of all these things, but to exhort you all to cry out, when Jesus passeth by. I hold up this light which perhaps ye do not see as an object of love to you, holy brethren. Believe, while as yet ye see it not; and cry out that ye may see. How great is thought to be the unhappiness of men who do not see this bodily light? Does anyone become blind; immediately it is said: "God is angry with him, he has committed some wicked deed." So said Tobias's wife to her husband. He cried out because of the kid, lest it had come of theft; he did not like to hear the sound of any stolen thing in his house; and she, maintaining what she had done, reproached her husband; and when he said, "Restore it if it be stolen"; she answered insultingly, "Where are thy righteous deeds?" How great was her blindness who maintaineth the theft; and how clear a light he saw, who commanded the stolen thing to be restored! She rejoiced outwardly in the light of the sun; he inwardly in the light of righteousness. Which of them was in the better light?

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind (Part 3)

2011-12-14T10:30:00.000-08:00

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind, A Sermon by Augustine (354-430)

Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. Matt. 20:30.

VIII. But because He designed to honor His faithful ones at the end of the world, He hath first honored the cross in this world; in such wise that the princes of the earth who believe in Him have prohibited any criminal from being crucified; and that cross which the Jewish persecutors with great mockery prepared for the Lord, even kings, His servants, at this day, bear with great confidence on their foreheads. Only the shameful nature of the death which our Lord vouchsafed to undergo for us is not now so apparent, Who, as the apostle says, "Was made a curse for us." And when, as He hung, the blindness of the Jews mocked Him, surely He could have come down from the cross, who, if He had not so willed, had not been on the cross; but it was a greater thing to rise from the grave than to come down from the cross. Our Lord, then, in doing these divine and in suffering these human things, instructs us by His bodily miracles and bodily patience, that we may believe and be made whole to behold those things invisible which the eye of the body hath no knowledge of. With this intent, then, He cured those blind men of whom the account has just now been read in the Gospel. And consider what instruction He has by this cure conveyed to the man who is sick within.

IX. Consider the issue of the thing, and the order of the circumstances. Those two blind men sitting by the wayside cried out, as the Lord passed by, that He would have mercy upon them. But they were restrained from crying out by the multitude which was with the Lord. Now do not suppose that this circumstance is left without a mysterious meaning. But they overcame the crowd who kept them back by the great perseverance of their cry, that their voice might reach the Lord's ears; as tho he had not already anticipated their thoughts. So then the two blind men cried out that they might be heard by the Lord, and could not be restrained by the multitude. The Lord "was passing by," and they cried out. The Lord "stood still," and they were healed. "For the Lord Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What wilt ye that I shall do unto you? They say unto Him, That our eyes may be opened." The Lord did according to their faith, He recovered their eyes. If we have now understood by the sick, the deaf, the dead, the sick, and deaf, and dead within; let us look out in this place also for the blind within. The eyes of the heart are closed; Jesus passeth by that we may cry out. What is meant by "Jesus passeth by?" Jesus is doing things which last but for a time. What is meant by "Jesus passeth by?" Jesus doth things which pass by. Mark and see how many things of His have passed by. He was born of the Virgin Mary; is He being born always? As an infant He was suckled; is He suckled always? He ran through the successive ages of life until man's full estate; doth He grow in body always? Boyhood succeeded to infancy, to boyhood youth, to youth man's full stature in several passing successions. Even the very miracles which He did are passed by; they are read and believed. For because these miracles are written that so they might be read, they passed by when they were being done. In a word, not to dwell long on this, He was crucified; is He hanging on the cross always? He was buried, He rose again, He ascended into heaven, now He dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him. And His divinity abideth ever, yea, the immortality of His body now shall never fail. But nevertheless all those things which were wrought by Him in time have passed by; and they are written to be read, and they are preached to be believed. In all these things, then, Jesus passeth by.

X. And what are the two blind men by the wayside but the two people to cure whom Jesus came? Let us show these two people in the Holy Scriptures. It is written in the Gospel, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd." Who then are the two people? One the people of the Jews, and the other of the Gentiles. "I am not sent," He saith, "but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." To whom did He say this? To the disciples; when that woman of Canaan, who confessed herself to be a dog, cried out that she might be found worthy of the crumbs from the Master's table. And because she was found worthy, now were the two people to whom He had come made manifest, the Jewish people, to wit, of whom He said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"; and the people of the Gentiles, whose type this woman exhibited, whom He had first rejected, saying, "It is not meet to cast the children's bread to the dogs"; and to whom, when she said, "Truth, Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table," He answered, "O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee even as thou wilt." For of this people also was that centurion of whom the same Lord saith, "Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel," because he had said, "I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." So then the Lord even before His passion and glorification pointed out two people, the one to whom He had come because of the promises to the Fathers, and the other whom for His mercy's sake He did not reject; that it might be fulfilled which had been promised to Abraham, "In thy seed shall all the nations be blessed."

XI. Attend, now, dearly beloved. The Lord was passing by, and the blind men cried out. What is this "passing by?" As we have already said, He was doing works which passed by. Now upon these passing works is our faith built up. For we believe on the Son of God, not only in that He is the Word of God, by whom all things were made; for if He had always continued in the form of God, equal with God, and had not emptied Himself in taking the form of a servant, the blind men would not even have perceived Him, that they might be able to cry out. But when he wrought passing works, that is, when He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, the two blind men cried out, Have mercy on us, thou Son of David. For this very thing that He, David's Lord and Creator, willed also to be David's son, He wrought in time, He wrought passing by.

XII. Now what is it, brethren, to cry out unto Christ, but to correspond to the grace of Christ by good works? This I say, brethren, lest haply we cry aloud with our voices, and in our lives be dumb. Who is he that crieth out to Christ, that his inward blindness may be driven away by Christ as He is passing by, that is, as He is dispensing to us those temporal sacraments, whereby we are instructed to receive the things which are eternal? Who is he that crieth out unto Christ? Whoso despiseth the world, crieth out unto Christ. Whoso despiseth the pleasures of the world, crieth out unto Christ. Whoso saith, not with his tongue but with his life, the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world, crieth out unto Christ. Whoso disperseth abroad and giveth to the poor, that his righteousness may endure forever, crieth out unto Christ. For let him that hears, and is not deaf to the sound, sell that ye have, and give to the poor; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not; let him as he hears the sound as it were of Christ's footsteps passing by cry out in response to this in his blindness; that is, let him do these things. Let his voice be in his actions. Let him begin to despise the world, to distribute to the poor his goods, to esteem as nothing worth what other men love, let him disregard injuries, not seek to be avenged, let him give his cheek to the smiter, let him pray for his enemies; if any one who have taken away his goods, let him not ask for them again; if he have taken anything from any man, let him restore fourfold.

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind (Part 2)

2011-12-12T15:24:00.000-08:00

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind, A Sermon by Augustine (354-430)

Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. Matt. 20:30.

IV. Again, what eyes did He look for when He spake to those who saw indeed, but who saw only with the eyes of the flesh? For when Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us": he understood, indeed, that if the Father were shown him, it might well suffice him; when He that was equal to the Father had sufficed not? And why did He not suffice? Because He was not seen. And why was He not seen? Because the eye whereby He might be seen was not yet whole. For this, namely, that the Lord was seen in the flesh with the outward eyes, not only the disciples who honored Him saw, but also the Jews who crucified Him. He, then, who wished to be seen in another way, sought for other eyes. And, therefore, it was that to him who said, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us," He answered, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father also." And that He might in the meanwhile heal the eyes of faith, He has first of all given him instructions regarding faith, that so he might attain to sight. And lest Philip should think that he was to conceive of God under the same form in which he then saw the Lord Jesus Christ in the body, he immediately subjoined, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" He had already said, "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father also." But Philip's eye was not yet sound enough to see the Father, nor, consequently, to see the Son, who is Himself coequal with the Father. And so Jesus Christ took in hand to cure, and with the medicine and salve of faith to strengthen the eyes of his mind, which as yet were weak and unable to behold so great a light, and He said, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" Let not him, then, who cannot yet see what the Lord will one day show him, seek first to see what he is to believe; but let him first believe that the eye by which he is to see may be healed. For it was only the form of the servant which was exhibited to the eyes of servants; because if "He who thought it not robbery to be equal with God" could have been now seen as equal with God by those whom He wished to be healed, He would not have needed to empty Himself and to take the form of a servant. But because there was no way whereby God could be seen, but whereby man could be seen there was; therefore, He who was God was made man, that that which was seen might heal that whereby He was not seen. For He saith Himself in another place, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Philip might, of course, have answered and said, Lord, do I see Thee? Is the Father such as I see Thee to be? Forasmuch as Thou hast said, "He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father also?" But before Philip answered thus, or perhaps before he so much as thought it, when the Lord had said, "He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father also," He immediately added, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" For with that eye he could not yet see either the Father, or the Son who is equal with the Father; but that his eye might be healed for seeing, he was anointed unto believing. So, then, before thou seest what thou canst not now see, believe what as yet thou seest not. "Walk by faith," that thou mayest attain to sight. Sight will not gladden him in his home whom faith consoleth not by the way. For, so says the apostle, "As long as we are in the body we are absent from the Lord." And he subjoins immediately why we are still "absent or in pilgrimage," though we have now believed; "For we walk by faith," he says; "not by sight."

V. Our whole business, then, brethren, in this life is to heal this eye of the heart whereby God may be seen. To this end are celebrated the Holy Mysteries; to this end is preached the Word of God; to this end are the moral exhortations of the Church, those, that is, that relate to the corrections of manners, to the amendment of carnal lusts, to the renouncing the world, not in word only, but in a change of life: to this end is directed the whole aim of the Divine and Holy Scriptures, that that inner man may be purged of that which hinders us from the sight of God. For as the eye which is formed to see this temporal light, a light though heavenly yet corporeal, and manifest, not to men only, but even to the meanest animals (for this the eye is formed to this light); if anything be thrown or falls into it, whereby it is disordered, is shut out from this light; and though it encompasses the eye with its presence, yet the eye turns itself away from, and is absent from it; and though its disordered condition is not only rendered absent from the light which is present, but the light to see which it was formed is even painful to it, so the eye of the heart too, when it is disordered and wounded, turns away from the light of righteousness, and dares not and cannot contemplate it.

VI. And what is it that disorders the eye of the heart? Evil desire, covetousness, injustice, worldly concupiscence; these disorder, close, blind the eye of the heart. And yet, when the eye of the body is out of order, how is the physician sought out, what an absence of all delay to open and cleanse it, that they may be healed whereby this outward light is seen! There is running to and fro, no one is still, no one loiters, if even the smallest straw fall into the eye. And God, it must be allowed, made the sun which we desire to see with sound eyes. Much brighter, assuredly, is He who made it; nor is the light with which the eye of the mind is concerned of this kind at all. That light is eternal wisdom. God made thee, O man, after His own image. Would He give thee wherewithal to see the sun which He made, and not give thee wherewithal to see Him who made thee, when He made thee after His own image? He hath given thee this also; both hath He given thee. But much thou dost love these outward eyes, and despisest much that interior eye; it thou dost carry about bruised and wounded. Yea, it would be a punishment to, if thy Maker should wish to manifest Himself unto thee, it would be a punishment to thine eye, before that it is cured and healed. For so Adam in Paradise sinned, and hid himself from the face of God. As long, then, as he had the sound heart of a pure conscience, he rejoiced at the presence of God; when that eye was wounded by sin, he began to dread the divine light, he fled back into the darkness, and the thick covert of trees, flying from the truth, and anxious for the shade.

VII. Therefore, my brethren, since we too are born of him, and as the apostle says, "In Adam all die"; for we were all at first two persons; if we were loath to obey the physician, that we might not be sick; let us obey Him now, that we may be delivered from sickness. The Physician gave us precepts, when we were whole; He gave us precepts that we might not need a physician. "They that are whole," He saith, "need not a physician, but they that are sick." When whole, we despised these precepts, and by experience have felt how to our own destruction we despised His precepts. Now we are sick, we are in distress, we are on the bed of weakness; yet let us not despair. For because we could not come to the Physician, He hath vouchsafed to come Himself to us. Though despised by man when he was whole, He did not despise him when he was stricken. He did not leave off to give other precepts to the weak, who would not keep the first precepts, that he might not be weak; as though He would say, "Assuredly thou hast by experience felt that I spoke the truth when I said, Touch not this. Be healed then now, at length, and recover the life thou hast lost. Lo, I am bearing thine infirmity; drink then the bitter cup. For thou hast of thine own self made those my so sweet precepts, which were given to thee when whole, so toilsome. They were despised, and so thy distress began; cured thou canst not be, except thou drink the bitter cup, the cup of temptations, wherein this life abounds, the cup of tribulation, anguish, and suffering. Drink then," He says, "drink, that thou mayest live." And that the sick man may not make answer, "I can not, I can not bear it, I will not drink"; the Physician, all whole tho He be, drinketh first, that the sick man may not hesitate to drink. For what bitterness is there in this cup which He hath not drunk? If it be contumely, He heard it first when He drove out the devils. "He hath a devil, and by Beelzebub He casteth out devils." Whereupon, in order to comfort the sick, He saith, "If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of His household?" If pains are this bitter cup, He was bound, and scourged, and crucified. If death be this bitter cup, He died also. If infirmity shrink with horror from any particular kind of death, none was at that time more ignominious than the death of the cross. For it was not in vain, that the apostle, when setting forth His obedience, added, "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind (Part 1)

2011-12-09T10:30:00.000-08:00

The Recovery of Sight by the Blind, A Sermon by Augustine (354-430)

Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. Matt. 20:30.

I. Ye know, holy brethren, full well as we do, that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the physician of our eternal health; and that to this end we task the weakness of our natures, that our weakness might not last forever. For He assumed a mortal body, wherein to kill death. And, "though He was crucified through weakness," as the apostle saith, yet He "liveth by the power of God." They are the words, too, of the same apostle: "He dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him." These things, I say, are well known to your faith. And there is also this which follows from them, that we should know that all the miracles which He did on the body avail to our instruction, that we may from them perceive that which is not to pass away, nor to have any end. He restored to the blind those eyes which death was sure some time to close; He raised Lazarus to life who was to die again. And whatever He did for the health of bodies, He did it not to this end that they should be forever; whereas, at the last, He will give eternal health even to the body itself. But because those things which were not seen were not believed; by means of those temporal things which were seen, He built up faith in those things which were not seen.

II. Let no one then, brethren, say that our Lord Jesus Christ doeth not those things now, and on this account prefer the former to the present ages of the Church. In a certain place, indeed, the same Lord prefers those who do not see and yet believe to them who see and therefore believe. For even at that time so irresolute was the infirmity of His disciples that they thought that He whom they saw to have risen again must be handled, in order that they might believe. It was not enough for their eyes that they had seen Him, unless their hands also were applied to His limbs, and the scars of His recent wounds were touched: that this disciple, who was in doubt, might cry suddenly when he had touched and recognized the scars, "My Lord and my God." The scars manifested Him who had healed all wounds in others. Could not the Lord have risen again without scars? Yes, but He knew the wounds which were in the hearts of His disciples, and to heal them He had preserved the scars on His own body. And what said the Lord to him who now confest and said, "My lord, and my God?" "Because thou hast seen," He said, "thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." Of whom spake He, brethren, but of us? Not that He spoke only of us, but of those also who shall come after us. For a little while when He had departed from the sight of men, that faith might be established in their hearts, whosoever believed, believed tho they saw Him not, and great has been the merit of their faith; for the procuring of which faith they brought only the movement of a pious heart, and not the touching of their hands.

III. These things, then, the Lord did to invite us to the faith. This faith reigneth now in the Church, which is spread throughout the whole world. And now, He worketh greater cures, on account of which He disdained not then to exhibit those lesser ones. For as the soul is better than the body, so is the saving health of the soul better than the health of the body. The blind body doth not now open its eyes by a miracle of the Lord, but the blinded heart openeth its eyes to the word of the Lord. The mortal corpse doth not now rise again, but the soul doth rise again which lay dead in a living body. The deaf ears of the body are not now opened; but how many have the ears of their heart closed, which yet fly open at the penetrating word of God, so that they believe who did not believe, and they live well who did live evilly, and they obey who did not obey; and we say, "such a man is become a believer," and we wonder when we hear of them whom once we had known as hardened. Why, then, dost thou marvel at one who now believes, who is living innocently, and serving God, but because thou dost behold him seeing, whom thou hadst known to be blind; dost behold him living whom thou hast known to be dead; dost behold him hearing whom thou hadst known to be deaf? For consider that there are those who are dead in another than the ordinary sense, of whom the Lord spoke to a certain man who delayed to follow the Lord, because he wished to bury his father; "Let the dead," said He, "bury their dead." Surely these dead buriers are not dead in body; for if this were so, they could not bury dead bodies. Yet doth He call them dead; where but in the soul within? For as we may often see in a household, itself sound and well, the master of the same house lying dead; so in a sound body do many carry a dead soul within; and these the apostle arouses thus, "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." It is the same who giveth sight to the blind that awakeneth the dead. For it is with His voice that the cry is made by the apostle to the dead. "Awake thou that sleepest." And the blind will be enlightened with light, when he shall have risen again. And how many deaf men did the Lord see before His eyes, when He said, "He that hath ears to hear let him hear." For who was standing before Him without his bodily ears? What other ears, then, did He seek for, but those of the inner man?