The Law of God In Christ

by Michael McCoy

Of the many words spoken by Jesus Christ, some have come to be regarded as “law,” not specifically Mosaic, but rather it is that which is more closely aligned with the perfect and divine will of God. The law is intrinsic to the character of God, and in the person of Jesus Christ, the union of divinity and humanity is the quintessence of that law. Though it is the life of Paul that personifies the coalescing of human obedience and divine will in fulfillment of “the law of Christ.” This expression will be examined as it appears in the context of Galatians 6:2, but not without consideration given to the Pauline corpus.  For it will be argued that Paul’s use of “ton nomon tou Cristou” is intimately connected with the context in which it is spoken, embracing not only the heart of Christ’s teaching, but ultimately being the heartbeat of the apostle himself. 1 Corinthians 9:21 will also be shown to corroborate the Biblical evidence for understanding Paul’s thought concerning the law of Christ.

The Law of God In Christ (Part I)

Before beginning the study of “ton nomon tou Cristou” and all relevant passages dealing with nomoV, it would be helpful to first define the terms being explicated, especially because of the variation of referents involved within the New Testament, as well as the Old. To start with the latter, two words are consistently used in the LXX in reference to “law”: “nomoV” and “entolh”; in a secondary and more peripheral sense, “prostagma” (ordinances) and “dikaiwma” (regulations) are used respectively in Leviticus 18:30 and Zechariah 3:8, and throughout Deuteronomy and the Psalms.[1] In the LXX, Genesis 26:5 contains all four words: …because your father Abraham obeyed my voice and observed my orders (prostagma) and my commandments (ehtolh) and my regulations (dikaiwma) and my laws (nomoV).

The Hebrew words that the Greek follows are “miswot” (commands), “huqqot” (regulations), and “toroth” (laws).[2]  “Toroth,” or “tora,” the singular form, is significant because it is most often translated nomoV in the LXX, and according to P. Enns, the Hebrew term “refers to an authority and standard that was recognized by the community as binding and at least generally of divine origin.”[3] Furthermore, nomoV only appears in Genesis 26:5, and in Exodus it is used exclusively when referring to “law.”[4] Within the Pentateuch, apodictic and casuistic laws are distinct, but in the context of Genesis 26, Yahweh does not appear to be differentiating between the two. Abraham was obedient to God, and through the use of all four words there is a rather specific statement being made, one using similar terminology found elsewhere in the OT often being associated with the law given at Sinai.[5] The example of Abraham will be fundamental to understanding Paul’s thought on the promise and the law, which is addressed in Galatians 3. As Paul engages the community at Galatia regarding several problems, though many of his arguments may seem polemical, one should not quickly apply the hermeneutic of “mirror reading” to the text, lest the ethical statements in Galatians 6, specifically the law of Christ, be viewed as mere refutatio of Paul’s opponent’s ethical teachings and traditions,[6] thereby robbing the apostle of his theological savoir-faire.  

In the letter to the Galatians, Paul addresses a number of issues plaguing the local church, including the works of the law (ergwn nomou), disruptive sects, and the onus of the Christian life.[7]  It is in the context of the latter that Paul directs his argument to the community in Galatians 6:2, exhorting them to “bear one another’s burdens and thus fulfill the law of Christ.”  Even though Paul does not explicitly make a distinction between “tw/ MwusewV nomw/,”[8] ‘the law of Moses’, and “ton nomon tou Cristou” in Galatians, there are such references found elsewhere in Paul’s writings.[9] It is important to distinguish between each, because Paul’s use of the word “law” is complex, having various referents that are bound to the context.[10] The question must be asked as to what law he is alluding to.

When Paul speaks of the Law of Moses in his arguments, generally it is never in a positive light.  In the letter to the Galatians alone, “law,” every time it is used, except for 6:2, refers to its negative, condemning effects.[11] With that understanding it is difficult to separate “law,” as it relates to Christ, from the preceding negative connotations. However, the expression “ton nomon tou Cristou” ought to be read as antithetical to all other references to nomoV that surround it.  The “law” that Paul is affirming seems to be analogous to:

prescriptive principles stemming from the heart of the gospel (usually embodied in the example and teaching of Jesus), which are meant to be applied to specific situations by the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit, being always motivated and conditioned by love.[12] 

 Longenecker’s definition captures the meaning of the term as Paul uses it, but also the context from which it is spoken.  “Prescriptive principles” is an adequate summation of “law” in this context, but before it is adopted as a divine directive other possibilities must be exhausted as to the exact nature of Paul’s thought on the law of Christ.

---

[1] Alfred Rahlfs & Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006); and John William Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1993), 400. In BDAG, prostagma is defined as “an official directive, order, command(ment), injunction” with no other references listed; there is no usage of the term in the NT. However, dikaiwma, is defined in three ways: 1. “A regulation relating to just or right action, regulation, requirement, commandment; 2. “An action that meets expectations as to what is right or just, righteous deed; 3. “To clear someone of violation.” It is used in both the LXX and the NT: Lk. 1:6; Rom. 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4; Heb. 9:1, 10; Rev. 15:4; 19:8 (Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature 3^rd Ed. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 249-50, 884).

[2] Miswot is the most general term of the three, relating to demands that incur obligation; huqqot is typically used when referring to regulations; toroth is the plural form for the word that is used to encompass all Mosaic legislation, and also for the Pentateuch (John H. Walton, Genesis: NIV Application Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], 552).  

[3] Peter Enns, “Law of God,” NIDOTTE ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 4:896-97. He notes that Genesis 26:5 does not specify precisely what these laws are, suggesting that either a post-Mosaic picture of Abraham is being presented or that these laws are general divine norms that have nothing to do with Mosaic legislation (896).  

[4] Cf. Gen. 26:5; Ex. 12:49; 13:9; 16:4, 28; 18:16, 20; 24:12. NomimoV is only used here in Gen. 26:5 for the Hebrew hrrt “toroth,” and is almost always rendered by nomoV; nomimoV occurs only five times in the Prophets and once in Proverbs (Wevers, LXX, 400).

[5] Walton, Genesis, 552. The blessing spoken of in Gen. 26:4, which is contingent upon the oath God made with Abraham (v.3), continues to be a promise to Yahweh’s people because of Abraham’s faithfulness in keeping all of God’s commands; this particular understanding of the context has direct bearing on the covenantal relationship between God and his people. A more complete discussion on the relationship between the OT and the new covenant will ensue following the current study of “law” in Galatians 6.

[6] Richard N. Longenecker, WBC Galatians (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 269.

[7] Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 34-5. Witherington includes a “Rhetorical Outline” with divisions between arguments and excursus; it is from that outline that the issues were drawn.

[8] 1 Cor. 9:9

[9] Rom. 3:27 & 8:2 both contrast “nomou pistewV” with “ergwn nomou” and “nomoV tou pneumatoV thV zwhV en Cristw/ Ihsou” with “tou nomou thV amartiaV kai tou qanatou” respectively. There is also an argument in 1 Corinthians 9 where Paul speaks of being “ennomoV Cristou,” “subject to the law of Christ.”

[10] When explaining Paul’s use of nomoV in 1 Cor. 9:21, C. H. Dodd observes other uses of “law” in Paul’s writings, and notes in regard to the use of “law of God” in Rom. 7:7-8:10 that “the sense to be attached to nomoV in any particular place is notoriously elusive”; in 7:7 o nomoV (without qualification) clearly refers to Torah. But there other terms used, such as o nomoV tou nooV mou, o nomoV tou pneumatoV thV zwhV, as well as (o) nomoV (tou) qeou, all lacking clarity as to how they relate to one another (C.H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968], 136).  

[11] Cf. Gal. 2:16, 19, 21; 3:1-2, 5, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 23-24; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:3, 4, 14, 18, 23; 6:2, 13.

[12] Longenecker, Galatians, 275-76.

The Law of God In Christ (Part II)

Beginning in Galatians 2:16, “law” is first used in the phrase ergwn nomou, ‘works of the law’, which is being contrasted with pistewV Ihsou Cristou, ‘faith in Jesus Christ’.[1]  And again within the same verse, the result of faith in Jesus Christ is to be dikaiwqwmen, ‘justified’ before God. Verses 15 and 16 could be taken together as one sentence, introducing the presentation of justification by faith as fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, thus being the climax of salvation history.[2] Bruce is supporting Kümmel’s view of Galatians 2:15-16, and to arrive at such a conclusion, 3:6-29 ought to be in the purview of the reader. There is significance to Paul’s use of Abraham as an example of one who is righteous and justified by faith in the same context as his discussion on the law; the connection will be further elaborated on when the covenant is addressed in the pages that follow. 

At the end of 2:16 Paul quotes from Psalm 143:2 (LXX 142:2)[3]: oti ex ergwn nomou ou dikaiwqhsetai pasa sarx; he substitutes pasa sarx for pasa zwn of the LXX and inserts ex ergwn nomou before ou dikaiwqhsetai, omitting enwpion sou, which leads to the possible inference that for Paul at least this paraphrase of Ps. 142:2 had become a habitual proof-text for the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works of law.[4] And again in 2:19 and 21 “nomou” is used referring to “law” that is of no avail in terms of justification before God; the former verse includes a contrast

between nomw/ apeqanon ‘died to the law’ and qew/ zhsw ‘live to God’, as will be common to Paul in Galatians with the use of law and life. Paul ends his propositio in verse 21 by abruptly introducing his sentence of refutation without any linguistic connective, using the verb aqetew, ‘nullify’, ‘declare invalid’, or ‘set aside’, which is a rather strong term that has legal overtones, usually in connection with invalidating a “treaty,” “will,” or “covenant.”[5]

As Paul moves from his discussion on justification by faith in 2:19-21 to Galatians 3, the example of Abraham becomes foundational to understanding the law and the promise. In 3:5, ex ergwn nomou, ‘by works of the law’ is contrasted with ex akohV pistewV, ‘by hearing with faith’, leading to Abraham, who ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’ (3:6).  Bruce suggests, “for Paul, the antithesis between law and Spirit was as absolute as the antithesis between works and faith,”[6] which is an acute observation that will be evidenced throughout the rest of Galatians. The “law” continues to be referenced in verses 10-13, carrying the same connotation of being cursed and condemned.  Before addressing the law in 3:15-29, verse 10 offers an interesting quotation from Deuteronomy 30:10 that may help to understand one aspect of Paul’s use of “law of Christ.” Paul says, for all who rely on ergwn nomou, ‘works of the law’, are under a curse; for it is written cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in tw/ bibliw/ tou nomou, ‘the book of the law’, and do them (3:10). Tora in the OT is often referred to by many similar titles, such as “Book of the Law of Moses,” “Law of Moses,” “Book of the Law of God,” and “Law of the Lord.”[7] When Paul uses the expression “law of Christ,” he is not trying to instate a “new messianic torah,”[8] but rather he is simply using the phrase to encompass those teachings of Christ that are central to the Christian life, a form of expression common to him as one who knew the scriptures well and would have used such language in a like manner.

 The crux of the present argument for the importance of “promise” in understanding the ultimate theological implications of the law of Christ finds its roots deeply embedded in Galatians 3:15-29.  Paul begins by clarifying that the spermati, ‘seed’, in the promise made to Abraham is Christ (3:16); there is no plurality in the word Paul uses for his referent.[9] In following Paul’s argument, the law could not have nullified the promise made to Abraham, a promise that was confirmed by a covenant, because it came four hundred and thirty years later (3:17).  Jesus Christ does what the works of the law were not designed to do, nor could ever do; he made justification by faith through grace available to all. This is confirmed in 3:29 as Paul states that if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s sperma, ‘seed’, and heirs according to the promise. In the discussion that falls between 3:17 and 3:29, Paul expounds faith over law as that which places the believer en Cristw/ Ihsou, making panteV uioi qeou, ‘all sons of God’ (3:26).

Being “in Christ Jesus” is the essence of Christian proclamation and experience, and though his words are few, Paul makes the point that belonging to Christ is what relates Gentile believers to Abraham and God’s covenantal promise.[10] This leads directly into the context of Galatians 6:2, where Christians are being exhorted to “bear one another’s burdens.” But before bringing all of Galatians into view, 6:2 being the focal point, there are two chapters to examine. First, Galatians 4 will be briefly discussed with few verses cited, and then Galatians 5 will help to further develop Paul’s thought on the law of Christ. The three times “law” is used in Galatians 4, it is in reference to being upo nomon, ‘under the law’. Paul speaks of Jesus in the incarnation as one who was born of woman, born upo nomon, in order that he could redeem those who were upo nomon (4:4-5); the third use being at that beginning of Paul’s allegory in the form of a rhetorical question: Tell me, you who desire to be upo nomon, do you not hear the law”? (4:21).

The use of “law” in Galatians 5:3-4 is consistent with what has been observed throughout the letter. In 5:18, Paul uses upo nomon again with the same connotation. And also in 5:23, nomoV is used in an interesting way, one that is different from all others. Bruce explains that “Paul does not simply mean that the nine virtues which make up the fruit of the Spirit are not forbidden by law; he means that when these qualities are in view we are in a sphere with which law has nothing to do.”[11] Simply stated, love conquers all and cannot be bound by the law. In Galatians 5:13-14, Paul not only explains how to bear one another’s burdens (5:13), but he also spells out what this law is: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (5:14). He is quoting from Leviticus 19:18, which was also quoted by Jesus as the ‘second’ commandment alongside the ‘first’ commandment of Deuteronomy 6:4, whereby perfect love is enjoined to God.[12] Now, Jesus’ words take on a new dimension as they are filtered through Paul’s speech and his being. Paul could wax poetic all day long, but his actions are what join the spirit and the letter of the law together,[13] not as “works of the law,” but rather he embodies the “law of Christ.”    

With that being said, Galatians 6:2 is now in focus; the lens through which it is to be viewed has been properly adjusted.  One can only bear the burdens of another through love, that being the fulfillment of the ton nomon tou Cristou. The words of Christ to those who asked him what are the greatest commandments resound in Paul’s exhortation. The law of Christ is the means by which the covenant relationship is maintained between God and man as the promise to Abraham is fulfilled. The contrast between “law” and “promise,” and the use of “law of Christ” antithetically to the rest of the “law” in Galatians indicates that ton nomon tou Cristou is intimately connected to the promise of God. And as Paul has pointed out, the promise is extended to all who have faith in Jesus Christ (3:23-29), the promise being contingent upon faith. For he professes the law of Christ as the whole tradition of Jesus’ ethical teaching, confirmed by his character and conduct (cf. Rom. 13:14; 2 Cor. 10:1), and reproduced within his people by the power of the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:2).[14] Only through the inauguration of the new age by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit can believers keep the law of Christ,[15] and in so doing they fulfill the law as Paul has defined it in the context of Galatians 6:2, using both his language and life to communicate the heart of Christ.

---

[1] See F. F. Bruce, NIGTC Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 138-39 for a thorough discussion on the use of the objective genitive in the phrase dia pistewV Ihsou Cristou, ‘through faith in Jesus Christ’. If the genitive is taken as subjective, then the phrase is variously interpreted as meaning Christ’s faith in God, or Christ’s faithfulness to God, or God’s faithfulness revealed in Christ (Bruce, 139).

[2] Cf. 2 Cor. 6:2, “now is the day of salvation” (Bruce, Galatians, 136-37).

[3] Ps. 142:2b (LXX): oti ou dikaiwqhsetai enwpion sou paV zwn, ‘for all living will not be justified before you’.

[4] Bruce, Galatians, 140.

[5]  Cf. 1 Macc. 11:36; 2 Macc. 13:25; Gal. 3:15; Ignatius, Eph. 10.3 (Longenecker, Galatians, 94).  The legal implication of the language that Paul uses in verse 21 is intertwined with the subsequent argument in Galatians 3, which deals with the promise to Abraham and its relationship to the law.

[6] Bruce, Galatians, 151.

[7] See Peter Enns, “Law of God,” 895 for the references to the various titles.  

[8] See Richard B. Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” Catholic Bible Quarterly, 49.2 (1987): 273-74 for a discussion against the position that Paul is referring to the ethical teachings of Jesus, regarded as a new and definitive type of halakah (contra. C. H. Dodd and W. B. Davies), 274.

[9] The argument for a specific or generic singular is well attested by Longenecker, who cites many readings of “seed” in Rabbinic Judaism, as well as providing a litany of scholars that debate the issue (Longenecker, Galatians, 131-32). See Bruce, Galatians, 172-73 for more bibliographical information on the topic.

[10] Longenecker, Galatians, 159.

[11] Bruce, Galatians, 255.

[12] Bruce, Galatians, 241. Cf. Mk. 12:28-31; Lk. 10:27; Mt. 22:40; Dodd notes that there is a certain parallel between Matthew’s en tautaiV taiV dusin entolaiV oloV o nomoV krematai (Mt. 22:40) and Paul’s o paV nomoV en eni logw peplhrwtai (Gal. 5:14) (Dodd, More New Testament Studies, 139).

[13] Cf. Mt. 5:18

[14] Bruce, Galatians, 261.

[15] Thomas Schreiner, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 662.

The Law of God In Christ (Part III)

In order to more fully assess the extent of Paul’s understanding and usage of ton nomon tou Cristou as it appears in the context of Galatians 6:2, similar constructions need to be examined in Paul’s writings. There is one other place in the NT that has the phrase “law of Christ,” and it is found in 1 Corinthians 9:21 in the form ennomoV Cristou, ‘subject to the law of Christ’.  The use of nomoV in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians has the same sense as it did in Galatians;[1] it refers to Mosaic Law, which, as Paul employs the term, is contrasted with the law of Christ in 9:21. Paul argues for his own apostolic bona fides in Galatians, and does so again in 1 Corinthians 9. It is in this context that his reference to being ennomoV Cristou appears. Paul states that toiV anomoiV wV anomoV, ‘to those outside the law, I became as one outside the law’ (RSV), which refers to Gentiles who are outside the revealed law of the OT and Judaism.[2] However, he qualifies what is meant by wV anomoV in anticipation of being misunderstood by his audience.

Paul affirms that he is not anomoV qeou, ‘without the law of God’, but rather he is still ennomoV Cristou, ‘subject to the law of Christ’.  Thiselton suggests that the notion that not to be under the law is to be godless or ungovernable presupposes an unwarranted identity of the Torah as ultimate law of God.[3] The convergence of Torah with the law of Christ in 1 Corinthians 9 allows Paul to develop his theology while explicating his apostolic role as the harbinger of the gospel to those outside the law of God. Dodd aptly says that the ultimate law of God can be discerned in the Torah when Christ alone interprets it.[4]  Paul is able to claim freedom from Torah without being lawless by remaining bound to ton nomon tou Cristou, and it is in that argument that 1 Cor. 9:21 and Gal. 6:2 are brought together.  To be “subject to the law of Christ” necessarily entails bearing one another’s burdens, though the context of each passage is distinct. However, there are commonalities to both, such as Christian freedom, although that freedom involves restoring brothers who are overtaken by sin (Gal. 6:1) and becoming weak to win the weak (1 Cor. 9:22). The paradox of the Christian faith resides in such freedoms, Paul being the epitome of the law of Christ, as it is understood in those terms.

Naturally, with any discussion on law the question arises regarding what, if anything, from the OT is obligatory for new covenant believers. The classic division of law is three-fold: civil, moral, and religious (ceremonial and sacrificial).[5] Civil law includes dealing with the legal system of the people of God considered as a state, with courts and penalties. This form of the law was only applicable when Israel operated as a theocracy. One could argue that when the southern and northern kingdoms of Israel were captured, God’s civil law ceased to be effectual for his people, for they were no longer functioning as a state. And through the work of Jesus Christ, religious law has been fulfilled (Jer. 33:18; 1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 7:27). He was the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of those called by God to salvation.

Moral law is that which continues to be obligatory upon all new covenant believers. Because moral law is a reflection of God’s character, it remains unchanging and eternal as he is.  Without God having ever revealed law to Moses, moral law would still be incumbent on all of creation.  Motyer has suggested that even in the Garden of Eden mankind was under the law through obedience; in God’s forbidding of one tree there is the principle of law.[6] Moral law, which is the pulse of the law of Christ, continues to guide the hearts and minds of God’s people, as it did in the life of Paul and all of those who have been obedient to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The extent to which moral law binds humanity to its precepts is best understood in light of the image of God on all of mankind.[7] It is beyond the scope of the present study to explore the many facets of moral law, suffice it to say that the law of Christ as prescriptive principles has a foundation built on the moral laws of God.

---

[1]  Cf. 1 Cor. 6:1, 6-7, 12; 9:8-9, 20-21; 10:23; 14:21, 34; 15:56

[2] Anthony C. Thiselton, NIGTC: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 703. Thiselton continues his exegesis of the phrase toiV anomoiV, stating that in other contexts “to those outside the law” could mean to the unjust, unrighteous, or godless (cf. Acts 2:23; 1 Macc. 6:9; Ezek. 18:24 LXX; Lk. 22:37) or to the lawless or outlaw (2 Thess. 2:8), but clearly in this context denotes Gentiles who are outside of the law, as noted above.

[3] Thiselton, Corinthians, 704. Thiselton quotes Dodd in part of his argument, which is further supported by Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben, 285 and Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2:345, n. 367.

[4] Dodd, More New Testament Studies, 139.

[5] J. A. Motyer, “Biblical Concept of Law,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed. Walter A. Elwell; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 675.

[6] Motyer, “Biblical Concept of Law,” 674.

[7] See Motyer, “Biblical Concept of Law,” 674-75 for further discussion on the topic of moral law and the image of God.

Calvin and the Decalogue

In regard to the fifth commandment, Calvin says: “Wherefore, we ought to have no doubt that the Lord here lays down this universal rule—viz. that knowing how every individual is set over us by his appointment, we should pay him reverence, gratitude, obedience, and every duty in our power. And it makes no difference whether those on whom the honour is conferred are deserving or not. Be they what they may, the Almighty, by conferring their station upon them, shows that he would have them honoured” (II.viii.36).

My questions are related to how we understand these commandments. Are they universal rules that all of humanity ought to abide by, regardless of their Judeo-Christian heritage? Is humanity considered guilty for not adhering to these laws aside from their general condemnation for being children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3)? Could a person of a different faith read the Decalogue and believe that they are keeping the laws therein? And lastly, can we separate the first four commandments from the last six, deeming only the latter to be obligatory upon all of mankind, while all commandments have been revealed for the benefit of God’s elect?

When addressing commandments one through four, Calvin seems to have only the church in view, while in five through ten, they appear to be binding on all of mankind. Any thoughts?

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

By Peter Phillips

Objection 1: Mungo Man said, “Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.”

 

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

Paul says, “31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Rom. 8:31-34)” 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

Socinus Resurrected: Answering objections to Penal Substitution

by Peter Phillips

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

Mungo Man said:

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

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

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

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

I’m not feelin’ the love.

Peter Phillips response:

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

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

Eph. 2:1-10 says it nicely:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Augustine “On Nature and Grace”

(This was posted originally at theologicalsharpening.blogspot.com)

by Danny Pelichowski

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

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

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

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

After reading this quote I hope it is fairly obvious why I appreciated this reading so much more than any other reading assignment for this class. It is interesting that even though Augustine was writing so early (5th century) he was dealing with many of the same issues that are debated in our churches today. Praise God for Augustine’s example by standing up for the heart of the Gospel and proclaiming that the atonement would have been in vain if it were possible for people to be saved apart form divine revelation and faith in Christ. Augustine argued along with Paul that if man could be saved by works of the law then Christ died in vain. In the same way he argued that if man can be saved through nature apart from the Bible then Christ equally died in vain. It is an evangelical fairy tail that many pastors and theologians will tell that the heathen in unreached tribes are being saved through their observance of nature and conscience. This is simply unbiblical because only through faith in Christ can a man be saved and made right before God.

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

Wesley and Christian Perfection (part 4: conclusion)

by Peter Phillips

The Critique

One must always tread lightly when dealing with the work of a brilliant man like Wesley, especially by way of critique, but I have several concerns about the doctrine of Christian Perfection. First, I think it would be helpful to point out that the doctrine is hardly objectionable when it is stated in its most simplistic form (i.e. being perfected in the love of God), but once Wesley begins to explain it with more depth, significant worries begin to surface. For instance, one would hardly object to perfection if it is simply the doctrine expressing that we ought to love God and neighbor, for this is summation of God’s will for the Christian life. However, once Wesley begins to define more fully what he means, and he spells out the implications it has on the biblical definition of sin and sanctification, Wesley’s doctrine definitely exceeds the bounds of Scripture. For example, when Wesley asks a series of questions it becomes clearer what he is claiming:

Q. What is implied in being made perfect in love?

A. The loving the Lord our God with all our mind and soul and strength.

Q. Does this imply that he who is thus made perfect cannot commit sin?

A. St. John expressly says it. He cannot commit sin because he is born of God (1 Jn. 3:9).

Q. Does this imply that all inward sin is taken away?

A. Without doubt, or how should he be said to be saved from all his uncleanness?

 

It is not at all clear that love of God and neighbor excludes the possibility of sin or implies that one can no longer sin, even when expressing this kind of love. Wesley sights 1 John 3:9 as a proof text for his assertions, and believes the faithful interpretation of 1 John is that it is teaching perfection in the Wesleyan sense. However, systematic theologian Wayne Grudem gives some persuasive reasons for thinking differently:

John’s statement that “No one who abides in him sins” (1 Jn. 3:6) does not teach that some of us attain sinless perfection, because the present-tense Greek verbs are better translated as indicating continual or habitual activity: “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him” (1 Jn. 3:6 NIV). This is similar to John’s statement a few verse later, “ No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God” (1 Jn. 3:9 NIV). If these verses were taken to prove sinless perfection, they would have to prove it for all Christians, because they talk about what is true of everyone who is born of God, and everyone who has seen Christ and known him.

 

Therefore, it seems that when one takes into account proper Greek grammar, it excludes the possibility that John is talking about being totally without sin or even without “proper sin,” but rather they are without habitual or continual sin. Furthermore, even if the passage did teach perfection, it would prove too much, because Wesley maintained that only a few, not all Christians experience perfection, and mostly later in life, but before death (Wesley himself denied that he had ever experienced it). Unfortunately for Wesley, the passage clearly indicates that “all who are born of God” experience it, not a select few towards the end of their lives. So, either way one looks at it, the passage does not communicate what Wesley wants it to. Lastly, John rules out the possibility that any Christian can be without sin in his life, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8).

Wesley’s view of sin falls considerably short of the Biblical portrait, and one must always be cautious when someone attempts to minimize the biblical description of sin. It seems quite stretched to call certain sins improper, because we do not intend to do them or they are a result of personality defects, but in order to make his account of perfection attainable, Wesley needed to account for these kinds of sins. Scripture suggests that voluntary and involuntary sins are still sin, and thus, men are held accountable to God for them. Furthermore, one must use the terminology seen in Scripture when defining sin, and Scripture holds men accountable for sin as a propensity and sin as an act. Sin so pervades the human heart that it affects every level of our lives, and even though Christians are no longer slaves of sin, they have by no means entirely eradicated their old nature so as to live perfect this side of heaven (1 Jn. 1:8). Sin pervades the thoughts and intents of the heart, as well as the willful acts of disobedience that arise from them (Jer. 17:9; Jas. 1:13-15). Therefore, to limit proper sin to those acts that are willful transgressions of God’s law is to grossly underestimate the nature of sin and depravity. It seems that Wesley has misdiagnosed the reality and pervasiveness of sin in the life of the Christian. Furthermore, the volitional nature of sinful thoughts, feelings and desires seems to be absent from Wesley’s account, or at least softened to the point of being called personal defects and infirmities.

Finally, part of the confusion in Wesley is a result of his downplaying the already/not yet reality of our salvation from sin. Some passages of Scripture point to the fact that we have already been saved from sin and cleansed entirely, but this is a clearly and illustration of our justification before God, not the possibility of complete sinlessness in the Christian life (Rom. 6:1-14; 1 Jn. 1:6-10). The Christian is dead to sin and totally cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, which is due to the vicarious atonement of Christ, but he is not granted the freedom from the presence of sin in this life. On the other hand, Christians are told that the work is not yet complete in them, and they must pursue their progressive sanctification (Phil. 3:12-13; 2 Cor. 3:18). The Christian is a work in progress, and what God has began in him, he will most certainly consummate. Which brings us to the last point, glorification is the true perfection of the Christian that takes place after death, when the positional and progressive truths of justification and sanctification are aligned, and the Christian is without sin entirely. Wesley tends to blur the distinctions of all three in his doctrine of Christian perfection, and this creates confusion with respect to the biblical portrait of sanctification.

In conclusion, the works of Wesley have had a profound impact on the Church and continue to have a voice today. The doctrine of Christian perfection arose in a specific historical context, and it is helpful to note that upon reading his work. However, for as much good Wesley has done in his writings and preaching, one must point out that his doctrine of Christian perfection was flawed at best, and has caused much confusion and calamity in the Church, at worst.

---

Albert Outler, ed., John Wesley, 141.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 751.

John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 150.

Donald Alexander, Christian Spirituality, 125.

Is there a Present Reign of Christ ? (part 3)

by Peter Phillips

The Present Reign of God in Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Mark Saucy, Lectures on the Kingdom of God, 2008.

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

Darrell L. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for a Definition, ed. Craig A. Blaising (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 54.

Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 46-47.

Ibid

Saucy, Kingdom of God Lecture, 2008.

Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 46-47.

Ibid., p. 47.

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

Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 29.

Ibid., p. 29. 

Wesley and Christian Perfection (part 3)

by Peter Phillips

An Exposition of Christian Perfection

Wesley has several different formulations of his view of Christian perfection, but they all converge upon the idea that one can be “perfected” in love. For Wesley, Christian perfection is “being renewed into the image of Christ” by loving God with all one’s heart, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself. There are several careful nuances that need to be clarified before one can fully apprehend its depth, and, of course, several questions do arise at the mere mention of the term. Therefore, it will be helpful to clarify a few things up front.

 

The first question that might arise when considering the idea of perfection, is, “Why must Wesley insist on using the term?” To this, Wesley would readily respond that the notion of “perfection” is biblical. He addressed this issue in a sermon entitled Perfection, in the following manner:

The word ‘perfect’ is what disturbs many people. The very sound is irritating. Whoever preaches perfection, by claiming that it is attainable in this life, runs the risk of being accounted as worse than a heathen or a publican. As a result, some have advised us to stop using these expressions. But are they not found in the Word of God? If so, by what authority can any servant of God lay them aside, even though all men might be offended? We have not learned such a practice from Jesus…. Jesus himself taught, ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’

Wesley insisted that one must be true to the biblical text, and that is what he attempted to do, in practice and preaching. He would not allow for biblical words or concepts to lose there meaning, so as to become obsolete. Whether he rescues biblical language or gives it a whole new flavor of meaning is an important issue to bear in mind.

 

The next issue Wesley would address in clarifying perfection is what he did not mean when he preached the doctrine of Christian perfection. Wesley maintained that the Christian who had experienced perfection was not perfect in every way, but rather in a carefully nuanced sense. He explains what sense Christians are not perfect as follows:

In what sense are they not? They are not perfect in knowledge. They are not free from ignorance, no, nor from mistake. We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible, than to be omniscient. They are not free from infirmities, such as weakness or slowness of understanding, irregular quickness or heaviness of imagination…. From such infirmities as these none are freed till their spirits return to God; neither can we expect till then to be wholly freed from temptation; ‘for the servant is not above his master.’ But neither in this sense is there any absolute perfection on earth.

Therefore, for Wesley, there was no such thing as a static concept of absolute perfection this side of heaven, but rather one that allowed for mistakes and ill temperaments, which were a result of either imperfect knowledge or natural temperaments, both of which are effects of the fall. Furthermore, perfection as a Wesleyan concept does not make a man infallible or incapable of falling back into sin.

What exactly, then, did Wesley mean by Christian perfection—he maintained that it was a state of being perfected in the love of God, such that, one loves God with all one’s heart and thus is free from the power of sin, so as not to commit willful transgressions of God’s law. It is, simply stated, to love God and your neighbor, which implies deliverance from all sin. This deliverance extends to the thoughts, deeds and intentions of the heart. In 1764, Wesley reflected on the doctrine of perfection, and gave the simplest, most condense and comprehensive statement of perfection:

1.     There is such a thing as perfection, for it is again and again mentioned in Scripture.

2.     It is not so early as justification, for justified persons are to ‘go on to perfection.’ (Heb. 6:1)

3.     It is not so late as death; for Paul speaks of living men that were perfect. (Phil. 3:15)

4.     It is not absolute. Absolute perfection belongs not to man, nor to angels, but to God alone.

5.     It does not make a man infallible: None is infallible, while he remains in the body.

6.     Is it sinless? It is not worthwhile to contend for a term. It is ‘salvation from sin.’

7.     It is ‘perfect love.’ (1 John 4:18) This is the essence of it; its properties, or inseparable fruits, are, rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks. (1 Thes. 5:16)

8.     It is improvable. It is so far from lying in an indivisible point, from being incapable of increase, that one perfected in love may grow in grace far swifter than he did before.

9.     It is amissible, capable of being lost; of which we have numerous instances. But we were not thoroughly convinced of this, till five or six years ago.

Therefore, Christian perfection is usually something that happens later in one’s Christian life, but prior to death. It is not a static point that one reaches, but one can progress further into the throws of perfection—continuing to be perfected in the love of Christ. The essence of perfection is love—love of God and neighbor.

 

With respect to sinlessness, Wesley has some tricky nuances to lay hold of, because he wanted to show that Christians really could be free from the power of sin, in the sense that they could be without sin in a particular way. As Wesley himself said, “But if the love of God fill all the heart, there can be no sin therein.” But, one might ask, “How does Wesley define sin?” He defines “proper sin” as the willful transgression of a known law of God, and “improper sin” as the involuntary transgression of a known or unknown law of God. Wesley did not prefer to call “improper sin” sin, but instead referred to them as mistakes of ignorance or infirmities, which still required the atonement of Christ, but could coexist with pure love or perfection.

---

John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (Orlando: Relevant Books, 2006), 37.

John Wesley, “Perfection” in The Holy Spirit and Power, ed. Clare Weakley (Gainesville: Bridge-Logos, 2003), 169.

Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 16.

Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 142.

Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 48-72.

Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 48.

Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 141-142.

Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 43.

Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 53.

Wesley, “Perfection” in The Holy Spirit and Power, 73-75

Wesley and Christian Perfection (part 2)

by Peter Phillips

The Historical Context

Like all theology, Wesleyan theology did not come into existence without a historical context, and therefore it cannot be understood apart from a proper discussion of the historical landscape of which Wesley was part. First, it is helpful to understand that in 17^th and 18^th century Europe, doctrine had become so refined “in certain” Lutheran and Reformed circles, that it had grown cold and stale, a pale comparison to the reformation of the 16^th century. Church historian Justo L. Gonzalez describes the situation this way:

Protestant orthodoxy did a great service to the development of Protestant theology, for it served to spell out some of the implications of the great insights of the sixteenth century. At first, it was deeply religious, for it was an attempt to set down with as much detail and clarity as possible what were matters of personal religious significance for those involved in the movement. However, as succeeding generations inherited the theological work of their ancestors, that work became increasingly stale and objectified, as if the significance of theology were to be found primarily in a series of truths that could be formally stated in propositions to be transmitted from one generation to another.

Although Gonzalez has somewhat overstated the pervasiveness of the problem with Protestant scholasticism, he serves to remind us of some of the dangers that can stem from scholasticism of any kind. In short, certain theologians of Wesley’s day had lost sight of the practical and experiential importance of Christian doctrine. Therefore, in response to this development springs the birth of Pietism, which sought to underscore the practical and experiential importance of doctrine and personal relationship with Christ. Spener, Wesley, the Moravians, the Methodists, and the Puritans were all apart of the Pietism movement, and each sought the revitalization of the Christian life and practice, but some were more faithful to the Reformation and Scripture than others. However, Wesley was a man of reform, in a day that needed reformation, and he gave a clarion call that the simplicity of the gospel must be preached.

 

The second issue that was a part of the historical landscape of Wesley’s day was antinomianism, which was the doctrine that the law was made void by faith. Wesley commented on the main tenets of antinomian thinking at the First Annual conference of Methodists, on June 26, 1744. He lists six pillars of their teaching:

1.     That Christ abolished the moral law:

2.     That Christians, therefore are not obliged to observe it;

3.     That one branch of Christian liberty is liberty from obeying the commandments of God;

4.     That it is bondage to do a thing because it is commanded or forbear it because it is forbidden;

5.     That a believer is not obliged to use the ordinances of God or to do good works;

6.     That a preacher ought not to exhort to good works—neither to unbelievers because it is hurtful, nor to believers because it is needless.

Wesley fought vigorously against antinomian doctrines because he believed they were heretical and detrimental to the living witness of the church. What is relevant for the purposes of this paper is that antinomian teachings undercut the reality that Christians ought to live like Christ and follow His teachings. Thus, Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification was reactionary in nature. He sought to give a clear account of what the Bible teaches on the subject, but sadly, he went to extremes most times due to his antinomian opponents. Antinomianism needed to be answered, and Wesley was there with a fresh take on sanctification and the Christian life. Although he would affirm that his view goes back to the Apostles, it was not until some time around the 4^th century that similar doctrines were even heard of.

---

Gonzalez, History of Christian Thought, 300.

Gonzalez, History of Christian Thought, 300-307.

Albert Outler, ed., John Wesley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 139.

Wesley and Christian Perfection (part 1)

by Peter Phillips

Introduction

In a time when the church had succumbed to formulaic and cold expressions of doctrine, and Christian practice had become diluted by antinomianism, John Wesley came onto the scene preaching salvation by faith alone and spoke of the profound freedom Christians have from the power of indwelling sin. Wesley had a significant impact on the Church in his day and several movements have since broken out in his theological wake. He wrote and preached extensively on the theology of justification and sanctification, in a time that desperately needed a fresh voice. For the purposes of this paper, I would like to focus on Wesley’s view of sanctification, known as Christian Perfection. I believe Wesley had some interesting things to say on the subject, but his formulation exceeds the boundaries Scripture delineates on the issue, and perhaps, to the degree that he redefines the nature of sin and convolutes the whole idea of sanctification. In the following paper, I would like to briefly sketch the theological impact of Wesley, set the discussion in its historical context, exposit his view of sanctification, and then critique its weaknesses.

The Impact of Wesley

Wesley was a man given over to the steadfast proclamation of the gospel at whatever the cost, and he defended the central doctrines of Protestantism when they were in danger of becoming stale and diluted. Church historian Mark Noll identies Wesley’s single greatest impact, “Most important, as heirs of the earlier Protestant movements, John and Charles Wesley vigorously reaffirmed the central message of Protestantism: sola gratia, sola fide, and sola Scriptura—salvation was by grace alone through faith alone as communicated with perfect authority in the Scriptures.”[1] What Luther began in Wittenberg and Calvin carried into Geneva, Wesley revitalized in Anglican spheres during the 18^th century. Wesley was the first to argue for justification by faith alone, but he did not stopped there; he saw the need for an completely renovated view of sanctification in the light of the current lapse in Christian witness among his people.

Another aspect of Wesleyan thought that bears some consideration is the impact of Wesley’s experience-based testing of the validity of doctrine. He emphatically maintained that Christians ought to be able to experience all the Bible teaches about any particular topic, especially knowing and experiencing a deep relationship with God through faith in Christ.  Wesleyan scholar Laurence W. Wood points out that this is a distinctive feature of Wesley’s theology: “a Wesleyan hermeneutic, though it gives priority to the Scriptures as the basis for all beliefs, assumes that all truth is existentially perceived and appropriated…. Hence the crucible of life is the laboratory for testing our interpretation of Scripture.”[2] Much of the Pietism movement, of which Wesley was a part, claimed that experience plays a considerable role in the Christian life.[3] Wesley left this legacy for his followers and evangelicalism as a whole.

One can hardly speak of Wesley’s impact without reference to Methodism, and particularly the small groups in which he carried out his vision for spiritual transformation within the church.[4] Although the beginning of small group ministry was not his own idea, Wesley popularized the thinking of Philipp Jakob Spener, who was considered the father of the Pietism movement, and he adapted his own model to be the foundation of Methodism.[5]  Small groups were designed to supplement church worship and deepen spiritual growth through corporate theological reflection, intense study, and intimate relational experience.[6] Wesley’s description of these groups is as follows: “Such a society is no other than a company of men having the form and seeking the power of godliness, united in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love, that they may help each other work out their salvation.”[7] This was the kind of devout Christian experience that made Methodism winsome and attractive to the masses, who had grown tired of the stale and formulaic protestant scholasticism, which neither had the spirit or passion of the great reformer. To be clear, not all of protestant scholasticism can be characterized in this light, and particularly the proponents of the Heildelberg confession, the Westminster divines, and all those who have followed suit.

Lastly, a distinct feature of Wesleyan thought that had a huge impact on successive generations was the necessity of holiness in the Christian life. It was quite early in Wesley’s spiritual journey that he became persuaded that holiness was an indispensable part of the Christian life. Professor of Wesleyan studies at Southern Methodist University, William J. Abraham, notes, “In the reading of theologians such as Jeremy Taylor and William Law, Wesley became convinced that holiness of heart and life is the heartbeat of Christianity. He was attracted by a vision of the gospel that put a premium on personal transformation.”[8] As Wesley’s views on this matured and crystallized, they eventually led to his doctrine of Christian perfection. Wesley’s doctrine of Christian perfection spawned a holiness movement that has impacted and given birth to several denominations that currently raise the Wesleyan banner of holiness.

---

[1] Mark Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), 225.

[2] Laurence W. Wood, “The Wesleyan View” in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, ed. Donald Alexander (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 96-97.

[3] Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, vol. 3 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 300-317.

[4] Basil Miller, John Wesley (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1943), 82.

[5] Gonzalez, History of Christian Thought, 302-303.

[6] Gonzalez, History of Christian Thought, 307. 

[7] Richard Green, ed., The Works of John and Charles Wesley, vol. VIII, (1896), 269.

[8] William J. Abraham, Wesley for Armchair Theologians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005) 33-34.

 

Is There a Present Reign of Christ (part 2)

by Peter Phillips

Already/Not Yet

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

“Our problem, then, is found in this threefold fact: (1) Some passages of Scripture refer to the Kingdom of God as God’s reign. (2) Some passages of Scripture refer to the Kingdom of God as the realm into which we may now enter to experience the blessings of His reign. (3) Still other passages refer to a future realm which will come only with the return of our Lord Jesus Christ into which we shall then enter and experience the fullness of His reign. Thus the Kingdom of God means different things in different verses.”

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

---

Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 22.

Luke 4:17-30

Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 43

Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 139.

Glen Stassen and David Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 28.

Is There a Present Reign of Christ (part 1)

by Peter Phillips

Introduction

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

The Meaning of the Kingdom of God

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

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

---

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

Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 81.

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

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

George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959) 19.

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

Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 83

Hoekema, The Bible and the Future,45.

A Brief Study of Repentance

by Peter Phillips

Introduction:

            I would like to open our study by telling you a story about a man. It’s a famous story about human depravity, grace, and redemption—called Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo. Les Misérables is set in the Parisian underworld and specifically focuses on a man named Jean Valjean, who is sentenced to prison for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread. During his imprisonment he continues to sink into deeper depths of depravity, and eventually becomes a hardened criminal. Valjean is a man who steals, lies, and even kills when necessary. Finally, after serving a 19-year sentence he is released without out a cent to his name. He stumbles upon a small village around Paris looking for food and shelter, and by God’s grace a bishop takes him in. He provides him with food and shelter, and extends Christian hospitality to Valjean when nobody else would. Later that night, Valjean was haunted in his sleep, and his lust for money drove him to steal expensive silver utensils from the house. The bishop awoke as Valjean was leaving into the dark of the night, and the saintly old man calls out to him, but Valjean was already too committed to his crime, so he strikes the bishop and escapes into the night. The next day, the local authorities apprehend Valjean because they had suspected him of foul play when they saw him with such fine silver. They bring him back to the bishop’s house, and Valjean is claiming that the bishop had given him the silver. When the bishop comes out, Valjean is ready for the guilty verdict to be pronounced, but shockingly, the bishop says that he did indeed give Valjean the silver. The authorities are baffled when they heard the bishop had exonerated Valjean of this crime, and the bishop approached him and said, in a low voice, ‘Do not forget, ever, that you have promised me to use this silver to become an honest man.’ Jean Valjean, who had no recollection of any such promise, stood dumbfounded. The bishop had stressed these words as he spoke them. He continued solemnly, ‘Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul I am buying for you. I withdraw it from dark thoughts and from the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God!” (105-6) After that moment, Jean Valjean repented of his life of sin and evil, and turned to God through faith in Jesus Christ. He was altogether a new man, just as the bishop had said. In short, he had experienced true forgiveness, redemption, and a fresh start in life.

 

OT Passages on Repentance

Ezk. 14:6- “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: Repent and turn away from your idols, and turn away your faces from all your abominations.

Ezk. 18:30- “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.

 

Some NT passages on Repentance:

Mt. 4:17- From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Luke 5:32- I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Luke 15:7- Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Acts 5:29-32- But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Acts 11:18- When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Acts 20:18b-21: “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Rom. 2:1-5: Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

 

2 Cor. 7:10- For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

2 Tim. 2:24-26: And the Lord’s servant [4] must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Heb 6:1-Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

I. What repentance is not?

1.     Repentance is popularly characterized today as a weak confession of guilt that one has done something wrong. Like little boy saying, “I am sorry I got caught doing so and so. I promise to never do it again.”

2.     Catholic confession and penitence is another faulty example of repentance. For instance, if I tell my pastor/priest I’m sorry, and promise to go to church, then I am forgiven and absolved of my sin. See ya next week!

3.     Trying to do a bunch of good deeds to outweigh or counteract the bad deeds you’ve done is another example of unbiblical repentance. As if repentance is about restoring an equilibrium between one’s good and bad deeds.

4.     Saying you’re sorry and then making up several excuses for your sin is another example of insincere repentance (Gen. 3). Like Adam and Eve in the garden, Adam blames Eve for their sin, and then Eve blames the Serpent. Insincere repentance is not taking responsibility for your own sin.

II. Preliminary considerations regarding repentance

1.     Repentance is a response to an awareness of sin before God (Ezk. 14:6; 18:30; Lk. 5:32).

2.     Repentance is God given or a gift of God (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:24-26). God takes the initiative in brining about our repentance.

3.     Repentance and faith are inseparably linked together in salvation; repentance is the turning away from sin, and faith is the turning towards God (Acts 20:21).

4.     Godly sorrow over sin is meant to lead one to repentance, but worldly condemnation leads away from God (2 Cor. 7:10).

5.     Heaven breaks out into celebration when one sinner repents (Lk. 15:7).

III. What is repentance?

A.     Defining Repentance: Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin (against God and man), a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ (Grudem, 713).

·      The Greek word for repentance is metanoe;w, which means a change of mind, primarily with respect to sin and rebellion towards God.

·      There are three aspects of Biblical repentance that must be grasped in this definition:

1. Repentance is an intellectual understanding that sin is wrong, and that I am ultimately accountable to God for it.

2. Repentance is an emotional approval of the teachings of scripture regarding sin, which in essence brings a sorrow for sin and a hatred of it.

3. Repentance involves a personal decision to turn from sin and live for God.

* Repentance is something that occurs in the heart before God, and it involves the entire person. 

 

IV. How can we apply this doctrine to our lives?

1.     We need to identify the areas in our lives that we struggle with sin or have unrepentant hearts.

·      Personal Relationships

·      Sexual immorality

·      Anger or bitterness

·      Addictions

2.     Have you ever truly repented and believed in the gospel for your salvation. True salvation requires true repentance, which is only possible by God’s grace.

 

Monergism or Synergism?

Who provides the decisive impulse towards God in salvation, God or the determinative choice of man? Arminians, Wesleyans and Calvinists will answer this question differently. What is Calvin’s view and is it compatible with an Arminian interpretation of grace?

Implicit or Transitory Faith?

Alas Christology!
I have chosen to place the following comments with “Christology,” because for Calvin, the object of faith is Christ.

Calvin says, “Faith rests not on ignorance, but on knowledge. And this is, indeed, knowledge not only of God but of the divine will,” and “By this knowledge, I say, not by submission of our feeling, do we obtain entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Calvin then quotes Romans 10:10, “With the heart a man believes unto righteousness, with the mouth makes confession unto salvation,” stating that the apostle “indicates that it is not enough for a man implicitly to believe what he does not understand or even investigate. But he requires explicit recognition of the divine goodness upon which our righteousness rests” (III.ii.2).

Is Calvin placing reason above faith?

He continues his argument by debunking the Roman doctrine of “implicit faith” (III.ii.3), but chooses to salvage the terms and use them to his own liking. Calvin says, “For there was in them a true but implicit faith because they had reverently embraced Christ as their sole teacher. Then, taught by him, they were convinced he was the author of their salvation. And finally, they believed he came from heaven that, through the Father’s grace, he might gather his disciples thither” (III.ii.4).

Is the disciples’ faith implicit because they are God’s elect, having been taught by Jesus? According to the Roman doctrine, is faith implicit in the sense that one is born capable of it aside from Christ? And if so, would this not be considered Inclusivism?

Calvin uses the term “transitory faith” (III.ii.11) in relationship to the reprobate. Do we understand implicit faith, as Calvin uses it, to mean that it is faith contingent upon a future event that makes it effectual, e.g., being taught by Christ in some way?

The Holy Spirit and Prayer

What indeed, is the role of the Holy Spirit in prayer? Upon completion of reading Bruce Ware’s book on the Trinity, I began to reflect on this very issue, and I can share with you one brief thought. Ware’s contention is that we need to think of everything about Christian living through a Trinitarian lens. So, when we consider prayer, we ought to reflect on the Triune nature of God. He points out that Jesus gives us a model for prayer in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 6), and in that sermon, we are told to pray to the Father. So, we ought to pray to the Father. In other words, Christian prayer ought to be directed to the Father. But, what about the Son? Well, no one can come to the Father except through the Son (Jn. 14:6). So, the NT instructs us to pray to the Father, but in the name and authority of the Son. Jesus grants us access to the Father through his High Priestly work on our behalf. Now we come to your question, what about the Spirit’s role in all of this. Paul tells us to pray in the Spirit at all times (Eph. 6:18). The Holy Spirit empowers and energizes the prayers of the saints. Ware, says, “Prayer is in the power of the Spirit, as He empowers all else that we do to the glory of Christ in our lives.” Thus, Christian prayer, as such, is prayer to the Father, in the name and by the authority of the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

General and Special Providence

Calvin divides God’s providence into “general” and “special,” as he does with revelation. How do we understand the relationship between providence and revelation given Calvin’s division of the two? Do they work alongside each other? Does one necessitate the other?

Calvin cites Job as the example of how God permits evil to happen for the sake of the good, all of which is in accordance with his providence (p229-30). If this is the case, that Satan seeks God’s permission in all evil deeds that occur, then does not God seem to be the first cause of such wickedness? How do we understand the presence of evil in the world as being produced from a secondary cause when God seems to be so directly responsible? Calvin is clear that God is not the first cause, and then goes on at length regarding how God can will both good and evil without being contradictory or fickle in his sovereign plans (p232-5). Does appealing to a higher, divine logic (p234) in these matters obscure our understanding of Scripture, or reassure us of God’s infinite wisdom?

The Visible and Invisible Church

How does Calvin’s doctrine of predestination function in his theology if it is neither the center of his theology nor a speculative deduction from his doctrine of providence?

Calvin’s doctrine of predestination reinforces the doctrine of justification by faith alone by identifying God’s sovereign grace as the cause of justification and thereby assuring believers of their salvation. Predestination also provides the foundation for Calvin’s ecclesiology, according to which God has chosen the visible church (composed of both believers and unbelievers) to be the means through which the elect are called to faith and so enter the invisible church and begin to show signs of their election.

Covenant or Dispensational?

As we discussed in an earlier class, hermeneutics plays a central role in how we understand OT and NT Theology. Is Jesus Christ Calvin’s only hermeneutic when reading the Old Testament? And if so, is he justified in this approach?

Do we see New Testament authors doing the same thing? If Jewish exegetical method (e.g. Midrash and Pesher) have been used by NT authors, in which case Christ is not the sole hermeneutic, how does this affect one’s understanding of Covenant Theology?  Does the Church remain distinct from Israel?

The Peculiar Work of the Holy Spirit?

Calvin says, “What else is it, then, than to do injury to the Holy Spirit if we separate faith, which is his peculiar work, from him? Since these are the first beginnings of piety, it is a token of the most miserable blindness to charge with arrogance Christians who dare to glory in the presence of the Holy Spirit, without which glorying Christianity itself does not stand!” (III.ii.39)

If faith is the “peculiar work” of the Holy Spirit, then how do we understand his relationship with implicit faith in those who have yet to taste the “fatherly favor of God or the beneficence of Christ”? (III.i.2)

What is Heresy?

What is Heresy?

by: Peter Phillips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does Paul respond to false teaching?

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

The Doctrine of the Atonement

St. Augustine

Any Biographical or Theological Discussions regarding Augustine and his Works

Reflections on Calvin

A place to post your reflections regarding Calvin and the Institutes.

Favorite Calvin Quotes

Quotes From Calvin That Are of Particular Interest

Knowledge of Self

Discussions Related To Total Depravity, Free Will, and the Image of God