THERE IS NOTHING COMMON ABOUT GRACE...a biblical look at God's providential benevolence to all people

In Matthew five Jesus said, "the rain falls on the just and the unjust." (compare Luke 6:27-36 as well). This is God's providential, merciful benevolence to all people—not just the elect. Theologians have referred to this general act of kindness as “common grace.”

Common Grace is normally defined as:
"a theological concept in Protestant Christianity, primarily in Reformed and Calvinistic circles, referring to the grace of God that is common to all humankind. It is “common” because its benefits are experienced by the whole human race without distinction between one person and another. It is "grace" because it is undeserved and sovereignly bestowed by God. In this sense, it is distinguished from the Calvinistic understanding of "special" or "saving" grace, which extends only to those whom God has chosen to redeem." -source obtained from Monergism.com

Scriptures used to defend this theological distinctive are: Matt. 5:44-45; Matt. 37-39; Luke 6:35-36, 16:25; Acts 14:15-17; Psalm 33:5; Psalm 145:8-9; 104; 1 Tim. 4:4; Gen. 39:5, etc. This "common grace" can be seen in nature, by believers loving their neighbor and blessing the unregenerate through the fruit of a life of good works that by grace has a right-standing before God. This is what is usually held to as the definition for the phrase "common grace" in summarizing the bounties of God's providential benevolence and mercy upon all His creatures.

While I agree with the meaning behind the term of "common grace", biblically grace is never used to describe this universal benevolence and kindness of God.

Grace is used some 124 times in the NT (ESV), and every mention speaks of redemption, salvation, Christ's person or ministry, our sanctification, God’s provision for us in equipping and providing for ministry, the gospel, the bestowing of spiritual gifts, etc. But not one time is the word grace itself ever used to describe God’s universal benevolence to all of His creatures - specifically the unregenerate.



The Definition of Grace

Grace presupposes sin, guilt, and demerit; it addresses two facts: 1. we have not earned the favor of God; and 2. we have earned the curse of God.



Grace means we don’t get the curse we deserve AND that we get the blessings we don’t deserve. This is because Christ as our divine Substitute has acted fully in our place - imputing to us, by faith, the full merit of His righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21).

 The Gospel, therefore, is the message of the grace of God to undeserving, unworthy, sinful people like me and you.

The simple. historically accepted definition of grace is: ‘unmerited favor.’ Though this comes close to understanding grace, in and of itself is an inadequate definition. This is a definition more along the lines of kindness; but to really define grace--it needs to go further.



I was having dinner a while back with a friend of mine Jerry Bridges. He is one of the most profound Bible teachers of our day and his books reflect his deep love for the Lord and His Word. When we were discussing this issue of grace, he gave me a tremendous illustration to communicate the difference between providential benevolence and God's grace.

He said,

A hungry hobo comes to your door asking for a meal. You give it to him freely, without him doing anything to earn it. This would be considered ‘kindness’, not ‘grace’.



Biblical correct definitions of grace would be: 
1. Grace - ‘God’s favor through Christ to those who deserve His disfavor.’ 
 This version is designed to compare/contrast the historically accepted inadequate definition of grace above.

 Or 2. Grace - ‘God’s blessings through Christ to those who deserve His curse.’ 

 This is the better of the two definitions.



To illustrate this Jerry went on in using his example of the hobo. He continued by saying,

The hobo robs you after eating your free meal. He then returns one month later. Instead of calling the police, you give him another meal.



Key components of the definition:
 1. Christ is the only basis for both our redemption from the curse and our attaining any of God’s blessings. 

2. We have assaulted the holiness of God, but yet have been His grace. Back to our hobo, this takes us from seeing ourselves as the hungry hobo to seeing ourselves as the robber.



IOW, grace is ‘God in action.’ Grace is not just a benevolent attitude on God’s part to all people. Grace is always ‘God in action’ for our good and for His glory. 
 Again, 
every time the Bible mentions ‘grace’ it is always associated with ‘God in action.’ He is: saving us, justifying us, empowering us, sustaining us, equipping us, etc. ‘by grace.’



Words have Meaning
One of the reasons I enjoy writing (and reading) is that to effectively communicate one must place a high value on words. 
 
Words mean something. Words in the Word of God mean profound eternal "somethings." Grace, when used in the Bible, means something weighty, treasured, and valuable. And though the historical or traditional meaning of "common grace" has lent itself to represent a general mercy or benevolence by God for all people (which again I affirm), it seems there is a danger - even if ever so slightly - of weakening the high value and rich meaning of "grace" when we use it in a manner which the Scriptures do not.



By comparison, when we speak of general and special revelation, we clearly have Scripture to support that distinction. Psalm 19:1-6 describes God's general revelation (the heavens declare His glory); and Psalm 19:7-9 describes His special revelation (the law of the Lord is just converting the soul). And this is done without having to alter the biblical meaning of the word “revelation” in making that distinction.

 To be consistent, the same principle should apply to grace... shouldn't it?

I also understand the need to answer questions of faith and to look biblically for those answers. Dutch theologian, Louis Berkhof, gives us an example of the kinds of questions this issue of common grace may prompt. He asks:

• How can we explain the comparatively orderly life in the world, seeing that the whole world lies under the curse of sin?
• How is it that the earth yields precious fruit in rich abundance and does not simply bring forth thorns and thistles?
• How can we account for it that sinful man still "retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior"?
• What explanation can be given of the special gifts and talents with which the natural man is endowed, and of the development of science and art by those who are entirely devoid of the new life that is in Christ Jesus?
• How can we explain the religious aspirations of men everywhere, even of those who did not come in touch with the Christian religion?
• How can the unregenerate still speak the truth, do good to others, and lead outwardly virtuous lives?

...then and to come to the text of God's Word to answer them truthfully, correctly and biblically. 

I see the answers to the above questions contained in rightly understanding God's universal providential benevolence--not in the phrase of "common grace."

 May I say there is nothing "common" about grace; whether the word means a general community, universal application, or to display a pedestrian distinction.

To quote again the profound words of G.S. Bishop when speaking of grace he says,

"Grace is a provision for men who are so fallen that they cannot lift the ax of justice; so corrupt that they cannot change their own natures; so adverse to God that they cannot turn to Him; so blind that they cannot see Him; so deaf that they cannot hear Him; and so dead that He Himself must open their graves."

Therefore, we can see that grace is not used in the NT in a casual or ad-hoc manner to describe a universal benevolence or mercy given to all created beings. God is kind and benevolent to all people - reprobate and regenerate (Matt. 5:45). But grace is used in a more exalted way to describe God's work of redemption toward sinful men in the gospel (Acts 20:24; Roms. 5:15; 1 Cor. 1:4; Titus 2:11); and the person and ministry of Jesus Christ our Lord (John 1:14, 17; Acts 15:11; Roms. 1:7; Eph. 2:8-9). Even the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29).

 This is a simple issue for me: when using biblical language, use it in the way that God has in describing the faith.

Some want to discredit this kind of thinking by labeling me a hyper-Calvinist (which I am most definitely not); or by saying this departs from agreed theological nomenclature (which again, I affirm the orthodox meaning behind the phrase).

Why Dumb-Down Grace?
But why dumb-down grace by calling it something biblically it is not. I am not arguing for using only biblical terms in any discussion. What I am contending for, however, is keeping terms that are stated and used in the biblical record true to their meaning and context... biblically. There is a difference. Grace is such a term that is part of the NT record and used in very specific ways over 120 times and carries with it a meaning that is lofty and profound.

 Let's not alter that...

I.e. - The word "Trinity" is not a biblical term, but serves to concisely represent biblical truth. Terms such as " the five solas", "eschatology", "soteriology" etc. are not biblical terms, but they do clearly represent biblical truth.
 We can use them to unfold categories of theological belief that are "commonly" understood when speaking of certain theological convictions and truths.

One caveat here: the heritage of the phrase "common grace" is well documented and foundational for this issue. But the historical sense of it means little and should not take precedence when the biblical record is so clear.

IOW, I wouldn't point to the rich reformed historical heritage of paedo-baptism and favor it against the clear biblical record of credo-baptism just because paedo-baptism enjoys a n agreed historical tradition and practice among some of my reformed brothers (I mean, we are not Romanists). Though sadly, some in the reformed camp (no pun intended) stand more firmly on their historical practice over and against the biblical record to justify the baptizing of infants while at the same time deny the baptizing of adults who were once baptized as infants claiming that would be a "rebaptism."

Some of you might remember, or were even there, when R.C. Sproul debated John MacArthur on this issue several years ago. R.C. conceded in his opening remarks that John had already won the debate because they had agreed to make their respective cases from the scope of God's Word. Simply, John had the weight of Scripture behind him on this issue, R.C. did not. Both of these men are tremendous pastors, teachers and theologians whom I greatly appreciate, love and respect in my life and ministry. But I was so encouraged that R.C. paid homage to the truth of God's Word over the historic tradition -- even though he ultimately didn't change his conviction on infant baptism. The biblical teaching should always trump the historic tradition. That same principle should govern our thinking when we are defining key and essentials aspects of Christianity.

Graciousness vs. Grace
In Jerry's hobo illustration, I do see the response as being one of graciousness--but to me that's not an act of grace, but an act of mercy and benevolence. IMHO, those two things are different. 

Gracious implies genial, affable, urbane, merciful, compassionate. But an act of God's grace is redemptive, salvific. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't think it's ta-MAY-toe, ta-MA-toe.

 Again, words mean something; and grace is too important of a word to concede to theological labeling.

Psalm 145:8-9 that some site in defense of the phrase "common grace" are some of my favorite verses on the benevolence of God.

"The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The LORD is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works."

Spurgeon's commentary on these verses is especially profound. He does mention "his plans and his poses all manifest his grace, or free favour"; but then he does clarify it more as his commentary unfolds on the whole of it pertaining to these verses by emphasizing God's mercy, longsuffering, and compassion.



Consider these words:

"To all living men his aspect: he is gracious, or full of goodness and generosity. He treats creatures with kindness, his subjects with consideration, and his saints favour."



"To the suffering, the weak, the despondent, he is very pitiful: he feels for them, he feels with them: he this heartily, and in a practical manner. Of this pitifulness he is full, so the compassionates freely, constantly, deeply, divinely, and effectually."



"What an ocean of compassion there must be since the Infinite God is full of Slow to anger. Even those who refuse his grace yet share in long suffering. When men do not repent, but, on the contrary, go from bad to worse, averse to let his wrath flame forth against them. Greatly patient and anxious that the sinner may live, he "lets the lifted thunder drop", and still bears. "Love suffereth long and is kind", and God is love. And of great mercy. This is his attitude towards the guilty. When men at last repent, find pardon awaiting them. Great is their sin, and great is God's mercy, need great help, and they have it though they deserve it not; for he is good to the greatly guilty." 



This discussion comes down to a simple recognition that grace, biblically defined, does have a meaning that doesn't carry with it the idea of a universal or common benevolence or kindness. But something more powerful: redemption, salvation, conformity to Christ; justification; imputation; propitiation; and glorification.

Grace 
is also representative of God's character (the grace of God) and of Jesus Christ (full of grace and truth; the word of His grace; as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.)

This is the heart and soul of it... To those with whom I disagree, I think we are on the same page here--just using different phrases to express the same, important truth.



To be clear, I have never claimed that grace is only used in a soteriological sense (though that is the majority of its usage in the NT). I listed above that grace is used in matters of provision and equipping for ministry (2 Cor. 9:8; 2 Tim. 2:1) ; in our sanctification (Col. 4:6; Titus 2:12); for the use and purpose of spiritual gifts (1 Peter 4:10); and also in relation to the character of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (cp, Col. 1:2; John 1:14-17; Heb. 10:29).



Grace Upon Grace
In closing, there is a wonderful phrase in the first chapter of John's gospel where he says,

"For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace."

"Grace upon grace. Literally, as Dr. MacArthur referred to this in a sermon by saying, "we are graced with grace" (cf, Eph. 1:5-8; 2:7). This is speaking to the super-abounding grace given to us. "Where sin once abounded, grace super-abounded..." I am a great sinner; but He is a greater Savior.



This "grace upon grace" reality flows from the "fulness of Christ." As Calvin says,

"He begins now to preach about the office of Christ, that it contains within itself an abundance of all blessings, so that no part of salvation must be sought anywhere else. True, indeed, the fountain of life, righteousness, virtue, and wisdom, is with God, but to us it is a hidden and inaccessible fountain. But an abundance of those things is exhibited to us in Christ,"



This is the language of sufficiency beloved.

Paul echoes this in Colossians: Col. 1:18

"He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. Col. 1:19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, Col. 1:20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." 

AND, "that is, Christ Himself, Col. 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Col. 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Col. 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;"

If we look at the flow of this section of Scripture (John 1:14-18) the outline unfolds according to Pink as follows:

1. Christ’s Incarnation—"The word became flesh": John 1:14.
2.
2. Christ’s Earthly sojourn—"And tabernacled among us:" John 1:14.
3.
3. Christ’s Essential Glory—"As of the only Begotten:" John 1:14.
4.
4. Christ’s Supreme excellency—"Preferred before:" John 1:15.
5.
5. Christ’s Divine sufficiency—"His fulness:" John 1:16.
6.
6. Christ’s Moral perfections—"Grace and truth:" John 1:17.
7.
7. Christ’s Wondrous revelation—Made known "the Father:" John 1:18.



Therefore, I would conclude the "all" in verse 16 pertains to all believers; for no unbeliever is partakers of His fulness and recipients of "grace upon grace." It could also be argued, I guess, that the all could mean: "John appeals to all his own contemporaries as participants with him in the fulness of the Logos." (Robertson)



As to the example of Ezra: the context is not the general pagan world, but to the people of God. We know this to be certain for Ezra writes in 9:8: "that our God may enlighten our eyes and grant us a little reviving in our bondage." Ezra’s address is a penitent confession of sin, the sin of his people. Let this be the comfort of true penitents, that though their sins reach to the heavens, God’s mercy is in the heavens. 

And part of that favor, as you say, is evidenced in releasing a remnant from captivity.



As some have rightly said, "there are so many things God has done for every single person in the world which we do not deserve." Amen! His providential kindness and benevolence rests on all the sons of Adam.



I also like how John Gill approaches this phrase when he says,

"the meaning is, grace is for the sake of grace; for there is no other cause of electing, justifying, pardoning, adopting, and regenerating grace, and even eternal life, but the grace, or free favour of God;" "...I also think, the abundance of it, at first conversion, with all after supplies, is intended; and that grace for grace, is the same with grace upon grace, heaps of grace;"

The superabundance of grace that comes through Jesus. I'm certainly not married to the phrase "graced with grace" - but I thought it reflected well the "grace upon grace" plentifulness found in Christ Jesus our Lord. "Favor given to one who has already received favor" also says it well.

Grace imparted; grace increasing.

Grace not being static, but active. AT Robertson says,

"Hebrews 12:2 where "joy" and "cross" are balanced against each other. Here the picture is "grace" taking the place of "grace" like the manna fresh each morning, new grace for the new day and the new service."



I know that Dan has an extensive knowledge of Greek and I would be interested on his thoughts as well. I'll defer to his wisdom on this.



Grace-Focused Worship
But here's the wonder and majesty of this issue for me in all this beloved. I awoke this morning worshipping the Lord and praising Him for His matchless, abounding, fathomless saving-sanctifying-glorifying grace. 

 This discussion about grace has caused me a fresh to reverence God today with joy. Why? Because He is a God of grace; and aren't you glad? Instead of His wrath He has given me His grace; instead of His justice, He has given me His mercy; and instead of His enmity, He has given me His unfailing love. Amen?



What hope, what promise, what forgiveness, what life and victory is given to us through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Jesus Christ IS our all in all...

Further Study and Reading:
1. "The History and Theology of Calvinism" by Curt Daniel, Ph.D.
2. "Dogmatic Theology" by William G.T. Shedd
3. "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem

A Test of Faith...which points below are true or false?

This past week I asked my dear friend and blogging buddy, Alan Kurschner, if he had any articles for COT/A1M. He had an excellent idea - a "theology test" which you will find below. This test expresses thoughts about faith, salvation, man, and God. Which points do you think are true and which are false? Take this "test of faith" and let me know what you think.

Enjoy your weekend...
Campi

1. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters. T or F?

2. God selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. T or F?

3. Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe. T or F?

4. The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. Man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. T or F?

5. Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) - man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, "choose" to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. T or F?

Your Weekly Dose of Gospel...the impeccability of Christ; He could not haved sinned

...a quote, a statement, and a conversation

A Quote
Here is a very helpful quote on Jonathan Edwards's view on this important issue of the impeccability of Christ.

It is in Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will (1754) that he reconciles impeccability and freedom of the will in the human soul of Jesus Christ, even when Jesus is in a state of trial. But how does he shape a synthesis between these two attributes without duplicity, and at the same time avoid theological and Christological barbs, whether Arminian or Hobbist, Nestorian or Apollinist? For Edwards, the Son of God did not surrender impeccability when he undertook to fulfill – in human nature, and in a state of trial – intra-Trinitarian promises, promises made not only by the Father to the Son, but by the Son to the Father. Edwards views the habits of the heart of Jesus Christ progressing in holiness from the moment of his incarnation. He understands the excellencies that the Son of God brought to the human nature in the incarnation in no way to have added to nor to have diminished the impeccable holy disposition of his person. A key to interpreting the holy habits of Jesus’ heart is, according to Edwards, to view the source of the impeccability of the soul of Jesus as lying in its essence, not in a cause outside his person; it lies in the very disposition of his heart.

SOURCE: Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will and his defense of the impeccability of Jesus Christ, by Philip J Fisk. Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 60, Is. 3 (article is not online).

A Statement

"For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses,
but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin."
-Hebrews 4:15

Puritan theologian, Charles Hodge, holds to a different position where he affirms the peccability of Christ. He says:

"This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.”

While Hodge is one of my favorite authors and theologians, I respectfully disagree with his assertions.

I believe that the identification the writer of Hebrews is making between Christ and His people was not in “the possibility of the sinning” but in “the commonality of being tempted.” Jesus was tempted (cf, Luke 4:1-12); but there was nothing in Him that was temptable--that could ever succumb to sin; nothing in Him that could ever be seduced or swayed in respect to temptation. He was not temptable — possessing the possibility of sinning. “He knew no sin...” nor was there any “sin in Him.” He was “holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners...” (Heb. 7:26)

I do rejoice in the comfort of Heb. 4:15: that though tempted, He, as the God-Man – could not sin. He took on flesh, but not my sin nature. He is fully God and fully man. The First Adam could not help but sin. We are conceived in sin, born with a nature to sin and are sinful (Psalm 51:5; Eph. 2:1-3; Roms. 3:10-18). We cannot do and be otherwise. We are sinners; not because we commit acts of sin but because we are sinful by nature. And our sinful nature will always fulfill its desires in that which strays from the perfection of His holiness and the standard of His Law (1 John 3:4; Roms. 3:19-20).

But the Last Adam (Roms. 5:12-17), Christ Jesus the Righteous, could not help but not to sin. He could do no other. It was His nature not to sin.He was not only "able not to sin" (sinless), but he was also “not able to sin” — impeccable. Thus was His perfect estate, even in incarnation (John 1:14-18). He moved among unholy people, but remained perfectly holy, righteous, and undefiled. There was nothing in Him that was susceptible to sin, prone to sin, possessing the capacity to sin, or venerable to sin. I do agree with Charles Hodge in this respect, that when temptation is applied and spoken of in regards to fallen man, it always implies "the possibility of sin." It is a moral and spiritual certainty. Why? Because that is what sinful people by nature will do... We will sin. And this will manifest itself in various ways, in varying degrees, and in differing situations—but sin we must and sin we will.

But Christ was not like us in that regard. No matter what situation He was in; no matter what degree the devil tried to tempt Him; no matter what way sin presented itself before Him – He could not sin; it was not in Him nor part of Him to do so. It was consistent with His nature (both human and divine) not to sin.

To suggest that Jesus Christ in the flesh could have sinned but chose not to, must also imply that in incarnation He willfully resisted the impulse of or even the thought to sin. IOW, He wrestled continually with the possibilty of sinning until His bodily resurrection from the grave. To asset that there was this battled dualism raging within Him – a conflict between His too natures in regards to transgressing the Law and giving Himself to acts of iniquity and lasciviousness is inconceivable to me. But I do want to remain teachable: so can anyone show me biblically where Jesus wrestled with this possibility of sinning? Where Scripture, either prophetically, in the gospel narratives, or in any of the epistles where this is a clear certainty and not one of biblical speculation? Was it ever contained in holy writ that there was to be a “testing of the Son of Man” to see if He could withstand "the world, the flesh and the devil" and thus prove that He was sinless? I can find none. He is in the flesh none less than the Lord (God and Sovereign)... Jesus (Savior and Redeemer)... Christ (Messiah and Lamb).

A Conversation
A reformed forum friend and minister named Tim and I have been emailing "offline" about this important discussion on the peccability or impeccability of Jesus Christ the Lord. The issue being discussed comes down to this: does the possibility exist that Jesus could have sinned while in the flesh on earth or couldn't He have sinned? It's an important question as to the nature and character of our Lord.

Here is part of this conversation of faith that Tim and I have had which originated on a private reformed baptist forum. We both thought this might be helpful to others who are asking these same questions and acording to forum rules, mutually gave permission to post this here at COT. I appreciate this brother greatly and the spirit in which we interacted. Though it only represents a part of the greater convesation we had, it is our prayer that it can encourage you to further search the Word of God on this theme.

Tim's comments are in blue (which include some initial comments of my own marked by the >); and then my follow up responses.

> He was tempted in all things as we are—yet without sin. IOW, He was not >temptable—having the ability to sin.

This makes no sense to me. Jesus was not temptable, yet he was
tempted? That seems to set the meaning of the words on their heads.

Being tempted is not a sin in and of itself. “And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil.” (Luke 4:10-2a). But being temptable means that there is something in that individual that could succumb to sin and surrender to its influence. Such did not exist with Christ. He was tempted to be sure; but He was not temptable—He was holy, sinless, separate from sinners and there was no sin in Him. He had no sin nature to make Him venerable to sin.


> We are in a very limited and temporal sense "peccable" - "able not to sin."

Assuming that Steve meant "impeccable" here, again it represents a playing with words to make them fit. To be impeccable is not "able to not sin", it is "not able to sin." This side of glory we are in no way impeccable. We are able not to sin and that is it.

I actually did mean peccable. As I explained in the post, we don’t give ourselves to every kind of vice and sin out there. We are, in a limited and temporal sense, able not to sin—peccable. You are right on how you defined impeccability; impeccability only applies to the Lord Jesus Christ – not to us.


> But not our Lord... In incarnation He was tempted and never temptable;He even declared >about Satan in the gospel of John that "he has nothing on me."

This has been assumed and short of redefining words it is yet to be proven. This really is just a restatement of the question, not a proof of the answer.

I would humbly submit that the burden is on those who claim that the Lord Jesus Christ, as the God-Man, had the capacity, venerability, and nature to sin, but chose not to. To me that makes the Lord out to be “spiritually schizophrenic.” “Able” but “not able.” Conflicted between two natures. That dualism doesn’t seem to be consistent with Scripture.


> So we could say the basis of the Impeccability of the Divine Christ was his perfect holiness >and the inability to change.

While this is absolutely of his divine nature, but his human nature most certainly changed, see Luke 2:52 for example. It seems that Steve's presentation in this post rests upon a confusion of the two natures of Christ.

This goes to immutability. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forevermore.” There is no confusion of the two natures: he was Son of Man AND God the Son. He was in all points tempted as we are, but He is not completely as we are in person or nature. You cannot separate the two natures of Christ and apply the human nature that existed in Him as a one to one corollary with us. We were not virgin born, He was. He was not born with a sin nature, we were. He was not conceived in sin, we were, etc.


> We must also consider James who states that sin first begins in the mind before it manifests >in our actions, so that in order for Christ to be temptable He would have had to have already >given his mind over to thoughts of sin.

This is an interesting observation! However, I think it may be being (unintentionally) misused. In it, James is speaking of how one gives in to sin and he explains it beginning with temptation. James is admonishing us to stand and not sin and then he traces the path from temptation to sin. If he is not, it would seem that just being tempted is sinful and that isn't right.

Again, as stated above, being tempted does not equate committing sin. But the point being made here is that sin both begins in the mind and spirit—it is cognitive and desired. For our Lord to have even been tempted to the point where He was venerable to sin, but chose not to, it seems that some here might be implying that in thought and desire He had the capacity to sin. But again, Scripture nowhere speaks of Him wrestling with the temptation of sin as to be tempted to sin. He was not temptable for there was nothing in Him that could sin. He was the sinless Son of God from all eternity come in the flesh; and who remained sinless and without ability to sin by virtue of who He was.


> This is why the Lord equates lust in the mind with adultery, because no one commits >adultery who did not first consider doing it.

There is a difference between temptation and lust.

Exactly. But what you are suggesting, IMHO, is that Jesus had the capacity and predisposition to lust but chose not to. Help me further understand your position here: what would the Scripture be for that claim?


> To even consider sin as an option which is the basis of temptation (as we are tempted: note >to Hebrews) is to consider rebellion against God an option.

I am concerned here that Steve is equating temptation with sin and that is wrong.

No I am not; and my apology if my words didn’t communicate that more effectively. The basis or goal of temptation is to cause another to sin... AND, would you not affirm that all sin is rebellion against God... Christ had not the capacity for either. For He, being God, could not rebel against His Father’s will for they were one in essence, will and purpose. It was the very fact that Christ could not sin that He became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. It wasn’t that He conquered some earthly test where He wrestled with sin, but did not choose to and ultimately was victorious over sin.

What is your response to this quote, this statement, and to this conversation and topic?

His Unworthy Servant in His Unfailing Love,
Steve
2 Cor. 5:21

Your Weekly Dose of Gospel...justification: forensic or moral?

Justification: "the Atlas" of all Christian doctrines

The following article is a priceless treasure giving us tremendous insight into the great reformational biblical doctrine of forensic justification; authored by my favorite of all systematic theologians, Francis Turretin.

This is not truth for the timid or reading for the casual at heart. This is substantive meat from the table of biblical, theological dining. Drink deeply from this doctrine of grace and rejoice afresh in the once for all vicarious subsitutionary atoning work of our Wonderful, Merciful Savior.


by Francis Turretin (1623-1687)
QUESTION: Is the word Justification always used in a forensic sense in this argument, or also in a moral and physical? The former we affirm, the latter we deny, against the Romanists.

I. As in the chain of salvation Justification follows Vocation, Rom. 8:30, and is everywhere set forth as the primary effect of faith. The topic concerning Vocation and Faith begets the Topic concerning Justification, which must be handled with the greater care and accuracy as this saving doctrine is of the greatest importance in religion. It is called by Luther, the article of a standing and falling church; by other Christians it is termed the characteristic and basis of Christianity not without reason, the principle rampart of the Christian religion, and, it being adulterated or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other places. Whence Satan in every way has endeavored to corrupt this doctrine in all ages; as has been done especially in the Papacy: for which reason it is deservedly placed among the primary causes of our Secession from the Roman Church and of the Reformation.

II. Although, however, some of the more candid Romanists, conquered by the force of the truth, have felt and expressed themselves more soundly than others concerning this article; nor are there wanting also some among our divines, who influenced by a desire to lessen controversies, think there is not so great matter for dispute about it, and that there are here not a few logomachies: still it is certain that up to this time there are between us and the Romanists in this argument controversies not verbal, but real, many and of great importance, as will be made manifest in what follows.

III. Because from a false and preposterous explanation of the word, the truth of the thing itself has been wonderfully obscured, in the first place, its genuine sense, and in this question most especially, must be unfolded, which being settled we will be able the more easily to reach the nature of the thing itself.

Homonyms of the verb Justificare
IV. The [hebrew] verb tsayke, to which the greek dikaioun answers, and the Latin Justificare, is used in two ways in the Scriptures, Properly and Improperly. Properly the verb is forensic, put for to absolve any one in a trial, or to hold and to declare just, as opposed to the verb to condemn and to accuse, Ex. 23:7, Deut. 25:1, Prov. 17:15, Luke 18:14, Rom. 3-5. Thence apart from a trial it is used for to acknowledge and to praise one as just, and that too, either deservedly, as when it is terminated on God, in which way men are said to justify God, when they celebrate him as just, Ps. 51:4, Wisdom is said to be justifed of her children, Matt. 11:9, Luke 7:35, that is acknowledged and celebrated as such, or presumptously, as the Pharisees are said to justify themselves, Luke 16:15. Improperly it is used either ministerially, for to bring to righteousness, Dan. 12:3, where mtsdyqy seems to be exegetical of mskylym: because while the preachers of the gospel instruct and teach believers, by this very thing they justify them ministerially in the same sense in which they are said to save them, 1Tim. 4:16. Or by way of synecdeche, the antecedent being put for the consequent, for to free, Rom. 5:7, "He that is dead is justified from sin," that is, freed. Or comparatively, Ez. 16:51-52, where on account of a comparison between the sins of Israel and Samaria, Israel is said to justify Samaria, and, the sins of Judah increasing, Judah is said to have justified Israel, Jer. 3:11, because Israel was more just than Judah, that is, her sins were fewer than the sins of Judah.

State of the Question
V. Hence arises the Question of the Romanists, concerning the acceptation of this word, whether it is to be taken precisely in a forensic sense, in this affair; or, whether it ought also to be taken in a physical and moral sense for the infusion of righteousness and Justification, if it is allowable so to speak, either by the acquisition or the increase of it? For they do no deny, indeed, that the word Justification and the verb justificare are often taken in a forensic sense, and even in this affair, as Bellarmine, De Justificatione, chap. 1, Tirinus, Theologiae elenchticae, cont. 15.1, Toletus Ad Romanos, anno 13, and many others. But they do not wish this to be the constant meaning but that it often signifies a true production, acquisition, or increase of righteousness, and this is especially the case, when employed about the justification of man before God. Whence they distinguish Justification into first and second. The first is that by which man who is unjust is made just, the second, by which a just man is made more just. Whence Bellarmine, lib. ii, chap. 2, "Justification undoubtedly is a certain movement from sin to righteousness, and takes its name from the terminus to which it leads, as all other similar motions, illumination, calefaction; that is true justification, where some righteousness is acquired beyond the remission of sin." Thomas, I-II, q. 113, "Justification taken passively implies a motion to making righteous, just as calefaction a motion to heat." Now although we do not deny that this word has more than one signification, and is taken in different ways in the Scriptures, now properly, then improperly, as we have already aid, still we maintain that it is never taken for an infusion of righteousness, but always as often as the Scriptures speak professedly concerning our justification, it must be explained as a forensic term.

The word Justification is forensic
VI. The reasons are: 1) Because the passages, which treat of Justification, admit no other than a forensic sense, Job 9:3. Ps. 143:2, Rom. 3:28 and 4:1-3, Acts 13:39, and elsewhere, where a judicial process is set forth, and mention is made of an accusing law, of accused persons, who are guilty, Rom. 3:19, of a handwriting contrary to us, Col. 2:14, of divine justice demanding punishment, Rom. 3:24, 26, of an advocate pleading the cause, 1 John 2:1, of satisfaction and imputed righteousness, Rom. 4 and 5; of a throne of grace before which we are absolved, Heb. 4:16, of a Judge pronouncing sentence, Rom. 3:20, and absolving sinners, Rom. 4:5.

VII. 2) Because justification is here opposed to condemnation; "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" Rom. 8:33. As therefore accusation and condemnation occur only in a trial; so also justification. Nor can it be conceived how God can be said to condemn or to justify, unless either by adjudging to punishment, or absolving us from it judicially, which Toletus is compelled to confess on this passage; "The word justification in this place is taken with that signification, which is opposed to its antithesis, namely, condemnation, so that it is the same in this place to justify as to pronounce just, as a Judge by his sentence absolves and pronounces innocent." Cornelius, a Lapide, who otherwise earnestly strives to obscure the truth still overcome by the force of the truth, acknowledges that God justifies,that is, absolves the threatened action of sin and the devil, and pronounces just.

VIII. 3) Because the equivalent phrases, by which our justification is described; such as not to come into judgment, John 5:24; not to be condemned, John 3:18; to remit sins, to impute righteousness, Rom. 4; to be reconciled, Rom. 5:10-11 2Cor. 5:19; and the like. 4) This word word ought to be employed in the sense in which it was used by Paul in his dispute against the Jews. And yet it is certain that he did not speak there of an infusion of righteousness, viz; whether from faith, or from the works of the law the habit of righteousness should be infused into man, but how the sinner could stand before the judgment seat of God, and obtain a right to life, whether by the works of the law, as the Jews imagined or by faith in Christ; and since the thought concerning Justification arose without doubt from a fear of divine judgment, and of the wrath to come, it cannot be used in any other than a forensic sense; as it was used in the origin of those questions, which were agitated in a former age upon the occasion of Indulgences, satisfactions and remission of sins. 5) Finally, unless this word is taken in a forensic sense, it would be confounded with sanctification, and that these are distinct, both the nature of the thing and the voice of Scripture frequently prove.

Sources of Explaination
IX. Although the word Justification in certain passages of scripture should recede from its proper signification, and be taken in another than a forensic sense, it would not follow that it is taken judicially by us falsely, because the propersense is to be looked to in those passages in which is the seat of this doctrine. 2) Although perchance it should not be taken precisely in a forensic sense, for to pronounce just, and to absolve in a trial, still we maintain that it cannot be taken in a physical sense for the infusion of righteousness, as the Romanists hold, as is easily proved from the passages brought by Bellarmine himself.

X. For, in Is. 53:11, where it is said Christ by his knowledge shall justify many; it is manifest that reference is made to the meritorious and instrumental cause of our absolution with God, namely, Christ, and the knowledge or belief of him. For the knowledge of Christ here ought not to be taken subjectively, concerning the knowledge by which he knows what was agreed upon between himself and the Father, which has nothing to do with our satisfaction. But objectively, concerning that knowledge, by which he is known by his people unto salvation, which is nothing else than faith, to which justification is everywhere ascribed. The following words show that no other sense is to be sought, when it is added, for he shall bear their iniquities, to denote the satisfaction of Christ, which faith ought to embrace, in order that we may be justified.

XI. No more does the passage of Daniel, 12:3, press us. Because, as we have already said, justification is ascribed to the ministers of the gospel, as elsewhere the salvation of believers, 1 Tim. 4:16, 1Cor. 9:22. Not assuredly by an infusion of habitual righteousness, which does not come within their power; but by the instruction of believers, by which, as they open the way of life, so they teach the mode, by which sinners can obtain justification in Christ by faith. Whence the Vulgate does not translate it justificantes, but erudientes ad justitiam.

XII. The passage Rev. 22:11, he that is righteous, let him be righteous still, does not favor our opponents, so as to denote an infusion or increase of righteousness. Because thus it would be tautological with the following words, he that is holy, let him be holy still, for that justification would not differ from sanctification. But it is best to refer it to the application and sense of justification, for although on the part of God justification does not take place successively, still on our part, it is apprehended by us by varied and repeated actions, while by new acts of faith we apply to ourselves from time to time the merit of Christ as a remedy for the daily sins into which we fall. Nay, although it should be granted that the exercise of righteousness is here meant, as in a manuscript we have dikaiosynen poiesato, that is may be opposed to the preceding words. He that is unjust, let him be more unjust, the opinion of the Romanists will not on that account be established.

XIII. The justification of the wicked, of which Paul speaks, Rom. 4:5, ought not to be referred to an infusion or increase of habitual righteousness, but belongs to the remission of sins, as it is explained by the Apostle from David. Nay, it would not be a justification of the wicked, if it were used in any other sense than for a judicial absolution at the throne of grace. I confess that God in declaring just, ought also for that very reason to make just, that his judgment may be according to truth. But man can be made just in two ways, either in himself, or in another, either from the law, or from the gospel. God therefore makes him just whom he justifies, not in himself as if from a sight of his inherent righteousness he declared him just, but from the view of the righteousness, imputed, of Christ. It is indeed an abomination to Jehovah to justify the wicked without a due satisfaction, but God in this sense justifies no wicked one, Christ having been given to us as a Surety, who received upon himself the punishment we deserved.

XIV. Although certain words of the same order with justification denote an effecting in the subject, there is not the same reason for this, which otherwise barbarous has been received into Latinity, to express the force of htsdyq and dikaioun, neither of which admit a physical sense. Thus we magnify and justify God, not by making him great from small, or just from unjust, but only declaratively celebrating him as such.

The above article has been extracted from Turrettin's Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (Question 16). The actual title of this section appears in the original as presented below, and greek and hebrew characters have been converted to their english counterparts. This e-text makes use of the unedited translation of George Musgrave Giger (professor of Latin at Princeton University, 1854-1865); it is now in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed. This material was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink.

Your Weekly Dose of Gospel...synergism belongs in a car dealership, not in divine salvation.

by Guest Blogger - Alan Kurschner

The "Calvinist vs. Arminian" debate throughout church history is substantially a debate between what is called "synergism" and "monergism." It is impossible for there to be any third option (well, ok, if one is willing to be a Pelagian). For those who are new to the Calvinist-Arminian debate, the following is an instructive primer on the two perennial branches of theological systems in Christianity. Or to put it another way, there are two very different ways for believers to view their salvation.

In general, the first type (the Arminian-Synergist) affirm what is called "synergism." They believe that two forces in the universe are necessary to bring about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, the two forces at work (cooperation) that are necessary to bring about regeneration, or spiritual life, is the will of man and the Holy Spirit (grace).

To put it another way, the work of the Holy Spirit is dependent on the creature’s will, hence, “synergism” (working together). These individuals will sincerely say, “I believe in grace alone.” But in reality, they believe that grace is not alone (sufficient), but that man’s will is necessary for regeneration to be effective.

It could be said that these individuals are “functional” Arminians because even though some will deny the label, their theology functions synergistically (thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe).

The second group of believers (the Calvinist-Monergist) affirm what is called “monergism.” They believe that there is only one force in the universe (grace alone) that brings about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, because of the deadness of man’s spiritual state, his moral inability, the Holy Spirit performs the miracle of spiritual resurrection (regeneration) in that person, hence, “monergism” (one work). Grace is sufficient to be effective, and does not depend on some action of man.

In other words, the Holy Spirit does not merely whisper in the hardened sinner’s ear and hopes that the rebel sinner will “cooperate”; rather, while the sinner is in a state of hardness and rebellion, the Holy Spirit penetrates in the will of man and performs the miracle of spiritual life (regeneration). That is grace alone. Faith does not precede regeneration, regeneration precedes faith.

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions– it is by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:12-13

He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” John 8:47

Arminians cannot affirm monergism (grace alone); they must always have the creature’s will as the final determiner of their destiny, not God. I must give Arminians some credit though. Invariably, they pray (without knowing) Calvinisticly, “God, change my unbelieving relative’s heart.” I have never heard them pray, “God, only whisper in my relative’s ear, but don’t change their heart unless you’ve been given permission.” But the Calvinist prays and affirms biblical truth consistently.

For further reading on this subject, see this copious source.

The Emerging T.U.L.I.P....pretending to be orthodox

The Emerging/Emergent ecumenical movement continues to make inroads in the broader landscape of evangelicalism. From Southern Baptists to Reformed to Charismatics, their influence knows no bounds. Even mainline publishers known for producing orthodox literature and books are signing emerging personalities to produce "theological" works for them.

Well respected evangelical leaders have emerging personalities participate in their conferences--representing them as being thoroughly reformed and orthodox; even to the point of making light of their scatological speech and debasing humor that marks and defines the pulpit ministries of many of the emerging churches brightest stars.

But the most farfetched of claims is that the emerging/emergent seeker sensitive, ecumenical salesmen are Clavinistic--reformed in their beliefs. This constitutes nothing more than a superficial nod at the reformed faith, while the postmodern culture is the real driving force behind this movement.

Here is "Calvinism's TULIP" according to the emerging/emergent beliefs. (You may find a detailed explanation of the real TULIP here).


1. Total Ambiguity
Methodology over message
Truth is embraced, but doctrinally abstract; fluid, and liquid
Conversation over gospel proclamation
Ecumenism over theological and doctrinal specificity 
Contantly inventing a new spiritual meta-narrative

2. Unconditional Pragmaticism
Seeker sensible and seeker sensitive
Whatever works—do it
Numbers justify everything
Program enriched
Felt need, culture-driven

3. Limited Theology
Doctrine diminished and not primary; it is secondary
Truth claims remain undefined
No definitive agreed upon statement of faith
Very little biblical definition of ministry
Recommended reading lists are 

4. Irresistible Contextualization
Truth must be adapted to and defined by culture
The audience, not the message, is sovereign
The focus is to be relevant and relativistic
Being missional is marked by methodological inroads, conversation, and cultural discernment of the times
Emphasis on the humanity of Jesus expressed in crude terms over the reverence and transcendence of the Lordship of Christ

5. Postmodern Perverse Speech
Being known as the cussing pastor is good
Unwholesome talk is cultural not unbiblical
Coarse scatological speech is a matter of personal taste
It makes you cool to other Emerging/Emergents
If you challenge it, you are labeled as Victorian and out of date