g r sound of a c e

B - And not for the nation only,

C - But also

D - To gather the children of God who are scattered abroad

1 John 2:2:

A’ - He is the propitiation for our sins,

B’ - And not for ours only

C’ - But also

D’ - For the sins of the whole world

We see from these verses

In any theological discussion, it is a good idea to identify presuppositions and to defi ne terms. The most important presupposition that lies behind this article is the biblical truth that Christ’s imputed righteousness furnishes the ground of a sinner’s free justifi cation before a holy God. Thus, this article will not address the recent, ongoing debate about the nature of justifi cation, but will accept as a fact that the righteousness that robes and fi ts God’s people for heaven is a righteous-ness that is completely alien to the sinner and his works. This alien righteousness comes entirely from the atoning work of Christ.1 The question this article seeks to answer is this: Does the righteousness of Christ that furnishes the ground of the sinner’s justifi cation before God come from Christ’s cross work alone, or does it also come from Christ’s obeying some law in the sinner’s stead?

1 Elsewhere, we have addressed the challenges posed by the New Perspective (or new perspectives) on justifi cation. See our previous articles on the New Perspective on Justifi cation, Sound of Grace V8 N7-N10. Available in hard copy from New Covenant Media, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 or online at http://www.soundofgrace.com/previous issuesofsoundofgrace 87, 88, 89, 90.

… it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace … Hebrews 13:9

The Active Obedience of Christ

John G. Reisinger

G RS O U N D O F

A EC

In Part 1, we saw that John was writing to a Jewish audience, and often uses the word “world” with a range of meanings.

A very important passage that helps us to understand 1 John 2:2 is John 11:51-52. This passage says, “He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” Notice the parallel be-tween the verses:

John 11:51-52:

A - Jesus would die for the nation

Does 1 John 2:2 Contradict De inite Atonement? Part 2 of 2

A. Blake White

Reisinger—Continued on page 2

White—Continued on page 16

In This IssueThe Active Obedience of Christ

John G. Reisinger 1

Does 1 John 2:2 Contradict Defi nite Atonement? Part 2 of 2

A. Blake White1

Matthew 12:1-14, The Sabbath Part II

Steve West3

Meditations

Dr. Fred G. Zaspel5

May 2011 Issue 177Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt 501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound of Grace are deductible under section 170 of the Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The subscription price is $10.00 per year. This is a paper unashamedly committed to the truth of God’s sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for us and help us fi nancially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular person is not an endorsement of all that person believes, but it merely means that we thought that a par-ticular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden and Jacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: [email protected].

Webmaster: Maurice Bergeron: [email protected]

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:[email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 – Phone 800-376-4146 or 301-473-8781 Fax 240-206-0373. Visit the bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questions to: John G. Reisinger, Sound of Grace, 3302 County Road 16, Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Visit the Sound of Grace Web Page at: http://www.soundofgrace.com

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by Permis-sion. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked “NKJV” are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permis-sion. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a divi-sion of Good News Publishers. Used by per-mission. All rights reserved.

ContributionsOrders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribu-tion to Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Fred-erick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to fi nd the expiration of your subscription. Please send payment if you want your subscription to con-tinue—$10.00 for ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this time, please call or drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to continue sending Sound of Grace free of charge.

Reisinger—Continued from page 1


Historically, the doctrine of justifi cation by faith has been one of the central differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholi-cism. Protestants have always held that the ground for justifi cation is the imputed righteousness of Christ. Imputation is primarily an account-ing term; used fi guratively, it indi-cates accusation or ascription. In a negative sense, to impute means to lay responsibility or blame. In a positive sense, it means to credit to a person or a cause. The Greek verb is logízomai, a deponent of the noun logos, which gives the sense of thought, reason, and word.

The New Testament authors used the Greek verb logízomai (translated into English variously as to reckon, impute, number, reason, account, think) in a number of places: Mark 11:31; 15:28; Luke 22:37; Acts 19:27; Romans 2:3, 26; 3:28; 4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24; 6:11; 8:18, 36; 9:8; 14:14; 1 Corinthians 4:1; 13:5, 11; 2 Corinthians 3:5; 5:19; 10:2, 7, 11; 11:5; 12:6; Galatians 3:6; Philip-pians 3:13; 4:8; 2 Timothy 4:16; He-brews 11:19; James 2:23; and 1 Peter 5:12. In addition, they sometimes used the concept without using the actual term, such as in 2 Corinthi-ans 5:21:

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The phrase made to be helps us understand that God treated Christ as something he was not—a sin-ner—in contrast to what he actually was—righteous. The Messiah died a real sinner’s death even though he was righteous—without sin. He died with sin on him, by imputation, but not with sin in him, by nature or act. The sin that was on him, and for which he suffered the full pen-alty, was the sin of his people. He died the death that they deserved,

their sin being imputed, or charged, to Christ. His dying under God’s curse did not make him in any sense guilty. It meant he willingly ac-cepted responsibility for his people’s sin and fully paid their debt. In a similar fashion, the righteousness of Christ has been imputed, or credited to the account of, believing sin-ners. Just as Christ was treated as a sinner, despite the fact that he was righteous, so believing sinners are treated as if they were righteous, despite the fact that they are guilty sinners.

Brief Sketch of Three Views of Imputed Righteousness

As I understand it, there are three evangelical positions that proceed from the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ as stated above.2 I want to emphasize that none of these views question the doctrine of the imputed righ-teousness of Christ. In my mind, to question that is to question the gospel itself. All three views posit a true and real righteousness of Christ that is imputed to sinners. All three views defi ne that righteousness as alien to the sinner and his works; that is, it is a righteousness earned by Christ alone. The views differ, however, on where and how our Lord earned the righteousness that God imputes to his people.

Covenant Theology

The fi rst of these three views is that of classic Covenant Theology, or the classic Reformed position. In this view, the pre-fallen Adam

2 As stated in the previous articles on the New Perspective that we published, I do not consider the New Perspective on Justifi cation to be within the pale of orthodoxy. Its adherents usually deny imputed righteousness as the sole basis of justifi cation, which undermines the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace, as I understand it.

Issue 177 May 2011

West—Continued on page 18

In the fi rst article on Matthew 12:1-14 it was noted that that passage clearly presents Jesus Christ as greater than David and greater than the temple. This is of exceptional importance because both David broke the ceremonial law yet was innocent, and the priests who serve in the temple break the Sabbath law continually (“they desecrate the day” Jesus says) and yet they also are innocent. Resting on the Sab-bath was superseded for the priests by the commands to serve in the temple and to be busy at their work. If this was true for the priests, how much more truly did the work of Jesus and his disciples supersede the Sabbath command? Because Jesus is greater than David and the priests, his work is of higher impor-tance than observing the Sabbath.

Before briefl y refl ecting on a few theological points, it will be benefi -cial to place the verses that we have looked at in their context. Immedi-ately following these verses, Mat-thew describes how Jesus healed a man with a shriveled hand on the Sabbath day (12:9-14). Besides exposing the hypocrisy of the Phari-sees, who would help their stranded animal but who would never help a person on the Sabbath, Jesus in an act of mercy and kindness heals the disabled man, even though he knows it will cause a hostile reac-tion. This healing displays the pow-er of Jesus, but it also verifi es his teaching on the Sabbath which he had just given. If God were against Jesus’ view of the Sabbath, surely Jesus would not be given the ability to heal on the Sabbath!

This is not the fi rst time in Mat-thew’s gospel that a healing authen-

ticates Jesus’ authority in teaching. At the end of Matthew 7, when Jesus has fi nished the discourse we call the Sermon on the Mount, the crowds are utterly astounded be-cause he teaches with “authority.” Jesus is authoritative in word and teaching. Immediately after, Mat-thew 8:1-4 records Jesus’ healing of a man with leprosy. Jesus touches the man, and rather than contract-ing the man’s uncleanness (which is what happened according to the Law), Jesus is so pure and clean that the man defi led with leprosy is healed. There is a massive shift here in salvation history; a new era has dawned, where the clean man, Jesus, far from becoming unclean himself through contact with a leper, purifi es the defi led.

Following this, Jesus heals the centurion’s servant at a distance by a word (8:5-13). Jesus is amazed at the centurion’s faith and his under-standing of Jesus’ authority. Jesus heals people from a variety of ill-nesses, and liberates those who are demon-possessed (8:14-17). Then, just in case you were beginning to think that following Jesus was go-ing to be nothing but power and victory, Jesus gives hard teachings on discipleship (8:18-22). Next, Je-sus demonstrates his authority over nature, leaving his disciples at a loss as to what kind of man he is (8:23-27). The answer to what kind of a man Jesus is comes from a surpris-ing source—two men fi lled with a Legion of demons (8:28-34)! They identify Jesus as the “Son of God” and recognize his authority over them. We have already seen Jesus liberate people from demon posses-sion, but can Jesus defeat a whole company of the army of hell? Yes.

With nothing but a word they are gone.

Categorically, then, Jesus has demonstrated his authority in word over leprosy (and thus the regula-tions of the laws regarding cleanli-ness), disease, fever, individual demons, nature, and a company of demons. Hearing about this, some men bring to him a paralytic, to whom Jesus says, “take heart, son; your sins are forgiven” (9:2). This was doubtless not what they were expecting. Jesus was a great healer; why does he speak of the forgive-ness of sins? In fact, some in the group think he is blaspheming. Af-ter all, who can forgive sins but God alone?

In response, Jesus acknowledges that it is easy to say that someone’s sins are forgiven, but only God can really remove the guilt of sin. How-ever, Jesus says that just so they will know he has authority to forgive sins, he heals the man. The healing is a token of his authority, and dem-onstrates that his claim to forgive sins is valid. Likewise, in Matthew 12, when Jesus heals the man on the Sabbath, it is to show that his view of the Sabbath is sanctioned by God and completely authoritative.

The material immediately before Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath in Matthew 12 is found in Matthew 11:20-30, but particularly verses 28-30. Before more carefully looking at those latter verses, however, we will back up to verse 20. Jesus begins to denounce certain cities where he performed most of his miracles, be-cause they have failed to repent as they ought to have done. He severe-ly warns them that it will be better

h fi i l h i h i i hi i h hi b d h

Mat thew 12:1-14 – T he Sabbath Par t II

Steve West

May 2011 Issue 177Reisinger—Continued from page 2


lacked, and had to earn, righteous-ness and eternal life. God gave Adam the opportunity to earn the needed righteousness and eter-nal life by obeying a Covenant of Works. Adam failed to obey that covenant and thus failed to earn the needed righteousness. He also came under the judgment of God for his sin. Christ’s vicarious cross work provided the forgiveness of sin his people needed, but the cross did not provide the righteousness or the eternal life they lacked. Christ obeyed the same covenant that Adam failed to obey, and thus the righteousness of Christ, imputed to his people, is the same righteous-ness that the pre-fallen Adam (and everyone since him) needed. This righteousness of Christ is then the ground for his people’s righteous-ness and eternal life. Christ’s keep-ing of the Covenant of Works made with Adam was vicarious in just the same way as was his dying on the cross. J. Gresham Machen, a respected Presbyterian scholar, ex-plains:

If Christ had merely paid the penalty of sin for us and had done nothing more, we should be at best back in the situation in which Adam found himself where God placed him under the Covenant of Works. In other words, if Christ only paid the penalty for our sins through his passive sufferings, then we are merely transported back to the Gar-den of Eden.

That Covenant of Works was a probation. If Adam kept the law of God for a certain period, he was to have eternal life. If he disobeyed, he was to have death. Well, he dis-obeyed, and the penalty of death was infl icted on him and his poster-ity. Then Christ by His death on the cross paid that penalty for those whom God had chosen.

Well and good. But if that were all that Christ did for us, do you not

see that we should be back in just the situation in which Adam was before he sinned? The penalty of his sinning would have been removed from us because it had all been paid by Christ. But for the future, the at-tainment of eternal life would have been dependent upon our perfect obedience to the law of God. We should simply have been back in the probation again.

Moreover, we should have been back in that probation in a very much less hopeful way than that in which Adam was originally placed in it. Everything was in Adam’s favour when he was placed in the probation. He had been created in knowledge, righteousness, and holi-ness. He had been created positively good. Yet despite all that, he fell. How much more likely would we be to fall—nay, how certain to fall—if all that Christ had done for us were merely to remove from us the guilt of past sin, leaving it then to our own efforts to win the reward which God has pronounced upon perfect obedience.3

It is vital that we realize that in this view, the great tragedy of Ad-am’s fall was not what he lost, but what he failed to gain.

R. L. Dabney, one of America’s most distinguished Presbyterian theologians, in his Lectures in Sys-tematic Theology, concurs.4 Dabney was unreservedly committed to Covenant Theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereafter the WCF).

The Catechism defi nes justifi ca-tion as a pardoning of all our sins, and accounting us as righteous in God’s sight. It is more than remis-sion, bestowing also a title to God’s favour, and adoption to that glory which would have been won had we perfectly kept the Covenant of

3 www.reformationtheology.com4 R. L. Dabney, “Justifi cation,” in Lectures in Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972), 618-628.

Works.5

Covenant Theology divides the atoning work of Christ into two distinct aspects. The fi rst aspect of his atoning work is his death on the cross. There, he shed his blood to pay for the sins of his people. His shed blood provided his people with full forgiveness for all of their sins and removed all their guilt before God. This aspect is his pas-sive obedience, meaning that he passively submitted to death on the cross. The second aspect of Christ’s atoning work is his sinless life lived under the law as originally given to Adam as the terms of the Covenant of Works and repeated to Moses at Sinai. He earned for his people the righteousness and subsequent eter-nal life that the Covenant of Works made with Adam promised. By his complete obedience to the Covenant of Works, Christ vicariously earned a perfect righteousness for his peo-ple. This aspect is his active obe-dience, meaning that he actively, consciously, and deliberately obeyed the covenant that Adam had failed to obey in Eden.

In the classic Reformed view, both of these redemptive aspects of Christ’s atoning work—his active and his passive obedience—are es-sential to the sinner’s justifi cation. Together, both aspects constitute the necessary and suffi cient condi-tions for a full salvation. If Christ’s work for his people was just to die on the cross (passive aspect), his people would be forgiven of all sin, but they would still not be able to go to heaven. They would not have the positive and essential righteousness the covenant required. They would not be guilty in God’s sight, since Christ’s death had paid for all of their sins, but neither would they be righteous, since they had not kept

5 Dabney, Systematic Theology, 624.

Issue 177 May 2011

Zaspel—Continued on page 7

Better than a Sheep

In Matthew 12:12 Jesus exclaims, “How much more valuable is a man than a sheep.” On one level, of course, that is not profound at all. We all instinctively recognize that a human being is more valuable than an animal.

But why? What is it that makes a man more valuable than a sheep? Is it simply that we are more intel-ligent? That we have self-conscious-ness? Reason?

All this is part of the answer. But at bottom, what makes a hu-man being more valuable than an animal is that we all have within us an irresistible sense of dependence upon God and an unavoidable sense of obligation to him. The sheep is no less dependent or obliged—that is just the nature of the Creator-creature relationship. But the sheep is not aware of it. What makes us more valuable than the animals is our constant and unmistakable awareness of our dependence on and obligation to God.

We are dependent, and we know it. We are obliged—responsible—and we know it. And so we are unavoidably religious and moral be-ings. The animals are not religious. They do not gather on Sundays and pray. And they are not moral beings, teaching their children right from wrong. But intuitively we are aware of this relationship to God, and in our heart of hearts we are inescap-ably religious beings. It is the fool that says in his heart, “There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Honestly—intui-tively—we know better. In the hu-man consciousness, just as in the

Bible, God is a given.

The Bible explains this for us when it tells us that we are created in God’s image. There is something of our Creator’s fi ngerprint stamped on our being and consciousness. And this is what makes us so infi -nitely more valuable than a sheep. And this is what makes human life so sacred.

(adapted from B. B. Warfi eld)

The Christian Distinctive

What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is a revealed religion. Christianity is not about our search for God or our means of fi nding him. Christianity is not a religion that works its way upward. It is all about God coming to us—God in grace making him-self known to us and making a way for us to enjoy fellowship with him.

And so at the very heart of Christianity is, simply, a message—a message from God to us about what he has done to bring us to himself.

If Christianity is distinctively revealed religion, then it is also uniquely authoritative. It does not offer itself as the best and highest of human thinking about God or even the best or most successful of human efforts to know God. It professes to be nothing less than the unique word from God, his very own self-disclosure and the record of the actions he has taken in Jesus Christ to bring us into fellowship with himself.

One of Rudyard Kipling’s char-

acters declares, The heathen in his blindness

bows down to wood and stone;He don’t obey no orders unless they is his own.

That is to say, human religions lack authority—they form their own ideas and “discover” their own be-liefs.

By contrast the Christian is “un-der orders,” because unlike human religions Christianity is a revealed religion—divinely revealed. We Christians are not our own touch-stone of truth, and we do not con-fuse our ideas about God with His own self-revelation. We learn truth about God not from “inner lights” within ourselves but from God’s own objective Word.

And apart from this external authority there is no Christianity. This, at bottom, is Christianity’s leading distinctive.

And so we Christians prize Scripture as God’s Word. We joy-fully submit to it. And we enthusias-tically proclaim its message of grace in Jesus Christ to the world.

(adapted from B. B. Warfi eld)

Sin and Grace

Augustine once reminisced on an earlier act of theft he had com-mitted. While walking home one day he sneaked into a neighbor’s yard and stole a pear. Now look-ing back on the event he began to wonder why he did it. Why would he steal his neighbor’s pear? It was not because he was all that hungry.

d l

M e d i t a t i o n s

Dr. Fred G. Zaspel

May 2011 Issue 177

tion was to protect the glory and effi ciency of the death of Christ on the cross. They perceived Cov-enant Theology’s view of the active obedience of Christ as minimizing the cross work of Christ. They felt that in the Reformed position, the cross provided only one-half of our justifi cation. For the Brethren, the passive aspect of Christ’s atoning cross work was the necessary and all-suffi cient condition for justifi ca-tion. Statements such as, “If Christ only paid the penalty for our sins through his passive sufferings, then we are merely transported back to the Garden of Eden” seemed to downplay the cross.

A New Covenant Theology7

The third view is the view that I hold. This view states that the righ-teousness imputed to God’s people

is a righteousness earned by Christ in his law-keeping work. However, the law he kept was not a Covenant of Works with Adam. The law un-der which Jesus was born was the Mosaic law—the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. This law covenant promised life and righteousness upon the grounds of perfect obedience. Jesus lived a sin-less life according to that covenant’s defi nition of sin. He thus earned the life and righteousness it promised. He then died under that covenant’s curse. The righteousness imputed to sinners who believe the gospel is

7 You will notice that I said “A,” not “The” New Covenant Theology view. I make no claim that my particular understanding of New Covenant Theology is the only consistent view. I speak only for myself and “Sound of Grace.”

the covenant and earned the righ-teousness that is necessary for justi-fi cation ad eternal life. They would be in some kind of neutral state or “limbo,” similar to what Roman Ca-tholicism teaches about unbaptized infants who go neither to hell nor to heaven. Since a child had not actu-ally sinned, God has no grounds on which to consign them to hell, but since baptism had not washed away the infant’s original sin in Adam, God has no grounds on which to admit the child to heaven.

Plymouth Brethren

Not all evangelicals at the time of the Reformation, or in subsequent history,6 accepted Covenant Theol-ogy’s view of the active obedience of Christ’s atoning work. Histori-cally, the Plymouth Brethren, rep-resented by such men as J. N. Darby and William Kelly, held tenaciously to the doc-trine of the im-puted righteousness of Christ while rejecting the idea of vicarious law-keeping. These men insisted that the Scriptures nowhere taught that the ground of the sinner’s complete justifi cation was anything other than, or in addition to, the blood of Christ shed on the cross. Christ died as our penal substitute. In the mind of the Plymouth Brethren, the shed blood of Christ alone secured our full justifi cation. They did not ques-tion that it was essential for Christ to keep the law in order for him to be a suitable kinsman-redeemer, but they did not see his life as vicarious in the same sense as was his death on the cross.

The Plymouth Brethren’s inten-

6 This is also true of many dispensationalists today. Reisinger—Continued on page 8

Reisinger—Continued from page 4 the righteousness promised in the Mosaic Covenant.

Commentary on the Three Views

As we explore our topic, we must address the following question: Where did Christ get the righteous-ness that he imputes to his people? Did Christ secure that righteousness by (1) obeying a Covenant of Works made with Adam, (2) by his atoning death on the cross, or (3) by obeying the law covenant made with Israel at Sinai?

Covenant Theology

Covenant Theology’s doctrine of the active obedience of Christ is a doctrine logically deduced from a presuppositional premise of that system of theology. 8 This premise assumes the existence of a Covenant of Works with Adam before he fell. If there was a Covenant of Works with Adam whereby he could have earned righteousness by his obedi-ence, then the concept of the active obedience of Christ, as Covenant Theology understands it, is more than feasible; it is established.

Dabney explains it well:There is no question that the law

contains a two-fold sanction. If its terms be perfectly kept, the reward will be eternal life; if they be broken in any sense, the punishment will be death. Pardon alone would release from the punishment of its breach, but would not entitle to the reward of its performance. In other words, he who broke it, and has suffered the penalty, does not stand on the same platform with him who has kept it.9

If, however, there is no Covenant of Works with Adam, then there

8 The concept of active and passive obedience does not require a Covenant of Works with Adam. The classic Reformed formulation, however, does.9 Dabney, Systematic Theology, 624.

The righteousness imputed to sinners who believe the gospel is the righteousness promised in the

Mosaic Covenant.

Issue 177 May 2011 Zaspel—Continued from page 5

It was not because he did not have pears of his own. Nor was it because his neighbor’s pears were any bet-ter than the pears grown in his own yard. His own pears were every bit as good, and they were plentiful. Nor did he feel any need to “get even” with his neighbor—there had been no offense. So then why did he steal the pear from his neighbor?

As he refl ected on it, the only explanation that really seemed to fi t was that there was something about him that was very wrong. At his very heart, he concluded, he must be evil. There was no reason why he should have stolen the pear but that his sinful heart led him to do it.

The Lord Jesus said it fi rst. “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immoral-ity, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matt. 15:19). That is, our sinful be-havior does not rise out of nowhere. They are simply the inevitable ex-pression of what lies in the heart. In our very heart of hearts, he says, we are evil, and the evil that we do is proof of it.

Or, to change the fi gure, when we see a tree full of rotten fruit, we very naturally and rightly conclude that it is the tree itself that is rotten. The fruit merely demonstrates the ill-health of the tree itself (Matt. 12:33-35).

So also when we sin it is merely a revelation of the sinfulness of what we are at the root level, so to speak. At heart we are not good people who occasionally happen to mistake into sin. No, at heart we are sinners, and it is this that explains why sin is attractive to us. We are not sinners because we sin; we sin

because we are sinners.

This does not fi t well with our contemporary pursuit of high self-esteem and “feel good about yourself” theology. But it is what Jesus taught, and it is very insight-ful. Here alone we fi nd adequate explanation for the evil that we do—we do what is wrong because we ourselves are wrong. We fi nd sin attractive and prefer it. In the words of Jesus, “We love darkness rather than light” (John 3:19).

You see, our problem goes deep. And if from our condition in sin we learn anything at all about salva-tion it is this: salvation must be by grace. Given our sinful condition, there is nothing we could ever do to contribute to our salvation. What we need is rescue. If we are to be saved, if we are to believe in Christ, God must change us. All on his own he must re-make us, renew our hearts, and make us clean. In short, he must raise us from our spiritual death and give us life.

This is why the Bible emphasizes that salvation is by sheer grace. “By grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is a gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). We owe to God all the praise. We have done nothing to make our way to him. Mercifully, he came to us, and he gave us life.

Knowing Things Wrong

One of the striking things about us human beings is that despite our high intelligence and great learning, we have an amazing tendency to

be wrong when we are so confi dent that we are right. Sometimes it’s just a blind spot. And sometimes it’s more like the basketball player who steals the ball and breaks away quickly to the other end of the court only to score a goal for the other team! Confi dent, but wrong.

This is how the Bible describes those who do not trust in Christ for salvation. “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are be-ing saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18). The really sad thing, he says, is that this only message that can save is a message those who need it think is foolish. This is the horrible effects of sin within us. It has so affected the mind that our natural perception of the gospel is skewed, and we are biased against it. As the familiar proverb says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12).

Paul’s point is a humiliating one, one that cuts deep across our whole sense of self-esteem and self-suffi ciency. Not only does man con-fi dently think of God and the way of approach to God in ways that are entirely wrong; he actually per-ceives the right way to be “foolish.”

But we are assured that for those whose heart God opens, this same gospel which we thought foolish proves to be “the power of God” to salvation. When God “calls” us to salvation he changes our minds and brings us to see that this gospel of Christ is indeed the gospel of salvation. And so when he calls, we come. m

Trust the past to the mercy of God, the present to his love and the future to his providence.

Augustine



is no active obedience in the sense that Covenant Theology teaches it. Please note carefully that I did NOT say, “There is no active obedience.” I said there is no active obedience in the sense that Covenant Theology teaches it. Before we can discuss specifi c aspects of a law, such as two-fold sanctions, we must fi rst establish that law biblically. This, however, is what Covenant Theol-ogy fails to do. Their Covenant of Works with Adam is established by theology and not with actual texts of Scripture; they then read that cove-nant into the biblical text. They also import aspects of a biblically estab-lished covenant (the Mosaic Cove-nant) into their theologically derived covenant with Adam. We would agree with Dabney’s statement, “The law contains a two-fold sanc-tion,” if Dabney were talking about the law covenant given to Israel at Sinai. That law indeed promised life and righteousness for perfect obedi-ence, and death and damnation for disobedience. The problem is that Dabney is not talking about the law covenant at Sinai. He believes that the Mosaic Covenant was not a legal covenant, but “an administration of the Covenant of Grace.”

In the following quotation, Dab-ney discusses Adam’s relationship with God.

But last, the Scriptures imply that man would neither have suffered nor died if he had not sinned, by ap-pointing death as the threat against transgressions. And this, while it meant more than bodily death, cer-tainly included this, as is evident from Gen. 3:17-19. See, then, Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 6:23; Matt.19:17; Gal. 3:12. These last evidently have reference to the Covenant of Works made with Adam: and they explicitly say, that if a perfect obedience were possible (as it was with Adam be-fore he fell), it would secure eternal

life.10

The WCF uses many of the same verses as proof texts for its Cov-enant of Works with Adam:

The fi rst covenant made with man was a Covenant of Works (Gal. 3:12), wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity (Rom. 10:5; 5:12-20), upon condi-tion of perfect and personal obedi-ence (Gen. 2:17; Gal. 3:10).11

Dabney, in agreement with the WCF, claims that the last of the proof texts (which of the fi ve are the ones to which he refers?) cited in the fi rst quotation above “evidently have reference to the Covenant of Works made with Adam.” He fur-ther claims that these proof texts “explicitly say, that if a perfect obedience were possible (as it was with Adam before he fell), it would secure eternal life” (emphasis added). But when we examine those texts (all of them), we fi nd nothing of the kind. Genesis 2:17 contains the injunction to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil with its sanction of threatened death. Explicit in the text is an injunc-tion and a sanction. The possibility of securing eternal life is neither explicit nor implicit. If we want to reason from the injunction and its sanction to its opposite, we can con-clude only that not eating means not dying, that is, to continue in the life he already had. There is not a single word or intimation of Adam earning a life and righteousness that he sup-posedly needed and lacked. The verses in Romans refer to sin and its consequence—death—coming into the world through one man. Noth-ing in those texts explicitly states what Dabney claims they state. The law/commandment in Matthew and Galatians that promises life (and in Galatians, refers to a curse) is the

10 Ibid., 301.11 WCF, Chapter 7, Section 2.

Mosaic law.

There is no textual evidence that God gave Adam an opportunity to earn righteousness and eternal life. No text, or context, speaks of Adam failing to keep a Covenant of Works and consequently failing to earn a promised eternal life.

I view Adam’s original position in the Garden of Eden as follows. Suppose I place you on a farm and promise to pay every expense: gasoline, electricity, fertilizer, seed, and the like. I tell you that you may keep or spend all of the money from crops or animals. There is only one condition. There is a little house out back of the barn that is off limits. If you enter that little house, I will throw you off the farm.

Does anything I said in any way state, imply, suggest, or hint that if you stay out of the little house for X numbers of days, months, or years, I will move you to a bigger and better farm? My promise to you does not infer any kind of a reward, nor does God’s word to Adam. “In the day thou eatest, thou shalt surely die” cannot be made to mean, “If you do not eat of the tree for a specifi ed time period, I will give you a differ-ent kind of life than that which you have now. I will give you eternal life and righteousness.” It simply means, “In the day you eat, you will die.”

Covenant Theology’s attempt to make Genesis 2:17 include a reward of eternal life and righteousness for not eating of the tree is analogous to hiring an employee and saying, “You will have a job as long as you are never late for work. The fi rst time you are late, you will be fi red.” After a year of never being late, the employee says to the employer, “Where is my pay raise for never being late?”

No text in all of Scripture ever

Issue 177 May 2011

Postage & Handling RatesUnited States

Up to $20.00 $3.95

$20.01—$50.00 $6.00

$50.01 and Up 12%

Postage & Handling RatesOverseas—Discover, VISA or

MasterCardPlease call or e-mail for rates

Postage & Handling RatesCanada—Discover, VISA or

MasterCard

Up to $30.00 $7.50

$30.01 and Up 25%

Ship to: ________________________________

Street address: __________________________

City: _______________ State: ______Zip: ____

Country: _______________________________

□ My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed□ Charge to my: □ Discover □ VISA □ MasterCard Expires _______/_______Account Number: ______/______/______/______Signature: ________________________________

Books are listed on page 10

The New Perspective on Justifi cation by Steve West

Many pastors and Christians have heard of the new perspective on justifi cation, but are not exactly sure what it is. The literature on the new perspective is often diffi cult to understand, and the books are often quite lengthy. Even for those who want to study the subject, it is hard to know where to begin. This booklet is designed to be an introduction to the subject. Its purpose is to serve as a helpful fi rst word, not the fi nal word. Here, key thinkers and their ideas are briefl y surveyed. It is not exhaustive and not an in-depth study, nor is it a substitute for further research, but it does effectively introduce the topic. Justifi cation is extremely important, and Christians need to be aware that the doctrine is being formulated in radically new and different ways.

That God normally operates the universe consistently makes science possible; that he does not always do so ought to keep science humble.

D. A. Carson

SUBSCRIBE TO SOUND OF GRACE $10.00 FOR TEN ISSUESMy check (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

Charge to my: Discover MasterCard VISA Expires ____/____

Account Number: ____/____/____/_____

Name: _________________________________________

Street address: ___________________________________

City: _________________________ State/Province: _____________ Zip/Postal Code: _________

SUBSCRIPTION

ORDER/RENEWAL

FORM

May 2011 Issue 177

TITLE LIST SALE QUANTITY COSTAbraham’s Four Seeds—Reisinger $10.95 $8.76The Believer’s Sabbath—Reisinger $3.75 $3.00Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal—Long $15.75 $12.60But I Say Unto You—Reisinger $10.95 $8.76Chosen in Eternity—Reisinger $5.50 $4.40Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the Church—Reisinger $2.50 $2.00The Christian and The Sabbath—Wells $11.99 $9.60Continuity and Discontinuity—Reisinger NEW $12.95 10.36Defi nite Atonement —Long $10.95 $8.76The Doctrine of Baptism—Sasser $3.50 $2.80Full Bellies and Empty Hearts—Autio $14.99 $12.00Galatians: A Theological Interpretation—White NEW $15.95 $12.76Grace—Reisinger $13.95 $11.16The Grace of Our Sovereign God—Reisinger NEW $19.99 $16.00In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver—Reisinger $19.95 $15.96Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?—Wells $4.25 $3.40John Bunyan on the Sabbath—Reisinger $3.00 $2.40Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the “Covenant of Grace”—Gilliland $3.95 $3.16The Law of Christ: A Theological Proposal—White $14.95 $11.96Limited Atonement—Reisinger $7.00 $5.60Ministry of Grace Essays in Honor of John G. Reisinger—Steve West, Editor $14.85 $11.88The New Birth— Reisinger $5.50 $4.40The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology—Zaspel NEW $11.99 $9.60New Covenant Theology—Wells & Zaspel $19.95 $15.96The Newness of the New Covenant—White $12.99 $10.40The New Perspective on Justifi cation —West NEW $9.99 $8.00The Obedience of Christ—Van Court $2.50 $2.00Our Sovereign God— Reisinger $4.45 $3.56Perseverance of the Saints— Reisinger $6.00 $4.80The Priority of Jesus Christ—Wells $11.95 $9.56A Prisoner’s Christianity—Woodrow $12.99 $10.40Prophetic Fulfi llment-Spiritual, Natural, or Double?—George $4.25 $3.40Saving the Saving Gospel—West $12.99 $10.40Sinners, Jesus Will Receive—Payne $9.99 $8.00Studies in Galatians—Reisinger $19.99 $16.00Studies in Ecclesiastes—Reisinger $19.99 $16.00Tablets of Stone—Reisinger $10.95 $8.76The Sovereignty of God and Prayer—Reisinger $5.75 $4.60The Sovereignty of God in Providence— Reisinger $4.45 $3.56Total Depravity— Reisinger $5.00 $4.00What is the Christian Faith?— Reisinger $2.50 $2.00When Should a Christian Leave a Church?—Reisinger $3.75 $3.00

Total PriceSee Rate Charts on Page 9 Shipping

Total

N E W C O V E N A N T M E D I A P U B L I C A T I O N S

Issue 177 May 2011

Galatians: A Theological Interpretation by A. Blake White

For centuries, Paul’s “letter of freedom” has encouraged, convicted, shaped, and instructed the people of God. In it we fi nd the wonderful themes of the suffi ciency of God’s revelation, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the overlap of the ages, and the grace of justifi cation by faith, not by works of the law. We also see the centrality of the cross, the relation of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, the role of the law in God's economy, the importance of walking by the Spirit, and the unity of the people of God. In this short exposition, Blake White walks the reader through Galatians with an eye on theological implications and contemporary application.

The Grace of Our Sovereign God by John G. Reisinger

Most of the material in this book was originally printed in booklet form. The chapter titled The Sov-ereignty of God in Providence has been translated into four languages. There are three known people who were on the verge of suicide and were brought to bow in faith, hope, and love to our sovereign God through God using this message in their life. The chapter on limited atonement has helped many so-called “four and one-half point Calvinists” see limited atonement as the foundation and linchpin of the Doctrines of Grace.

One of the constant comments about John Reisinger’s teaching in both the pulpit and writing is his ability to make diffi cult subjects easy to understand. Someone said, “He puts the cookies on the bot-tom shelf.” John says, “We are called to feed sheep, not giraffes.” This book is not written primarily for seminary students; it is written for the man in the pew. It is aimed at introducing God’s people to what has been called the Doctrines of Grace that cluster around the sovereignty of God. We know of no better book to introduce fellow believers in basic Reformed Theology’s view of sovereign grace than this book.

Tne New Covenant and New Covenant Theology by Dr. Fred G. Zaspel

In this book Fred Zaspel explores the provisions of the new covenant and expounds its implications for life and worship as well as for biblical interpretation. By doing so he provides a clear guide for under-standing the “big picture” of the Bible and an exulting appreciation of the glorious privileges that belong to every Christian. He also shows that the inauguration of the new covenant is the hinge of biblical and redemptive history, and that its promises defi ne the nature of the privileges of the people of God and their status in Christ.

Continuity and Discontinuity by John G. Reisinger

The subject of Continuity and Discontinuity is one of the “hot button” issues in Reformed theology to-day. How many of the laws in the Old Testament are Christians to obey today, and how many of those laws are fulfi lled and done away in Christ? Some divide the Law of Moses into three distinct codes, or lists of laws: the ceremonial law, the civil law, and the moral law (the Ten Commandments). The ceremonial and civil laws have been fulfi lled, but the moral law is still in effect without change. Any suggestion that the Ten Commandments have been altered or dropped in any sense earns the label of being an “antinomian.”

The fi rst question asked by this view is this: do you believe the Ten Commandments are the rule of life for a Christian today? The response to that question in this book is this: the Ten Commandments are a vital part of a Christian’s rule of life, not as they are written on the tables of covenant as the words or terms of the covenant God made with Israel (Exodus 34:27, 28), but as those commandments are interpreted and applied by Christ and his apostles. Our Lord raised the moral standard in the Sermon on the Mount and in the epistles.

Our Lord changed some laws, dropped some laws, and added some laws. He never once contradicted Moses. He did contrast his new and higher law with Moses. However, contrasting and showing something is better is not contradicting. The real issue involved as the author demonstrates in this book is this: Does Jesus replace Moses as a new lawgiver in the same sense that he replaces Aaron as High Priest? Is Jesus a new lawgiver, or is he merely the fi nal interpreter of Moses? Does Moses rule the Chris-tian’s conscience as the fi nal authority on morality, or is that throne occupied by Christ alone?

If we discuss covenants, there is 100% discontinuity. The Old Covenant, in totality, has been replaced by the New Covenant. If we discuss God’s one unchanging purpose in sovereign grace, there is 100% continuity.

f

t

t

w


connects obedience to a covenant made in Eden with Adam with any kind of a promise of justifi cation or eternal life. The Confession’s use, or misuse, of Galatians 3:12 is consistent with its treatment of the other texts. Galatians 3:12 cannot possibly be pushed back into Eden. It can only refer to Sinai. Look at it carefully.

Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” (Gal. 3:12)

Paul here is not quoting from Genesis; he is quoting from Leviti-cus (18:5). This is the same text he quotes in Romans 10:5, another of the proof texts cited by the WCF. Paul is not referring to a covenant in Eden; he is specifi cally referring to the Covenant of Works at Sinai. Romans 5:12-21 indeed teaches that all people were represented by Adam in his fall, and guilt was im-puted to all of Adam’s race because of his one act of disobedience, but that passage nowhere suggests that Adam could have earned righteous-ness by some act of obedience by himself. The idea that Adam could have obeyed a Covenant of Works and thus earned a righteousness that would be imputed to his posterity is foreign to Scripture.

In his section on the Covenant of Grace, Dabney argues at length that the covenant made at Sinai is not a Covenant of Works, but is rather an administration of the theologically derived Covenant of Grace. (See his pages 452-456 for a full treatment of the topic.)

The followers of Cocceius and his school have texts, which, we admit, bear plausibly against our identifi cation of the Mosaic and Abrahamic dispensations. They point us, not only to the numer-ous places in the Pentateuch which seem to say, like Leviticus 18:5, “Do and live;” but to such passages

as Jeremiah 31:32, which seem to say that the Covenant of Grace is “not according to the covenant made with the Fathers in the day God took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” So, they urge John 1:17; Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 4:25; Heb. 8:7-13; 9:8; 2:3 (The New Covenant “began to be spoken by the Lord” and so must not an-tedate the Christian era), 7:18, and such like passages.

But, notwithstanding this array, there are irresistible arguments for the other side…12

Dabney admits that there are plausible passages that refer to Sinai as a legal covenant and then declares that there are irresistible arguments to explain those texts as teaching that Sinai was not a legal covenant. One would expect, then, that Dabney would provide a clear exegesis of these quoted texts, showing how Cocceius and his school have misunderstood those texts. Yet such exegesis never mate-rializes. What Dabney does, howev-er, is to repeat the classic arguments of Covenant Theology.

Dabney continues:Since Christ steps into the sin-

ner’s stead, to fulfi ll in his place the whole Covenant of Works, He must, in order to procure to us full salva-tion, both purchase pardon for guilt, and a positive title for favor and life. The sinner needs both…. Adam, the moment he entered into the Cov-enant of Works, was guiltless, (and in one sense righteous). God could not justly have visited him with in-fl ictions, nor taken away from him his natural happiness. But did Adam, therefore, have a title to that assured eternal life, including all the bless-ings of perseverance, infallible rec-titude, and sustaining grace, which was held out in the Covenant, as the reward to be earned by obedience? Now this is what the sinner needs to make a complete justifi cation—what

12 Dabney, Systematic Theology, 454.

Christ gives therein.13

When Dabney says “the sin-ner needs both,” we agree. Guilty sinners indeed need a complete justifi cation, but Adam was not a guilty sinner at the time he was supposedly under a Covenant of Works that promised righteous-ness! If grace means anything close to “favor showed to hell-deserving sinners,” then Adam certainly did not need grace before he fell.

It would have been helpful if Dabney had elaborated the sense in which Adam was righteous be-fore he fell. Additionally, Dabney’s argument would have benefi ted if he had shown from Scripture that Adam was “assured eternal life, including all the blessings of per-severance, infallible rectitude, and sustaining grace, which was held out in the Covenant, as the reward to be earned by obedience.” There is no mention of any of those things in Genesis 2:17. Dabney does not explain why Adam, before he was lost, would have needed to be saved. From what did he need to be res-cued? Adam, prior to his fall, did not need the atoning work of Christ to be justifi ed, simply because he was not a guilty sinner. A righteous-ness that covers the guilt of sinners enabling them to stand in the pres-ence of a holy God would seem to be different from the righteousness possessed by an already righteous person who had no sin to cover.

Dabney goes on to illustrate the two-fold nature of the law cov-enant’s demands.

Suppose, for instance, that I promise to my servants a reward for keeping my commands, and threaten punishment for breaking them. At the end of the appointed time, one of them has kept them, and receives the reward. A second one has broken them, and is chastised. Suppose the

13 Ibid., 625.

Issue 177 May 2011


second should then arise and claim his reward also, on the ground that suffering the full penalty of the breach was an entire equivalent for perfect obedience? Hence, the Ar-minian logic, that remission is justi-fi cation, is seen to be erroneous.14

We agree with Dabney that sinners need both forgiveness and a positive righteousness, but we cannot agree that Adam needed this before he sinned. We reject the doc-trine of a Covenant of Works made with Adam before he fell and then fulfi lled by Christ during his incar-nation. Two options remain, then, as sources of imputed righteousness: (1) that righteousness fl ows out of the cross work of Christ alone, or (2) Christ earned it in his perfect obedience (both in his life and his death) to the law given at Sinai.

Plymouth Brethren

The Plymouth Brethren view denies vicarious law-keeping, but in no way denies the biblical truth of imputed righteousness. To state or imply otherwise is to misrepre-sent the Brethren’s position. No one has taught the doctrine of imputed righteousness more clearly and consistently than have the Plymouth Brethren.15

The weakness of the Plymouth Brethren’s view is that it totally ig-nores the clear truth that the Mosaic Covenant promised righteousness and life. They are correct in empha-sizing that it is seems impossible conceptually to separate the cross from either Christ’s perfect law-keeping life or from his resurrection from the dead. However, to be fair, the covenant theologians deny they are doing that. They also insist that our salvation is in a person and that 14 Ibid., 624, 625.15 For a criticism of the Plymouth Brethren view, see R. L. Dabney, “Theology of the Plymouth Brethren,” in Discussions, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1967. Reprint 1982), 1:171.

everything he did in his humanity is vicarious.

The Brethren’s point about the necessity for Christ to have per-fectly obeyed the law in order to of-fer himself as a vicarious sacrifi ce is accurate. Likewise, they are correct that if Christ had not risen from the dead, all his sufferings would have been in vain. All agree that Scrip-ture does not distinguish Christ’s law-keeping life, his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead as three essential self-contained entities that meet three specifi c separate requirements for the full redemption of sinners. All agree that part of the problem at this point is terminology.

A New Covenant Theology

Let me explicitly restate a key point. One may reject Covenant Theology’s explanation of the ac-tive obedience of Christ (I reject it) without rejecting the truth of active obedience itself (which I believe). My position is that Christ lived under the law covenant of Sinai and earned the perfect righ-teousness that law promised. The difference here, then, is simply the identifi cation of the law whereby Christ earned the righteousness sin-ners need.

If we move the Covenant of Works from Eden to Sinai, and from Adam to Moses, then we agree with Covenant Theology’s view that the sinner needs, and receives, an earned righteousness as well as a full pardon for sins. Further, we also agree that in his redemptive work, our Lord fully provides both of these by obeying the law and dying on the cross as our surety. If this is “active/passive obedience,” then I have no trouble at all with the concept. I fi nd no biblical obstacle to the notion that Christ (1) earned every blessing, including righteous-ness, the law promised, and (2)

endured every curse the same law threatened.

We agree with the Brethren that the cross work of Christ needs noth-ing added to it in order to provide full redemption. Having said that, we also insist that the two-fold as-pect of the biblical law covenant (obey and live; disobey and die) imply two distinct aspects of atone-ment. Let me try to lay out exactly what I believe.

First, the law covenant at Sinai demanded certain things, as well as prohibited certain other things. The law contains lists of both “do” and “do not.” There are sins of omission as well as sins of commission.

The Plymouth Brethren would argue this way: Does the Scripture teach that Christ vicariously paid for (1) all my sins of commission against the “do not” parts of the law? Yes. (2) Did he also pay for my sins of omission in my failing to perform all the “do” parts of the law? If we answer, “yes,” are we doing away with the need for active obedience? Put another way, how do I gain the righteousness needed from loving God with all my heart? Does the blood atonement pay for my failure to love God with all my heart, or did the law-keeping life of Christ fulfi ll that requirement for me? If the vicarious law-keeping provided it for me, I do not have the failure on my record, and atone-ment, regarding that “non-failure,” therefore is unnecessary. Is it neces-sary that my duty to love God with all my heart be actually fulfi lled by me (or by a substitute), or is my failure to obey that commandment to love God merely another sin that needs atonement? This is similar to John Owen’s famous dilemma on limited atonement.

When asked what the greatest law was, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy


6:5, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” Must I, as a sinner, have that kind of integrated loving life credited to my account, or does the blood shedding of Christ pay for my failure to pro-vide such a life?

Second, the law covenant of Si-nai included the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). It took two goats to display the work of atonement. The Lord’s goat, the one that died, clear-ly pictured propitiation. The other goat, the one taken out into the wilderness, pictured expiation. If it took two goats to display two as-pects of atonement, why would it be strange to have our full justifi cation, which includes both forgiveness of sins and imputation of righteous-ness, involve more than one aspect? Just because we reject the idea of building an “active and passive” obedience on a non-existent works covenant in Genesis does not mean the concept itself is unbiblical. Like-wise, just because we do not have a text that speaks directly to the phrase “active/passive obedience,” this does not mean that Scripture does not allow and even promote such an idea.

Third, we agree with Dabney and those who share his position that everything Christ did in his humanity was vicarious. I have yet to hear the clear implications of this truth articulated by any oppo-nent of active obedience. Our Lord did not become our substitute and surety when he went to the cross. He was our substitute the moment that he stepped out of heaven. He was born for me, he lived for me, he died for me, he was buried, and he was raised from the dead for me. He lives for me at the Father’s right hand. He was as much my substitute in the womb of the virgin as he was

on the cross. This concept of substi-tution easily allows me to apply the idea of an active obedience to the law in the following situations.

When I hear our Lord say, “I do always those things that please my Father” (John 8:29), I have no trouble saying, “The Lord Jesus was obeying the Father in my place. He was obeying the law for me. I was the one talking there, talking through my representative. I was pleasing the Father.” When the Fa-ther said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mat-thew 3:17), I have no trouble believ-ing that the Father was including me in his statement because I was in Christ at that moment and Christ was fulfi lling, as my vicarious sub-stitute, my obligation to love God with all my heart.

You may call “doing those things that please the Father” Christ’s ac-tive obedi-ence under the law for his people, or you may call it anything you choose. I will preach it as Christ’s living for me vicariously under the law, just as he died for me vicariously on the cross. I can stand in the presence of God without fear because of the truth that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to me. It makes little, if any, difference if (1) Christ’s righ-teousness is imputed to me as part of his law-keeping life, or if (2) that righteousness is imputed to me as part of his cross work alone, as long as it is the same righteousness.

Conclusion

I fi nd the following three distinct imputations in Scripture.

One: The guilt of Adam’s sin

is imputed to all of his posterity without exception. Adam rep-resented me. When he sinned, I sinned. Adam’s guilt is imputed to me, not because Adam is in me but because I was in Adam. My legal union with Adam constitutes me guilty in God’s sight. I was “made to be guilty” in Adam.

Two: My sins were imputed to Christ and he paid, on the cross, the just penalty for all of my sins.

Three: The righteousness of Christ is imputed to me. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to me, not because Christ is in me, but because I am in Christ. I was “made to be righteous in Christ” just as I was “made to be guilty” in Adam.

I am not overly concerned with whether we call number two the passive obedience of Christ and number three the active obedience of Christ or give them some other

name. In both cas-es, (1) it is the same righteous-ness, (2) it comes to

us only be-cause of the

merits of Christ, and (3) it is imput-ed to us only because of our union with Christ. I think it is wrong to emphasize the particulars and miss the central idea. We are united to a person, and in that union, we re-ceive everything that he is. In him, we receive forgiveness, justifi cation, righteousness, adoption, and the like. It is one ball of wax. Granted, we may separate, for purposes of study, different aspects of the aton-ing work of Christ, but we must not isolate them in personal experience.

It is vital to understand that both the imputation of our sin to Christ and his righteousness to us cannot occur in a sinner’s experience un-

I will preach it as Christ’s living for me vicariously under the law, just as he died for me vicariously on the cross.

Issue 177 May 2011 less accompanied by regeneration (the giving of the Holy Spirit, which begins the work of sanctifi cation—actually making the justifi ed sinner holy in life). Justifi cation would indeed be legal fi ction if it were not accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit producing real and vital union with a living Christ. We agree with Jonathan Edwards, “The jus-tifi cation of the believer is no other than his being admitted to commu-nion in, or participation of, this head and surety of all believers.”

Likewise, Luther said, “We in Christ = justifi cation: Christ in us = sanctifi cation.” A. H. Strong said it well.

The relation of justifi cation to regeneration and sanctifi cation, moreover, delivers it from the charges of externality and immo-rality. God does not justify men in their ungodliness even though they are justifi ed while still ungodly in themselves. He pronounces them just only because they are united to Christ, who is absolutely pure, and who, by His Spirit, can make them just, not only legally in the eyes of the law, but also in moral character. The very faith by which the sinner receives Christ is an act in which he ratifi es all that Christ has done, and accepts God’s judgment against sin as his own (John 16:11).16

Recently, I received a paper deal-ing with the subject discussed in this article. It emphasized that there were only two views, the view of Covenant Theology and the view espoused by the writers of the pa-per—basically, the view of Darby and Kelly. As is often the case, there is a third view that was not men-tioned. The third view is the one I hold. The authors of the paper called their view “the consistent New Cov-enant Theology view.” I guess I will have to call myself an “inconsistent

16 A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, (Philadelphia, PA: Judson Press, 1907), 862.

New Covenant Theologian,” since I disagree with them. I am unsure, however, why my view is inconsis-tent with New Covenant Theology. I believe I have a righteousness im-puted to me, earned by Christ keep-ing the law in my place.

If I believed that the identifi ca-tion of the law that Christ obeyed in order to earn righteousness had any-thing at all to do with a supposed Covenant of Works with Adam, then I could understand how some people might call me inconsistent with what New Covenant Theology teaches. As you can see by what I have written, I fall into neither of the standard two views. New Cov-enant Theology often fi nds itself in such a position.

For those who are still uncom-fortable with the concept of active obedience, I offer the following questions and answers:

Did the law covenant made at Sinai promise life and righteous-ness to all who obeyed it? Yes! (Lev. 18:5 and Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12. Mark 10:17-19)

Was Jesus born under that law? Yes.

Did he perfectly obey that law and then die under the curse of that law? Yes.

Did his law-keeping life earn life and righteousness? Yes.

Do I need a specifi c text to say, “Jesus lived a life that earned the life and righteousness promised in the law?” No. If the law promised life and righteousness to anyone who kept it, and Jesus kept it, would not it be legitimate to say, “Jesus earned life and righteousness by his sinless life of obedience to the law?” Yes.

Covenant Theology has no tex-tual proof for a Covenant of Works with Adam whereby he could have

obeyed and earned life and righ-teousness, but this does not mean that there is no such covenant any place else in Scripture.

Consider also the evidence of Exodus 19:4, 5 and 1 Peter 2:5-10. We have become the things prom-ised in these verses because a surety has kept the covenant terms in our place. Because of Christ, New Covenant believers are God’s holy nation and his royal priesthood. Christ obeyed the covenant under which he was born, and his obedi-ence secured the blessings promised by that covenant. Those blessings remain, even when the covenant that promised them has ended. Christ earned the blessings—they are his possession, and because New Covenant believers are united to him, they possess the old blessings as well as the blessings that come with the new and better covenant. There is no dichotomy of blessing: New Covenant believers are not in the position of having either the Old Covenant blessings or the New Covenant blessings. We who live in the New Covenant age and who are united to Messiah by faith have both sets of blessings. We have them because Christ obeyed the Mosaic Covenant and inaugurated a New Covenant. All that we have (and it is beyond description), we have be-cause of Christ’s life and death.

John Bunyan, one of my patron saints said it well. “Our Lord had two coats of righteousness. One was the inherent righteousness he had as the very Son of God, and the other was the righteousness he earned by obeying the law. Jesus practiced what he taught. When he saw a poor beggar with no coat, he gave him one of his own.” m

May 2011 Issue 177White—Continued from page 1

from John that “world” in 1 John 2:2 is equivalent to “the children of God who are scattered abroad” in John 11. In other words, John is tell-ing the Jewish disciples that Christ is the Savior of the world (John 1:29), not simply the savior of the Jews.

Furthermore, John would not have needed to throw in the word “also” if he meant for the term “world” to mean every single per-son. He wrote, “Not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” If world meant every single person, there would be no need for any distinction between “ours” and “world.” John could have just said “whole world.”

Some say he died for every single person, but the cross only becomes effective when a person believes, but as John Owen has asked, is unbelief not sin? First John 3:23 commands us to believe in Christ. Unbelief is disobedience to this command (cf. Rev 21:8). If unbelief is not sin and all of their sins have been paid for, then why should they be punished for unbe-lief? If all of their sins are paid for except for rejecting Christ, and if it is not a sin, how can they be pun-ished for it? And what about those who never hear the gospel and don’t have a chance to reject Christ? How can they be punished if all of their sins are paid for? If it is sin (and of course rejecting Christ is a sin as we have seen) then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, and they cannot be cast into hell.

Others say Christ died for all without distinction but the cross only becomes effective when we are united to Christ through faith, but Ephesians 1:3 says the elect were united to Christ in eternity past. We were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Another problem with interpret-ing world as every single person is the issue of double payment. Pro-pitiation is a sacrifi ce that absorbs God’s wrath and turns it to favor. If God’s wrath has been extinguished on the cross for all people, then how could there be a place called hell? There would be no wrath for God to express. If Christ paid the penalty for John Doe on the cross and absorbed the wrath that John Doe deserved, then how could God punish him again? He was already punished in Christ at the cross.

Yet another issue to keep in mind is the link between Christ as our advocate and our propitiation. The previous verse, 1 John 2:1, says, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Jesus is our advocate, the one called to come along side us. Intercession and atonement are bound together. This is illustrated by the high priest who had 12 stones on his chest to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. The priest was not representing Babylon or Assyria, but Israel. So in the new covenant, the priest repre-sents the elect. John 17:6-9 says, “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that ev-erything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” Jesus does not pray for the world. Jesus only prays for the elect (those the Father has given him). Jesus intercedes for and

atones for the elect alone.

There is Trinitarian harmony in the work of salvation. The Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Spirit calls. The Son only redeems those given to him and the Spirit only opens the eyes of those for whom Christ died. I recently heard a rap song by Shai Linne called “Mission Accomplished” that lays it out nicely:

“Here’s a controversial subject that tends to divide

For years it’s had Christians lin-ing up on both sides

By God’s grace, I’ll address this without pride

The question concerns those for whom Christ died

Was He trying to save everybody worldwide?

Was He trying to make the entire world His Bride?

Does man’s unbelief keep the Savior’s hands tied?

Biblically, each of these must be denied

It’s true, Jesus gave up His life for His Bride

But His Bride is the elect, to whom His death is applied

If on judgment day, you see that you can’t hide

And because of your sin, God’s wrath on you abides

And hell is the place you eter-nally reside

That means your wrath from God hasn’t been satisfi ed

But we believe His mission was accomplished when He died

Father, Son and Spirit: three and yet one

Working as a unit to get things

Issue 177 May 2011 done

Our salvation began in eternity past

God certainly has to bring all His purpose to pass

A triune, eternal bond no one could ever sever

When it comes to the church, peep how they work together

The Father foreknew fi rst, the Son came to earth

To die- the Holy Spirit gives the new birth

The Father elects them, the Son pays their debt and protects them

The Spirit is the One who resur-rects them

The Father chooses them, the Son gets bruised for them

The Spirit renews them and pro-duces fruit in them

Everybody’s not elect, the Father decides

And it’s only the elect in whom the Spirit resides

The Father and the Spirit- com-pletely unifi ed

My third and fi nal verse- here’s the situation

Just a couple more things for your consideration

If saving everybody was why Christ came in history

With so many in hell, we’d have to say He failed miserably

So many think He only came to make it possible

Let’s follow this solution to a conclusion that’s logical

What about those who were al-ready in the grave?

The Old Testament wicked- con-demned as depraved

Did He die for them? C’mon, behave

But worst of all, you’re saying the cross by itself doesn’t save

That we must do something to give the cross its power

That means, at the end of the day, the glory’s ours

That man-centered thinking is not recommended

The cross will save all for whom it was intended

Because for the elect, God’s wrath was satisfi ed”

I close with the words of the “Prince of Preachers,” Charles Spurgeon:

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them

the next question — Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “ No.” They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if” — and then follow cer-tain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will just go back to the old statement — Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salva-tion of anybody, did he? You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody, We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it. We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.

So John is saying that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for the sins of the Jews only, but also the Gentiles! So to answer our question, “Does 1 John 2:2 con-tradict Defi nite Atonement?” I am compelled to answer, “Not in the least.” m

The things we have to choose between are an atonement of high value, or an atonement of wide extension. The two cannot go together.

Benjamin B. Warfi eld

May 2011 Issue 177West—Continued from page 3

“Providence Theological Seminary Doctrinal Conference”

Colorado Springs, ColoradoAugust 2-5, 2011

Theme: “Christ in All the Scriptures”

Location: Quality Inn & Suites555 W. Garden of the Gods Road

Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Guest Speaker: Kirk Wellum, PrincipalToronto Baptist Seminary

Other Speakers, Message Titles & Registration Information Available at: www.ptsco.org

Contact Us: [email protected]; Phone: 719-535-2708

on the day of judgment for Sodom and other Old Testament cities that were synonymous with wickedness, than for those cities which saw and rejected him. Still, Jesus praises his Father for revealing himself to dependent children, while hiding himself from those who were self-suffi cient and self-righteous.

With the words of judgment still lingering in the air, and conviction and fear rising in people’s hearts, Jesus invites any who want to come, any who feel burdened, tired, or

afraid, to come to him and fi nd rest. The yoke and burden of Jesus are easy and light. Those who are weary can come and fi nd rest, and since Jesus is humble and gentle of heart, all who come to him fi nd rest for their souls. “I will give you rest” Jesus says, and then later adds, “you will fi nd rest for your souls.”

It is simply not a coincidence that Matthew records that Jesus offers rest—which lay at the heart of the Sabbath command—and then gives Jesus’ teaching about the Sabbath, which allows for work to be done on

that day of rest.1 The offer of Jesus to the crowd is for them to fi nd rest, not just by reiterating the fourth commandment, but by pointing them to himself. Jesus, not a day of the week, is where rest is ultimately to be found.

After providing an exposition of Matthew 12:1-14 in the fi rst article, and having now taken a cursory look at the wider context of that pas-sage, we will conclude this article 1 R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 454-455.

Issue 177 May 2011 with a few theological refl ections. These refl ections are by no means exhaustive in either quantity or quality, but will hopefully serve as a helpful way of rounding out the Sabbath discussion.

1. There is a defi nite pattern in the Old Testament Scriptures where physical things point forward to spiritual realities. I am not only thinking of standard typological identifi cations (e.g, temple, sacri-fi ce, priest, David, etc. fi nd fulfi ll-ment in Jesus), but of Israel’s cultic regulations (e.g, hair-cutting, food laws, material for shirts, etc.). As physical beings we in some ways relate more easily to object lessons than to abstract or spiritual truth. In my judgment, many of Israel’s laws of separation were designed to teach spiritual realities through physi-cal examples. For example, physical circumcision as a mark of God’s people is really to point to heart cir-cumcision (which is obviously not physical, but unseen and spiritual). Certain haircuts and shirts were material things which marked the Israelites as different: today God’s people are still to be different/sepa-rate/holy, but spiritually, rather than by refusing to wear jeans or some such thing. On the seventh day, the Sabbath, the Israelites were to rest physically from their labor. Is it re-ally illegitimate to at least suspect that that physical rest was point-ing forward to a greater spiritual principle? Now, I acknowledge that there was a spiritual element to the Sabbath observance in Israel, but the point is that the physical mani-

festation of the day can be altered while preserving or even enhancing the spiritual principle behind it.

2. The physical principle was to rest on the seventh day. It was most emphatically not just one-day-in-seven, or a fl oating Sab-bath. (If someone in Israel thought they had a busy weekend coming up so they’d take their Sabbath on Monday, they’d never have lived to see it.) It is also not transferred to Sunday in the New Testament—I don’t know how to say this without sounding overly blunt, but it’s just not—where are the verses which teach this Sabbath day-switching? But, in the new covenant, the Sab-bath is not the seventh day; nor is it

one-day-in-seven; nor is it Sunday: Sabbath in the new covenant is sev-en days a week. It is 24/7. For the believer, Sabbath is every moment of every day, because Sabbath rest is not taking a nap at halftime of the football game; it is resting in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is ceasing from my works of sin and resting by faith in his grace, love, and perfection. Do I want to rest in Jesus on the seventh day? Yes. But when don’t I want to rest in him? Never. My rest is not on a day, it is in a person, and in him I rest all week long.

3. If I had enough infl uence, then, I would wish to change the en-tire terms of the Sabbath discussion. I would never ask if a Christian is breaking the Sabbath, because

that is by defi nition impossible. “Christians” and “Sabbath-keepers” are co-extensive categories. Only Christians keep the Sabbath rest of the Bible, and every person who is truly observing Sabbath rest is a Christian. If you are not a Christian, it is impossible for you to have Sab-bath rest, and if you have Sabbath rest, it is impossible for you not to be a Christian. As a Christian you cannot break the Sabbath any more than you can be a Christian without being in Jesus! Everyone in Jesus has entered rest, and everyone who has entered rest has only done so through Jesus.

4. This entire line of thought is bolstered by Joshua, Psalm 95, and the book of Hebrews. Joshua is try-ing to bring Israel into the Prom-ised Land, as they search for rest. According to Psalm 95, even after David, when the people have both land and king, they are looking for rest (meaning that rest was not to be found in the land, like they had thought). In Hebrews 3-4 we are reminded of this historical search-ing for rest (which came up short), and that it is used to point to Jesus and faith-rest in God in the present, and future consummated rest yet to come. We are exhorted to rest from our works by resting by faith in God. We are encouraged to enter into all the glories of rest that God offers to us. We are strictly warned of the disaster that will come if we rebel and harden our hearts. Rest is not in the land, and is not on a day: it is a perpetual state that you are either in all the time or you are never in at all. Sabbath rest is in Jesus, and Christians by defi nition are in it today, with an even more glorious experience yet to dawn in the future. m

Sabbath rest is not taking a nap at half-time of the football game; it is resting in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is ceasing from my works of sin

and resting by faith in his grace, love, and perfection.

Let it be a settled principle in our religion, that man’s salvation, if saved, is wholly of God; and that man’s ruin, if lost, is wholly of himself.

J. C. Ryle

SOVEREIGN GRACE NEW COVENANT MINISTRIES5317 WYE CREEK DRIVEFREDERICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

Check your label for expiration.This is Issue 177 Please renew your

subscription promptly. NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATIONU.S. POSTAGE PAID

PERMIT NO. 45FREDERICK, MD 21701

Many Churches but Only One BodyJohn G. Reisinger

The Apostle Paul wrote to “the churches,” plural, in Galatians 1:2; in Ephesians 2:22, 23, he referred to “the church [singular] which is his body”; and 1 Corinthians 12 deals with the implication of there being only “one body of Christ” (vs. 12-13). Putting these together gives us the statement, “Many Churches but Only One Body.”

A failure to clearly distinguish the meaning of ekklesia when it refers to a local congregation of Christians and when it refers to the “Body of Christ,” or all believers of all ages, creates confusion. The Scriptures never use the plural when speaking of the Body of Christ. It never speaks of “bodies,” plural. Scripture does speak of “churches” in the plural. It is not biblical to refer to a local congregation as the “Body of Christ.” Both Baptists and Presbyterians create real problems by failing to make this clear biblical distinction. When one takes the properties describing the Body of Christ and applies them to a local congregation, he is half way to Roman Catholicism. This is why some have called the Landmark Baptists “Catholic Baptists.”

• The Body of Christ has no unbelievers in it. Local churches have a mixed crowd of true and false professing Christians.

• The Body of Christ has no “ordained clergy” (I hate to even use that phrase). Local churches have recognized and gifted leaders set apart to lead the people of God.

• No one ever “joined” the Body of Christ. Every believer is joined to the Body of Christ by the Baptism of, or in, the Holy Spirit at conversion. In order to be a member of a local congregation, one must formally join.

• A child of God can never be severed from the Body of Christ even if every local church in the world would dismiss him. Likewise, one cannot get into the Body of Christ by any authority except the work of the Holy Spirit.

• There are not different “kinds” of Christians in the Body of Christ. There is not a Lutheran Body of Christ and a Baptist Body of Christ. Every Christian, without exception, is in the Body of Christ. There are many different denominations that make up local churches that differ in many things.

• There is no trouble establishing when a given local church started but there is disagreement as to when the Body of Christ was founded.

• One must be part of the Body of Christ in order to go to heaven but one does not have to be a member of a local church in order to be truly saved.

• The Body of Christ is a spiritual organism that only the Holy Spirit can create. The local church is an organization that men can, and do, create. Men cannot create a “Body of Christ.”

• A local church is an organization, man made, and the Body of Christ is an organism, created by God’s grace and power alone.

g r sound of a c e

Documents