The Reformed Christian Muse

Q37: What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
A37: That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness and eternal life.

I want to revisit this Q&A from Lord’s Day 15 of the Heidelburg Catechism. I have already posted this but did not comment on it. This clearly shows a more moderate Calvinistic view of the suffering of Christ for the sin of the “whole human race” than is found to be more popular today. This same idea of sufficiency is also expressed in the Cannons of Dort here:

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine
The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby - Articles of Faith

Article 6
And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

If we compare these two statements from the 3 Forms of Unity can we not properly infer that the unbelief and rejection of the gospel is “wholly to be imputed” to the unbeliever because there is nothing lacking in the atonement for him because the unbeliever, being a member of the human race, Christ in his place bore his wrath against his sin according to Q&A 37?

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

 I posted this in the comment section at De Regno Christi in response to this post by D. Hart. I thought I would go ahead and post it here as well.

Trueman says: “Deny the covenant of works, for example, and one implicitly denies the whole structure of justification taught in the standards.”

The problem I have with this sentence, is that it makes the COW an essential ingredient in a proper formulation of the doctrine of justification. If this is true than how did Calvin for example have a credible formulation of justification in the Institutes when the COW doesn’t even appear one time in the entire text? As matter of fact not only is the COW absent from the Institutes but there is found a statement by Calvin in which he expresses his dislike of the use of the term “merit” as it relates to human works.

Calvin says:
First, I must premise with regard to the term Merit, that he, whoever he was, that first applied it to human works, viewed in reference to the divine tribunal, consulted very ill for the purity of the faith. I willingly abstain from disputes about words, but I could wish that Christian writers had always observed this soberness—that when there was no occasion for it, they had never thought of using terms foreign to the Scriptures—terms which might produce much offense, but very little fruit. I ask, what need was there to introduce the word Merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offense? The quantity of offense contained in it the world shows to its great loss. It is certain that, being a high sounding term, it can only obscure the grace of God, and inspire men with pernicious pride.

John Calvin - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 15, Section 2

So, if we are to say that the COW (defined in such a way that makes meritorious human works the bases of receiving favor from God) is essential to a proper formulation of justification, then how did Calvin get justification right?

For what it’s worth I would have agreed whole heartily  with Trueman a year ago, but I am finding that the CoW as defined in our modern reformed thought is absent in the early generations of the Reformers.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we  acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification,
to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ
cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the  enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation
of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.

John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564) - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 1

This is my reply to Dean over on Green Baggins. I am posting it here because for some reason I am not able to post long comments at Lane’s blog right now.

First I will quote Deans reply to my previous post on “Corporate Justification” from earlier today.

Dean said:

Terry

I do not think Calvin’s quote taken in the context of his argument is what you are trying to make him say.

Institutes - Book 3; Chapter 24 “Election is confirmed by God’s call; Moreover, the Wicked Bring Upon Themselves the Just Destruction To Which they are Destined” Part 8 “General and Special Calling”; Part 10 “The elect before their call. There is no ’seed of election’.; Part 11 “Not growth from see but divine deliverance”; Part 12, “God’s administration of justice toward the reprobate”

If your quote was found in this section it would be much more convincing. But in this section (Part 11) Calvin says, “What if we come to examples? What
seed of righteousness was in Rahab the harlot before she had faith? In Manasses, when Jerusalem was stained and almost drenched with the blood of the prophets? In the thief, who only at his last breath thought of repentance? AWAY, THEN, WITH THESE ARGUMENTS WHICH INQUISITIVE MEN DREAM UP FOR THEMSELVES APART FROM SCRIPTURE! But let what Scripture holds remain with us: All like lost sheep have gone astray; every one has turned to his own way, that is, to perdition.”

Now my reply to Dean.

Dean,

The context of the Calvin quote is his argument for the true human nature of Christ in the incarnation. This fits perfectly into a “Chalcedonian” representation of all the whole human race. I want you to notice in the following quotes how Calvin is explicit about the WHOLE HUMAN RACE and all members thereof (without exception) being those for whom Christ substituted for in His death. Any honest appreciation of the following commentary on Isaiah 53 will show that Calvin was not working with the later Protestant Scholastic categories (what we today view as “Owenic” categories).

Calvin - 5. And he was wounded for our iniquities. He again repeats the cause of Christ’s great afflictions, in order to meet the scandal which might have arisen from it. The spectacle of the cross alienates many persons from Christ, when they consider what is presented to their eyes, and do not observe the object to be accomplished. But all offense is removed when we know that by his death our sins have been expiated, and salvation has been obtained for us.

My comments - Now we in our modern day would read Calvin’s reference to “us” as a reference to the elect, but we will see later that this is not the case.

Calvin again - The chastisement of our peace. Some think that this is called “the chastisement of peace,” on account of men being careless and stupefied amidst their afflictions, and therefore that it was necessary that Christ should suffer. Others view “peace” as relating to the consciences, that is, that Christ suffered, in order that we might have peaceful consciences; as Paul says that, “being justified by faith through Christ, we have peace with God.” (Romans 5:1) But I take it to denote simply reconciliation. Christ was the price of “our chastisement,” that is, of the chastisement which was due to us. Thus the wrath of God, which had been justly kindled against us, was appeased; and through the Mediator we have obtained “peace,” by which we are reconciled.

My comments again - Again we see that Calvin uses the term “us” and “we” again. We would tend to read this again as the elect, but loook what Calvin says next.

Calvin continues - We ought to draw from this a universal doctrine, namely, that we are reconciled to God by free grace, because Christ hath paid the price of “our peace.” This is indeed acknowledged by the Papists; but then they limit this doctrine to original sin, as if after baptism there were no longer any room for reconciliation through free grace, but that we must give satisfaction by our merits and works. But the Prophet does not here treat of a single species of pardon, but extends this blessing to the whole course of life; and therefore it cannot be thus undervalued or limited to a particular time, without most heinous sacrilege. Hence also the frivolous distinction of the Papists, between the remission of punishment and the pardon of sin, is easily refuted. They affirm that punishment is not remitted to us, unless it be washed out by satisfactions. But the Prophet openly declares that the punishment of our sins was transferred to him. What, then, do the Papists intend but to be Christ’s equals and companions, and to lay claim to share with him in his authority?

In his wound (or, in his medicine) we have healing. He again directs us to Christ, that we may betake ourselves to his wounds, provided that we wish to regain life. Here the Prophet draws a contrast between us and Christ; for in us nothing call be found but destruction and death; in Christ alone is life and salvation, he alone brought medicine to us, and even procures health by his weakness, and life by his death; for he alone hath pacified the Father, he alone hath reconciled us to him. Here we might bring forward many things about the blessed consequences of Christ’s sufferings, if we had not determined to expound rather than to preach; and therefore let us be satisfied with a plain exposition. Let every one, therefore, draw consolation from this passage, and let him apply the blessed result of this doctrine to his own use; for these words are spoken to all in general, and to individuals in particular.

My comments - Least Calvin be misunderstood. look at this last sentence above, “….spoken to ALL IN GENERAL and to INDIVIDUALS IN PARTICULAR” ,or in other words, spoken to the whole human race and every individual member thereof. Calvin clearly and explicitly makes no exception. Now, this is not the last time we see this universal language, lets look again.

Calvin continues - 6. We all, like sheep, have gone astray. In order to impress more deeply on our hearts the benefit of the death of Christ, he shows how necessary is that healing which he formerly mentioned. If we do not perceive our wretchedness and poverty, we shall never know how desirable is that remedy which Christ has brought to us, or approach him with due ardor of affection. As soon as we know that we are ruined, then, aware of our wretchedness, we eagerly run to avail ourselves of the remedy, which otherwise would be held by us in no estimation. In order, therefore, that Christ may be appreciated by us, let every one consider and examine himself, so as to acknowledge that he is ruined till he is redeemed by Christ.

We see that here none are excepted, for the Prophet includes “all.” The whole human race would have perished, if Christ had not brought relief. He does not even except the Jews, whose hearts were puffed up with a false opinion of their own superiority, but condemns them indiscriminately, along with others, to destruction. By comparing them to sheep, he intends not to extenuate their guilt, as if little blame attached to them, but to state plainly that it belongs to Christ to gather from their wanderings those who resembled brute beasts.

My comments - Look at Calvin’s explicit statement including the “whole human race” in the “all” used by the Prophet. And as we have already seen when Calvin says the whole human race he means all individual members thereof.

Calvin continues - Every one hath turned to his own way. By adding the term every one, he descends from a universal statement, in which he included all, to a special statement, that every individual may consider in his own mind if it be so; for a general statement produces less effect upon us than to know that it belongs to each of us in particular.

My comment - I have to break in here and say that this is clear and explicit language here. Notice that Calvin is not only arguing for the universal scope of Christ’s penal substitutionary death, but is careful to make sure that no one can construe this to be some “abstract class”, but rather that EVERY individual of the “class is included.

Calvin continues - Let “every one,” therefore, arouse his conscience, and present himself before the judgment­seat of God, that he may confess his wretchedness. Moreover, what is the nature of this “going astray” the Prophet states more plainly. It is, that every one hath followed the way which he had chosen for himself, that is, hath determined to live according to his own fancy; by which he means that there is only one way of living uprightly, and if any one “turn aside” from it, he can experience nothing but “going astray.”

He does not speak of works only, but of nature itself, which always leads us astray; for, if we could by natural instinct or by our own wisdom, bring ourselves back into the path, or guard ourselves against going astray, Christ would not be needed by us. Thus, in ourselves we all are undone unless Christ (John 8:36) sets us free; and the more we rely on our wisdom or industry, the more dreadfully and the more speedily do we draw down destruction on ourselves. And so the Prophet shows what we are before we are regenerated by Christ; for all are involved in the same condemnation. “There is none righteous, none that understandeth, none that seeketh God. All have turned aside, and have become unprofitable. There is none that doeth good; no, not one.” (Psalm 14:3) All this is more fully explained by Paul. (Romans 3:10)

My comments - Again, this is just good stuff, Calvin here makes reference to Romans 3. Now we Calvinist we certainly include (rightly so) every member of the human race in the depravity described in this text, but Calvin is clearly making co-extensive Christ’s substitutionary death with those included in Romans 3. So, again, no “Owenic” categories here limiting the substitutionary death to the elect alone.

Calvin continues - And Jehovah hath laid upon him. Here we have a beautiful contrast. In ourselves we are scattered; in Christ we are gathered together. By nature we go astray, and are driven headlong to destruction; in Christ we find the course by which we are conducted to the harbor of salvation. Our sins are a heavy load; but they are laid on Christ, by whom we are freed from the load. Thus, when we were ruined, and, being estranged from God, were hastening to hell, Christ took upon him the filthiness of our iniquities, in order to rescue us from everlasting destruction. This must refer exclusively to guilt and punishment; for he was free from sin. (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22) Let every one, therefore, diligently consider his own iniquities, that he may have a true relish of that grace, and may obtain the benefit of the death of Christ.

My comments - So, there is no rational bases to restrict the phrases “Our sins” and “our iniquities” to the elect alone, but it is clear that Calvin means to include the WHOLE HUMAN RACE and by this he means everyone included in the human race.

Dean, this just scratches the sufface on Calvin. I can cite many more from both his commentries and sermons that will support the argument that Calvin had a universal view of the substitutionary death of Christ, that upon the condition of faith any member of the human race can posses this gracious benefit secured by Christ in their place. Now, certainly Calvin understood that because of depravity no man will lay hold on this grace apart from the effectual drawing by the Father of elect to Christ, but never the less, Christ substituted for the WHOLE HUMAN RACE in his death. The limit is in the effectual application to the elect, not in the substitutionary death itself.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

Earlier today I attempted to comment on Andy Gilman’s question for Pastor Doug Wilson concerning his statement defining “corporate justification”

Here is Pastor Wilson’s statement:

“…corporate justification is God’s forensic declaration that the human race has been legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ, the last Adam. The Church, as the bride of Christ, is the instantiation of that blessing in the world, for the world.”

Here is Andy Gilman’s question:

” …corporate justification is God’s forensic declaration that the human race has been legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ, the last Adam. The Church, as the bride of Christ, is the instantiation of that blessing in the world, for the world.”

I don’t understand how these two sentences fit together. In the first sentence, the human race is “legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ,” and in the second sentence, the Church is said to be an instance or example of “that blessing in the world, for the world.”

The first sentence indicates that the “human race” is “legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ.” Is “legal and covenantal reconstitution in Christ” the same blessing the second sentence is talking about, when it ascribes it to the Church? If so, then why is it said to be given to the “human race” in the first sentence? In Doug’s view, is corporate justification a blessing enjoyed by the whole human race, or is it limited to the church? And what does it mean to be “legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ?”

I generally think of myself as possessing reasonably good reading comprehension, but I don’t get this.”

I will now add the comment I attempted to submit at Green Baggins. I am posting this here on my blog because Wordpress wouldn’t let me post it at Green Baggins for some reason.
My comments:

Andy,

This is the first time that I have seen this formulation by Pastor Wilson concerning “corporate” justification, but I think I may understand what he is trying to get at. Pastor Wilson, I’m sure, will correct me if I’m wrong.

 

Andy, you said: “I don’t understand how these two sentences fit together. In the first sentence, the human race is “legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ,” and in the second sentence, the Church is said to be an instance or example of “that blessing in the world, for the world.”

 

In the first sentence we may possibly have what Vermigli would call “incarnational union”. Or we could also call “incarnational” representation. Christ, the God-man, represents the entire human race (this means every individual member thereof, not just as some abstract “class”) in at least 3 ways:

 

1. Christ took the human nature that is common to all in Adam (sin excepted).

2. Christ obeyed the law of God perfectly, the law that every member of the human race is duty bound to obey. Through his obedience he grew in favor with God and thus maintained that paternal/covenantal relationship with the Father that Adam and all his posterity forfeited.

3. Christ willing suffered the death (i.e. penalty) that every member of the human race deserves. He suffered the wrath of God as a member of the human race in the place of the human race. Christ bore “our” sins in his body on the tree, thus becoming the penal substitute for the human race.

 

John Calvin said this: “Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all.” (Institutes Book 2, Chapter 13, paragraph 3)

 

Through this “incarnational” representation, all the legal obstacles have been removed so that upon the condition of faith any member of the human race may be forgiven and delivered from the penalty of the law. Christ is the Justified One and all who are in Christ have the promise of justification upon the condition of faith.

 

W.G.T. Shedd said this: “Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2….This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily canceled all legal claims. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437, 438.

 

Now, in Pastor Wilson’s second sentence we have the normal means through which the benefits secured for the human race are administered. i.e. the Church who are the covenant people of God. Every baptized member of the Church of Christ bears a covenantal union with Him. They have signed and sealed to them in baptism the promise of God that upon the condition of faith they have all the benefits that Christ secured for them as members of the human race.

 

Now, I know that many will not be satisfied if I just stop here, so I will state the special union that the elect (i.e. decretaly elect) have with Christ. God sovereignly grants to the elect alone the regeneration and faith by which they infallibly possess all the benefits given to them in Christ.

Well that’s my shot at it.

Again, this just my attempt to express what may be contained within the idea of “corporate justification”, and therefore I may be way off the mark of what Pastor Wilson and other FV advocates are trying to say.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

We are to evangelize because it is God’s will that all obey or comply with the gospel commandments. It is the knowledge of God’s revealed will that should drive our evangelistic endeavors, not our ignorance of His secret will. Our missionary activity should be a way of conforming ourselves to the very heart of God’s own missionary interests.

Tony Byrne (A.D. 1969-the rapture… )

I read this on my friend Tony’s blog, Theological Meditations. Well stated my friend! For this one you deserve a place among the likes of Calvin, Vermigli, Augustine, etc.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Clement of Rome (A.D. 30 - 100) - First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 32

Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites^; but they, repenting of their sins, propitiated God by prayer, and obtained salvation, although they were aliens [to the covenant] of God.

Clement of Rome (A.D. 30 - 100) - First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 7

My friend David, in his comment on the previous post reminded me of a portion of Institutes 3.2.12 that I wish I would have included. In the following quote, Calvin, speaks of the reprobate being impressed with a sense of divine grace. He reference King Saul as an example of this from Saul’s knowledge of being treated with paternal kindness. I will begin the quote from where I left off in the previous post. Here is the quote:

“Meanwhile, we must remember that however feeble and slender the faith of the elect may be, yet as the Spirit of God is to them a sure earnest and seal of their adoption, the impression once engraven can never be effaced from their hearts, whereas the light which glimmers in the reprobate is afterwards quenched. Nor can it be said that the Spirit therefore deceives, because he does not quicken the seed which lies in their hearts so as to make it ever remain incorruptible as in the elect. I go farther: seeing it is evident, from the doctrine of Scripture and from daily experience, that the reprobate are occasionally impressed with a sense of divine grace, some desire of mutual love must necessarily be excited in their hearts. Thus for a time a pious affection prevailed in Saul, disposing him to love God. Knowing that he was treated with paternal kindness, he was in some degree attracted by it. But as the reprobate have no rooted conviction of the paternal love of God, so they do not in return yield the love of sons, but are led by a kind of mercenary affection.”

A couple of things I want to emphasize is: first, Calvin is clear that even though the grace given to the “reprobate” is just temporary, yet is is still sincere and no deception on God’s part, second, Saul, who certainly was a member of the covenant (though non-elect), was treated with paternal kindness, as are all “reprobate”, but because of their own lack of conviction, i.e. unbelief, they do not respond to God as sons.

Thank you, David, for reminding me of this portion of section 12. It was a few hours between my reading and my comments on the blog. I had forgotten to add this part.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

As I was reading through a section of the Institutes of the Christian Religion today, it struck me that some comments by John Calvin on faith are relevant to the current debate over Federal Vision. One of the major points of contention, is how we are to view “non-elect” covenant members and “elect” covenant members. The question is over the idea of “union” with Christ. There is, in my opinion, as I understand both sides of the debate, no disagreement about the “elect” as being in spiritual union with Christ, possessing a true saving faith unto an infallible salvation resulting in perseverance for the “elect” of God chosen before the foundation of the world. As far as I can tell, there is no substantial disagreement between the FV proponents and the anti-FV proponents at this point. The disagreement seems to be focused on the “non-elect” covenant members and how we are to understand their “union” (if there is any union) to Christ. And by extension, is there any participation in any benefits “spiritually” by “non-elect” covenant members.

This being prefaced, I would like to post the following quotes from John Calvin taken from the Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 2, Sections 11&12. In this book and chapter, Calvin, is defining faith and it’s particular properties. What I found interesting is Calvin’s use of language to describe what is happening in the “reprobate” in regards to the operation of the Spirit in them and God’s grace in operation towards them. Now I think we can surely say that “non-elect” covenant members can be viewed as synonymous with how Calvin is using the term “reprobate” in these sections of the Institutes. He obviously has in view false professors or those who are associated with the church. I will highlight the portions that I find most thought provoking with “italicized bold print”.

11. I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them.

My comments: What I find interesting here is the phrase, “temporary faith”, I would like to know how each side of the debate would view this language by Calvin and if either side would view it as appropriate. If I am understanding the FV proponents correctly, they are arguing for a sort of “temporary participation” in the covenant, and the lack of perseverance in “faith” resulting in apostasy is a demonstration of the “temporary” nature of the benefits enjoyed by the “non-elect” covenant member.

Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full
assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate.

My comments: It is interesting that Calvin here is arguing for an operation of the Spirit “in” the reprobate, certainly an inferior one, but an real operation nonetheless.

Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying
it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy.

My comments: Now this last sentence is very interesting to me. Calvin is clearing speaking of a present/”temporary” mercy, but light of the statement that in this way God is showing himself “propitious” to the reprobate by manifesting this present mercy, Calvin seems to certainly imply that God is being sincere here to the reprobate in His work in them, enabling them to recognize His grace. So, my question is this, are the FV proponents arguing for more than this? And if not, would the anti-FV proponents be comfortable with this language?

In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.
12. Although faith is a knowledge of the divine favor towards us, and a full persuasion of its truth, it is not strange that the sense of the divine love, which though akin to faith differs much from it, vanishes in those who are temporarily impressed. The will of God is, I confess, immutable, and his truth is always consistent with itself; but I deny that the reprobate ever advance so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation which Scripture reserves for the elect only. I therefore deny that they either understand his will considered as immutable, or steadily embrace his truth, inasmuch as they rest satisfied with an evanescent impression; just as a tree not planted deep enough may take root, but will in process of time wither away, though it may for several years not only put forth leaves and flowers, but produce fruit. In short, as by the revolt of the first man, the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in His shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished. There is nothing to prevent His giving some a slight knowledge of his Gospel, and imbuing others thoroughly.

My concluding comments: The analogy of the tree I believe is so apt to this debate. Here we have a tree that bears fruit, though temporarily, and is easily mistaken for a well planted tree, and only a long period of perseverance can prove which tree is the “good” one. This tree that only bears fruit for a temporary time, does so within the context of the covenant and the operation of the Spirit. Certainly the operation of the Spirit is different in “quality” in the “non-elect” as opposed to the “elect” but both operations of grace take place within the institution in which God shows Himself “propitious” towards men, i.e. the Church.

I would love to see those on both sides of this debate comment on the language used here by Calvin, and how each side would accommodate it in light of how they believe we should view the “non-elect” covenant member.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us. He saw the reasonable race, the race of men that, like Himself, expressed the Father’s Mind, wasting out of existence, and death reigning over all in corruption. He saw that corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled. He saw how unseemly it was that the very things of which He Himself was the Artificer should be disappearing. He saw how the surpassing wickedness of men was mounting up against them; He saw also their universal liability to death. All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.

St. Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria (A.D. 295-373) - From “On the Incarnation”, Chapter 2, Section 8

 John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world.

“Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits….”

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish.

“It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses,

which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.”

John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564)

“For faith includes not merely the knowledge that God is, but also, nay chiefly, perception of his will toward us. It concerns us to know not only what he is in himself, but also in what character he is pleased to manifest himself to us. We now see, therefore, that faith is the knowledge of the  divine will in regard to us, as ascertained from his word. And the foundation of it is a previous persuasion of the truth of God. So long as your mind  entertains any misgiving as to the certainty of the word, its authority will  be weak and dubious, or rather it will have no authority at all. Nor is it sufficient to believe that God is true, and cannot lie or deceive, unless you feel firmly persuaded that every word which him is sacred, inviolable truth.”

John Calvin ( A.D. 1509-1564) - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 2, Section6

And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him. And although it is true that we obtain this by faith, yet since we see that all do not indiscriminately embrace the offer of Christ which is made by the gospel, the very nature of the case teaches us to ascend higher, and inquire into the secret efficacy of the Spirit, to which it is owing that we enjoy Christ and all his blessings.

John Calvin ( A.D. 1509-1564) - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 1

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

In this article I want to discuss some implication that must be necessarily inferred from these two related text of scripture. This is the first installment of what I hope will be a much more comprehensive treatment of Christ’s substitutionary penal sacrifice/satisfaction.

The first thing that should be noticed is that both of these texts appear in a passage of scripture dealing with the incarnation of God the Son. The Word became flesh (John 1:14). Jesus partook of the same nature of flesh and blood as those he came to save (Hebrews 2:14). This must certainly be the beginning point of our understanding of Christ’s work on behalf of fallen men. So, first and foremost we must acknowledge, as do the early Christian Creeds, the full and common humanity of Christ. So right here at the very beginning we have a Christ who is representative of and relating to all men, i.e. the whole human race. In this way, sin excepted, Christ shares that nature which is common to every individual member of the entire human race that has ever or ever will exist. By this I am simply stating the undeniable biblical and historic Christian doctrine of the incarnation and nature of the God-man.

Now, this being established, lets take another step in our examination of Christ’s penal substitutionary sacrifice/satisfaction. Why did the Son come to this world and take to himself the nature that is common to all men? The answer to this question is, all men are condemned by the law of God and therefore judged deserving of God’s wrath, being condemned in/by the disobedience of Adam (Romans 5:17-19). So therefore in order to save even one man Christ had to come in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3). Hebrews 2:14, teaches us this same truth, i.e. in order to save even one man given to Him, He had to partake of the same nature as that man, and to suffer the death that man deserved. Therefore, it must follow that is so far as Christ is a man, as Hebrews 2:9 states, He tasted death for everyone. Or we could state it like this, to substitute for even one man, Christ necessarily, objectively, substituted for every man. This necessarily follows from the fact that He shares that nature which is common to every man, and suffered the death that each and every man deserves. So when we read the declaration of John the Baptist, in John 1:29, we must take it at face value and and infer necessarily, that the penal substitution was indeed, inherently, in the place of the WORLD.

Now, let me pause for a second and remind you, dear reader, least you think I have “forgotten” my own “calvinism”, I am discussing the inherent/objective nature of the work of Christ’s penal substitutionary sacrifice/satisfaction. I am not, in this particular article, discussing the application of this penal satisfaction to particular individuals. So, let us now resume our examination of the inherent nature of the work of Christ.

I believe what I have stated thus far is undeniable in regards to the inherent nature of the God-man and his substitutionary work. Next, I want to do a couple of things. First I want to ask a few rhetorical questions in light of what I have already stated, and then draw what I believe is the necessary conclusion from the answers to these questions. Then second I want to illustrate the conclusion from what we know for certain about two men found in the scriptures.

First the questions:

Question 1. Was Jesus Christ fully human? Answer: Yes.

Question 2. Is every man that has ever existed and will ever exist fully human? Answer: Yes.

Question 3. Is every man judged by the law as sinful and therefore deserving of the wrath of God and death which is the penalty of the law? Answer: Yes.

Question 4. Did Christ suffer the wrath of God and die the death which is the penalty of the law? Answer: Yes.

Question 5. Did Christ suffer as a man, being partaker of the common human nature with all men? Answer: Yes.

Question 6. Did Christ by his life and sacrificial death (suffering the full wrath of God) fully satisfy the justice of God? Answer: Yes.

Conclusion: Therefore we have provided by Christ, the God-man, suffering as a representative of the human race, in the place of the whole human race, an inherently sufficient, substitutionary, full penal satisfaction.

Now, the obvious question that I am sure is right now in your mind, dear reader, is this, “If this conclusion is true, then why are not all men therefore saved?” Well, you will have to come back to read the next installments in which I will discuss th subject of this question and others. But, just to alleviate some of your fears, I am in no way advocating the salvation of all men. This penal satisfaction must certainly be applied by the Spirit before anyone can benefit thereof. The illustration that I now want to use to reinforce the necessary conclusion of the previous questions I posited will lay some of the ground work for understanding the application of the penal satisfaction wrought by Christ.

Let’s consider Peter and Judas. Here with Peter and Judas we have examples of two biblical categories: 1. The Elect = Peter, 2. The “reprobate” or non-elect = Judas. I hope that you will agree with me that we can, with biblical certainty, classify Peter and Judas thus. So, what I want to do now is compare Peter with Judas in relation to the inherent nature of Christ’s substitutionary work. First we know that both Peter and Judas are certainly members of the human race, therefore Christ as man partook of the same human nature that is common to both men. Second, both Peter and Judas are certainly descendants of Adam, therefore they both are condemned and made sinners in Adam and judged by the law of God as deserving of death because of their sins. Therefore, when Christ suffered the wrath of God and died, he certainly suffered that which both Peter and Judas deserved. So we must conclude that the inherent nature of Christ’s substitution must encompass, objectively, both Peter and Judas, and by extension, all the Elect and Non-elect together, or i.e. the whole human race. There is nothing lacking in the sufficiency of the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ that is needed and therefore offerable/applicable to both Peter and Judas alike.

The undeniable reality, from the nature of the case, is that it is biblically and logically impossible to limit, inherently/objectively the substitutionary penal satisfaction of Christ, to Peter/the elect alone. The only place of limitation is in it’s application to Peter (and all the elect), by grace through faith. This being the work of the Holy Spirit, in drawing effectually all those given to Christ. But, as for Judas, though it was offered to and certainly sufficient for him, he because of the wickedness of his own heart and as fulfillment of God’s purposes, despised this very provision he needed and was lost eternally.

As I intimated early in this article my intension is to explore this subject in more depth, and in so doing, also cover the limited application of the benefit of Christ’s satisfaction as well. But for now let me leave you with a wonderful quote from John Calvin:

“We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him. And although it is true that we obtain this by faith, yet since we see that all do not indiscriminately embrace the offer of Christ which is made by the gospel, the very nature of the case teaches us to ascend higher, and inquire into the secret efficacy of the Spirit, to which it is owing that we enjoy Christ and all his blessings.” (Institutes Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 1)

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

Hebrews 2:9&10, “9But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.”

In this text we find that only a particular kind of redemption could be applied to a particular people. God’s purpose in sending Christ is to bring many sons to glory. But, how is this particular purpose to be accomplished? The answer is, by sending a particular person, with a particular nature, to endure a particular kind of suffering, thus saving a particular people.

In the context of Hebrews chapter 2, we learn that Jesus took a particular nature. He is “made a little lower than the angels” (verse 9). He partakes of the same nature as the children given to him, i.e. flesh and blood (verse 14). The Son, through whom all things are created (Hebrews 1:2), who is equal in nature as the Father (Hebrews 1:3&8), takes the very nature of those whom he comes to save, and suffers the death that they deserve. Only this particular person, who is both God and man, could accomplish this redemption.

We also learn that he must endure a particular kind of suffering. He must suffer by tasting death for everyone (verse 9), so that he can destroy the one who has the power of death , i.e. the Devil (verse 14). By taking flesh and blood and tasting death, Jesus suffers that which every particular person, who is under the power of death, deserves. Paul teaches us, in Romans 5:17&18, that condemnation was placed upon all men by one man’s transgression, and so death reigned.

Therefore, by taking the particular nature that is common to everyone (all men), and thus enduring a particular kind of suffering, i.e. tasting death for everyone, Jesus, through this death, destroys the the Devil and the power of death, so that he may deliver those children given to him. Thus, the benefit of this particular kind of suffering is applied to a particular people.

Heb 2:16&17, “16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

Blessings in Christ,

Terry W. West

Act 17:30&31, “30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

1. What is offered in the command to repent?

Some of the very first words we have recorded of Jesus in the gospels are, “Repent and flee the wrath to come!” Is not the command to repent then an offer of salvation from that wrath to come, that day appointed that God will judge the world? Certainly it is. But how can we be saved? Is it repentance alone that gets us forgiveness and grants us an escape from that awful day? Certainly not. But, rather it is a man that is our salvation. A man that mediates between God and men. The man that Paul is referring to in the text above, i.e. Jesus Christ.

How is it that in this man we can find salvation if we repent? What is it about this man that makes salvation possible to those who are commanded to repent? Paul answers these question this way in Romans 8:3&4,

“3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

This man, who is truly a man, possesses the same nature that is common to all men, sin excepted. So that by this man’s obedience many are made righteous (Romans 5:19). This man obeyed and then suffered the penalty for disobedience on the cross, and then was raised from the dead to demonstrate his power and success in accomplishing this work for a fallen world in need of a savior.

So, the command cannot be viewed as a mere declaration, but as a sincere offer of salvation, from the wrath that is deserved and promised to be poured out on the ungodly, to all that will repent and embrace the work of this man in their place.

2. What is the condition of those who hear the command?

The bible describes for us the depravity of those who hear this command, the wickedness of those to whom this offer of salvation is made. In John 1:11, we read that Jesus came to his own and they did not receive him, even though he is the creator of the world, the world rejects him. In the same book, three chapters later, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” (John 3:20) Also, In Romans chapter one we read that men have exchanged the glory of God for the profane, that men by nature hate God, and have no fear of him and will not seek him (Romans 3:10-18).

3. What is the result from the command?

So, what is the result in those that hear the command? Paul describes the result in 2 Corinthians 2:15&16,

“15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?”

In some it brings life, in others in brings death. In those, that God works effectually in their hearts, to draw them to Christ (John 6:44), it results in their salvation, but in those that are left to their own evil wills, they believe not, their hearts are hardened even more, and will be judged for refusing the “bread from heaven…that gives life to the world.” (John 6:32&33)

Both the saving of some and the hardening of others results from either the embracing or the refusal of that which is suitable or sufficient to save those who hear the command, i.e. the satisfaction of God’s justice offered in the command to repent. This is why the despising of the goodness of God that leads to repentance causes the severity of the wrath to be stored up for the wicked on that day (Romans 2:4).

4. Upon what grounds is the salvation offered in the command?

The command to repent, therefore, is founded upon the suitableness or sufficiency of the means of salvation, i.e. Christ satisfaction. So, even the severity of the hardening of the reprobates heart, resulting from their rebellion against the command, and refusal of the offer of salvation, can only be understood if that means of salvation is suitable/sufficient for them as well.

The world will be judged, on that day of wrath appointed, by that man, Jesus Christ the Son of God, whom the Father sent from heaven as the bread that gives life to the world. Rejection of him is the refusal of that which is provided for the salvation and reconciliation of the whole human race, therefore God commands all men, everywhere to repent.

Blessings in Christ,

Terry W. West

Joh 3:16&17 “16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

What is the motive for God’s love of the world? We see clearly in this text that God’s love is the foundation for his desire to save, it is the reason for his sending of his Son into this fallen and condemned world. But do the scriptures not also say that God hates the evildoers (Ps. 5:5)? So, how do we reconcile this seeming contradiction?

I think we must start at the beginning. Man is the special creation of God’s own hand. Mankind is the image bearers of God. Genesis 1:26 & 27 says,

“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Mankind is designed specifically to mirror the Triune God’s own character. So, God’s love for this his creation is in relation to His love of his own glory, which this mere creature is intended to mirror. We are the work of his own hand. This remains true even after the fall into sin, mankind still retains this image, though severely marred and corrupted by sin, God’s purpose for his special creation has not changed. John Calvin says this,

“But as the Lord wills not to destroy in us that which is his own, he still finds something in us which in kindness he can love. For though it is by our own fault that we are sinners, we are still his creatures; though we have brought death upon ourselves he had created us for life.” (Institutes Book 2, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)

God’s love for his special creation flows from the purpose for which he created the man to be his image bearer, therefore seeing that this purpose is inherent in the existence of mankind then this reason for God’s love towards his creation never fails anymore than the purposes of God can fail. But, mankind has rebelled against the purpose of God and has exchanged the Glory of the Creator for that like unto their own sinful desires and have worshiped the creature rather than the Creator. (R0mans 1:22-25) Therefore God’s hatred for the evildoer is proportionate to the degree that mankind fails to reflect his own glory in disobedience and sin. Calvin quotes Augustine in the same book and chapter as the previous quote, but in paragraph 4,

“Incomprehensible and immutable is the love of God. For it was not after we were reconciled to him by the blood of his Son that he began to love us, but he loved us before the foundation of the world, that with his only begotten Son we too might be sons of God before we were any thing at all. Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us, but that we were reconciled to him already, loving, though at enmity with us because of sin. To the truth of both propositions we have the attestation of the Apostle, ‘God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,’ (Rom. 5:8). Therefore he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly in a manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us. For he hated us when we were such as he had not made us, and yet because our iniquity had not destroyed his work in every respect, he knew in regard to each one of us, both to hate what we had made, and love what he had made.”

The gloriousness of the gospel is that God is not willing that his purpose for his creation come to naught, but God sent his own Son, who is the image of the Father, in the likeness of sinful flesh to redeem his creation and reconcile us back to himself. We read in John chapter 1 that the creator of the world came into the world, he came to his own as one of us. John Calvin says this,

“Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all.” (Institutes Book 2, Chapter 13, paragraph 3)

In the same Chapter of John, verse 29, we have John the Baptist’s declaration that Jesus was the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world”. The salvation found in Christ is suitable to and offered to the whole human race, for Christ came as one of the human race and fulfilled all that Adam, the natural representative of the whole human race his posterity, failed to do. Christ the God-man fulfilled all the conditions of the covenant of works (Romans 5:17&18). Thus removed all the legal/covenantal obstacles that prevents the reconciliation of men to God.

As a reward Christ has received, from the Father, for accomplishing this work, a people to bear his image (Romans 8:28-39). Thus fulfilling God’s purpose in the creation of mankind, His image bearer.

What a glorious promise and assurance we have, who have been brought into union with Christ by faith, that God will give to us with Christ all that is promised to Christ. So, as the Apostle Paul teaches use, in Romans 8, nothing can separate use from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord!

Blessings in Christ,

Terry W. West