Double Jeopardy

broken-chains1The Christian Fundamentalist movement sought to define the minimum of what a Christian must believe to still be considered a Christian. They typically recognized five doctrinal pillars that comprise the essence of true Christianity. One of these pillars was the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. We are redeemed when Christ set our sin aside by “nailing it to the cross” (Col 2:14). “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree… By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24). In his death Jesus accomplished the great exchange: his righteousness for our sin. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor 5:21). “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet 3:18).

Modernist theologians called substitution “one theory among others.” The Fundamentalists stood up and said, “No. Substitution is the heartbeat of the Gospel! Without it there is no Christianity.”

Like most Evangelicals today, the Fundamentalists were largely Arminian. That is, they believed the death that Jesus died was general: Jesus died for every individual who ever lived or who ever will live. The Arminian therefore denies that the atonement secured anyone’s redemption. It simply made salvation possible for those who choose to accept it. But is the view of a general Atonement consistent with the substitutionary theory?

A substitutionary atonement requires that Jesus suffered the penalty for sins that his people deserve. As a result they stand acquitted before God. God cannot accuse them for their crimes. An illustration may help. Citizens of the United States have the constitutional right of Double Jeopardy, whereby a defendant cannot stand trial twice for the same crime. This was the premise for a movie a while back by the same name. A man fakes his death and frames his wife for the murder so that he can run off and begin a new life. She is convicted and serves her time. Later she learns that he is still living and begins to plot her revenge. According to the law, she can assassinate him in broad daylight because she has already paid the price for his murder. This is a sordid example, but it makes the point. The hymn writer Augustus Toplady understood substitution correctly when he penned these words: “Payment God cannot twice demand; once at my bleeding surety’s hand, and then again at mine.”

Because of this difficulty many Arminian theologians opt for the Moral Governmental theory of the atonement. According to the Governmental theory Jesus didn’t die for anybody. He was an example. God punished Jesus as a sinner merely to show us the sinfulness of sin. Therefore, Clark Pinnock argues that the death of Jesus was not necessary for God to forgive sin; it is an aid to our accepting forgiveness (Unbounded Love, 103). Charles Finney ridiculed the substitutionary atonement calling it a “theological fiction” (Memoirs, 58-61). The death of Christ is not the grounds of our Justification, Finney argued. We are acquitted before God only on the “ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law (Systematic Theology, 362).

I want to clarify that the question is not, “for whom is the death of Christ sufficient?” We all agree that the blood of Christ is sufficient to cover the sins of the entire world. The question is rather, “for whom was Jesus’ death a substitute?” Logically there are only thee possible ways to understand substitution. Either Jesus died for all of the sins for all of the people (everyone is saved regardless of faith = universalism), or he died for some of the sins of all of the people, or he died for all of the sins for some of the people – his elect (Eph. 1:4).

It is the latter view that the Bible teaches. Jesus said plainly, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15) and warned the Pharisees “you are not part of my flock” (v. 26). The design and purpose of the atonement was always to redeem God’s elect. “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). Romans 8 stresses that the grounds of our justification before God is secured solely in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This alone places his people beyond condemnation (vv 31-35). For this reason before the crucifixion Jesus prayed for those whom he was going to die to redeem saying, “I pray not for the world but for those whom you have given me” (John 17:9).

The Apostles preached frequently on the death and resurrection of Jesus. They called sinners to repentance and faith. But they never preached in their evangelistic sermons, “Jesus died for you.” Never once!

The reason is that Jesus’ atoning death was not for the purpose of making the salvation of all men possible. Rather, by his death he secured the salvation of all whom God ordained to eternal life (John 6:38-39; 1 Cor 15:3; 1 Thess 5:10; Tit 2:14; Heb 1:3, 9:5; Rev 5:9). The uniform testimony of Scripture is that those for whom Christ died have themselves also died (and been raised!) in Christ (Cf. 2 Cor 5:14-15; see also Rom 6:3-11; Eph 2:4-7; Col 3:3). For Paul writes plainly, “one died for all: therefore all died” (2 Cor 5:14).

In the preceding verse we also have an answer to those who allege Biblical support for universal atonement. For Paul continues, “for he died for all in order that those who live should no longer live to themselves…” (v. 15). The “all” that died to sin and “live” to God constitute the same class as the “all” for whom Christ died. The Bible illustrates this point in many places (e.g. John 1:29; Rom 5:18; 11:12; 2 Cor 5:19; Heb 2:9-13). Moreover, “all” and “the world” are frequently taken as general terms and clearly not interpreted as “inclusive of every individual” (e.g. Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28; John12:19; Rom 1:8, 1 Cor 1:21). This is how we ought to understand passages such as John 3:16, 1 John 2:2 and others. The meaning is that Jesus died for all classes of persons: Jew/Gentile, past, present and future.

This teaching is not new or novel. It is the teaching of the Protestant Reformation – particularly the Reformed (Calvinist) branch. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) says, “The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him” (8.5).

If you find this teaching strange or abhorrent, I encourage you to read the Puritan John Owen’s work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, which deals with this subject exhaustively and is, frankly, the final word on the issue.

I trust that most Arminian Christians are evangelical and affirm the substitutionary atonement of Christ. But this they can only affirm inconsistently. The wave of Arminianism crashes upon the shore of Pelagianism and the Moral Governmental theory, and those who ride this wave all the way in (Like Finney or Pinnock) wind up denying the Gospel.

Holy War

spectre_of_jihadBiblical Scholar Robert Write, in his new book, The Evolution of God, suggests that to understand the Biblical teaching on “holy war” we must learn to unlock the “code that is hidden in the Scriptures and that, once revealed, unlocks the secret.” But it turns out that Write believes there is no real code at all. The Bible is hopelessly contradictory, sometimes teaching tolerance and sometimes forbidding it. He adopts an evolutionary model of religion where the God of the Bible “had bursts of moral growth.”

The traditional evolutionary thinking on religion suggests that primitive man believed in patron tribal deities that sought the interests of the tribe. This concept gradually evolved into the more sophisticated concept of ethical monotheism. In Write’s thinking, however, ethical monotheism is the more primitive, since it naturally tends toward intolerance. The hallmark of polytheism, on the other hand, is its ability to absorb all religious ideas and assimilate them into a single religious stew.

At the end of the day Mr. Write’s advice is that Jews and Christians should accept the teaching in the Bible that we find agreeable and dismiss what we find objectionable. It is hard to believe that the absurdity of this suggestion escapes him. If we sit in judgment on the Bible (a merely human document in the first place) then what religious authority could it possibly still possess? We should dismiss the Bible entirely as a source of religious inspiration, and view it only with an historical an academic interest. Let us come up with a new document that we can fully subscribe! Furthermore, how can Write reply to a Jihadist that views the “intolerance” of monotheism to be the more progressive ideal contained in the Old Testament?

The Bible, however, displays a consistency of teaching that refuses to conform to evolutionary theories. We find, in fact, that the Bible contains no timeless principle of holy war to either affirm or deny.

In the beginning, when God expelled the first couple from his holy paradise garden in Eden he established a common grace order with sinful men. He promised to strive with sinful man and postpone his judgment to make room for repentance. But at specific moments in redemptive history there were divine intrusions of judgment. These intrusions of judgment serve as an illustration of final judgment. Most notable of these intrusions was the flood. After the flood God promised that he would never bring a worldwide destruction again before the end, “for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21).

Abraham abided by this common grace order. When God appeared to Abraham and promised to him the land of Canaan, Abraham lived in that land as a stranger and good citizen. With God’s approval he made covenants with the polytheistic inhabitants, obeyed their laws and benefited those he dealt with (Gen 14; 20:17; 21:22-34; 23). The only portion of the land of Canaan that he owned was the burial site he purchased for his wife. God told him that the time for receiving the land as an inheritance was postponed until “in the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (Gen 15:16). God allowed the inhabitants to continue to increase in wickedness, even sacrificing their children, until the Day of Judgment.

At the right time God purposed to establish his holy kingdom in Canaan. This paradise land “flowing with milk and honey” provided a picture of Eden renewed. If God’s people obeyed the curse of the fall would be reversed: they would not suffer plagues or famine. It would be for them a Sabbath land, giving rest for their souls, and a picture of our heavenly reward (Deut 12:9, Ps 95; Heb 3-4, Heb 11:10, 16). At this time, therefore, God’s common grace order ended for the inhabitants. The Israelites were to guard the sanctuary of God and protect their boarders. Once they occupied the land they were never commanded to engage in “Jihad” against other nations or to “slay them [infidels] wherever you find them” (Surah 2:190). The common grace order ended for the Israelites as well. The land did not belong to Israel but to God, and in time He came as the holy warrior against them, just as He told them, “Like the nations that the Lord is destroying before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the Lord your God” (Deut 8:20).

When God fulfilled his word and expelled his people from the land and settled them in pagan Babylon they were to resume the good neighbor policy of Abraham. “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jer 29:7). Such teaching must be an embarrassment to the liberal Biblical scholars, since according to their theory; ethical monotheism didn’t fully develop until during the exile.

Christians in the New Covenant live in the period of God’s common grace. We are prohibited from taking judgment into our own hands, as it belongs to God alone (Rom 12:18-19). If need be we endure injustice, and resist all use of force in defense of our faith, even at the cost of martyrdom. Jesus commands us to pray for our enemies and obey unrighteous rulers rather than seeking to drive them out in order to establish a holy culture (Matt 5:38-48; Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-17). For this reason Jesus taught that he does not now judge the one who hears his word and rejects him (John 12:37) and he rebukes James and John who desire to call down fire from heaven in imitation of Elijah (Luke 9:53-55).

Therefore the Apostle Paul teaches Christians that we have no business judging those outside of the Church (1 Cor 5:9-13; 6:9-11). We are to defend the purity of the church, but we are armed only with the keys of the kingdom. The church is not entrusted with the sword, but with Word and sacrament. In the New Testament the holy war theme is spiritualized. Christians put on “the full armor of God.” But this armor consists of the helmet of salvation, the breastplate of righteousness, the sword of the God’s word, and the shield of faith (Eph. 6:10-17). “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-6).

But it is not as if God has outgrown the sort of judgments that we find in the Old Testament. Judgment is merely postponed. We are warned of the day when God will establish that holy kingdom that Canaan merely foreshadowed – the New Heavens and New Earth where righteousness dwells. That day will see the final Day of Judgment which all the other judgments merely foreshadowed. When “the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” (1 Thess. 1:7).

Mankind is at war with God, but Jesus Christ today is the emissary of peace calling all to repentance and faith in him. Now is the time of God’s favor; today is the day of salvation.

Pro-Life in America

Child at 24 weeks

Child at 24 weeks

Recently a Gallup poll reported that the majority of Americans call themselves “pro-life” for the first time since Roe v Wade decision. Predictably, Gallup has been widely criticized for lack of nuance in its poll. After all, many Americans may identify themselves as personally pro-life, but support full legal access for others who choose to abort their children. Even President Obama voiced his desire to reduce abortions in the United States.

It may be that the majority of Americans still desire abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.” But it is not at all clear that the majority of Americans support publicly subsidizing of abortion or the radical pro-choice agenda pushed by the current administration.

  • Do you believe that tax payers should supply one third of Planned Parenthood’s $1 billion dollar budget?
  • Do you believe that the federal government should invalidate all state restrictions on abortion, including parental notification laws, informed consent laws, and bans on partial birth abortion?
  • Do you believe we should repeal the conscience clause and require all doctors and health care professionals to perform abortions, even if doing so violates their conscience and their understanding of the Hippocratic oath?

Our federal government has long subsidized Planned Parenthood, the nations leading provider of elective abortions, and we expect to see the level of public funding increase dramatically. President Obama also promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will remove all state restrictions. Perhaps most shocking is that Health and Human Services is working to repeal the conscience clause that protects medical professionals from being compelled to perform abortions.
Our President stated his opinion that mothers should be free to navigate these ethical waters and have the right to a safe and legal abortion. But what about the freedom and conscience of the healthcare professional? How can we claim to uphold the first amendment with a law that so clearly violates the religious convictions of so many? Forcing doctors to perform abortions against their conscience is not morally different from China’s policy of forced abortions for second pregnancies. China compels the conscience of the mother, while Obama is attempting to compel the conscience of the doctor or nurse.

Of course the pro-life movement has been severely set back by the schizophrenic loon who murdered Dr. George Tiller, one the few late term abortion providers in the country. Being pro-life means that we uphold the command “thou shall not murder.” The Bible categorically rejects all vigilantism (Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19) and places the sword of justice in the hands of government alone (Rom 13:1-7). Even when our leaders get it horribly wrong, Christians are called to suffer unjustly and to entrust ourselves to God’s future judgment (1 Peter 2:13-25).

As a Christian church we will not back down from the claim that elective abortions take human life, and we will not hesitate to identify it as sin. We also insist that sin must be taken to the cross of Jesus Christ, and that his blood is sufficient to atone for all sin, even murder. We are all in the same boat; we are all sinners. God alone is holy, but his grace is free and forgiveness is available for those who repent and believe.