Imputation in the Ligonier Statement on Christology

ChristologyStatement-Nichols_3of6The Doctrine of Imputation: The Ligonier Statement on Christology, how about chocolate chip cookies and the gospel? That might be a new one for you.

In the 1990s, a group of evangelical theologians and church leaders held talks with a group of Roman Catholic theologians and church leaders, and together they produced a statement titled Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). In the aftermath of ECT, much discussion ensued regarding the Roman Catholic understanding of the gospel and how it relates to the understanding of the gospel historically affirmed by evangelicals, the heirs of the Protestant Reformation. The subject of justification by faith alone came up. This was, of course, one of the central issues of the Reformation.

We see how essential the doctrine of justification by faith alone was in the Reformation planks of sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and solus Christus (Christ alone). These solas stress that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We must also see, however, that the Reformers emphasized a word that they found to be absolutely essential to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which they in turn saw as essential to a right understanding of the gospel. That word is imputation.

During some of the talks around ECT, the historic differences between evangelicals and Roman Catholics over imputation came to the surface. Reformed theologian Michael Horton likened imputation to chocolate chips in the making of chocolate chip cookies. If you set out all the ingredients to make chocolate chip cookies but leave out the singular ingredient of chocolate chips, then you don’t have chocolate chip cookies when you pull the tray out of the oven. Likewise, you can have most of the key ingredients of the gospel. You can have the understanding that we are sinners. You can have an understanding of God as holy and just. You can have an understanding of Christ and His work on the cross. But if you leave out imputation, you don’t have the gospel. This is why the Reformers considered this word absolutely essential to a biblically faithful proclamation of the gospel. But what does this word imputation mean?

The word imputation comes directly from the Latin. It is an accounting term; it means “to apply to one’s account.” Expenses are debited and income is credited. The old King James word is “reckon.”

In theological terms, we speak of a double imputation that takes place in justification. This double imputation is taught in texts such as 1 Corinthians 5:21, where Paul says plainly, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Here we read that our sin is imputed to Christ. We are the offending party. He is guiltless. He perfectly kept the law. Yet, on the cross, God poured out His wrath on Christ. Why? Because our sin was imputed to Christ. Christ took upon Himself our sin. Our great debit was put on His account. Christ paid the horrific penalty as the cup of God’s wrath was poured out upon Him. Continue reading

Hyper Grace and Repentance

uturn-signIn an article entitled “Hyper Grace and Repentance”, Dr. Sam Storms” so they say, and should instead turn our attention to the finality and sufficiency of God’s saving grace to us in Jesus Christ.

There is a sense in which this is a good and important reminder. Some Christians are excessively sin-conscious and have failed to recognize the glory and peace that come from trusting wholly in what God did through Jesus to remove the guilt and condemnation or our sin. But what they fail to recognize is that it is precisely because of the wonder and majesty of God’s saving mercy in Jesus that we should be sensitive to our sin and quick to repent of it. We do not repent in order to curry God’s favor or to make it possible for us to be reconciled to him. But repentance is absolutely necessary if we hope to live in the daily delight that comes with being reconciled to God.

Our experiential communion with Christ is always dependent on our sincere and heartfelt repentance from sin. We are altogether safe and secure in our eternal union with Christ, due wholly and solely to God’s glorious grace. But our capacity to enjoy the fruit of that union, our ability to feel, sense, and rest satisfied in all that is entailed by that saving union is greatly affected, either for good or ill, by our repentant response when the Holy Spirit awakens us to the ways that we have failed to honor and obey God’s revealed will in Scripture.

Part of the problem in the Hyper-grace message is their failure to properly define repentance. Several Hyper-grace authors contend that the only sense in which a Christian is required to repent is to change his/her mind or to rethink regarding sin and our relationship with God. Here is how one man thinks we think about repentance. In other words, this is how he believes we believe:

“Ongoing repentance is necessary to keep an angry God happy enough with you to be willing to bless you and use you. Your standing with God must be maintained by ongoing good behavior, and the only way to accomplish this behavior standard is through frequent sessions with God where you confess all known sins, ask for forgiveness, and repent or turn away from those sins.”

Again, he writes:

“Repentance is viewed as a necessary but onerous requirement in dealing with sin and staying in God’s good graces. It is a tool to be used to keep us in line and to prevent us from acting like the heathens we once were. If behavior modification is the goal, and it is with all legalists, then repentance is viewed as the primary method of accomplishing it.”

He argues that repentance simply means “to change your mind” about something. Rethink it. See the truth and believe it. Here is how he sums it up:

“The Holy Spirit convicts . . . or convinces me that I have believed a lie. I confess . . . or agree with the Spirit of Truth (no sense of condemnation). I then repent . . . or change my mind in light of truth.”

Michael Brown, who has written the most comprehensive response to hyper-grace, provides us with an illustration of how bad a definition of repentance this is. I’ve taken the liberty of expanding upon it a bit.

If you live in Oklahoma City, as I do, and you wish to join me in a leisurely drive to Dallas, Texas, you would typically depart from my house, drive east on Memorial Drive, and then turn right onto I-35. It’s about a 3½ hour drive. Everything seems to be going well until you notice a sign that says, “Wichita, 124 miles.” You turn to me (since I’m driving) and say, “Hey, guess what: we’re driving north instead of south. Dallas is in the other direction.” My response is: “Huh, you are correct. I’ve changed my mind about whether or not we are driving in the right direction.” And then I proceed to continue driving north, heading straight for Wichita, Kansas, instead of south for Dallas, Texas.

Changing of one’s mind is useless if it isn’t accompanied by a change of direction, a change of life and action. The only reasonable thing for me to do, having first changed my mind/belief about what direction I’m heading, is to exit off the interstate and do a 180 degree about face and head south in the direction of Dallas. It’s one thing to change my belief about where I’m heading. It’s another thing to change my behavior. And both elements are involved in genuine, biblical repentance. Continue reading

Does God Ever Change His Mind?

but that is not always possible. On this issue, it is important to lay the groundwork to provide a satisfactory, biblical answer and to do that necessitates serious study and application of the Scriptures. Let’s take a look at this question from a few different angles.

Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. One among many sound principles of interpretation is that we should base our view of God on the didactic (teaching) portions of scripture rather than the narrative (story) or poetic portions. This is why although the Bible says we can hide under the shadow of the Most High and under His wing find refuge, no Bible scholar expects God the Father to be a winged bird in heaven. This is obvious picture language where God uses images to speak to us highlighting the fact that just as a young bird finds refuge in the warmth and comfort of its mother’s wings, we believers can find refuge in the Lord. The Lord is our rock and fortress, but that does not mean God is a literal rock or castle; or that because the Lord is our Shepherd and the Psalmist wrote, “your rod and your staff, they comfort me” God the Father has a literal rod and shepherd’s staff that He uses with regularity in heaven. No, it is obvious picture language to describe something very meaningful about His relationship with His people, even though it is not to be viewed in wooden, literal terms.

These expressions are what we call anthropomorphic language (taken from two Greek words, “anthropos” meaning human or man and “morphos” meaning form). God communicates with us in human words or form. When you think about it, that is all God has at his disposal when revealing His truth to us because as humans we can only understand human language. Birds speak a bird language to converse with each other and so too, human beings use a human form of communication.

Likewise, when God communicates with us, He uses terms and images that are easy for us to grasp, even though if He explained them in the way He understood them, the concepts would be so far and vastly above our ability to comprehend that they would appear meaningless to us. God is infinite in knowledge and we as His creatures are finite. God has to remedy this in some way when He communicates with us so that He might provide a bridge of understanding. Just as a father smiles and engages in “baby talk” as he stands over the cot of his new born child, so God stoops to communicate with us in “baby talk” using language we can understand. Everything He communicates is true and meaningful, but expressed in terms finite minds can fathom. Continue reading

Concerning the Apocrypha

stormsIn an article entitled “SHOULD WE EMBRACE THE APOCRYPHA AS INSPIRED AND AUTHORITATIVE SCRIPTURE?” Sam Storms A Peculiar Glory: How the Christian Scriptures Reveal Their Complete Truthfulness (Crossway). In one of the early chapters Piper asks and answers the question: Which Books Make Up the Old Testament?

Protestant Christians have traditionally affirmed that there are 39 books in what we call the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. These constitute what we call the “canon” of Scripture. Besides the 39 books that are in our Old Testament, other Jewish books were written in the period between the two testaments, among which were such as 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. These additional writings were called the Apocrypha, a word that in Greek means hidden or secret or obscure. Should we affirm these books, together with the 39 we already recognize as Scripture, as inspired and authoritative for the beliefs and behavior of Christian people? No.

Piper proceeds to cite several reasons why our answer must be No. For example:

(1) “Neither in Jesus’s day nor in ours did the Jewish people consider the Apocrypha to have the authority of the canonical books” (44). He cites several Jewish authors from that time who admit that, after the latter prophets such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Spirit of God ceased his unique work of inspiring authors of Scripture (until the coming of the Christ).

(2) Piper then quotes Roger Nicole to the effect that “the New Testament quotes various parts of the Old Testament as divinely authoritative more than 295 times, but not once does it cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha, or any other writings, as having divine authority” (45). It is true that Jude (vv. 14-15) quotes from 1 Enoch 60:8 and 1:9, and that Paul quotes pagan authors in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12, “but none of these citations is quoted as Scripture or as having divine authority” (45).

(3) Timothy had been carefully instructed in “the sacred writings” (2 Tim. 3:14-15) by his Jewish mother and grandmother. “Therefore, there is good reason to believe that he had been raised as a good Jew with the understanding that the Hebrew canon, not the Apocrypha, was the inspired, authoritative word of God. And as Paul affirms its inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16, he makes no attempt to include any other books than those that would be assumed as part of the ‘sacred writings’ of his and Timothy’s Jewish upbringing” (46). Continue reading

Five Lessons for Preachers (Spurgeon)

five-9Article – Five Lessons for Preachers from the Prince of Preachers by Tom Ascol. Original source Spurgeon is a rare gift of God to the church. His life and labors stand like Mont Blanc over the post-Apostolic landscape of the Christian church.

At the celebration of his fiftieth birthday sixty-six organizations that Spurgeon oversaw were listed, including an orphanage and Pastors’ College. Coupled with his writing and personal work these other enterprises joined to make him one of the busiest men in London. Yet, in and through it all, Spurgeon was a preacher. He gave himself to that work above all else.

As such, he has much to teach preachers today. Following are five lessons I have learned from Spurgeon.

1. Preach Christ

During a season of sickness the South African Dutch Reformed minister read a volume of Spurgeon’s sermons and was greatly helped by them. He concluded that the secret to their power was their clear emphasis on the person of Christ. “The Lord Jesus was to him such an intense, living reality, he believed so in His nearness and presence and the wonderful love with which he loves us, that the hearer felt that he spoke out of living experience of what he had seen and heard…. In the fullest sense of the word, ‘he ceaseth not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ.’”

This was his constant counsel to the students at his Pastors’ College as well as to his fellow laborers in pastoral ministry. To the former he said, “Preach CHRIST always and evermore. He is the whole Gospel. His person, offices, and works must be our one great, all-comprehending theme.” He admonished the latter, “Give the people Christ, and nothing but Christ. Satiate them, even though some of them should say that you also nauseate them with the gospel” Continue reading

The Church Fathers on Sola Scriptura

Nathan Busenitz – original source Arius was arguably the most notorious heretic of the early church.

Though Arius’s heretical views were soundly condemned by the Council of Nicaea (in A.D. 325), the controversy he sparked raged for another fifty years throughout the Roman Empire. During those tumultuous decades, the defenders of Trinitarian orthodoxy often found themselves outnumbered and out of favor with the imperial court. Yet they refused to compromise.

Among them, most famously, stood Athanasius of Alexandria—exiled on five different occasions for his unwavering commitment to the truth. He was joined by the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzas, and Gregory of Nyssa.

But how did these early Christian leaders know that the doctrine they were defending was, in fact, a truth worth fighting for? How did they know they were right and the Arians were wrong? Was it on the basis of oral tradition, a previous church council, or an edict from the bishop of Rome?

No. They ultimately defended the truth by appealing to the Scriptures. Continue reading

A Simple Way To Pray

Whatever our level of maturity as a Christian, most of us would admit that we could use some help in the matter of prayer. Endless repetition and distracted thoughts are constant enemies to an effective prayer life. Here is the biblical solution.

Q & A – Answering Jihad

Q&A with Nabeel Qureshi, author of Answering Jihad:

Original source here.

NABEEL QURESHI is the New York Times bestselling author of Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus. His latest book, Answering Jihad, released earlier this month and provides a personal, challenging, and respectful answer to the many questions surrounding jihad, the rise of ISIS, and Islamic terrorism. Last week, his USA Today op-ed was one of the most read and shared articles following the attack on Brussels.

Q: Tell me about your reasons for writing Answering Jihad.

NABEEL: My primary purpose in writing Answering Jihad was to respond to the present climate of confusion in the West. Terrorist attacks occur continuously, and yet our Muslim neighbors whom we know to be kind insist that Islam is a religion of peace. How can we understand this apparent contradiction? Is Islam truly a religion of peace, and if not, why do our Muslim neighbors keep telling us it is? The book is not intended to be a detailed treatise on jihad, but a necessary first step in responding to the present crisis of Islamic violence that I do not think will stop. It is my prayer, as the U.S. and other nations seek a way out of the current confusion and begins to answer jihad, that this book points a better way forward.

Q: You tell the story of your conversion from Islam in your memoir Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus. Now that you are a Christian, how did you approach writing this book?

NABEEL: Writing the book, I wanted to make sure that I accurately depicted the feelings and beliefs of Western Muslims so that I could write a book that would be informative to them as well as to Westerners at large. In order to do that, I had to revisit how I felt as a Muslim investigating jihad for the first time; I truly was shocked when I discovered for the first time that the foundations of Islam were indeed quite violent, contrary to what I had been taught about “the religion of peace.”

What was particularly difficult was trying to walk the line of sharing this truth about Islam while conveying my heartfelt belief that people should be compassionate towards Muslims. If we overemphasize one aspect, it could appear that we are neglecting the other. In today’s polarized political and social climates, people are staking their positions on either tolerance or truth, but rarely both. I cannot afford to compromise either; my country is under attack by jihad, yet my family remains Muslim. Continue reading

Evolutionary Propaganda – Easily Refuted

A Vox Media video, recently posted to YouTube, “Proof of Evolution That You Can Find on Your Body,” has had over 15 million views. As supposed proof of evolution, this video cites five examples of human body structures and functions that have supposedly been lost from an earlier ancestor. Such examples are called vestigial organs, and are believed to be useless leftovers from our evolutionary past.

After watching this professionally produced Vox video, with its authoritative narration and high-quality photos, graphics, and music, most people might be convinced that the five examples from our body prove they are basically now useless leftovers from humankind’s evolutionary history. But the arguments are nothing but evolutionary propaganda and, when analyzed by an experienced anatomist, can be easily refuted.

AiG scientist Dr. David Menton, who holds a PhD in cell biology from Brown University, is a member of the American Association of Anatomists, and is a former professor at Washington University School of Medicine, refutes each of these five supposed evolutionary leftovers in a short AiG video. I urge you to watch his rebuttal (at this link).

Jesus’ Threefold Office

Priest, and King

Joel Beeke (original source here)

Reformed theology affirms that Scripture and its teaching on grace and faith emphasize that salvation is solus Christus, “by Christ alone”—that is, Christ is the only Savior (Acts 4:12). B.B. Warfield wrote, “The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Savior on whom it rests.”

The centrality of Christ is the foundation of the Protestant faith. Martin Luther said that Jesus Christ is the “center and circumference of the Bible”—meaning that who He is and what He did in His death and resurrection is the fundamental content of Scripture. Ulrich Zwingli said, “Christ is the Head of all believers who are His body and without Him the body is dead.”

Without Christ, we can do nothing; in Him, we can do all things (John 15:5; Phil. 4:13). Christ alone can bring salvation. Paul makes plain in Romans 1–2 that though there is a self-manifestation of God outside of His saving work in Christ, no amount of natural theology can unite God and man. Union with Christ is the only way of salvation.

We urgently need to hear solus Christus in our day of pluralistic theology. Many people today question the belief that salvation is only by faith in Christ. As Carl Braaten says, they “are returning to a form of the old bankrupt nineteenth-century Christological approach of Protestant liberalism and calling it ‘new,’ when it is actually scarcely more than a shallow Jesusology.” The end result is that today, many people—as H. R. Niebuhr famously said of liberalism—proclaim and worship “a God without wrath who brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

Our Reformed forebears, drawing on a perspective traceable all the way back to the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea, found it helpful to think about Christ as a Prophet, Priest, and King. The 1689 London Baptist Confession, for instance, puts it this way: “Christ, and Christ alone, is fitted to be mediator between God and man. He is the prophet, priest and king of the church of God” (8.9). Let us look more closely at these three offices.

Christ the Prophet

Christ is the Prophet whom we need to instruct us in the things of God so as to heal our blindness and ignorance. The Heidelberg Catechism calls Him “our chief Prophet and Teacher, who has fully revealed to us the secret counsel and will of God concerning our redemption” (A. 31). “The Lord thy God,” Moses declared in Deuteronomy 18:15, “will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken” (KJV). He is God’s Son, and God demands that we listen to Him (Matt. 17:5). Continue reading