The Upper Register Blog

Archive for the 'Grace' Category

Too much grace?

Saturday, October 6th, 2007

When the sermons of Tobias Crisp (d. 1643) were reprinted in 1690, they were attacked by legalists like Richard Baxter as antinomian. This sparked the Crispian or Neonomian Controversy in England. The legalists not only attacked Crisp and his defenders but also implied that imputation leads to license. In response, the classic doctrine of justification by faith was defended by a Presbyterian minister named Robert Traill in A Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine concerning Justification from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism (1692). I love this particular quote:

But do not some abuse the grace of the gospel and turn it into wantonness? Answer: Yes, some do, ever did, and still will do so. But it is only the ill-understood and not believed doctrine of grace that they abuse. The grace itself, no man can abuse, for its power prevents its abuse. Let us see how Paul, that blessed herald of this grace (as he was an eminent instance of it) deals with this objection (Rom. 6:1, etc.). How does he prevent this abuse? Is it by extenuating what he said (Rom. 5:20), that grace abounded much more where sin had abounded? Is it by mincing grace smaller so that men may not choke upon it or have too much of it? Is it by mixing something of the law with it, to make it more wholesome? No, but only by plainly asserting the power and influence of this grace, wherever it really is, as he does at length in that chapter. This grace is all treasured up in Christ Jesus, offered to all men in the gospel, poured forth by our Lord in the working of faith, and drunk in by the elect in the exercise of faith. And it becomes in them a living spring, which will, and must, break out and spring up in all holy conversation.

Robert Traill, Justification Vindicated (Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth, 2002), p. 41.

Posted in Grace, Gospel, Antinomianism | Comments Off

More on Col 1:12

Thursday, September 6th, 2007

Some might object to my interpretation of Col 1:12 that it is too one-sidedly legal. Rather than seeing the verb “to qualify” in forensic terms, i.e., as equivalent to justification, they might argue that the verb refers to, or at least includes, the work of progressive sanctification whereby God makes us more holy and thus renders us ontologically “fit” for heaven. Advocates of this alternative interpretation might appeal to the latter part of the verse, which says that the Father has ”qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints (lit., the holy ones) in the light.” The reference to “the holy ones” here could be taken as implying that we are rendered fit to have a share in the inheritance by actually being made holy in our persons.

Some responses:

(1) I don’t think the verb “to make sufficient, to qualify” fits the role of progressive sanctification in making us fit for heaven. Sanctification does not make us “sufficient” to enter heaven, since it is imperfect in this life. Personal holiness may be necessary for heaven (”the holiness without which no one will see the Lord,” Heb 12:14), but by its very nature it can’t render us qualified to enter heaven. I think Paul would say that if we want to be qualified to enter heaven on the basis of our personal obedience, that obedience must be perfect (Rom 2:13).

(2) It is telling, I think, that Paul uses the aorist participle here: “the Father who qualified us” (ὁ ἱκανώσας). Had he been thinking of the life-long process of sanctification that is never complete in this life, he probably would have used a present participle, “the Father who is making us fit.”

(3) The preceding context (vv 9-11) deals with sanctification. Since the day Paul heard about the conversion of the Colossians, he has not ceased praying for them that God would “fill [them] with the knowledge of his will … so that [they] would walk in a manner worthy of the Lord unto all well-pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work.” Then in vv 12-14 the focus of Paul’s concern shifts from sanctification to its gospel motivation: “joyfully giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you to share in the inheritance,” etc. We can only begin to please the Lord and bear good fruit if we are first assured of our judicial standing. The linkage between the two is ”joyfully giving thanks” for the finality of what the Father has done for us. He has qualified us for heaven by rescuing us from the domain of darkness, transferring us into the kingdom of his dear Son, accomplishing our redemption, and granting us the complete remission of all our sins in Christ. Thus, the assurance of the objective atonement and its legal consequence (being qualified to inherit) causes us to joyfully give thanks to the Father, and that, in turn, motivates us to want to please the Lord and grow in sanctification.

For these reasons, I don’t think the verb “qualified” includes progressive sanctification. At most it may include definitive sanctification, but that is merely another aspect of the forensic benefits of the cross.

Why, then, does Paul mention “the saints” in v 12? I think he is using traditional Jewish terminology here. The whole phrase sounds like something straight out of Qumran: “a share in the lot of the saints in the light.” By using this traditional language, Paul is acknowledging the principle that only the righteous, the holy ones, have a right to inherit the glory of the age to come. Therefore, it is all the more amazing, and all the more productive of “joyful thanks to the Father,” that he has caused us sinners, lost in our sins under the dominion of darkness, to be qualified - by grace alone, by Christ alone - to share in the inheritance in the light!

Posted in Grace, Justification, Gospel, Col 1:12 | 2 Comments »

Justification in other words (Col 1:12)

Wednesday, September 5th, 2007

Some argue that the doctrine of justification cannot be the heart of Paul’s gospel since justification is reserved almost entirely to two of his letters, Romans and Galatians. But this simply isn’t true. Although it is explained at greater length in those two epistles, Paul’s “justification/righteousness” theology also shows up in 1 Cor 1:30; 6:11; 2 Cor 3:9; 5:21; Phil 3:9; and Tit 3:7. These are brief statements to be sure, but their very brevity suggests that they are concise summaries of Paul’s well-known teaching.

In addition, as James Barr pointed out, the concept can be present even if the terms are absent. For example, Col 1:12 says: “joyfully giving thanks to the Father who has qualified (τῷ ἱκανώσαντι) us to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light.” In Paul’s thought, only the righteous are qualified to obtain a share in the eschatological inheritance in glory (Rom 2:7-10, 13). To say that the Father has qualified us is to imply that he treats us as righteous and therefore as fit to obtain a share in the eschatological inheritance.

Here are some of the lexicons on ἱκανόω:

LSJ: “make sufficient, qualify”
Thayer: “make sufficient, render fit”
BDAG: “to cause to be adequate, make sufficient, qualify”

It is used elsewhere in the NT only in 2 Cor 3:5-6 where Paul says that he is not sufficient/qualified in himself, but that God has made him sufficient/qualified to serve as a minister of the new covenant.

So also in Col 1:12 Paul teaches that though we are not fit in ourselves, by God’s act in Christ we have been made legally fit. The immediate context makes clear that the Father’s act of making us fit/qualified for heaven is characterized by the following:

(a) It is based on divine grace, as evidenced by the fact that Paul exhorts us to “joyfully give thanks to the Father” for so qualifying us (cf. also the explicit reference to “the grace of God” in v. 6).

(b) Being qualified for heaven is a consequence of a sovereign, divine rescue-operation (”He rescued us from the domain of darkness …” v. 13a). Lost in the guilt and bondage of sin, we could not rescue ourselves. The Father had to do it by sending his own Son as an apocalyptic inbreaking of divine power (cf. “who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age,” Gal 1:4).

(c) We are qualified to inherit, not because of any worthiness in us, but because we have been transferred into the sphere of the very love that the Father has for his own dear Son (”… and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,” lit., “the Son of his love” [ὁ υἱός τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ], v. 13b).

(d) Our qualification to inherit is grounded in the work of Christ who redeemed us by his death and resurrection (”in whom we have redemption [ἀπολύτρωσις],” v. 14 - cf. Rom 3:24 where “redemption” is tied to justification). The accent is not on God’s work in us (sanctification) but on God’s work for us (the cross and resurrection, i.e., the atonement).

(e) We aren’t qualified to inherit because God has changed us into good people, but because of a legal transaction, namely, having the guilt of our sins wiped away (”in whom we have … the remission of our sins,” v. 14). N.B.: “forgiveness” is too weak a translation of ἄφεσις. In the LXX this term is used to refer to the complete “release/cancellation” of debts so that poor Israelite families would not lose their apportioned lot in the inheritance through debt-bondage.

Thus, Col 1:12 seems to contain all of the elements of Paul’s doctrine of justification without using the word ”justification.” And since this is the content of ”the word of the truth of the gospel” (v. 5) that Epaphras preached, we may conclude that the Father’s act of making us fit for heaven through the atoning death of Christ lies at the heart of the gospel.

I agree that Paul’s doctrine of justification is not the center of his theology. The center of Paul’s theology is the gospel of God’s Son (Rom 1:1-2), centered on the cross and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-4). But in order to explicate what Christ has done for us in his death and resurrection, the doctrine of justification plays an absolutely essential role. The primitive Palestinian church confessed that “Christ died for our sins.” Paul the theologian came along and fleshed out what that means: He died and rose again so that the guilt of our sins might be removed and that we might be made legally fit to have a share in the inheritance.

Or to use Paul’s longer version of the primitive death-formula: “He was handed over to death [by God] for our transgressions and was raised to life [by God] for our justification” (Rom 4:25).

Posted in Grace, Justification, Gospel, Col 1:12 | 2121 Comments »

Infinite Grace!

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007

It has been in the news lately that Comrade Duch’s trial is about to begin. This is an incredible story.

This man was responsible for the brutal deaths of 12,000 Cambodians during the reign of the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s. In 1995, he was transformed by the gospel and gave his life to Jesus Christ. Imagine the feelings of the Cambodian Christians who now embrace him as a brother. Perhaps this might give us some idea of what Gal 1:23-24 means. I’m reminded of the hymn:

Marvelous grace of our loving Lord,
Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt!
Yonder on Calvary’s mount outpoured,
There where the blood of the Lamb was spilled.

Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
Grace, grace, infinite grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.

I don’t know if “infinite grace” in the refrain is original. All the online versions that I could find repeat the first line, “Grace, grace, God’s grace.” But in the version I sang growing up, we said “infinite grace” the second time. It’s certainly in keeping with the last stanza: “Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace, freely bestowed on all who believe.”

No man is too wicked to be saved. No sin is too much for Christ’s blood.

Image courtesy http://www.yale.edu/cgp/duch_v3.html

Posted in Grace, Khmer Rouge, Cambodia | 2 Comments »

The Upper Register Blog

Archive for the 'Grace' Category

Too much grace?

More on Col 1:12

Justification in other words (Col 1:12)

Infinite Grace!

Pages

Archives

Categories