Posted on 11/17/2010 4:46:52 AM PST by The Ignorant Fisherman
A common teaching of Reformed men is that the Lord's death on the cross was not the only place where sin's penalty was paid. They connect the payment of this penalty with our Lord's sufferings apart from and prior to Calvary's cross. They often point to the Lord's sufferings in the Garden of Gethsemane as being a time when the Lord Jesus was suffering as the Divine Substitute for man's sins.
In light of the Reformed doctrine of "vicarious law-keeping," such a view is not surprising. If Christ's righteous acts were substitutionary, and if His law-keeping righteousness was imputed to the believer's account, then it would follow that our Lord's non-cross sufferings should also be substitutionary and expiatory. Reformed men teach that His sufferings throughout life were expiatory, but the Bible teaches no such thing. See Vicarious Law-Keeping (Christ's Active Righteousness).
Here are some quotes by Reformed men who share this view:
(Excerpt) Read more at middletownbiblechurch.org ...
Well, a notable resister to this sweep, Ergun Caner at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, had to resign in disgrace from his leadership of their seminary.
Standing up against the truth is not a wise thing to do — lies in your own life just might surface!
By reformed do you mean Calvinism?
Well, in a sense, he did pay a price for our sins in Gethsemane, and on the road to the cross. It wasn’t propitiatory; but, it shouldn’t be demeaned or twisted to be other than what it was. Christ suffered for our sins before the incarnation even! Our sins grieve a Holy God. Payment for our sins was made on the cross when Christ became sin for us. But this does not mean that the cross was the only place that He suffered for our sins.
Reformed theology is correct theology, and Spurgeon, whom is quoted in the article, was reformed.
Lets make a correction here to say it is Reformed Theology Teaching these aberrations
John RW Stott is not recognized as a Reformed Theological Teacher - He is a Church of England (anglican) that has nothing to do with Reformed teachings he has signed unto a wacked theological viewpoint that is coming through the likes of Rick warrens UN Peace plan - This has nothing to do with christianity but more to do with being a UN NGO - United Nations Non government organization.
Just keep in mind John R W Stott has changed many of his theological views over the years and he is no longer recognized as a reformed Theologian.
CH Spurgeon can be misquoted many times to say something other than what he intended.
I will give you an example of when I was a seminary student I was quoting an article from a Pentecostal pastor and theologian in which he was quoting Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield as believing healing (physical) was in the atonement, when resorting back to the original work of BB warfield, the pentecostal pastor and theologian whom was educated through Harvard Divinity school took the quotation entirely out of context. BB Warfield did not advocate that healings (physical) were in the atonement.
So when reading the information being presented by theologians keep in mind that they striving to pass along their viewpoints. look at what is being said and compare it to what scripture says. Martin Luther whom nailed the 95 Theses to Church Door in Wittenberg, wanted a theological debate in regards to abuses and inconsistencies in the church. Little did he know at that time of posting his 95 Theses to the Church door that a storm would pass through germany and evetually all of Europe
The Apostle Paul admonishes believers to be like the Bereans to study scripture to wary of false teachers and false prophets whom desire to teach and preach what itchy ears desire to hear. keep in mind test everything that is being presented by the preachers and teachers and if it sounds to good to be true it is to good to be real. There are many whom are charlatans whom desire to make a buck off the spiritually weak.
Really? We "often" point to it? And it's a common teaching among Reformed men? What about among Reformed women? Hey gang, have you ever heard this taught anywhere outside of Mormon theology?
Ignorant Fisherman, perhaps you could point us to where we've posted FR threads on the subject, since it's so common among us?
I briefly reviewed the other chapters in the book you reference and can safely say the author’s approach relies heavily on nothing but flammable straw. I am reformed and have been for many decades, and I recognize little of what offends him as genuinely reformed. If you want to know what being reformed really means, check the reformed creeds, not the anti-Calvinist screeds.
As to the specific question of suffering versus payment, not a single recognized reformed authority I know would argue that our sins were paid for in full upon the cross. Yet any honest reader of the Scripture must address the suffering of Christ that preceded his actual death. I think it is perhaps dangerous for us to parse this too closely. When Jesus is scourged by the Roman guard, would you argue that that was not suffering? I would call it suffering if it were me. But I did not have to go through it. Jesus did, and with full knowledge of me as the beneficiary of his love.
And if he was suffering, then why? He, being the God-man, had no occasion to suffer unless it was to a purpose, and we all know and agree that purpose was to bring about the salvation of his lost sheep by moving ever closer to and then dying upon that cross for our sin. It was our sin that set his feet on the path toward the cross, yet our author seeks to sow division among those who genuinely worship Christ by arguing it is wrong to see any suffering in Christ on our behalf except at the precise moment of his death. But this is a false division. I am certain we all agree there would be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood, and that if Christ had halted his march toward the alter in Gethsemane, there would be no atonement.
But that does not limit the work of acting, suffering, and living on our behalf to the single moment of his physical expiration. We were in Adam, with all that that entails; but now we are in Christ, with all that that entails. In baptism, we identify not simply with his death, but also with his resurrection, the fullness of his life. We need set no boundaries not set for us by Scripture. If you or anyone else can find a passage which indisputably teaches that Christ’s earthy trials, difficulties, persecutions, and sufferings, had some other primary cause than our sin, I will concede the point. Otherwise, I counsel extreme caution in considering the work of any author who unnecessarily divides believers from one another.
Correction to above post:
As to the specific question of suffering versus payment, not a single recognized reformed authority I know would argue that our sins were NOT paid for in full upon the cross.
Sorry. Fallible human attack.
SR
But this does not mean that the cross was the only place that He suffered for our sins.
..................
?
Col. 1:20
Gal. 6:14
Eph. 2:13, 16
1 Pet. 2:24
John 1:14-16
“Reform Theology is sweeping the land today.”
Ha. A nice thought but it ain’t happening. If it was we would be experiencing a second Great Awakening as when preachers like Jonathon Edwards and George Whitefield were around.
Would not the Cause of Christ be better served celebrating unity in the essentials of our faith?
And working together for the fulfillment of the Great Commission??
Just wonderin'...
Reread my post. I said that his suffering aside from the cross was not the propitiation for our sins. But, He suffered nevertheless.
“middletownbiblechurch.org”
Enough said.
I think they’ve completely misunderstood, intentionally or not, what Reformed Theology ACTUALLY is.
Hoss
Was just reading about that last night, as a matter of fact.
Q. 60.How are thou righteous before God?A. Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.
Best to get your reformed theology from the source.
IO believe so. I know the basics of their position. Many are dear brothers in Christ...but have some dross that will be burned.
That there...is where we will disagree Leviticus 17:11-14, Hebrews 9:22 states how an atonement is made. By the shedding of blood. The beating a lamb never could merit any redemptive qualities. It may sound like splitting hairs but God’s word is quite clear on it.
I should have stated that clearer...in fundemental circles and schools... that is what I meant.
I.F.
I'm not sure what this is talking about. I don't know of many Reformers who emphasizes Christ suffering apart from the cross. But it would go against scripture to suggest that our Lord didn't suffer even in His earthly ministry:
"...the Lord Christ fulfilled the whole law for us; He did not only undergo the penalty of it due unto our sins, but also yielded that perfect obedience which it did require... Christ's fulfilling of the law, in obedience unto its commands, is no less imputed unto us for our justification than His undergoing the penalty of it is." - John Owen
And here's a great link which corrects this author's misunderstanding both of Scripture and reformed theology...
For this reason, Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience would be counted for us. Sometimes this is called Christ’s “active obedience,” while his suffering and dying for our sins is called his “passive obedience.” Paul says his goal is that he may be found in Christ, “not having a righteousness of [his] own based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9). It is not just moral neutrality that Paul knows he needs from Christ (that is, a clean slate with sins forgiven), but a positive moral righteousness. And he knows that that cannot come from himself, but must come through faith in Christ. Similarly, Paul says that Christ has been made “our righteousness” (1 Cor. 1:30). And he quite explicitly says, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Some theologians have not taught that Christ needed to achieve a lifelong record of perfect obedience for us. They have simply emphasized that Christ had to die and thereby pay the penalty for our sins. But such a position does not adequately explain why Christ did more than just die for us; he also became our “righteousness” before God. Jesus said to John the Baptist, before he was baptized by him, “It is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15)... If Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven. Our guilt would have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of Adam and Eve before they had done anything good or bad and before they had passed a time of probation successfully. To be established in righteousness forever and to have their fellowship with God made sure forever, Adam and Eve had to obey God perfectly over a period of time. Then God would have looked on their faithful obedience with pleasure and delight, and they would have lived with him in fellowship forever.
Once again, it's all about an accurate understanding of justification - men are saved by Christ's righteousness, obedience and faith, all mercifully and freely imputed to them.
Yup.
Modern evangelicals seem to focus purely on Christ's work on the cross, where they see our sin poured on on Him.
But they forget that His righteousness also needed to be given to us, that is His perfect obedience to the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.