Archive for September 2010

Elect But Still Born Guilty in Adam?

September 10, 2010

How can the elect in Christ be both imputed with guilt and righteousness at the exact same time?

1. We can’t be imputed with both at the same time.

2. But we know that we are born imputed with Adam’s guilt.

3. Therefore we are not born with Christ’s righteousness.

4. So this means that the elect are always elect, born
elect, but still born in Adam, not righteous in Christ but guilty in
Adam.

Romans 16:7–“greet Andronicus and Junia…They are well known to the apostles and they were in Christ before me.”

Romans 6:3–“all who have been baptised into Christ have been baptised into His death.”

Romans 6:7–“the one who has died has been justified from sin.”

Romans 6:17, 18–“You who were once slaves to sin have become obedient from the heart to the doctrine to which you were delivered, and having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness…”

Not What Christ Was But Who Christ Is: Andrew Fuller’s Slippery Comment on Romans 3:25

September 3, 2010

Romans 3:25–“Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith…”

Andrew Fuller (Reply to Philanthropos, Complete Works,II, p499) comments: “There would be no propriety in saying of Christ that He is set forth to be an expiatory sacrifice THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, because He was a sacrifice for sin prior to the consideration of our believing in Him. The text does not express what Christ WAS as laying down His life , but what He IS in consequence of it.”

Though Andrew Fuller, like John Piper today, affirms a particular atonement in a certain sense– in that the atonement will only procure faith for the elect–he is not willing to say that Christ was only the propitiation for the elect alone. Instead of telling the plain truth, that Christ either already died for a sinner or already did not, Andrew Fuller wanted to say that Christ died for all sinners in some sense.

And this universal sense advocated by Andrew Fuller has to do with propitiation. He denies that Christ in the past propitiated the Tri-une God for the sins of any specific person. Rather, Andrew Fuller teaches that Christ died to make an offer of propitiation to every sinner.

According to Andrew Fuller, this is the nature and design and intent of what Christ did, that there could be propitiation now if the Holy Spirit were to cause a sinner to accept the offer of propitiation. According to Fuller, this design for Christ’s death is revealed not only by the Spirit but also intended by the Father. Now, Fuller asserts, there is universal conditional sufficiency in Christ’s death for all sinners.

This is sneaky and subtle, but Andrew Fuller was a sneaky and subtle man, much like John Wesley, using words like “imputation” in ways meant to confuse those who had a different meaning for the words. What does Andrew Fuller accomplish by shifting from what Christ DID back then over there to who Christ Is and what He can do here and now if the Spirit helps a sinner to take up the offer?

Andrew Fuller changes the meaning of the propitiatory death of Christ. With the Arminians, he makes the propitiation to be dependent on the sinner having faith. The sneaky part is that, with the Calvinists, Andrew Fuller also makes the having faith part be dependent on what God (now?) procures by means of Christ’s death.

With the Socinians, Andrew Fuller ends up putting the emphasis on grace as opposed to justice. God is sovereign now to procure faith for sinners with Christ’s death. The idea that God has already been justly propitiated for a sinner (or not) is no longer in the picture. Andrew Fuller is opposing the gospel of God being justified in justifying the ungodly. He is opposing justice in the name of grace.

I want to make only two comments. First, even though Fullerites want to say that the only way to be consistent in teaching a definite propitiation (what Christ WAS as laying down his life) is to teach an eternal justification, where the elect only subjectively find out that they were always justified, I do not (and Abraham Booth did not) teach that any unbeliever is justified.

The justified elect are people who believe the gospel. Belief in the gospel is an immediate consequence (not a condition) of Christ’s righteousness being imputed by God. “Through faith” in Romans 3:25 does not mean “conditioned on faith. Faith for the elect is what justice demands after righteousness is imputed to them. I do not say it “their right” but it is Christ’s right because of what Christ WAS AND DID.

So I can and do say to any unbeliever, unless you believe the gospel, you are not yet justified. But I also say to those unbelievers: your believing is not something you can or will do unless Christ died for you, and you will never know if Christ did until you believe the gospel.

Second comment. Look again at what Andrew Fuller is saying with his sophistry about what Christ is as opposed to what Christ was. I heard it just the other day from an Arminian PCA pastor–“if you accept Jesus as your Savour, then Jesus will die for you.” That is what Andrew Fuller was saying also, but he was smarter and sneakier than that PCA pastor. It sounds stupid to imply that Jesus will come back to earth and die all over again, if you consent to it.

But what’s the difference in that stupidity and what Fuller wrote? Fuller is teaching that God is governmentally sovereign and therefore God can do whatever God wants to do now with what Christ did then.
If so, why did Christ die? To make it possible? So that propitiation “might” happen? To ask such questions leads to another question. If God is so sovereignly superior to justice in God’s government, why did Christ need to die at all? If the meaning was only to be assigned later, is that meaning a matter of justice or only arbitrary?

For the cure for the foolish doubletalk of Andrew Fuller, I reccomend the appendix to Divine Justice Essential to the Divine Character by Abraham Booth.