Christ Is Not and Never was Under Grace

Christ was under law , Christ is no longer under law

Adam’s guilt is imputed to the elect until Christ’s death is imputed to the elect.

The elect in Christ are under condemnation until God justifies them.

The elect in Christ are under law until the elect are under grace

Christ was under law , Christ is no longer under law but Christ is still not under grace because Christ’s death satisfied the law. Christ’s people are under grace.

Romans 6: 9 we know that Christ, having been raised from the dead, will not die again. Death no longer rules over Christ. 10 For in light of the fact that Christ died, Christ died to sin once for all time

Christ was never under grace and is still not under grace. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ’s condemnation by the law and His death as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law. Christ’s elect, after their legal identification with Christ’s death, are no longer under law.

The death of the justified elect is the SAME legal death that Christ died. The “definitive resurrection” of the elect in Romans 6 is the result of being set apart with Christ (and His death) from being under law.

Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect’s sin was legally transferred by God to Christ. Christ’s death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the elect are united with His death, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. Romans 6:7: “For one who has died has been justified from sin.”

Yet many commentators tell us that “set free from sin” must mean the elect’s definitive transformation by the Holy Spirit so that the justified cannot habitually sin (or that their new nature cannot sin) They tell us that justification was in Romans chapter five and that chapter six must be about something more if it’s to be a real answer to the question “why not sin?”. But Romans 6 does not talk about Christ or His people not habitually sinning. Romans 6 locates the cause of “sin not reigning” in “not being under the law”

Christ was never under the power of habitual sin , and the definitive death of the justified elect is His death.

Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because the Holy Spirit has changed you so that you cannot habitually sin, but only occasionally and always with repentance. Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace.”

Christ also died to purchase every blessing, including the giving of the Holy Spirit and our believing the gospel. It is not our believing which frees the elect from the guilt of sin. What’s definitive is being legally joined to Christ’s death. (Also, Romans 6 says “baptized into” not “baptized by the Spirit into….)

We need to define “union”. Does it mean “Christ in us” or does it mean “us in Christ”? Does it mean “in Christ by election” or does it mean “in Christ’s death” (in Christ’s righteousness)? Being in Christ’s love (election) is not the same as being in Christ legally (justification). Paul’s sins were imputed to Christ at the same time as all the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ and Paul was elect at the same time but Paul was not justified in Christ until some time after other elect sinners were justified in Christ. (Romans 16).

https://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/good-stuff-from-john-gill-on-eternal-union-by-election/

The “old man”is not a part of something–old man refers to guilt—we are guilty in Adam or not, if we are righteousness in Christ then we are not guilty in Adam

https://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/the-old-man-which-died-is-not-the-old-indwelling-nature

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: imputation, union with Christ

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

4 Comments on “Christ Is Not and Never was Under Grace”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    Machen explains why Jesus was not a Christian—-“In the first place, it will be said, are we not failing to do justice to the true humanity of Jesus, which is affirmed by the creeds of the Church as well as by the modern theologians? When we say that Jesus could not illustrate Christian faith any more than God can be religious, are we not denying to Jesus that religious experience which is a necessary element in true humanity? Must not Jesus, if He be true man, have been more than the object of religious faith; must He not have had a religion of His own? The answer is not far to seek. Certainly Jesus had a religion of His own; His prayer was real prayer, His faith was real religious faith. His relation to His heavenly Father was not merely that of a child to a father; it was that of a man to his God. Certainly Jesus had a religion; without it His humanity would indeed have been but incomplete. Without doubt Jesus had a religion; the fact is of the utmost importance.

    Macehn—But it is equally important to observe that that religion which Jesus had was not Christianity. Christianity is a way of getting rid of sin, and Jesus was without sin. His religion was a religion of Paradise, not a religion of sinful humanity. It was a religion to which we may perhaps in some sort attain in heaven, when the process of our purification is complete (though even then the memory of redemption will never leave us); but certainly it is not a religion with which we can begin. The religion of Jesus was a religion of untroubled sonship; Christianity is a religion of the attainment of sonship by the redeeming work of Christ.

    —J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, New Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 78

    the OPC Report Philippians 2 (lines 796 ff)
    “Federal Vision proponents have argued that Philippians 2 rules out the notion of merit in regard to Christ’s obedience, because in 2:9 Paul uses the word echarisato, which etymologically derives from the word for “grace,” charis, to describe God’s giving the name above every name to Christ. This indicates, they claim, that the Father exalted the Son not meritoriously but graciously.This argument as it stands fails, however. One reason it fails is its fallacious reasoning that etymological derivation determines the meaning of a word apart from context. The context of Phil 2:5- 11 shows that MERIT CANNOT BE ELIMINATED from Paul’s teaching here. The context is one of “work rendered and value received.”The Father exalted the Son because the Son perfectly fulfilled his course of obedience. The Son obeyed, therefore the Father exalted him.”

    Mark Jones—“Divine grace is not merely God’s goodness to the elect in the era of redemptive history. … Divine grace is a perfection of God’s nature, and thus a characteristic of how he relates to finite creatures, even apart from sin. In the garden, the grace of God was upon Adam; in the “wilderness,” the grace of God is upon his Son, the second Adam. God’s graciousness may be summarized simply as what he is in and of himself.”

    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/04/can-humans-merit-before-god-2.php

    Richard Gaffin, by Faith not by Sight, p 103–”The law-gospel antithesis enters NOT BY VIRTUE OF CREATION

    ….. but as the consequence of sin…The gospel is to the purpose of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer…With the gospel and in Christ, united to him, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend.”

    Paul Helm—“We may note that one thing that the Amyraldian proposal does is to weaken connection between the plight of the race in the fall of Adam. For now the responsibility of each of the non-elect comes simply from hearing and not receiving the message of grace.”

    http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2015/04/amyraut-one-more-time.html

  2. markmcculley Says:

    the claim is
    1. we don’t make timing an issue before we even start talking, we will say—even if you make timing an issue, we agree that you are brothers
    2. but if you don’t agree that we are brothers , then at that point we might have to question if you are brothers
    3. but remember, you say, you (not us) are the ones who made the issue. all we did was teach that the elect were justified at the same time (a timeless eternity) that they were elected
    4. we never said to anybody that Christ Himself was never under the wrath of God, we only said that the elect were never under the wrath of God
    well, let me ask you, was Christ the elect one, ever under the wrath of God? Was Christ himself in history ever under the condemnation of the law?
    maybe you just want to talk about the “application” of the atonement, but it’s impossible to say that the atonement was applied to all the elect before history, without also talking about Christ having completed the atonement. Did Christ complete the atonement before history? if Christ had already died for all the elect in some timeless eternity, then when was Christ ever under the wrath of God? If Christ had already died for all the elect before history, then why was His incarnation and death in redemptive history necessary?

  3. markmcculley Says:

    grace to the elect was not grace to Jesus Christ
    Christ did what He was obligated to do to save His elect
    Christ by His death satisfied law and purchased blessings

    to save those the Father gave Him, the Son had a duty to die for them
    quid pro quo

    Isaiah 53: 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors

    Hebrews 1: 9 –“You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
 THEREFORE God, your God, has anointed you
 with the oil of gladness beyond your companions” (Psalm 45:7).

    Romans 4: 4 Now to him that works the reward is not counted grace, but what is due

    John 10: 17 This is why the Father loves Me, because I am laying down My life in order to take it up again.

    John 15: 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. 9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

    John 17: 4 I have glorified You on the earth
    by completing the work You gave Me to do.
    Now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence

    yes, the Father loves the Son

    but also the Father will give the Son what the Son is due

    the Father loves the Son because the Son gives the Father what the Father is due

    2 Peter 1: 17 For when the Lord Jesus Christ received honor and glory from God the Father, a voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory:
    This is My beloved Son.
    I take delight in Him!

    Isaiah 42 “This is My Servant; I strengthen Him,
    this is My Chosen One; I delight in Him.
    I have put My Spirit on Him;
    He will bring justice to the nations.
    2 He will not cry out or shout
    or make His voice heard in the streets.
    3 He will not break a bruised reed,
    and He will not put out a smoldering wick;
    He will faithfully bring justice.
    4 He will not grow weak or be discouraged
    until He has established justice on earth.

    John Gill— Christ was the object of his Father’s love from before the ages, and was loved by the Father on various accounts; first and chiefly, as his own Son, of the same nature with him, equal to him; and also as Mediator, engaging for, and on the behalf of his chosen people; and likewise as he was clothed with their nature, and even in his state of humiliation; and not only as obedient to his will, and doing what was pleasing in his sight, but likewise as suffering in their room and stead, and he loved him on this account. The bruising of the Son was a pleasure to the Father, not for the sake of that itself, but because hereby God’s counsels and decrees were accomplished and the salvation of his people obtained. The Son laying down his life on this account, was well pleasing to his Father.

    https://9marks.org/article/the-good-news-of-the-fathers-conditional-love-for-the-son/

    God loves elect sinners contra-conditionally— loves them contrary to what the sinners deserve . God the Father does not love God the Son that way

    Justification includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of the lasting life of the age to come based on God the Father being just to God the Son.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: