Penal Substitution

Why don't we allow penal substitution in society? Why is it, for example, that we don't allow a husband to serve a wife's gaol sentence? Indeed, why don't we allow someone to pay another's fine? If I just write a cheque to the magistrate's court and say 'that's to cover the next few people that you fine' they won't accept it. Of course, I can actually give the money to the guilty person and let him or her pay the fine, but this isn't analogous to the Protestant doctrine of penal substitution; in fact, it is analogous to the Roman-Catholic idea that Christ makes satisfaction for us and we offer that sacrifice to God in the mass.

Why didn't God give us a systematic theology?

Here's a question inspired by some comments of Timothy Davis: why, if studying theology systematically is important and something we should do, didn't God give us a systematic theology? (No cheeky replies of 'He has!', please!)

Guilt and Grace

Should we feel guilty when we sin? Should we still feel guilty after repenting? Should we still feel guilty in the next life for what we have done in this life? If Jesus has taken all our guilt on the cross then it would seem as if we should never feel guilty. On the other hand if Jesus has taken only our 'actual guilt' but not our 'potential guilt' then why shouldn't we feel guilty even in the next life (or will even our potential guilt be removed there?)?

Repentance and Faith

We say that repentance and faith are necessary for salvation (though some say that they are consequences of salvation and not conditions of it). But is their necessity absolute or due to God's free decision? In other words, could God have established other conditions for the application of redemption, or did God have to choose these because they were antecedently necessary?

Anybody know?

Why does the Father love the elect?

Heppe (p. 411) is normally very reliable, but this time he has me baffled. He says, citing Olevianus (De Substantia Foederis, p. 26):

The covenant of grace rested sheerly on the twofold vow which the Son in eternity had promised to the Father and on the commission which accordingly the Father had imparted to the Son; consequently only the absolute love of the Father for the Son is the cause by which the Father also loves the elect.

Does 'also' qualify 'the Father' here (as grammar would lead one to expect) or does it qualify 'the elect'? In other words, does 'the Father also loves the elect' mean here 'the Father loves the elect in addition to the Son's love of the elect' or 'the Father loves the elect in addition to his love of the Son'?

On the first interpretation it would seem that what is meant is that the Son loved the elect and the Father had no prior love for them but, since he loved the Son, loved the Son's elect, much as I might love my wife's furnishing catalogues just because she loves them rather than off my own bat? I'd always assumed, in contradiction of the above, that the Father loved the elect gratuitously, and that the Son and Spirit either loved the elect gratuitously too, or took the lead from the Father (else they might end up loving different individuals!).

On the second interpretation, is the text saying merely that the Father loves the elect only because he foresees them as 'in Christ'? In other words, is the text saying that if we had never been united with Christ the Father couldn't have loved the elect because they would never have been holy, but he can love the elect because he foresees them as being in Christ? But the problem with this line is that surely there must be a logically antecedent love that God has for the elect in order to explain why not all are elect.

Can anyone clarify this for me, please?

The 'twofold vow', according to this learned article, is explained by Olevianus thus:

The Son of God, having been appointed by God as Mediator of the covenant, becomes the guarantor on two counts: 1) He shall satisfy for the sins of all those whom the Father has given him, 2) He shall also bring it to pass that they, being planted in him, shall enjoy freedom in their consciences and from day to day be renewed in the image of God.

Ordo Salutis

Ian has raised on this blog some interesting questions on the ordo salutis, or the order of the events that comprise the application of our salvation. I have tried to answer him in the comments section, but I thought that others might be interested in posting comments too.

The more general question is this: what is the logical order in which the various aspects of our salvation come? Specifically we are now interested in the order of the application of redemption (as opposed to Jesus's purchase of redemption, which was the subject of my post on imputation and union), and we are concerned with the logical order, since all admit that there is no temporal order here.

This good article says that the order is:
effectual calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, definitive sanctification, progressive sanctification (perseverance), and glorification.

But the main point of this post is to draw people's attention to an excellent article that contains a detailed discussion of Bavinck, Calvin, Murray, Gaffin, Berkhof, Berkouwer, and Hoekema. (You need to scroll down past the Italian!)

If you have a comment on the order of salvation please feel free to post it below.

What is legalism and why is it wrong?

One is inclined to say that legalism is putting the letter of the law above the spirit of the law:
2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (NIV)
But surely one can take seriously both the spirit and the letter of the law? And if we believe in plenary verbal inspiration surely the letter of the law is as inspired as the spirit?

Maybe a legalist is someone that takes literally a command that isn't meant to be taken literally? What would be an example? Well, Origen famously took the following command seriously, even though it doesn't seem to have been meant as such (though, having said that, the second sentence is literally true, so why shouldn't we take the first as such?).
Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (NIV)

Are we better off than Adam?

A question inspired by a comment by Timothy on the blog. Isaac Watts wrote:

the tribes of Adam boast more glories than their father lost

Was he right? Are we now better off than Adam was in Eden? If not, shall we be better off in the next life than Adam was in Eden? If so, is that why God allowed the Fall, in order that we might be better off? And is that supralapsarianism?

People may be interested to see the Web site of David Field of Oak Hill College. He has a paper defending the use of birth control. His survey of recent work in systematic theology is also interesting. People may also be interested to see his Revelation party game!

Tom's question -- is faith a work?

Tom Ward raises an interesting question in a comment on a post of mine:
Do we receive Christ's righteousness, on the Protestant scheme, by anything we do? If so, does that not count, for Protestants, as a work?

I think the answer is that we do do something to receive righteousness, viz. exercise faith. This doesn't count as a work because the will is passive at this point.

There are two other suggestions, both less common and (probably heterodox):
(i) we are justified from all eternity, and do not receive righteousness at conversion
(ii) faith doesn't count as a work because it is merely the reception of what has already been achieved for us by Christ -- but could one not still boast if the will is active here?

Women and Politics

We all know that there is currently a great debate over whether women should be allowed to become bishops (in the Church of England) or ministers (other denominations). But there is an interesting history of protest against women playing a role in public society. Harper's Magazine in 1893 said:

This unblushing female socialism defies alike the apostles and prophets. Nothing could be more antibiblical than letting women vote.

It's well known that John Knox wrote a tract with the title:
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Does anybody know whether there were complaints in England against giving women the vote and allowing women to become MPs etc? I don't recall any complaints that Mrs Thatcher's rise to be Prime Minister was unbiblical; in fact, most of the people I know that disagree with women's being pastors voted for her (if they were of age).

Were there criticisms against Queen Elizabeth I on a similar basis?

If you know please post a comment.

Traducianism vs Creationism

Here is another debate that baffles me, that between traducianism and creationism. Creationism is not here the doctrine that God created the world in 6 literal 24-hour days, but the view that God creates every human soul directly. Traducianism is the view that reproduction involves not just the creation of the bodies of infants, but also the creation of the souls.

Can anybody out there cast any light on this debate? There is an article on traducianism here. You can read Turretin's defence of creationism here.

A Christian History of the World

You may be interested to see Jonathan Edwards's History of the Work of Redemption (text in progress; read the whole thing here). It was an attempted history of the world from Adam to the end of the world, including post-biblical events such as the Reformation. Does anyone know of any other attempted Christian history of the world? (Ussher's Annals of the World stops at AD 70.)

Which comes first, union or imputation?

Some seem to suggest that God couldn’t be united with us until we had been justified, because he couldn’t unite himself with something that wasn't holy; others seem to suggest that God couldn’t impute Christ’s righteousness to us unless we were united with him first, just as the imputation of Adam’s sin depends on our union with Adam.

So, I’m puzzled! Anybody out there got an answer?

Murray on imputation

You can read John Murray's brilliant little book on the imputation of Adam's sin here. It deals very well with the questions I raised.

Imputation of what?

Protestants hold that there are three imputations described in the Bible: from Adam to us, from the elect to Christ, and from Christ to the elect. But what are these imputations of?
(1) Is it Adam's sin, the guilt for his sin, the liability to punishment for his sin, or the punishment itself that is imputed to us?
(2) Is it the elect's sins, the guilt for the elect's sins, the liability to punishment for the elect's sin, or the punishment itself that is imputed to Christ?
(3) Is it the righteous deeds of Christ, the righteousness of those deeds, the liability to God's favour for those deeds, or the favour itself that is imputed to the elect?

I'm confused; can anyone out there help me?

Thanks!

Must God Punish sin?

I have just read a little book by Ben Cooper of St Helen's, Bishopsgate, Must God Punish Sin?

The question is: could God have forgiven us by a mere word without any need to punish Jesus in our place? Or, if not, why did God have to punish sin? Just because he decided to set up the moral system that way ('consequent hypothetical necessity')? Or is the need to punish sin part of God's nature, about which even he cannot do anything ('absolute necessity')?

Socinus takes the first line:

The second line is taken by many of the orthodox, e. g. William Twisse:
'That God, by his absolute power, setting aside his decree or free constitution, can forgive sin without any satisfaction'.
And Norton, in his Orthodox Evangelist, chap. iii says,
'God, by his absolute power, could have saved man without a Mediator: he is omnipotent, and could have done what he pleased.'
Rutherford says:
`Fifthly, I love not to dispute here, but God, if we speak of his absolute power, without respect to his free decree, could have pardoned sin without a ransom, and gifted all mankind and fallen angels with heaven, without any satisfaction of either the sinner, or his surety; for he neither punisheth sin, nor tenders heaven to men or angels by necessity of nature, as the fire casteth out heat, and the sun light; but freely: only, supposing that frame of providence, and decrees of punishing, and redeeming sinners, that now is, the Lord could not but be steady in his decrees; yet this is but necessity conditional, and at the second hand. But here was the business, God, in the depth of his eternal wisdom, did so frame and draw the design and plot of saving lost man, as salvation was to run in no other channel, but such an one, the bank whereof was the freest grace and tenderest love that can enter into the heart of men or angels; for he drew the lines of our heaven through grace, all the way.'
Calvin seems to be of this camp too. He says in Institutes II.12.1:
'IT deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended.'
He also says in his commentary on John xv.13:
'God might, by a word only, or by his command, have redeemed us; but he took this way through his Son, that his love might be made more manifest.'

Cooper takes the third line, along with John Owen, A Dissertation on Divine Justice.

Does anybody out there have any view on this question?

Misreading the Bible?

We all know that sects and heresies have started through people misinterpreting the Bible, and many false ideas have sprung up through mistranslations (cf. the mistranslation of Exodus 34: 29 as Moses's possession of horns), and some false ideas have been promulgated by printing errors, such as the famous Wicked Bible. Some more printing errors are catalogued here. But my question is: has any major error, sect, or heresy arisen from a simple misreading (i.e. error of eyesight or careless reading)? If you know of one or have any more good examples of mistranslations or printing errors please feel free to post them below.

Daniel Defoe

David Haslam has kindly reminded me of the Christian content of some of Defoe's other works. Defoe in fact produced more than 500 books, pamphlets, and tracts. I think the unabridged version of Robinson Crusoe is available here. A Journal of the Plague Year is also available on the Web.

Is it ever permissible to lie? The case of Rahab

It seems to me that Scripture rules out lying. See Leviticus 19:11 and Ephesians 4:25.

The case of Rahab is often brought up (e.g. by some commentators on this blog) as a case in which God approves of lying. The case is described in Joshua 2:

1 Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there.

2 The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land." 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land."

4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut.

The first thing to note is that it isn't absolutely clear that Rahab does lie here. How do we know that she did know from where (specifically) the men had come? How do we know that the men didn't leave (leave what?) at dusk, returning to Rahab's later? How do we know that Rahab did know which way they went from wherever it was to her house? And how do we know that Rahab knew that 'you may catch up with them' was false? (Admittedly, the ESV has 'will' for 'may' here.) Anyway, I shall proceed on the plausible but unproven assumption that Rahab was lying: even if her words weren't strictly false she seems to have been out to deceive.

The next thing to note is that there is, of course, no commendation of Rahab by God in Joshua 2. But James 2: 25 comes in here. Here is my literal translation from the Greek:
25 But in the same way was not even Rahab the prostitute justified by works, having received the messengers and sent them out in a different direction?
Although this is a question, it clearly expects the answer 'yes', and so may be treated as an affirmation. But note that James 2: 25 doesn't say that Rahab the prostitute was considered righteous because she lied. The Greek says she was considered righteous by her 'works'. The inference is (though this is not explicitly said) that her works were the things mentioned: receiving the messengers and sending them out in a different direction? Who were these 'messengers'? The spies or their pursuers?

In the first case there is no hint of a problem. The word 'received', which can also mean 'welcomed', fits this case better. Also compare Hebrews 11: 31, which I translate literally as follows:
By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those that had disobeyed, having received the spies with peace.
Here the word 'received' in Greek is closely connected with the word for 'received' in James 2: 25, and here there is no doubt that it is the spies about whom we are talking. (Incidentally, some commentators think that 'received' is a euphemism hinting at Rahab doing her job with the Israelites. I doubt that this is true, but if it is it does fit more with the spies than with the pursuers.)

In the second case Rahab is still not commended for lying, but rather for sending the pursuers out in another direction (i.e. as opposed to welcoming them into the house to look for the spies). Sending someone in another direction is not lying. It seems true that Rahab achieved this end by a lie, but it is this end, not her means, that is commended here -- if this interpretation is correct.

The basic point that James is making is, of course, that Rahab didn't just sit around believing, but actually acted on her beliefs . He is not making the point that everything she did was good. I think that Rahab was wrong to lie, but right to try to save the spies, and that this is why she is commended.

One final thought: some may say that one cannot be a spy without lying. But the spies are not commended by God for what they did. In any case, they may be more like SAS-style secret agents trying to move about unseen (unsuccessfully in this case) than like MI6-style spies with false identities etc.