Theodore Zachariades's Blog

The True Meaning of Atonement

This undervalued work needs careful and constant study. Not only does the author refute errors, he lays forth a solid defense of the effectual atonement that the Sacred Scriptures display. Christ’s victorious last shout from the cross, “it is finished,” finds an able exponent in what follows:

William Rushton

A DEFENSE OF PARTICULAR REDEMPTION

WHEREIN THE DOCTRINE OF THE LATE MR. FULLER RELATIVE

TO THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST, IS TRIED BY THE WORD OF GOD.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND

1831

Table of Contents

PREFACE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………2

LETTER I. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4

LETTER II. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

PREFACE

Actuated by a desire to benefit the cause of truth, I publish and send forth this edition

of Rushton’s “Defence of Particular Redemption,” believing that the scarcity of former

editions and the recurrence of questions therein discussed, render its republication needful.

Among the many who have risen in the Old Baptist church, who became dissatisfied

with its doctrine and practice and sought to change them to suit the notions of the world and

render that ancient church more popular, none have succeeded in gaining a greater name than

Andrew Fuller. He was born in 1754 and died in 1815. At the early age of seventeen he began

to consider the expediency of making a change in the tactics of the Baptists, and at the age of

twenty-one he wrote an essay entitled “The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,” which was

published in 1782. His object seems to have been to introduce the custom of offering salvation

to all sinners without distinction, maintaining that the prophets, Christ, and his Apostles gave

unlimited invitations to unconverted hearers of the gospel. As a reason for such

indiscriminate exhortations, he argued that the atonement was general in its nature but

special in its application, denying that Christ made a vicarious offering when he laid down his

life. These views he advocated in a work entitled, “Dialogues, Letters, and Essays,” to which

Mr. Rushton replied in the form of letters as given in this work.

Mr. Fuller, in connection with Mr. Carey and others, founded the first Missionary

Society ever organized—”Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel amongst the Heathen.”

This Society was organized at Kettering, England, October 2, 1792, and thus was introduced a

departure from the apostolic practice that formed a wedge to sever the New School Baptists

from the Old Order of Baptists.

Unscriptural practices usually result from false doctrines. Of the false doctrines that led

to the introduction of this new and unscriptural move in the Baptist church, the doctrine of an

indefinite atonement was, perhaps, the most prominent. That doctrine has always been a

cardinal principle in the Arminian faith, and the arguments of Mr. Fuller are as strong as any

that have ever been advanced to support that doctrine. As the issue is one that continues to

mark an important distinction between the doctrine of the Apostolic church and that of the

churches of the world, Mr. Rushton’s letters will ever continue to be of great importance to the

household of faith.

JOHN R. DAILY.

LURAY, VA., June 23, 1904.

INTRODUCTION

I think it right to inform the reader that, some time ago, I was accidentally engaged in a

verbal controversy on the nature and extent of the atonement of Christ, with a Baptist

minister of some celebrity, residing in Northamptonshire. At parting he earnestly entreated

me to read Mr. Fuller’s “Dialogues, Letters, and Essays,” which I promised to do. No sooner

had I read and pondered that work, than the fallacy of Mr. Fuller’s doctrine, which my friend

had espoused, appeared to me in a more striking manner than it had ever done before; and I

felt assured that, with a little labor, the speciousness and deceitfulness of Mr. Fuller’s views

might be fully made manifest. With this conviction, I determined to attempt a refutation of

them, and to publish it in the following Letters.

It is more than possible that some weak and inconsiderate persons may feel offended at

the free use I have made of Mr. Fuller’s name, because being now deceased he cannot answer

for himself. Although I have no fear of any objection of this nature from persons who are

acquainted with literary affairs, yet, for the sake of the weak, and because of the captious, I

offer the following apology:—

1. The subsequent Letters are not directed against Mr. Fuller, but against the doctrine

now prevailing in the Baptist churches.

2. It is impossible effectually to oppose this doctrine, without reference to some

acknowledged writings in which it is stated and defended; and these acknowledged writings

are Mr. Fuller’s “Dialogues,” &c. It is true there are some living authors who have asserted the

same things; but these writers are inferior to Mr. Fuller in celebrity and polemical talents. To

encounter them, therefore, would not be to allow my opponents the full exercise of their

strength: neither would it become the great cause of truth to engage the subaltern, while the

champion is defying the advocates of particular redemption, and crying out, “Choose you a

man for you, and let him come down to me.”

3. When an author publishes on controverted subjects, he does so, not only for the

generation living at the time, but for the succeeding generations. Though he dies as a man, he

still lives as an author, and teaches and speaks as long as his writings are read. It is right,

therefore, to examine the theories and doctrines of an author, whether he be living or dead.

What man of sense would reflect on President Edwards, for publishing his confutation of Dr.

Whitby, after the Doctor’s death? Or who would charge Mr. Fuller with unfairness, for

publishing his “Strictures on Sandemanianism,” long after Mr. Robert Sandeman had

returned to his original dust?

4. But if, notwithstanding this explanation, any Baptist minister or any other who

understands the controversy, and who has espoused Mr. Fuller’s views, feels hurt that Mr.

Fuller’s name has thus been introduced, let such a one take his pen, and as he reads, let him

erase the name of Mr. Fuller, and substitute his own; and let him know that he is the man

against whom I am writing, and not the deceased Mr. Fuller.

If, however, the reader be one of those favored individuals whom the Father hath

drawn to Jesus, he hath already been taught so much of the infinite evil of sin, and the vanity

of all created things, as to loathe himself and his own righteousness, and to value nothing in

comparison with truth. And in those happy moments, when he is favored with a glimpse of the

exalted Lamb, whose transcendent glory fills heaven and earth, he looks coolly upon human

authority, human wisdom, and human worthiness. Such a one will not be offended when the

authority of celebrated names is set at nought that truth may be maintained; but rather he has

learned, in some degree, to “cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he

to be accounted of?”

The only persons to whom I would offer any thing like the shadow of an apology, for the

polemical style of the following Letters, are the afflicted, broken-hearted children of Zion. I

know that disputings gall and distress a tender mind. But how can we contend earnestly for

the faith, without disputation? Were not our Lord and his apostles often engaged in reasoning

with the opponents of truth? I hope, therefore, that the lambs of the flock will not be offended,

especially when they reflect that the things contended for in the following pages are of the

highest importance—things with which the honor of God, and the glory of a dear Redeemer

are concerned; and which are absolutely necessary to the strengthening of their own weak

hands, and confirming of their feeble knees. It is now high time for the friends of truth to

speak boldly. Error no longer hides its hateful head, but struts abroad before the sun, and

scornfully defies the advocates of sovereign grace.

Although I have, in the following letters, boldly and unequivocally asserted what I

believe to be the truth, and although I have endeavored to expose the deceitfulness of the

opposite error, I hope the reader will find nothing inconsistent with the meekness and

gentleness of Christ. That I have expressed indignation at iniquity I acknowledge, but have not

yet learned that this is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, or contrary to the example of

our Lord. Throughout the whole I have studied brevity and perspicuity; and I have not been

unmindful of the well-known advice of the poet, which all controversial writers should

observe:—

“Quidquid praecipies esto brevis, ut cito dicta

Percipiant animi dociles, teneantque fideles.”

Into the hands of Him whose servant I profess to be, I confidentially commit my work,

notwithstanding the sinfulness and imperfection which adhere to it. I shall think myself more

than remunerated for my labor, if he make it useful to any of his ransomed ones. But should it

please him that it die as soon as it is born, and remain in silence forever, I trust I shall be

content. For I am well persuaded that the Lord will defend his own immortal truths in his own

way and in his own time, though error may rejoice in a temporary triumph, and though truth

may be “fallen in the street.”

WILLIAM RUSHTON, JUN.

Liverpool, 1831.

LETTER I.

DEAR SIR:—Agreeably to your earnest request, I have carefully read Mr. Fuller’s

publication, entitled “Dialogues, Letters, and Essays.” Although I have long been acquainted

with his sentiments generally, and have attentively perused some of his writings, yet I know

not how long I should have postponed reading the “Dialogues” had it not been for your

earnest solicitations. I consider myself, therefore, indebted to no small degree to you for the

pleasure and advantage I have derived from some parts of that work. In the first and second

parts, particularly, Mr. Fuller discovers that strength of mind, and that depth of originality of

thought which characterize him as a polemic writer: he has also defended many truths, and

triumphantly refuted some dangerous error. Here and there, indeed even in the first two

parts, he touches upon certain points, on which you will not expect me to agree with him; but

it is in the third part wherein he explains himself more particularly on all important subjects

which engaged our attention when I had the pleasure of a personal interview with you, and on

which, more especially, I find reason to differ from him.

It is well known that a particular truth is often more effectually opposed by the

introduction of principles inconsistent with it, than by an open attack upon that truth. Now, if

I mistake not, Arminian principles have been more effectually introduced into the churches,

in this manner, by Mr. Fuller’s writings, than if he had openly impugned the doctrines of

grace, and employed the whole force of his able pen against election, efficacious grace and

final perseverance. Those he professed to maintain inviolably; yet, by insisting on faith in

Christ as a moral duty, comprehended radically in the law,—by his view of moral inability,—

but especially by the sentiments he has advanced relative to the Atonement of the Son of God,

he has furnished a system for those who are predisposed towards Arminianism; and this

system has so far prevailed in the churches, that now we hear almost as little of finished

salvation as if we were Arminians; as little of the earnest and the witness of the Spirit, as if we

were Sandemanians.

In all religious error, there is some false doctrine in particular which constitutes its

basis, and against which some one branch of divine truth, more than another, stands as a

bulwark. In Mr. Fuller’s controversy with his Baptist brethren, the Atonement of Christ is the

cardinal point. I am not therefore surprised to find him labor so earnestly to explain away the

doctrine of Particular Redemption, and by all means to establish his own views of the

atonement, as that which constitutes the very basis of his system. However important the

controversy about faith and universal invitations may be, it sinks into insignificance when

compared with that of the atonement. He who is unsound in this, cannot be sound in any

other doctrine of grace. But when the death of Christ is known in its vicarious nature, its

certain efficacy, and its discriminating character, it affords the surest defence of sovereign

grace against all the attacks of Neonomian, Arminian and Semi-pelagian errors. To this

important point our conversation was principally directed, when, in our friendly interview,

you defended and I opposed Mr. Fuller’s sentiments; and to this fundamental point would I

again solicit your attention in an epistolary form. I am desirous of doing this not only because

his views almost universally prevail in the churches, but also because in all the replies to Mr.

Fuller’s that I have seen1 this subject has been almost neglected; whereas, it is his fundamental

and almost vulnerable point. I do not intend to touch upon the other subjects in dispute, but

shall confine myself entirely to the doctrine chiefly treated of in the third part of “Dialogues,”

that is, the doctrine of the ATONEMENT. In doing this, I shall carefully inquire what are Mr.

Fuller’s views on the subject. I shall take care not to misunderstand them. I shall closely

analyze them, and compare them with the Scriptures of eternal truth. It will be necessary,

then, in the first place, to attend to what Mr. Fuller has advanced on this great article of

Christian doctrine, by quoting his own words:

“If God requires less than the real demerit of sin for an atonement, then there

could be no satisfaction made to divine justice by such an atonement. And

though it would be improper to represent the great work of redemption as a kind

of commercial transaction betwixt a creditor and his debtor, yet the satisfaction

of justice in all cases of offence, requires that there be an expression of the

displeasure of the offended, against the offender, equal to what the offense is in

reality. The end of punishment is not the misery of the offender, but the general

good. Its design is express displeasure against disobedience; and where

punishment is inflicted according to the desert of the offence, there justice is

satisfied. In other words, such an expression of displeasure is uttered by the

lawgiver, that in it every subject of his empire may read what are his views of the

evil which he forbids, and what are his determinations in regard to its

punishment. If sinners had received in their own persons the reward of their

iniquity, justice would in that way have been satisfied; and if the infinitely

blessed God hath devised an expedient for our salvation, though he may not

confine himself to a literal conformity to those rules of justice which he hath

marked out for us, yet he will certainly not depart from the spirit of them.

Justice must be satisfied even in that way. An atonement made by a substitute,

in any case, requires that the same end be answered by it, as if the guilty party

had actually suffered. It is necessary that the displeasure of the offended should

be expressed in as strong terms, or in a way adapted to make as strong

impression upon all concerned, as if the law had taken its course: otherwise

1 I except Mr. Booth’s Sermon on “Divine Justice,” &c., which, with the Appendix, may be considered a kind of

caveat against Mr. Fuller’s notions; but this work does not profess to be a full confutation of them nor is Mr.

Fuller’s name so much as mention[ed] either in the Sermon or the Appendix.

atonement is not made, and mercy triumphs at the expense of righteousness.”

The following quotations are taken from the third part, wherein Mr. Fuller has

introduced his views in the form of a dialogue between Peter, James and John. James is

introduced as expressing Mr. Fuller’s sentiments. When asked by Peter his views of

imputation, he replies:

“To impute, signifies in general to charge, reckon or place to account, according

to the different objects to which it is applied. This word, like many others, has a

proper and an improper, or figurative, meaning. 1st. It is applied to the

charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, THAT

WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM. This I consider as its proper

meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages:—’Eli thought

she (Hannah) had been drunken,’ &c, &c. Secondly, it is applied to the charging,

reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things THAT WHICH

DOES NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I

consider as its improper or figurative meaning. It is in this latter sense that I

understand the term when applied to justification. It is thus also that I

understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was accounted, in the divine

administration, as if he were, or had been, the sinner, that those who believe in

him might be accounted as if they were or had been, righteous.”

“PETER. Do you consider Christ as having been punished, really and properly

PUNISHED?”

“JAMES. I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment?”

“PETER. An innocent person may suffer, but, properly speaking, he cannot be

punished. Punishment necessarily supposes criminality.”

“JAMES. Just so; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesus was in any sense

criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly punished.”

“If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it, yet is really and

properly the reward of Christ’s obedience, and not ours, then the sufferings of

Christ, though they were a punishment, and he sustained it, yet were really and

properly the punishment of our sins, and not his,” &c.

“A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any

more than the consequent exemption from obligation in the offender, is

innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in their effects, but in

themselves, they are untransferable. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted

in the divine administration as if he were the sinner, and came under an

obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing; but to

say he deserved that curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable

attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy

the conscience of Christ.”

“That the Scriptures represent believers as receiving only the benefits of the

effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, is a remark of which I am not

able to see the fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed

to them. Obedience itself may be, and is imputed, while its effects only are

imparted, and consequently received. Neither sin nor righteousness are in

themselves transferable.”

Concerning SUBSTITUTION, Mr. Fuller thus explains:

“I apprehend, then, that many important mistakes have arisen from considering

the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying a debt. Sin is a debt only

in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking it is a crime, and satisfaction for it

requires to be made not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. The reason of

this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferable, but crimes are not. A

third person may cancel the one, but he can only obliterate the effects of the

other: the desert of the criminal remains.”

“Were I asked concerning the gospel when it is introduced into a country, For

whom was it sent? If I had respect only to the revealed will of God, I should

answer, It is for men, not as elect or non-elect, but as sinners. But if I had

respect to the appointment of God without regard to its application, I should

say, he hath visited that country to “take out of them a people for his name.” In

like manner, concerning the death of Christ, if I speak of it irrespective of the

purpose of the Father and the Son as to the objects who should be saved by it,

referring merely to what it is in itself sufficient for and declared it the gospel to

be adapted to, I should think I answer the question in a scriptural way in saying,

“It was for sinners as sinners.” But if I have respect to the purpose of the Father

in giving his Son to die, and to the design of Christ in laying down his life I

should answer, “It was for his elect only.”

“If the satisfaction of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world, there is

no further propriety in asking, Whose sins were imputed to Christ? or, For

whom did he die as a substitute? than as it is thereby inquired, Who are the

persons whom he intended finally to save?”

“In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fulness in Christ’s atonement

sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in

him; or in opposition to Scripture and common sense, confine our invitations to

believe, to such persons as have believed already.”

I shall only add a few more quotations on the subject of PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.

“The particularity of redemption,” says Mr. Fuller, “consists in the sovereign

pleasure of God with regard to the application of the atonement; that is, with

regard to the persons to whom it shall be applied.”

“PETER. Is there anything in the atonement, or promised to it, which infallibly

ascertains its application to all those for whom it was made?

“JAMES. If by this you mean all for whose salvation it was sufficient, I answer,

There is not. But if you mean all for whose salvation it was intended, I answer,

There is.”

“If satisfaction was made on the principle of debtor and creditor, and that which

was paid was just of sufficient value to liquidate a given number of sins, and to

redeem a given number of sinners, and no more, it should seem that it could not

be the duty of any but the elect, nor theirs till it was revealed to them that they

were of the elect, to rely upon it: for wherefore should we set our eyes on that

which is not? But if there be such a fullness in the satisfaction of Christ, as it is

sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in

him; and if the particularity of redemption lie only in the purpose or sovereign

pleasure of God to render it effectual to some rather than others, no such

consequence will follow,” &c.

These extracts fully exhibit, at one view, Mr. Fuller’s sentiments on the important

doctrine of the atonement; and I solicit your minute attention to them; for plausible as his

words are, I intend to prove that they are grossly inconsistent with themselves, and as

inconsistent with the word of God. And I entreat your attention to them the more, because of

the noisy complaints which have been raised that Mr. Fuller has been misrepresented. Even

the honest and accurate Mr. Booth did not escape the charge of misunderstanding and

misrepresenting Mr. Fuller’s meaning. Whether there were any just ground for these

complaints, it is not necessary now to enquire; but in the present investigation care shall be

taken that there be no mistake.

LETTER II.

You will, I doubt not, agree with me when I say that a great change has taken place,

during the last sixty years, in the principles maintained by the Particular Baptist churches. It

was once the glory of these churches, that they contended earnestly for the doctrines of

sovereign discriminating grace, even when a disposition appeared too generally amongst

professors to relax on these points, and to accommodate matters with the world; a disposition

much lamented and deprecated by the servants of Christ. Dr. Gill has distinctly foretold its

pernicious effects, which have been only too visible in our own churches. In his sermon on

“The Watchman’s Answer,” &c., he says, “Of late years there has been a very visible decline,

and a night is coming on, which we are entered into; the shadows of the evening are stretching

out apace upon us, and the signs of the eventide are very manifest, and will shortly appear

yet more and more: coldness and indifference in spiritual things, a want of affection to God,

Christ, his people, truths and ordinances, may easily be observed; the first love is left; iniquity

abounds, and the love of many waxes cold; and it will wax yet colder and colder, and will issue

in a general forsaking of assembling together, and in an entire neglect of the ministers of the

gospel; when such who have been professors themselves will be shy of them, and carefully

shun them,” &c. Now, what would this holy man say, were he at present alive, to find his

words fulfilled so soon in his own denomination? What an alteration must have taken place

amongst us, when there are now very few to be found who maintain the same glorious truths

for which Dr. Gill was so able an advocate, and the few who do, are no longer cordially

received into our pulpits or tolerated in our associations! Men have risen up amongst us

everywhere speaking perverse things; the churches have been gradually drawn aside by them,

until at length professors will not endure sound doctrine, but are yearly heaping to themselves

such teachers as will gratify their itching ears.

Mr. Fuller appears to have been a kind of a leader in this defection, at least he

considered his own publications to have conduced not a little to the change. Writing to a

friend on this subject, he expresses himself, says his biographer, in the following strong and

pointed language:—”When I first published my treatise on the nature of faith, and the duty of

all men who hear the gospel to believe it, the Christian profession had sunk into contempt

among us; insomuch that had matters gone on but a few years longer, the Baptists would

have become a perfect dunghill in society.” Strong and pointed language indeed! yet it must

really be confessed that this was in a great degree the case. The truth is, that the principles

maintained at that time by the Baptists were such as to render them odious to the public. They

never could maintain those principles inviolably, and at the same time be generally esteemed

a respectable body of professing Christians. They were distinctly forewarned by the Lord

himself, that they should be hated of all men for his sake; that if they kept his words, the world

would hate them, even as it had hated him. If the doctrine he taught caused the Master of the

house to be despised and rejected of men; if, for the same cause, the apostles were esteemed

as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things,—what right had these Baptists to

complain, if while holding in their measures the same truths, their profession became

contemptible, and their churches considered a perfect dunghill in society? Complain! No, it

was the highest honor they were capable of in this life. If to them it was given on the behalf of

Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake, they ought to have rejoiced

that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And I doubt not many of them

did. Dr. Gill, when declaring his determination to go on preaching a free and finished

salvation in the face of all opposition, adds: “I am not afraid of the reproaches of men; I have

been inured to these from my youth upwards, but none of these things move me.”

But, as I have already said, the case is very different now. Since Mr. Fuller’s principles

have obtained amongst us, we are no longer offensive to the world; or, to use his strong

language, we are no longer a dunghill in society. The offense of the cross has, in a great

degree, ceased in reference to our doctrine, our profession, and our preaching. And to add to

our respectability, we have amongst us a number of rational polite ministers; men whose

minds are too enlightened, too liberal, to insist much on the distinguishing doctrines of the

gospel, and who are, consequently, rolling along in the full stream of earthly reputation. They

speak according to the world and the world heareth them. But with all these advantages, what

have we lost? O God! thou knowest what we have lost! Our profession is offensive; but alas!

we have lost much of the comfort of the Holy Ghost. We have gained ease and tranquility; but

we have lost in a great degree, the sensible enjoyment of the Lord’s special presence. We are

no more odious to society; but the Holy Spirit is remarkably withdrawn: that adorable Person

is grieved; the power of godliness is almost gone; and, in many instances, the form is ready to

depart also.

“O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy

fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.”

I would now proceed to an examination of the extracts given in my first letter; but

before I do so, it will be proper to explain, that, in this controversy, I use the term redemption

in its general acceptation. When we speak of particular redemption, or universal redemption,

we use the term in reference to the ransom price. Sometimes in Scripture the word

redemption means deliverance; but this is its secondary, and not its proper or original

signification. To redeem, is properly to buy again, to purchase from captivity, &c., and when

used in reference to the great affair of salvation, it relates primarily to the blood of Christ, “in

whom we have redemption.” In this sense Mr. Fuller uses the term when he speaks of the

“particularity of redemption;” and in this sense the inspired writer uses it when he says,

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” This

explanation is necessary, because some, from inattention, and others from a worse cause,

have attached an ambiguous meaning to the term.

The extracts to which I have called your attention are very ingeniously written. But the

very ingenuity is suspicious, because truth requires none. Such are the obscurity and

artfulness which run through them, that of the many persons who have read Mr. Fuller’s

Dialogues, &c., very few fully understand them. Some imagine he held the doctrine of

particular redemption, because he sometimes speaks of Christ dying for his people. Others

suppose he teaches universal redemption; but many, though they do not altogether

understand him, plainly perceived that he favors their predisposition to Arminianism, and

therefore they approve of his system. In some instances, no doubt, Mr. Fuller has been

misunderstood from inattention, but this has not always been the case. There is an

uncommon degree of subtilty in his statements, attended with much speciousness: palpable

inconsistencies are hid with great ingenuity, and the difference between him and his

opponents is so artfully lessened, that it appears to many readers to be of little importance. He

evidently wishes not to be considered an opponent of particular redemption; yet he neither

agrees with Particular Baptists on the one side, nor asserts boldly, with the General Baptists,

that Christ died equally for every man; but maintains a kind of a metaphysical medium which

is as far removed from the simplicity that is in Christ, as it is from that gospel which is hid

from the wise and prudent.

I shall occupy the remainder of this letter with such an examination of the extracts as

may discover the inconsistency and self-contradiction which lie concealed within them.

FIRST. In the first place, Mr. Fuller has discovered great inconsistency and

disingenuousness in desiring to be considered an advocate of particular redemption, while in

reality he maintained no such doctrine. He wishes it to be understood that he is favorable to

the doctrine itself, and differs from his brethren only in the explanation of it. “The

particularity of redemption,” says he, “consists in the sovereign pleasure of God, with regard

to the application of the atonement, that is, with regard to the persons to whom it shall be

applied.” Now, most persons, on reading this, would be naturally led to conclude that Mr.

Fuller believed there was something of particularity in the atonement itself. But herein they

would be mistaken; he means no such thing. He affirms that the particularity of redemption

lies only in “the sovereign purpose of God, to render it effectual to some rather than others.”

This, however, is not particular redemption; it is sovereign election. Some who have held

universal redemption, have also held particular election, and have consequently maintained

the “sovereign purpose of God” to render both the atonement and a preached gospel effectual

to some rather than others. Mr. Fuller, therefore, ought to have been equally candid, and to

have acknowledged openly that he believed in no particularity of the atonement itself, but only

in the sovereign purpose of God with respect to its application; which sovereign purpose

belongs to election, and not to the atonement.

It doubtless appeared, to the mind of Mr. Fuller, absurd to hold personal election in

connection with universal redemption, as some Protestants, have done, and as the Church of

England teaches in her 17th and 31st Articles, and he probably thought that if indefinite

redemption were substituted for universal, the absurdity would no longer exist. But, on

examination, it will be found that Mr. Fuller’s views by no means removes the inconsistency.

“The particularity of redemption,” he says, “lies only in the purpose or sovereign pleasure of

God to render it effectual to some rather than others.” Here we have a theological inaccuracy.

Mr. Fuller ought to have said that the particularity of redemption is the effect of the sovereign

purpose of God, &c. The death of the Redeemer is in pursuance of a previous plan; it is the

result of the sovereign and immutable purpose of God, and in perfect harmony with it. It is

therefore grossly inaccurate to say that the particularity of redemption consists in that which

is as distinct from itself as cause is distinct from its effect.

But it is easy to perceive that an atonement for sin in general cannot be particular

redemption. An atonement which in itself may suffice for an individual only, or for a world,

but which was not offered for any particular number of individuals, but merely for sin as sin;

such an atonement may be called by some other name, but particular redemption it cannot be.

The particularity of the atonement consists in the vicarious nature of the death of Christ; in

his representing the persons of the whole elect unto God; in his bearing their sins and

sorrows; in his dying for them, and for them alone; and in thus purchasing them, body and

soul, by his most precious blood. This view of the atonement is both the result of the sovereign

purpose of God and in unison with it; but an indefinite atonement is not only a different thing

from particular redemption, but it is also at variance with the sovereignty of the divine

purpose, and the particular application of atoning blood.

SECOND. The holy Apostle describes the nature of a perverted gospel as “yea, yea, and

nay, nay,” 2 Cor. 1:18; by which expression he intends to set forth its uncertainty and

inconsistency; sometimes it is one thing, sometimes another. But I know not where, in all the

world, an example of a yea and nay gospel is to be found, if it does not exist in the extracts

under consideration. In page 244, Peter asks, whether there be any thing in the atonement

which infallibly ascertains its application to all those for whom it was made? To which James

answers, “If by this you mean all for whose salvation it was sufficient, I answer, There is not.

But if you mean all for whose salvation it was intended, I answer, There is.” Now the absurdity

of this appears in several points of view.

1. If, as we have already seen, there be no particularity in the atonement of Christ itself,

but only in the sovereign purpose of God to render it effectual to some, rather than others;

then it follows necessarily, that there is not any thing in the atonement itself which infallibly

ascertains its application to any man. Mr. Fuller has not shown what there is in the atonement

to secure its application to those for whom it was intended, and in this he acted wisely. For on

the supposition of indefinite redemption, it is impossible to show any necessary connection

between the atonement and the application of it; because its application whether to an

individual only, or to the whole world, will arise not from any thing in the atonement itself,

but solely from the purpose or decree of God. If, therefore, the indefinite scheme be correct,

there cannot be anything in the atonement itself which infallibly ascertains its application to

any of the human race.

2. But admitting that the extracts assert, namely, that there is something in the

atonement which infallibly ascertains its application to all for whom it was intended; then it

will follow that the salvation of one individual only, is a thing impossible, seeing that the

atonement secures the salvation of many. In other words, it will follow that the salvation of an

individual, or of a world, does not depend only on the sovereign purpose of God, as Mr. Fuller

affirms.

3. But further absurdities will be discovered if we inquire into the nature of that

sufficiency which Mr. Fuller ascribes to the atonement. It is sufficient, he affirms, for all

mankind—intended only for the elect. Now the fallacy of this will appear, if we attend to one

simple truth; namely, that the Scriptures always ascribe the salvation of a sinner, not to any

abstract sufficiency, but to the vicarious nature of the death of Christ. The atonement,

therefore, is in no sense sufficient for a man, unless Jesus died for that man. Justice requires

that the satisfaction be vicarious; so that the sufficiency of the atonement arises from this very

thing, that Christ died in our stead. To this the Scripture always traces our salvation. “For God

hath not appointed us to wrath but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ WHO DIED

FOR US.” I conclude, therefore, that it is much less absurd to affirm with the Arminians, that

Christ died for all mankind than to maintain with Mr. Fuller, that the atonement is sufficient

for the salvation of those for whom it was not intended, and for whom the Saviour did not die.

If the nature of that sufficiency for all men, which Mr. Fuller ascribes to the atonement,

be further sifted, it will appear to be nothing more than a conditional sufficiency, such as the

Arminians attribute to their universal redemption. “There is,” says Mr. Fuller, “such a fulness

in the satisfaction of Christ, as is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the

whole world to believe in him.” The atonement then, is sufficient for the whole world,

conditionally—that is, if the whole world were to believe. The condition, however, is not so

easily performed. Many professors speak of faith in Christ as comparatively an easy matter,

and as though it were within the sinner’s power; but the Scriptures teach a different thing.

They represent man by nature as spiritually bound with chains, shut up in darkness, and in a

prison-house. To this view, Mr. Fuller’s conditional sufficiency of the atonement stands

opposed, as may be illustrated in the following manner. A wealthy and philanthropic

individual visits Algiers, and approaches a dungeon in which a wretched captive lies bound

with chains and fetters, and strongly secured within walls and doors, and bars. He proclaims

aloud to the captive that he has brought gold sufficient for a ransom, on condition that the

captive will liberate himself from his chains, burst open his prison doors, and come forth.

Alas! exclaims the wretched man, your kindness does not reach my case. Unless your gold

can EFFECT my deliverance, it can be of no service to me. The offer of it on such terms can

do me no good. Now, although there is a great difference between spiritual and physical

inability, yet one serves to illustrate the other. Man by nature is spiritually as unable to

believe in Christ, as the Algerine captive is physically unable to break his chains and the

prison doors; so that all this boasted sufficiency of the atonement is only an empty offer of

salvation on certain terms and condition; and such an atonement is much too weak to meet

the desperate case of a lost sinner.

But how different is the salvation of God! “By the blood of thy covenant, I have sent

forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.”—Zech. 9:11. Jesus, by his death, hath

paid the ransom, and made the captives his own. Therefore he has a legal right to their

persons, and with his own right arm he brings them forth. It is his glory “to bring out the

prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.”—Isa. 42:6,

7.

It has just been asserted that the sufficiency which Mr. Fuller attributes to the

atonement, is the same which the Arminians ascribe to their universal redemption. Whatever

difference exists between him and them on other points, on redemption there is only a verbal

variation. When Mr. Fuller asserts that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all mankind,

he does not mean that Christ so died for all mankind as to render their salvation certain: he

only means that the atonement is sufficient for their salvation conditionally—that is, if they

will believe. Dr. Whitby, the champion of Arminianism, explains his doctrine thus: “When we

say that Christ died for all, we do not mean that he died for all, or any absolutely, or without

any conditions to be performed on their part, to interest them in the blessings of his passion;

but only that he died for all conditionally, or so that they should be made partakers of the

blessings of his salutary passion, upon condition of their faith, repentance, &c.” Here we find

no essential difference between Mr. Fuller and Dr. Whitby on the atonement of Christ; the

only difference between them relates to the purpose of God in reference to its application.

Both agree in regarding the death of Christ as conditionally sufficient for all mankind; but the

Doctor denies that the purpose of God ascertains the application of the atonement to any

man; and in this respect he is more consistent with himself than Mr. Fuller.

The coincidence of indefinite redemption with the Arminian scheme, may be further

confirmed by comparing Mr. Fuller’s words with another quotation from the acute and

learned Whitby. Mr. Fuller defines reconciliation to be a “satisfaction of divine justice, by

virtue of which nothing pertaining to the moral government of God, hinders any sinner from

returning to him; and it is upon this ground that sinners are indefinitely invited to do so.” He

considers the atonement “as a divine extraordinary expedient for the exercise of mercy

consistently with justice, and that is in itself equally adapted to save the world as an

individual, provided a world believed in it.” Now, let us hear the Doctor express the very same

sentiments in other words: “He (that is, Christ) only by his death hath put all men in a

capacity of being justified and pardoned, and so of being reconciled to, and having peace with

God, upon their turning to God, and having faith in our Lord Jesus Christ: the death of Christ

having rendered it consistent with the justice and wisdom of God, with the honor of his

majesty, and with the ends of government, to pardon the penitent believer.”

Would to God that Mr. Fuller had been found in better company!

4. If it be necessary to pursue this “yea and nay” system still further, it is only to

disclose more inconsistencies and more absurdities. If, as Mr. Fuller allows, Christ intended

that only some should be benefited by his death, then he accomplished his intention according

to particular redemption, by paving their ransom only. It is absurd to represent Christ as

paying a ransom sufficient for all, when he intended only to redeem some! Or to affirm that

Christ is a sufficient Saviour of those whom he never intended to save!

Whenever the Scriptures speak of the sufficiency of redemption, they always place it in

the certain efficacy of redemption. The atonement of Christ is sufficient because it is

absolutely efficacious, and because it carries salvation to all for whom it was made. It is

sufficient, not because it affords men the possibility of salvation but because, with invincible

power, it accomplishes their salvation. Hence the word of God never represents the

sufficiency of the atonement as more extensive than the design of the atonement, which Mr.

Fuller has done. The Scriptures know nothing of a sufficient redemption which leaves the

captive to perish in slavery, nor of a sufficient atonement which never delivers the guilty; but

they speak of a redemption every way sufficient and efficacious—a redemption which cannot

be frustrated, but which triumphantly accomplishes the salvation of all its objects. “Let Israel

hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is mercy, and with him plenteous redemption. And

he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.” Psa. 103:7, 8.

The post The True Meaning of Atonement appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

Mission – it is more than you bargained for.

Every now and then I am gripped by something someone writes or says. Here is one such time in an opening from a book:

Before departing for Burma at twenty-four, Adoniram Judson’s

“deep conviction . . . to engage in this [missionary] service” was to be

“devoted to this work for life, whenever God in His providence shall

open the way.” His convictions were tested for thirty-eight years in

Burma, through the loss of two wives, seven of thirteen children, and

terrible sickness at sea that led to his death. In the face of constant

persecution and imprisonment, he not only finished a Burmese-

English dictionary and grammar but also translated the entire New

Testament into Burmese. After ten years, he had one church of

eighteen believers. Nevertheless, this crucible of suffering tempered

and strengthened Judson’s convictions:

The path of self-denial is, to carnal eyes, a veiled path, a mystery

of the divine kingdom . . . but if thou wilt do what thy hands

find to do this hour . . . thou shalt find the path of self-denial

open most wonderfully and delightfully before thee; thou shalt

find it sweet to follow thy dear Lord and Saviour, bearing the

cross, and shalt soon be enabled to say,—“Sweet is the cross,

above all sweets, To souls enamored with thy smiles.”

Even on his deathbed, he said, “No one has ever left the world with

more inviting prospects, with brighter hopes, or warmer feelings—

warmer feelings.” Deep conviction formed the bedrock of his sacrificial

yet joy-filled labor. Today, Burma (known today as Myanmar)

has over four million Christians because of that sacrifice.

Is such costly sacrifice an antiquated throwback to a distant past?

Today, short-term missions teams can hop on an airplane, care for

impoverished orphans in rural China for a week and stop by Starbucks

in Beijing before returning to give a missions report in their

comfortable church. Even as globalization has eased some of the demands

of short-term missions, the challenges for missions today continue

to be daunting. More than three thousand unreached and unengaged

people groups remain today; they are in some of the hardest

to reach places of the world, and they total almost 250 million people.4

We must go. We must persevere even when we see little fruit.

G. K. Beale & Mitchell Kim, God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden to the Ends of the Earth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), 13.

 

What a challenge this is. I could not help thinking that I just celebrated – if celebrated is the right word –  my tenth year with Sovereign Grace Baptist Church. To show for it I have a congregation of about 18.

What a humbling reality. What an enormous challenge. Difficulties abound, but I have not been as severely tested as was Judson. I must continue to do the work that God has set before me. I am a coward by nature. I shrink from the challenge. I would rather have my safe place to study and churn out materials for the church to dissect 500 years into the future. But week in and week out I must stand before those that God brings within the sound of my speaking voice and speak God’s Words. What a challenge. What a Responsibility. What a Privilege. Both Judson, and St. Paul, who inspired him, continue to speak into my life. I will not be silent. Even when I desired to shirk my responsibility, like Jeremiah, His word was a fire in my bones. Woe is me if I preach not the gospel.

God be merciful to me a sinner!

The post Mission – it is more than you bargained for. appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

God Manifested

 

Is it really “God manifested in the flesh,” or is it “who was manifested in the flesh?” Most recent English translations read 1 Timothy 3:16 as the latter. Why is that? The textual tradition is varied as most of the newer translation rely on the reading provided by the text as it is reconstructed by the United Bible Society, which has a similar text as the famous Greek testament known as Nestle-Aland, named after primary researchers on textual matters. The actual difference in Greek is slight. The modern English translations render the verse, “who” following the word: oς . The King James and New King James version translates a different reading of this verse. The Ecclesiastical or Received Text reads thus: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεoς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (Bold Italics added). As one who can see the Greek here, the difference is the two first letters of the Greek word, Θεoς, which would leave the last two letters, oς, which, incidently, means “who.” The difference can be accounted for by scribal imprecision, either optical or auditory. However, there is a strong reason for adopting this reading that the King James Version follows, as it is the reading found in an overwhelming number of manuscripts and is thus reproduced as such in recent editions of the Byzantine/Majority text. Moreover, this text unequivocally expresses the true deity of Jesus Christ, who is none other than God manifested in the flesh. Thus, the TR or Ecclesiastical text has much textual evidence and a very high Christology.

The post God Manifested appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

Niebuhr’s Lament: A Truncated and Effaced Christianity

Niebuhr’s Lament.

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

― H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

 

Niebuhr’s lament concerning the mid twentieth century is exactly the description of large masses that call themselves “Christian” today. In pulpits across the land, one will hear of the so-called love of God, a love that tries desperately to get your attention. Preachers remind us that God loves us Just As We Are! One wonders if that is the truth, then when I die, I’ll get a grand reception from God, Just as I am. This prompted Reformed theologian, R. C. Sproul to state that the problem with much contemporary church preaching is that folks have been led to believe that the only thing they have to do to go to heaven is to die. Justification by death.

This ever-accepting and pleading god is impotent to guarantee his grandest desires for world-wide salvation and must pick up scraps from the Devil’s table. This deity’s spokesmen continue to urge us on to the best life now, or to overcome our financial and familial difficulties. Pray for that promotion! If you have faith, God will show you great favor as he already loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life. At least on this side of eternity he does, as you will never hear from the pulpits about any sin that you have committed or about laws you have transgressed. Oh, how he loves you! The kingdom of god is within you. Just follow your heart! We are not judgmental. We are a non-threatening, all-inclusive and all-accepting of your varied lifestyles. No danger here! The only sin you will hear about is the dreadful intolerance of those extreme and radical Bible-thumpers who are living in the dark ages.

Jesus loves me this I know for the pastor told me so. The so-called messiah of many a church is not one who bears the wrath of God. That antiquated notion has been eternally banished, thank heavens! No. Our Messiah is the one who loved everyone so much that he was ready to challenge the political status quo and ended up as a martyr so you could see how much god loves you. If that doesn’t move you to tears nothing will. Forget justification and atonement; forget regeneration and imputation. With our faith you don’t need a dictionary from a thousand years ago; the latest edition of Guideposts will have all you need for a warm and fuzzy sentimental approach to things divine. Typically, this is what you may encounter:

For all your needs we provide an entertaining alternative to the stuffy long-winded sermons on fire and brimstone. When we say, “No heck!” we mean it. No. Really, there is no hell to fear. That condemnation and second death talk was just a myth. Milton and Dante have scared millions by their graphic portrayals. We much prefer the poetry of Maya Angelou, thank you very much!

So, if you want God as your co-pilot, or your personal savior/genie/best friend, you’d best give us a try. We can be found on most corners in small town America far and wide. Look for the flashing neon signs. The pithy quote will set us apart from the fundamentalists.  No need to dress up, you are only meeting the creator of heaven and earth. Jeans with holes are the recent trend. Our minister will welcome you after the program. He’ll have a sign up card and a list of all the amenities we provide: bowling on Thursday, Movie night Friday, Pot luck on Saturday evenings before we play bingo. On Sundays we have the best of the best. Our sound system is unrivaled. The light show will dazzle you as if Pentecost was happening all over again. The video clips during the semonette are designed to keep you engaged with the relevant content. You’ll be a better you for having joined our ever-growing clientele list. Don’t forget to let us know if there is anything we can do to make your stay more pleasurable. We have padded pews, lean back chairs, big-screens for those with poor eyesight. If you don’t like loud noises we advise that you stay at least sixty feet from the band’s heavy speakers. Or better make that sixty yards.

You will be spell bound with tales from a not so dorky minister. You will immediately recognize all the cultural clues to make you feel right at home. Coffee out front. No when we said blended that wasn’t about our worship, but our java. Donuts at dismissal for all the kids. Once a month we have a jumbo air-field castle for the kids while adults discuss the morning’s message about how to have a productive marriage or the three points about how to make your boss like you…

All in all, we feel that god wants us all, to just get along. This is truly heaven on earth.

Niebuhr would surely recognize this modern invention that mirrors the aims of Christendom in his day.

 

 

The post Niebuhr’s Lament: A Truncated and Effaced Christianity appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

Why Call Me Good?

Jesus said, “Why Do You Call Me Good?” Was He really suggesting that He wasn’t?

Some well-intentioned scholars seeking to uphold their anti-supernatural bias have stripped Christ of His divine status. They prefer a Jesus that is non-threatening and is some-like us, just better. Of course, they attempt to justify this by citing the New Testament even as they refuse its claims. One such text is found in Mark 10:17 ff. The passage is found in parallel sections in both Matthew and Luke. In all of the Synoptic gospel accounts, we have the inquirer addressing Jesus as “good teacher.” Jesus replies with a question that has provided ammunition to the critical minds in their assault upon the gospel. Jesus said, “Why do you call me, Good? There is only One who is good, that is God.” It is here precisely that the scholars insist that Jesus explicitly denies His status as God. Well, this is the apparent meaning till one understands the nature of the question. It is a rhetorical question designed to make one ponder “Whom, indeed?” the young ruler is approaching. By Jesus saying that God alone is good, is not to suggest that He, Himself, is not good. But that if He is the dispenser of eternal life, then he must be something more than a mere man, no matter how much of a good teacher he was. To inherit eternal life by following Him, the young ruler needs to renounce all and devote his life to the pursuit of Christ and His will. To follow a mere man is never considered a means of attaining life in the eschaton. Of course, Jesus is that good teacher that pronounced forgiveness of sins (Mark 2) which led the religious leaders to ask, “who can forgive sins, save God?”  As with this similar encounter with Jesus as manifesting the prerogatives of God, we see that He is more than a man. The way Christ addressed the young ruler is designed to prove that Jesus is truly the dispenser of eternal life, that He is eminently worth the sacrifice of all things, that indeed, He is the good teacher, but more importantly: He is the good God.

The post Why Call Me Good? appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

Justification according to Paul

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. (1995). (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version., Ro 3:20–4:8). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

The post Justification according to Paul appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

Highest Christology

 

 

The passage from Colossians 1 that consists of the very Highest Christology is thus translated:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

4Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

5For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

6Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

7As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;

8Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.

9For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

10That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

11Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;

12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

22In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:

25Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

28Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

29Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

The significant text is given in bold.

Look with me at the elements included in this portion of Scripture.

 

He (Jesus) is the image of the Invisible God: Ος ἐστιν εἰκὼν  τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου. Of course, God is a Spirit and has no physical shape or presence. That Jesus is the image means that He is the perfect expression of humanity rendering the image and likeness of God. This is reminiscent of Adam’s creation, along with Eve, being made in the image of God. Moreover, as Colossians will also continue to show, Christ is also Creator so the idea of “image” also speaks to the uniqueness of Jesus as God incarnate.
Jesus is also the Firstborn of every creature: πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. This metaphorical expression is designed to show that Jesus is above all the created order in rank. Though this term is often used in the Greek Old Testament to speak of the firstborn son of a given family, here the notion is not about being born but about Christ’s status vis a vis the Creation.
Next, Paul signifies the reason that Christ is Firstborn. Jesus is the One that created everything. Hence, by him were all things created: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα. The use of the preposition “en” often denotes sphere, but here the other notion of means is used. So “en” here means “by.” So the KJV states it so.  The verb “ektisthe” is an aorist passive. The created order is wrought wholly by Christ. The “all” is all-inclusive. Christ has created all things. This passage echoes John 1:1-3. This is why Paul enumerates the following:
Christ made all that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whetherthey be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε υριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· Here all powers and authorities in every sphere of the created universe exist because of Christ and furthermore they exist for Him. God made the world to serve Him. This includes the spiritual realm. There is not one square inch of the created order to which Jesus cannot say: “this is mine!” (Abraham Kuyper).
Repetition in Scripture is often used to denote something’s high importance. The portion ends with the same verb in the perfect passive form: ἔκτισται (ektistai). It is as if Paul is saying: “In case you missed it, Jesus created everything. Yes, that’s right, Jesus has created everything!”

 

Often people miss the idea in this passage and suggest that Paul is saying Jesus is one of the created things as if someone else created him First, and then Jesus made everything else. You may encounter this in dialogue with Jehovah’s Witnesses. But the obvious intent is that Christ is the Creator. He stands on the Creator side of the equation, so to speak.

 

 

The post Highest Christology appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

Christ Preeminent

Of all the New Testament epistles, one has an extended Christological passage that takes pride of place. It is Colossians 1:15ff. This is the Greek text:

ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ,ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν·

῞Ος ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου,

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα,

τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,

τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,

εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες

εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·

τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

καὶ αὐτός ἐστι πρὸ πάντων,

καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε,

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ

τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας·

ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή,

πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,

ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων,

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι

καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν,

εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ

εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

The post Christ Preeminent appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

One Thing Needed

You don’t need:

Two chances

Three guesses

Four spiritual laws

Five golden rings

Six secrets of success

Seven habits of highly effective anything

Eight days in a week

Nine hours of sleep

Ten commandments

Apollo Eleven or Ocean’s Eleven

Nor do you need:

Twelve steps in any direction.

What you need, absolutely need is

One Savior,

The One Lord Jesus Christ.  Yahweh says “I am God and there is no other.”

There is only One way, Jesus; There is only One Name given.

Jesus is the One.

The post One Thing Needed appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

Jesus According to the Gospel Beginnings.

In the early sections of each of the four canonical gospels, we find many a designation of the grand Subject, namely, Jesus. When taken together they form a strong case that the person about whom these theological biographies are about is no ordinary person. Truly, he is a supernatural person. Though come in the flesh, His existence precedes His earthly appearance and His significance is inestimable. Let’s listen in:

Matthew 1:1, Jesus [the] Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham.

Matthew 1:23, Immanuel, God with us.

Mark 1:1, Jesus [the]Christ, Son of God.

Mark 1:11, Beloved Son [of the Father, Who Speaks from Heaven]

Luke 1:35, Holy, Son of God.

Luke 2:11, Savior, Christ, Lord.

Luke 2:26, [the] Lord’s Christ

Luke 2:30, Your [God’s (genetive of source)] Salvation.

Luke 2:32, Light Revealing to Gentiles, Glory of Your [God’s] People, Israel.

John 1:1, Word [titular name], Word with God, God the Word.

John 1:9, True Light.

John 1:17, Jesus [the] Christ.

John 1:18, Only Begotten Son [or Only Son].

John 1:29, Jesus, Lamb of God.

John 1:30, Man.

John 1:33, Baptizer with [or in] the Holy Spirit.

John 1:34, the Son of God.

John 1:36, the Lamb of God.

John 1:41, Messiah, the Christ.

John 1:45, Jesus of Nazareth the Son of Joseph.

John 1:49, the Son of God, the King of Israel.

John 1:51, the Son of Man [self-designation].

These are all titles and names, designations and statuses, that show the true identity of the Person, Jesus. All of these are picked from early sections of the Gospels to show that the writers were truly intent on highlighting Jesus’s unique personality among the sons of men. Later they will fill their narratives with much supplemental and convincing content to substantiate these claims: miracles, discourses, Jesus’s claims, and the worship that He receives. All this concludes one thing: Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Word Made Flesh [John 1:14], He is the I AM, before Abraham was [John 8:58], and if we do not believe in His Divine Personhood [if ye believe not that I am] ye will die in your sins [John 8:24].

I know that many scholars have gone to great lengths to affirm that Jesus is not a divine figure or that he is not the Son of God, but as can be plainly seen they must jettison the direct testimony of the Gospel writers, even as they profess themselves to be “experts on the New Testament.” Forget the experts that destroy the testimony of the Apostles. If you want to see the truth, read the gospel writers. They knew Jesus. Also, they knew Him who Sent the Son. Indeed, this is eternal life to know the true living God and His Son Jesus Christ [John 17:3].

Look to Christ Jesus, the Son of God in faith. In believing, one has eternal life. There is life in a look at the crucified one. Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher said:

“Come to Christ; Run to Christ,

if you can’t run, walk.

If you can’t walk, crawl.

If you can’t crawl, look.

For there is life in a look at the Crucified One.”

You will see Him nowhere clearer than in the four Gospels.

 

 

The post Jesus According to the Gospel Beginnings. appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.