Jonathan Edwards
ABSURDITY! (Cont’d)
THIRD ARGUMENT: To suppose that we are justified by our own sincere obedience or any of our own virtue or goodness is to deny the gospel grace.
We must reject any scheme of justification that manifestly diminishes the grace of God, because it is the declared design of God in the gospel to exalt the freedo and riches of His grace through justifification of sinners. This is His way of admitting them to His favor and bestowing the blessed fruits of it that He promised. The Scripture teaches that the way of justification found in the gospel covenant is appointed for that result so that free grace might be expressed and glorified. Romans 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” Evidently, the chief design is to exercise and magnify free grace in the gospel plan for the justification and salvation of sinners. Scripture speaks everywhere of the freedom and salvation of sinners. Scripture speaks everywhere of the freedom and riches of grace in the gospel as the chief glory of it. Any doctrine that denies the free grace of okGod in justifying sinners opposed God’s design, and must be exceedingly offensive to Him.
Those who maintain that we are justified by our own sincere obedience delude themselves in thinking that their scheme does not diminish the grace of the gospel. They claim that the grace of God is wonderfully manifested in appointing sincere obedience as a way of salvation, assisting us to obey, and accepting our imperfect, rather than perfect, obedience. (emphasis mine)
Let us therefore examine whether or not their scheme of a man’s being justified by his own virtue and sincere obedience denies the grace of God. Let us consider their theory that free grace is not more exalted than any manner of goodness of our own in being justified. In order to do this I will lay down the self-evident.
PROPOSITION: The abundant benevolence of the Giver and gratitude of the receiver is magnified by free grace. This I suppose none will ever dispute. And just as obviously, it demonstrates more abundant benevolence in the Giver when He shows kindness without being moved to it by goodness or excellence in the recipient. And this enhances the recipient’s obligation to gratitude.
- It shows a more abundant goodness in the Giver, when He shows kindness without any excellence in our persons or actions that should move the Giver to love and beneficence. God’s more abundant and overflowing goodness is in contrast with how much less loveliness or excellence there is to warrant such goodness. A man who is only a little loving or kind might be drawn to do good or show kindness, but only when there is a great deal of excellence and loveliness in the object to move him. When his goodness and benevolence are more abundant, he will show kindness more readily and generously where there is less to draw it forth. When a man is abundant in goodness and benevolence, he does not need to have it drawn from him; he has enough of the abundance within to move him. The more abundance, the less there is need for motivation. His kindness and goodness appear more bountiful when they are bestowed upon one who has little excellence or loveliness. They appear even more bountiful when the recipient is not only completely devoid of excellence or loveliness, but even hateful and repulsive. The abundance of goodness is then manifested not only in flowing forth without anything extrinsic to draw it forth, but also in overcoming great repulsion in the object. Then, kindness and love appear most triumphant and wonderfully great.
- It is apparent also that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the recipient. It is common sense. The less worthyor excellent the recipient of kindness, the more he is obliged, and of all obliged when he receives kindness without any goodness or excellence in himself and with a total and universal hatefulness. As it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the Word of God. How much does He insist on this as an obligation to gratitude, because they are so sinful, unworthy, and undeserving?
Therefore, it certainly follows that the doctrine that teaches that God, when He justifies a man and shows him such great kindness as to give him a right to eternal life, does not do it as a reward for any obedience or goodness. Justification recognizes a man as ungodly and wholly without any manner of virtue, beauty, or excellence. I say this doctrine certainly does more to exalt the free grace of God in justification and man’s obligation to gratitude for such a favor, than the contrary doctrine. The contrary doctrine asserts that God, in showing his kindness to man, recognizes him as sincerely obedient and virtuous, and as having something in him that is truly excellent and lovely, and acceptable in His sight. This goodness or excellence of man is the very foundational condition of God’s bestowing that kindness on him, and of distinguishing him from others for that benefit.
FOURTH ARGUMENT: For the truth of the doctrine, the supposition that man is justified by his own virtue or obedience detracts from the honor of the Mediator, and ascribes to man’s virtue that which belongs only to the righteousness of Christ. It puts man in Christ’s place, and makes him his own savior, when, in fact, Christ is his only Savior. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, a gospel doctrine. And so it is contrary to the nature and design of the gospel, which is to humble man, and to ascribe all the glory of our salvation to Christ the Redeemer.
Here I will explain what we mean by the “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness, prove the thing intended by it to be true, and show that this doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience.
- I will explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Sometimes the expression is taken by our religious clergy in a larger sense; because of the imputation of all that Christ did and suffered for our redemption, we are free from guilt and stand righteous in the sight of God. Used in this way, it implies the imputation both of Christ’s satisfaction and obedience. But here I intend it in a stricter sense: the imputation of that righteousness or moral goodness that consists in the obedience of Christ. When that righteousenss is imputed to us, the righteousness of Christ is accepted for us and admitted. Christ’s perfect obedience will be reckoned to our account, so that we will have the benefit of it as though we had performed it ourselves. Even though we are imperfect, a title to eternal life is given to us as the reward of Christ’s righteousness. The Scripture uses the word “impute” to mean, “for reckoning anything belonging to any person, to another person’s account.” Philemon 18, “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account.”
The opponents of this doctrine think that it is absure to suppose that God imputes to us Christ’s obedience to us. When they deny that God imputes to us Christ’s righteousness, they imply that God is mistaken. They assert that man performs that obedience which Christ performed. But why is it absurd to think that Christ’s righteousness can be reckoned to our account and accepted in place of our own? Is it any more absurd than a merchant’s transferring credit from one man’s account to anothers, when one man pays a price for another, so that it will be accepted as if the other had paid it? Why is it any more absurd to suppose that Christ’s obedience and satisfaction are imputed to us? If Christ suffered the penalty of the law in our stead, then His suffering is imputed to us. That is, it is accepted for us and in our stead. It is reckoned to our account, as though we had suffered it. But why is not His obeying the law of God as rationally reckoned to our account as His suffering the penalty of the law? Why may not borrowing His obedience be as rational as transferring credit from one person’s account to another’s as a repayment of a debt? Having thus explained what we mean by imputation of Christ’s righteousness, I proceed, - I will prove that the righteousness of Christ is thus imputed. Just as we need Christ’s obeyiing the law in our stead in order for reward, we also need His suffering the penalty of the law in our stead in order for us to escape penalty. We need both so that the law of God might be answered. It is certain that Christ, in suffering penalty for us, did as He needed to obey the law. The Scripture is clear on this matter. This is given as the reason that Christ was made a curse for us: that the law threatened a curse to us. Galatians 3:10,13, “But the same law that fixes the curse of God as the consequence of not continuing in all things written in the law to do them (verse 10) has as much fixed doing those things as an antecedent of living in them” (verse 12). There is as much connection established in one case as in the other. There is, therefore, exactly the same need in both: that the law and perfect obedience must be fulfilled in order for us to obtain the reward; and that death must be suffered so that we can escape punishment By necessity of the law, perfect obedience precedes life and disobedience is followed by death. The law is, without doubt, as much of an established rule in one case as in the other.
Christ, by suffering the penalty and so making atonement for us, only removes the guilt of our sins, and so set us in the same state that Adam was in the first moment of his creaation. It is no more fitting that we should obtain eternal life only on that account, than that Adam, without any obedience at all, should have the reward of eternal life, or a confirmed and unalterable state of happiness. From the first moments of his existence, Adam was not to have the reward merely on account of his being innocent. If that were so, he would have had it fixed upon him as soon as he was created, for he was as innocent then as he could be. But he was to have the reward on account of his active obedience, not because he did nothing wrong, but because he did well.
In this same way, we are granted eternal life not only because we are innocent of guilt through the atonement of Christ, but because of Christ’s active obedience and doing well.
Christ is our second Head. He is called the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22), because He acted that part for us, just as the first Adam should have. When He had undertaken to stand in our stead, He was looked upon and treated as though He were guilty of our guilt. By His bearing the penalty, He did, in fact, free Himself from this guilt. He is called the second Adam because not only did He free Himself, but He brought Himself into the state identical to that of the first Adam in the first moment of his existence. It was a state of complete innocence with no obligation to suffer punishment. But even this was not sufficient. Christ needed positive obedience in order to obtain, as our second Adam, the reward of eternal life. (Positive obedience is obeying a command to do something, as opposed to negative obedience, oeying a command to not do something.)
When God made man, He did not give him a title to eternal life. He placed him first in a state of trial, because it was His will that man should first give honor to His authority by fully submitting to it in will and deed, and by perfectly obeying His law. God insisted that His holy majesty and law should have their proper acknowledgment and honor from man. Man stood in that relationship to God, who created him, before He would bestow the reward of confirmed and everlasting happiness upon him. God gave him a law that He might have opportunity, by giving due honor to His authority in obeying it, to obtain this happiness. Christ, seeing that man had broken the law and still wanted reward, became subject to God’s authority Himself. He took man’s place in the form of a servant so that He might honor God’s authority by His obedience — that same obedience that God at first required of man as the condition of his having a title to reward. Christ came into the world to render the honor of God’s authority and law consistent with the salvation and eternal life of sinners. He not only came to save them, but also to assert and vindicate the honor of the Lawgiver and His holy law.
Now, if the sinner, after his sin was satisfied for, had eternal life bestowed upon him without active righteousness, the honor of His law would still not be sufficiently vindicated. Supposing this were possible, the sinner himself could pay the debt by suffering and afterwards be in the same state that he was in before his probation. The man would be negatively righteous, or merely without guilt. If he now should have eternal life bestowed upon him without performing that condition of obedience, then God would recede from His law, and give the promised reward. If salvation were this easy, His law would never have respect and honor shown to it through obedience. But now Christ, by subjecting Himself to the law and obeying it, has done great honor to the law and to the authority of God who gave it. When Christ became subject to the law and obeyed it, He did much more to honor it than if mere man had obeyed it. It was an infinitely honorable act to God — that a Person of infinite dignity was not ashamed to call Him His God, and to adore and obey Him as such. This was more to God’s honor than if any mere creature, of any possible degree of excellence and dignity, had done so.
JUDGING BY THE LAW
For a sinner to be justified, it is absolutely necessary that the righteousness of some Other, Christ, should be reckoned to his account. For it is declared that the person justified is looked upon as (in himself) ungodly. God neither will nor can justify a person without righteousness. As it is used in Scripture, the word “justification” is manifestly a legal term and the act of a Judge. If a person should be justified without righteousness, the judgement would not be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless the Judge properly recognized the righteousness as His.. To say that God does not justify the sinner without sincere, albeit imperfect obedience does not help the case, for an imperfect righteousness before the Judge is no righteousness at all. To accept something that falls short of the rule is not a judicial act or the act of a Judge, but a pure act of sovereignty. An imperfect righteousness is no righteousness before the Judge. For “righteousness (as one observes) is a relative thing, and has always relation to a law. The formal nature of righteousness, properly understood, lies in a conformity of actions to that which is the rule and measure of them.”
Therefore righteousness is righteousness in the sight of the Judge only when it answers the law. The law is the Judge’s rule. If He pardoned and hid reality, and did not pass sentence according to facts, He would either not act the part of a judge, or woul judge falsely. The very notion of judging is to determine what is true and real, and what is not in each case.
Any judge’s work is twofold. First, he must determine what is fact, and second, decide if fact conforms to rule or law. If a judge has not rule or law established beforehand, he has no foundation for making decisions. In fact, to judge without a foundation of rule or law is impossible. Therefore God has declared that when He acts as a judge, He will not justify the wicked and cannot clear the guilty, and, by parity of reason, cannot justify without righteousness.
IMPERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE LAWS OF GOD
The scheme of annulling old law and introducing new law will not help at all in this difficulty. For an imperfect righteousness cannot answer the law of God we are under. It makes no difference whether we deal with an old law or a new one. Every law requires perfect obedience to itself. Every rule requires perfect conformity to itself. To say that there is a law that does not require perfect obedience to itself is to say that there is a law that does not require all that it requires. Certainly, the law (either old or new) that we are now under forbids sin, or else it is not sin. It cannot be sin if it is not forbidden and a breach of the law. But if we are now forbidden to commit sin, then it is by law that we are now under. Therefore, if all sin is now forbidden, then we are now under law that requires perfect obedience. Therefore nothing can be accepted as righteousness in the sight of our Judge except perfect righteousness. Our Judge cannot justify us unless He sees perfect righteousness in some way belonging to us, performed by us or by Christ and reckoned to our account.
PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE LAWS OF GOD
God does, in the sentence of justification, pronounce a man perfectly righteous. Otherwise, the man would need a further justification after he is justified. His sins being removed by Christ’s atonement is not sufficient for his justifiction. Justifying a man, as has been already shown, is not merely pronouncing him innocent or without guilt. That man must also stand right with regard to the established rule of nature, reason, and divine appointment, is a positive, perfect righteousness.
We need Christ’s obedience and His atonement to be reckoned to our account. Because we need it, it is so. If Adam had preserved and finished his course of obedience, we would have received the benefit of his obedience, as much as we now have the mischief of his disobedience. So in like manner, it is right that we should receive the benefit of the second Adam’s obedience and His atonement for our disobedience. Believers are represented in Scripture as being so in Christ that they are legally one, or accepted as one by the Supreme Judge. Christ has assumed our nature, so that all in our nature belongs to Him within our union with Him. He has become our Head, and has taken us to be His members. And therefore, what Christ has done in our nature — honored the law and authority of God by His acts and restored the honor of the law by His sufferings, is reckoned to the believer’s account. Christ suffered for our ill and unworthy doing. He did it so well and worthily by His Head, so that the believer should be made happy and freed from misery.
When Christ had undertaken with God to stand for us, and put Himself under our law, He was obliged to suffer under that law. As our Surety, after He had taken man’s guilt upon Him, He could not be acquitted until He had suffered. He could not be rewarded until He had obeyed. But He was not acquitted as a private person, but as our Head. Now believers are acquitted in His obedience as a private person, but as our Head. We are accepted to a reward in His acceptance.
The Scripture teach us that when Christ was raised from the dead, He was justified. His justification, as I have already shown, implies both His acquittal from our guilt, and His acceptance to the exaltation and glory that was the reward for His obedience. But believers, as soon as they believe, are admitted to partake with Christ in His justification. Hence we are told that He was “raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:25). This is true not only of that aspect of His justification that consists of His acquittal, but also His acceptance to His reward. The Scripture teaches us that He is exalted, and has gone to heaven to take possession of glory in our name, as our forerunner (Hebrews 6:20). We are raised up together with Christ, and also made to sit together with Christ in heavenly places, and in Him (Ephesians 2:6).
Some people question whether Christ’s suffering or obedience should be accepted on our account. They argue that He was obliged to obedience for Himself, but was not obliged to suffer but only on our account. To this I answer that Christ was not obliged on His own account to obey.
Christ, in His original circumstances, was not in subjection to the Father. Indeed, Christ was altogether equal to Him. He was under no obligation to put Himself in man’s stead and under man’s law. He did not need to put Himself into any state of subjugation to God whatsoever. There was a transaction between the Father and the Son before Christ’s becoming man. As man is under the law, Christ undertook to put Himself under the law, to obey and to suffer. In this transaction, these things were already virtually done in the sight of God, as is evident by this: that God acted on the basis of that transaction, justifying and saving sinners as if the things undertaken had been actually performed long before they were indeed performed. And therefore, without doubt, in order to estimate the value and validity of Christ’s deeds and suffering, we must look back to that transaction, wherein these things were first undertaken and virtually done in the sight of God.
It is there that we will find that Christ was under no manner of obligation either to obey the law or to suffer its penalty. After the transaction, He was equally under obligation to both. From this time forward, He stood as our Surety and Representative. And therefore this consequent obligation may be as much of an objection to the validity of His suffering the penalty, as against His obedience. But if we look to that original transaction between the Father and the Son, wherein both these were undertaken and accepted as virtually done in the sight of the Father, we will find Christ acting with regard to both as one perfectly in His own right, and under no manner of previous obligation that might compromise the validity of either.
(To be continued …)
warriorprincess4yeshua.blog 