Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Romans 5:1

[JonC]

I hope we may have a discussion on this interesting subject. I note, however, that you are asking questions that are not easily answered on a forum such as this. I have learned to my cost that posts of more than about 300 words are not usually answered here. So I hope you will not play 'Twenty Questions' but enter into a genuine discourse.

I’d welcome the discussion (all of our discussions are interesting).

The reason I’ve been asking so many questions at the start is to explore your position (for my clarity). I wanted to know how you would respond prior to engaging the topic in depth. This is largely due to the fact that we both know I strongly disagree with your view and, to paraphrase Gibran, you can give me your words but not your understanding.

The problem with long replies is that sometimes they do not adequately focus on the issues or questions the other may have. Even here, though, I don’t think it is the length of a response so much as the broadness.

No more than there is a difference between the justice of God, the longsuffering of God, the mercy of God and the love of God, and those of the Lord Jesus. I hope that if you reply, it will not simply be with another question but that you will deal with the other attributes of God that I have mentioned here. If not, please do not be surprised or disappointed if I don't reply.

To me it appears that your description in post#20 separates Christ as the propitiation from God who is propitiated. Based on our previous discussions this leads me to believe (please correct me if I misunderstand your position here) that you view Christ’s punishment on the cross as an abandonment by God and the suffering of wrath to appease that God from whom Christ was separated for three hours.

If that is the case then we view the cross on very different grounds. Before we go there, however, please critique my statement above. I want to make sure we are on the same page.


Thanks

 

[Martin Marprelate]

To me it appears that your description in post#20 separates Christ as the propitiation from God who is propitiated. Based on our previous discussions this leads me to believe (please correct me if I misunderstand your position here) that you view Christ’s punishment on the cross as an abandonment by God and the suffering of wrath to appease that God from whom Christ was separated for three hours.

Here's what I wrote in answer to Agedman:

We are not in agreement. If Christ is the propitiation for the sins of every person in the world, then God is propitiated towards every person in the world and will be propitious to them. This is evidently not the case. But the Greek does not say that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Check it out.
As for 'the whole world' being all-inclusive, check out, for example, Romans 1:8.

There would only be a 'separation' of the Trinity if Christ were the unwilling victim, or if He were somehow dragging concessions from an unwilling God. Neither is the case. This is where the doctrine of the Covenant is so important. In eternity past (Titus 1:2) God, foreseeing the fall of Adam and the curse upon mankind that would follow, covenants within the Trinity. The Father elects a vast crowd of sinners to eternal life; the Son willingly agrees to redeem them by paying the penalty for their sin, the Holy Spirit agrees to bring these people to faith in Christ and to seal them for the day of Redemption. There is no separation, only perfect unity. The Father forsakes the Son, not because He hates Him, but because the Son must pay the full price of redemption, part of which is separation from God. I repeat what I have stated over and over again: not at any time did the Lord Jesus cease to be the 'beloved Son.' Instead of (or as well as) focusing on the suffering of the Son, we should think of the pain of the Father as He turns away from His suffering beloved One so that divine justice may be satisfied and guilty sinners freed from hell. 'For so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.....'

 

[JonShaff]

guilty sinners freed from hell

Freed from sin and death.

 

[JonC]

Here's what I wrote in answer to Agedman:

There would only be a 'separation' of the Trinity if Christ were the unwilling victim, or if He were somehow dragging concessions from an unwilling God. Neither is the case. This is where the doctrine of the Covenant is so important. In eternity past (Titus 1:2) God, foreseeing the fall of Adam and the curse upon mankind that would follow, covenants within the Trinity. The Father elects a vast crowd of sinners to eternal life; the Son willingly agrees to redeem them by paying the penalty for their sin, the Holy Spirit agrees to bring these people to faith in Christ and to seal them for the day of Redemption. There is no separation, only perfect unity. The Father forsakes the Son, not because He hates Him, but because the Son must pay the full price of redemption, part of which is separation from God. I repeat what I have stated over and over again: not at any time did the Lord Jesus cease to be the 'beloved Son.' Instead of (or as well as) focusing on the suffering of the Son, we should think of the pain of the Father as He turns away from His suffering beloved One so that divine justice may be satisfied and guilty sinners freed from hell. 'For so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.....'

I need to clarify here. I do not mean a “separation of the Trinity”. I grant that you do not believe that Christ ceased being God. That said, I do view the idea as an internal inconstance within the members of the Trinity.

Part of our disagreement may be in my rejection of covenants within the Trinity. So there is the hazard that misunderstandings may arise simply by the language we use to describe our views. If possible, I will try to avoid this by asking for clarification of you and striving to be very clear in my own responses.

What you describe is unity. I agree with you here. This, as I understand it, is unity between the members of the Trinity. Could we describe this as roles (i.e., a unity between Father, Son, and Spirit in their roles for accomplishing redemption)?

That said, what I still see is a disharmony – not between Father and Son (I do see it there, but that’s not my main concern) but between the Son and God (as One).

How can a person look at Christ on the Cross and say “there is the fullness of God”? It seems they could only say “there is the Son” and “there is the Father”. But it seems to me that Scripture teaches when we see the Son we see the Father, and when we behold the Son be behold the fullness of God in the flesh.

Does my question make sense to you?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I need to clarify here. I do not mean a “separation of the Trinity”. I grant that you do not believe that Christ ceased being God. That said, I do view the idea as an internal inconstancy within the members of the Trinity.

Part of our disagreement may be in my rejection of covenants within the Trinity. So there is the hazard that misunderstandings may arise simply by the language we use to describe our views. If possible, I will try to avoid this by asking for clarification of you and striving to be very clear in my own responses.

Thank you. I think that will be very helpful in our discussions. I see a 'Covenant of Redemption' or 'Covenant of Grace' among the Persons (better, I think, than 'members') of the Trinity as being vital to the understanding of our salvation. Here's an extract from one of my blog posts:

'References to the Covenant of Grace can be found in various parts of the Bible if one is prepared to look for them as the following examples will show:-

Luke 22:22. “And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined……” Determined where and by whom if not in the Covenant of Grace?

John 6:38-39. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Christ has been given a people and the task by the Father which He is determined to fulfil. What can this refer to if not the Covenant of Grace?

John 10:16. “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” Not, “I will bring,” but, “I must bring.” Our Lord had been given a commission to fulfil.

John 10:17-18. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Where did Christ receive this command, the doing of which merited so well the Father’s love? In the Covenant of Grace, of course.

Phil 2:6-8. ‘Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.’ In the Covenant of Grace, our Lord gave up temporarily that equality with the Father that had existed from all eternity, and became the willing servant of Exodus 21:5-6 and Psalm 40:6-8 in order to rescue those who had been given to Him (John 17:2, 6 ).

Heb 2:13. ‘Here am I and the children whom God has given to Me.’ Given by the Father to the Son in the Covenant of Grace to be redeemed from sin and brought to heaven.

In Isaiah 42:6, Christ is described as the Covenant itself. He is, in His own Person and work, the very substance of it. In Mal 3:1, He is, ‘The Messenger of the Covenant’because He came to proclaim it and make it known. In Heb 7:22, He is, ‘The Surety of a better covenant.’ Christ came as the representative of fallen Man, being engaged to fulfil the obligations incurred under the Covenant of Works. In Heb 9:15, He is, ‘The Mediator of the New Covenant’ since He has brought about legal satisfaction between God and man so that covenantal blessings are now imparted to those who had previously forfeited them, and He now stands between the two parties, advocating the cause of man to God (1 John 2:1 ) and speaking a word of the comfort of God to the weary man (Isaiah 50:4 ). I am indebted to A. W. Pink for much of the forgoing; let us now hear from him direct. ‘But how could Christ sustain such offices a these unless the covenant had been made with him (Gal 3:17) and the execution of it had been undertaken by Him (Heb 10:5-7 )? [Heb 13:20] is quite sufficient to establish the fact that an organic connection existed between the Covenant of Grace and the sacrifice of Christ. In response to Christ’s execution of its terms, the Father now says to Him, “By the blood of Thy covenant I have set forth Thy prisoners [those given to Him before the foundation of the world, but in Adam fallen under condemnation] out of the pit wherein is no water” (Zech 9:11 ).’
[from The Covenants part II. The Covenant of Grace]

What you describe is unity. I agree with you here. This, as I understand it, is unity between the members of the Trinity. Could we describe this as roles (i.e., a unity between Father, Son, and Spirit in their roles for accomplishing redemption)?

That said, what I still see is a disharmony – not between Father and Son (I do see it there, but that’s not my main concern) but between the Son and God (as One).

How can a person look at Christ on the Cross and say “there is the fullness of God”? It seems they could only say “there is the Son” and “there is the Father”. But it seems to me that Scripture teaches when we see the Son we see the Father, and when we behold the Son be behold the fullness of God in the flesh.

Does my question make sense to you?

First of all, let's admit that these are deep waters. Augustine wrote: "I will be attempting to say things that cannot altogether be said as they are thought by man-- or at least as they are thought by me. In any case, when we think about God the Trinity we are aware that our thoughts are quite inadequate to their object, and incapable of grasping Him as He is....." [Augustine, The Trinity, bk.5, 1].

Rather than ' look at Christ on the Cross and say “there is the fullness of God,”' I think we need to be saying, "There is Christ who is fully God." The Triune God does not hang upon the cross; Christ does, and that applies whether one accepts Penal Substitution or not. But is the One hanging on the cross fully God? Yes! Is He gladly and willingly carrying out the Father's will? Yes! Does He hate sin in just the same way that the Triune God does? Yes! Will He send unrepentant sinners to eternal punishment? Yes (Matthew 25:41)! Why? Because they have 'trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which He [Christ] was sanctified a common thing and insulted the Spirit of grace' (Hebrews 10:29).

I hope that helps. I may not quite have grasped your concerns, but no doubt you will clarify if that is the case. But maybe we should follow the advice of Charles Wesley:

''Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the first-born seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
'Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.'

 

[JonC]

Thank you. I think that will be very helpful in our discussions. I see a 'Covenant of Redemption' or 'Covenant of Grace' among the Persons (better, I think, than 'members') of the Trinity as being vital to the understanding of our salvation.

Thank you for the reply. From what I understand you are taking God’s counsel (the workings within the Trinity) as a covenantal work. While I may not agree it is in fact a covenant (probably based on a more philosophical reason that God doesn’t use binding agreements within Himself) I think that we mostly agree. I think that the use of God’s Counsel and even God’s internal dialogue in Exodus is more for our understanding than an ontological description of God. But I think that we can work with, and agree, on the truth that is conveyed. So I do not believe it will be too great an issue in this discussion to overcome.

Rather than ' look at Christ on the Cross and say “there is the fullness of God,”' I think we need to be saying, "There is Christ who is fully God." The Triune God does not hang upon the cross; Christ does, and that applies whether one accepts Penal Substitution or not. But is the One hanging on the cross fully God? Yes! Is He gladly and willingly carrying out the Father's will? Yes! Does He hate sin in just the same way that the Triune God does? Yes! Will He send unrepentant sinners to eternal punishment? Yes (Matthew 25:41)! Why? Because they have 'trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which He [Christ] was sanctified a common thing and insulted the Spirit of grace' (Hebrews 10:29).

Here is where we disagree on this topic. And here you have illustrated my strongest concern.

I do believe that when we look to the Cross we see the One True God hanging on the tree and dying a human, physical, death for our redemption. I believe this is the meaning of Paul’s words that this was God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

And with Charles Wesley I can agree that there is a mystery in the Immortal dying. But I think this is a mystery founded in our own limitations rather than a lack of revelation (anything less than the fullness of God hanging on the cross).

I hopes this helps explain where I disagree a bit more. This disagreement, I’m sure, has far reaching consequences (most theological disagreements do). But in regards to the OP, the last paragraph here is where I believe we differ the strongest.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks for your reply. I need to see whether our difference is merely a matter of phraseology or of substance

I do believe that when we look to the Cross we see the One True God hanging on the tree and dying a human, physical, death for our redemption.

The Triune God does not hang upon the cross; Christ does, and that applies whether one accepts Penal Substitution or not. But is the One hanging on the cross fully God? Yes!

Do you agree with me that the Triune God does not hang upon the cross? If so, how exactly do we differ? When the Person described as 'Jesus' says, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit," to whom do you think He is speaking?
These things need great care. We have to negotiate between the Scylla of Tritheism and the Charybdis of Modalism.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for your reply. I need to see whether our difference is merely a matter of phraseology or of substance


Do you agree with me that the Triune God does not hang upon the cross? If so, how exactly do we differ? When the Person described as 'Jesus' says, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit," to whom do you think He is speaking?
These things need great care. We have to negotiate between the Scylla of Tritheism and the Charybdis of Modalism.

That’s probably a more difficult question than it appears.

No, I don’t agree that the Triune God does not hang upon the cross. But this needs qualification.

I do not believe that Jesus is less than the fulness of God (Father, Son, and Spirit). So when we know Jesus I believe we know the Father. I don’t believe there is more of God to know than is revealed in Christ.

That said, what I believe we do see in the Trinity are the actions of the One Triune God manifested in the work of the Persons of the Trinity. The One True God (who is a Triune God) hung on the Cross for our sins. The Son hung on the Cross. I don’t think we can single out the Father and say He hung on the cross and while I would never use the language of the Trinity suffering the cross, I believe this is exactly what occurred. But we only know God through the Son.

On the cross the Son was submissive to the Father. He was speaking to the Father to Whom He prayed. But if God is Triune (and He is) then Jesus is this same God on the cross. You have touched on this concept with your explanation of how it was just for the Father to punish the Son because this was in fact God taking our punishment upon Himself.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I know it may be as clear as mud but we are speaking of One God in three Persons.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here's what I wrote in answer to Agedman:

There would only be a 'separation' of the Trinity if Christ were the unwilling victim, or if He were somehow dragging concessions from an unwilling God. Neither is the case. This is where the doctrine of the Covenant is so important. In eternity past (Titus 1:2) God, foreseeing the fall of Adam and the curse upon mankind that would follow, covenants within the Trinity. The Father elects a vast crowd of sinners to eternal life; the Son willingly agrees to redeem them by paying the penalty for their sin, the Holy Spirit agrees to bring these people to faith in Christ and to seal them for the day of Redemption. There is no separation, only perfect unity. The Father forsakes the Son, not because He hates Him, but because the Son must pay the full price of redemption, part of which is separation from God. I repeat what I have stated over and over again: not at any time did the Lord Jesus cease to be the 'beloved Son.' Instead of (or as well as) focusing on the suffering of the Son, we should think of the pain of the Father as He turns away from His suffering beloved One so that divine justice may be satisfied and guilty sinners freed from hell. 'For so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.....'

The key phrase here that you mentioned was that we focus so much upon what Jesus experienced for our sake, we sorely neglect how much it effected God the Father what was happening!

 

[Yeshua1]

I need to clarify here. I do not mean a “separation of the Trinity”. I grant that you do not believe that Christ ceased being God. That said, I do view the idea as an internal inconstance within the members of the Trinity.

Part of our disagreement may be in my rejection of covenants within the Trinity. So there is the hazard that misunderstandings may arise simply by the language we use to describe our views. If possible, I will try to avoid this by asking for clarification of you and striving to be very clear in my own responses.

What you describe is unity. I agree with you here. This, as I understand it, is unity between the members of the Trinity. Could we describe this as roles (i.e., a unity between Father, Son, and Spirit in their roles for accomplishing redemption)?

That said, what I still see is a disharmony – not between Father and Son (I do see it there, but that’s not my main concern) but between the Son and God (as One).

How can a person look at Christ on the Cross and say “there is the fullness of God”? It seems they could only say “there is the Son” and “there is the Father”. But it seems to me that Scripture teaches when we see the Son we see the Father, and when we behold the Son be behold the fullness of God in the flesh.

Does my question make sense to you?

We do not see in Jesus the literal Father, but we do have a representation to us how God thinks and acts! Jesus is God the Son, and the father is God the Father, and they are not the same person!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for your reply. I need to see whether our difference is merely a matter of phraseology or of substance


Do you agree with me that the Triune God does not hang upon the cross? If so, how exactly do we differ? When the Person described as 'Jesus' says, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit," to whom do you think He is speaking?
These things need great care. We have to negotiate between the Scylla of Tritheism and the Charybdis of Modalism.

Jesus was and is fully God, but he is not the Father, for He is the Son made manifested as flesh among us, not the Father!

 

[JonC]

We do not see in Jesus the literal Father, but we do have a representation to us how God thinks and acts! Jesus is God the Son, and the father is God the Father, and they are not the same person!

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

 

[JonC]

Jesus was and is fully God, but he is not the Father, for He is the Son made manifested as flesh among us, not the Father!

No one is (to my knowledge) saying that Jesus is the Father.

You are saying that Jesus is fully God. But what I am telling you is that Scripture says that in Christ the fullness of God dwells in bodily form (Colossians 2:9). This is not the same as saying Jesus is fully God (that all Jesus is can be defined as God) but rather all God is can be defined in Christ.

Do you see how your switching around of words changes the meaning of Scripture?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Jesus shows to us How the Father acts and thinks, but jesus was NOT the Father in human flesh!

 

[Yeshua1]

No one is (to my knowledge) saying that Jesus is the Father.

You are saying that Jesus is fully God. But what I am telling you is that Scripture says that in Christ the fullness of God dwells in bodily form (Colossians 2:9). This is not the same as saying Jesus is fully God (that all Jesus is can be defined as God) but rather all God is can be defined in Christ.

Do you see how your switching around of words changes the meaning of Scripture?

When you keep quoting Jesus stating that when we see Him we see the father, you seem to be indicating that the Father is now come to Earth in person of Jesus!

 

[JonC]

Jesus shows to us How the Father acts and thinks, but jesus was NOT the Father in human flesh!

Who said Jesus was the Father in the flesh? I said that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who said Jesus was the Father in the flesh? I said that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily.

Yes, but just the fullness of God the Son!

 

[JonC]

When you keep quoting Jesus stating that when we see Him we see the father, you seem to be indicating that the Father is now come to Earth in person of Jesus!

No. I am saying that God has come to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ - not a sliver of God, or one third of God, but God Himself. I am saying that it is not that Jesus is fully God but that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily. That's what I've been saying over and over again, and I'll keep repeating until it takes.

 

[JonC]

Yes, but just the fullness of God the Son!

NO. That is not what Paul wrote. You have to stop changing words around and qualifying verses if you want to see what Scripture actually says.

Think of what Paul actually wrote. Think of when Paul actually wrote it. We don't worship three gods - one father god, one son god, and one spirit god. We worship ONE God in three Persons.

Pauline theology specifically teaches that all the fullness of God...of Deity....dwells in Christ bodily. We can't negate that just because we don't like what it says.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I am saying that God has come to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ - not a sliver of God, or one third of God, but God Himself. I am saying that it is not that Jesus is fully God but that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily. That's what I've been saying over and over again, and I'll keep repeating until it takes.

ALL of here agree that Jesus was God here upon the earth, but he was God the Son only, not the other 2 Persons of the Trinity!