Is R.C Sproul Correct???

[Ken_lamb]

OPC'n Forgive me if I'm reiterating what others have already said. The term that I've heard Sproul used before was Simul Justis et Pecatur(sp.?), which means that by the work of the cross we are justified and yet still sinners. These two qualities presumably don't stand side by side, but that the Justification that we've recieved through Christ provides a covering of our sinfulness. What Sproul seems to be infering is that God does not merely acquit us of the charges, even though the sentence of death was paid on our behalf. Hope that helps.

 

[JimmyH]

In my limited knowledge of Scripture I have been taught that God the Father sees us through the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Revelation 5: and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

 

[earl40]

In my limited knowledge of Scripture I have been taught that God the Father sees us through the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Revelation 5: and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

God the Father sees us through the imputed righteousness of Christ. God knows what is beneath the clothes.

 

[KevinInReno]

I think Joshua in Zechariah 3 can be instructive to this topic. Satan is not rebuked in his accusing Joshua. But Joshua puts on the alien righteousness God provides.

 

[OPC'n]

1Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

John Calvin states in his commentary on 1Peter:

24Who his own self bare our sins This form of speaking is fitted to set forth the efficacy of Christ’ death. For as under the Law, the sinner, that he might be released from guilt, substituted a victim in his own place; so Christ took on himself the curse due to our sins, that he might atone for them before God. And he expressly adds, on the tree, because he could not offer such an expiation except on the cross. Peter, therefore, well expresses the truth, that Christ’ death was a sacrifice for the expiation of our sins; for being fixed to the cross and offering himself a victim for us, he took on himself our sin and our punishment. Isaiah, from whom Peter has taken the substance of his doctrine, employs various forms of expression, — that he was smitten by God’ hand for our sins, that he was wounded for our iniquities, that he was afflicted and broken for our sake, that the chastisement of our peace was laid on him. But Peter intended to set forth the same thing by the words of this verse, even that we are reconciled to God on this condition, because Christ made himself before his tribunal a surety and as one guilty for us, that he might suffer the punishment due to us.

I suppose I'm sticking with what I thought was right since John Calvin states what I have always believed. I really don't know if it was just strange wording on Sproul's part or what, but for now I'm prepared to say it is just bad wording.

 

[Wayne]

And here's your perfect opportunity, Sarah:

Ask R.C. Live: Tuesday, January 21 at 7:30pm EST by Nathan W. Bingham | Ligonier Ministries Blog

Next Tuesday, January 21 at 7:30pm EST, Dr. Sproul will be live online via video answering your theological questions. You will be able to submit questions to him in real-time or in advance by using #AskRC on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

If you’d prefer to participate by telephone, you can pre-register using the form at the bottom of this post and we’ll call you shortly before the event. On the call you will be able to hear Dr. Sproul and request to ask him a question live.

We do hope you can join us next Tuesday.

Note: We will be updating this blog post throughout the week with more information.

 

[OPC'n]

And here's your perfect opportunity, Sarah:

Ask R.C. Live: Tuesday, January 21 at 7:30pm EST by Nathan W. Bingham | Ligonier Ministries Blog

Next Tuesday, January 21 at 7:30pm EST, Dr. Sproul will be live online via video answering your theological questions. You will be able to submit questions to him in real-time or in advance by using #AskRC on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

If you’d prefer to participate by telephone, you can pre-register using the form at the bottom of this post and we’ll call you shortly before the event. On the call you will be able to hear Dr. Sproul and request to ask him a question live.

We do hope you can join us next Tuesday.

Note: We will be updating this blog post throughout the week with more information.

hahaha! Oh my goodness this is great! Thanks! I'll have to go and figure out how to use some of those resources to put forth the question. I'll send him what Calvin says on the matter too.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

I really don't know if it was just strange wording on Sproul's part or what, but for now I'm prepared to say it is just bad wording.

Yet he seems to think it's very important. Seems like word games to me. :-/

 

[bookslover]

I'm wondering if Sproul is taking the wording "by no means" too literally. The phrase "by no means" is usually used in English as a way of expressing a determination that something will not happen. For example, if I say, "By no means will I allow him to go to the movies," I'm not saying that I am going to take every physical precaution within my power to prevent him from going to the movies. No, I'm making a general statement, using that English locution, that I've decided he's not going to go to the movies.

So, perhaps Sproul is misunderstanding the divines as saying that, when God says that "by no mean" He will clear the guilty, He's saying that there's absolutely no mechanism by which the guilty can be saved, when what God is actually saying is that, in His moral righteousness and perfection, He is determined that the guilty shall not go unpunished. And the guilty - that's us - WERE punished, vicariously (but still punished) by Christ's death on the cross. In Christ's death, God fulfilled the "by no means" locution.

Short version: perhaps Sproul is taking literally a figure of speech not meant to be taken so.

 

[OPC'n]

I'm wondering if Sproul is taking the wording "by no means" too literally. The phrase "by no means" is usually used in English as a way of expressing a determination that something will not happen. For example, if I say, "By no means will I allow him to go to the movies," I'm not saying that I am going to take every physical precaution within my power to prevent him from going to the movies. No, I'm making a general statement, using that English locution, that I've decided he's not going to go to the movies.

So, perhaps Sproul is misunderstanding the divines as saying that, when God says that "by no mean" He will clear the guilty, He's saying that there's absolutely no mechanism by which the guilty can be saved, when what God is actually saying is that, in His moral righteousness and perfection, He is determined that the guilty shall not go unpunished. And the guilty - that's us - WERE punished, vicariously (but still punished) by Christ's death on the cross. In Christ's death, God fulfilled the "by no means" locution.

Short version: perhaps Sproul is taking literally a figure of speech not meant to be taken so.

IDK, but I don't believe God will ever clear the guilty, however, His children are not apart of the guilty group. We are guilty of sinning and we will sin until we died, but I don't believe we are held guilty for our sins since Christ paid for them on the cross.

 

[Rich Koster]

I'll agree that the guilt has not been cleared. It has been laid upon Jesus Christ. It didn't merely disappear by hitting a delete button.

 

[Scott1]

So we are the forgiven guilty? What about imputation? If His works are imputed onto us, how does that support us still being guilty? If God sees us according to Christ's work done on our behalf yet still sees us as the forgiven guilty, can we even say that Christ's work imputed onto us really works (I'm playing the devil's advocate here just to help with my understanding of this)?

If we said, we are sinners, saved by grace, that would be understandable, right?
Not that we are innocents.

So we are the forgiven guilty?

Please forgive me if this is over-reading the words,
but how could we not be forgiven were we not guilty?

And, Sarah, if you do ask the esteemed Dr., please let us know the response!

 

[SolaScriptura]

My opinion is that this was a poorly worded question for a True/False format.

 

[TylerRay]

Scott has it right. We are judicially free from sin because of the alien righteousness of Christ; we are justified extra nos (outside of us). Our guilt, however, remains. We're still guilty people, deserving of judgment, but we're justified in Christ.

This all relates to where the doctrines of justification, imputation, and Christ's representation of us before God meet.

 

[OPC'n]

I'm still going to hold to what John Calvin says and not Sproul this time round

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Dr. Sproul's distinction seems more semantic than substantive. I get his point. But it boarders on splitting hairs. Just my

 

[MW]

I reminded them that the confession says that God will by no means (which includes the cross) clear the guilty. He redeems and saves the guilty, but he does not clear them. They are still guilty. It is only because of his grace, his most loving mercy, and his imputation of Christ's righteousness that God justifies us while we are still sinners."

Matthew Poole's Commentary might help to clarify the sense in which the Confession uses the words of Exodus 34:7.

That will by no means clear the guilty: this is commonly esteemed a title of justice or vengeance, which is here added by way of correction lest men should mistake or abuse God’s mercy. God is most gracious indeed, but so as he is also just, and will not pity nor spare impudent and impenitent transgressors, but will severely punish them.

Poole's comment proceeds to show that the Hebrew can be rendered in a different way with a different sense, but as it stands it appears that the phrase does not speak to justification by faith but to the justice of God which refuses pardon to the impenitent.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

Poole's comment proceeds to show that the Hebrew can be rendered in a different way with a different sense, but as it stands it appears that the phrase does not speak to justification by faith but to the justice of God which refuses pardon to the impenitent.

So, it's getting at the fact that repentance is necessary? That would be related to the idea that, in the order of salvation, we are sanctified before we are glorified, right? As in, if we remain mired in our sin, it will not be pardoned? Am I making sense/on the right track with Sproul's idea? I'll admit a lot of this thread has confused me.

 

[MW]

So, it's getting at the fact that repentance is necessary? That would be related to the idea that, in the order of salvation, we are sanctified before we are glorified, right? As in, if we remain mired in our sin, it will not be pardoned? Am I making sense/on the right track with Sproul's idea? I'll admit a lot of this thread has confused me.

I think the statement of Dr. Sproul tries to make it relate to justification when that is not its intent. That is where the confusion might be coming from. The statement in context speaks to the point that repentance is necessary but it is more fundamental than that. It is related to the revelation of grace -- men must not presume that God must be gracious to them and that they may continue as they please; He will not ignore the claims of justice. This obviously relates to justification and repentance further down the track, but in the immediate context it is qualifying the nature of grace.

 

[Scott1]

We really need to ask the good Doctor.
The question can be emailed in.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/askrc-...medium=email&utm_campaign=AskRC012114&aref=SS
He is quite careful in explaining theology, quite gifted in that.

 

[OPC'n]

this could be all my fault…..maybe i should post a few pages of what he wrote to put it in better context? I can do that if it helps….just let me know. I really adore Sproul and wouldn't want to take what he said out of context.

 

[Scott1]

This is a great question, Sarah,
I'm wondering more and more about how to understand this, both in the context of the particular Scripture, the Westminster Confession on this point and Dr. Sproul's comment on it.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I reminded them that the confession says that God will by no means (which includes the cross) clear the guilty. He redeems and saves the guilty, but he does not clear them. They are still guilty. It is only because of his grace, his most loving mercy, and his imputation of Christ's righteousness that God justifies us while we are still sinners."

Matthew Poole's Commentary might help to clarify the sense in which the Confession uses the words of Exodus 34:7.

That will by no means clear the guilty: this is commonly esteemed a title of justice or vengeance, which is here added by way of correction lest men should mistake or abuse God’s mercy. God is most gracious indeed, but so as he is also just, and will not pity nor spare impudent and impenitent transgressors, but will severely punish them.

Poole's comment proceeds to show that the Hebrew can be rendered in a different way with a different sense, but as it stands it appears that the phrase does not speak to justification by faith but to the justice of God which refuses pardon to the impenitent.

So, it's getting at the fact that repentance is necessary? That would be related to the idea that, in the order of salvation, we are sanctified before we are glorified, right? As in, if we remain mired in our sin, it will not be pardoned? Am I making sense/on the right track with Sproul's idea? I'll admit a lot of this thread has confused me.

I think the statement of Dr. Sproul tries to make it relate to justification when that is not its intent. That is where the confusion might be coming from. The statement in context speaks to the point that repentance is necessary but it is more fundamental than that. It is related to the revelation of grace -- men must not presume that God must be gracious to them and that they may continue as they please; He will not ignore the claims of justice. This obviously relates to justification and repentance further down the track, but in the immediate context it is qualifying the nature of grace.

This is very helpful. Thanks Reverend Winzer.

I might also add that Galatians 6:7 is written to the Church.

(Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

(Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

I had a discussion about a year ago with a young man in my congregation who was having problems with the idea that God still punishes sin in the Christian. He said I was incorrect because all of his sin was laid upon Christ and Christ bore all of the punishment he deserved on the cross. That was a rather difficult conversation to untangle.

 

[MW]

I had a discussion about a year ago with a young man in my congregation who was having problems with the idea that God still punishes sin in the Christian. He said I was incorrect because all of his sin was laid upon Christ and Christ bore all of the punishment he deserved on the cross. That was a rather difficult conversation to untangle.

The Puritans offer a good distinction for this. We are punished as children by a father, remedially; not as criminals by a judge, retributively.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
...
Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Heb 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

And this was one of the passages I used to help him understand.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have asked Dr. Sproul to elaborate in tonight's live Q&A. I hope my question makes the cut.

Am watch live now:
Ligonier Webcasts

 

[Scott1]

Based on watching about 1/2 the program, it was excellent, I hope it is recorded.
Was the thread question addressed?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Was the thread question addressed?

No, my submitted question never made the cut.

 

[AdventTruth]

Scott has it right. We are judicially free from sin because of the alien righteousness of Christ; we are justified extra nos (outside of us). Our guilt, however, remains. We're still guilty people, deserving of judgment, but we're justified in Christ.

This all relates to where the doctrines of justification, imputation, and Christ's representation of us before God meet.

Blessed are those who lawless deeds have been forgiven,
and whose sins have been covered.
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. (Rom. 4:7-8)

He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities . . .
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him. (Is. 53:5, 6)

I understand Gods justice is legal...lawful....Christ took quilt of our sin upon Himself! In Christ, each of us are acquitted.

 

[stephen2]

Scott has it right. We are judicially free from sin because of the alien righteousness of Christ; we are justified extra nos (outside of us). Our guilt, however, remains. We're still guilty people, deserving of judgment, but we're justified in Christ.

This all relates to where the doctrines of justification, imputation, and Christ's representation of us before God meet.

Agreed. Robert Reymond explains some of this very well: "... one occasionally hears justification popularly defined as God 'looking at me just as if I'd never sinned.' This is an example of a (very) partial truth becoming virtually an untruth, since nothing is said in such a definition concerning the ground of justification or the instrumentality through which justification is obtained. Much more accurately, the Shorter Catechismm defines justification as 'an act of God's free grace, wheerein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone...

... justification refers to God's wholly objective, wholly forensic judgment concerning the sinner's standing before the law, by which forensic judgment God declares that the sinnner is righteous in his sight because of the imputation of his sin to Christ, on which ground he is pardoned, and the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience to him, on which ground he is constituted righteous before God."

In a sense God doesn't ever clear the guilty. We are cleared on account of our standing in Christ or rather on account of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. We are accepted then not because our sins have been forgotten (deliberately or by accident) or because God has just made them disappear. Rather we are accepted on the basis of Christ's obedience wich is imputed to us who believe.