Feb 15, 2010
On the Accomplishment and Application of Redemption in Romans 5:10-11 # 2
I promised several posts on the accomplishment and application of redemption in Romans 5:10-11. Here is my second post. It contains my third and fourth observation on the distinction between the accomplishment and application of reconciliation in Romans 5:10-11.
(3) While I cannot and would not want to affirm exegetically that we are justified at the cross, I think it is clear that Romans 5:10-11 requires that we affirm that we were reconciled to God at the cross. Let me take a moment to state my case for this.
First, the statement in verse 10, For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, seems plainly parallel to the statements of verses 6-8.
Notice verse 6: For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Notice vers 8: But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
This evident parallel straightforwardly requires that the statement of verse 10 means that we were reconciled to God when Jesus died. Christ’s dying for us and Christ’s reconciling us to God seem clearly parallel. Just as Christ died for us when we were helpless, ungodly, and sinners, so He reconciled us God while we were enemies.
Second, Paul seems to reflect on the distinction between the accomplishment of reconciliation at the cross and the application of reconciliation when he speaks in verse 11 of our now having received the reconciliation.
Romans 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Paul’s thought seems clearly to be that, while we were reconciled to God at the cross in the mind and heart of God, we do not personally receive or experience this reconciliation until it is applied to us by the Holy Spirit giving us faith.
Third, we should not be surprised that Paul speaks of reconciliation actually occurring at the cross. Do we not have similar statements using parallel terminology? For instance, Revelation 5:9 clearly places the redemption of men at the cross: And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
Aorists are used here in parallel of Christ’s being slain and His purchasing men for God from every tribe. Notice the aorist that follows in verse 10 as well. The text does not say that He is in the process of purchasing men for God, but that He—aorist past tense—purchased men for God. Redemption is presented here as a once for all occurrence at the cross. Assuredly, this redemption is not applied, enjoyed, or experienced until it is received by faith when we are adopted, but as with reconciliation in some sense it was achieved and finished and accomplished at the cross.
The same thing goes for the propitiation of the wrath and the satisfaction of the justice of God. If we believe that God’s wrath toward sinners was propitiated, and the justice of God was satisfied at the cross, then we have the same thing as Paul asserts in Romans 5:10 with regard to the category of reconciliation.
This is why we sing the wonderful words of In Christ Alone: When on the cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied...
(4) All of this brings to me say this. Why should anyone who believes in particular redemption count as strange doctrine what I said and what Paul affirms about reconciliation? I might ask: What did you think particular redemption meant or involved when you adopted it? Particular redemption or limited atonement has always meant exactly this. In some sense, that is, it has always meant that God’s wrath was actually propitiated, His justice actually satisfied, the curse actually borne, sin was actually atoned, men actually redeemed, and sinners actually reconciled already at the cross. If this is not what particular redemption means to you, then perhaps you need to go back and reconsider the matter. This is the purport of John Owen’s famous argument for limited atonement. Substitutionary atonement requires limited atonement, because substitutionary curse-bearing means that God’s wrath against His own was satisfied at the cross, and there is no reason left in God’s mind and heart to send them to hell once Christ was died. Payment God cannot twice demand once at my dear surety’s hand and then again at mine.
Comments
Brandon Adams on Feb 23, 2010 2:11pm
Thanks for this series. This is a particularly difficult topic I have recently been trying to sort out.
This evident parallel straightforwardly requires that the statement of verse 10 means that we were reconciled to God when Jesus died.
I don't follow you here. Doesn't it simply mean that we were reconciled to God while we were still sinners, which could have been at the cross, or upon our conversion?
Paul’s thought seems clearly to be that, while we were reconciled to God at the cross in the mind and heart of God, we do not personally receive or experience this reconciliation until it is applied to us by the Holy Spirit giving us faith.
I fail to see how this is different from those who promote eternal justification. They argue that we are justified before God, in His mind, from eternity, but we do not personally experience that justification until we have faith.
Gill says: Justification is by many divines distinguished into active and passive. Active justification is the act of God; it is God that justifies. Passive justification is the act of God, terminating on the conscience of a believer, commonly called a transient act, passing upon an external object. It is not of this I shall now treat, but of the former; which is an act internal and eternal, taken up in the divine mind from eternity, and is an immanent, abiding one in it; it is, as Dr. Ames expresses it, "a sentence conceived in the divine mind, by the decree of justifying."
--
This is the purport of John Owen’s famous argument for limited atonement.
Yes, and that is exactly what makes this all so difficult to work out. If we are reconciled to God, and His wrath is propitiated, and His justice is satisfied at the cross, then we are justified at the cross, not upon faith. Justification is an objective act by God that occurs on the basis of those things just listed. If those things have all been done before God, then so has justification. But you're right, Scripture nowhere talks about our justification except upon faith. So it seems we either need to redefine justification to mean something other than reconciliation, propitiation, and the satisfaction of God's justice, or we need to say that reconciliation, propitiation, and the satisfaction of God's justice do not occur until belief. 2 Cor 5:20 suggests reconciliation does not occur until belief.
Sam Waldron on Mar 5, 2010 11:07am
The evident parallel to which I refer is that in verses 6-8 three times Paul refers to Christ dying for us while we were sinners.
Romans 5:6-8 6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
In these verses the very language used in verse 10 of when we were reconciled is used of what we were when Christ died. Ergo the time frame is the same.
Further, I doubt that we really can or ought to say or that the Bible says that we were converted or justified while we were enemies (literally, being enemies). I think it is unlikely that Paul uses this language here to refer to conversion. In fact, Paul says in verse 1 that the result of being justified is having peace with God. Is it likely that in verse 10 he will say that after being justified we are still the enemies of God?
Sam Waldron on Mar 5, 2010 11:10am
As to 2 Corinthians 5:20, Brandon, I think it plainly refers to what Paul calls here in verse 11 "receiving the reconciliation." This is different than what happened at the cross. In fact, in 2 Corinthians 5:20 Paul says that at the cross the (elect) world was reconciled to God at the cross. the preaching is only intended to bring men into personal and experiential possession of the accomplished reconciliation.
Sam Waldron on Mar 5, 2010 11:16am
Brandon, you say, "I fail to see how this is different from those who promote eternal justification. They argue that we are justified before God, in His mind, from eternity, but we do not personally experience that justification until we have faith."
I think it is clearly different--as different as time from eternity. In our representative we were reconciled to God by the cross not by election. Are these things the same in the divine mind? I think not.
Are we really in the dilemma that you create, Brandon? Must we choose between eternal justification and Amyraldianism? No, I believe the distinction between the historia salutis and the ordo salutis provides a clear path out of this dilemma and a clear distinction between our reconciliation in our representative and our representative in own persons.