Morphemics

Till...God's Great Judgment Seat

Clifton has combined a response to Darren's Jesus Christ and the Mark of Original Sin and my What to Do? over here. As he mentions, his response to me is not as detailed as before because Perry had already responded in the comments of my post. [Since then, Perry and I have added one more round over here.] Still, Clifton does bring up some points that are worth addressing. He says of my view, "Christ asumes a human nature that was created mortal, and thus heals it, but needs not assume original sin, since this is merely a forensic declaration." Actually, I'm saying that, because original sin is a forensic declaration and not inherited sin, Christ can be declared guilty along with the rest of us without any stain of personal sin. I do not subscribe to Clifton's rejection of the notion that Jesus was born under condemnation. He did die, and that not just as a natural consequence of taking on flesh, but in payment for our sin. I am aware of the biblical teaching of substitutionary atonement- the just for the unjust. Nevertheless, there is also the doctrine of union with Christ- that we are crucified and raised with him. Not only does Christ's bodily resurrection make our future bodily resurrections possible, but we have already been raised when he was raised from the dead.

Note well- union with our Federal Heads, whether Christ of Adam, is not forensic. It is actual. This is not a case of mere nominalism. It is not the case for those who are condemned in Adam that, first Adam sins, and then God declares us to be in Adam and, therefore, guilty. Nor is it the case for those who are justified in Christ that, first Christ is raised, and then God declares us to be in Christ and, therefore, justified. Instead, we are in real union with Christ while he dies and while he raises from the dead so that the declaration of his righteousness, based upon his fulfillment of the covenant, is also the declaration of our righteousness. In like manner, the union of humanity with Adam their Federal Head is the basis whereupon they can be declared guilty when he sins. Forensic declarations are not arbitrary. A just God cannot simply declare a verdict that does not match up with reality. If Adam had not actually sinned, there could be no declaration of original guilt. If Christ had not actually been righteous, then we who are in Christ could never have been justified (which is a declaration of righteousness).

The need for Christ to assume human nature existed before any consideration of Adam's sin. Man was created in order that God might dwell with him forever. To this end, the Son of God had to become incarnate and the Spirit of God had to glorify what had been assumed. It does not follow from the fact that man was created mortal that mortality was the original intent. The intent was that man become immortal by means of the work of the triune God. When Adam sinned, this intent was never abandoned. However, it did mean that the mission of the incarnate Son would now include doing what was necessary to reverse the forensic declaration. While it is quite true that only a forensic remedy is necessary if there was only a forensic change, we cannot ingnore the grounds of the forensic declaration. Adam was declared guilty because he sinned. The sinless life that Jesus lived, both in avoiding unrigteousness and in fulfilling all positive righteousness, was the basis on which he was declared righteous. However, a sinless life does nothing to pay the debt of guilt already incurred. Inasmuch as those with whom Christ has united himself have been declared guilty in Adam, he must also bear the penalty of this guilt. The wages of sin is death. The atonement is a matter of Christ paying the wages of sin. Christ must pay for sin and, thereby, be declared not guilty before he can be declared righteous on the basis of his sinless life.

The necessity of Christ's death is not tied to the mortality of human beings, although, the possibility of Christ's death is. Mortality is not the same thing as actual death; it is potential death. If Adam was created immortal, that is, incapable of death, then God could not have said to him, "In the day you eat thereof you will surely die." Immortal beings do not die. Mortal beings do not need to die. God has never demanded punishment for the state of mortality, only for the actual sin of Adam. Mortality makes the penalty of death possible; however, it is not to be confused with that penalty. Christ only dies on account of sin, not on account of man's original created state as mortal. The death of Christ is necessary to take away man's sin. The incarnation of Christ is necessary to heal man of his mortality- a mortality that, in itself, is not sinful. Had Adam not sinned, the Son of God would still have become incarnate, yet, with no need to suffer the penalty of death.

The incarnation is what frees us from our mortal nature and, as such, is the first step towards our becoming partakers in the divine nature. Although faith and forensic declarations of righteousness are necessary to our final union with God, neither one is sufficient to effect this union. This goes back to the incarnation, wherein Christ condescends to take on contingent nature. When his human nature is made immortal in his resurrection and on the basis of being declared righteous, we are declared righteous and the healing of our natures into immoratality is promised. This then is the basis of our heavenly fellowship with God and of the promise that we will "become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire" (II Peter 1:4). [To answer the potential question, I distinguish between the world being created corruptible, which is not due to sinful desire, and the actual corruption, which does result from sinful desire.] Our relationship to God is not "always and only a forensic standing." The forensic standing can only be declared on the basis of that relationship. Union with Christ precedes justification.

Clifton writes that "under Darren's and Kevin's rubrics, we are our natures." No we are not. If this were the case, then my only Christological options would be Monophysitism or Nestorianism. I subscribe to neither. My only theistic options would be Modalism or Tri-theism. I subscribe to neither. All I have done is to insist that a person does not exceed his nature, that he is co-extensive with his nature. This is not the same thing as saying that persons and natures are the same thing. It means that there is no part of my person that is not human; there is no part of the persons of the Father or of the Holy Spirit that is not divine; there is no part of the person of the incarnate Son that is not both human and divine, without confusion and without separation.

Contrary to Cliftons's claims, it is not the case that "All justification accomplishes is that God works his will in us, in opposition to what we want, because we cannot even want justification and indeed are so naturally constituted as to always oppose God's will." This ignores the order of God's work. Justification itself may be forensic, but the declaration is based on what is real, on our union with Christ in his resurrection. It is not the case that a human nature "is always and only naturally opposed to the divine nature." If it were, and if Christ assumed a fully human nature- well, just imagine the internal conflicts. The absolute opposition comes from a human nature that is not energized by the Spirit of God. This is not the case for those who have been regenerated. Regeneration precedes faith, and faith is the instrument of justification. No one is justified in opposition to what he wants (which is not to say that no one is justified in opposition to what he once wanted).

Clifton objects to my contention that "infinite offense [predicated on the one offended, not the one who offends] demands infinite retribution." He writes, "The infinite offense against the divine nature cannot be satisfied by endless retribution of a human nature, for the natures are absolutely and qualitatively dissimilar." But this is not true. Human nature is not divine nature; nevertheless, they are not absolutely dissimilar. Man was created in the imago dei. We were designed with a point of contact between the human and the divine.

It has always been God's intent that his people partake of the divine nature. To this end, he creates man in his image, he assumes human nature, and he glorifes that assumed nature. Regenerate human nature is not always opposed to the divine; glorifed human nature is never opposed. The relation goes beyond forensic declarations. It precedes these declarations. The incarnate Christ is the one who is declared righteous in his resurrection. Consequently, assuming human nature precedes any forensic declaration. The divine wrath, which is predicated on divine justice and holiness, can never be satisifed against a mere human- if only because mere human beings cannot take the full measure of that wrath. Hell is the eternal exercise of divine restraint. It does not follow from this that the divine wrath against God's elect can never be satisfied in the God-man. There is no collapse in Reformed soteriology. Christ assumes original mortality and original guilt. In so doing, he bears the same condemnation as those with whom he has identified. He takes the penalty of this condemnation and is then justified on the basis of his personal righteousness. Forensic declaration is not the only remedy that bridges the gulf between God and man. Nor, though necessary, is it the primary remedy. That remedy is this: the Father elects those who will be put into union with Christ; the Son assumes our nature and is justified in that nature; on the basis of this forensic declaration, the Spirit glorifies that nature. The judgments of God are not merely forensic, but they are true and righteous.

Posted by kcourter at março 31, 2005 11:33 AM