"Covenant Children Today"

I Rarely venture into the topic of baptism since it can be quite a heated argument. I have far too much love for my Paedobaptist brothers to make this subject a point of separation. However, there are times when I think it necessary to broach the topic. At times it is necessary to clarify where Reformed or Covenantal Baptists make their case from. Not all Baptists come from the same angle. I also see many young people new to the doctrines of grace dive head first into infant baptism since most of their learning of these doctrines come from Paedobaptists and surely if they were so right on those issues they couldn't possibly be wrong on baptism? Then there are those Baptists that don't really know what is going on. All they have been taught growing up is that baptism is for believers only. They don't know how to answer objections or questions from Paedobaptists on the issue of baptism. They are left confused and sometimes upset that they can't answer. These are some reasons why I dare venture into the topic of baptism. But, perhaps, the most important one is that it is a biblical matter that requires much attention. It is no small thing. I, as a Reformed Baptist, view it as a sacrament ( I know that some Baptists are extremely uncomfortable with that word since it "reeks" of Rome but I prefer sacrament to ordinance) and something to be expounded on.

When dealing with my fellow infant baptizing brothers the issue that comes up the most is the relation of circumcision to baptism. Rather than offer my thoughts I turn to Alan Conner and his book Covenant Children Today:

The argument that we want to examine in this chapter runs like this-Since the Abrahamic Covenant required that all the Jews circumcise their male infants, this practice of giving the covenant sign to infants would have naturally carried into the New Testament and been applied to baptism unless it was explicitly rescinded.

This argument, however, is severely weakened by how circumcision is understood in the New Testament. Based on what the New Testament teaches about circumcision , it would seem to be highly improbable that it could ever be a pattern for baptism, especially among Gentile believers. In fact, the evidence which we will discuss below suggests that unless the apostles had explicitly commanded the baptism of infants among Gentile believers, it would have had too much opposition to ever be put into practice.

Consider, first, the practice of circumcision among the Jewish believers in the first century. The New Testament gives no evidence that the early Jewish Christians baptized their infants, but rather indicates that they continued the Old Covenant rite of circumcision. When Paul at the end of his third missionary journey, arrived at Jerusalem (around A.D. 57), he gave a missionary report to James and the elders about how the Lord was saving Gentiles. They rejoiced and glorified God but were concerned that Paul's reputation among the Jewish believers at Jerusalem was being maligned. Acts 20:21...James and the elders were concerned about these Jewish believers who continued to be "zealous for the law." They had been told that Paul was teaching the Jews "not to circumcise their children" anymore. This created a serious and delicate problem that prompted James and the elders to suggest a plan to Paul by which his reputation could be cleared up.

What we see from this passage is that the Jewish believers at this time were still practicing infant circumcision and that there is no evidence of a shift to infant baptism. For them, the law of circumcision was still an important part of their Jewish heritage and there was great opposition against giving it up. Thus, there is no clear transition from infant circumcision to infant baptism among the Jewish believers, and the likelihood that they practiced both is unrealistic given their commitment to the Law of Moses.

On the other hand, we see nothing in the New Testament to support the notion that Gentile believers imitated the Jewish believers in their practice of infant circumcision. In fact, there are solid reasons why the practice of circumcision, or any practice of baptism based on circumcision, would have been outright rejected by the Gentiles in the church...The issue of circumcision was an explosive issue within the early church. Some Jewish believers wanted the Gentiles to become circumcised, but they resisted. This was such an important issue to the Jewish church that some were saying that the Gentiles could not even be saved unless they were circumcised (Acts 15:1). A huge uproar was in the making. This required apostolic intervention, for the Gospel was at stake...As Paul and others returned back to Antioch with the news of the verdict, they all, especially the Gentile believers, rejoiced because of its encouragement (Acts 15:31). The issue was settled and the letter was signed, sealed and delivered. The Gentiles were not bound in any way to practice circumcision.

Thus, any attempt to implement the practice of infant baptism on the principle of circumcision would have aroused intense suspicion. With the Jerusalem Council on their side, the Gentiles would have naturally resisted any attempt to bring them under the law of the Jews by trying to pattern baptism after circumcision...

There was no fence straddling by Paul on this issue. Circumcision was the poster-child issue for the Jewish system of woks salvation and Paul was bound in spirit to fight against it. The gospel of grace must be defended against this attack.

So now let us imagine the scenario put forward by the paedobaptist point of view. Someone enters the church and tells Gentile believers that they need to start baptizing their infant children. These believers would have scratched their heads and asked for some justification for this new practice. At this point the argument is advanced, "because of Old Testament circumcision. "You should baptize your infants because the law required us to circumcise our infants and this principle has not changed." "The principle of circumcision lives on in the New Covenant, only now it applies to baptism." Now, be honest, don't you see a bit of contradiction here? Do you think the Gentiles in the church would have accepted such a practice based on such an argument? Don't you think there might have been a little cause for alarm? The inherent contradiction is glaring. I think they would have revolted on the spot, and for good reason. To argue for infant baptism on the basis circumcision would have been viewed as an obvious attempt to be brought back under the yoke of bondage...

Such a conclusion seems not only reasonable but unavoidable given the amount of teaching by Paul on this issue. Trying to establish baptism on the foundation of circumcision would have gone over like a lead brick on quicksand. The Gentile church would not have easily given up their freedom on this issue without a fight. Their freedom from circumcision would have been a major obstacle to accepting any practice based on the Old testament ritual. Surely if this objection was to be overturned, there must be some clear and irrefutable teaching from the apostles themselves stating that baptism should follow the practice of circumcision and be given to infants. But there is no such teaching found in the entire New Testament. Why is this? Maybe it is because the issue of infant baptism never occurred in the lifetime of the apostles. Maybe the practice of infant baptism never even came up in the first century. This suggestion best explains why the New Testament never attempts to harmonize the obvious contradiction between infant baptism and the abrogation of the practice of circumcision for the Gentile believers. Therefore, it seems highly improbable that Gentile Christians ever would have embraced infant baptism on the dangerous ground and Christ-severing practice of circumcision  (Galatians 5:1-4) without a clear directive from the apostles themselves. Thus, the paedobaptist argument turns against its owner. Contrary to their reasoning that the practice of infant circumcision would have carried over into infant baptism unless explicitly rescinded, it appears more consistent with Scripture to say that infant baptism based on infant circumcision would not have been accepted, especially by the Gentile believers, unless explicitly commanded. And, no such command exists in all of the New Testament.*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

       

*Conner, Alan. Covenant Children Today (Owensboro: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2007), p. 66-70.

When "Be Like Jesus" Has Replaced "It Is Finished"

When pastors preach more of a "be like Jesus message" instead of the "it is finished" Gospel, it is summed up by Frank A. James III:

 Reading the Scriptures and gaining insight through a dialogue with history still does not address application to the individual Christian life. Apprehending the truth is not always the same thing as internalizing it. To fail to internalize the atonement in one's own life, both behind and in front of the Sunday morning pulpit is to fail at a crucial point. If the atonement is rightly understood, it must have a practical and personal significance. Moreover, the atonement belongs in the evangelical pulpit, and if it is as valuable as we think it is, it must be preached in the church. We fundamentally agree that the aim of all theology is a changed life-or, as Martin Bucer, the Alsacian Reformer of the sixteenth century and John Calvin's mentor, put it so well nearly five hundred years ago: "True theology is not theoretical or speculative, but active and practical. For it is directed toward ... a godly life. ... It is theology's aim ... that we shall ever more firmly trust in God and live a life that is increasingly holy and more serviceable in love toward our neighbor. Perhaps the reason the atonement has fallen on hard times is that most Christians have not understood well its meaning or its significance for their personal lives. Somehow we have lost the connection and interest in one of the basic questions for Christians-namely, why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Was it a defeat or a triumph? The editors believe that to understand the atonement is to gain a deeper understanding of Christ and his salvation and that such an understanding will enrich the Christian life immeasurably.* 

 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"(Ro 3:23–26). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Charles E. Hill;Frank A. James III. The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological & Practical Perspectives (p. 17-18). Kindle Edition.

Humbled By The Cross And Lloyd-Jones' Exposition Of It

I am eternally grateful for the cross of Christ. That my Lord would be crushed, by the Father, for such sinners as I, is truly a humbling thing. It strips me of all pride. Not only that but it comforts me as well. When I "survey the wondrous cross" it moves my soul. It is easy to become puffed up and become arrogant when I compare myself to the next sinner. But when I stand at the foot of the cross, there is no room for haughtiness. To know that "he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities: upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed" (Is. 53:5), is to remind me that "blessed are the poor in spirit" (Mt. 5:3). That is why it is essential that all Christians need to have the Gospel preached to them, especially pastors.

I am eternally grateful for the cross of Christ and I am so thankful, also, for the men that God has gifted the Church with that have stood faithfully to preaching the cross. One person that has impacted me the most has been Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. His faithful preaching of the cross is refreshing to my soul. I read him and stand  in awe of the cross (more than I already do). I need to hear the Gospel preached to me and Lloyd-Jones brings out the glory of the cross. The following is one of his sermons from Ga. 6:14:

God, in his great love for us, delivered up for us his only begotten dearly beloved son, who had never disobeyed him and had never done any harm to anybody, to the death of the cross. But you notice what he says: 'He spared not his own Son.' He means that God had made it very plain and clear that he was going to punish sin by pouring out upon sinners the vials of his wrath. He was going to punish sin in this way- that men should die. The wages of sin is death, and it means endless death and destruction. And what we are told there by the Apostle is that after he laid our sins upon his own Son on that cross, he did not spare him any of the punishment. He did not say, because he is my Son I will modify the punishment. I will hold back a little, I cannot do that to my own Son. I cannot treat him as a sinner. I cannot smite him, I cannot strike him. He did not say that. He did everything he said he would do. He did not keep anything back. He spared not his own Son. He poured out all his divine wrath upon sin, upon his own dearly beloved Son.

So you hear the Son crying out in his agony, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' and he literally died of a broken heart, John tells us that when the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, 'Fortwith came there out blood and water' (19:34). The heart had burst and the blood had clotted, and there it was-serum and blood clot, because his heart was literally ruptured by the agony of the wrath of God upon him, and by separation from the face of his Father. That is the love of God. That, my friend, is the love of God to you, a sinner. Not that he looks passively and says: I forgive you though you have done this to my Son. No, he himself smites the Son. He does to the Son what you and I could never do. He pours out his eternal wrath upon him, and hides his face from him. His own dearly beloved, only begotten Son. And he did it in order that we should not receive that punishment and go to hell and spend there an eternity in misery, torment and unhappiness. That is the love of God. And that is the wonder and the marvel and the glory of the cross, God punishing his own Son, in order that he might not have to punish you and me.* 

Amazing! Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

* Lloyd-Jones, Martyn. The Cross ( Illinois: Crossway. 1986), p. 80-81.

Refuting Arminian Arguments: On John 12:32 and ''All Men"

Does the bible teach that Christ will "draw all men" to Himself? Yes, it does. But, it is what we mean by "all men" that is really the issue. Now, before the Arminian or "free-willist" begins to argue that we are redefining words inorder to "force Calvinism into the bible"- let us acknowledge two things:


1. It is the Arminian who redefines biblical words like "election, predestined, chosen" into "God sees who will choose Him out of their own free will, and then chooses those He sees will choose him".


2. Words are defined by their context.


Let us now look at this passage to understand the context:


²⁰Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. ²¹So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus." ²²Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. ²³And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. ²⁴Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. ²⁵ Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. ²⁶If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.

 ²⁷ "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. ²⁸Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." ²⁹The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him." ³⁰Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. ³¹ Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. ³²And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."John 12:20-32 -ESV

Commentary: In this text Greeks come to seek Jesus. Salvation was believed to be exclusively for the Jews. But Jesus said "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd (John 10:16). These other sheep are the non-Jews, the gentiles (in this one flock there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile- Galatians 3:28). This of course was a scandal to the Jews who believed they were the apple in God's eye. Phillip tells Jesus (about the Greeks seeking after Him) and Jesus says "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified" (verse 23). This sets the tone for Jesus to speak about His death (verse 27-28), and leads to our verse of focus: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."


I believe that the word "all" in this context is referring to Jews and Gentiles. Out of these (both Jew and Gentile) God will draw His elect (Rev 5:9). This makes sense given the Greeks seeing Jesus.

It even seems that John Wesley would agree with me:


" Lifted up from the earth - This is a Hebraism which signifies dying. Death in general is all that is usually imported. But our Lord made use of this phrase, rather than others that were equivalent, because it so well suited the particular manner of his death. I will draw all men - Gentiles as well as Jews. And those who follow my drawings, Satan shall not be able to keep." Proof here 

It is problematic to read "all" in this verse as every single person. Here is why:


Was God attempting to draw those in the old testament whom He sent no prophets to?
Was God attempting to draw those in the old testament whom He sent the Israelites to kill?
Is God attempting to draw those whom He knows (and has always known) would never choose Him?

Further, the word "draw" in Greek (transliterated) is "Helkuo". It means to "draw, drag off" or to "draw by inward power, led, impel." It is forced. Here are some other places where the same word is used:


Acts 16:19- And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers,


Acts 21:30- And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

John 21:11Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.



John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Whenever John 6:44 is brought up, the Arminian runs to John 12:32. But this attempt is futile. In John 6:44 him who is drawn is also him who is raised up "at the last day". Therefore, if the Arminian wants to say that all are "drawn" he will also have to conclude that all will be raised up on that last day. And if God is drawing everyone, well, then we might as well be Universalists. 

In Christ, Awretchsaved

Caveat Emptor!

This is simply to link to another blog that gives a good critique of Bart Ehrman's latest book, Misquoting Jesus.

Critque of Misquoting Jesus

The critique is by Daniel Wallace, and is well worth the read.

When Godly Men Stand And Speak

 When godly men speak up this is what you hear or read:

Having noticed the provision to be made for sin, we come next to the great fact of the Incarnation as the foundation of the whole work of atonement. The Lord’s advent in flesh is uniformly set forth as a means for the accomplishment of a great result: not as in itself an end. Thus, in the Lord’s own teaching, He announces that He came down from heaven for the sake of a people given to Him (John 6:39); that He came to save that which was lost (Matt. 18:11); that He came to give His life for others (Mark 10:45). We may represent the relation between God and man in this way. Between the INFINITE GOD, possessed of all holiness and justice, and MAN, a rebel and infected with sin, there is the widest conceivable remove in a moral point of view. What can bring them together? Who can terminate the estrangement? The INCARNATION of the Eternal Son supplies the answer: this fills up the chasm and paves the way to the rectification of man’s relation. But it is equally necessary to meet the wants and cravings of the human spirit, which ever and anon exclaims: What would become of me if my Maker were not my Redeemer? (Is. 54:5).

 I purpose to touch on this theme in the briefest way. The modern “lives of Jesus,” though they cannot be accepted as a satisfactory exhibition of the Incarnation, because they are too Humanitarian, have rendered a double service. They have proved that the Incarnation took place in a historic person, and in one only; and they have established the fact that Jesus came not to propound an idea but to do a work, and to become the Head of a company finding redemption and life in Him. For it is not too much to say that wherever thought is fixed on the Incarnation, as the deep ground of union to God and of reconciliation and life, a renovating influence will be shed both over doctrine and life.

 Here I find it necessary to say at the outset that, in all my references to the Incarnation, I do not take up the doctrine in the light in which it is presented in too many of the writings of the present day. I do not share the view so largely adopted by Continental divines that the Incarnation would have taken place though no sin had entered to disturb the harmony of the universe. On the contrary, that view seems to me to go far to vitiate every department of truth, because it deduces the Incarnation from the idea of humanity and not from the exercise of free and sovereign love. The doctrine of sin supplies the rationale and ground of this great truth. But if the Incarnation is represented as the completion of man’s creation, or as the realisation of the idea of man, it seems to me that under high-sounding words we introduce a perilous deviation from the truth. If there still remained an extraordinary intervention to supplement the act of creation, this would introduce the most portentous consequences. Man at first would not have corresponded to his idea, and Christ would become the perfected creation. This may suit the Schleiermacher theology, but it reduces all to natural process, and is often meant to avoid the offence of the cross. The Son of God is no longer the Restorer of the lost, but the Perfecter of the imperfect.

 On the contrary, according to the tenor of our Lord’s teaching, the Incarnation was CONDITIONED BY SIN, and not necessary except on the supposition of redemption. The expiation of sin, the meritorious obedience to be rendered to the law, the vindication of Divine justice, are the objects contemplated by the stupendous fact of the Incarnation, the Incarnation and the cross being inseparable. The words of Scripture announce an incarnation of redeeming love: not of natural process. If we were to accept the latter view, the inevitable result would be that the atonement, instead of being one principal object of the Incarnation, would be reduced to a subordinate and secondary matter in this great transaction. If the Incarnation must be brought about in the course of history, either from a necessity in God, or to give a realization to the idea of humanity, the historic fact in Jesus would be but one peculiar mode of what must have taken place in any case. And what becomes of Divine free love in the provision?

 From this view-point we can easily obviate the objection that God never acts by occasion of anything. It is no disparagement to the Incarnation to regard it as brought about by occasion of sin, though it was by no means caused by sin. This greatest work of God is still but a free work or deed, not necessary to the Divine felicity, and therefore on the same footing with creation or any other Divine act toward the universe. But, in point of fact, so far is it from being true that God never acts by occasion of anything, that we have only to survey the history of the Incarnation from the Fall downwards to see that all the circumstances of it—its foreshadowing and prediction, as well as the Lord’s actual history—were shaped and moulded by occasion of sin. It remains that we view the Incarnation as ushered in to be a MEANS to an end. And this leads us to survey the great provision or problem from a twofold point of view.*

So you do not regret the cross, and you do not try to forget it or idealize it, or philosophize about it, and turn it into something beautiful and wonderful. No what, you say is this: I glory in it! Why? Because it is by this that 'the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.' It is the means of my salvation. It is the very way in which I am saved. In other words, the Apostle tells us that he preaches this because that which happened there, when out Lord died on that cross, is the very thing that saves us. If he had not died upon the cross, nobody would ever have been saved. There would be no gospel to preach. It is the saving event. It is the act whereby our salvation is accomplished. That is why the Apostle glories in it. That is why Isaac Watts says 'When I survey the wondrous cross.' It is the thing which saves us and without which we would not be saved at all.*

In days when immediacy is everything, and when instant solutions are demanded, there is great danger that in an effort to appear contemporary, Christians in the present generation will lose sight of the rich heritage of church teaching in this area (the atonement). Rediscovering this tradition helps to counter views, both from within and outside the church, that would destabilise the faith of Christians and lead unsuspecting believers down routes that could prove spiritually harmful. Viewing the issue of Christ bearing the punishment in the place of sinners , through the lens of christian history, helps us to appreciate why the church has come to understand the teaching of the Bible in a certain way, and why some approaches have been rejected in the past, and others retained. It raises fundamental questions about new developments- why has this not been adopted by the Christian church before? Many modern views of the atonement are a reworking of long rejected ideas, simply presented in contemporary packaging. 

The richness of the way in which the bible refers to the work of Christ upon the cross has been reflected in Christian writings throughout the history of the church. However, at the heart of Biblical teaching about the atonement is the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, bearing the just penalty for sins. this profound truth draws together all other ways of speaking about the atonement; it is the operative principle that lies behind them.* 

 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Ti 1:15–17). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

 *Smeaton, G. (2009). The doctrine of the atonement, As taught by Christ Himself (Second Edition) (39–42). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

*Lloyd Jones, Martyn. The Cross ( Illinois: Crossway, 1986) p. 27-28

*Shaw, Ian and Edwards, Brian, The Divine Substitute (Leominster: Dayone, 2006) p. 5

The Beauty Of Mercy

“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation”(Ex 34:6–7).


The beauty of mercy which we speak of is not just any mercy. It is not the mercy of a human judge towards a convicted criminal nor is it the mercy of a human victim towards a human offender. No, the beauty of mercy which we speak of is divine mercy. It is a divine mercy. The mercy of a holy God. The mercy of  the Creator towards His lawless creatures. It is the mercy of the sovereign divine Judge towards human sinners. It is the mercy of a loving God towards His hateful subjects. You see, the thrice holy God is not just merciful, He mercies or is mercying sinners (Ro. 9:14-16). That is an attribute of God. He is a mercying God. When He proclaims Himself to Moses the first noun He uses to describe Himself is "merciful." There is great comfort in that because we would be without hope if God were not a mercying God. We would all perish.

And that is the key to understanding the mercy of God. He goes on to explain what He means by "merciful," "gracious," "abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness," "keeping steadfast love," when He says "forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin and who by no means clears the guilty." If God were not a mercying God we would all be guilty still in out transgressions and sins. We would still have His curse on our heads and He would one day have to visit our iniquity in His righteous judgment. We get a glimpse of this righteous wrath in Rev. 6:15-17: "Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” And in Mt. 25:41: "“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Leave the latter part out ("but who will by no means clear the guilty,") and the description(s) of God's judgement and mercy ceases to be mercy. In fact you cannot explain the mercy of God without speaking of His judgment. Is this all that mercy entails? No, but it is chief and at the center.

The beauty of mercy is that God satisfies and maintains His holy righteousness while extending His mercy at same time in the cross of Christ. This cross is as Luther said "where justice and mercy meet." The guilt and curse that was ours was placed upon the head of Christ. He is satisfies the justice of God ( remember God will by no means clear the guilty) and is at the same a public demonstration of God's beautiful mercying. The biblical explanation of this is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." The beauty of mercy is that because of the cross of Christ there is not one drop of God's wrath left for the repentant believer in Christ. But this is the Jesus nobody likes. Everyone wants to talk about the example of Christ but many do not want to talk the accomplishment of the Lord Jesus. He and He alone is the only reason why God will not "visit the iniquity" upon the believing sinner. Let me phrase it this way- God visited the iniquity of the believer upon Christ at the cross. Oh, the beauty of mercy!

The beauty of mercy is that when a sinner is the recipient and experiences the mercying of God in Christ, they in turn are merciful towards others. It is why a family of Christians can take in their home, a convicted criminal of whom his parole officer said would be foolish thing to do, and love him as their very own son and brother .It is why persecuted Christians that have lost their loved ones to those hostile to Christianity do not seek vengeance and continue to share the Gospel with their persecutors. It is why Christians are commanded to love their enemies. It is we who have experienced the greatest mercy of all- the mercy of the Triune God in Christ Jesus. The cross of Christ is the reason why the Lord says, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy" (Mt 5:7). The beauty of mercy is that when a person can cry out to God, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" as you hang your head and beat your chest ( Lk. 18:13) then you can be merciful like the Good Samaritan. In other words, once you have cried out to God for mercy, in repentance and faith, then you will receive His mercy and in turn be merciful yourself. Yes, that is the beauty of mercy!

When the mercy of God meets his wrath, it is not by a fickle dismissing of the severity of sin or an arbitrary decision to overlook evil. On the contrary, the holiness of God must be satisfied in a just way. That way was to be through the cross, but the sacrifices of the Old Testament were intended as a preparation, so that though the ceremonies and symbols god explained beforehand the meaning of the cross.*

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt:  “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted. (Lk 18:9–14).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

* Shaw, Ian and Edwards, Brian. The Divine Substitute ( Leominster: DayOne, 2006), p.23