PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS

As a student of divinity, I have opinions on almost all topics that deal with religion and theology. As any good theologian and aspiring theologian- the study of God and His Word is taken very seriously in my home.

If you are a veteran of this weblog, you know that the issue of youth ministry comes up often. Youth ministry is something that I take with a grain of salt and feel strongly that it does little lasting good to those that are involved. For the most part I see many of these programs doing nothing more than producing immature Christian adults (which is often evidenced by the number of Christian college students who use the NIV Student Bible.) I am also under the impression that “youth ministers” are often annoying 20 year olds with their roots bleached blond(e) and their noses pierced. I find this to be of little use in the kingdom of God, even though this is the norm for those doing ministry.

(Harsh? Maybe…True? Definitely.)

I have often thought that youth ministry needed to be reformed so that it could be done in the context of the covenant of grace. We know that the promise of the covenant is for us as well as for our children; and in some way genuine ministry to the youth of the church needs to be a reflection of that fact. Mark DeVries, who is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tennessee, has written a fantastic book that made me say out loud (on numerous occasions) “that is exactly what I have been trying to say!”

Pastor DeVries uses his 25 years of experience with youth and explains the “crisis” that this discipline is currently in, as well as gives his analysis of what it is going to take to reverse the damage that we are doing to our covenant children through current youth ministry. This book is worth the time for anyone that is interested in what could become the new model for youth ministry. He challenges those that are in the church to reach out to the youth and to build the relationships that are needed to aid in the maintaining of a living and active faith in Jesus Christ.

“Every Christian family ought to be as it were a little church consecrated to Christ, and wholly influenced and governed by his rule. And family education and order are some of the chief means of grace. If these fail, all other means are likely to prove ineffectual. If these are duly maintained, all the means of grace will be likely to prosper and be successful.”
-Jonathan Edwards

Our culture is one that is rebellious and has little respect for morality or of the law (which is a reflection of a people’s morality). In the covenant that God made with Noah, he established the punishment of wicked crime would be punishable by death.
This was reaffirmed with Moses and the death penalty was expanded beyond the shedding of human blood.
The New Testament affirms this penalty for crimes in the writings of Paul. The magistrate was equipped with the sword for the punishing of evil doers.

In Puritan New England many crimes were to be punished by either death or banishment. (Banishment would lead to death). This was to ensure that the society would be one that outwardly reflects the morality of Christ- while praying that inwardly they would have hearts converted to Christ. John Cotton gives us look into the early civil practices as well as the crimes and punishments of this early era of American history. We may not be a Christian nation, the framers of our constitution may have been humanists (or HUME-anists); but Puritan New England was different. This was a time when the number one printed book was the Bay Booke of Psalmes and the people loved the Lord Jesus Christ. What did their laws look like?

Of Crimes. And first, of such as deserve capital punishment, or cutting off from a man’s people, whether by death or banishment.

1. FIRST, blasphemy, which is a cursing of God by atheism, or the like, to be punished with death.
2. Idolatry to be punished with death.
3. Witchcraft, which is fellowship by covenant with a familiar spirit, to be punished with death.
4. Consulters with witches not to be tolerated, but either to be cut off by death or banishment.
5. Heresy, which is the maintenance of some wicked errors, overthrowing the foundation of the Christian religion; which obstinacy, if it be joined with endeavour to seduce others thereunto, to be punished with death; because such an heretick, no less than an idolater, seeketh to thrust the souls of men from the Lord their God.
6. To worship God in a molten or graven image, to be punished with death.
7. Such members of the church, as do wilfully reject to walk, after due admonition and conviction, in the churches’ establishment, and their christian admonition and censures, shall be cut off by banishment.
8. Whosoever shall revile the religion and worship of God, and the government of the church, as it is now established, to be cut off by banishment. [I] Cor. 5:5.
9. Wilful perjury, whether before the judgment seat or in private conference, to be punished with death.
10. Rash perjury, whether in public or in private, to be punished with banishment. Just is it, that such a man’s name should be cut off from his people who profanes so grosly the name of God before his people.
11. Profaning of the Lord’s day, in a careless and scornful neglect or contempt thereof, to be punished with death.
12. To put in practice the betraying of the country, or any principal fort therein, to the hand of any foreign state, Spanish, French, Dutch, or the like, contrary to the allegiance we owe and profess to our dread sovereign, lord king Charles, his heirs and successors, whilst he is pleased to protect us as his loyal subjects, to be punished with death. Num. 12:14, 15.
13. Unreverend and dishonorable carriage to magistrates, to be punished with banishment for a time, till they acknowledge their fault and profess reformation.
14. Reviling of the magistrates in highest rank amongst us, to wit, of the governors and council, to be punished with death. I Kings 2:8, 9, & 46.
15. Rebellion, sedition, or insurrection, by taking up arms against the present government established in the country, to be punished with death.
16. Rebellious children, whether they continue in riot or drunkenness, after due correction from their parents, or whether they curse or smite their parents, to be put to death. Ex. 21:15, 17. Lev. 20:9.
17. Murder, which is a wilful man-slaughter, not in a man’s just defence, nor casually committed, but out of hatred or cruelty, to be punished with death. Ex. 21:12, 13. Num. 35:16, 17, 18, to 33. Gen. 9:6.
18. Adultery, which is the defiling of the marriage-bed, to be punished with death. Defiling of a woman espoused, is a kind of adultery, and punishable, by death, of both parties; but if a woman be forced, then by the death of the man only. Lev. 20:10. Deut. 22:22 to 27.
19. Incest, which is the defiling of any near of kin, within the degrees prohibited in Leviticus, to be punished with death.
20. Unnatural filthiness to be punished with death, whether sodomy, which is a carnal fellowship of man with man, or woman with woman, or buggery, which is a carnal fellowship of man or woman with beasts or fowls.
21. Pollution of a woman known to be in her flowers, to be put to death. Lev. 20:18,19.
22. Whoredom of a maiden in her father’s house, kept secret till after her marriage with another, to be punished with death. Deut. 22:20, 21.
23. Man-stealing to be punished with death. Ex. 21:16.
24. False-witness bearing to be punished with death.

Friends, as the physical seed of Abraham remembers their protection during the time of the Maccabees, I would ask that you take these eight days to remember the Jews in your family worship. Pray that the Lord will keep his promise to convert the Jews and bring them back into the fold of God. May they see Jesus Christ for who he is- The King of the Jews.

Romans 11:25-26. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

What do we pray for in the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer?

In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan,we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

Question 191, Westminster Larger Catechism

Ladies and gentleman, we cannot be grinchy all of the time, so I thought that it would appropriate to sing some carols as we go into Christmass eve… let us start with that old time favorite that glorifies the tree and tells it how lovely it is. I believe that we find that one in the scroll of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 10.2-4

Thus says the Lord:
Do not learn the way of the Gentiles;Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven,
For the Gentiles are dismayed at them.For the customs of the peoples are vain;

For one cuts a tree from the forest;

The work of the hands of the workman, with the ax.
They decorate it with silver and gold;
They fasten it with nails and hammers
So that it will not topple.

The famous Baptist Preacher, Charles Spurgeon’s thoughts are to be reflected upon on this day which is regarded by 96% of Americans as a high and holy day:

We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmass: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and, secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Savior; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermon on Dec. 24, 1871).

When it can be proved that the observance of Christmass, Whitsuntide, and other Popish festivals was ever instituted by a divine statute, we also will attend to them, but not till then. It is as much our duty to reject the traditions of men, as to observe the ordinances of the Lord. We ask concerning every rite and rubric, “Is this a law of the God of Jacob?” and if it be not clearly so, it is of no authority with us, who walk in Christian liberty. (from Charles Spurgeon’s Treasury of David on Psalm 81:4.)

Here are some other fun links for your Christmass enjoyment!

Some Christmass Carols

Origins of Christmass

Christmass and the Reformed Faith

A W Pink on Christmass

“Mom, if you lied about Santa Claus….what about this Jesus guy that you are always trying to get me to talk to?”

FOX NEWS, NEW YORK —
Yes, Chris Rock, there is a Santa Claus. Parents with young children who happened to watch “Everybody Hates Chris” in the past week had some explaining to do when the character of Rock’s brother suddenly told his younger sister that Santa doesn’t exist. “Everybody knows there’s no Santa Claus,” Drew said to Tonya on the UPN sitcom. “Come here, let me show you something. I’m taking you to the toys … Santa doesn’t come down the chimney. We don’t even have a chimney. We have radiators.” Disillusioned, she stomps out of the room. But wait. It gets worse.Put on the spot, Tonya’s dad Julius tells her the Easter bunny and tooth fairy don’t exist, either. “Somebody better give me my teeth back,” the girl fumes. A blindsided UPN received “a handful” of complaints about the Santa expose on its sitcom based loosely on Rock’s life growing up in Brooklyn, a spokeswoman said. The Santa episode, titled “Everybody Hates Christmas,” aired on Dec. 15 and was repeated on Monday. “Everybody Hates Chris’ is a semi-autobiographical show,” said Ali LeRoi, its executive producer and co-creator. “We try to get humor out of tough subject matters. It never occurred to me what a 6-year-old would think about the subject of Santa.” Not, at least, until busted by his own 6-year-old son. LeRoi admitted that his boy was upset when he saw the episode. “My wife told him it was just a TV show and to ignore it,” he said. “It worked. He believes her. Kids trust their parents that way.”
There’s no word on whether Rock knew his show could be a holiday spoiler. His spokesman didn’t return telephone and e-mail messages for comment. On the show, young Tonya becomes a lot more cynical. Her mother explains that Santa Claus is a symbol and asks: “So you do understand?” “Yeah,” the girl replies. “It’s OK to lie.”

Yeah, I saw the movie. Did I like it? Why of course I did, it was a very good movie for the most part. I really thought that some of Christian imagery came across nicely. We were able to see a small taste of the gospel of Christ; maybe even enough to whet the appetite for someone to pick up their Bible and attempt to find where the imagery comes from.

The most thrilling part of the movie for me? When Aslan the lion (the Christ figure) declares, “It is finished!” after the army defeated the white witch and her posse of uglies. As a Christian this was very moving to the religious affections.

Some of the things that I did not like about the movie:
1. You never grow to love Aslan before he dies. He comes and he dies quick as that. There is no connection to him emotionally.
2. Edmund never repented after Aslan was slain for his sin. He continued to defy the authority of his brother Peter. I do not like the antinomian quality of this.
3. The prophecy of the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve did not seem to be taken very seriously by anyone. It was very down-played in the movie.

The point of this look into the film has more to do with the man behind the Lion though. It has been a few years since I have read any Lewis; I had to read some for my undergraduate degree, but I do not recall picking him up since. The one book that I remember liking the most was Till We Have Faces. Maybe that is because it was not theological in nature, but was more in the discipline of Lewis- literature.

I began to investigate some of the ideas that Lewis had regarding theology since I recall at Calvin we talked about some of his EXTREME non-evangelical ideas. I began to parouse some of his material again- and just as it was before, there is a lot that evangelicals would find to be distasteful.

The point? (Again, defending myself- I really liked the movie a lot. I enjoy his Narnia series as literature, I like some of the thoughts that he has had.) But why do evangelicals love this guy so much? I honestly think that if you put his list of doctrines infront of most evangelicals they would think that he was a hell bound heathen. (I am not commenting on his eternal state.) I find it odd that CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien (who was very Roman Catholic) have a stronger impact on American Christianity today than almost any other thinker, philosopher, theologian today.

Below is just one of the numerous articles that are available concerning his doctrine. (Some of the others will have extensive lists from his books that talk about various topics. Those are nice as well.)

WAS C.S. LEWIS A BIBLE BELIEVER?

Was C.S. Lewis a Bible believer? By no means, as even Christianity Today admits. “Clive Staples Lewis was anything but a classic evangelical, socially or theologically. He smoked cigarettes and a pipe, and he regularly visited pubs to drink beer with friends. Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn’t subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration” (“C.S. Lewis Superstar,” Christianity Today, Dec. 2005).

Lewis believed in prayers for the dead and purgatory and confessed his sins regularly to a priest. He was given the Catholic sacrament of last rites on July 16, 1963 (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, pp. 198, 301). Lewis denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He taught that hell is a state of mind: “And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind–is, in the end, Hell” (Lewis, The Great Divorce, p. 65). D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). In a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. Wesley Shrader, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, warned that “C.S. Lewis … would never embrace the (literal-infallible) view of the Bible” (F.B.F. News Bulletin, March 4, 1984).

Lewis lived for 30 years with Janie Moore, a woman 25 years his senior to whom he was not married. The relationship with the married woman began when Lewis was still a student at Oxford. Moore was separated from her husband. Lewis confessed to his brother Arthur that he was in love with Mrs. Moore, the mother of one of his friends who was killed in World War I. The relationship was definitely sexual in nature. See Alan Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis, pp. 82, 94. At age 58, Lewis married Joy Gresham, an American woman who pursued a relationship with Lewis even while she was still married to another man. According to two of Lewis’s friends, Gresham’s husband divorced her on the grounds of desertion (Roger Lancelyn Green & Walter Hooper, Light on C.S. Lewis), though it also true that he, in turn, married his Joy’s cousin.

In the book A Severe Mercy by Sheldon VanAuken, a personal letter is reproduced on page 191 in which Lewis suggests to VanAuken that upon his next visit to England that the two of them “must have some good, long talks together and perhaps we shall both get high.”

Lewis claimed that followers of pagan religions can be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ: “But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. … There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, pp. 64, 208, 209).

Discussion Point:

-Everyone has an opinion about this, no need!

It seems that here at PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS, I do not get a lot of fan-mail. As far as we are concerned it appears that there are a lot of readers that do not appreciate the Paleo-Presbyterian religion and find the old paths of Christianity to be rather noxious. Christian hate-mail is the more common response; but there are those that find PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS to be rather edifying, encouraging and uplifting.

The reason that I share this note with you is not to pat myself on the back and say what a great site I am running here, but to encourage those readers (and myself) that there are others who benefit from the old paths as well. May the revival of the Reformed religion touch the lives of all readers, and love for Christ and His Word abound in your lives. Enjoy!

Dear Nate,

Just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you for running your blog. It has meant a lot to me as I have been down _______. I miss everyone greatly, and your blog, and its links to many others, lets me have a little taste of home.
In addition I have often found your meditations and suggested questions very helpful in redirecting me back to the Lord, and the heart of the Reformed faith. Also, the Lord is giving you the wisdom to dialogue well with others on your blog. You display discernment, patience, and appropriateness, while still being signature Nate Eshelman.

Thank you again.
Keeping you and your family in prayer.
God bless.
Love through Christ, _________

PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS reads and appreciates all mail that is received. If you are so moved by the Spirit, the hate-mail is welcomed too. Mail to: nleshelman@yahoo.com

Not that this “Tis the Season” series has been the most edifying thing ever read on PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS, but it sure has been fun. Today’s feature is from the cultural commentator, Gene Edward Veith. Although I disagree with his premise, it sure is a fun read. In Slappy Holidays he shows us how the real Saint Nicholas was a defender of the true and Nicene religion, and at one point slapped the infamous Arius in the face for being a heretic.

May heresy slapping Santas be found around the world this Christmass season…
slappin’ those that celebrate Romish days! *Slap!*

It is not everyday that PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS celebrates the lives of people that are still alive. We usually dabble in the finer points of theology as well as discuss the thoughts and lives of people who lived long ago.

Today we look into the life of another Presbyterian. Mr. Makoto Fujimura is a PCA elder who is also becoming one of the hottest names in the art world. Mr. Fujimura is a New York City based artist who does beautiful work and is currently on display at the Chelsea Gallery in New York where he has painted enormous and hellish flames that are getting a lot of the art world’s attention. Most of his work can be described as modern or post-modern, but it speaking volumes to the community of which he a part.
You can read more about his influence on the art community in this article entitled, ART aflame.

The Shorter Catechism, that the Westminster Divines penned, is filled with instruction on what the Bible teaches. One question that is particularly important to Christians, as well as those that are “seeking” what the Bible says is, “What does it mean to be saved?” Here is how the Shorter Catechism answers that:
What is justification?
ANSWER: Justification is an act of God’s free grace; wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

James Fisher, a Seceeder Minister wrote a commentary on the Shorter Catechism that is useful for those that desire a greater understanding of what the Bible teaches, as well as some very practical insights on those teachings. Here is what Fisher says about this question on justification:

Q. 1. From whence is the word justification borrowed?
A. Being a law-word, it is borrowed from courts of justice among men, when a person arraigned is pronounced righteous, and, in court, openly absolved?
Q. 2. How does it appear, that justification denotes an act of jurisdiction, and not an inward change upon the soul?
A. From its being opposed to condemnation, which all own to consist, not in the infusing of wickedness into a person, but in passing sentence upon him, according to the demerit of his crime, Psalm 109:7.
Q. 3. What is it, then, to justify a person?
A. It is not to make him righteous, but to declare him to be so, upon a legal ground, and trial of a judge, Isa. 43:9, 26.
Q. 4. Who is the author or efficient cause, of our justification?
A. It is God himself; for, it is God that justifieth, Rom. 8:33.
Q. 5. Is it God essentially, or personally considered?
A. God essentially considered, in the person of the Father, is the justifier, in respect of judiciary power and authority, Rom. 3:26; and our Lord Jesus Christ, in respect of the dispensation, or exercise of that power, Acts 5:31.
Q. 6. In what respect is the Spirit said to justify? 1 Cor. 6:11.
A. As the applier of the blood or righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified, Tit. 3:5.
Q. 7. In what state is a sinner before justification?
A. In a state of sin and guilt, Rom. 3:9, and, consequently, in a state of wrath and condemnation, Gal. 3:10.
Q. 8. How can God justify the ungodly?
A. Every elect sinner, however ungodly in himself, yet, upon union with Christ, has communion with him in his righteousness, and on this account he is justified, Isa. 45:25 — “In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified.”
Q. 9. Why have elect sinners communion with Christ in his righteousness, upon their union with him?
A. Because their sins having been imputed to him from eternity, he became legally one with them, transferring their debt to himself, and undertaking to pay the same, Isa. 53:6; wherefore, upon union with him by faith, his perfect satisfaction is imputed to them, as if they had made it themselves, 2 Cor. 5:21.
Q. 10. Why is justification called an act?
A. Because, like the sentence of a judge, it is completed at once, and not carried on gradually like a work of time, Deut. 25:1.
Q. 11. What is the moving cause of justification, or what kind of an act is it? A. It is an act of God’s free grace, Rom. 3:24 — “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”
Q. 12. How can free grace be the moving cause of our justification, when it is “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?”
A. Because the redemption that is in Christ, is the channel through which justifying grace runs freely to us, Eph. 1:7.
Q. 13. What are the constituent parts of justification?
A. They are two; that in which he pardons all our sins, Rom. 6:7; and that in which he accepts us as righteous in his sight, Eph. 1:6.
Q. 14. What is the pardon of sin?
A. It is God’s absolving the sinner from the condemnation of the law, on account of Christ’s satisfaction for sin, Rom. 8:1.
Q. 15. Why is the pardon of sin set before the accepting us as righteous, in the answer?
A. Because, till the sentence of the broken law be dissolved by pardon, it is impossible that our persons can be accepted, or any blessing of the covenant conferred upon us, Heb. 8:10-13; where, after a great many other promised blessings, it is added, ver. 12 — “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness,” &c., intimating that the pardon of sin led the way to other covenant blessings.
Q. 16. What is it in sin that pardon removes?
A. The guilt of it, which is a person’s actual obligation or liability to eternal wrath, on account thereof, Eph. 2:3.
Q. 17. Can the guilt of sin ever recur upon a pardoned person?
A. No; the obligation to punishment, being once taken off, can never recur again; because “there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,” Rom. 8:1.
Q. 18. Will future sins revoke a former pardon?
A. No; future sins may provoke the Lord to withdraw the sense of former pardon, but can never revoke the pardon itself; because “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance,” Rom. 11:29.
Q. 19. What sins are pardoned in justification?
A. All our sins whatsoever, Psalm 103:3 — “Who forgiveth ALL thine iniquities.”
Q. 20. How are sins past and present pardoned?
A. By a formal remission of them, Psalm 32:5 — “Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.”
Q. 21. How are sins to come, pardoned?
A. By securing the non-imputation of them, as to the guilt of eternal wrath, Rom. 4:8 — “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”
Q. 22. If the non-imputation of eternal wrath, as to future sins, be secured, why do the saints pray for the pardon of them when committed?
A. Because the guilt or liability to fatherly anger is contracted by the commission of them; and, therefore, they pray for the removal of that guilt, Psalm 51:12 — “Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation.”
Q. 23. Is repentance a condition of pardon?
A. No; because this would bring in works into the matter of our justification before God, quite contrary to scripture, which tells us, that “a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,” Gal. 2:16.
Q. 24. How do you prove, that repentance has not the same interest as faith, in our justification?
A. From this, that in scripture we are frequently said to be justified by faith, but never said to be justified by repentance.
Q. 25. Is it not affirmed in our Confession, “that repentance is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it?”
A. The meaning is, that repentance is such an inseparable concomitant of pardon, that no pardoned person continues to be impenitent, 2 Sam. 12:13; Matt. 26:75.
Q. 26. If none can expect pardon, without expecting repentance along with it; will it not therefore follow, that repentance is a condition of pardon?
A. Not at all; for if repentance cannot so much as have the least instrumentality in pardon, it can never be the condition of it, nor have the smallest influence in causing it.
Q. 27. How does it appear that repentance has not the least instrumentality in pardon?
A. It appears evidently from this, that faith is the sole instrument of receiving Christ and his righteousness; without receiving of which there can be no pardon, John 8:24 — “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
Q. 28. Does God do any more in justification than freely pardon all our sins?
A. Yes; he likewise accepts us as righteous in his sight, Eph. 1:6.
Q. 29. Why is the accepting us as righteous joined with pardon, in justification?
A. Because, though among men a criminal may be pardoned, and neither declared righteous nor received into favour, yet it is not so with God; for whom he forgives, he both accounts their persons righteous in his sight, and receives them into perpetual favour, Rom. 5:8-10.
Q. 30. How can a holy and righteous God, whose judgement is according to truth, accept sinners as righteous without a perfect righteousness?
A. He accepts them as righteous only for the righteousness of Christ, which is perfect, and becomes truly theirs through faith, Jer. 23:6; Isa. 45:24.
Q. 31. By what right does the surety-righteousness become theirs?
A. By the right of a free gift received, and the right of communion with Christ.
Q. 32. How does it become theirs by the right of a gift received?
A. In as much as Christ’s righteousness being made over in the gospel, as God’s gift to sinners, it is by faith actually claimed and received; hence called the GIFT of righteousness, Rom. 5:17.
Q. 33. How does Christ’s surety-righteousness become theirs by right of communion with him?
A. In as much as sinners being united to him by faith, have thus communion or a common interest with him in his righteousness, Phil. 3:9.
Q. 34. When is it, then, that, according to truth, God accepts us as righteous in his sight?
A. When Christ’s surety-righteousness is actually reckoned ours, and we made the righteousness of God in HIM, 2 Cor. 5:21:upon this account precisely, and no other, are we accepted of God as righteous; the righteousness of GOD being UPON all them that believe, Rom. 3:22.
Q. 35 What is the matter of our justification, or that for which we are justified?
A. The RIGHTEOUSNESS of Christ only; hence he is called, “The Lord our Righteousness,” Jer. 23:6.
Q. 36. In what does the righteousness of Christ consist?
A. In the holiness of his human nature, his righteous life, and satisfactory death.
Q. 37. Can law or justice reach the person who is under the covering of the surety righteousness?
A. By no means; for “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? — It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again,” Rom. 8:33, 34.
Q. 38. Is the righteousness of Christ meritorious of our justification?
A. Yes; because of the infinite dignity of his person; for, though he “took upon him the form of a servant, yet, being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God,” Phil 2:6, 7.
Q. 39. How is the righteousness of Christ commonly divided?
A. Into his active and passive obedience.
Q. 40. What is his active obedience?
A. The holiness of his nature and righteousness of his life, in full and perfect conformity to the whole law, without the least failure, either of parts, or degrees of obedience to the end, Matt. 5:17, 18.
Q. 41. What is his passive obedience?
A. His satisfaction for sin, by enduring the infinite execution of the curse, upon him in his death, Gal. 3:13, to the full compensation of all the injuries done to the honour of an infinite God, by all the sins of an elect world, Eph. 5:2.
Q. 42. Why does his satisfactory death, as well as his righteous life, get the name of obedience? Phil. 2:8.
A. Because his sufferings and death were entirely voluntary, and in most profound submission to the commandment which he had received of his Father, John 10:18.
Q. 43. What is the formal cause of our justification, or that by which Christ’s righteousness is made ours?
A. It is its being imputed to us, Rom. 4:6.
Q. 44. What is it to impute Christ’s righteousness to us?
A. It is God’s accounting or reckoning it to us, as if we had obeyed the law, and satisfied justice in our own persons, and dealing with us accordingly, Rom. 4:4; 8:4; 2 Cor. 5:21.
Q. 45. Upon what ground or foundation is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us?
A. Upon the ground of his representing us from eternity, and our union with him in time, Isa. 53:5.
Q. 46. What necessity is there for the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience?
A. Because without the imputation of it, we could have no legal security from eternal death, Rom. 5:9.
Q. 47. What necessity is there for the imputation of Christ’s active obedience?
A. Because without the imputation of it, we could have no legal title to eternal life, Rom. 6:23.
Q. 48. If Christ, as man, gave obedience to the law for himself, how can his active obedience be imputed to us?
A. Though the human nature, abstractly considered, be a creature, yet never subsisting by itself, but in the person of the Son of God, the acts of obedience performed in it were never the acts of a mere man, but of him who is God-man, Mediator; and, consequently, acts of obedience, not for himself, but for us, Gal. 4:4, 5.
Q. 49. If Christ’s active obedience be imputed to us, are we not released from any obligation to yield obedience to the law in our own persons?
A. We are only released from an obligation to yield obedience to the law as a covenant of works, not released from obedience to it as a rule of life, Gal. 2:19.
Q. 50. Is the righteousness of Christ, itself, imputed to us, or only its effects?
A. As the guilt itself of Adam’s first sin is imputed to all his posterity, by which judgement comes upon all men to condemnation, so, the righteousness of Christ itself is imputed to all his spiritual seed, by which the free gift comes upon them all unto justification of life, Rom. 5:18.
Q. 51. What is the difference between the imputation of our sins to Christ, and the imputation of his righteousness to us?
A. Our sins were imputed to Christ as our Surety, only for a time, that he might take them away; but his righteousness is imputed to us to abide with us for ever; hence called an everlasting righteousness, Dan. 9:24.
Q. 52. Why are we said to be pardoned and accepted only for the righteousness of Christ?
A. Because a sinner can have no other plea before God, for pardon and acceptance, but Christ’s fulfilling all righteousness, as the only condition of the covenant, Isa. 45:24.
Q. 53. What is the instrumental cause of our justification?
A. It is twofold; namely, external and internal.
Q. 54. What is the external instrumental cause?
A. The G OSPEL; because the righteousness of God is revealed in it, and brought near to us as a free gift, Rom. 1:17, 5:17, and 10:8.
Q. 55. What is the internal instrumental cause of our Justification?
A. It is faith, Rom. 10:10.
Q. 56 Why is faith the instrument of our justification?
A. To show that our justification is wholly of grace; it being the nature of faith to take the gift of righteousness freely, without money, and without price; “therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace,” Rom. 4:16.
Q. 57. What, then, is the instrumentality of faith in our justification?
A. It is merely the hand that receives and applies the righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified.
Q. 58. Is the grace of faith or any act of it, imputed to a sinner for justification?
A. No; for, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,” Rom. 4:5.
Q. 59. What is the difference between saving faith, and justifying faith?
A. Saving, faith receives and rests upon Christ in all his offices, as “of God made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption;” but justifying faith, receives and rests upon him, more particularly, in his priestly office, for pardon and acceptance, on account of his meritorious righteousness, Phil. 3:9 — “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”
Q. 60. Why is the righteousness of Christ said to be received by faith alone?
A. That works may be wholly excluded from having any share in our justification, less or more, Rom. 3:28 — “Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.”
Q. 61. If good works have no influence upon our justification, of what use are they to the justified?
A. Though they cannot justify us before God, yet they are good “evidences” of our justification, being the fruits of a true and lively faith, James 2:18:they “adorn the profession of the gospel, Tit. 2:11, 12; stop the mouths of adversaries, 1 Pet. 2:15; and glorify God, John 15:8.”
Q. 62. If faith’s receiving of Christ’s righteousness justify us, does not faith justify as a work?
A. It is not properly the receiving, or any other act of faith, that justifies us, but the righteousness of Christ RECEIVED, Rom. 3:22; even as it is not the hand that nourishes us, but the food which we take by it.
Q. 63. If we are justified by faith alone, why is it said, James 2:24, “That by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?”
A. This is to be understood of justifying, or evidencing the reality of our faith before men, and not of justifying our persons before God.
Q. 64. When is it that God justifies the ungodly?
A. “Though from eternity God decreed to justify all the elect,” yet “they are not” actually “justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, apply Christ,” and his righteousness “unto them, Tit. 3:5-7.”
Q. 65. How were believers, under the Old Testament, justified?
A. “Their justification was, in all respects, the same with the justification of believers, under the New Testament,” Gal. 3:9; Heb. 13:8.
Q. 66. What may we learn from this important doctrine of justification?
A. That all ground of pride and boasting is taken away from the creature, Rom. 3:27:that faith itself, by laying hold upon the surety righteousness without us, is nothing else than a solemn declaration of our poverty and nakedness; and that, therefore, it is our duty to glory only in Christ Jesus, saying, “Surely — in the Lord have we righteousness and strength,” Isa. 45:24.

Discussion Points:
-Which point of Fisher’s impressed your soul and mind?
-What use does this have for evangelizing the unconverted?
-What are the implications of question and answer 66?