GIP Library icon

The Lady, Her Lover, Her Lord The Lady, Her Lover, Her Lord

The Lady, Her Lover, Her Lord Order Printed Copy

  • Author: T. D. Jakes
  • Size: 1.02MB | 210 pages
  • |
Continue with
Google Twitter
LOG IN TO REVIEW
About the Book


"The Lady, Her Lover, Her Lord" by T. D. Jakes is a Christian self-help book that explores the relationship between a woman, her partner, and God. It discusses how women can strengthen their faith, self-worth, and relationships by prioritizing their connection with God. Jakes emphasizes the importance of spiritual growth and communication in romantic relationships to achieve true fulfillment and happiness.

Charles Spurgeon

Charles Spurgeon Charles Haddon Spurgeon was born on June 19, 1834, just ten days after the great William Carey died in India. Because of economic conditions the young Spurgeon was sent to live with his grandparents at the age of 18 months. His grandfather, James Spurgeon, ministered to the church at Stambourne for 54 years. Those few years with his grandparents made a profound impact on the young man’s life. Spurgeon was always a bit of an enigma intellectually. He could appear to be unlearned when in reality he had a great intellect. An incident from his early school days is a good example of this. When he was around the age of ten, young Charles’ grades unexplainably began to drop. It seemed the more winter deepened, so did his scores. The teacher at first was baffled by this plummet in performance until he realized that the upper grader students' seats were near a drafty door where cold wind seeped in continually. When the teacher reversed the seating order so the higher grade seats were away from the cold draft, Spurgeon’s grades rose accordingly.1 Like many young people of his day, Charles struggled over his relationship with God for a number of years. It was common in those days for children to be encouraged to seek after God with their whole heart. There was no such quickness to get people "to make a decision" as we see in many of our churches today. Just as John Bunyan struggled against God, Spurgeon remembered how he fought against the idea of giving into Christ’s Lordship: "I must confess that I never would have been saved if I could have helped it. As long as ever I could, I rebelled, and revolted, and struggled against God. When He would have me to pray, I would not pray 
 And when I heard, and the tear rolled down my cheek, I wiped it away and defied Him to melt my soul. But long before I began with Christ, He began with me."2 After some time of alternately searching and running, the God who had already begun with a 16 year old boy led Charles to an encounter which he never forgot. For some time the Holy Spirit had been dealing with the young man’s soul. Spurgeon said that "God was plowing his soul, ten black horses in his team — the ten commandments — and cross plowing it with the message of the Gospel, for when he heard it, no comfort came to his soul."3 With all of his Biblical upbringing and praying, Charles was still lost in the darkness of his own heart. The incident that follows has been repeated so often in so many sources that it needs no documenting. One Sunday morning the snow was falling so hard that Charles could not get to his own church so he wandered into a Primitive Methodist Chapel. Doctrinally this little fellowship was world’s apart from the Congregationalist heritage of the Spurgeons. Yet into this little congregation of less than 15 people Spurgeon wandered that cold winter morning. As he entered an unlearned and unnamed itinerant preacher proclaimed the text, "Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." During that message, the preacher looked directly at the young stranger in their midst and said, "Young man, you look very miserable 
 You always will be miserable in life and in death if you don’t obey my text, but if you obey now, this moment you will be saved." Spurgeon later wrote, "Between half past ten, when I entered that chapel, and half past twelve, when I returned home, what a change had taken place in me!"4 Charles Haddon Spurgeon had indeed become a child of the Kingdom. Neither he nor the world would be the same as a result. Before long Spurgeon was searching for a church which fit what he felt God was doing in his life. He had never even heard of Baptists until he was fourteen but Charles was drawn to the Baptist congregation at Isleham. Out of respect to his parents the young man wrote to tell them of his desire to be baptized and join that fellowship. His mother wrote back she had often prayed for him to be saved but that she had never asked that he would become a Baptist. Charles replied to his mother by writing that the "Lord had dealt with her in his usual bounty, and had given her exceeding abundantly above what she had asked."5 Spurgeon would spend time in some ministerial training but he never attended any formal theological school. He also served, preaching to a small congregation near home for about two years at Waterbeach. The country boy had not been called to stay in the country however. God was about to unleash Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the greatest city in the British Empire. Away from the quiet life of Waterbeach, in London there was a congregation known as New Park Street. It was one of the six largest Baptist churches in London and held a heritage few churches could claim. Among her former pastors were Benjamin Keech, Dr. John Gill, and Dr. John Rippon. These three great names in Baptist history had served a combined 150 years at New Park Street. But times had changed. New Park Street was now what we would call an inner-city church. It was located in the midst of a filthy industrial district which was hard to reach. What had once been a growing congregation of 1200 had ebbed to a group of around 200 souls. After a series of events, young Spurgeon was asked to pastor this once influential congregation in 1854. In spite of his own doubts about his age, a 20 year old Charles Spurgeon had become pastor in the line of Keech, Gill and Rippon. So great was the impact this novice preacher made on the people at New Park Street and the city of London that by 1855 it was evident a new church building was necessary to accommodate their growing numbers. While the building was progressing the congregation was forced to rent the Exeter Hall to meet in. This was considered scandalous to many of the more high church types for churches did not meet in public buildings in those days. Such growth was not without its critics. Some pastors in London claimed Spurgeon was a glory-hound while local newspapers issued caricatures of Spurgeon as an egotistical and uneducated buffoon. Not only did Spurgeon gain a field of ministry at New Park Street but he also gained a wife. In 1855 the pastor baptized a lovely young woman by the name of Susannah Thompson. Almost exactly one year later, Charles and Susannah were joined as soul-mates for life. Words cannot describe the bond between these two. Mrs. Spurgeon would be a semi-invalid and Rev. Spurgeon would suffer from gout and depression through most of their marriage. Yet they forged a wonderful marriage along with twin sons. Susannah became her husband’s personal secretary. Once it is reported that she took notes while he talked in his sleep. When he awoke, Spurgeon found the sermon he had mumbled in his sleep. He had slept but Susannah had not. Even after his death, Mrs. Spurgeon kept the work alive, publishing Charles' sermons and distributing thousands of books to young ministers and others. Regardless of the obstacles, the work went on. No sooner had the congregation returned to their new building than they realized they had not built large enough. So they began to worship at the Surrey Music Hall on Sunday nights. On October 19, 1856, ten thousand people were crammed into the Hall to hear Spurgeon preach, with another ten thousand outside. Not long after services began, someone yelled, “Fire!” The panic that followed caused the deaths of seven people. For several weeks pastor Spurgeon secluded himself in depression over the event. As always, however, God uses even the worst of events to bring about His purposes. This event and those that followed over the next few months led to the greatest chapter in Spurgeon’s ministry. In 1856, the congregation of New Park Street met to discuss the building of a new sanctuary. In keeping with his vision for London, Spurgeon and the congregation voted to change the name of their church to Metropolitan Tabernacle. The years of service at New Park Street and Metropolitan Tabernacle would prove astounding. When Spurgeon came to New Park Street in 1854 it had a membership of 232. By the end of 1891, 14,460 souls had been baptized and added to the church with a standing membership of 5311.6 One could read of all this work and assume that Spurgeon knew nothing of enjoying himself. Such could be farther from the truth. His sense of humor was renown. C.H.S. had a dislike for instrumental music in the church, especially anthems. After hearing a special performance Spurgeon was told that it was music supposedly sung by David. His immediate reply was, "Then I know why Saul threw his javelin at him." In one of his Friday lectures to his college students the pastor told his students, "When you preach on heaven, have a face that reflects the sweetness of God; when you preach on hell, your normal face will do quite well." Rather than focus on the things Spurgeon did at New Park Street and Metropolitan Tabernacle, it is better to focus on what Spurgeon was. William Gladstone called him "The Last Puritan." Only the end of time can prove whether that is completely true, but there is a ring of truth to that title. Spurgeon was no high church Calvinist but he definitely felt more of an infinity with men like Calvin and Bunyan than he did his contemporaries. Speaking of his grandfather, C.H.S. said, "I sometimes feel the shadow of his broad (Puritan hat) come over my spirit. I have been charged with being a mere echo of the Puritans, but I had rather be an echo of truth than the voice of falsehood."7 Early on it became apparent that Spurgeon had no fear of labeling himself. He labeled himself by his preaching not by a systematic theology. He was Calvinistic but not hyper-Calvinist. Spurgeon never fled from the seeming incompatibility of the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man to repentance. When challenged to do so he replied, "I do not try to reconcile friends." Spurgeon was even once reported as praying before his sermon, "Lord, call out your elect, and then elect some more."8 As did Fuller and Carey, Spurgeon proved that belief in the sovereignty of God does not cool evangelism but rather inflames it. He always preached to sinners, calling them to repentance and salvation. Though he didn’t often have what we would call revival meetings, he invited D.L. Moody to preach in his church and Ira Sankey sang at his funeral. Because Spurgeon held to the tenants of Calvinism while being warmly evangelistic it seemed he was often shot at from all sides. Some Calvinists called him an Arminian and many Arminians called him a hyper-Calvinist. These attacks mattered little to Spurgeon. What he longed for was what earlier Puritans had ardently prayed for. He longed for God to pour out His Spirit on His people. He was always calling the church to true revival. Above all, Spurgeon was a preacher of the Word. Not the shallow, self-serving allusions to the Word we hear today. He was passionately tied to the whole counsel of God. In The Greatest Fight in the World, he said, "The Word is like its author, infinite, immeasurable, without end. If you were to be ordained to be a preacher throughout eternity, you would have before you a theme equal to everlasting demands." That undying allegiance to God’s Word brought great triumph in Spurgeon’s life and it sometimes brought great controversy. Late in Spurgeon's life an incident began almost as a footnote but which would become a headline in the body of Christ. In March and April of 1887, two articles appeared in Spurgeon’s magazine, The Sword and Trowel. The articles pointed out the steady decline that seemed to be taking place among Evangelicals. Following those articles were several more in which Spurgeon warned of the influence of liberalism in general and Arminianism in specific. In all of these articles Spurgeon spoke of the downward grade evangelical churches were taking. This became known as the Downgrade Controversy. In the September issue C.H.S. wrote: "The time has come for Christians to stir: The house is being robbed, its very walls are being digged down, but the good people who are in the bed are too fond of the warmth, and too much afraid of getting broken heads, to go downstairs and meet the burglars 
Inspiration and speculation cannot long abide in peace. Compromise there can be none. We cannot hold the inspiration of the Word, and yet reject it; we cannot believe in the atonement and deny it; we cannot talk of the doctrine of the fall and yet talk of the evolution of spiritual life from human nature 
 One way or another we must go. Decision is the virtue of the hour."9 Once Spurgeon began to name the Baptist Union (which Metropolitan Tabernacle belonged to) things degenerated rapidly. By October, the pastor and church withdrew from The Baptist Union and by December the Union was formally questioning Spurgeon about his statements. It was Spurgeon’s faith and trust in the Word of God that led him to warn the church of its downward slide toward liberalism but it was actually his Christian charity that got him in trouble. Spurgeon had been told in confidence the names of some of the pastors in the Union who were embracing the "new theology". Because of this confidence, Spurgeon refused to name the men he was speaking of. So, on January 18, 1888, a vote of censure was cast against the Union’s greatest preacher. The die was cast. Spurgeon’s warnings would prove true as the Baptist Union turned more and more to Higher Criticism and gradually abandoned its adherence to God’s Word as the sole authority of life and faith. Charles Spurgeon’s influence cannot be confined to degrees or titles which were conferred upon him. Several university degrees were awarded him but he always refused them. As his biographer, W. Y. Fullerton noted, "The honors of the world 
 he held cheap; intellect he valued and he always was a book lover, but he ever reached after the eternal things rather than the temporal."10 If there is any one remaining tangible evidence of the influence Spurgeon had in his day it can be found in his sermons. In particular, his printed sermons have had a monumental impact for over 100 years. There are 63 volumes of Spurgeon’s sermons in print to this day. Newspapers carried his sermons on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for many years. Well over 100 million of those weekly sermons were sold. If one took into account all of his publications they would fill 200 large books. Even by modern estimation these numbers are staggering. People from California to New Zealand had one thing in common they could discuss, if ever they met, the writing of C.H. Spurgeon. One could hardly recommend Spurgeon's method of sermon preparation unless you also have his spiritual and intellectual gifts. He was a veracious reader and immersed himself in the Puritans. Charles first discovered Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress in his grandfather’s library and would read it over 100 times before his death. He was well read in Calvin, Baxter, Owens, Gill, Fuller and many others. In his sermons Spurgeon quoted from the lives of Justin Martyr, Augustine, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John Gill, Andrew Fuller, and John Newton.11 By the time of his death, Spurgeon held a personal library of around 12,000 volumes. Much of that library now resides at William Jewel College in the U.S.A. Added to that Spurgeon had a photographic memory. Nothing escaped his mind and was catalogued away for later use at the proper time. Because of all of these gifts, C.H.S. would not even begin to write down his notes until Saturday night. His Sunday night sermons were prepared on Sunday afternoons. Actually, his sermons were always being prepared. His entire life was a sermon preparation. Another great field of influence was The Pastor’s College which exists to this day as Spurgeon’s College. In 1861 there were 21 students and soon the school would average around 100 students at any given time. This was not a typical seminary or Bible college. "Wherever the men came from, it was clearly understood that the college did not exist to make ministers but to train them. Unless a man could show some evidence that he was called to preach 
 there was no welcome for him, however great his gifts in other directions."12 Preaching wasn’t Spurgeon’s only passion. He was involved in extensive social endeavors, especially in the orphanage work. Hundreds of children who otherwise would have roamed the streets as thieves and vagrants were housed, fed and trained in the Word of God. Spurgeon once said, "We are a large church and we must have a large heart for this city." As mentioned earlier, C.H.S. suffered from severe gout. The pain brought on times of severe depression. When those times became too intense the Spurgeons often would vacation in Mentone, France. While in Mentone in January of 1892, the Prince of Preachers left this earth at the age of 57. His funeral eulogy by Heber Evans sums up the legacy of Charles Haddon Spurgeon: "But there is one Charles Haddon Spurgeon whom we cannot bury; there is not earth enough in Norwood to bury him — the Spurgeon of history."13 It would be easy to look on the last years of Spurgeon’s life and assume as some of his time did that he grew contentious in the pain of his years. Such could be farther from the truth. Though he was an ardent Baptist, Spurgeon chose two men who practiced infant baptism to head his orphanage. Though he was a Calvinist, he was saved in a Primitive Methodist Church and was supplied by a Presbyterian near the end of his life. There was room for a larger circle of fellowship but not when it came to the infallibility of the Bible and the centrality of the Gospel. To Spurgeon, the real mark of his ministry would be long after he died: "I sometimes think if I were in heaven I should almost wish to visit my work at the Tabernacle, to see whether it will abide the test of time and prosper when I am gone. Will you keep to the truth? Will you hold to the grand old doctrines of the gospel? Or will this church, like so many others, go away from the simplicity of its faith, and set up gaudy services and false doctrine? Methinks I should turn over in my grave if such a thing could be. God forbid it! But there will be no coming back 
"14 One week after Spurgeon's home going, B. H. Carroll preached an entire sermon on his larger influence around the world. In typical Carroll style hear these final words about Charles Haddon Spurgeon: "Yes, Spurgeon is dead. The tallest and broadest oak in the forest of time is fallen. The sweetest, most silvery and far-reaching voice that published the glad tidings since apostolic times is hushed. The hand whose sickle cut the widest swath in the ripened grain fields of redemption lies folded and nerveless on a pulseless breast, whose heart when beating kept time with every human joy and woe. But he was ready to be offered. He fought a good fight. He kept the faith, and while we weep, he wears the triple crown of life and joy and glory, which God the righteous Judge has conferred upon him 
 In answer to the question: ‘How do you account for Spurgeon?' the answer is 
 'God'"15 For the man who lived his life, All of Grace, that answer would have been most satisfying indeed. "How do you account for Spurgeon?" The answer is 
 "God"16 Footnotes: 1 W. Y. Fullerton, Charles H. Spurgeon: London's Most Popular Preacher. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966, pp. 19-20. 2 Ibid., p. 23. 3 Ibid., p. 32. 4 C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Volume 1, Chapters 9-11. 5 Fullerton, p. 40. 6 Ibid., p. 121. 7 Timothy George, Baptist Theologians, p. 272. 8 Ibid., p. 274. 9 Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, p. 143. 10 Fullerton, p.165. 11 George, p. 283. 12 Fullerton, p. 193. 13 Ibid., p. 274. 14 Murray, p. 258. 15 B. H. Carroll, Baptists and Their Doctrines edited by Timothy and Denise George, p. 59. 16 Ibid., p. 59. From: Baptist Page Articles are offered as a service to the readers of The Baptist Page. You are given permission to reprint this in any form available. We only ask that this paragraph remain with the article. ©1997-2001 The Baptist Page.

Dressed in His Righteousness Alone

I’ll never forget meeting up with a mentor of mine at Starbucks shortly after becoming a Christian. We regularly met there to read and study the Bible. One day, a person walked by and was elated to find Christians. But during our conversation, my mentor began asking some pretty forthright questions, and I couldn’t quite understand why. “Do you believe that a person is justified by faith alone?” he said. The stranger hesitantly responded, “No, I believe that a person is justified by faith and works.” My mentor graciously but strongly insisted, “Then you don’t have a biblical view of justification.” A lot of back-and-forths followed, but because I was a recent convert, I found it immensely difficult to understand what was going on. I barely understood what the term justification meant! Eventually, I discovered the importance of this vital doctrine. Martin Luther and other Reformers considered the doctrine of justification by faith alone the article on which the church stands or falls. It is at the core of the gospel, and the church needs to embrace it as such. What Is Justification? So then, what is justification? This is a crucial starting point. How one defines justification will determine not only how one thinks and believes but also how one lives. Roman Catholic dogma, for example, defines justification as synonymous with sanctification,1 and the result is detrimental. One’s standing on the final day is determined by the growth of Christ’s righteousness, which is imparted to a person through baptism and increases through participation in the sacraments.2 In a word, justification is essentially a clean slate that one needs to maintain to enjoy a favorable verdict at the final judgment. Diametrically opposed stands the Reformed understanding of justification, which is carefully, succinctly, and biblically defined in the answer to question 33 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: 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.3 Notice that justification is an act, not a work or process.4 It is not a hopeful destination. It is God’s gracious, once-for-all verdict — his declaration of a person to be righteous in Christ, and therefore fully accepted by God. The Greek words for justification and righteousness, along with their cognates,5 belong to the legal sphere.6 Consider, for example, Romans 8:31–34: What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies [Greek ho dikaiƍn]. Who is to condemn? Justification language belongs to the courtroom; it is forensic. Accusations are met with God’s justifying verdict spoken over his elect (see also Romans 5:16–19) — a spoken word that melts the hardened hearts of sinners. Whose Righteousness? God, the holy, just, and perfect Judge, finds sinners not guilty and declares them righteous. How? On the basis of the person and work of Jesus Christ — by forgiving our sins on account of the substitutionary death of Christ in our place (Romans 3:21–26) and imputing or reckoning Christ’s righteousness to us (Romans 4:1–9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). What is this righteousness? His perfect obedience to God, rendered in his life and death, often referred to as the active and passive obedience of Christ. He perfectly fulfilled the law (Galatians 4:4–5; Romans 8:1–4) and also died under the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13), in love for his people (Galatians 2:20). Nevertheless, death could not keep its prey, and so Christ tore the bars away and arose a victor from the dark domain.7 Jesus’s resurrection was not only proof that his sacrifice satisfied God’s wrath; it was also his own justification or public vindication (1 Timothy 3:16; cf. Romans 4:25). On Resurrection Sunday, God declared the verdict of righteous over his Son, and through union with him, we too receive that unchangeable righteous standing (2 Corinthians 5:21). How Do We Receive It? What is necessary to receive this righteous standing? Faith, works, or a combination of both? The answer is faith alone. Paul makes this clear in Galatians 2:16: “We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Justification is not a both-and matter. It’s either by faith or by works. Paul fleshes this out in Romans 10:3–4. He speaks of his Jewish kinsmen as those who are “ignorant of the righteousness of God,” are “seeking to establish their own [righteousness],” and thereby do “not submit to God’s righteousness.” Then he provides this explanation: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” We submit to Christ’s righteousness by faith. Just breaths later, in Romans 10:9–10, Paul writes, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” No wonder Paul, in the very next chapter, helpfully explains that “if it is by grace [that we are chosen, saved, and presumably justified (see Romans 10:10)], it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:6). “Justification is not a both-and matter. It’s either by faith or by works.” A biblically Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone is indeed comforting to the sinner. “How can I be righteous before a holy God?” is an appropriate question to ask for those outside of Christ. The only acceptable answer is found in Christ. He is the basis of our justification, and he can be received only by the empty hands of faith. And this doctrine is at the core of the gospel. More to the Gospel than Justification? In loving and declaring the doctrine of justification by faith alone, some can begin to think that justification is the gospel. But that is not true. Simply saying, “Jesus died for my sins so that I can receive Christ’s righteousness” does not capture the entire gospel.8 Paul doesn’t stop there when he lays out the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4. Jesus also was buried and rose from the dead. In fact, the resurrection of Christ plays a crucial role in our justification (as we’ve seen in Romans 4:25; see also Romans 1:3–4; 1 Corinthians 15:20–23, 42–49; 1 Timothy 3:16).9 The gospel also includes Jesus’s ascension, enthronement as Lord, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:3–4; Acts 1:11; 2:1–21; 2:32–33). We therefore should not say that justification is the gospel. And yet, neither should we welcome the persistent emphasis of those who downplay justification, whether by minimizing it to a “subsidiary crater” in Paul’s theology10 or, even more drastically, by insisting that “our justification by faith is not part of the gospel.”11 In the end, justification is not the gospel, but it is undeniably at its center.12 If you exclude justification from the gospel, then the gospel ceases to be “good news.” Solely by Faith? The Reformed tradition has consistently promoted a threefold definition of faith: (1) knowledge of the content of the gospel that we believe (Latin notitia), (2) intellectual assent to the gospel of Christ (assensus), and (3) trust in the person and work of Christ on our behalf (fiducia). Recently some have taken aim at the third part of that definition (trust).13 They argue that faith is not primarily “interior” or “emotional” but “exterior” and “embodied.” In other words, faith is active rather than passive, and it should be seen rather than felt. So they prefer slogans such as “justification by allegiance alone,” since allegiance underscores the active nature of faith. Those who argue for this definition of faith make a major mistake. Since they redefine faith as a more active response, they argue that Paul’s either-or of justification is actually a both-and — both faith and works. To be clear here, they do not think a person can be justified by works that stem from self-righteous efforts. They believe Romans 3:20, that “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.” However, they underline the phrase “works of the law” and say, “Paul was not against Spirit-wrought good works contributing to a person’s justification.” “Christ is the basis of our justification, and he can be received only by the empty hands of faith.” At this point, you may be feeling the way I did in the conversation at Starbucks, not really understanding the fine distinctions. But this is significant. To say that Paul wasn’t against good works with respect to justification, you have to make a drastic move theologically. You have to reject the distinction between justification and sanctification. What do I mean by that? Put simply, justification and sanctification are inseparable yet distinct, like the heat and light of a fire.14 You cannot have one without the other; at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other.15 Good works, as Paul commends them, are done in our sanctification, but they cannot contribute to our justification. If they do, justification is no longer by faith alone. Is Christ’s Righteousness Imputed? After the conversation with the stranger at Starbucks, I asked my mentor, “What does imputation mean?” The word was thrown around during our discussion but never really defined. Imputation means that the righteousness of Christ — his active and passive obedience — is counted or reckoned to believers. Christ’s righteousness is imputed, counted, reckoned to you when you are united to Christ by faith (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9). As Calvin said, “We do not . . . contemplate [Christ] outside ourselves from afar in order that this righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body — in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.”16 When we talk about receiving righteousness, union with Christ is essential. Imputed righteousness is distinct from infused righteousness. In the Roman Catholic view, Christ merited righteousness for us, and that righteousness is then infused into believers at baptism. It’s as if Christ’s seed of righteousness should be planted into your heart. It becomes your own. And it is up to you, in dependence on the Spirit and the sacraments, to water it and grow in personal righteousness. By contrast, the imputation view intentionally uses the words count or reckon, as Scripture does (Romans 4:1–8; 5:12–19; Galatians 3:6).17 In justification, Christ’s righteousness does not become ours as some sort of personal possession. It is counted or reckoned as ours. Why? Because we do not perform the acts of justifying righteousness. Christ, as our substitute, lived the perfect life we couldn’t and died the death we deserved. The righteousness of Christ must therefore primarily and exclusively belong to him.18 It is therefore an alien righteousness — it comes from outside of us. And it is graciously imputed, counted, or reckoned to those who have no inherent righteousness whatsoever (Romans 3:9, 23; Ephesians 2:1–3). We are indeed “dressed in his righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.”19 For nothing else avails before God. Jesus Receives Sinners Listening to the conversation my mentor had with that fellow at Starbucks was intimidating and a bit over my head. I heard many terms and distinctions that didn’t seem, at the time, to make much of a difference in the Christian life. But the more questions I asked, the more I learned that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not only theologically essential but thoroughly practical. Just think of Christians who question their salvation as they struggle with sin. In those times, they easily can turn inward. “Have I done enough to please God?” “Perhaps if I serve more at church, he will accept me.” “I need to stop sinning in order to be accepted by him.” They may never say these words out loud. After all, they wouldn’t want anyone to think they were weak in faith — or even worse, an unbeliever. But their knee-jerk reaction to turn inward reveals a deeper underlying issue. They need to turn outward toward the objective realities of the gospel. They need to trust in Christ Jesus, their righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30). They need to rest — not only in mind and mouth, but in heart and life — in the “word of surest consolation; word all sorrow to relieve, word of pardon, peace, salvation! . . . ‘Jesus sinners doth receive.’”20 Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man” (1989); “The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the ‘inner man,’ justification entails the sanctification of his whole being” (1995). ↩ See the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning Justification,” §7. ↩ I have slightly updated the language to make the answer easier to read. ↩ The Westminster divines reserved that language for sanctification: “Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness” (Westminster Shorter Catechism 35). ↩ See the words dikaioƍ, “I justify”; dikaiƍsunē, “righteousness”; dikaios, “just, right”; dikaiƍsis, “justification, vindication, aquittal”; and dikaiƍma, “righteous requirement.” ↩ As recently argued by James B. Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul, WUNT 2.461 (TĂŒbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), though for a criticism of other statements he makes, see my forthcoming review of his book in the Westminster Theological Journal. ↩ Trinity Hymnal #206, “Low in the Grave He Lay — Christ Arose.” ↩ That is one reason, after all, why the church disciples new believers: to increase their understanding of the gospel of Christ. ↩ See also Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987). ↩ Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 225. ↩ Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019), 37. See also Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017). ↩ I am currently in the process of writing a review article of Matthew Bates’s work in the Westminster Theological Journal, which will contain more in-depth critical interaction with his arguments. ↩ See Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 92. He qualifies this in Gospel Allegiance, 64: “I’m not arguing that faith simply means allegiance without remainder. Nor am I denying that pistis primarily means ‘faith/faithfulness’ or ‘trust/trustworthiness.’” But then he adds a telling caveat: “Trust in or faithfulness toward a leader that endures through trials over the course of time is probably best termed ‘loyalty’ or ‘allegiance.’” ↩ John Calvin make this comparison in Institutes 3.11.6. ↩ I find it telling that Matthew Bates denies the categorical distinction between justification and sanctification because it cannot be found in Scripture (Allegiance, 185–86), and yet, after reading Scripture and laying out his view, he promotes a strikingly similar distinction (see 127, 191–92, 196, and 206). Both justification and sanctification occur in union with Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11). But at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other throughout Scripture “by good and necessary consequence” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6). See also the Westminster Larger Catechism 77 for a very helpful analysis of the inseparable yet distinct nature of justification and sanctification. ↩ Institutes 3.2.10; my italics. ↩ For helpful works on imputation and criticisms raised against it, see Brian Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006); John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002); Ben C. Dunson, “Do Bible Words Have Bible Meaning? Distinguishing between Imputation as Word and Doctrine,” WTJ 75 (2013): 239–60; Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015). ↩ James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church; and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867), 326. ↩ Trinity Hymnal #459, “My Hope is Built on Nothing Less.” ↩ Trinity Hymnal #394, “Jesus Sinners Doth Receive.” ↩ Article by David Briones Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary

Feedback
Suggestionsuggestion box
x