Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Necessity of the Atonement | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

The Necessity of the Atonement | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome you, the listener to Reformed Thinking.
0:03
This is where we take a deep dive into doctrines that really
0:06
shape how we understand God and His ways.
0:11
Glad to be diving in again. Today we have our expert guide
0:14
back with us, ready to help unpack A theological challenge.
0:17
It's one that, well, it's exercised some very sharp minds
0:21
over the years. Jonathan Edwards, for instance.
0:23
His thinking still resonates so much today.
0:26
He called this one of the Gordian knots of theology.
0:29
That's a great description, a real puzzle.
0:31
Yeah, and it has perplexed many. So the core question, what we're
0:34
really facing here is this. How can forgiveness be shown in
0:38
Scripture as, on one hand, an act of most free and abundant
0:42
grace? You know, something given
0:43
freely, no cost to us. Right.
0:45
Completely unearned. But then at the same time, it's
0:48
presented as a direct consequence of redemption by the
0:51
blood of Christ, which sounds like a very specific a very high
0:54
price was paid. It really does seem
0:55
contradictory on the surface. Exactly how can something be
0:58
truly free if there's a clear cost involved?
1:01
It pulls in what feel like opposite directions.
1:04
So our mission today is to work through these sources you've
1:07
brought from Edwards and show how God's perfect justice and
1:10
his merciful grace actually fit together perfectly, how they
1:13
display his wisdom and goodness. That's the goal, to see the
1:18
consistency there. So let's start by looking
1:20
closely at this, the seeming tension Edwards brings up right
1:23
away. He points us to Ephesians
1:26
chapter one, verse 11. Yes, that key verse.
1:28
It says in whom we have redemption through his blood,
1:32
the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his
1:34
grace. Now that sounds beautiful,
1:36
complete, right? It does.
1:38
But Edward sees a real conceptual challenge underneath
1:41
that phrase. Riches of his grace.
1:44
It suggests A pardon that's totally unearned, a free gift
1:47
from God's kindness. Boundless kindness, yeah.
1:49
But then the verse also says this forgiveness comes through
1:52
his blood, which implies redemption, a buying back a
1:56
price paid. How can forgiveness be an act of
1:59
such generous grace if it's well purchased and the price of it be
2:03
already paid? Yeah, it feels like you can't
2:05
have both a totally free gift and a transaction where a price
2:08
is clearly laid down. That's it exactly.
2:10
And Edwards calls it a seeming inconsistence.
2:13
Yeah, in the sources we're looking at, the word forgiveness
2:16
itself, it kind of carries grace within.
2:18
It doesn't. It it does, yeah.
2:19
It suggests clemency, you know, release from penalty you
2:22
actually deserve. Yeah, and when Scripture adds
2:25
according to the riches of his grace, it just seems to amplify
2:29
that it points to something most free and abundant.
2:32
Like grace overflowing. Precisely.
2:34
A pardon flowing from God's goodness with absolutely no
2:38
contribution from us. A generosity beyond anything we
2:41
could expect or earn. But then you have the other
2:44
phrase in whom we have redemption through his blood.
2:47
That introduces a totally different feel, doesn't?
2:49
It it does, redemption means buying back, paying a ransom.
2:53
Exactly. It points to a specific cost, a
2:56
price that was laid down. And if a price was previously
2:59
paid, then you know from 1 angle it starts to sound like a matter
3:03
of debt. Like something owed because the
3:04
condition was met, right? Which is where the puzzle comes
3:07
in. If the price is paid, is it
3:09
still genuinely free? How could it be most free and
3:12
abundant if it was purchased? And Edwards admits this
3:16
difficulty. It perplexed and embarrassed
3:19
even really insightful theologians.
3:21
He founded a tough knot himself, right?
3:23
And for some people, trying to resolve this has actually LED
3:27
them to reject the whole idea of the atonement of Christ's
3:31
substitutionary death. They figure if God is merciful,
3:33
he should just forgive, no payment needed.
3:36
Yeah, that's the reasoning why the need for such a costly
3:39
transaction if Grace is truly free.
3:41
That really highlights why Edward saw this is such a
3:44
critical issue. But what I find fascinating is
3:46
how he tackles it. He doesn't just, you know, wave
3:48
it away. No, not at all.
3:50
He's very systematic. He breaks it down into 3 core
3:53
questions, like a surgeon dissecting a problem, and he
3:56
uses these questions to untangle that knot.
3:58
We're going to follow his structure today.
4:00
Good plan. What's the first question?
4:01
First, he asks, is forgiveness truly obtainable only through
4:05
Christ's atoning sacrifice? Not just a way, but the only
4:09
way. OK, exclusive necessity.
4:11
Second, what's the underlying reason, the ground for God
4:15
choosing this specific mode of forgiveness?
4:17
Why this way? The why behind the what?
4:19
Exactly. And 3rd, Is this mode of
4:22
forgiveness, the one requiring payment, actually consistent
4:25
with grace, or as the verse says, according to the riches of
4:29
grace? So is it truly gracious even
4:32
with the price? Right.
4:34
These three questions will basically guide our whole
4:37
conversation today, leading us through Edwards thinking.
4:40
Excellent. Let's start with that first one,
4:42
then the exclusive necessity. OK, so to really untangle this,
4:45
Edwards first hits us with that fundamental question, Is
4:49
Christ's atonement absent? Absolutely the only way to find
4:52
forgiveness? Not just a good way, the best
4:54
way, but the exclusive way. And the sources you provided,
4:58
they just pile up the biblical evidence saying yes,
5:01
unequivocally yes. They really do.
5:03
The scriptures are remarkably consistent on this.
5:06
They very clearly teach, as Edwards puts it, that Christ's
5:10
atonement is the singular non negotiable path.
5:12
Where does he start with the evidence?
5:14
Well, Ephesians 1.11, which we already mentioned is
5:16
foundational, in whom we have redemption through His blood,
5:19
the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is tied directly to
5:22
that redemption through blood, no daylight between them.
5:25
Then you have Romans 3.24 adding that we are justified freely by
5:29
His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
5:33
The free grace comes through that specific redemption.
5:36
It's not grace floating free, detached from Christ's work.
5:40
So grace isn't bypassing the redemption that flows through
5:43
it. Exactly.
5:44
Then Acts 20.28 talks about the church being purchased with his
5:47
own blood. That's transaction language
5:49
clear as day. Ownership established through
5:51
cost. Hebrews 9.12 says Christ by His
5:55
own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having
5:58
obtained eternal redemption for us.
6:00
His blood is the key, the means of our eternal rescue.
6:03
And first Peter 1 verses 18 and 19 really drives it home.
6:07
We were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and
6:10
gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.
6:12
It stresses the unique incomparable value in necessity
6:16
of His sacrifice. Nothing else compares or could
6:19
substitute. Precious blood.
6:20
Not just any blood. Right, and Peter continues this
6:23
in chapter 2, verse 24, saying Christ his own self bear our
6:26
sins in his own body on the tree by whose stripes you were
6:29
healed. That substitutional language He
6:32
took our sins. He bore them.
6:34
Yes, and think back even further to Isaiah 53, verses 4 to
6:38
6/10/12. That vivid picture of the
6:41
Suffering Servant bearing our griefs, sorrows, wounded for our
6:45
transgressions. The Lord hath laid on him the
6:48
iniquity of us all. He made his soul an offering for
6:51
sin. It's an incredible prophecy.
6:53
And all these passages together, they just lock forgiveness and
6:56
healing directly to Christ's sacrificial death.
6:59
They don't just hint at it, they declare it as the actual
7:01
mechanism God uses. It's striking how consistently
7:05
that link is made. Blood sacrifice, Forgiveness.
7:09
But Edwards also points out this isn't some brand new idea in the
7:11
New Testament, right? He sees it foreshadowed in the
7:14
Old Testament. Well, absolutely.
7:15
That's a key part of his argument.
7:17
He says the ancient Israelite sacrifices described in such
7:20
detail in the law, they all point to Christ.
7:22
They show the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice, a
7:25
substitute offering made for someone else.
7:27
They weren't just rituals for rituals sake.
7:29
No, they were divine object lessons.
7:32
Think about the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat.
7:34
Sins laid on it, sent away another animal sacrifice, blood
7:38
sprinkled. It painted a picture.
7:40
Sin requires a life, a substitute.
7:42
Paul even calls Christ our Passover sacrifice for us in
7:46
First Corinthians 5.7. The Lamb's blood protected the
7:49
Israelites. Christ's blood protects us, but
7:51
eternally or. The Passover connection.
7:53
And Ephesians 5.2 says Christ given himself for us an offering
7:57
and a sacrifice to God, using that Old Testament sacrificial
8:00
language. Hebrews 9.26 says He appeared to
8:04
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
8:06
So the Old Testament system wasn't an alternative, but a
8:08
picture. Exactly, Edward's point is just
8:11
like the ancient Israelites only got pardoned through those
8:14
God-given sacrifices, The typology teaches us that we only
8:17
get party through Christ's sacrifice.
8:19
The old system was a shadow pointing to the one ultimate
8:22
reality in Christ. It prefigured the path.
8:25
OK, so the Old Testament sets the stage with types and
8:28
shadows. Then the New Testament comes
8:30
along, and Edwards shows it moves from hints to just
8:33
unmistakable declarations about Christ's unique role.
8:37
It's not subtle anymore, Not at all.
8:39
The New Testament writers are incredibly direct about the
8:42
absolute necessity of Christ's suffering and death.
8:45
Look at Luke 24. The resurrected Christ
8:47
explaining to the disciples, ought not Christ to have
8:49
suffered these things and later thus it behooved Christ to
8:52
suffer. It wasn't just what happened,
8:54
it's what had to. Happen.
8:55
It behooved him. It was necessary, yes.
8:57
Then Romans 3.2526 Paul says God set forth Christ to be a
9:02
propitiation through faith in his blood, that he might be just
9:06
and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
9:08
Propitiation. That's the key term.
9:10
What exactly does that mean? I go.
9:12
It means an atoning sacrifice that specifically satisfies
9:15
divine wrath and justice. It turns away God's righteous
9:18
anger against sin. And the implication Paul draws
9:21
is huge. Without Christ as that
9:24
propitiation, God could not have been just in justifying the
9:27
believer. Wow, so God's own justice
9:29
required it for him to be able to justify us?
9:32
That's what Paul argues. Without Christ's death, God
9:35
faced an impossible tension between his justice against sin
9:38
and his desire to show mercy. OK then John 3 uses the image of
9:43
Moses lifting the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of
9:47
Man be lifted up. Just as that was the only remedy
9:50
for the snake bite, Christ lifted up is the only remedy for
9:53
sin. Hebrews 9.22 gives us that stark
9:56
line without shedding of blood is no remission, no release from
10:00
sins penalty without it. Simple and direct.
10:03
And 1st Corinthians 3.11 other foundation can no man lay, and
10:07
that is laid which is Jesus Christ.
10:09
He is the sole basis. And Acts 4.12 is maybe the most
10:13
sweeping statement. Neither is there salvation in
10:16
any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among
10:19
men, whereby we must be saved. No other name.
10:21
It's exclusive. Absolutely exclusive.
10:23
These aren't suggestions, they're definitive statements of
10:25
necessity. So, given all this biblical
10:27
weight, what's Edwards's final word on the necessity of
10:30
Christ's death? He makes an interesting argument
10:32
just from the fact that it happened.
10:33
He does. It's quite powerful.
10:35
He basically asks us to consider the logic.
10:38
If Christ's death wasn't necessary, then he died in vain.
10:41
Which is. Unthinkable.
10:43
Completely unthinkable, Edwards argues.
10:45
Neither Christ in his perfect wisdom and love, nor the Father
10:49
in his perfect plan, would ever consent to such an agonizing
10:52
death if it weren't absolutely necessary for some incredibly
10:55
important and valuable and. Even basic human wisdom wouldn't
10:59
allow such a sacrifice without necessity.
11:01
Right. A good person wouldn't consent
11:03
to their own death or their child's death unless it was
11:06
unavoidable for a greater good. But then Edwards really drives
11:09
it home by pointing to Gethsemane, Christ's prayer in
11:12
Matthew 20.390. My father, if it'd be possible,
11:16
let this cup pass for me nevertheless.
11:19
Not as I will, but as thou wilt. Such an agonizing prayer.
11:22
And we know from John 11.42 that the Father heareth him always.
11:26
So the fact that this prayer wasn't answered, the cup wasn't
11:28
removed, Edward says. That's clear evidence that his
11:31
death was a matter of absolute necessity for God's plan to save
11:35
sinners. If there had been any other way.
11:37
The father who always heard his son would have provided it.
11:40
The father's refusal, despite the son's agony, underlines that
11:44
absolute necessity. That is.
11:45
Powerful. And Paul also brings the law
11:47
into this right in. Galatians he does very
11:50
forcefully. Galatians 2.21 is a cornerstone
11:53
here. If righteousness come by the
11:54
law, then Christ is dead in vain.
11:57
And Edwards clarifies, this isn't just about the ceremonial
11:59
law. Correct.
12:00
He makes it clear Paul means the moral law to God's perfect
12:04
standard of holiness. He points to Galatians 3.21.
12:08
If there had been a law given which could have given life,
12:11
verily righteousness should have been by the law.
12:13
But no law could give life to sinners.
12:15
Exactly because no law, not even God's perfect moral law, could
12:19
impart life to fallen humans who couldn't keep it perfectly.
12:23
It follows directly that forgiveness in life cannot come
12:25
by the law. If they could, if we could earn
12:28
righteousness by law keeping. Then Christ died in vain.
12:31
Precisely. His death becomes meaningless,
12:34
unnecessary. So this makes it crystal clear
12:37
salvation through Christ isn't just an option, it's the only
12:40
path God established. Because every other path,
12:43
especially human effort through the law, just falls completely
12:46
short of God's perfect standard. OK, that firmly establishes the
12:50
what Atonement is necessary and exclusive.
12:53
Now let's move to Edward's second inquiry.
12:55
This goes deeper, doesn't it? The why?
12:58
What is the reason? The ground for this specific
13:01
mode of forgiveness? Why Atonement?
13:03
Yes. Why this particular solution?
13:06
Edwards argues that the necessity of atonement rests on
13:09
the very same ground as the necessity of punishment if
13:12
atonement hadn't been made. So it's tied to the need for
13:14
punishment. Fundamentally, yes.
13:16
The primary reason, he says, is to maintain the authority of the
13:18
divine law. Think about it, if God's law
13:21
could just fall into contempt, if it could be disregarded
13:24
without consequence. It would dishonor God Himself,
13:27
the law. Exactly.
13:28
It dishonors the legislator himself.
13:30
God and his government would be weakened.
13:32
His rule would lose its seriousness.
13:34
What makes a law a real law And not just, you know, mere advice?
13:38
Consequences A penalty. Right must have a penalty, and
13:42
if that penalty is announced but never inflicted, when the law is
13:45
broken, the law effectively becomes no law.
13:49
It loses all its teeth, its credibility.
13:51
And God would appear. Dishonorable and contemptible,
13:55
Edwards says not carrying out the threat would imply some kind
13:58
of weakness in God. Maybe he made a mistake in the
14:00
law. Maybe he had a flawed design.
14:03
Maybe he lacks the power to enforce it.
14:05
None of which can be true of God.
14:07
Absolutely not. His perfection, his consistency,
14:10
demands his law be upheld. So this isn't just about rules,
14:14
it's about the structure of God's entire rule over creation,
14:17
His character. That's precisely it.
14:20
Edwards argues that wherever you have intelligent creatures,
14:23
God's wisdom and goodness require a moral government, and
14:25
the government has to operate through a moral law.
14:28
OK, so executing the law's threat, either on the center or
14:31
a substitute, is necessary to preserve the dignity and
14:35
authority of the law and of the author of it, and to the very
14:38
existence of the divine moral government.
14:40
The very existence of it, that's strong.
14:43
It is without upholding the law. God can't really govern by law,
14:47
meaning by rewards and punishments.
14:50
He could govern by sheer force, maybe, but not through a moral
14:54
framework, by inflicting the penalty or providing the
14:57
substitute. Like the atonement, God acts
14:59
consistently in the legislative and executive parts of his
15:02
government. He makes the law and he enforces
15:05
the law. And this consistency has a
15:07
purpose for creation too. Yes, it will most powerfully
15:10
tend to restrain all intelligent creatures from sin.
15:13
Seeing the real consequences makes sin look serious, but the
15:17
penalty is neglected. It will rather encourage and
15:20
invite to sin like a parent who never follows through on
15:22
discipline. Exactly that analogy.
15:24
Children quickly learn there are no real consequences and things
15:27
fall apart. God's moral governance isn't a
15:29
suggestion. It's the foundation of cosmic
15:32
order displaying his perfect righteousness.
15:34
That really drives home the stakes.
15:36
It's about the integrity of God's entire rule.
15:39
But I can hear someone asking, couldn't God, being loving, just
15:43
choose to pardon? Human governments show mercy
15:46
sometimes, right? Why does God have to be so
15:49
strict? Does Edwards address that
15:51
comparison? He does, and he makes a very
15:53
sharp distinction between divine and human governments.
15:56
He acknowledges. Sure, human governments
15:59
sometimes pardon criminals without getting full
16:01
satisfaction for the law, maybe for reasons of state like King
16:06
David pardoning Joab, or to get information, or just practical
16:10
limitations. OK, so he sees that happens.
16:13
But he immediately says these instances happen because of some
16:17
weakness in the particular state of the government, or some
16:19
imperfection in the laws, or just the general imperfection
16:22
attending all human affairs. Human systems are flawed.
16:24
They compromise, they make concessions.
16:26
But God's government. Not any one of these is
16:28
supposable in the divine government.
16:30
God's laws are perfect. His government has no weakness.
16:34
His wisdom is infinite. There are no reasons of state
16:36
forcing God to compromise his justice.
16:38
In fact, every time human laws aren't strictly executed, it
16:42
actually weakens that human government.
16:45
And for God, Edwards argues, pardoning sin without a
16:48
tournament would imply he did not hate sin in every instance,
16:52
or that he doesn't treat it as infinitely vile, which it is.
16:54
It would suggest indifference to evil.
16:57
Exactly. And indifference.
16:58
That's impossible for a perfectly holy God.
17:01
Unilateral pardon contradicts his character as the righteous
17:04
judge. So the conclusion stands,
17:06
without atonement, punishment was necessary every single time
17:10
for every sin, which leads right back to the atonement as God's
17:14
solution. Precisely.
17:15
The atonement steps in as the substitute for the punishment
17:19
threatened in the law. It's designed specifically to
17:21
answer the same ends, upholding the law's authority, the dignity
17:25
of God's government, and His consistency.
17:27
So it achieves the same goals as punishment would have.
17:30
Yes, through the atonement God shows that His law shall be
17:33
supported, that it shall not be despised or transgressed with
17:36
impunity, and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin
17:39
against God. The whole idea, the very idea of
17:42
an atonement or satisfaction for sin, Edward says, is something
17:45
which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the
17:48
divine law, is equivalent to the punishment of the Sinner.
17:53
It satisfies justice. And that satisfaction is what
17:56
opens the door for pardon. It prepares the way for the
17:59
dispensation of pardon. This way God can be just and yet
18:04
the justifier of the center. He can forgive freely while
18:07
upholding His absolute righteousness and the demands of
18:09
His perfect law. It honors both His justice and
18:13
His mercy. OK, we've established atonement
18:15
is necessary to uphold God's law.
18:17
But that brings up another question when people definitely
18:20
ask Could we make atonement for our own sins?
18:23
Can't I just fix things myself somehow?
18:25
A very natural question, and Edwards addresses it directly.
18:28
Quite forcefully, actually. His answer is a clear no.
18:31
We could never have atone for our own sins.
18:34
And he looks at a couple ways people might think they could do
18:36
that. Right.
18:36
He considers 2 main possibilities.
18:38
One, through repentance and reformation changing our ways,
18:42
and two, through enduring some lesser suffering.
18:45
Maybe not the full penalty, but something.
18:47
Let's take repentance first. It feels intuitive, doesn't it?
18:50
If you're genuinely sorry and you stopped doing wrong,
18:53
shouldn't that be enough? Lots of religions focus heavily
18:56
on that. It feels intuitive, yes, but
18:59
Edwards argues that while repentance and reformation are
19:02
commanded and necessary, they're merely a mere return to our
19:06
duty. We're just getting back to doing
19:08
what we should have been doing all along.
19:10
It doesn't cancel out the past wrongdoing.
19:13
Exactly. It doesn't compensate for past
19:15
transgressions. He uses that analogy of the
19:17
deserting soldier. The soldier repents, comes back
19:20
to the army. Does his return without
19:22
punishment atone for his rebellion?
19:24
Does it uphold military law? No.
19:27
Returning to duty is just doing what he should never have
19:29
stopped doing. OK, that makes sense.
19:31
So Edward says if God forgave sinners barely on their
19:34
repentance, it would effectively make the curse of the law
19:37
repentance. The punishment for sin would be
19:40
repentance. But repentance is a good thing,
19:42
a blessing. Precisely.
19:44
It would make the penalty for sin the greatest blessing
19:47
someone could get, which Edwards argues would greatly encourage
19:52
sin because who fears a blessing?
19:54
As a consequence, it removes the deterrent entirely.
19:57
Right, it wouldn't deter sin at all.
19:59
And beyond that, it would fail to vindicate the character of
20:01
God himself. It wouldn't show him as a friend
20:03
to Virtue and an enemy device. Instead, God might appear as a
20:08
friend to sin, advice or indifferent concerning them.
20:11
Like that week Prince, he mentioned.
20:13
Exactly like the week Prince pardoning all repentant
20:15
murderers, he undermines his own law, endangers his people, seems
20:19
indifferent to justice. God's perfect character requires
20:22
satisfaction for the broken law, not just a change of heart going
20:26
forward. OK, so repentance alone is an
20:28
atonement. What about the other idea,
20:31
suffering some punishment but maybe not the full penalty?
20:33
Could we endure something lesser to make amends?
20:36
Edward says no to that too. Suffering short of full
20:39
punishment are insufficient. Why?
20:42
Because the very idea of atonement requires something
20:45
fully equivalent to the curse of the law, and it's effective
20:48
upholding the law's authority. Equivalent.
20:51
Not just similar, but equal in weight.
20:53
Right. And no, suffering by the Sinner
20:55
himself, if it's short of the curse of the law, can possibly
20:58
be equivalent to that full curse.
21:01
It's just logic. A less number or quantity cannot
21:04
be equal to a greater. Furthermore, if a lesser
21:07
punishment on the center was enough to satisfy the law, what
21:10
would that imply about the law's original threat?
21:13
That the original threat was too harsh, Unjust.
21:16
Exactly. It would imply the punishment
21:18
which is threatened in the law is too great, is unjust, is
21:22
cruel and oppressive, which Edwards says cannot be as long
21:26
as God is a just being. God's law is perfect, so it's
21:30
penalty is perfectly just matching the infinite offense of
21:33
sin against an infinite God. But Edwards does make a
21:36
distinction here about Christ's suffering, doesn't he?
21:38
How his suffering could be equivalent even if different in
21:41
duration? Yes, this is crucial.
21:44
He notes that because of Christ's infinite dignity and
21:47
glory of His Person, His sufferings can be equivalent to
21:50
the full curse, even if they were different in degree or
21:53
duration than eternal punishment for all sinners.
21:56
His unique identity gives His suffering infinite value and
21:59
weight. How does he illustrate that?
22:01
He uses an analogy. It would be a far more striking
22:04
demonstration of a King's displeasure to publicly inflict
22:08
a painful, humiliating punishment like 40 stripes on
22:11
his own beloved son. That it would be to execute some
22:14
obscure subject. The person's suffering makes a
22:17
demonstration more powerful. So Christ's identity as the Son
22:21
of God makes his suffering A sufficient infinite declaration
22:24
of God's justice. Precisely.
22:26
It perfectly demonstrates God's hatred of sin and satisfies the
22:29
law's demands in a way no creature suffering ever could.
22:32
So, bringing the section together, what's the bottom line
22:35
for us as sinners seeking forgiveness?
22:37
The bottom line is, it clearly appears that we could never have
22:40
atone for our own sins. Our repentance, though
22:43
necessary, doesn't pay the debt. Our suffering, short of God's
22:46
full wrath, isn't enough. Therefore, if atonement is to be
22:50
made, it must be made by some other person and given who
22:54
Christ is appointed by God and the infinite nature of the task.
22:58
It could be done by no other person of inferior dignity.
23:02
Exactly. This locks in the necessity of a
23:04
divine human mediator. Only someone with infinite worth
23:08
could provide the infinite satisfaction required.
23:10
OK. Now, Edwards doesn't just build
23:12
his own case. He also directly engages with
23:15
views that deny the necessity of atonement altogether.
23:18
He really challenges their core assumptions, doesn't he?
23:20
He does. He tackles hit on the idea that
23:23
maybe Christ's death wasn't truly indispensable, or that God
23:26
could have saved people some other way.
23:28
He often addresses the Sossinian view, which emphasized God's
23:32
mercy and tended to reject substitutionary atonement.
23:35
How does he start challenging them?
23:36
Well, he questions their idea that the main necessity of
23:39
Christ's mission and death was just to give us the strongest
23:42
motives to repentance, if that's all it was?
23:45
Edwards asks. Could not God, by any revelation
23:48
or motives otherwise, have led sitters to repent?
23:51
And his evidence against that? The Old Testament Saints,
23:54
Abraham, David, Moses, they repented, they found mercy.
23:59
And this was before Christ's actual mission and death.
24:01
So if he his death was only about providing motivation, it
24:05
wasn't strictly necessary even for that purpose, because God
24:08
motivated repentance before. That's a good point.
24:10
What about those verses like other foundation, can no man
24:13
lay? Right, he pushes back against
24:15
the idea that versus like First Corinthians 3.11 or Acts 4.12,
24:20
no other name are true only because God just arbitrarily
24:25
made this constitution, just decided Christ would be the way.
24:28
What's wrong with that view, according to Edwards?
24:30
He argues it reduces Christ's necessity to being no other
24:33
sense necessary then that a Sparrow should fall or not fall
24:37
to the ground. It just makes it a matter of
24:39
God's sovereign choice with no deeper reason given.
24:41
It empties it of real grounding, yes.
24:43
It resolves all into the sovereignty of God, Edward says,
24:46
but then effectively confesses that no reason of Christ's
24:49
mission and death is assignable beyond God just willing it.
24:52
For Edwards, the reasons are deeply rooted in God's own
24:55
character, his justice, his law, not just an arbitrary decree.
24:59
OK, that's a subtle but key distinction.
25:02
But the really sharp part, I think, is where Edwards points
25:04
out a core inconsistency within their own system, especially
25:09
regarding their principle that God must pardon anyone who
25:12
repents. Yes, he sees a direct clash
25:14
there. He highlights the inconsistency
25:17
with pardon for repentance principle.
25:20
The cornerstone for these Sicilian views was often that it
25:23
is not reconcilable with the perfections of God to refuse a
25:26
pardon to any who repent. God's goodness, they argued,
25:30
demands he forgive the repentant.
25:31
OK, but Edward says all right, if bear repentance and
25:34
reformation be the ground of pardon, than anyone, even
25:37
someone ever so ignorant of Christ and his death, is
25:40
automatically entitled to pardon just by repenting.
25:43
Which would make Christ death. Completely unnecessary.
25:46
Even as a motivating factor, it directly contradicts their own,
25:49
albeit weaker, admission that Christ's mission had some
25:52
necessary purpose. If God's perfections require him
25:55
to pardon mere repentance, then Christ's death becomes totally
25:58
redundant. Their own principles undermine
26:01
each other. Edwards then forces a choice,
26:03
doesn't he, between law and gospel.
26:06
He tries to make them define their terms under this
26:08
alternative view. He does.
26:10
He asked them straight up. Is this pardon for the penitent
26:13
according to the divine law or according to the Gospel?
26:16
If it's according to the law. If it's just a constitution of
26:19
the law that every gets pardoned, then Edwards asks,
26:22
what is the gospel? What's so special about it?
26:25
Where in does the grace of the latter exceed that of the
26:28
former? If the law itself guarantees
26:31
pardon upon repentance, it must be a very gracious law, right?
26:35
Which completely blurs the line between law and gospel.
26:38
Yeah, it collapses the distinction.
26:40
And Edwards pushes further. It has been commonly understood
26:43
that the divine law is the rule of justice.
26:47
If that rule of justice automatically provides acquittal
26:49
for repentance, then surely there is no grace at all in the
26:53
acquitter of the penitent. It's not a gift, it's just what
26:56
justice demands. It becomes a legal right.
26:58
No grace involved if it's just law.
27:01
Right. And if the law guarantees
27:02
impunity for penitence, then what is the law's curse?
27:06
Edwards says. It gets reduced to either
27:07
repentance itself or maybe the discipline which is necessary to
27:11
lead to repentance. But neither of those is a curse.
27:14
They are the greatest blessings. So their view ends up redefining
27:18
and confusing all these core biblical ideas.
27:21
Law, Gospel, justice, Grace, curse, Blessing.
27:24
It really unravels things and then he presents that famous
27:26
dilemma to just corner of the argument.
27:28
Yes, the Sicinian dilemma. It's a brilliant argumentation.
27:32
He presents 2 inescapable options.
27:33
First Horn Eternal justice either requires that every
27:37
penitent be pardoned in consequence of his repentance
27:39
merely, or it does not. OK, option one.
27:43
Justice requires pardon for repentance.
27:45
What follows? If justice demands it, Edward
27:48
says, the consequences are absurd and actually contradict
27:51
their own claims about God's grace.
27:52
First, pardon is an act of justice and not of grace, no
27:56
gift involved. Second, repentance itself
27:59
answers, satisfies, fulfills the divine law, meaning the law has
28:02
no more claims. Repentance pays the debt.
28:05
Third, this implies sin is no moral evil because it deserves
28:09
no punishment beyond just repenting.
28:13
And 4th, justice and grace, law and gospel become perfectly
28:17
synonymous terms. They all blend together, losing
28:20
their distinct biblical meanings.
28:22
Edwards shows these outcomes are just unacceptable.
28:24
So that horn of the dilemma seems impossible to hold.
28:27
What's the other horn? The second horn What if eternal
28:30
justice does not require that every penitent be pardoned just
28:33
for repenting? Well, if justice doesn't require
28:35
automatic pardon, then? Edwards asks.
28:38
Who knows but that God may see fit to suffer justice in some
28:41
instances to take place? It can't then be argued that
28:44
God's perfections are utterly inconsistent with justice, or
28:48
that God's law cannot be executed consistently with the
28:51
divine character. Meaning if justice doesn't
28:53
demand pardon, then God is free to actually execute justice.
28:57
Exactly. So the only way out for those
28:59
who deny atonement if they take the second horn, is to renounce
29:03
the doctrine that the divine perfections required that every
29:05
penitent be pardoned. Without an atonement.
29:08
They have to give up their foundational principle.
29:10
So either way, their view faces insurmountable problems,
29:13
according to Edwards. That's the force of the dilemma.
29:16
It presses the logical consequences of their own
29:18
premises until the view collapses.
29:20
So we've followed Edwards through the necessity of
29:22
atonement, the reasons for it, the inadequacy of our efforts,
29:26
and his critique of other views. Now we circle back finally to
29:29
the Gordian knot we started with.
29:31
Right back to Ephesians 1.11. How can forgiveness be both
29:35
according to the riches of grace and in consequence of a
29:38
redemption by the blood of Christ?
29:40
How does Edwards resolve this seeming contradiction?
29:43
The resolution comes from holding both truths firmly and
29:47
understanding how they relate. First, we absolutely must
29:51
reiterate forgiveness is an act of most free and abundant grace.
29:55
It's freely and abundantly given by God.
29:57
The word forgiveness implies it, and riches of grace emphasizes
30:01
its extraordinary, unmerited nature, flowing only from God's
30:04
goodness. OK, grace is absolutely central,
30:06
central. But we must also reiterate that
30:10
redemption through Christ's blood is absolutely necessary,
30:13
necessary to uphold the authority and dignity of the
30:17
divine law and government. Without it, God's character, His
30:22
justice, His rule would be compromised.
30:24
So the key is seeing how these two necessities work together,
30:27
not against each other. Precisely.
30:29
The consistency isn't found by downplaying one or the other,
30:33
but by seeing how God's plan harmonizes them.
30:36
And the grace is seen primarily in the provision and application
30:39
of the atonement. OK.
30:40
Break that down. Where is the grace specifically
30:42
located? First, the price of redemption
30:45
is paid by Christ, not by the Sinner.
30:47
That's crucial. We the sinners do not personally
30:50
earn, purchase, or pay anything for our own forgiveness.
30:53
The debt is settled, yes, but by a substitute of infinite worth
30:56
provided for us. So the grace is that the payment
30:59
isn't demanded from us. Exactly.
31:01
We are freed from a debt we could never possibly pay because
31:03
another paid it. That itself is immense grace
31:06
towards us. OK, what's the second aspect of
31:08
grace? Second, God's provision of the
31:10
Redeemer, Christ Himself, is an act of supreme grace.
31:15
Think about it. The infinitely wise and good
31:17
Father consented of the death of His only begotten and dearly
31:21
beloved Son, as the sacrifice required.
31:23
Back to Gethsemanegan. Yes, it wasn't a small thing.
31:27
Christ's prayer wasn't granted because this sacrifice was
31:29
absolutely necessary for God's plan.
31:31
God Himself set forth Christ to be a propitiation.
31:35
The grace here is breathtaking. God provides the necessary
31:38
payment Himself through His own Son at infinite cost to Himself.
31:42
He didn't just demand payment, He provided the payment.
31:45
That is an incredible thought, God providing the sacrifice
31:47
himself. It shows his matchless love and
31:49
grace. And then thirdly, the actual
31:51
dispensation of pardon to the individual Sinner remains an act
31:54
of most free and abundant grace. Even though the price is paid.
31:58
Yes, because once the demands of justice and the law are
32:00
perfectly satisfied by Christ's atonement, God is now enabled,
32:04
free, consistent with His own character, to pardon sinners.
32:07
The Sinner receives this pardon, this forgiveness, as a pure
32:10
gift. They receive a benefit they
32:12
absolutely did not earn or pay for personally.
32:15
So we received the pardon, but we didn't provide the means for
32:17
it. It's still a gift to us.
32:19
Absolutely. It's a gift made possible only
32:22
by God's gracious provision and Christ's costly sacrifice.
32:26
It comes to us freely, even though it cost Christ
32:28
everything. So, listener, what really stands
32:30
out here is that Christ's atonement doesn't eliminate
32:33
grace. It makes grace possible.
32:35
It prepares the way for pardon by satisfying justice.
32:39
It removes the barrier that God's own perfect justice would
32:42
otherwise place in the way of forgiveness.
32:45
It opens the door that our sin had slammed shut.
32:47
It enables God, as Roman says, to be just and yet the justifier
32:52
of the Sinner. Exactly.
32:53
The riches of grace are shown not by God ignoring his law or
32:57
pretending sin doesn't matter. No, they're shown by God Himself
33:00
providing the perfect means to satisfy His own just law,
33:04
opening the way for Him to pour out pardon without compromising
33:08
one bit of His perfect character or His righteous government.
33:10
It's a harmony, justice and mercy meeting perfectly, a
33:13
perfect. Harmony, displaying all His
33:15
attributes, working together beautifully in Christ.
33:17
Well, we have certainly taken a deep dive today into Jonathan
33:21
Edwards and his really compelling case for the absolute
33:25
necessity of Christ's atonement. We've wrestled right alongside
33:29
him with that tension of grace and justice.
33:31
And hopefully we've seen how God, in His incredible wisdom
33:34
and goodness, manages to both uphold His perfect law
33:38
completely and yet offer free, abundant pardon to us sinners.
33:43
It really is a magnificent picture of God's character,
33:45
isn't it? His righteousness is totally
33:48
upheld, His just dissatisfied. And His grace is just poured out
33:52
without limit through His son. It's quite something to
33:54
contemplate. And this deep dive, hopefully it
33:57
gives you, the listener, a clearview of why Christ's
33:59
sacrifice isn't just, you know, a helpful thing God did.
34:03
It's the only righteous basis upon which God can forgive sin
34:06
while remaining true to Himself. It shows his hatred for Son.
34:09
Definitely, and his amazing love for sinners all at the same
34:12
time. It creates the only path for
34:14
reconciliation that honors every single aspect respect of God's
34:17
perfect character. So for your consideration as we
34:20
wrap up, maybe conjure this If the necessity of Christ's death
34:24
was so absolute, so unavoidable, even for God himself in his
34:28
plan, what does that truly tell us about the seriousness, the
34:33
weight, the infinite gravity of sin in God's eyes?
34:36
And flowing from that, what does it tell us about the
34:38
immeasurable value, the sheer preciousness of the redemption
34:41
that's offered to us freely in cries?
34:43
Something to really think about. Indeed.
34:45
Thank you for joining us on Reformed Thinking for this deep
34:47
dive. Until next time, keep seeking,
34:50
keep growing, and keep learning.