Virtual Book Club: The Whole Christ (part 2 of 11)

Ferguson opens chapter 2 by asking a fundamental question: What is the gospel? "The extent to which the answer we give determines how we preach and communicate the gospel." (565)

What had happened with the Scottish church in the 18th century was that it had fallen into a legalistic pitfall of limiting the offer of Christ to those who seemed eligible. They fell into an unbiblical version of Calvinism where the offer of grace could only be genuinely given to someone who showed signs that they were of the elect. This is unquestionably wrong. As Evangelista says in the Marrow of Modern Divinity: "I beseech you, consider, that God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all, that whosoever shall believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Ferguson then goes to show how this universal offer to all does not go against the Westminster Confession's affirmation of limited atonement or particular redemption (the doctrine that Jesus died for the elect alone, and is perfect in its effect). For the record, I am not a big limited atonement guy. I know that our atonement must be limited in some sense, because we are not universalists, but I have trouble seeing how the plethora of texts using the word "all" don't actually mean "all" but only refer to those who will be saved. Anyways, Thomas Boston, while adamantly affirming his church's Calvinism, stressed that this emphasis of the Marrow preserved two of the great keynotes of the NT's message:

1. In Jesus Christ there is a fullness of grace for all who will come to him.

2. In Jesus Christ there is not only fullness but also freeness of that grace.

This freeness means that: "The offer of the gospel is to be made not to the righteous or even the repentant, but to all. There are no conditions that need to be met in order for the gospel offer to be made." (614)

They key lesson to learn from this stumbling of the Scottish church is: when we try to make perfect human sense of heavenly mysteries, when we try to cram all of heaven’s truth into a fully comprehensive man made system, we can often end up logically arriving at unbiblical conclusions. This is what happened with their Calvinism. There is nothing wrong with Calvinism as a robust theological system, but this system (a way we understand the Bible) had developed a "deformed" or "hyper" logic of its own which grew insensitive to the style and atmosphere of the New Testament. They figured: "Because God only gives his saving grace to the elect alone, and the elect are known by their forsaking sin, therefore the forsaking of sin is a prerequisite for saving grace"(626). It is true that only the elect are saved. It is true that the elect are known by forsaking sin. But it is dangerously incorrect to make that fruit of salvation (forsaking sin) a prerequisite for salvation.

The impetus is on us today to remain harshly Biblical in our understanding and to be content leaving a degree of tension in the mysteries Scripture does not clearly resolve.

The best part of this chapter in my opinion, however, was when Sinclair dove a little deeper into the legalistic foundation of the church: "Perhaps the most significant underlying issue was that the gospel was being preached in a way that implied a separation between Christ and the benefits of the gospel"(638).

According to Ferguson, a major issue with the Scottish Church was exactly this: they were subtly separating the benefits of Christ from Christ himself. They would say through Christ we achieve salvation, fullness, and blessing (emphasis on the preposition "through"). They would say it is by Jesus that we receive these benefits. While these are likely statements that we would all affirm without thinking twice, what started to happen was that Jesus became a secondary means to an end, instead of remaining the end in Himself. They wanted Jesus, not because they wanted Jesus, but in order that they would receive His blessings and marvelous benefits. This is rarely a conscious shift in thinking, it is subtle--and not without consequence.

For it only makes sense when we preach Christ's benefits, people will naturally want those benefits. Now, it is not wrong to preach the marvelous benefits Jesus brings (how can we not?!), but if they are “abstracted” or seen as separate from Christ, people will respond to the gospel no longer by saying: "How can I get Christ and be grafted into Him?" but instead: "How can I get these incredible benefits into my life?" See what has happened? Jesus has been removed from the forefront to the background. From the primary focal point to the secondary.

Have you seen this tendency in modern evangelicalism? Personally I have witnessed hundreds of baptisms and testimonies which are always a joyous occasion. Always. Frequently however I will hear people say in their testimonies something along the lines of: "I have made a lot of mistakes in my life. I have made some bad decisions. I really want to turn my life around and be the person God wants me to be. I want to get baptized today to be obedient to the Lord and to show that I am serious honoring Him with my life." And while I will celebrate this testimony and the work God has begun in this individual's life, sometimes I will ask to myself: “where is Jesus?” It can seem that Jesus has become almost a periphery figure, lost in the fog of His marvelous benefits that are so deeply desired.

Ferguson goes on to tell us that there is no separation between Christ and His benefits. That it is, in effect, incorrect to say, "Believe in Jesus and through Him you will receive joy, peace, blessing, salvation, and adoption." Instead it is "believe in Jesus and IN Jesus we will find true salvation and true blessing. Why? Because "Jesus is the gospel." In Him is the fullness of the benefits he offers. So while it seems "nitpicky" it is important that when we present this truth, we must keep both the Savior and His benefits together.

Discussion:

I thought it was an interesting point when Ferguson said: “wherever the benefits of Christ are seen as abstractable from Christ himself, there is a decreasing stress on his person and work in preaching and in the books that are published to feed that preaching”(718).  I do think this is more often than not the case with the modern church.

I also found it interesting to learn that instead of thinking of themselves as Christians, saints, believers, or disciples-- the early Christians thought of themselves with a different label: "Contrast these descriptors with the overwhelmingly dominant way the New Testament describes believes. It is that we are 'in Christ.' The expression, in one form or another, occurs well over one hundred times in Paul's thirteen letters" (659). When we miss this idea of “union with Christ” we often "abstract" the benefits of Christ from Christ, and therefore fall into similar error as the Scottish church did hundreds of years ago.

This chapter was heavily theological and dense. But I think it is good for readers, even those who come from a less reformed theological background, to grapple with the nature of the atonement and election. Ferguson comes from a heavily reformed perspective which is something I do not have much of a problem with. The best parts of reformed theology is its high view of God (and Scripture) and the subsequent limited view of man that results. Some of the finer things like limited atonement, or a predominate emphasis on topics like predestination, or even a lack of emphasis on the power of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life--can be areas of criticism, but in the main these guys are pretty solid. The sermons and writings of guys like: Martyn Lloyd-Jones, James Boice, R. C. Sproul, even John Calvin himself have had profound influence on my Christian life.

Questions:

1. While we may not struggle with hyper-Calvinism, what are some other ways human logic can deteriorate Biblical truth?

2. Do you think it is a necessary point of emphasis to keep Jesus and His benefits together? Why or why not?

3. How can we ensure that Jesus remains central in our teaching and Christian life (1 Cor 2:2)--and does not become only a secondary means to some other end?