Romans 5:1... one more time!

I had some interesting feedback from the blogs I posted about Romans 5:1, generally positive... which was annoying as I prefer criticism on such things as they make me re-scrutinise what I've written. I did have a comment passed about my post on 'Peace with God'. In it I talked about God's hate of sin. It seems that when I commented that God could not sin as we knew it (actual quote was: "He cannot hate as we understand the word, for to hate is to sin") it was taken to mean that God doesn't hate. Well He does, which is why I then added the example of Hoeksema's 'Holy NO'.

In hindsight maybe I should have described His hate as one that we cannot know, as our understanding is of hate is sinful. The Almighty has a divine, Holy, wrathful hate that is utterly just and pure... not something we can fully, truly appreciate.

I hope that clears up any confusion on that matter. I endeavour to make my posts clear and theologically sound, but am aware that I will frequently muddle my thoughts and consequently perhaps not do my biblical opinion justice.

But on with Romans 5:1 once again. I was greatly reassured that having written the posts without commentary support and having (in all honesty) just written them off the cuff, that on listening to a Peter Jeffery sermon (listen to the one titled 'Peace') on the verse and reading the chapter on the verse in 'Righteous by Faith Alone' (Herman Hoeksema) I had covered in brief many of their points. Just not quite as eloquently!

However, as is often the case, in hindsight I realised that perhaps I'd missed a massive amount out! In writing the posts I knew that there was so much more in each that could've been added. But then you'd have been reading a 45 page blog... not a habit I'll try and fall into.

But as I read Mr Hoeksema's chapter last night something was highlighted that Peter Jeffery had touched on and perhaps I hadn't.

We are either condemned in our sin or justified. Or we are either guilty or not guilty. There is no sliding scale of righteousness for that impending court case. We cannot be semi-righteous, or semi-condemned. We are of one condition or the other. In the case of the Christian of course what cause for praise and celebration there is in our new found legal position before the Lord!

But it gets better. Once declared 'not guilty', once we have been justified, no other charge can be brought to us. Consequently the position cannot be reversed; we cannot return to the dock and be found guilty. This is because when the gavel fell in judgement of our souls (or will) the great Judge doesn't just pronounce us 'not guilty'. He brings down the hammer and to our relief the words 'not guilty' are issued forth, but this is followed without hesitation by the gavel pointed at us and we are affirmed as 'righteous'! (James R Hamilton can take credit for this illustration).

For that court date our legal intercessor the Lord Jesus Christ has laid out his finest of clothes for us to wear. Gleaming and perfectly tailored they cover our filthy rags and as we stand in the dock the divine judge sees us as guiltless, adopted heirs and children. We cannot be found guilty... cannot! A perfect legal representation and promises by the Lord Jesus ensure it!


I know I may seem to be labouring the point Christian, but isn't justification a wonderful word? I want to have it tattooed on my forehead sometimes! 'Justified'. Tattoo aside surely our witness, language, demeanour, countenance and soul should shout to all who know us - 'bought and paid for'. And if anyone wants to check that the purchase is valid - the receipts can be found in the bible!


One of which, funnily enough can be found in Romans 5:1... regardless of the version!

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (NIV)"

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" (KJV)

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (ESV)

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (NASB)

Analogies are a bit like...

I like Mr Herman Hoeksema. I like him a lot. He has a knack of using analogies that I understand. Now I use them a lot as you may have noticed but I am always conscious that in giving an analogy it is hard to appreciate how it will be received. I mean, I know what I’m talking about and in my own mind the analogical image is crystal clear... but does anyone else get it? Not always.


Mr Hoeksema doesn’t have this problem I don’t think, nor does Peter Jeffery. Each time I have read or heard an analogy by either of them I have re-wound or re-read it a few times, enjoying the laser beam accurate image I believe they intended to portray.

Most recently I liked Mr Jeffery’s example of our sin being like a big strong, nasty Rottweiler (it may have been a Doberman, but it hardly affects the analogy). We need to keep that vicious dog on a short lead and well under control. If we were to let out too much lead or to release it, it would cause untold damage and pain. So the danger needs to be disciplined and kept reined in tightly and under our control and command.

Mr Hoeksema provided another analogy for me this morning as I continued my reading of 'Wonder of Grace'. I shan’t paraphrase him though, this is what he wrote. The chapter was entitled ‘Believing through Grace’ and the particular section was referring to our faith in Christ.

“The difference between a believer and an unbeliever is not unlike that between a living young tree and a dead fence post. You can plant that fence post deep into the ground, but you do not expect that it will show signs of life and develop branches and fruit. On the contrary, it will rot in the soil in which it is planted. But plant a young sapling in the same soil, and it will strike its roots into the ground and draw nourishment from it, grow and bear fruit.”

This reflects something that I mentioned in my last blog about Mr Jeffery’s ‘Whitewash’ sermon. Someone can outwardly be gleaming white, a Doctor who has attended church for 40 years and does many good works... but he can be as dead as that fence post despite being buried deep in the ground of a church if he is an unbeliever. He may even frequently study the bible or expound its contents from a pulpit. But he’s still dead in his unbelief.

Take a believer however, an uneducated labourer who is that young sapling. He has no knowledge of the bible, little understanding of the nuances and details of scripture, he doesn't even think he is doing so... but that sapling starts to bear fruit. The love and grace in his life shines through and bears fruit. Burying his roots deep into Christ, the gospel and His church the sapling grows into a mighty solid oak, rock solid in faith in Christ.

To use Mr Hoeksema’s example (which I semi plagiarised in the last 2 paragraphs) the same said doctor and labourer are fed a meal. The doctor understands the nutritional value of the food, he is aware that the proteins, carbohydrates,  vitamins and minerals are essential for all manner of reasons. He knows the value of the food. But he has a terminal illness which sees him struggle to eat. The food will make him sick and nauseous. He can tell you the value of the food, but rejects the chance to eat it.

The labourer knows none of this. He knows he is hungry, he knows his appetite needs sating and he eats and eats and eats until his plate is as clean as a whistle. He is ignorant of the nutritional benefits of the food other than it makes him satisfied, but he still benefits from the content of what he has taken in - each meal making him stronger.

Oh to be a doctor who can labour during the mornings uprooting fence posts and planting saplings in their place, then spend the afternoons collecting and distributing the fruit collected from the mature, fully grown trees planted years before.

You can’t fault a good analogy can you? (That last one was mine... I do hope it made sense!!!!)

By Grace ye are saved

I have been reading the first few chapters of Herman Hoeksema's 'Wonder of Grace' and after 3 short chapters I would recommend it wholeheartedly. As you'd expect from the title Mr Hoeksema discusses all things regarding Sovereign Grace.

Thus far I have read the chapters on 'Salvation by Grace', 'Chosen by Grace' and 'Reconciled by Grace'. The second chapter 'Chosen by Grace' is essentially about election.

Now I'm aware that this topic (election) is one which causes a great deal of unease, debate and even division in the Church and I have no wish with my limited understanding of things scriptural to inflame anyone's ire over it.

However... Mr Hoeksema clearly falls into the electionist camp and I was taken by the following paragraph as it takes a slant on things I'd not encountered before. The 'truth' being the doctrine of election:

"It dare not be objected to this doctrine that this truth offers no comfort to poor sinners: for nothing could be farther from the truth. True, this doctrine has no consolation for the impenitent wicked. But we ask: is there any form of presentation of the gospel that could possibly comfort the wicked and the ungodly?"

Ergo, if one is saved, is the truth of election not wonderfully reassuring for us... reassurance of God's love and our personal salvation? Also this highlights that our squeamish concerns over the unelect hold no water as the gospel holds no comfort for them personally?

It is rather that we wish they could share in our comfort and our knowledge of a personal Saviour?
I may have made something out of nothing there and misjudged the entire context of the sentence. It did make me think though that any concerns one might have over election lie in the converts' concern over the 'fair' treatment of condemned unconverted sinners who remain blind to the gospel and stumble on in their impenitence.

We're all guilty of course... as charged. But by Grace we are saved.

Grace of course meaning unmerited favour.

Wow... don't you feel great about that Christian?

Please take a look at the bookshop here for the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church based in Ballymena, Northern Ireland. They have very good selection.

Propitiation, what a word.

Propitiation... an incredible word if you're a Christian.

"At all costs, whatever it may mean to us, we must hold onto this word. Propitiation through faith in His blood."
D M Lloyd-Jones (Expository notes on Romans)


Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology words it like this (referencing Romans 3:25 KJV/NKJV/ESV/NASB) - "...tells us that God put forward Christ as a 'propitiation' a word that means "a sacrifice that bears God's wrath to the end and in doing so changes God's wrath toward us into favour."


Herman Hoeksema, when talking of God's wrath in 'Righteous by Faith Alone' explained God's wrath as a 'righteous anger' and perhaps more easily understandable (to me in my paraphrasing) is a 'Holy NO' to sin... God will not have sin in His sight and rejects it utterly with this mighty, unchangeable "NO!"


*disclaimer - my theology is fragile and in its infancy so forgive any errors. The reasons for making the point over the vitality of the word 'propitiation' I hope will become clear.*


The point I am trying to make is that the word propitiation describes how in legal terms God's wrath MUST be appeased and this tariff or sentence that has to be handed out to sin must happen. Without saving grace this death sentence of God's wrath would fall on us sinners. But through delivering Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice, the sentence, the tariff of the weight of that sin is borne by Jesus. He bears God's wrath, His awesome 'NO' for us.


No other word can substitute for this. Some versions lamely try to substitute it with 'atoning sacrifice' and/or 'expiation', but neither word measures up. Yes there was atonement and yes our sins are 'wiped away' in expiation, but neither is an adequate substitute for propitiation.


The Welsh words 'hwyl' or 'hiraeth' have, apparently, no direct translation into English. Even a sentence to explain them does not adequately describe the depth of feeling and emotion these words supposedly invoke in a true man of the vales. When speaking to a Welsh thoroughbred he will purse his lips and nod vigorously, perhaps even slapping your shoulder and fixing you with a knowing eye when you utter such words.


We frequently use phrases in everyday speech that suggest the lack of effective translation of certain words so you will frequently hear such phrases as 'faux pas' or 'vice versa'. Yes you can describe them, but they don't always do the phrase justice.

In my limited theological knowledge I am already surprised, nay shocked even that such looseness can occur in translating God's word. Propitiation is a key word in the Christian's vocabulary... if not in actual spoken word, then certainly in understanding. How, how, how, how, how it can be omitted completely from the NIV and other versions is a burgeoning mystery to me.


When I read about it and understood it I was awestruck and it made me realise afresh the gravity of exactly what has been done for us at the cross. Remind yourself of what the word means then compare these verses in various versions. It may surprise and even shock you to see the variety of language used for such important sections of scripture.

Romans 3:25
1 John 2:2
1 John 4:10
Hebrews 2:17

As a closing, contrasting comment. I enjoyed singing 'And can it be' in Church recently. My favourite verse being:

.

Long my imprisoned spirit lay

Fast bound in sin and nature's night;

Thine eye diffused a quickening ray,

I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;

My chains fell off, my heart was free,

I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

.

Gotta let rip with those last 2 lines! Amen.