# Is R.C Sproul Correct???



## OPC'n (Jan 14, 2014)

It's not often I find myself disagreeing with Pastor Sproul…..maybe once before now. I might be disagreeing with him because of his wording and not because of the theology he puts forth. In his book, _Truths We Confess_ Vol 1 pg 57, he states:

*"Hating all sin, God will by no means clear the guilty.* In western Pennsylvania many years ago, I was asked to write ordination exams for ministerial candidates. Part of the exam covered the Westminster Confession, a section of which was true-false. Knowing how tricky true-false questions can be, I wanted to try out the exam before administering it to a candidate. I asked the ordained men if they would take the test (without putting their names on their papers). One question was this: "The only way God ever clears the guilty is through the atonement of Jesus Christ." Every single man marked that question true. I reminded them that the confession says that God *will by no means * (which includes the cross) *clear the guilty*. He redeems and saves the guilty, but he does not clear them. They are still guilty. It is only because of his grace, his most loving mercy, and his imputation of Christ's righteousness that God justifies us while we are still sinners." 

The part that I'm struggling with is: "God will by no means (*which includes the cross*) clear the guilty". If Christ dying on the cross paid for our sins, how can we be found guilty? I realized that we need the righteousness of Christ imputed to us in order to follow God's command to be righteous (to offer works of righteousness to God). But are we not forgiven because of the work done by Christ on the cross AND given works of righteousness by Christ fulfilling the law and imputing His righteous work onto us? If we are forgiven by what Christ did on the cross, how can we be found guilty?

I"m pretty sure (I could be wrong …..maybe i dreamed this up!) my pastor once taught us that Christ dying on the cross only set us back to where Adam was before the fall and we needed Christ's righteous work imputed onto us to keep us righteous before God…..something like that.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 14, 2014)

What chapter, paragraph of the Westminster Confession is this commentary on?


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 14, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> What chapter, paragraph of the Westminster Confession is this commentary on?



Chapter 2 section 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 14, 2014)

Hi Sarah,

I think your point is well taken. In 2 Cor 5:21 it is written, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

I take this to mean that in Christ's death we have died, and in His resurrection we now "walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4), as it is written, "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God" (Col 3:3).

It may be that Sproul means, in saying that God will by no means clear the guilty, that we have been put to death in the death of Christ for our sins. Yes, we are still sin-laden (with remaining corruption), but the only view God has of us is through the blood of Jesus. Psalm 103:12, "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us."


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 14, 2014)

For sure! It could just be his wording which is a bit dangerous for those who don't read slowly and think hard about what they are reading. My mother and I are reading the book together and she didn't question what he said till I said I don't agree with what he said. It was only then she took pause of it and said she would like to know more of his reasoning or wording.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 14, 2014)

We weren't/aren't 'cleared' of our guilt. It was fully paid for by Jesus.


----------



## Tirian (Jan 14, 2014)

The blood of Jesus atones (covers) our sin now. Sin for which we are guilty. In the eternal state, I never really thought of us being eternally guilty, eternally covered by the blood though I am happy to concede that in my own thinking if that is biblical, without wishing to detract in any way from the efficacy of the cleansing nature of the blood.

When God says to us - "well done good and faithful servant" it won't be us, but us clothed in the righteousness of Christ - I guess.


----------



## Loopie (Jan 14, 2014)

Is there no way in which we are declared 'not guilty' in the sight of God? If Christ has truly atoned for our sin, paid the price, and satisfied God's wrath, then in a 'forensic' sense, aren't we now 'not guilty' before God? The removal of guilt is not because of anything we have done, but because what Christ has done for us. Apart from Christ I am guilty before a Holy God. But now that I am in Christ, I am 'not guilty', because he was 'not guilty', right? Perhaps I am wrong, but I do see how Sproul's words could be confusing. Certainly God does not 'clear' the guilty in the sense that he just lets them off the hook without any satisfaction of his justice. But in another sense, we are 'cleared' of all guilt because Christ took our sins and punishment upon himself.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 14, 2014)

Mushroom said:


> We weren't/aren't 'cleared' of our guilt. It was fully paid for by Jesus.



This is the key distinction. God doesn't just erase (clear away) the guilt of sin. It must always be paid for.

There's a popular way of thinking that imagines God, being nice and forgiving, erases our sin by lovingly just deciding not to punish us. In other words, he looks the other way as if sin were not really all that bad and he doesn't mind it so much. But such thinking fails to acknowledge the justice of God and the cost incurred by Christ. I suspect this is what Sproul is getting at.

I wouldn't be too hard on someone who used the word "clear" in a different way, though. Although the guilty are not "cleared" as in the sin being erased, we who place our faith in Jesus are "cleared" in the sense that united to him we are declared not guilty (not actually innocent of having sinned, but declared so). In that sense one might say we are indeed cleared, legally. Like so many words, "cleared" has a range of meanings. Depending on how it is used, the statement can be correct or incorrect—though a wise theologian will strive for clarity and consistency.

(If I read a sentence that mentioned being cleared "through the atonement of Jesus Christ," I'd assume the person who wrote that statement was not using "cleared" to mean sin being erased but rather to mean the guilty being declared righteous through the substitutionary work of Christ.)


----------



## jandrusk (Jan 14, 2014)

I agree with you Sara on this. The statement, "which includes the cross" is especially distrubing since that was, is, and forever shall be the means by which God declares us righteous in His site. All of the language around guilty, innocent, and cleared are legal terms relating to our legal standing before God. Sproul qualifies his use of the term "cleared" by stating that we are still guilty. How then can we be justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ if we are still guilty after this truth? If we look at Chatper 11 Section 3 of the WCF it states:

"Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners."

So I think it's pretty clear that if our debt, which I take for our guilt is fully discharged then we cannot say we are in state of guilt or of not being cleared. If we grant Dr. Sproul on this, then we would have to conclude that our justification is not complete. I'm having a hard time accepting that as such a learned professor of theology as Dr. Sproul is, that is simply a misrepresentation of wording.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 14, 2014)

Jack K said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> > We weren't/aren't 'cleared' of our guilt. It was fully paid for by Jesus.
> ...



Jack, I do believe you have discovered his meaning! I knew I was reading what he wrote incorrectly! Thank you so much!!!


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 15, 2014)

Have to agree with Justin's take. The definitional argument about the word "clear" doesn't seem to take care of Sproul's "which includes the cross." I still see no way to make sense of that clause. The cross is the ground of our pardon.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 15, 2014)

OPC'n said:


> I"m pretty sure (I could be wrong …..maybe i dreamed this up!) my pastor once taught us that Christ dying on the cross only set us back to where Adam was before the fall and we needed Christ's righteous work imputed onto us to keep us righteous before God…..something like that.



That is the belief of those who would argue for the active obedience of Christ. Not all Reformed or Presbyterian theologians would agree with this belief. Some even at Westminster didn't affirm it and thus it was not included in the Confession, thus explaining the language of "perfect obedience" as opposed to active and passive. 

God makes us does not clear the guilty or wicked , rather he legally justifies the ungodly and declares them righteous and makes them righteous. This is why sanctification cannot ever be separated from justification.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jan 15, 2014)

A man hanged for murder, would have been (or his case) declared ‘justified’ once he was dead. The case would have then been closed by that stamp! He had fully paid (humanly speaking) for his crime by his hanging and so justice was fully satisfied. However, at the point of that man’s death, his guilt was not removed/cleared. The file held on his case would still bear witness to his guilt. 

The cross satisfied God’s justice and made possible our justification (Christ fully paying the price of course) but it did not clear us of our guilt. When I consider the statement “cleared of guilt’ I would straight away think of a person who had been tried for a crime but found to be innocent of it. He or she was ‘cleared’ of that crime and set free on account of *their* innocence, not on account of their debt being paid by somebody else. If a person is guilty of a speeding charge and ordered to pay £60, but he cannot afford the charge so a friend steps in and pays that fine for them, then he can walk out of the court fully justified. The case is closed. The debt he owed has been paid. But he doesn’t walk out of the court ‘cleared’ of his guilt. He will no doubt ‘feel’ very grateful to his friend, relieved of having to worry about his crime and it’s punishment etc etc but he won’t be walking away thinking “I am innocent.......my friend’s action cleared me.” 

Perhaps not the best examples..........I’m no lawyer!


----------



## earl40 (Jan 15, 2014)

This is where Luther's "saint and sinner" distinction comes into play. Now think of it backwards. Jesus was The Righteous One who was not guilty before The Father but our sin (or guilt) was laid upon Him. Our guilt was laid upon the Guiltless one. His Righteousness is laid upon the guilty who are still not righteous in of themselves.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2014)

[Emphasis added]


> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter II
> 
> ...


.


> Scripture Proofs
> 
> [1] DEU 6:4 Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. 1CO 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God by one. 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2014)

I always appreciate the depth and care the esteemed theologian uses.
The Westminster Confession in Chapter 2, paragraph 1 is using the concept Dr. Sproul is explaining.

We are not really cleared of our guilt, as it is not our God's character to "wink at sin." What happens is an "alien righteousness" is imputed to us (credited to us, it's not ours inherently, it is "as if" Christ's righteousness is ours by God imputing it to us as part of His marvelous, unfathomable plan of redemption).

We certainly are cleared of the (eternal) punishment our sin deserves.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

jandrusk said:


> I agree with you Sara on this. The statement, "which includes the cross" is especially distrubing since that was, is, and forever shall be the means by which God declares us righteous in His site. All of the language around guilty, innocent, and cleared are legal terms relating to our legal standing before God. Sproul qualifies his use of the term "cleared" by stating that we are still guilty. How then can we be justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ if we are still guilty after this truth? If we look at Chatper 11 Section 3 of the WCF it states:
> 
> "Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners."
> 
> So I think it's pretty clear that if our debt, which I take for our guilt is fully discharged then we cannot say we are in state of guilt or of not being cleared. If we grant Dr. Sproul on this, then we would have to conclude that our justification is not complete. I'm having a hard time accepting that as such a learned professor of theology as Dr. Sproul is, that is simply a misrepresentation of wording.



IDK, jandrusk. I'm just having a hard time believing that Sproul doesn't believe that we are declared guiltless on account of Christ's work on the cross. With all his teachings I've heard I'm not convinced he means this. I'm going to do some diligent research …perhaps even putting the question to him on his site to see if I obtain an answer. I did send the quote to my pastor for his feedback. 



jogri17 said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > I"m pretty sure (I could be wrong …..maybe i dreamed this up!) my pastor once taught us that Christ dying on the cross only set us back to where Adam was before the fall and we needed Christ's righteous work imputed onto us to keep us righteous before God…..something like that.
> ...



Well, as I said, don't quote me as my pastor saying this. I would hate to put a quote into his mouth that he did not utter.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> I always appreciate the depth and care the esteemed theologian uses.
> The Westminster Confession in Chapter 2, paragraph 1 is using the concept Dr. Sproul is explaining.
> 
> We are not really cleared of our guilt, as it is not our God's character to "wink at sin." What happens is an "alien righteousness" is imputed to us (credited to us, it's not ours inherently, it is "as if" Christ's righteousness is ours by God imputing it to us as part of His marvelous, unfathomable plan of redemption).
> ...



Ok, hmmmm, I have no idea why I didn't know this. I'm going to have to do some more reading on this subject for it to soak into my brain. I'm a bit confused right now.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2014)

jandrusk said:


> I agree with you Sara on this. The statement, "which includes the cross" is especially distrubing since that was, is, and forever shall be the means by which God declares us righteous in His site. All of the language around guilty, innocent, and cleared are legal terms relating to our legal standing before God. Sproul qualifies his use of the term "cleared" by stating that we are still guilty. How then can we be justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ if we are still guilty after this truth? If we look at Chatper 11 Section 3 of the WCF it states:



It is certainly understandable to be concerned about the wording and the doctrine it represents, rightfully so.

The concept, however is paralleling the doctrine being summarized by the Confession at this point.

This might be helpful as an analogy. When we adopt a child, the law says the child is, in the eyes of the law, he is our child (with all the rights and privileges that includes). Yet, the child is not our child in the natural child sense. Yet the law treats him as if he is.

Same analogy here with sin that is ours, an alien righteousness, it's not ours. And a penalty for sin paid by someone not legally, or in any way, responsible for it. Behind it, a Holy God who hates all sin as it is a personal offense against Him, and who will punish it.

Strange justice.

And praise God for it!


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2014)

This may not be clear, only thinking this through, but we often say we are....

sinners saved by grace.

Not that we are not sinners. We are sinners, but we are saved by Christ's perfect obedience imputed to us , and perfect death for our sin , all of grace.

We are not cleared of the fact we are sinners,
but something not ours is given us, something we can not pay is paid for us.

Amazing, truly amazing.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

So we are the forgiven guilty? What about imputation? If His works are imputed onto us, how does that support us still being guilty? If God sees us according to Christ's work done on our behalf yet still sees us as the forgiven guilty, can we even say that Christ's work imputed onto us really works (I'm playing the devil's advocate here just to help with my understanding of this)?


----------



## earl40 (Jan 15, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> .
> 
> This might be helpful as an analogy. When we adopt a child, the law says the child is, in the eyes of the law, he is our child (with all the rights and privileges that includes). Yet, the child is not our child in the natural child sense. Yet the law treats him as if he is.
> 
> ...



Adoption is more than an anology.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 15, 2014)

When you consider that Sproul is using the ESV ........ NOT the AV ........ Well ........


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

I'm just trying to put it into my mind how we can go to heaven stand before God as guilty sinners even if we are forgiven. I know this is right but I'm having a hard time sorting out how God could even allow us into His presence knowing we are guilty. Of course we are guilty….I realize that. But isn't there a Bible verse which speaks of God putting our sins out of His sight……somewhere below the sea or something like that?


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

This is the verse to which I refer. How does this play into this subject?

Micah 7:18 Who is a God like you, *pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression*
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.
19 He will again have compassion on us;
*he will tread our iniquities underfoot.
You will cast all our sins
into the depths of the sea.*
20 You will show faithfulness to Jacob
and steadfast love to Abraham,
as you have sworn to our fathers
from the days of old.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

Another thought…..when we stand before His judgment seat ……. if we are still the forgiven guilty, will He recite our sins before all and state how He has forgiven each one? I've always thought that might happen just to show how gracious He truly is.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2014)

The statement being discussed is directly from Scripture:
*Exodus 34:6,7* And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that _*will by no means clear the guilty*_...​
The word "clear" in the Hebrew is _nâqâh_, and carries the meanings, to be (or make) clean, to acquit, be blameless, cleanse, be (hold) guiltless, be (hold) innocent, by no means be (leave) unpunished.

I think it has been established above that the Saviour, Jesus Christ, in behalf of the full Godhead, and for love of us took upon Himself our guilt, and our punishment, *exhausting* all the wrath of God our sins merited. He, our representative, in taking our guilt, was _*not*_ cleared of the guilt but punished for it according to the full extent divine justice required. Herein was it fulfilled that the LORD by no means would "clear the guilty". As a result of Him substituting Himself in our stead we are now declared righteous, cleared of that which was paid for once and for all. It is finished, and we are now "accepted in the Beloved", ourselves "holy and beloved" in Him (Eph 1:6; Col 3:12).


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The statement being discussed is directly from Scripture:
> *Exodus 34:6,7* And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that _*will by no means clear the guilty*_...​
> The word "clear" in the Hebrew is _nâqâh_, and carries the meanings, to be (or make) clean, to acquit, be blameless, cleanse, be (hold) guiltless, be (hold) innocent, by no means be (leave) unpunished.
> 
> I think it has been established above that the Saviour, Jesus Christ, in behalf of the full Godhead, and for love of us took upon Himself our guilt, and our punishment, *exhausting* all the wrath of God our sins merited. He, our representative, in taking our guilt, was _*not*_ cleared of the guilt but punished for it according to the full extent divine justice required. Herein was it fulfilled that the LORD by no means would "clear the guilty". As a result of Him substituting Himself in our stead we are now declared righteous, cleared of that which was paid for once and for all. It is finished, and we are now "accepted in the Beloved", ourselves "holy and beloved" in Him (Eph 1:6; Col 3:12).



Now, this is what I've always thought I have been taught. Goodness, I'm so confused now!


----------



## earl40 (Jan 15, 2014)

OPC'n said:


> Now, this is what I've always thought I have been taught. Goodness, I'm so confused now!



May I ask what you think of Jesus upon the cross? Was He guilty of our sin?


----------



## Ken_lamb (Jan 15, 2014)

OPC'n Forgive me if I'm reiterating what others have already said. The term that I've heard Sproul used before was Simul Justis et Pecatur(sp.?), which means that by the work of the cross we are justified and yet still sinners. These two qualities presumably don't stand side by side, but that the Justification that we've recieved through Christ provides a covering of our sinfulness. What Sproul seems to be infering is that God does not merely acquit us of the charges, even though the sentence of death was paid on our behalf. Hope that helps.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 15, 2014)

In my limited knowledge of Scripture I have been taught that God the Father sees us _through the imputed righteousness of Christ_. 

Revelation 5: and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, *and washed us from our sins in his own blood*,


----------



## earl40 (Jan 15, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> In my limited knowledge of Scripture I have been taught that God the Father sees us _through the imputed righteousness of Christ_.
> 
> Revelation 5: and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, *and washed us from our sins in his own blood*,



God the Father sees us *through* the imputed righteousness of Christ. God knows what is beneath the clothes.


----------



## KevinInReno (Jan 15, 2014)

I think Joshua in Zechariah 3 can be instructive to this topic. Satan is not rebuked in his accusing Joshua. But Joshua puts on the alien righteousness God provides.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

1Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

John Calvin states in his commentary on 1Peter:

24Who his own self bare our sins This form of speaking is fitted to set forth the efficacy of Christ’ death. *For as under the Law, the sinner, that he might be released from guilt, substituted a victim in his own place; so Christ took on himself the curse due to our sins, that he might atone for them before God. And he expressly adds, on the tree, because he could not offer such an expiation except on the cross.* Peter, therefore, well expresses the truth, that Christ’ death was a sacrifice for the expiation of our sins; for being fixed to the cross and offering himself a victim for us, he took on himself our sin and our punishment. Isaiah, from whom Peter has taken the substance of his doctrine, employs various forms of expression, — that he was smitten by God’ hand for our sins, that he was wounded for our iniquities, that he was afflicted and broken for our sake, that the chastisement of our peace was laid on him. But Peter intended to set forth the same thing by the words of this verse, even that we are reconciled to God on this condition, *because Christ made himself before his tribunal a surety and as one guilty for us, that he might suffer the punishment due to us. *

I suppose I'm sticking with what I thought was right since John Calvin states what I have always believed. I really don't know if it was just strange wording on Sproul's part or what, but for now I'm prepared to say it is just bad wording.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 15, 2014)

And here's your perfect opportunity, Sarah:

Ask R.C. Live: Tuesday, January 21 at 7:30pm EST by Nathan W. Bingham | Ligonier Ministries Blog



> Next Tuesday, January 21 at 7:30pm EST, Dr. Sproul will be live online via video answering your theological questions. You will be able to submit questions to him in real-time or in advance by using #AskRC on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
> 
> If you’d prefer to participate by telephone, you can pre-register using the form at the bottom of this post and we’ll call you shortly before the event. On the call you will be able to hear Dr. Sproul and request to ask him a question live.
> 
> ...


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

Wayne said:


> And here's your perfect opportunity, Sarah:
> 
> Ask R.C. Live: Tuesday, January 21 at 7:30pm EST by Nathan W. Bingham | Ligonier Ministries Blog
> 
> ...



hahaha! Oh my goodness this is great! Thanks! I'll have to go and figure out how to use some of those resources to put forth the question. I'll send him what Calvin says on the matter too.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 15, 2014)

OPC'n said:


> I really don't know if it was just strange wording on Sproul's part or what, but for now I'm prepared to say it is just bad wording.



Yet he seems to think it's very important. Seems like word games to me. :-/


----------



## bookslover (Jan 15, 2014)

I'm wondering if Sproul is taking the wording "by no means" too literally. The phrase "by no means" is usually used in English as a way of expressing a determination that something will not happen. For example, if I say, "By no means will I allow him to go to the movies," I'm not saying that I am going to take every physical precaution within my power to prevent him from going to the movies. No, I'm making a general statement, using that English locution, that I've decided he's not going to go to the movies.

So, perhaps Sproul is misunderstanding the divines as saying that, when God says that "by no mean" He will clear the guilty, He's saying that there's absolutely no mechanism by which the guilty can be saved, when what God is actually saying is that, in His moral righteousness and perfection, He is determined that the guilty shall not go unpunished. And the guilty - that's us - WERE punished, vicariously (but still punished) by Christ's death on the cross. In Christ's death, God fulfilled the "by no means" locution.

Short version: perhaps Sproul is taking literally a figure of speech not meant to be taken so.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 15, 2014)

bookslover said:


> I'm wondering if Sproul is taking the wording "by no means" too literally. The phrase "by no means" is usually used in English as a way of expressing a determination that something will not happen. For example, if I say, "By no means will I allow him to go to the movies," I'm not saying that I am going to take every physical precaution within my power to prevent him from going to the movies. No, I'm making a general statement, using that English locution, that I've decided he's not going to go to the movies.
> 
> So, perhaps Sproul is misunderstanding the divines as saying that, when God says that "by no mean" He will clear the guilty, He's saying that there's absolutely no mechanism by which the guilty can be saved, when what God is actually saying is that, in His moral righteousness and perfection, He is determined that the guilty shall not go unpunished. And the guilty - that's us - WERE punished, vicariously (but still punished) by Christ's death on the cross. In Christ's death, God fulfilled the "by no means" locution.
> 
> Short version: perhaps Sproul is taking literally a figure of speech not meant to be taken so.



IDK, but I don't believe God will ever clear the guilty, however, His children are not apart of the guilty group. We are guilty of sinning and we will sin until we died, but I don't believe we are held guilty for our sins since Christ paid for them on the cross.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 15, 2014)

I'll agree that the guilt has not been cleared. It has been laid upon Jesus Christ. It didn't merely disappear by hitting a delete button.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2014)

OPC'n said:


> So we are the forgiven guilty? What about imputation? If His works are imputed onto us, how does that support us still being guilty? If God sees us according to Christ's work done on our behalf yet still sees us as the forgiven guilty, can we even say that Christ's work imputed onto us really works (I'm playing the devil's advocate here just to help with my understanding of this)?



If we said, we are sinners, saved by grace, that would be understandable, right?
Not that we are innocents.



OPC'n said:


> So we are the forgiven guilty?



Please forgive me if this is over-reading the words,
but how could we not be forgiven were we not guilty?

And, Sarah, if you do ask the esteemed Dr., please let us know the response!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2014)

My opinion is that this was a poorly worded question for a True/False format.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 19, 2014)

Scott has it right. We are judicially free from sin because of the alien righteousness of Christ; we are justified _extra nos_ (outside of us). Our guilt, however, remains. We're still guilty people, deserving of judgment, but we're justified in Christ.

This all relates to where the doctrines of justification, imputation, and Christ's representation of us before God meet.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 19, 2014)

I'm still going to hold to what John Calvin says and not Sproul this time round


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 19, 2014)

Dr. Sproul's distinction seems more semantic than substantive. I get his point. But it boarders on splitting hairs. Just my


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2014)

> I reminded them that the confession says that God *will by no means * (which includes the cross) *clear the guilty*. He redeems and saves the guilty, but he does not clear them. They are still guilty. It is only because of his grace, his most loving mercy, and his imputation of Christ's righteousness that God justifies us while we are still sinners."



Matthew Poole's Commentary might help to clarify the sense in which the Confession uses the words of Exodus 34:7.



> That will by no means clear the guilty: this is commonly esteemed a title of justice or vengeance, which is here added by way of correction lest men should mistake or abuse God’s mercy. God is most gracious indeed, but so as he is also just, and will not pity nor spare impudent and impenitent transgressors, but will severely punish them.



Poole's comment proceeds to show that the Hebrew can be rendered in a different way with a different sense, but as it stands it appears that the phrase does not speak to justification by faith but to the justice of God which refuses pardon to the impenitent.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 19, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Poole's comment proceeds to show that the Hebrew can be rendered in a different way with a different sense, but as it stands it appears that the phrase does not speak to justification by faith but to the justice of God which refuses pardon to the impenitent.



So, it's getting at the fact that repentance is necessary? That would be related to the idea that, in the order of salvation, we are sanctified before we are glorified, right? As in, if we remain mired in our sin, it will not be pardoned? Am I making sense/on the right track with Sproul's idea? I'll admit a lot of this thread has confused me.


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2014)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> So, it's getting at the fact that repentance is necessary? That would be related to the idea that, in the order of salvation, we are sanctified before we are glorified, right? As in, if we remain mired in our sin, it will not be pardoned? Am I making sense/on the right track with Sproul's idea? I'll admit a lot of this thread has confused me.



I think the statement of Dr. Sproul tries to make it relate to justification when that is not its intent. That is where the confusion might be coming from. The statement in context speaks to the point that repentance is necessary but it is more fundamental than that. It is related to the revelation of grace -- men must not presume that God must be gracious to them and that they may continue as they please; He will not ignore the claims of justice. This obviously relates to justification and repentance further down the track, but in the immediate context it is qualifying the nature of grace.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 20, 2014)

We really need to ask the good Doctor.
The question can be emailed in.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/askrc-...medium=email&utm_campaign=AskRC012114&aref=SS
He is quite careful in explaining theology, quite gifted in that.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 20, 2014)

this could be all my fault…..maybe i should post a few pages of what he wrote to put it in better context? I can do that if it helps….just let me know. I really adore Sproul and wouldn't want to take what he said out of context.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 20, 2014)

This is a great question, Sarah,
I'm wondering more and more about how to understand this, both in the context of the particular Scripture, the Westminster Confession on this point and Dr. Sproul's comment on it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 20, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> > I reminded them that the confession says that God *will by no means * (which includes the cross) *clear the guilty*. He redeems and saves the guilty, but he does not clear them. They are still guilty. It is only because of his grace, his most loving mercy, and his imputation of Christ's righteousness that God justifies us while we are still sinners."
> 
> 
> 
> ...





armourbearer said:


> Mr. Bultitude said:
> 
> 
> > So, it's getting at the fact that repentance is necessary? That would be related to the idea that, in the order of salvation, we are sanctified before we are glorified, right? As in, if we remain mired in our sin, it will not be pardoned? Am I making sense/on the right track with Sproul's idea? I'll admit a lot of this thread has confused me.
> ...



This is very helpful. Thanks Reverend Winzer. 

I might also add that Galatians 6:7 is written to the Church. 



> (Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
> 
> (Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.



I had a discussion about a year ago with a young man in my congregation who was having problems with the idea that God still punishes sin in the Christian. He said I was incorrect because all of his sin was laid upon Christ and Christ bore all of the punishment he deserved on the cross. That was a rather difficult conversation to untangle.


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I had a discussion about a year ago with a young man in my congregation who was having problems with the idea that God still punishes sin in the Christian. He said I was incorrect because all of his sin was laid upon Christ and Christ bore all of the punishment he deserved on the cross. That was a rather difficult conversation to untangle.



The Puritans offer a good distinction for this. We are punished as children by a father, remedially; not as criminals by a judge, retributively.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 20, 2014)

> Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
> Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
> ...
> Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
> Heb 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.



And this was one of the passages I used to help him understand.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 21, 2014)

I have asked Dr. Sproul to elaborate in tonight's live Q&A. I hope my question makes the cut.

Am watch live now:
Ligonier Webcasts


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 22, 2014)

Based on watching about 1/2 the program, it was excellent, I hope it is recorded.
Was the thread question addressed?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 23, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> Was the thread question addressed?


No, my submitted question never made the cut.


----------



## AdventTruth (Jan 23, 2014)

TylerRay said:


> Scott has it right. We are judicially free from sin because of the alien righteousness of Christ; we are justified _extra nos_ (outside of us). Our guilt, however, remains. We're still guilty people, deserving of judgment, but we're justified in Christ.
> 
> This all relates to where the doctrines of justification, imputation, and Christ's representation of us before God meet.



Blessed are those who lawless deeds have been forgiven, 
and whose sins have been covered. 
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. (Rom. 4:7-8)

He was pierced through for our transgressions, 
He was crushed for our iniquities . . . 
All of us like sheep have gone astray, 
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him. (Is. 53:5, 6)

I understand Gods justice is legal...lawful....Christ took quilt of our sin upon Himself! In Christ, each of us are acquitted.


----------



## stephen2 (Jan 23, 2014)

> Scott has it right. We are judicially free from sin because of the alien righteousness of Christ; we are justified extra nos (outside of us). Our guilt, however, remains. We're still guilty people, deserving of judgment, but we're justified in Christ.
> 
> This all relates to where the doctrines of justification, imputation, and Christ's representation of us before God meet.



Agreed. Robert Reymond explains some of this very well: "... one occasionally hears justification popularly defined as God 'looking at me just as if I'd never sinned.' This is an example of a (very) partial truth becoming virtually an untruth, since nothing is said in such a definition concerning the ground of justification or the instrumentality through which justification is obtained. Much more accurately, the Shorter Catechismm defines justification as 'an act of God's free grace, wheerein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone...

... justification refers to God's wholly objective, wholly forensic judgment concerning the sinner's standing before the law, by which forensic judgment God declares that the sinnner is righteous in his sight because of the imputation of his sin to Christ, on which ground he is pardoned, and the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience to him, on which ground he is constituted righteous before God."

In a sense God doesn't ever clear the guilty. We are cleared on account of our standing in Christ or rather on account of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. We are accepted then not because our sins have been forgotten (deliberately or by accident) or because God has just made them disappear. Rather we are accepted on the basis of Christ's obedience wich is imputed to us who believe.


----------



## AdventTruth (Jan 24, 2014)

stephen2 said:


> > Scott has it right. We are judicially free from sin because of the alien righteousness of Christ; we are justified extra nos (outside of us). Our guilt, however, remains. We're still guilty people, deserving of judgment, but we're justified in Christ.
> >
> > This all relates to where the doctrines of justification, imputation, and Christ's representation of us before God meet.
> 
> ...



And here is the rub....you contradicted your self above. You say he never clears the guilty....but then gives the means by which the guilty are cleared....that means Being through Christ! So the guilty are cleared....through Christ.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 24, 2014)

stephen2 said:


> In a sense God doesn't ever clear the guilty. We are cleared on account of our standing in Christ or rather on account of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. We are accepted then not because our sins have been forgotten (deliberately or by accident) or because God has just made them disappear. Rather we are accepted on the basis of Christ's obedience wich is imputed to us who believe.



Hence, we understand what is meant by saying we are sinners saved by grace.

Not that we are not sinners, we are, but we are saved by Jesus Christ's perfect righteousness imputed to us, according to the plan of election decreed by our Triune God in eternity past.

In that, our God does not "wink at sin," or compromise His standard of perfect obedience. It is the perfection and excellency of our Lord's obedience, on our behalf that satisfies God's justice,
though we are, in ourselves, still sinners.


----------



## stephen2 (Jan 24, 2014)

> And here is the rub....you contradicted your self above. You say he never clears the guilty....but then gives the means by which the guilty are cleared....that means Being through Christ! So the guilty are cleared....through Christ.



I think this may be moving beyond the intent of what RC Sproul meant to communicate. He and I and everyone would affirm that God pardons our sins. They are removed from us. In that sense there is nothing wrong with saying the guilty are cleared... 

I believe Sproul is trying to highlight the fact that God cannot clear the guilty. Proverbs says as much and Paul explains that the very reason for Christ's death is that God might be just and the justifier of the wicked - and so Paul actually summarizes the gospel as the announcement of the righteousness of God: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference." God does _not_ simply justify the wicked. Rather He justifies the righteous, and those who are by faith united to the Lord Jesus are counted righteous by virtue of their union with Him. In that sense HE doesn't clear the guilty. Rather their sins have been paid for and they are righteous by imputation.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 24, 2014)

We are cleared of guilt AS IF we never sinned as much as Jesus was punished AS IF He was a sinner.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 24, 2014)

I think everyone is right on how they are coming at this. We are sinners and will always be sinners till we die, and in that manner we are guilty of committing those sins for the day. However, we don't stand guilty before God because Christ paid for each and every sin of His people. Even my pastor didn't like how Sproul worded this and I really don't think he meant it the way it sounds. I think we've  by now


----------



## AdventTruth (Jan 24, 2014)

stephen2 said:


> > And here is the rub....you contradicted your self above. You say he never clears the guilty....but then gives the means by which the guilty are cleared....that means Being through Christ! So the guilty are cleared....through Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> "Hating all sin, God will by no means clear the guilty. In western Pennsylvania many years ago, I was asked to write ordination exams for ministerial candidates. Part of the exam covered the Westminster Confession, a section of which was true-false. Knowing how tricky true-false questions can be, I wanted to try out the exam before administering it to a candidate. I asked the ordained men if they would take the test (without putting their names on their papers). One question was this: "The only way God ever clears the guilty is through the atonement of Jesus Christ." Every single man marked that question true. I reminded them that the confession says that God will by no means (which includes the cross) clear the guilty. He redeems and saves the guilty, but he does not clear them. They are still guilty. It is only because of his grace, his most loving mercy, and his imputation of Christ's righteousness that God justifies us while we are still sinners."



I'm sorry, but reading Dr. Sproul's quote above seems to be saying as redeemed Believers in Christ we are still guilty. Is this not the case?


----------

