The Atonement is Perfect

One of the primary discriminators between Romanists and Protestants regards the ‘sufficiency’ of the work of God.  RCs believe the Bible is the Word of God, but also rely in tradition and the teaching office of the church as equal authorities. Protestants learn from great teachers of the past and present, but ultimately, our confidence depends on the ‘sufficiency’ of the Scriptures and their ability to clearly communicate everything needful for our salvation.

Another area where Roman Catholics and Protestant disagree is on the sufficiency of the atonement. Roman Catholics believe that Christ’s death removes the guilt of sin, but that the sinner must endure the temporal (post-baptismal) punishments for our sins, either in this life, or the next.  The Protestant on the other hand, believes that Christ’s atonement is ‘sufficient’ of itself, and provides a perfect satisfaction for both our eternal guilt and temporal punishment for sin.

Says John Murray -

Protestants rightly contend that the satisfaction of Christ is the only satisfaction for sin and is so perfect and final that it leaves no penal liability for any sin of the believer.

No Remaining Guilt of Sin in Believers

Those that have received the Spirit of God in regeneration, have no condemnation before God. Christ made satisfaction for our guilt and removed our condemnation.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. …But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. (Romans 8:1-9)

The Atonement Was Made Once For All

Christ’s atonement was made once for all. There is no need for a continual sacrifice, the work has been perfected and is complete!

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. …Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. …So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
(Hebrews 9:12, 25-26, 28)

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
(Hebrews 10:10-18)

What Do Baptists Believe

London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 8, Para 5 states -

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, has procured reconciliation, and has purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father has given to Him.

The Nestorian Controversy

Have you ever been accused of being a Nestorian? I have. I was discussing a title which Papists apply to Mary – ‘Mother of God’ – with a Romanist and he accused me of being Nestorian. My mind went back over the theology books I’ve read and I struggled to recall who Nestorius was.  I was guessing I was not ‘Nestorian’, but I couldn’t recall what exactly that was.

The proposition my friend was trying to defend was that (1) as Jesus was conceived fully divine, and (2) Mary was Jesus mother, therefore (3) Mary was the ‘Mother of God.’ Syllogisms are never air tight and this one is no exception. Truth must be qualified.

My simple argument was that if Mary was and is the ‘Mother of God’ then (by the power of syllogism) Jesus’ synagogue instructors could rightly retain the title – ‘Teacher of God’. Jesus’ employers could retain the title – ‘Boss of God.’  I was not trying to be cute, but rather trying to show the absurdity of such logic (or lack thereof), without explaining what such a phrase means. This particular phrase, of course, has been used by Satan to bring all manner of ungodly idolatry into what purports to be a ‘christian church’.

Says Charles Hodge (on Mary as ‘mother of God’):

…there is a sense in which Mary was the Mother of God, and a sense in which such a designation is blasphemous, everything depends on the real meaning attached to the terms.

Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople (c. 430s), was objecting to the second use of the phrase – the dangerous heretical one. Some of his advocates later used his argumentation to deny the first use – the biblical one and descended into heresy. Modern lay Romanist apologists have seized upon this to accuse Protestants of the same heresy because we refuse to worship Mary. It seems such baseless accusations are not new for lay Romanist and Eastern ‘Orthodox’ apologists.  Some recent (and a couple not-so-recent) blog debates that have been sparked by this controversy are linked below:

• Nestorianism? (Lane Keister)
• Schaff, Hodge, and Murray on Jesus’ Natures (Lane Keister)
• Are Calvinists Nestorians? (Triablogue)
• Bryan Cross Spouts Nonsense (Triablogue)
• The Christology of the New Testament (Triablogue)
• A Few Older Debates from the Blog of Turretin Fan

Lane’s references to Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology are below:

• Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 4, Section 3 – ‘Nestorianism’
• Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 5 – ‘Mariolatry’

If you have friends involved in such anti-christian and sacrilegious blasphemy, you may want to read one or more of these exchanges or the referenced theology text.