The Doctrines of Grace in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer

The collect for the second Sunday before Lent should be noted carefully.  (See Wikipedia:  Collect).  The emphasis is not on what we do but on God's mercy.  The Lordship salvation crowd, like the Arminians, love to focus on what we do and on our good works rather than on Christ and what He did for us on the cross.  The collect says:

The Sunday called Sexagesima, or the second Sunday before Lent.
The Collect.

LORD God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do; Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Most people literally cannot appreciate anything that is absolutely free.  The principle applies to giving children a gift rather than having them earn the money to buy what they want.  For example, if a parent buys a new car for a teenage son, he will not take as much care of the car than if the son had worked a part time job to pay for the car himself.  Most people cannot understand that a free gift is not necessarily "cheap grace".  It may have cost the parent a significant amount of money to purchase the new car for the son.  The same principle applies to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for the sins of all the elect in the whole world and since the foundation of the world to the end of the world.  He shed His precious blood to redeem the elect from all their sins of the past, the present and the future.  (1 Peter 1:18, 19, 20; Ephesians 1:3-11).  Therefore, the idea that salvation is a free gift apart from our obedience, merits, good works, or progression in sanctification or consecration to God is not cheap grace.  It cost our Savior everything.  (Galatians 6:14, 15, 16).

Unfortunately the idea that we must earn our own way is wrongly applied to salvation by most religions of the world.  (Romans 4:4).  Even in Christianity this idea has crept in.  The semi-pelagianism of Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, and of the Arminians says that man must "do" his part and then God does His part in man's salvation.  Unfortunately this is impossible for two reasons:  1)  The debt we all owe God on an individual basis is greater than we could ever repay. (Matthew 18:23-27). 2)  All mankind is fallen in Adam and is totally unable do anything whatsoever to obey God or please God.  (Romans 5:12-14; Romans 3:10-20, 23; Romans 8:8).  The Gospel, however, naturally follows from the moral law of God.  The moral law is impossible for sinners to fulfill.  Why?  God requires absolute obedience from cradle to grave.  (Matthew 5:17-21; Romans 10:1-5;   The only man who was sinless is Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 4:15). The 39 Articles of Religion reflect this biblical teaching in Article XV:

XV. Of Christ alone without Sin.

HRIST in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His spirit. He came to be the lamb without spot, Who by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world: and sin, as S. John saith, was not in Him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things: and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  (Hebrews 2:14, 17;Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 Peter 1:19; Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 9:12, 26; John 1:29; 1 John 3:5; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8).

It is easy to see the hand of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in this collect and in the 39 Articles of Religion, which Archbishop Matthew Parker edited from 42 Articles penned by Cranmer .  Cranmer sought to teach the doctrines of grace and justification by faith alone through the liturgy of the English church.  He reformed the Roman Catholic liturgy and made it completely Protestant.  Even more radically, the Bible and the English liturgy were now available in English translation.  In the fifteenth century the official language of the English government was French and Latin and the language of the English church was Latin.

The idea that there is a via media between Rome and the English Reformation is simply a propaganda device used by Anglo-Catholics and Tractarians to lead Protestants back to Rome.  The King James Bible in conjunction with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and its earlier editions, beginning with the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, the least reformed edition, revolutionized English society in that it now made religion available to all the people from the plow boy to the king.  With the advent of a new respectability for the English language, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, and the liturgy being both in English and revised in accordance with the English Bible there was a widespread literacy in both reading and religion.  With a new emphasis on a proper reading of the church fathers in line with the apostolic teaching of the New Testament the English reformers sought to correct centuries of superstition and man-made traditions that were not supported by the Bible.

The teaching of the collect from Sexagesima is a reflection of the teaching from Titus 3:5:

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7 NKJ)

The other doctrine taught in this collect is that God is sovereign over every adversity we face in life.  This doctrine is as hard to accept as the doctrine of grace alone as the basis for our salvation.  The pride of men will not allow them to acknowledge that even their very life depends on God allowing them to live.  (Acts 17:28; Genesis 2:7; Job 12:10).  God controls all the adversities we face in life.  (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38).  In fact, why would we pray if God cannot actually control nature and adversity in our lives?  (Philippians 4:6, 7).  Furthermore, why pray for the conversion of the lost if God cannot actually soften hardened hearts or open the eyes of rebellious sinners in bondage to sin?  (Romans 9:15, 16; Acts 16:14; Daniel 4:34; Ephesians 1:18).

Although it is hard to accept, God is sovereign in the salvation of His elect and in the damnation of the lost.  Romans 9:18, 19, 20, 21).  He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.  The pelagian tendency to human self-righteousness (Romans 10:1, 2, 3) is inherent in the human nature.  But we must face the fact that God brought us into the world and He will take us out of it at His own good pleasure and in His time.  (Psalm 115:3; Hebrews 9:27; Ecclesiastes 3:1, 11; 1 Timothy 6:7).

May the peace of God be yours,

Charlie  (Romans 5:1, 2)



(See also:  The Story of the Book of Common Prayer and Celebrating 350 Years of the Book of Common Prayer.  Even the idea that we should read and mark our Bibles was advised by the Book of Common Prayer:  Second Sunday in Advent).

Could Jesus Have Sinned? by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog

 

 

"The best theologians, past and present, have been divided on the question of whether Jesus could have sinned. I believe that since Jesus was fully human, it was possible for him to sin."  R. C. Sproul

[Addendum:  I no longer believe that Dr. Gordon H. Clark committed the Nestorian error.  He simply said that the human person of Christ and the divine Person of the Logos were united in the man Christ Jesus.  Dr. Clark's view is simply a further refining of the Definition of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.]


Like most semi-Calvinists R.C. Sproul makes numerous capitulations to Arminianism, like the three points of common grace, a semi-Amyraldian view of the atonement (i.e. Christ died to purchase common grace for the reprobates and the free offer to the reprobates), and the infralapsarian view of God's decrees (as if God did not plan anything until after He had logically considered the results of the Fall of Adam?). Now we find that Sproul agrees with the Pentecostals that Jesus is not fully divine, but simply avoids sinning by virtue of the fact that He is filled with the Spirit beyond measure. Logically speaking, either way, Jesus has an advantage that we do not enjoy, since "we" do not have the Spirit beyond measure. So the purpose of denying the impeccability of Christ is rendered moot.

The fact is, if we say that Jesus could have sinned in His human nature, and if we concede that the divine nature could not sin, we have an irrational paradox that in effect denies the complete deity of Jesus Christ. This is the same sort of error committed by the otherwise solid Gordon H. Clark when Clark proposed the Nestorian theory of the incarnation.  [Although Clark would never say Christ could sin since Clark's view is that predestination is absolute]. To say that Jesus could have sinned in His human nature would mean that it would be possible to separate the human nature from the divine nature when the two are perfectly united in the one Person of Jesus Christ. It would mean that God's decrees are tentative and that divine predestination is not true! The idea that Christ "could have sinned" is not the Reformed view of the incarnation, mission, sinless life, and the atonement on the cross.  It would mean that these doctrines were all contingencies and that Christ's mission "could have failed"! In short, the idea of Christ being peccable or able to sin is in essence the Arminian or semi-pelagian view, not the Calvinist or Reformed view.

In fact, it was not Luther's view either! Luther plainly said that absolutely nothing happens by contingency and that there is no such thing as libertarian free will--not even in Adam prior to the fall! The Fall was certain to happen because God decreed it to be so. Luther says:

Sect. 9.—THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will," must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words.

Are you not then the person, friend Erasmus, who just now asserted, that God is by nature just, and by nature most merciful? If this be true, does it not follow that He is immutably just and merciful? That, as His nature is not changed to all eternity, so neither His justice nor His mercy? And what is said concerning His justice and His mercy, must be said also concerning His knowledge, His wisdom, His goodness, His will, and His other Attributes. If therefore these things are asserted religiously, piously, and wholesomely concerning God, as you say yourself, what has come to you, that, contrary to your own self, you now assert, that it is irreligious, curious, and vain, to say, that God foreknows of necessity? You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so.

From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done thus contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and His wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He foresees and wills.

The Sovereignty of God: The Bondage of the Will

It seems to me that R. C. Sproul's commitment to reason above Scripture via the "classical" apologetics of Thomas Aquinas has prejudiced him against the plain teaching of Scripture in regards to both the absolute deity of Jesus Christ and the absolute predestination of God and His decrees.

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- 23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; (Acts 2:22-23 NKJ)

"For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. (Acts 4:27-28 NKJ)

"And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22 NKJ)

Logically speaking if it were possible for Jesus to sin--even in His human nature--it would mean that it is possible for God to not know what the future holds. If it were possible for Jesus to sin in His human nature, then it logically follows that it would be possible for Jesus to become less than fully God, since it is impossible for God to sin. Since it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18), it follows that it would be impossible for Jesus to fail to keep God's promise to save the elect (Genesis 3:15; Matthew 1:21). It is truly sad to see someone who claims to be Reformed teaching obviously Arminian doctrines like the peccability of Jesus Christ while He was on earth.

Even J. I. Packer does not make that sort of mistake:

Jesus, being divine, was impeccable (could not sin), but this does not mean he could not be tempted. Satan tempted him to disobey the Father by self-gratification, self-display, and self-aggrandizement (Matt. 4:1-11), and the temptation to retreat from the cross was constant (Luke 22:28, where the Greek for “trials” can be translated “temptations”; Matt. 16:23; and Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane). Being human, Jesus could not conquer temptation without a struggle, but being divine it was his nature to do his Father’s will (John 5:19, 30), and therefore to resist and fight temptation until he had overcome it. From Gethsemane we may infer that his struggles were sometimes more acute and agonizing than any we ever know. The happy end-result is that “because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb. 2:18).


Packer, J. I. (1995). Concise theology : A guide to historic Christian beliefs. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

Furthermore, the suggestion that Jesus could have sinned ignores the fact that Jesus had an advantage that Adam did not have prior to the Fall. Jesus was and is fully God, and He additionally had the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34; John 1:1, 14, 18; Colossians 1:19, 20; Colossians 2:9). Although Jesus suffered in every point like we do, He never sinned and in fact it was destined to be so! (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). It was never possible that God would fail to keep His promise to save His elect. Jesus is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8 NKJV).

To read R. C. Sproul's remarks click here: Could Jesus Have Sinned? by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog