I have often
pointed out how Reformed theology has a difficult time when it comes to
explaining the intercession of Christ. In one breath, a Reformed author will
affirm that the intercession of Christ is necessary for the application of the
benefits of Christ’s sacrificial death, and yet, affirm that full satisfaction
was made on the cross, begging the question as to why Christ has to intercede
for the benefits to be applied. See the discussion of Christ’s intercessory
work at:
Full
Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30
Another respected
Reformed theologian, James Petigru Boyce (1827-1888), then-professor of
Systematic Theology, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote the following,
affirming that the intercessory work of Christ is necessary to the application
of the benefits of his atoning work:
As Priest he also intercedes with God for
pardon or justification or other blessings for all for whom he died, in all the
respects in which his death is available for each . . . [this priestly office
Christ] is discharging in heaven. It does not cease with his life on earth, but
he is represented as continuing as an ever-living High Priest to make
intercession for us, Heb. 7:23-25; sitting down at the right hand of God, Acts
2:33-36; Heb. 8:1; 9:12-24 (See the law as to the Jewish High Priest entering
in once every year in Heb. 9:27; also in the law laid down in Ex. 30:10; Lev.
16:2, 11, 12, 15, 34; see also Heb. 7:27; 10:10. 1 Pet. 3:18, confines it to
their sufferings and does not include the offering.) It is not for the purpose
of offering the sacrifice that he is there, Heb. 9:24, 25; but to make
intercession for those for whom the sacrifice has already been offered, Heb.
10:11, 12, 14-18. These passages show it was such an offering as actually
sanctified (v. 10), and purified (v. 10) them that are sanctified.
While we are not to suppose that he is
engaged in actual spoken prayer before God, we are also not to understand by
this a mere influence of his sacrifice continued without further activity on
his part, but some real activity corresponding fully to the essence of prayer
and petition, to which is due all the blessings to which his people attain. (James
Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic
Theology [1887], 293)
And, as if
speaking from both sides of his mouth, he elsewhere affirms that the death of Christ resulted in “ample” or “full”
satisfaction to the Father:
The death of Christ included the penalty in
all its fulness. In it he offered up his body and was laid in the grave. In it
the separation from God took place by which he was led to feel himself forsaken,
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” was his cry of agony. That his death
was not eternal, as would ours have been, arose from the fact that in the
execution of the sentence of condemnation, God found in him not such a victim
as mere man would have been, unable to atone, or render full satisfaction; but
one whose glorious nature gave infinite value to suffering, and who could feel
most keenly, yet could bear without destruction, the wrath of God.
The Scriptures represent just such a penalty
to have been endured by Christ, accompanied by just such agonies. No one can
read the accounts given by the evangelists without being impressed by the fact
that they ascribe just such a character to his sufferings on Calvary. (Ibid.,
328)
But the Scriptures, in speaking of what is
actually effected by Christ’s work for those who are reconciled by it, show
that the reconciliation was actually made in that work itself. The time at
which it was done, and what was done at that time show this. (Ibid., 334; Boyce
then quotes Rom 5:10; Gal 3:13; Eph 1:7; 2:14-16; Col 1:20; 1 Thess 1:10; 1 Pet
1:18, 19)
Reformed theology has an inconsistent understanding of the atonement and the intercessory work of Christ. This is due to Reformed theology being anti-biblical. For more, see: