Jeff Cagle has asked me some questions in the comments section of my previous post. I'll answer these one by one, but somewhat quickly. I don't have a great deal of time this week. And, Jeff, you can feel free to interact in the comments section of the next few posts. I'll start with his last question:
Lusk's paper on future justification, found at Mark Horne's site, raises significant alarm bells with me. The clearest way of putting those bells that I can think of is this:Perhaps I should start with a few questions of my own. Where does Rich talk about our works being the "ground" of justification? He doesn't use that language. I think part of the problem is all of this extra-biblical scholastic language and categories with which we Presbyterians feel so comfortable. When we read the Bible we are often forced to move outside of the cozy comfort zone of our logicized, concatenated system of theology. This is why the language of Bible must be tamed. It alarms us. It challenges our comfortable systems. And that is no more evident than in the Biblical teaching on "works."
It appears that Lusk confuses the necessity of works for justification (a logical outcome of the fact that all who are united with Christ will partake of His Spirit and therefore will produce the fruits of His Spirit as per Gal. 5), and works as the ground for our justification.
I understand (I think!) his arguments in favor of the latter; but those arguments do not persuade me.
My question is this: does the Federal Vision include a belief that our "works combine with our faith to produce justification"? Or is that Lusk's particular position?
Man, I could go on and on about this. But I won't.
Jeff, was it Rich's formulations or the Bible itself that alarmed you? And might it be that you were alarmed because you misinterpreted the Bible's statements about the importance of "works" at the final judgement? What I mean is that in our tradition we think about "works" very narrowly. All our works are filthy rags. All our works are tainted with sin. All our works need to be forgiven. Our works are worthless. God is always angry with us for our works. Our works are bad, bad, bad. God is never pleased with our works. God loves us because he always and only looks at Jesus' righteousness and has no interest in or regard for our works and righteousness. That's the way that we are all taught to think about "works."
It's all about whether or not we ever merit God's favor through our works. Whether our works are ever good enough on their own to earn our righteous standing before God. Well, of course, they are NOT. Let's be clear about that. But. There's more to it than that. Once we are forgiven and justified because of the righteousness of Christ alone God our Father accepts our works in Christ. As Rich notes at the end of his essay, it's about God's Fatherly evaluation of our lives. We are his sons. We don't become his sons by earning his favor through works. He has adopted us as sons in Christ. Yes, our works will always be tainted with sin. How could it be otherwise? But God accept us and therefore our works as well.
Okay. A lot more could be said about "works" in the Bible. I think we need someone to investigate and write a biblical theology of works. Currently, we Presbyterians are quite one-dimensional when it comes to preaching and teaching on "works."
But it's just because we are so one-dimensional that we get alarmed about biblical statements about how works factor in at the last judgment. Did I say "how works factor in"? Well, it's more "alarming" than that. Every statement in the Bible about the final judgment indicates that it will be on the basis of works.
But that can't be. We all know that the evaluation at the last judgment will consist of our being able to answer a few questions correctly? Right? God will bring us before him and ask: Why should I let you into my heaven? And we'll answer correctly and be ushered in. It will all depend on what we say to him. Right?
Wrong. Does anyone know of any Bible passage that suggests we inherit the promised eternal kingdom because of what we SAY to the King on his throne?
Perhaps inadvertently, we have taught people that as long as they memorize the answers to a few key questions and can repeat them before God's throne at the appropriate time, then they might be assured of entering eternal life. That gives people the impression that as long as they have the right ideas about Jesus and what he did and the right ideas about themselves and their need, then they are safe. They've found the key.
There's one problem with this. What the Scriptures reveal about judgment day does not fit. How much you know or what you know or how adept you are at answering tricky doctrinal questions about the instrument of justification or the material or formal cause of our salvation will have nothing to do with the great judgment on the last day of history - not if the Bible is true.
On the last day before the judgment seat of Jesus our lives are evaluated according to what we have done. This is the universal testimony of the Bible. If you want to avoid this, then you will have to invent another religion. Because the Christian faith is pretty clear. Hey, it's even in our Westminster Confession of Faith:
God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil (WCF XXXIII.1).But more importantly it is all over the New Testament.
Jesus says, "The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matt. 12:35-37).
Jesus says, "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done" (Matt. 16:27).
Jesus says, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me . . .’"(Matt. 25:31-46).
Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:25-29).
Paul says, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Cor. 5:10).
Paul says, "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality" (Col. 3:23-25).
Peter says, "And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile (1 Pet. 1:17).
Jesus says, "I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. . . . all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve." (Rev. 2:19, 23). See similar statements all through Jesus' seven letters to the churches. He evaluates them according to their works.
John says, "Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
John says, "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done" (Rev. 20:12).
Jesus says, "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done" (Rev. 22:12).
James says, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith SAVE him?. . . . You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works" (James 2:14, 22).
Posts
37 comments:
All this because someone saw that you killed Bambi?
A good work if there ever was one.
I really did appreciate the tone and content of the objections raised in the comments, and I'm glad you're addressing them in detail.
Ben: yes, I thought Jeff's tone was good too. I hope I haven't betrayed that in my post. I tend to get worked up about these things, but I don't want my passion for this to come across the wrong way.
No, the tone is fine. I appreciate the zeal.
Now, I am concerned that you and I don't talk past each other.
I don't fit very well into the "we" whom you describe. I would not, for example, place a priority on a "logicized, concatenated system" over basic exegesis. Much of that is an outcome of my own trajectory into the Presbyterian church; because I'm not a "lifer", I've been forced to reckon with some of these issues for a long time. It is no understatement to say that if it were not for WCoF 1.10, I would never have joined the PCA.
Nor would I agree that I'm one-dimensional in thinking about works.
Nor would I agree that salvation is a matter of answering the right questions on judgment day.
Nor would I deny some kind of final vindication or justification according to our works.
So ... I don't who the "we" is (perhaps the in-laws of "they"), but let's agree in the beginning that you and I are not card-carrying members of the "we".
Else, my interactions will start at such a communication disadvantage that I'll never be able to say anything clearly.
Jeff C
Jeff: Good. But I include myself in the "we" category. I think these tendencies dog all of us in the Reformed tradition. And I believe the current controversy is only magnifying our worst tendencies with regard to our understanding of "works." Any discussion of "works" that breaks out of the traditional scholastic terminological stranglehold is immediately branded as FV-leaning or RC-leading. Vast tracts of Scripture are therefore now in danger of being simply too dangerous to deal with. I actually had one PCA minister warn me about preaching on "the law." He said he would never preach on the 10 commandments on Sunday morning to his flock because of all the potential problems. Sigh.
Anyway, as you have rightly perceived, I wasn't trying to impute to you any of the problems I mentioned in my post. But I was highlighting real problems in our circles. And I do think we all have problems like this in some degree.
And I do think we all have problems like this in some degree.
Yeah, me too. You graciously remind me that my denials are too strong. :)
It's certain that my thoughts about Scripture are colored by the circles I run in and the categories I think in. And it's certain also that at times, I might wish the Law out of the Bible so that I can fulfill the desires of the flesh.
Lord willing, we will not argue thus.
I actually had one PCA minister warn me about preaching on "the law." He said he would never preach on the 10 commandments on Sunday morning to his flock because of all the potential problems.
OK, we can agree that that's a serious problem. I also fully agree with you that someone needs to tackle the theology of works.
Here were the major alarms that Lusk's article raised with me.
(1) Most importantly, Lusk's article makes no mention of the Spirit-flesh dichotomy that permeates the discussion of faith and works in Paul and John.
From an exegetical point of view, I believe it to be the case that Paul never discusses issues of faith, law, and works without also discussing the Spirit and the flesh. Examples are legion: Rom. 2;6.6-13; 7; 8.1-17; 2 Cor. 3; Gal. 3.2-3; 5.16-26; Col. 2.16-3.11; etc.
There's not space here to exegete all of those, but here's the bottom line for me: works that we do out of the power of the flesh are not righteous, regardless of whether they follow the Law or not. The works that are motivated by the Spirit, that proceed from faith working through love, that are classed as "the fruit of the Spirit" -- these are the works that please God.
I'm confident Lusk agrees with this. There's no criticism of the man here; just of the words he wrote.
But in his article, there is no mention of the Spirit and the flesh at all. None. This is such a serious omission, IMO, that it automatically raises the alarm.
Now, there's a reason that this is not just a pedantic complaint about some favorite hobby horse.
Because of the foregoing flesh/Spirit dichotomy, we cannot evaluate our works according to the actions themselves. This is the thrust of Jesus' teachings about hypocrisy; 1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5.6; and others. Our works are worthy not because of what they are, but rather because of their source.
Reconsider the statement, "faith and works combine together to justify." Because Lusk has not qualified these works as ones done through faith in the power of the Spirit, but rather has described them as "our life pattern" which is graciously evaluated as if by a Father, he leaves the door hanging wide open for those who wish to be justified by the power of the flesh.
I KNOW that that is not his intent. I'm confident that something like what I say above is taken to be a given by Lusk. It's just what the words say (or don't say) that I'm criticizing.
What the words say to those who walk according to the power of the flesh (and don’t we all at times?) is “yes, God is looking for you to perform those works of perseverance. You have a new nature. Go to it!”
There are ways for Lusk to qualify his point that close the door to the flesh, and I’m very alarmed that he did not choose to do so.
(2) From a systematic point of view, the statement that "faith and works combine together to justify" is too ambiguous.
Because there are so many ways to fall off the cliff with faith and works, some precision is necessary. That precision need not follow exactly the well-worn categories and language used by others. But precision of some sort is necessary in order to distinguish what is being said from what is not being said.
Lusk attempts this; he qualifies in the footnotes that he does not in any way wish to diminish sola fide. But the problem is that he introduces a large number of undefined terms in the article – “subsequent justifications”, “combines with”, “way of life”, “worthy”, and so on. In some cases, he even introduces (apparent) distinctions without difference, such as when he claims that “worth does not indicate merit, of course.” Well … of course! Huh?! (I mean, I figured that he might mean some technical sense of ‘merit’ – but which sense? Anselm? Trent? Kline?). The large number of undefined terms made it very hard for me to get a precise picture from his article.
As a result, the statement “faith and works combine together” was too ill-defined for my comfort. What does “combine” mean? What does it not mean? Some meanings of it could be consonant with Paul’s teaching in Rom 4.1 – 8; other meanings could not. Because Lusk does not address this passage specifically, I can’t say for sure how his teaching fits or does not fit with Romans 4. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the first alarm is still ringing in my head…
(3) Lusk asks me to simultaneously overturn too many exegetical choices I’ve previously made.
In a way, the article is too ambitious. It wants to bring together so many different passages and assert particular ways of reading them that some of us are left behind.
To begin with, my reading of James 2 does not include a subsequent justification of Abraham. For various reasons, mostly having to do with reconstructing the timeline and reading James 2 together with Romans 4, I take Abraham’s sacrifice to be a demonstration of his faith that justified him in Gen. 15, NOT a faith that subsequently justifies in Gen. 22.
And then, Lusk’s account of Romans 2, that Paul is not speaking hypothetically, seems counter to Romans 3. For some reason, Lusk believes James 2 to be more important than Romans 3 for understanding Romans 2; I simply disagree with him and agree with Calvin that the set of those who fulfill the Law is a set of size 1 (NOT the empty set, as Lusk would have it).
And then again, the treatment of Zech. 3 struck me wrong. That particular passage has deep significance in my own life, so I’m perhaps a little too set in my own interpretation of it. Nevertheless, Lusk says,
The initial clothing in white is received by faith alone. This is the beginning of Joshua’s justification. But if Joshua is to remain justified — that is, if the garments he has received are not to become re-soiled with his iniquity — he must be faithful. Thus, initial justification is by faith alone; subsequent justifications include obedience.
There’s a triple problem here for this reader:
(i) the term “subsequent justifications” is neither a Biblical term; nor is it a systematic term I’m familiar with; nor does Lusk define it (I finally found it in his other article on the tenses of justification). So I’m left hanging on that point.
(ii) And then, there’s the issue again of whether Joshua's faithfulness is Joshua's own efforts in the power of the flesh OR his working out of the movement of the Spirit, applied by faith. I want to believe that Lusk holds the latter, but the lack of mention of the Spirit combined with the emphasis on Joshua's own actions leaves me in doubt.
(iii) And then, there’s the issue of the garments becoming re-soiled, which Lusk asserts to be a possibility but is not actually in the passage. Lusk apparently derives this from the “if” in v. 7, but there’s no indication that Joshua’s position is nearly so insecure as that.
Rather, I read the “if” in v. 7 as much more of a promise than a warning; the white garments are symbolic of the assumption that the condition will be met.
Each time that an author asks me to overturn my prior reading of a passage without really arguing for it, he asks me to suspend more and more disbelief. Much of the tension I felt in reading the article was my disbelief being strained by multiple requests to overturn prior exegetical decisions.
(4) In the end, I didn’t accept the notion that God salvifically justifies us, according to our works, as judged by a “softer standard.”
In particular, the statement “God is not looking for perfection from his people” seemed really odd in light of Lusk’s primary passages, Rom 2 and Jas. 2. For here is how Paul concludes his discussion of being justified by the Law:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. – Rom. 3.19–20
and James:
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. – Jas. 2.10
I realize I’m prooftexting a bit here, but the point is this: I don’t read Romans 2 and James 2 to be speaking of a softer standard. And if not, then Lusk’s claim that we need not score 100% on the moral exam (an awkward concept, that; it disconnects ethics from love – but I digress) is seriously undermined. And if that is so, then it seems dubious that we will be judged salvifically according to our works.
In fact, my own take on the final vindication is that 1 Cor 3 is the clearest passage:
If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. 1 Cor 3.12–15
In which case, the standard is the same, but the consequences are different: the works of believers are not determinative of their destiny (heaven or hell), but of something else.
I realize on this last point that I need to think harder in order to put all of the various "works" and "final judgment" passages together, but objection (4) seems solid enough to me even at this preliminary stage.
To sum up: Lusk’s essay alarms me because (1) it omits the heart of the issue, the Spirit/flesh dichotomy, leaving his readers open to significant legalism; (2) it is ambiguous at points that need (for me) to be more clear; (3) he asks me to re-read too many Scriptural passages all at once; (4) The overall picture of our works determining our final destiny, yet being judged by a softer standard, seems contrary to the Scriptures.
Grace and peace,
Jeff C
The Zechariah 3 passage is interesting. It gets used by everyone as an example of imputed righteousness.
Btu then Kline insists that since immediately afterward, God says "if you walk in my ways I will give you charge of my courts" that we have covenant of works/law language, and were dealing with a typical CoW situation.
Where is that discussion in Kline? It's a large corpus, and I only know a certain corner of it...
Just to whistle in the dark, my understanding of Kline is that he sees the CoW within Israel as a type (or "intrusion") of the eschatological judgment to come, and as a governmental system peculiar to the time and place of Israel.
Meanwhile, both within Israel and outside of it, salvation occurs on the basis of grace (earned by Jesus through the real CoW) through faith.
So it would not be inconsistent for Kline to see Zech. 3.3-5 as referring to imputed righteousness while also seeing Zech. 3.7 as referring to a typological, governmental CoW.
Again, that's a guess based on what I've read of Kline and without the benefit of reading his actual words.
Jeff C
I may be thinking of this
http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxv12n3a1.asp
"Zechariah casts his prophecy of Christ and the church in the prophetic idiom, employing the old typological order to depict the new covenant realities. And according to the covenantal constitution for that old order, corporate Israel must earn the continuing enjoyment of the typological kingdom inheritance by their obedience. This works principle is a conspicuous feature of the sanctions section of the Mosaic treaties.42 Expressing things in old covenant terms, Zechariah therefore says that God's kingdom of glory is the reward for the probationary obedience of the elect corporately. In the light of the total Scriptural revelation we understand, however, that this act of probationary obedience is performed not by them but by Christ their federal representative—by the one for the many. It is a righteousness of God imputed to the elect by grace through faith.
In Zechariah's fourth vision the Messiah's role as the individual representative probationer is revealed more explicitly. There again the attainment of heaven is made the reward for the obedient discharge of a specific duty, the guarding of God's sanctuary (Zech. 3:7), and it is Christ, the Servant-Branch, as typically portrayed by the individual figure of Joshua the high priest, who must fulfill this probationary priestly mission." What we have then in Zech. 6:15c is the pre-incarnate Christ directing his people in faith to himself as their vicarious probationer, who secures for them God's approbation and so puts them beyond probation. "
Wow, so my guess was way off. Joshua is Christ, who receives according to the fulfillment of his duty.
Hm. Not sure I buy it in light of what happens in Zech. 3.3-5. But the thing about Kline is that I often disagree with him on the front end and then end up agreeing with him later on the flip side. So I'll file into the "further thought" file.
Total side note: Paul, we will be visiting my in-laws in Springfield, Delaware Co., over Thanksgiving (Wed.-Sun.). Will you be in town?
Jeff C
Jeff: I'm sorry to be so far behind in my comments. I haven't had much time this week. And it doesn't like I'm going to get any more until next Tuesday. Maybe.
I'll just say one thing. I think Paul's flesh/Spirit dichotomy needs to be applied carefully in the post-apostolic era. I believe it has to do with the old world/new world transition that was such a problem in the apostolic age. Everywhere that Paul warns against "the flesh" it's in the context of challenges that Gentile Christians need to be circumcised (cut off the flesh), obey the sabbath laws, food laws, etc.
But I've got to run. Sorry for the quick note.
I was alerted to this discussion and figured I better wander over here and see what's going on.
Jeff M, I appreciate the thoughts in your original post.
Jeff C, I appreciate your thoughtful interaction with my work. I wish I could reply at greater length, but I'll just offer a few notes here:
[a] I actually do have a much fuller exposition of initial and final justification in my two essays in a forthcoming volume edited by Andrew Sandlin. I think the title is *A Faith That Is Not Alone.* It should be available VERY soon.
[b] Jeff C, as you well note, I would agree that the good works of believers are empowered by the Spirit. As Mike Bird has rightly pointed out, the only thing that matches Paul's pessimism about life in the flesh is his optimism about life in the Spirit. While my essay did not use the flesh/Spirit schema, there are other (equally biblical) ways of showing that the good works of believers are manifestations of God's graciousness towards us. I think my essays do insist on that point. See, e.g., James 2, where the flesh/Spirit categories are not used but it remains clear that the works in view proceed by faith through grace. Further, while my formulations are open to abuse (you say that I leave "the door hanging wide open for those who wish to be justified by the power of the flesh"), the reality is that ANY theological formula can be perverted by the flesh. No one can say everything all the time. So, for example, the flesh can turn the formula "justification by faith alone" into license (as James and Paul well knew). Thus, while I do not think I have left the door "wide open" to such a legalistic reading, I think the reality is that there is no way to state biblical truth that is so final and absolute that it closes the door to all possible fleshly misunderstanding. If some of my language strikes you as "unqualified" at times....well, I think numerous inspired authors would fail that test as well.
[c] Jeff C, I'm sorry there were too many undefined terms. In a short essay, perhaps that's the nature of the beast. But remember, the essay is part of a wider, ongoing conversation where a lot of those terms and distinctions are not so foreign. Jeff C, I'm not just telling you "you just need to read more of our stuff"....but a lot of the questions you're raising are answered elsewhere. For those of us who have been having this conversation over the last several years, it simply isn't alarming to talk about things like "future" (or "subsequent") justification.
[d]Jeff C, I think your take on James 2 illustrates the problem I'm trying to address. You wrote, "I take Abraham’s sacrifice to be a demonstration of his faith that justified him in Gen. 15." But there is no way to make James' words say that. James does not say that in Gen. 22 Abe demonstrated a previously received justification. He says "Abraham our father was justified WHEN he offered Issac his son on the altar." The timing of Abe's justification in James 2:21 could not be more obvious...and yet your interpretation of the passage seems to deny that. The same kind of thing may be going in your take on Rom. 2. I do not think Rom. 3 is more important than Rom. 2, but I am tired of interpretations of Rom. 2 that have to twist its language in order to make it square with Rom. 3. Remember, throughout Rom. 2:1-16, Paul is alluding to Ps. 62, which is most certainly NOT hypothetical. (Both James 2 and Rom. 2-3 are dealt with at some length in the essays I mentioned above in the Sandlin book.)
[e] Jeff C, from what I hear you saying, we can never do anything that actually pleases God because all our works are tainted with sin. I just do not see the Bible teaching that about believers. Some of the texts you cite I would read differently (e.g., 1 Cor. 3 is specifically about pastors). I also have no problem with fitting in James 2:10 and Rom. 3:19-20 to my 'system.' But I'm wondering where your approach can make room for texts like those that Jeff M cites in the original post, particularly 2 Cor. 5:8ff, where Paul draws together the themes of a final judgment according to works with the aim of living to please God in the present. Part of my burden has been to help God's faithful people understand that (in Christ and through the Spirit), the Father really is pleased with their efforts to obey, however much those efforts remain stained by sin and weakness. Jeff C, on your reading, it seems that those wonderfully comforting words "Well done, good and faithful servant!" are hypothetical. God will never accept our works and can never be pleased with us. I think that is very unfortunate. Just as I want my children to know that I am pleased with them when they obey (even though I could still fault their performance in various ways), so I think our heavenly Father wants his children to know he's pleased with their faithful obedience. Texts like Lk. 1:6 and Rev. 14:13 come into play here, as does WCF 16.
Thanks for your time. God bless.
Rich Lusk
Hi Rich,
Thanks very much for your comments. Just a couple of responses:
...from what I hear you saying, we can never do anything that actually pleases God because all our works are tainted with sin.
That's definitely not what I was saying. Rather, I was saying that only those works done through the Spirit are ones that please God; those done through the flesh cannot. I agree with you that we can in fact do works that please God.
But I'm wondering where your approach can make room for texts like those that Jeff M cites in the original post, particularly 2 Cor. 5:8ff, where Paul draws together the themes of a final judgment according to works with the aim of living to please God in the present.
Yes, I agree that I need to spend more time drawing these together for myself.
You wrote, "I take Abraham’s sacrifice to be a demonstration of his faith that justified him in Gen. 15." But there is no way to make James' words say that.
I respectfully dissent.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
You'll just have to wait till my commentary on James is published. Should be ready early next year.
Jeff C,
Looks like we have quite a bit of agreement. Of course, some questions still linger.
I would be curious to know how you reconcile the "perfectionist" texts you cite (e.g., James 2:10) with the claim that God can be pleased with our *less-than-perfect*, Spirit-produced works. You reject a "softer standard" of judgment, but what of James' claim that the merciful will be shown mercy in the judgment (2:13)? What is the "law of liberty" by which believers will judged (James 2:12)? Further, how is it that some believers are described as law-keepers (e.g., Lk. 1:6)? And what of Paul's claim that "against such there is no law" with regard to those who bear the fruit of the Spirit, albeit imperfectly (cf. Gal. 5:23b)?
I should clarify one point for the sake of the record, regarding my point [d] and your response:
Obviously, what Abe does in Gen. 22 is indeed a demonstration of his faith, the faith by which he was justified in Gen. 15. I did not want it to sound like I am denying that. Faith's demonstration is indeed a major theme in James 2:14ff.
My point was that James obviously views the events of Gen. 22 as a distinct and subsequent moment of *justification* in Abe's life. Abraham does not merely prove his earlier justification by his obedience; he receives a fresh justification. James 2:21 states that straightforwardly (again, note the word "when" -- this justification has to placed later on the timeline of Abe's life, subsequent to Gen. 15:6). In context, it is faith, not one's status as a justified person, that needs to be demonstrated. But once faith has been demonstrated in works, "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" (2:24).
James obviously believed in more than one moment of justification. Abe is justified in Gen. 15; he is justified again in Gen. 22. Abe was justified by faith and works when he offered Isaac on the altar (2:22). Or, to state the same point in more customary language, Abe was justified by a living, working, demonstrated faith.
If you take all the biblical data, I think you end up with something like this:
Initial justification = God freely accepts our persons in Christ by faith alone. Initial justification is rooted in Christ's work for us in his death and resurrection.
Final justification = God freely accepts our (Spirit-wrought) works in Christ by faith alone. Final justification is rooted in Christ's work in us by the Spirit. Within a covenantal framework, we will receive according to what we have done in the body.
Final justification obviously presupposes initial justification. God can only accept our works in Christ because he has already accepted our persons in Christ. The hard thing being done (initial justification), the easy thing is sure to follow (final justification) -- cf. Rom. 5:6-10. Final justification may be viewed as the fulfillment and culmination of our initial justification, even as Gen. 22 filled out and completed Gen. 15 (James 2:23).
All of this fits quite well with James Jordan's "maturity theme" and with Luther's "cured patient" illustration of justification, which suggests initial justification has a promissory element (see http://www.leithart.com/archives/003100.php).
Yes, Jeff M., we look forward to the commentary when all our questions about James will finally be answered.
Blessings,
RL
Hi Pr. Lusk,
Thanks again for your comments. I've been working on an exegesis of Jas. 2 and I'll post it once I'm done. And I'll be interested in Jeff M's thoughts also, given that he's spent so much time on this.
The outcome of my study has been that I would take back the word "demonstration", which is too weak. For James, the sacrifice event is a "fulfillment" of the faith.
But where you and I still differ is that I understand James to be talking about a single moment of justification. He does so in a paradoxical way, since the "faith" and the "works" are separated by about thirty years! Nevertheless, James, as a wisdom writer, appears to me to speak in riddles and conflate the faith that leads to the verdict of "righteous" and "being God's friend" together with the action of sacrificing Isaac.
So rather than an initial justification and a subsequent one, I would speak of a justification and its fulfillment.
As to the rest ... a student just showed up, so I'll answer your questions later.
Jeff Cagle
Hi again,
Here are some things that still need to be puzzled out and articulated from a systematics (i.e., "whole-Bible") perspective:
(1) How does God view our works?
Does He use, as you suggest, a softer standard? Or does He, as I suggest, use the same standard, refining away what is wrought of the flesh (hence imperfect) and preserving what is wrought of the Spirit? Or is it something else?
(2) What effect do our works have on our final acceptance as sons?
I would reflexively argue "none at all", good Protestant that I am. :) And even after considering various passages on works, I would still argue "none at all" in the sense that my status of "accepted" changes permanently at the moment of justification -- at the moment of faith, prior to works having been done in history.
I think you would agree, though you would substitute "initial justification" for my term (the Reformers' term!) "justification", that our status at sons is permanently secured at the moment of faith?
But out of this come three valid questions:
(a) does the whole-Bible story about our works sustain the judgment, "none at all"? AND,
(b) is there a legitimate usage of "justification" outside of "initial justification"? AND, most importantly,
(c) if there are "subsequent justifications", what effect do they have on our status as sons?
See, for me, the Pauline usage (and the exceptional Jesus usage "this one went home justified...") is the baseline normative usage of justification, since he wrestles with it so carefully.
And for Paul, justification is a once-for-all event that changes our status as sons. Justification is the solution for our sin; it is logically equivalent to kingdom transfer (that is, a necessary-and-sufficient condition for); it is logically equivalent to being forgiven and at peace with God.
It is very difficult, given that Pauline usage, to hear of subsequent justifications. The language connotes that there has been a resurgence of God's wrath, a re-transfer back to the kingdom of darkness, a re-emergence of my guilt, which somehow necessitates a re-justification.
That is to say, if we are going to apply the solution again, does that not imply a that the problem has arisen again?
And in fact, that's precisely where the Catholic system goes with *its* language of initial and subsequent justifications.
Now, I understand, I think, that you wish to use "subsequent justifications" in a really different way from the RC language.
It would just be helpful to me to use some other term, like "vindication", or "fulfillment of justification", rather than subsequent justifications.
OR, to spend a lot more (electronic) ink qualifying what these subsequent justifications do and do not do. I know that's a heavy burden, but in the end, that's what Richard Gaffin had to do in order to make clear that his "final justification" was not a double jeopardy.
Again, thanks for the interactions here. I'll post a link when I've gotten the James work up on the blog.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
My compliments to all for a very interesting, civil discussion. I look forward to the follow-up discussion.
I had to chuckle to myself to the occasional references to the Catholic understanding of justification as being the one place no one wants to end up at; but may I suggest that these texts which you are presently analyzing are the same texts, in all of their complexity and difficulty, that led St Augustine to formulate his doctrine of justification as he did. If you find yourself coming to similar conclusions ... well ... you are in good company. :-)
Fr Alvin Kimel
Fr Kimel,
Are you the author/editor of This is My Name Forever and Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism". Those books are wonderful volumes. Thank you so much!
Guilty as charged.
Thanks for the complimentary words.
*Waits for someone to leave a comment calling Augustine a semi-Pelagian.*
One interesting angle that I haven't seen pursued yet is the Epistle to the Hebrews' definition of faith, especially in Chapter 11.
I can see an argument for Noah receiving an initial justification by faith prior to the flood, and then a future justification (what most people prefer to call vindication) when the flood actually comes and the invisible becomes visible.
And I think Paul wrote Hebrews, so this makes things even better. Compare the argument of invisible becoming visible over time in Hebrews 11 with the argument in Rom. 4:17- "the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were."
Initial justification is believing that God will bring the final justification. It seems perfectly Pauline to me. Keep this in mind when you get to the future of Israel towards the end of Romans. The future theme unites the whole epistle.
Jeff C.
Yes, I'll be in philly, hosting tday for the family.
Its probbaly easiest to drop by Tenth sunday to run into me. I'm teaching a Genesis sunday school at 9am.
email me at pdweb AT verizon DOT net if you like.
I really don't have much time to give to internet message boards, but I've really appreciated the quality of this conversation so I wanted to offer a few more thoughts....I hope to maintain the peaceful nature of discourse we've established!
1. Jeff C, you wrote,
"Does He use, as you suggest, a softer standard? Or does He, as I suggest, use the same standard, refining away what is wrought of the flesh (hence imperfect) and preserving what is wrought of the Spirit? Or is it something else?"
I do not see these as mutually exclusive options. If the Judge refines and purges the impurities of the one being judged, he is not judging by a perfectionist standard, at least in one sense. In other words, under the covenant of grace, we do not have to be "morally perfect" in order to be accounted as "covenant keepers." In Christ, the covenant makes provision for forgiveness. In Christ, the Father can be pleased with our less-than-perfect works.
We must reckon with the Bible's insistance that God's people will be judged with mercy at the last day. Indeed, we are urged to show mercy in our judgments of others, that we might be judged mercifully ourselves (Mt. 7). Admittedly, to speak of a "softer standard" is imprecise. My point is that (if we are in Christ) God evaluates us as a Father would a beloved son. My point is NOT that God compromises his holiness. But that's not at issue anyway....afterall, God's wrath against the sin of his people has already been fully propitiated at Calvary.
So, yes, at the final judgment what is of the flesh is purged away and what is of the Spirit will remain. And this happens because we are in Christ, and thus receive a judgment of mercy.
2. The question has been raised: Does the Bible use justification to describe anything other than "initial justification"? I would say, "Yes." There are many biblical models and illustrations I could point to here to make the case implicitly -- not to mention explicit usage! For example, there are several places in the Psalter where the psalmist (who is presumably already a justified believer in one sense) pleads with God to pass judgment between him and his enemies and render a verdict in his favor (e.g., Ps. 7:8). Likewise, you would be hard pressed to convice me that the justifications of Abe in Gen. 15:6 or Phinehas in Ps. 106:30-31 coincided with their initial conversions to the faith. In fact, in Abe's case, we know explicitly that he had already been a believer for some time (Heb. 11). Similarly, Job, who was already a believer, expected a future justification/vindcation (Job 13:18).
In Romans 2:13, Paul explicitly uses justification language to refer to the outcome of the final judgment for those who have been faithful/obedient. Gal. 5:5 does the same -- justification/righteousness is something we hope for. Indeed, all of the Bible's final judgment passages are really final justification prooftexts as far as believers are concerned. If there is going to be a judgment, there are only two possible judicial outcomes: justification and condemnation. Right? So there you have it.
None of that is to say that final judgment actually changes anyone's status -- and I have never made that assertion. Each individual's staus has already been settled in a definitve sense before we come to the last day. What the final judgment does do is openly acknowledge, publicly confirm, and eschatologically complete our status. Thus, Jeff C., I would question your assumption that justification is *always* transfer language that refers to an overturning of a verdict of condemnation and a movement from the realm of darkness to light. Indeed, the Scriptures speak of God himself as being justified, even though he was never properly guilty/condemned. Furthermore, there are numerous places in the Bible where the innocent are justified against their false/satanic accusers. Jeff C., I think you've over-privileged a few Pauline texts on justification, and excluded from consideration reams of evidence found elsewhere in the Bible.
3. Along with Jeff M, I also appreciate Fr. Kimel's work....nevertheless, I would insist with all my might that a doctrine of future justification not only has biblical roots -- it has a solid Reformed pedigree as well (Calvin, Bucer, Regensberg, Witsius, Ridderbos, Gaffin, Ferguson, Wright, etc. + WSC 38). So one does not have to go to Rome in order to deal honestly with the biblical passages concerning final judgment according to works. At the same time, I would suggest that Rome lacks a fully robust doctrine of initial justification, and that the Reformers were right to identify that problem and stress the biblical answer. That lack of a doctrine of initial justification is one of several reasons that I feel no attraction to move in a Romeward direction. And I say that as one who nevertheless holds Augustine in the highest regard and who has a deep respect for the Roman church in many ways!!
I should also add: While Regensberg failed to bring about Protestant/Roman concord, I think it does point to the most hopeful solution to the debates over justification that have continued to wrack the church catholic down to the present day. Bucer, in particular, had a number of helpful things to say about "double justification."
4. Jeff C, I agree with you that James is a "wisdom writer" (though I do not think the 'wisdom' genre exhausts what James is doing in his epistle). I look forward to seeing your exegesis of James 2 because your sketched solution remains opaque to me at this point (perhaps I lack the requsite wisdom!). Perhaps Jeff M. can share his exegesis too, and we can all compare notes.
In any case, I would suggest that the biblical Wisdom writers were eminently familiar with a doctrine of future justification (e.g., Prov. 24:12, which is alluded to in Rom. 2; Job 13:18, and indeed, the whole structure of the book, which ends with Job's justification against his false accusers; etc.). So I guess I'm skeptical that James' usage of justification language can all be pushed back to Abe's initial conversion (especially since not even Gen. 15:6, cited in James 2:23, uses justification language that way!). If anything, a "wisdom" approach might well argue for a more flexible, nuanced, and complex use of "justification" language.
5. Jeff C. you suggest that perhaps we should speak of justification's "fulfillment," or perhaps of a future "vindication," thus avoiding the language of "future justification." I can see where you're coming from with that. But I'm not yet persuaded. Again, I think the Bible itself warrants the use of "final justification" language (Rom. 2, Gal. 5, etc.).
To repeat my earlier point: The Bible is exceedingly clear that there is a final judgment. The setting is God's courtroom, so to speak, and the declarations made there are forensic in character. There are two possible outcomes: justification and condemnation. It will not work, biblically speaking, to say, "No, those who are in Christ will be vindicated, not justified." You simply cannot make that case from Scripture. Indeed, in both Testaments, "justification" and "vindication" deeply overlap, interpenetrate, and include one another, both lexically and theologically. To be justified is to be vindicated against one's accusers; to be vindicated is to be declared "just," or "in the right." Our Bible translators prove the point (and reveal their biases) when they translate the same root words in both ways. There is simply no clear, clean line you can draw between justification and vindication.
I'll cut to the chase: The Holy Spirit-inspired rhetoric of the Bible includes references, implicit and explcit, to what may be properly called "final justification." To deny this is an implicit criticism of the Bible and the Spirit who wrote it. I just can't go there. "God's Word in God's words," and all that. If I have to choose between the Bible's own language and theological tidiness, I will choose the Bible every day of the week and twice on Sundays. :-)
I don't know you, Jeff C., but I am confident you have a high view of Scripture and would reject my line of reasonsing here. So I'm not attacking you. I'm just telling you how I see it. If it's wrong to speak of a justification still to come...I am at a loss about what to do with numerous texts.
One more thought on this point: I am NOT attacking systematic theology. I AM saying that our systematics needs to respect (and even reflect) the Bible's own rhetoric. And, further, if our systemtaics makes it impossible to speak as the Bible speaks, then we know we've taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way.
5. Jeff C. you ask "What effect do our works have on our final acceptance as sons?" Your answer is "'none at all,' good Protestant that I am." But I'm not sure that's really a good Protestant answer. More importantly, I am sure it is a bad biblical answer. You simply cannot square that with the texts Jeff M. cited in his original post. Just take Mt. 25:31ff as one test case. The sheep are marked out by their works. There is no way around that. The better Protestant theologians, and certainly the classic Reformers, were very insistent that works are a necessary component of our final salvation. No works, no salvation. It's that simple. Now, obviously all this has to be explained, qualified, and so forth. The works are not meritorious. They are Spirit-wrought. They are only "good" because they are covered by the blood of Christ. They do not so much "effect" final salvation as they "evidence" our faith and union with Christ. Etc. But none of that changes the reality that works are sine qua non of final salvation. Just about every book of the Bible ties our final destiny to our pattern of life in the present. A man will reap what he has sown.
Further, you ask, "does the whole-Bible story about our works sustain the judgment, 'none at all'?" I would say "no." I would point you to Jim Jordan's work on the Bible's maturity theme (see his essay in the book *The Federal Vision*). The story of the Bible is the story of God maturing his people into a fit bride for his Son (Gal. 3-4; Eph. 4:1-16; etc.). Maturity is the final telos of history and of our growing in obedience (cf. Heb. 5:8). If humanity does not reach obedient maturity, then God's project for the creation has failed. But we know God's program will suceed. Humanity (in Christ) will attain to maturity. The eschatological judgment is God's final evaluation of us -- and he will be pleased with the final Spirit-wrought outcome of our history! He will see what his Spirit has made us to be as his new creation and judge it "very, very good."
On the other hand, if works have no bearing on our final salvation, then why doesn't God take us straight to heaven the moment we're converted? If salvation does not have anything to do with how I live my day to day life, with growth towards maturity, etc., then what's the point?
This raises several issues that are too big to deal with here. But we need to take a more fully biblical view of history. We need to be able to integrate everything the Bible says on these topics (justification, works, maturity, etc.) rather than taking isolated Pauline statements as a "baseline" detached from the rest of the biblical narrative.
Ok, I suppose there's always more to be said, but I've got other things to tend to...
Blessings,
RL
The preliminary half is up. The other half will come during the week sometime.
None of that is to say that final judgment actually changes anyone's status -- and I have never made that assertion. Each individual's staus has already been settled in a definitve sense before we come to the last day. What the final judgment does do is openly acknowledge, publicly confirm, and eschatologically complete our status.
This makes me feel much more comfortable with the language of final justification. It is essentially, I believe, the qualification that Gaffin also needed to make.
Jeff C. you ask "What effect do our works have on our final acceptance as sons?" Your answer is "'none at all,' good Protestant that I am." But I'm not sure that's really a good Protestant answer. More importantly, I am sure it is a bad biblical answer.
Hm. From at least one perspective, it is an identical answer to the one that you gave: our final acceptance as sons is a settled issue from the moment of our initial justification.
I suppose from another, it is misleading; it might lead one to believe that our works would not be evaluated in any way, which I would not affirm.
So your point is taken.
Jeff C., I think you've over-privileged a few Pauline texts on justification, and excluded from consideration reams of evidence found elsewhere in the Bible.
Hey now. :)
For one thing, Paul has not just a few texts on justification. For another, Paul is "privileged" in the sense that he develops justification in a more sustained, careful fashion than any other writer. Context is determinative, and Paul provides the most context from which to understand his statements on justification.
And for another, my understanding of justification is probably equal parts Paul and Hebrews, with other passages added as known.
But I agree with you that I have not undertaken a comprehensive survey of "justification", so I won't claim innocence wrt having a biased view.
The Bible is exceedingly clear that there is a final judgment. The setting is God's courtroom, so to speak, and the declarations made there are forensic in character. There are two possible outcomes: justification and condemnation. It will not work, biblically speaking, to say, "No, those who are in Christ will be vindicated, not justified." You simply cannot make that case from Scripture. Indeed, in both Testaments, "justification" and "vindication" deeply overlap, interpenetrate, and include one another, both lexically and theologically. To be justified is to be vindicated against one's accusers; to be vindicated is to be declared "just," or "in the right." Our Bible translators prove the point (and reveal their biases) when they translate the same root words in both ways. There is simply no clear, clean line you can draw between justification and vindication.
Certain words acquire a history over time, so that they no longer communicate what they once did. The classic in Biblical translation is "comprehend", which used to mean "surround and overcome" but now means "understand" -- leading to (IMO) a bad translation decision in John 1.5.
"Justification" is one of those words. Because of the history of theology, the English word "justification" is probably no longer adequate to express the range of the Greek word δικαιοω.
This limitation is seen in quasi-Biblical phrases like "final justification", which is the best perhaps that we can do, except that even those phrases carry with them the baggage of Aquinian theology.
So we're sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. Use a new term, and we abandon the traditional English words used to translate the Greek. Use an old term, bring in five tons of unintended baggage along with.
BTW, I understand your point about the final judgment being forensic, and I need to chew on that a bit. But leaving that point aside, there's nothing improper about using two different English terms to translate a single Greek one, when the single Greek word is being used in two different senses.
Thus, "vindicate" seems like a really good choice for a lot of the OT uses of tsaddiq.
These aren't complete thoughts; I'm just arguing that we need not fall into the dispensational trap of thinking that one Greek word must always equal one English word.
Jeff Cagle
Good thoughts, Jeff C. I've appreciated the conversation (tone + content) and look forward to reading your posts on James.
Meanwhile, I just wanted to add one qualification on my earlier comments to clear something up.
Your thoughts on the way language works are apropos. I'm not saying "one English word per Greek term." Obviously, translation issues are more complicated than that. There is never a one-for-one correspondence between words in two different languages.
Indeed, I'm not even for arguing for a narrow biblicism -- which I think would be impossible to carry out anyway, since the Bible does not have a fixed, technical terminology of the sort that modern Western theologians look for.
I'm just trying to make sure we carve out room to speak biblically, to formulate doctrines in the Bible's own language. We're not limited to that language alone, but we certainly shouldn't forbid that language either. If anything, it should have a privileged, if not exclusive, place in our theological and pastoral labors because, after all, it's God's own language in a unique way.
Again, thanks for an edifying conversation. All the best!
Blessings,
RL
Does anyone plan to comment upon Chris VanLandingham's book Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul? It hasn't been completely ignored in the blogosphere ... but almost.
Fr Kimel: I've not read this book. I gather from your question that it is significant, so I just ordered it.
Jeff, I don't know if it will prove significant--I'm no biblical scholar--but I think it is fair to say that it represents a challenge, particularly as VanLandingham does not have have any confessional and dogmatic axes to grind. I know it makes me uncomfortable.
i think the answer to some of the initial vs. final justification issues can be compared to Pastor Meyers' article on "Son of God," i.e. that Jesus Christ has been appointed the "Son of God with power/authority" in Romans 1:4 beginning here:
http://jeffreyjmeyers.blogspot.com/2007/09/son-of-god-part-i.html
he was always the Son, but was declared to be the Son...
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom 1:4)
could it be that we undergo a similar declaration by the resurrection from initial justification into final justification?
just thinking out loud.
Just to point out what should be included in the baseline if we are going to talk about "Reformed."
Here's Turretin's nephew and Turretin himself.
One question that still lingers, Rich, if you will:
I can understand what initial justification does in terms of kingdom transfer and the satisfaction of God's wrath.
I can understand, somewhat less clearly, what final justification does in terms of our works being evaluated by God.
What would an intermediate justification, such as you see in Jas. 2, accomplish? That is, what does the term "subsequent justification" mean? Would it be different from, or overlap with, the traditional Reformed term "sanctification"?
Thanks,
Jeff C
Part II is now online. Contrary to my initial expectation, there will be a part III.
Jeff C
All done.
Jeff C
Wuff. Too many threads.
Link back to the original questions:
Four questions about objectivity of covenant
And then more recently, I asked Jeff M a question.
JRC: I've just re-read the Missouri Presbytery statement on the Federal Vision. In your opinion, does the "objectivity of the covenant" fit within the boundaries of that statement? (noting that you are one of the signatories!).
JJM: Well, it all depends on what someone means by the phrase "objectivity of the covenant." There are some explanations of it that I can live with, others that I cannot. What in the report caused you to ask that question?
Well, first, the MOP report looked almost* entirely clean to me, so I was very encouraged to read it and see your signature on it.
Second, affirmation I.8
8. We affirm that all those baptized into the covenant community receive certain covenant blessings, whether elect or not, and that these blessings include the regular preaching of God’s Word; the watchful care, pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the Church; the nurture of believing parents; and the regular call to place their faith in Christ (WLC 63; WLC 166; BCO 56-1). Believing that one is inseparably united to Christ by his/her faith alone, we deny that the ritual act of baptism apart from faith unites us to Christ. Further, since God alone sees what is invisible to us, we deny that the whole visible church is united to Christ by virtue of the ritual act of baptism (WLC 61).
sounds very different from what I read in TFV (which I don't have in front of me at the moment). My understanding of the objectivity of the covenant was that all members of the church *are* in union with Christ "in some sense" and *are* united by virtue of the ritual act of baptism (perhaps combined with the parents' faith, as I have read in Doug Wilson).
Second, affirmations II.10 and II.12 seem very different from what I read in TFV:
10. We affirm that justification is a definitive, forensic act by which God acquits sinners by his grace and declares them righteous; although believers enjoy their justification as an ongoing state, we deny that justification is a process.
Is this not a flat denial of subsequent justifications except in the sense of a final vindication? I'm really confused here.
12. We affirm a corporate sense to justification, that God, out of his covenant faithfulness, justifies individuals from every race and people and incorporates them into one body in which they have privileges and responsibilities; we deny that God justifies the community apart from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to individual believing sinners.
This seems to close the door to saying that covenantally, non-decretally elect members of the church are justified in *any* sense. Yes? No?
And then III.3:
We affirm that God before creation planned to unite to his Son those whom he chose, and that this union ordinarily begins when they trust Christ as offered in the gospel; we deny that persons are united to Christ before the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ to them.
This, combined with III.2, seems to have much the same force as the denial in I.8 above.
And then finally, IV.4:
We affirm that, since baptism, when rightly used, exhibits Christ and contains a promise of benefit to worthy receivers, and that since by baptism grace is conferred by the Holy Spirit in His appointed time to those to whom the grace belongs, baptism rightly forms one part of the ordinary means by which a believer may find a Spirit-given, infallible assurance through faith in the promises of God. We deny that baptism can provide assurance apart from: faith, good works, inward graces, other ordinary means, and the testimony of the Spirit.
seems to be in tension with a statement I've encountered several times, that "there is no separation between the sign and the thing signified."
Happy post-Thanksgiving!
Jeff Cagle
* I had one quibble about using WCoF 7.1 to show that all mankind is in covenant with God, which conclusion I hold anyways on other (federal headship) grounds; hence, it's really a minor minor issue.
Jeff: Sure enough, you have put your finger on some of the weaknesses in the MO Report. There were a number of compromises in the Report that both sides decided to make in order for our presbytery to live in peace. You will note that, near the beginning of the Report, we were all careful to explain how we were using terms. The report uses theological terms as they have been defined in Reformed scholastic theology (i.e., as Westminster uses them). The Report acknowledges ways of speaking about these matters that might seem to contradict the way of scholastic theology. I don't have the Report in front of me so I can't remember the exact language, but I think it's on the second page of the doc. On that basis, however, a number of us on the committee signed the document even though we thought there were additional (but not necessarily contradictory) ways of theologizing about these issues.
I should say also that there are some statements in this document that, IMHO, are not sufficiently nuanced. Again, there was compromise for the sake of unity and further study. Most of these have to do with drawing conclusions based on narrow theological definitions of theological terms and phrases, like "union with Christ," etc.
If that term has come to mean one thing in standard, Reformed decretal theology, that doesn't mean that we can dismiss numerous biblical passages that teach some form of union with Christ for those who do not continue in the faith. According to the WCF baptism is for the solemn admission into the visible church. Our own BCO acknowledges that the visible church is the body of Christ. So all those who are baptized are members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12).
Post a Comment