The following is a response to Nick to his comments on my previous post.
Here is what Nick said:
Hi,
I'd like to make a few comments on some of what you said.
You said: "For Luther, there are really only two legitimate options to obtaining a right standing before God. The first is to perfectly obey the demands of the Law. The second is to rely on the work of another; namely, the perfect law-keeping merits of Christ in one’s place."
Nick: I believe this is a false dilemma. The Law never was designed to save, even if kept perfectly, so whether you or Christ (in your place) keeps it doesn't translate into salvation. Gal 2:21; 3:17,21,25 explain the Law was temporal and never designed to save.
You said: The Reformers maintained, with St. Augustine, that Adam’s sin was imputed, or reckon, to all his progenies.
Nick: This is incorrect, Adam's guilt was not "imputed" to others, that's not a teaching of Scripture (because it never uses "impute" in that manner) and not accurate to St Augustine. Original Sin is true, it does affect all, but it is not "imputed." Think of it more as a genetic disease, which makes someone physically unable to do good works.
Further, the dispute with Pelagius went deeper than you and most other Protestants realize. The issue was a battle between nature and grace, which Augustine and Catholics see as grace added to nature, with original sin stripping grace from nature. With Pelagius, he denied grace added to nature, and saw only nature, so when Adam "fell" Pelagius saw nothing to fall from. The alternative to Pelagius' conclusion is the path Protestantism took, which was that human nature itself became corrupt. So while it might sound surprising, Protestantism is actually founded upon Pelagianism, because they start off with the same pre-fallen view of Adam.
And this is in fact the heart of the Catholic-Protestant dispute. We have the doctor diagnosing TWO DIFFERENT illnesses (two understandings of original sin), and thus there are TWO DIFFERENT treatments given (corresponding to each disease that needs to be cured). This leads to the two different views of justification.
You said: "In Romans 4:5, Paul tells us that God “justifies the ungodly.” How can this be?"
Nick: The Protestant interpretation doesn't make much sense here, because if justification is a declaration only, then God is saying "you unrighteous man are righteous," which is a lie. If righteousness is imputed to the sinner's account, then God is not looking at a unrighteous man but a righteous one, contradicting the "ungodly" term used.
The Catholic interpretation is that of God transforming the sinner so that they are righteous, seen nicely in 1 Cor 6:10-11.
You said: Here, we move to the center of the doctrine justification; namely, the reckoning of Christ’s righteousness on sin stricken, guilty sinners.
Nick: Though many don't realize it, the Bible never says "christ's righteousness" is imputed. That simply isn't found in Scripture.
You said: "What is meant by imputation? The Reformers often appealed to 2 Corinthians 5:21...there is only a twofold imputation found"
Nick: The main problem here is that the term "impute" is not used here, it's projected on this verse, which is invalid exegesis. The Bible never says sin is "impute" to Christ or that Adam's sin is "imputed" to us, nor that Christ's Righteousness is imputed. It might make the theology easier to speak like this, but Scripture does not use such terminology. Paul was well aware of the term "impute," so given that he never used it in this sense is problematic for your argument.
You said: "The good news of the gospel is that God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves; Christ obeyed the demands of God’s perfect law and he took the punishment that we deserve to present us as faultless before the Father."
Nick: Nowhere does the Bible say Christ obeyed the Law 'in our place', nor does it say Jesus was punished in our place in the Penal Substitution sense. Unfortunately, these things are repeated so often people begin to think the Bible teaches them.
Nick said...
In my study on this topic, the Greek term "logizomai" is the English term for "reckon/impute/credit/etc," (all terms are basically equivalently used) and when I look up that term in a popular Protestant Lexicon here is what it is defined as:
----------------
QUOTE: "This word deals with reality. If I "logizomai" or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions."
http://tinyurl.com/r92dch
----------------
The Protestant Lexicon states this term first and foremost refers to the actual status of something. So if Abraham's faith is "logizomai as righteouness," it must be an actually righteous act of faith, otherwise (as the Lexicon says) "I am deceiving myself." This seems to rule out any notion of an alien righteousness, and instead points to a local/inherent righteousness.
The Lexicon gives other examples where "logizomai" appears, here are 3 examples:
-------------------
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
-------------------
Notice in these examples that "logizomai" means to consider the actual truth of an object. In 3:28 Paul 'reckons' faith saves while the Law does not, this is a fact, the Law never saves. In 6:11 the Christian is 'reckoned' dead to sin because he is in fact dead to sin. In 8:18 Paul 'reckons' the present sufferings as having no comparison to Heavenly glory, and that is true because nothing compares to Heavenly glory.
To use logizomai in the "alien status" way would mean in: (1) 3:28 faith doesn't really save apart from works, but we are going to go ahead and say it does; (2) 6:11 that we are not really dead to sin but are going to say we are; (3) 8:18 the present sufferings are comparable to Heaven's glory.
This cannot be right.
So when the text plainly says "faith is logizomai as righteousness," I must read that as 'faith is reckoned as a truly righteous act', and that is precisely how Paul explains that phrase in 4:18-22. That despite the doubts that could be raised in Abraham's heart, his faith grew strong and convinced and "that is why his faith was credited as righteousness" (v4:22).
Here is my response:
Hi Nick:
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, your zealousness is commendable. I hope to have/continue this stimulating dialogue about the doctrine of Justification. With that in mind, let me respond to some of the comments you made here:
(i) You are correct to point out that the Law does not save (Gal. 2:21; 3:17, 21, 25). Why is this so? It is because humans, affected by the Fall, cannot naturally keep it. This is why it is by faith alone that we are justified, apart from the works of the Law, i.e., we are incapable of fulfilling it. The Law serves to reveal our sinfulness and bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:24); the one who fulfilled it for us (Matt. 5:17).
(ii) I am astonished with your claim that “Protestantism is actually founded upon Pelagianism, because they start off with the same pre-fallen view of Adam.” This claim is unsubstantiated in my opinion. Reformation theology maintains that Adam was created holy and upright in nature contra Pelagius, who taught that Adam was created neither upright nor evil. Furthermore, contrary to your assessment, Augustine believed that humans were born with a fallen nature as a result of the Fall, which is upheld by the Reformers. In this regard, the Reformers do not start with Pelagius’ “pre-fallen view of Adam”, but Augustine’s view.
You said, “think of it more as a generic disease, which makes someone physically unable to do good works.” It seems to me that Scripture goes beyond a physical incapability. It further asserts that humans “became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 6, cf. Eph. 2:1; Tit. 1:15; Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-18 etc.). Moreover, the Scriptures teach that Adam’s sin is counted on our behalf. Take for instance Romans 5:12-19. Here we are explicitly informed that Adam’s trespass led to condemnation to all men. It is as if all men were present in Adam’s sinning.
(iii) Romans 4:5, I maintain, is a passage that demonstrates man’s utter need for the grace of God. It says that the ungodly cannot in any manner contribute to their salvation. Imputed righteousness here does not annul Paul’s claim that God “justifies the ungodly,” as you supposed. Once a sinner believes (he is justified on account of Christ righteousness), yet he is not immediately, intrinsically perfected at that moment. Hence, he may be considered justified because of Christ and, simultaneously, “ungodly.” This is paradoxical, but not contradictory.
It seems that your interpretation may in fact be the one in error. Nowhere in the passage is “transformation” being discussed. If God justifies according to our righteousness, then he is not “justifying the ungodly,” but the “godly.” If your analysis is correct, then you must employ the same with Romans 4:7-8. It says, “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against the Lord will not count his sin” (emphasis mine). Furthermore, your citation of 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 does not support your position here. Yes, unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God, but the Paul does not appeal to our own righteousness for justification. He appeals to believers being “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (v. 11).
(iv) True, Scripture never says “Christ’s righteousness” is imputed, but the idea is there. J.V. Fesko rightly points out, “One of the most common theological contructs that theologians employ is the term, ‘Trinity.’ The term occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, yet it is universally employed to give expression to the idea that God is one in essence and three in person. The same may be said of the righteousness of Christ” (Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, p. 154).
(v) Again, your objection to my exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is unfounded because you fail to recognize the connection between the theological terminology and the meaning of the passage. The meaning of the passage is conveyed in the theological terminology. Therefore, they are compatible.
(vi) Once again, you are transfixed on the idea that because the word is not there, the meaning is not there. There are plenty of passages that present the message of “Christ obeyed the Law ‘in our place,’…Jesus was punished in our place in the Penal Substitution sense.” Here are a few of them: 1 Pet. 2:21-25; Gal. 3:10-14; Isa. 53; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 3:21-28.
(vii) I appreciated your word study of “logizomai.” However, there seems to be some problems with your exegesis here. You mentioned that “if Abraham’s faith is ‘logizomai as righteousness,’ it must be an actually righteous act of faith.” Do you mean that faith then justifies in its own act or essence? I think not. To separate faith and its object, namely Christ, would be totally absurd. Listen to what Herman Bavinck has to say: “If faith justified on account of itself, the object of that faith (that is, Christ) would totally lose its value” (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 211).
Furthermore, you failed to mention that “logizomai” can also mean “to pass to one’s account.” However, Reformation theology never regards all the places where “logizomai” occurs as having such meaning, therefore, your examples are invalid cases against Reformed theology. The meaning of the word is rendered according to the context. Again, Bavinck is helpful here:
“The word Logizesthai can certaintly mean ‘to hold or consider a person for what he or she is’ (1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 12:6). However, it can also have the sense of ‘to credit to a person something one does not personally possess.’ Thus the sins of those who believe are not counted against them although they do have them (Rom. 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:19; cf. 2 Tim. 4:16); and thus they are counted against Christ, although he was without sin (Isa. 53:4-6; Matt. 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1 Tim. 2:6).” (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 211-212)
Certainly, when closely examined, your case for using “logizomai” in the exact same way is incorrect. It must be understood according to the context.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Reformed Doctrine of Justification: the Heart of the Christian Gospel
The doctrine of justification today has been largely forgotten, or even despised, in the evangelical world. However, if the Protestant Reformers were right in asserting that justification is the entrance into the kingdom of God, then the recovery of this doctrine is absolutely necessary for preaching, evangelism, ethics, good works, assurance, and, in fact, all piety towards God and neighbors. This is perhaps an incredibly bold claim in our pluralistic world, but the exclusivity of the Gospel is to be safeguarded if the church is to see the world come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, the only name by which we might be saved. What exactly is justification? Question 70 in the Westminster Larger Catechism answers this question in this way: “Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.” To put it differently, justification is the legal and forensic declaration that a sinner is righteous only on account of Christ’s perfect life, death, and resurrection. This paper will thus argue that the heart of the Christian Gospel is the doctrine of justification. I will first consider the importance of justification in Martin Luther’s theology and several proceeding theologians. Second, I will examine the relationship between justification and original sin, imputation, faith, and grace to further develop a more robust understanding of justification. Then, thirdly, I will respond several objections and opposing views, especially the New Perspective on Paul.
One may not need to search hard to see the centrality of justification in the thoughts of the Reformers, as well as theologians after them. In the 16th Century, the Reformers deemed the doctrine of justification as the chief article by which man may be reconciled to God. The question that they were primarily wrestling with was this: “How can a wrath deserving sinner have a right standing before a holy God, who does not tolerate sin?” This was the question that plagued the Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. For Luther, there are really only two legitimate options to obtaining a right standing before God. The first is to perfectly obey the demands of the Law. The second is to rely on the work of another; namely, the perfect law-keeping merits of Christ in one’s place. After studying the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he concluded, “For we hold, recognize and affirm, we conclude from what is said that a man is justified, reckoned righteous before God, whether Greek or Jew, by faith, apart from works of the law, without the help and necessity of the works of the law.” The doctrine of justification, in Luther’s theology, is the Gospel! Likewise, we also find similar assertions from Calvin, a second generation reformer. The doctrine of justification is, according to Calvin, “the main hinge on which religion turns.” The same may be said of those who have followed in the footsteps of the Reformers. J.I. Packer, a modern reformer in his own right, has famously said, “For the doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas. It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Saviour.”
Before we proceed to consider the contents of the doctrine, let us first consider the way the Reformers understood sin and its consequential outworking. The doctrine of sin was hugely important for them. Centuries after, Reformed theologians have all affirmed this notion. Herman Bavinck, being one of them, said, “The doctrine of original sin is one of the weightiest and most difficult subjects in all of Christian theology.” The Reformers maintained, with St. Augustine, that Adam’s sin was imputed, or reckon, to all his progenies. As a result, all are condemned for the sin of one man as the Apostle Paul teaches us in Romans. In other words, as Berkhof explains, “Adam sinned not only as the father of the human race, but also as the representative head of all his descendants; and therefore the guilt of his sin is placed to their account, so that they are all liable to the punishment of death.” On the contrary, those who embrace the error Pelagianism, teach that man was not represented by Adam on an ontological sense, but only as a reprehensible illustration. The denial of original sin entails massive consequences in relations to one’s justification. The need to flesh out the entire controversy between St. Augustine and the English monk, Pelagius, is here unnecessary. So, we shall only note several main articles that affect the way justification is understood: (1) Pelagius, with his contention with St. Augustine, denied that sin was not passed to his descendants; (2) Adam’s sin was only a bad moral example; and (3) the merit of justification is obtainable by one’s good works.
With original sin as the backdrop to man’s condition in the courtroom of God, the Reformers saw a guilty verdict against humanity at the forefront. Of course this meant that man, in the end, is unable to save himself because of the sin nature that he has inherited in Adam. It has so corrupted him that even his will, as Calvin puts it, “…cannot move toward good, much less apply itself thereto; for a movement of this sort is the beginning of conversion to God, which in Scripture is ascribed entirely to God’s grace.” In Romans 4:5, Paul tells us that God “justifies the ungodly.” How can this be? Here, we encounter one of the cries of the Reformation, sola gratia, or grace alone. What they meant by this was that salvation must be only credited to God’s grace, not to any work that man performs. The Reformers argued that man must wholly be dependent on the grace of God, as Augustine proposed. They saw the need for God’s grace if man is to be saved from the impending judgment. It is the sole initiation of God alone that sinners can be justified; his grace is the origin of man’s justification. According to later Reformed theology, which builds from the theology of the Reformers, the grace that God bestows to man came in a covenantal construction, which they called the “covenant of grace.” In the covenant of grace, according the Westminster Larger Catechism, “…He (God) freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ.” We see here that the confession tells us that life and salvation are the benefits from God’s grace. Furthermore, it tells us that it is by Jesus Christ that we attain such benefits. “…Only Christ’s sacrifice could make satisfaction for our sins,” as Edmund Clowney correctly observes, “so, too, only Christ’s obedience can merit eternal life (Rom. 6:23).” Clowney reminds us that it is only Christ’s merit and atonement that we can have both our sins forgiven and eternal life to come. This takes us to the next logical question: “What is the nature of how these benefits are given?”
Here, we move to the center of the doctrine justification; namely, the reckoning of Christ’s righteousness on sin stricken, guilty sinners. If the heart of the Gospel is the doctrine of justification, as I am arguing, then the doctrine of imputation is the heart of the doctrine of justification. What is meant by imputation? The Reformers often appealed to 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” to demonstrate this doctrine. Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith explains this divine transaction: “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God, might be glorified in the justification of sinners.” Notice that the confession mentions the “exact justice” and “rich grace of God” with relations to what has taken place. It is God’s chief purpose that his justice and grace be displayed our justification in Christ. Moreover, the confession tells us that the punishment that our sins have merited was paid by Christ for us, and the righteousness that he merited, in return, gets credited to us.
Although there is only a twofold imputation found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Nevertheless, B.B. Warfield notes of a “threefold doctrine of imputation” found in Scripture. Let us consider the threefold imputation that Warfield spoke of: (1) the imputation of Adam’s sin onto humanity, (2) the imputation of our sins onto Christ, and (3) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto sinners. We began by surveying original sin because the repercussions for denying it are deadly. We noted that Adam’s sin was counted in our account (original sin), if we deny this we cannot partake on the two imputations above mentioned because the execution is the same. In other words, if deny cry out unfairness to original sin, we must logically say the same with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and our sins imputed to him, as found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. If it is not already clear, Warfield clarifies, “In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called “imputation” is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part.” What follows is that if God cannot reckon Adam’s sin to us, then it is impossible to reason that God can give us the righteousness that Christ merited for us and, furthermore, God cannot have “made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21a). Now that we have established the source of justification, let us turn to the instrument by which sinners received this justification we have been speaking of.
With the Roman Catholic Church’s emphasis on faith and merits as the instruments by which sinners are justified, the Reformers came to a different conclusion. They saw from Scripture that sinners are justified sola fide, or by faith alone. This is yet another crucial element in the Protestant Reformation, which today has turned into a mere slogan without substance in many Protestant churches. Yet in the time of the Reformation, it was of supreme importance. “Justification by faith alone” is well-known, but why is it by faith alone? What of faith that makes it the only instrument by which we are declared righteous? It is an open hand that receives all the benefits that Christ merited for us, responded the Reformers. Faith is the only instrument by which sinners can receive the righteousness that Christ earned for us. Furthermore, it is the only instrument by which our sins are regarded stricken in Christ. In other words, the imputation transaction above is effective only through faith, nothing else. Our works do not merit anything good in the courtroom of God, only Christ’s perfect work can we appear blameless on judgment day. We are saved by works, Christ’s perfect work.
There have been those in opposition to the Reformed doctrine of justification from its conception; from the Judaizers and antinomians in Paul’s day to the Roman Catholic Church in the time of the Protestant Reformation. Many may be surprised to hear that the Roman Catholic Church unmistakably understood what the Reformers were saying, and they condemned it. In the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church pronounced judgment against the Protestant churches when they said, “If anyone says people are justified either solely by the attribution of Christ’s justice, or by the forgiveness of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and abides in them…let him be anathema.” Furthermore, Trent declared, “If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema.”
Today, one of opposition that has been gaining ground, even in some Reformed circles, is the so-called New Perspective on Paul. A lengthy exposition of this perspective is here unnecessary, so we will only briefly examine the position, and then present a Reformed critique. Fesko informs us that this new interpretation of justification finds its origin with Krister Stendahl, who argued that scholars “were reading him (Paul), not in the light of his immediate first-century context, but through the lens of Martin Luther.” But it was in E.P. Sanders’ famous work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which the New Perspective began to take shape. Sanders’ main contribution was his shift from the soteriological concerns of the Reformation i.e., how one is saved, to an ecclesiological one i.e., the recognition of who is in the church. “The query, ‘What can I do to be saved?’ is one which,” according to Sanders, “is not prominent in the (Rabbinic) literature.” As Fesko notes, “Sanders researched the literature of the second temple and concluded that Judaism was not a works-righteousness-based religion but one of grace, which he termed ‘covenantal nomism’: ‘The view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.’” What then is the problem with Judaism? According to Sanders, “…it is not Christianity.”
James Dunn, following Sanders, mainly agreed with Sander’s concern, however, he contended that the “covenant nomism” that Sanders spoke of is not antithetical to Paul’s theology. In doing so, Dunn was forced to rework Sanders original thesis. He maintained that “covenant nomism” of the Jews “…functioned as badges of covenant membership.” They were, for Dunn, “identity markers” that identified the Jews as God’s people. Now, according to Dunn, after Christ has come, the new badge is faith in Christ, rather than circumcision, food laws, the Sabbath, etc. This brings us the most prominent proponent of the New Perspective, N. T. Wright.
Wright for the most part, agrees with Sanders and Dunn’s assessment of Paul’s theology. Fesko rightly points out that “Wright believes that the Jews saw their entrance into the covenant on the basis of God’s grace and their obedience to the Torah was merely response to the divine initiative, not an attempt to merit entrance into the covenant.” Hence, Wright is essentially echoing Sanders and Dunn by appealing to Judaism as religion of grace, not works. It is important to note here that the New Perspective has radically changed the traditional understanding of Paul’s usage of “works of the law” and “righteousness.” What Wright proposes, as well as many of those who hold to the New Perspective, is that “works of the law” is nothing more than the “identity markers” that Dunn previously spoke of. “The righteousness of God,” for Wright, according to Fesko, “then, is primarily a demonstration of his covenantal faithfulness.” Thus, Wright affirms the notion that justification is more about being identified with the church, rather than salvation. If justification is about the society of the church, then there is no need for the “righteous imputation of Christ.” This denial, of course, is one of the primary reasons why Reformation theology is so concerned about this movement. The New Perspective essentially rips out the heart of the Gospel, as the Reformers understood it. Justification, according to Wright, is not an “alien righteousness,” as Luther claimed, that is credited to us, rather it is the declaration that we are part of the covenantal people of God. So, Wright asserts that at the eschaton people will be judged according, to what Piper says, “…the obedience of our lives that is produced by the Holy Spirit through faith.” This is contrary to the way the Reformers understood the doctrine of justification. In fact, it is a return to the Roman Catholic position.
Although, the Reformers would agree to a certain extent of taking into account the second temple Judaism literature of Paul’s day, as Sanders, Dunn, and Wright have done, however, they are not the final authority for interpreting Paul. Fesko rightly points out that J. Gresham Machen observed that “…Paul seeks testimonies to the universal sinfulness of man, he looks not to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Testament. At this point, as elsewhere, Paulinism is based not upon later developments but upon the religion of the Prophets and the Psalms.” What this means for us here is that Paul could not have derived his theology from second-temple Judaism because he is primarily dealing with the Old Testament Scripture. There is, as Fesko brilliantly observes, a major problem with the New Perspective’s claim that second-temple Judaism has rightly interpreted the Old Testament. Fesko puts it this way, “If the NT redefined Israel’s expectation, then first-century Judaism has correctly interpreted the OT, but Christ and the apostles have redefined it. In other words, Christ and the apostles correct the view of the OT. Or first century Judaism has misinterpreted the OT, and it was first-century opinion that required correction.” This dilemma, in my opinion, is a huge stumbling block that cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, it seems rather odd that the New Perspective proponents are so eager to dismiss the Reformers’ interaction with medieval Catholicism as somewhat irrelevant. Yet, it is apparent that the New Perspective is noticeably similar to that of medieval Catholic soteriology. Even though Wright’s proposal that justification in the eschaton is purely by the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, it seems to imply justification by our works rather than Christ’s work. If we speak of our final justification based on the Spirit wrought obedience of the saints, it undermines the gravity of sin and God’s justice. How much work is acceptable before God can say, “Not guilty”? The reality is that God does not tolerate sin! In the final analysis, the New Perspective fails to account for this major chasm between our imperfect righteousness, even as believers, and the perfect judgment of God. To say the least, Roman Catholicism has developed a system of “purgatory” to relieve their inconsistency. But it seems the New Perspective is deficient to explain and harmonize these ideas.
In conclusion, if we do away with the doctrine of justification as the Reformers understood it, we do away with the Gospel itself. What is the good news in knowing that, in the end, we are judged according to our obedience, even if they are Spirit wrought? The good news of the gospel is that God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves; Christ obeyed the demands of God’s perfect law and he took the punishment that we deserve to present us as faultless before the Father. By faith alone, we receive what God freely gives in Christ.
Bibliography
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit Church and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008.
Beeke, Joel R. The Quest for Full Assurance: the Legacy of Calvin and his Successors. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999.
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith: a Comprehensive and Readable Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Calvin, John. Institute of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Carson, D. A., ed. Right With God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, Louisville, KS: Westminster John Knox, 1990.
Fesko, J. V. Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008.
—. "A More Perfect Union?: Justification and Union with Christ." Modern Reformation, June 2007: 32-35, 38.
Horton, Michael. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.
—. "Does Justification Still Matter?" Modern Reformation, September 2007: 11-17.
—. Putting Amazing Back Into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel. Second Edition. Grand Rapids , MI: Baker Book House Co., 2002.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Machen, J. Gresham. What is Faith? Grand Rapids , MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1946.
McGrath, Alister E., ed. The Christian Theology Reader. Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ: Should we Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.
—. The Future of Justification: a Response to N. T. Wright. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977.
Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Sproul, R.C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible. English Standard Version. Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005.
Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. 20th Anniversary Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVasity Press, 2006.
Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968.
Watson, Thomas
. A Body of Divinity. Carlisle, Pennslvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Westminster Confession of Faith. glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2001.
Williamson, G.I. The Heidelberg Catechism: A Study Guide. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1993.
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1997.
One may not need to search hard to see the centrality of justification in the thoughts of the Reformers, as well as theologians after them. In the 16th Century, the Reformers deemed the doctrine of justification as the chief article by which man may be reconciled to God. The question that they were primarily wrestling with was this: “How can a wrath deserving sinner have a right standing before a holy God, who does not tolerate sin?” This was the question that plagued the Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. For Luther, there are really only two legitimate options to obtaining a right standing before God. The first is to perfectly obey the demands of the Law. The second is to rely on the work of another; namely, the perfect law-keeping merits of Christ in one’s place. After studying the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he concluded, “For we hold, recognize and affirm, we conclude from what is said that a man is justified, reckoned righteous before God, whether Greek or Jew, by faith, apart from works of the law, without the help and necessity of the works of the law.” The doctrine of justification, in Luther’s theology, is the Gospel! Likewise, we also find similar assertions from Calvin, a second generation reformer. The doctrine of justification is, according to Calvin, “the main hinge on which religion turns.” The same may be said of those who have followed in the footsteps of the Reformers. J.I. Packer, a modern reformer in his own right, has famously said, “For the doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas. It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Saviour.”
Before we proceed to consider the contents of the doctrine, let us first consider the way the Reformers understood sin and its consequential outworking. The doctrine of sin was hugely important for them. Centuries after, Reformed theologians have all affirmed this notion. Herman Bavinck, being one of them, said, “The doctrine of original sin is one of the weightiest and most difficult subjects in all of Christian theology.” The Reformers maintained, with St. Augustine, that Adam’s sin was imputed, or reckon, to all his progenies. As a result, all are condemned for the sin of one man as the Apostle Paul teaches us in Romans. In other words, as Berkhof explains, “Adam sinned not only as the father of the human race, but also as the representative head of all his descendants; and therefore the guilt of his sin is placed to their account, so that they are all liable to the punishment of death.” On the contrary, those who embrace the error Pelagianism, teach that man was not represented by Adam on an ontological sense, but only as a reprehensible illustration. The denial of original sin entails massive consequences in relations to one’s justification. The need to flesh out the entire controversy between St. Augustine and the English monk, Pelagius, is here unnecessary. So, we shall only note several main articles that affect the way justification is understood: (1) Pelagius, with his contention with St. Augustine, denied that sin was not passed to his descendants; (2) Adam’s sin was only a bad moral example; and (3) the merit of justification is obtainable by one’s good works.
With original sin as the backdrop to man’s condition in the courtroom of God, the Reformers saw a guilty verdict against humanity at the forefront. Of course this meant that man, in the end, is unable to save himself because of the sin nature that he has inherited in Adam. It has so corrupted him that even his will, as Calvin puts it, “…cannot move toward good, much less apply itself thereto; for a movement of this sort is the beginning of conversion to God, which in Scripture is ascribed entirely to God’s grace.” In Romans 4:5, Paul tells us that God “justifies the ungodly.” How can this be? Here, we encounter one of the cries of the Reformation, sola gratia, or grace alone. What they meant by this was that salvation must be only credited to God’s grace, not to any work that man performs. The Reformers argued that man must wholly be dependent on the grace of God, as Augustine proposed. They saw the need for God’s grace if man is to be saved from the impending judgment. It is the sole initiation of God alone that sinners can be justified; his grace is the origin of man’s justification. According to later Reformed theology, which builds from the theology of the Reformers, the grace that God bestows to man came in a covenantal construction, which they called the “covenant of grace.” In the covenant of grace, according the Westminster Larger Catechism, “…He (God) freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ.” We see here that the confession tells us that life and salvation are the benefits from God’s grace. Furthermore, it tells us that it is by Jesus Christ that we attain such benefits. “…Only Christ’s sacrifice could make satisfaction for our sins,” as Edmund Clowney correctly observes, “so, too, only Christ’s obedience can merit eternal life (Rom. 6:23).” Clowney reminds us that it is only Christ’s merit and atonement that we can have both our sins forgiven and eternal life to come. This takes us to the next logical question: “What is the nature of how these benefits are given?”
Here, we move to the center of the doctrine justification; namely, the reckoning of Christ’s righteousness on sin stricken, guilty sinners. If the heart of the Gospel is the doctrine of justification, as I am arguing, then the doctrine of imputation is the heart of the doctrine of justification. What is meant by imputation? The Reformers often appealed to 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” to demonstrate this doctrine. Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith explains this divine transaction: “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God, might be glorified in the justification of sinners.” Notice that the confession mentions the “exact justice” and “rich grace of God” with relations to what has taken place. It is God’s chief purpose that his justice and grace be displayed our justification in Christ. Moreover, the confession tells us that the punishment that our sins have merited was paid by Christ for us, and the righteousness that he merited, in return, gets credited to us.
Although there is only a twofold imputation found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Nevertheless, B.B. Warfield notes of a “threefold doctrine of imputation” found in Scripture. Let us consider the threefold imputation that Warfield spoke of: (1) the imputation of Adam’s sin onto humanity, (2) the imputation of our sins onto Christ, and (3) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto sinners. We began by surveying original sin because the repercussions for denying it are deadly. We noted that Adam’s sin was counted in our account (original sin), if we deny this we cannot partake on the two imputations above mentioned because the execution is the same. In other words, if deny cry out unfairness to original sin, we must logically say the same with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and our sins imputed to him, as found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. If it is not already clear, Warfield clarifies, “In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called “imputation” is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part.” What follows is that if God cannot reckon Adam’s sin to us, then it is impossible to reason that God can give us the righteousness that Christ merited for us and, furthermore, God cannot have “made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21a). Now that we have established the source of justification, let us turn to the instrument by which sinners received this justification we have been speaking of.
With the Roman Catholic Church’s emphasis on faith and merits as the instruments by which sinners are justified, the Reformers came to a different conclusion. They saw from Scripture that sinners are justified sola fide, or by faith alone. This is yet another crucial element in the Protestant Reformation, which today has turned into a mere slogan without substance in many Protestant churches. Yet in the time of the Reformation, it was of supreme importance. “Justification by faith alone” is well-known, but why is it by faith alone? What of faith that makes it the only instrument by which we are declared righteous? It is an open hand that receives all the benefits that Christ merited for us, responded the Reformers. Faith is the only instrument by which sinners can receive the righteousness that Christ earned for us. Furthermore, it is the only instrument by which our sins are regarded stricken in Christ. In other words, the imputation transaction above is effective only through faith, nothing else. Our works do not merit anything good in the courtroom of God, only Christ’s perfect work can we appear blameless on judgment day. We are saved by works, Christ’s perfect work.
There have been those in opposition to the Reformed doctrine of justification from its conception; from the Judaizers and antinomians in Paul’s day to the Roman Catholic Church in the time of the Protestant Reformation. Many may be surprised to hear that the Roman Catholic Church unmistakably understood what the Reformers were saying, and they condemned it. In the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church pronounced judgment against the Protestant churches when they said, “If anyone says people are justified either solely by the attribution of Christ’s justice, or by the forgiveness of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and abides in them…let him be anathema.” Furthermore, Trent declared, “If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema.”
Today, one of opposition that has been gaining ground, even in some Reformed circles, is the so-called New Perspective on Paul. A lengthy exposition of this perspective is here unnecessary, so we will only briefly examine the position, and then present a Reformed critique. Fesko informs us that this new interpretation of justification finds its origin with Krister Stendahl, who argued that scholars “were reading him (Paul), not in the light of his immediate first-century context, but through the lens of Martin Luther.” But it was in E.P. Sanders’ famous work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which the New Perspective began to take shape. Sanders’ main contribution was his shift from the soteriological concerns of the Reformation i.e., how one is saved, to an ecclesiological one i.e., the recognition of who is in the church. “The query, ‘What can I do to be saved?’ is one which,” according to Sanders, “is not prominent in the (Rabbinic) literature.” As Fesko notes, “Sanders researched the literature of the second temple and concluded that Judaism was not a works-righteousness-based religion but one of grace, which he termed ‘covenantal nomism’: ‘The view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.’” What then is the problem with Judaism? According to Sanders, “…it is not Christianity.”
James Dunn, following Sanders, mainly agreed with Sander’s concern, however, he contended that the “covenant nomism” that Sanders spoke of is not antithetical to Paul’s theology. In doing so, Dunn was forced to rework Sanders original thesis. He maintained that “covenant nomism” of the Jews “…functioned as badges of covenant membership.” They were, for Dunn, “identity markers” that identified the Jews as God’s people. Now, according to Dunn, after Christ has come, the new badge is faith in Christ, rather than circumcision, food laws, the Sabbath, etc. This brings us the most prominent proponent of the New Perspective, N. T. Wright.
Wright for the most part, agrees with Sanders and Dunn’s assessment of Paul’s theology. Fesko rightly points out that “Wright believes that the Jews saw their entrance into the covenant on the basis of God’s grace and their obedience to the Torah was merely response to the divine initiative, not an attempt to merit entrance into the covenant.” Hence, Wright is essentially echoing Sanders and Dunn by appealing to Judaism as religion of grace, not works. It is important to note here that the New Perspective has radically changed the traditional understanding of Paul’s usage of “works of the law” and “righteousness.” What Wright proposes, as well as many of those who hold to the New Perspective, is that “works of the law” is nothing more than the “identity markers” that Dunn previously spoke of. “The righteousness of God,” for Wright, according to Fesko, “then, is primarily a demonstration of his covenantal faithfulness.” Thus, Wright affirms the notion that justification is more about being identified with the church, rather than salvation. If justification is about the society of the church, then there is no need for the “righteous imputation of Christ.” This denial, of course, is one of the primary reasons why Reformation theology is so concerned about this movement. The New Perspective essentially rips out the heart of the Gospel, as the Reformers understood it. Justification, according to Wright, is not an “alien righteousness,” as Luther claimed, that is credited to us, rather it is the declaration that we are part of the covenantal people of God. So, Wright asserts that at the eschaton people will be judged according, to what Piper says, “…the obedience of our lives that is produced by the Holy Spirit through faith.” This is contrary to the way the Reformers understood the doctrine of justification. In fact, it is a return to the Roman Catholic position.
Although, the Reformers would agree to a certain extent of taking into account the second temple Judaism literature of Paul’s day, as Sanders, Dunn, and Wright have done, however, they are not the final authority for interpreting Paul. Fesko rightly points out that J. Gresham Machen observed that “…Paul seeks testimonies to the universal sinfulness of man, he looks not to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Testament. At this point, as elsewhere, Paulinism is based not upon later developments but upon the religion of the Prophets and the Psalms.” What this means for us here is that Paul could not have derived his theology from second-temple Judaism because he is primarily dealing with the Old Testament Scripture. There is, as Fesko brilliantly observes, a major problem with the New Perspective’s claim that second-temple Judaism has rightly interpreted the Old Testament. Fesko puts it this way, “If the NT redefined Israel’s expectation, then first-century Judaism has correctly interpreted the OT, but Christ and the apostles have redefined it. In other words, Christ and the apostles correct the view of the OT. Or first century Judaism has misinterpreted the OT, and it was first-century opinion that required correction.” This dilemma, in my opinion, is a huge stumbling block that cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, it seems rather odd that the New Perspective proponents are so eager to dismiss the Reformers’ interaction with medieval Catholicism as somewhat irrelevant. Yet, it is apparent that the New Perspective is noticeably similar to that of medieval Catholic soteriology. Even though Wright’s proposal that justification in the eschaton is purely by the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, it seems to imply justification by our works rather than Christ’s work. If we speak of our final justification based on the Spirit wrought obedience of the saints, it undermines the gravity of sin and God’s justice. How much work is acceptable before God can say, “Not guilty”? The reality is that God does not tolerate sin! In the final analysis, the New Perspective fails to account for this major chasm between our imperfect righteousness, even as believers, and the perfect judgment of God. To say the least, Roman Catholicism has developed a system of “purgatory” to relieve their inconsistency. But it seems the New Perspective is deficient to explain and harmonize these ideas.
In conclusion, if we do away with the doctrine of justification as the Reformers understood it, we do away with the Gospel itself. What is the good news in knowing that, in the end, we are judged according to our obedience, even if they are Spirit wrought? The good news of the gospel is that God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves; Christ obeyed the demands of God’s perfect law and he took the punishment that we deserve to present us as faultless before the Father. By faith alone, we receive what God freely gives in Christ.
Bibliography
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit Church and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008.
Beeke, Joel R. The Quest for Full Assurance: the Legacy of Calvin and his Successors. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999.
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith: a Comprehensive and Readable Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Calvin, John. Institute of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Carson, D. A., ed. Right With God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, Louisville, KS: Westminster John Knox, 1990.
Fesko, J. V. Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008.
—. "A More Perfect Union?: Justification and Union with Christ." Modern Reformation, June 2007: 32-35, 38.
Horton, Michael. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.
—. "Does Justification Still Matter?" Modern Reformation, September 2007: 11-17.
—. Putting Amazing Back Into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel. Second Edition. Grand Rapids , MI: Baker Book House Co., 2002.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Machen, J. Gresham. What is Faith? Grand Rapids , MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1946.
McGrath, Alister E., ed. The Christian Theology Reader. Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ: Should we Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.
—. The Future of Justification: a Response to N. T. Wright. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977.
Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Sproul, R.C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible. English Standard Version. Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005.
Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. 20th Anniversary Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVasity Press, 2006.
Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968.
Watson, Thomas
. A Body of Divinity. Carlisle, Pennslvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Westminster Confession of Faith. glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2001.
Williamson, G.I. The Heidelberg Catechism: A Study Guide. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1993.
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1997.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
