Saturday, August 29, 2009

If You Are Late to the Discussion

Posted by Josh Walker
Back in June Christianity Today posted a primer on the current justification debate, particularly the one going on between John Piper and N.T. Wright. This primer is a great introduction to the main points of contention between Piper and Wright. If you are new to the "New Perspective on Paul" controversy, this is a great place to start. Some of the issues addressed in this article are the problem, the righteousness of God, the Gospel and the future justification. It is these last two issues, the Gospel and future justification that are of particular interest to me.

The primer summarizes Piper and Wright's understanding of the Gospel in the following way.

Piper: The heart of the gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. What makes this good news is that Christ's death accomplished a perfect righteousness before God and suffered a perfect condemnation from God, both of which are counted as ours through faith alone, so that we have eternal life with God in the new heavens and the new earth.

Wright: The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world. When this gospel is preached, God calls people to salvation, out of sheer grace, leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord.

The primer concludes with the area that I am most concerned with in the New Perspective, that of future justification.

Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Wright: Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God. The present verdict gives the assurance that the verdict announced on the Last Day will match it; the Holy Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived.

Labels: , ,

65 comments:

  1. That is precisely why Piper is exactly the wrong person to be defending justification through faith alone.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Brandon,

    Do you care to explain?
    ReplyDelete
  3. John Robbins is the only one who can do it.
    ReplyDelete
  4. No, actually Adam, Robbins is not the only one, he's just done the best job of it. You can read Sam Waldron's "Faith, Obedience, and Justification" if you want. Or you could just read what Piper writes, that should be sufficient.

    Do you honestly have no problem saying that our works have to be presented before God in order to be saved?
    ReplyDelete
  5. Brandon,

    I am still not sure why you said, "that is precisely why Piper is exactly the wrong person to be defending justification through faith alone."
    ReplyDelete
  6. Because he thinks that when we stand before God we should say "look at all the works I have done."
    ReplyDelete
  7. in other words, he makes both faith and works the instrumental cause of justification
    ReplyDelete
  8. Brandon,

    That is a bold claim. Can you show us where you are getting this in Piper?
    ReplyDelete
  9. Just read your own quote from him.

    That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

    I have plenty of quotes I can give you. But that seems sufficient. Can you show me how that does not make our works the instrumental cause of justification?
    ReplyDelete
  10. Brandon,

    First off, the above is not a quote from Piper; rather, it is a summary given by Trevin Wax of what he takes to be Piper's view, which I agree with (both, that Wax has represented Piper right, and that the view given is biblical).

    Second, it seems to me that you are not grasping the distinction made between evidences and instruments. Our works, the evidence, point to our faith, the instrument. This is in no way saying that our words, the evidences, are the interment. The above language seems to labor to make this point. This is the exact same thin the Westminster Confession says in 11.2, "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love" (emphasis added). More could be cited on this point, but I think that will suffice. Further, if you were understanding Piper rightly, then what is the point of debate between he and Wright. The view you seem to impute to Piper is the view that most of Wright's critics give to him. In other words, if you are right, why is there a dispute?
    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Josh,

    I am grasping the distinction just fine. But when Piper says that there is no final salvation apart from our regenerate good works he makes evidence = instrument. WCF 11.2 is a great statement. If that's what Piper said I would have no problem. Nowhere does the WCF say that God looks at our works to determine if we have faith in Christ. Such an idea is absurd.

    Our works are evidence of our faith to others because we cannot know the soul of individuals to know if they have true faith or not. God does not need to rely on evidence. He knows our heart. Contrary to Piper, our works have absolutely NOTHING to do with our justification.

    if you were understanding Piper rightly, then what is the point of debate between he and Wright.

    That's exactly my point. He's a terrible person to be debating Wright. That's why he refuses to call Wright a heretic and just says that Wright needs to clarify himself.

    And in addition to this, Piper is quite confused on the issue. I know you sat in the same room Jon did.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Brandon,

    I am not sure what you are referring to when you say, "I know you sat in the same room Jon did."
    ReplyDelete
  14. Brandon,

    Still not following. Could you be more specific?
    ReplyDelete
  15. nevermind, it will just distract from what we're talking about
    ReplyDelete
  16. Brandon, I don't feel like you responded fully to Josh's question. If, in fact, John Piper teaches works-based righteousness, then would he not take N.T. Wright's side instead of writing a book in response to him?

    My sense of things is that it is inadequate to say simply, "That's exactly my point. He's a terrible person to be debating Wright. That's why he refuses to call Wright a heretic and just says that Wright needs to clarify himself."

    Why isn't Piper defending Wright, if this is what Piper teaches? Because your interpretation of Piper puts him squarely in Wright's camp, does it not follow that they should be allies?

    Also, a lot of people refuse to call Wright a heretic. Some are "heresy happy," but Piper is not, because there can be no dialogue with someone once you pronounce them a heretic. John Robbins is certainly a good example of someone who seems to see heresy everywhere he turns his head, and I don't see him doing much dialoging with his detractors; he shuts himself off from everyone except those who agree with him.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey Adam,

    1. Piper does not say the exact same thing as Wright. Rome teaches justification by faith and works, but neither Piper nor Wright say it in exactly the same way as Rome. Piper is not teaching strict works-righteousness. He is not saying our works are the ground of our salvation, he is saying they are the instrument of our salvation. He is teaching pseudo works-righteousness. He says that our good works are instrumental in our final salvation because they prove that we have faith in Christ. So apart from our good works we cannot be saved and it is impossible for God to know if we have faith in Christ without judging our good works.

    Rome says we must be made righteous, thus purgatory to finish the job if we can't do it in this life. Wright seems to say that we are judged by our lifetime of works and that justification is just a crystal ball confirmation that we will in fact live a life worthy of salvation. Piper rejects that. He says our perfect righteousness is found in Christ.

    But how do we know if Christ's obedience is credited to our account? The Biblical, Protestant answer is "through faith alone." Piper rejects that and says "through our transformed life."

    Do you disagree that that is what Piper says?
    Do you think I have misunderstood Piper or do you just think there is nothing wrong with that?

    2. Piper refuses to stand against Wright and call his view of justification heretical. Instead he calls his view Christian and just asks for some clarification because he is sympathetic to Wright (and Wilson). Paul was not interested in having a dialogue with the Judaizers. He was interested in protecting his flock. If Piper thinks Wright's view of justification is anti-Christian then he should say so. The only reason he wouldn't say so is if he doesn't think it's anti-Christian.

    3. Piper is confused about justification. Just consider his statements endorsing Daniel Fuller. Have you read Future Grace?
    ReplyDelete
  18. Brandon, I have not read any of the controversy about Daniel Fuller, though I was aware of it back when I read the Trinity Review. I just can't remember the details. Suffice it to say, the TR was the only place I ever heard this negative stuff about Fuller or Piper.

    First, I do not disagree with what Piper says. To say that someone should have a transformed life, if they are really saved, is not the same as saying that someone should have a transformed life so that they CAN be saved.

    "He is teaching pseudo works-righteousness. He says that our good works are instrumental in our final salvation because they prove that we have faith in Christ."

    That's a terribly uncharitable characterization. In no place does he use the phrase "our good works are instrumental in our final salvation." It does make it easier to straw-man his position, though, I'll grant you that much.

    I recall a few years ago listening to a talk by R.C. Sproul. In that talk, he was talking about the verse that says, "Without holiness no one shall see God." In the lecture, he was arguing that this holiness was not Christ's foreign imputed holiness, but rather, our own - fruit of our salvation. He also pointed to the verse where Jesus says that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees if we wish to enter the kingdom of heaven. Sproul was saying the same thing Piper is saying - that if we do not produce fruit then we have no faith and we are spiritually dead. So I suppose I stand comfortably with R.C. Sproul and with the majority of the Reformed tradition, as I understand it in agreeing here with Piper.

    Now, this is a serious question as well... Don't you think that if Piper and Sproul were teaching something controversial, we would be hearing cries of "heresy!" from more quarters than just the Clarkians? I mean, maybe you think that all of the Reformed teachers out there are just cowards because they're afraid, but that's a character judgment on virtually everyone in the Reformed world.

    How many people out there are actually crying "heresy!" on Wright, anyway? Most good Reformed teachers that I know of are very troubled about his views, some call it a "trojan horse," but the list of Heresy Decriers is extremely short.
    ReplyDelete
  19. the TR was the only place I ever heard this negative stuff about Fuller or Piper.

    1. As mentioned earlier, Sam Waldron's PhD dissertation was on Daniel Fuller's departure from Sola Fide. The reason you probably haven't heard Fuller mentioned elsewhere is because he is not a popular writer Faith, Obedience, and Justification
    Waldron comments on Piper in that book. I don't have it on me, but I can dig it up and give you the quotes if you're interested.

    You can dig around the journals to find more on Fuller. I think Reymond may have said something in his Systematic about him, but I don't remember for sure. Here's what Fuller said in the Prebeturion:
    "I then had to accept the very drastic conclusion that the antithesis between law and gospel established by Luther, Calvin, and the covenant theologians could no longer stand up under the scrutiny of biblical theology."
    and
    “I would say that Moses was justified by the work, or obedience, of faith..... [There are] many passages in Scripture in which good works are made the instrumental cause of justification.”

    To refresh your memory, Piper says the following about Fuller:

    Daniel Fuller’s vision of the Christian life as an “obedience of faith” is the garden in which the plants of my ponderings have grown. Almost three decades of dialogue on the issues in this book have left a deep imprint. If I tried to show it with foot-notes, they would be on almost every page. His major work, The Unity of the Bible...., is explanatory background to most of what I write

    2. Piper is not as clear (and perhaps not as honest with himself) as Fuller. Because he is not as clear and because he is more popular, people have not spoken out against him as much, though I have heard numerous accounts of theologians speaking to him privately about it, urging him to clarify his view and to reject Fuller. Nowhere has he written any kind of explicit rejection of Fuller, and as he says, his approval of him is in every page he writes.
    ReplyDelete
  20. To say that someone should have a transformed life, if they are really saved, is not the same as saying that someone should have a transformed life so that they CAN be saved.

    The problem is his belief that some future justification is in fact different from our present justification. Piper is not just saying people should have a transformed life. He is saying it is part of our judgment, part of our justification - though you are right, he does not use the word - he believes it is instrumental. Through our good works we are identified with Christ's obedience at the final judgment. That is wrong. It is faith and faith alone that connects us with Christ's obedience and we are connected the moment we believe. There is NOW therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ. This present justification is not just an anticipation/confirmation of a life of good works that will connect us to the righteousness of Christ in some future justification (which is the entire point of Piper's "Future Grace"). Piper teaches that our motivation for good works should be fear of the final judgment, not gratitude for what has already been done. Feel free to read his foreword to "Future Grace" called "To Theologians" in which he explicitly rejects the view of the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms regarding the motivation for our good works.

    I have not heard Sproul's lecture, so I can't really comment on it too much. However I would be shocked to hear that Sproul thinks Matt 5:20 refers to our regenerate good works. That's absurd! If it's true, then you and I are damned because the righteousness Christ goes on to lay out is that anyone who lusts is going to burn in hell! The Pharisees were considered the most righteous in the land, but their obedience was only outward. Christ said the standard we are all held to is higher than that and he proceeds to lay out the spiritual nature of the law's requirements. If that is what Sproul is teaching, then he is just as wrong as Piper.

    Don't you think that if Piper and Sproul were teaching something controversial, we would be hearing cries of "heresy!" from more quarters than just the Clarkians?

    A friend of mine wrote a great blog post recently: Counting Heads

    In addition to that you can read the foreword to "The Current Justification Controversy" in which O Palmer Robertson said he contacted Robbins because the Clarkians were the only ones effectively opposing Norman Shepherd at WTS.
    ReplyDelete
  21. As regards Daniel Fuller, I already said this before, that I am not familiar enough with Fuller to try taking a stand for him.

    From R.C. Sproul's Article The Meaning of God's Will (pt. 3)

    "One of Jesus' most disturbing comments was the statement, "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). It is easy for us to assume that Jesus meant that our righteousness must be of a higher sort than that characterized by men who were hypocrites. The image that we have of scribes and Pharisees from the New Testament period is that of unscrupulous, ruthless practitioners of religious deceit. We must bear in mind, however, that the Pharisees as a group were men historically committed to a very lofty level of righteous living. Yet Jesus tells us that our righteousness must exceed theirs. What did he mean?"

    Later on, Sproul goes further...

    "In justification we become righteous in the sight of God by means of the cloak of Christ's righteousness. However, as soon as we are justified, our lives must give evidence of the personal righteousness that flows out of our justification. It is interesting to me that the whole biblical concept of righteousness is contained in one Greek word, dikaios. That same Greek word is used to refer in the first instance to the righteousness of God; in the second instance, to what we call justification; and in the third instance, to the righteousness of life. Thus, from beginning to end--from the nature of God to the destiny of man--our human duty remains the same--a call to righteousness."

    Sproul, in the context of this article, is arguing that there is more in view in Matt. 5:20 than merely imputed righteousness (though as you can see, like Piper, he says that without Christ's righteousness we cannot live a life that is not self-righteous. You should really read the whole article to get the gist of what he's saying; it's a five-minute read. Regardless, I have heard Sproul say the same elsewhere, though I wish I could remember the lecture where he said it.

    On second thought, just read Chapter 3 (entitled "Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees") of Sproul's book Pleasing God.

    As far as your response to my question as to whether more people would be crying out against Sproul and Piper than just the Clarkians, I don't really think that pointing to Counting Heads is the best response. I mean, the Clarkians are, at best, a marginal group that picks fights with anyone and everyone. The point of Josh's article, Counting Heads was that Christians can be and have been wrong before. Now, I'm not talking about numbers, here; I'm talking about mainstream teachers whose opinions I trust. I want to see some rock solid teachers who are well respected within the Reformed world who are outright condemning John Piper as the heretic that Robbins thought he was. I just don't think you're going to find that outside of circles where people live their life for polemics.
    ReplyDelete
  22. I know you said you weren't familiar with Fuller. That's why I introduced you to him ;-) Whether or not Fuller believes in sola fide is not a matter of debate. Piper's connection to him is not 1:1, but the connection must be understood.

    I affirm what Sproul says here:
    True faith is a faith that manifests itself in righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees and the scribes, for it is concerned with the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy.

    But I disagree if he thinks that is what Jesus is referring to in regards to whether or not we will enter the kingdom of heaven. What is required for entrance into the kingdom of heaven is perfect obedience. Please just consider what Jesus immediately teaches next. He teaches that we are condemned to hell for hate and lust. Nowhere does Jesus say "if you're better than the Pharisees, but not quite as good as mean, then you're ok."

    And I suppose you're right about "Counting Heads." I'm sure Athanasius was not going up against any mainstream teachers whom people trusted.
    ReplyDelete
  23. Brandon,

    How do you understand Hebrews 12:14?
    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for the question Josh. I understand Hebrews 12:14 to be reminding us that being in the presence of the Lord requires perfect holiness.
    ReplyDelete
  25. Brandon,

    From Hebrews 12, where do you get that this is a "perfect holiness"? And, where do we get this perfect holiness, according to Hebrews 12?
    ReplyDelete
  26. What other kind of holiness is there Josh?

    We get this holiness by the grace of God.
    ReplyDelete
  27. Brandon,

    So, I guess by your questions, you are not getting your understanding of holiness in Hebrews 12 from Hebrews 12. Your question is asking a theological question and not a textual question, that is the bases for my understanding of your take on Hebrews 12. However, the verse, taken on its own merits, seems to indicate that this holiness is something that believers are to strive to get and can get, for without it they will not see the Lord. This holiness then, in this context, must be something other than a perfect holiness. Further, I agree that it comes by the grace of God.

    It seems to me that your understanding of this passage is not derived from this passage, but rather is drawn for your over all theology. I would like to see how your understanding of this passage is drawn from Hebrews 12 itself.
    ReplyDelete
  28. Gee, I guess you're right Josh. I'm one of those annoying systematic guys who uses Scripture to interpret Scripture.

    My understanding of 12:14 fits perfectly with what the LBC states:

    32.2 The end of God's appointing this day (judgment), is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the eternal damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient; for then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and glory with everlasting rewards, in the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast aside into everlasting torments, and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

    31.1 The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.

    We do not behold the face of Christ and dwell in the presence of the Lord until we are made perfect in holiness. This glorification occurs after we are declared righteous on the day of judgment. This is in keeping with what Hebrews 12 says (v23).

    Is your understanding of Hebrews 12:14 more in line with John Kinnaird or with those who found him guilty of teaching contrary to the WCF?

    Trial of John O. Kinnaird
    Reasons for the verdict of 1/25/03
    ReplyDelete
  29. Brandon,

    I do get the sarcasm in your comment. Thanks!!!

    To answer your question, my answers is, either, per se. My primary goal is to build my theology from the text not the other way around. In other words, I am trying to exegete Hebrews 12:14 and not eisegete it. I know this is what you want to do, however, thus far, all I have seen is your theology and not your exegesis of the passage.

    Further, as someone who affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith, which the London Baptist Confession was formed from, I agree completely with the passages cited. However, what about Hebrews 12? It seems you are putting this verse into your theology; rather than, putting your theology into this verse. See Calvin on this passage. He states that peace and holiness are things that Christians must pursue in order to be with the Lord. In other words, there must be holiness in Christians that they have to pursue after to see God.

    I would enjoy to see you walk through this section of Hebrews and show me how your understanding is draw from this text.
    ReplyDelete
  30. Holy means holy, it does not mean "sort of holy" or "partly holy" or "closer to holy than the next guy." That's my exegesis.

    There is nothing in my interpretation of Hebrews 12 that is unwarranted from the text, and the best part is it doesn't contradict what the rest of the bible says about justification.

    Hebrews 12 is a discussion and exhortation regarding sanctification, our "struggle against sin" (v4). This process involves God disciplining us so that we may "share his holiness" (v10). So do not be downcast when you are disciplined, but instead be encouraged that God is transforming you into his image to share his holiness because he wants to see you and without this holiness no one will see the Lord. Therefore, hold fast to your faith, for without it you will have no birthright to the inheritance. Look to Mt. Zion and see the "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect" which you have inherited by the blood of the new covenant (v24). Be thankful that you have inherited (through faith) a kingdom that cannot be shaken and because you have been given (note: not in order to receive) this kingdom, worship God with reverence and awe (v28).

    There is nothing in Hebrews 12 that requires us to interpret 12:14 as referring to judgment/justification.
    ReplyDelete
  31. Brandon,

    What have I said that leads you to think that I am putting Hebrews 12:14 in the context of justification?

    Further, can you define the doctrine of sanctification?
    ReplyDelete
  32. Because you are disagreeing with me and because Piper puts it in the context of justification. I would prefer to have you come out and say what you think the verse means so as to avoid further confusion.

    As for sanctification, let's go with: a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives. or: the work of Christ in us.
    ReplyDelete
  33. Brandon,

    The reason for the questions is I want to make sure I understand where you are coming from before I interact with you fully. But I will oblige and state what I think the passage is saying.

    Hebrews 12:14 is teaching that without sanctification a person will not enter heaven. In other words, a person must grow in holiness in this life in order to get in to heaven. This holiness is in no way the ground or the reason we are let into glory, that is Christ's righteousness alone. Rather, it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

    As to your point about holiness, you defined sanctification as "a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives." Is Christ holy? If he is, aren't we growing in holiness when we grow in his likeness? Further, the Greek word used in this passage for holiness (ἁγιασμός) is the noun from of the verb (ἁγιάζω), which means to sanctify or make holy. Thus, sanctification means to make holy. Since, as we both agree, sanctification is a posses, it is possible to be, in your words,"partly holy." As I die to sin and am made alive to Christ, I become more and more holy. Without this holiness, according to Hebrews 12:14, I will not see the Lord.
    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you for clarifying Josh.

    Rather, it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

    Which, again, makes our works the instrumental cause of our justification. We will not be justified without or apart from our good works, though those works are insufficient to save on their own. I simply do not understand how your view could mean anything else. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

    It seems the problem stems, in part, from a view that the final judgment is somehow different than our current justification. We are justified the moment we believe and it is through our faith alone apart from any sanctification. Our current justification is "the divine verdict of the Eschaton being brought forward into the present time and rendered here and now concerning the believing sinner. By God's act of justifying the sinner through faith in Christ, the sinner, as it were, has been brought, 'before the time,' to the Final Assize and has already passed successfully through it, having been acquitted of any and all charges brought against him!" (Reymond, ST, 743).

    If we are justified the moment we believe, before we have progressed in sanctification and before we have done any regenerate good works, then how can you say our sanctification is a necessary condition for justification? Or do you somehow believe that justification is not what determines if we will be "let into heaven"?

    In regards to holiness. Yes, because our sanctification is a process, it is possible to be more holy or less holy, but only in the sense that you are closer or further from holiness, which is an objective standard, not a sliding scale. Our sanctification does not consist of stacking up units of holiness, as you describe it. James says "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." It's all or nothing.

    But tell me this Josh, if holiness is not an objective standard, then how are we to determine if we are holy enough to enter heaven? Should I compare my thoughts and actions today with my thoughts and actions yesterday? If they are better, then I can get into heaven, but if not, I'm going to hell? Or should I compare myself to others like the Pharisee in Lk18? If the standard is not objective, how can I measure myself by it?
    ReplyDelete
  35. Brandon,

    You said, "It seems the problem stems, in part, from a view that the final judgment is somehow different than our current justification. We are justified the moment we believe and it is through our faith alone apart from any sanctification."

    I agree completely. What have I said that contradicts this? Or leads you to think I would say otherwise?

    You said, "If we are justified the moment we believe, before we have progressed in sanctification and before we have done any regenerate good works, then how can you say our sanctification is a necessary condition for justification?"

    I have never said "sanctification is a necessary condition for justification." In fact, I would say the opposite. Let me say this clearly, unequivocally and without qualification, we are justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law, on the bases of the finished work of Christ alone.

    You said, "Our sanctification does not consist of stacking up units of holiness, as you describe it. James says "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." It's all or nothing."

    Where did I say "sanctification...consist of stacking up units of holiness?" Further, the passage you cite from James is in the context of justification, not sanctification. Thus, in order to be justified we must has a perfect righteousness (holiness), but this is not the same for sanctification. We have to do good works, by the Spirit, as part of sanctification.

    I think the fundamental confusing between us is this; I am saying that sanctification must of necessity follow justification. If it does not follow then you are not justified. Thus, a justified person will, by a work of God's grace, have the holiness spoken of in Hebrews 12:14. Without this holiness no one will see the Lord (btw, I am still unclear how you take this phrase from Hebrews). It seems to me you are saying that a person can be justified and then there life can be lived any way and still enter heaven. My point is that the Bible knows of no such person. There are only two groups: 1) justified people who are growing in holiness (being sanctified) and 2) unjustified people growing in unholiness. There is not a third group of people who are justified who are not being sanctified.
    ReplyDelete
  36. Yes, sanctification will follow justification, absolutely. But it is irrelevant to whether or not someone will enter heaven. Agreed?
    ReplyDelete
  37. Brandon,

    I disagree. Here is what I perceive to be the problem. Please correct me if I am wrong. You seem to think that all that is need to enter heaven is justification. Where as I think that someone needs the entire ordo salutis. In other words, the Bible teaches that in order to enter heaven a person must be saved. Salvation is more than justification. It includes justification, but salvation is a bigger and more comprehensive category than justification. That is why theologians have the order of salvation. I would argue with most Reformed theologians that a person must have all the benefits of Christ in order to enter heaven. So, for example, I would argue that a person who is not glorified cannot enter heaven; or a person who is not adopted cannot enter heave; or a person who is not sanctified cannot enter heaven.

    Now, to be clear. God is the one who works out all the distinct benefits of Christ in us. Thus, a person who God begins to save, will end up saved. That is to say, if a person is called by God, God will justify them and sanctification them and work all the other benefits of Christ in them.

    One final argument, it seems, from the Scriptures, that a person must be resurrected from the dead to spend eternity with God. Thus, more than justification is needed to be with God forever. My fear is that you are collapsing all of salvation into one of the parts of salvation, namely justification. And I know your fear is that I am somehow sneaking works into justification. However, Reformed Theology has affirmed what I am saying yet they are the ones who have fought so hard, as I do, for sola fide.
    ReplyDelete
  38. Do you believe that there is a final judgment, at which point we are declared to be righteous by Christ's righteousness alone through faith in His righteousness alone, but that after this final judgment there is another judgment of the works we have done in the Spirit?
    ReplyDelete
  39. Brandon,

    I do believe "that there is a final judgment, at which point we are declared to be righteous by Christ's righteousness alone through faith in His righteousness alone." However, I also believe that this final judgment will be done in accordance with the works we do in this life. This is standard Reformed Theology I am giving you. The works we do are in no way the ground or instrument for the final judgment. Rather they are the fruit of it. Further, I do not believe that "after this final judgment there is another judgment of the works we have done in the Spirit." Rather, I think these are one and the same judgment with faith works and Christ's righteousness having a different function.

    What did you think about my last comments on the ordo salutis and the like? Is my understanding of your view right? Am I characterizing you properly?
    ReplyDelete
  40. I'll answer your question momentarily, but please indulge one more question from me.

    Rather, I think these are one and the same judgment with faith works and Christ's righteousness having a different function.

    What exact function do these works play? Piper says they are brought forward as evidence before God of our union with Christ. Do you agree? Do you believe that when we stand before God we should present to Him the works we have done in order to prove that we have faith in Christ?
    ReplyDelete
  41. Brandon,

    As has been said all along, by both Piper and myself, our works function as the evidence to our faith. The evidence are not necessarily set before God, but are set before the world to prove that we are indeed with God.
    ReplyDelete
  42. So if we can't prove to the world that we're "with God" then we can't get into heaven?
    ReplyDelete
  43. And furthermore, to clarify, you believe that someone can be counted perfectly righteous, not have any sin counted against them, and yet not be granted entrance to heaven? On what grounds can they be barred? On account of sin?
    ReplyDelete
  44. Brandon, this clarification seems unnecessary, considering that Josh has, ad infinitum, explained to you repeatedly that a person does not gain entrance to heaven by their works.

    A person who has no works was already, as James says, someone who had a said faith rather than a real faith. What is so controversial about this? I thought this was gospel 101. Suddenly to read "Faith without works is dead" makes you an RC!
    ReplyDelete
  45. No, Adam, he has not. In fact, he has said our good works our a necessary condition for us to enter heaven and he has also said that the justification that we receive through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone is insufficient to enter heaven. So no, Adam, my question is not unnecessary.

    A person who has no works was already, as James says, someone who had a said faith rather than a real faith. What is so controversial about this? I thought this was gospel 101. Suddenly to read "Faith without works is dead" makes you an RC!

    If you believe James 2 is referring to our justification before God, then yes, you are a Roman Catholic.
    ReplyDelete
  46. Brandon,

    You asked me if I "believe that someone can be counted perfectly righteous, not have any sin counted against them, and yet not be granted entrance to heaven?" The answer, which I have stated about three times now, is no.

    One more time (and last time), if a person is justification (i.e. "counted perfectly righteous, not have any sin counted against them") then by necessity, without fail, they will be sanctified. In other words, there will never be such a person as you described.

    Further, many within the Reformed Faith take James 2 as justification before God (I don't), but many do. Just listen to our recent Christ the Center with Tom Schreiner. You, like your mentors Clark and Robins, draw the circle of who is Reformed way too small.

    Now, you said awhile back that you have one more question and then you would get to mine, so here are my questions.

    What do you think about the following?

    One final argument, you seem to think that the only thing need to enter heaven is justification (as if the rest of salvation is superfluous), is this right? However it seems, from the Scriptures, that a person must be resurrected from the dead to spend eternity with God. Thus, more than justification is needed to be with God forever. My fear is that you are collapsing all of salvation into one of the parts of salvation, namely justification. And I know your fear is that I am somehow sneaking works into justification. However, Reformed Theology has affirmed what I am saying (as Adam said Gospel 101) yet they are the ones who have fought so hard, as I do, for sola fide.
    ReplyDelete
  47. Sorry it took me so long to respond, I've been rather busy.

    1) No I do not think that our sanctification is superfluous and I'm tired of people pulling that card. That's not what the discussion is about. Anyone who is justified will absolutely manifest their faith in a changed life of obedience. But that changed life is never a determining factor in whether or not they will go to heaven or hell. Only their faith will and their obedience is irrelevant to that question.

    2) A person must be resurrected from the dead to spend eternity with God? I do not believe so:

    LBC 31.1._____ The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
    ( Genesis 3:19; Acts 13:36; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:1, 6,8; Philippians 1:23; Hebrews 12:23; Jude 6, 7; 1 Peter 3:19; Luke 16:23, 24 )

    Yes, our bodies are resurrected, but before they are resurrected we are already in paradise, in the presence of God, and that before the final day of judgment when our works supposedly determine if we will go to heaven or hell.

    3) Yes, you are sneaking works into justification. You are making them the instrumental cause of justification. I am certain that this is just confusion on your part, rather than intentional. And I believe that part of this confusion seems to stem from what exactly you think justification is.

    Do you believe that justification = the conclusion of the final judgment? In other words, is the declaration or the decision by the judge at the final judgment what we refer to as justification, or is justification something different?
    ReplyDelete
  48. Http://www.grebeweb.com/linden/Venema_on_Lillback%27s_Binding_of_God.htm

    Venema on Lillback: Venemas central critique is Lillbakc's confusion of justification and sanctification which reads good works as necessary for final justification.
    ReplyDelete
  49. Kyle,

    Thanks for the link. Glad you are reading the blog and adding to the discussion.

    In the article Venema states, "Though Calvin nowhere countenanced the idea of 'merit' in his covenant theology, he did insist upon the necessity of good works, and of a 'subordinate and 'inherent righteousness as an indispensable and instrumental cause of salvation." He does not give a page number here, so I am not use if these are direct quotes of Lillback. Further, the troubling phrase, "instrumental cause of salvation" is not in quotes and thus I am not sure if Lillback used these words.

    However, regardless if Lillback used these words or not, I do no think that good words are an "instrumental cause of salvation." Rather they are simple the necessary evidence of salvation.

    As Venema points out himself in giving Luther's view that Luther stressed, "the necessity of good works as an inevitable fruit of a living faith." Venema goes on assert, "Lillback’s presentation gives the distinct impression that Luther was “antinomian” in his formulation of the doctrine of justification, because he excluded altogether works performed in obedience to the law from his doctrine of justification." Venema himself says that antinomianism is removing works performed in obedience to the law from justification, in some sense. Again not as the instrument or ground, but as the fruit.

    Finally, Venema seems to be making the very point I have been arguing for this whole time in the comment section of this post when he states, "The fact is, however, that Calvin was every bit as emphatic as Luther about the distinction between law and gospel, when the question concerned the ground or basis for the believer’s justification" (emphasis original). And again Venema makes my point when he states, "Rather, his [Calvin's] point is simply that the faith that alone justifies is never an alone faith; it is a faith granted to believers by the Spirit of sanctification who always renews those in whom he dwells" (emphasis mine).

    Thus, I would agree fully with Venema that works done in obedience to the law are never the ground of our justification (now or the final judgement). And with Venema I would agree that one who is justified must be sanctified.
    ReplyDelete
  50. Josh, let's please be honest. It doesn't help any of us if we're not. This discussion is not about whether or not a person will bear fruit (as I have already said multiple times). This discussion is about whether or not their entrance into heaven is conditioned upon or determined by their obedience. It is not.

    Kyle, I would recommend comparing Piper's view with John Kinnaird's view.

    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php

    particularly:
    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/RasonsfortheVerdictbytheInterimSession.pdf
    ReplyDelete
  51. Brandon,

    I was trying to be honest. But as I see it your failure to distinguish between "conditioned upon" and "determined by" is the issue. However, to be clear, I would not affirm either of those as they stand. But the first is clearly not my view. I have repeatedly stated that neither justification nor salvation are conditioned upon or based upon our good works. In a very narrow and strict sense I could agree with ""determined by," but I would never use that to describe my view. The phrase that I have used, and will continue to use is that good works are the "necessary evidence" of faith.

    If you can agree with that phrase, then we agree, for the term "necessary" means required to be there. Thus, good works must be present by a saved person on the last day. This is the only point for which I am laboring to guard. I am trying to protect the gospel from antinomianism.
    ReplyDelete
  52. Rome tries to "protect the Gospel from antinomianism" too, as did Paul's opponents. The correct way to protect against antinomianism to to have a proper understanding of the law of God, not to make our "final salvation" determined by our works.

    Thus, good works must be present by a saved person on the last day.

    If they have saving faith, they will also have good work to show on the last day (unless they die first, like the thief on the cross - which is a problem for Piper's view). But that good work will be completely irrelevant in determining if they go to heaven or hell (contra Piper).
    ReplyDelete
  53. Brandon,

    Speaking of being honest, anyone who has followed this discussion will know that I am not advocating the Roman Catholic view of justification or of the final judgment. Your failure to grasp my distinction between evidence and ground is the only thing that could lead you to link me with a Roman Catholic view.
    ReplyDelete
  54. Josh, I never said you did. Stop raising red herrings.
    ReplyDelete
  55. Josh, my problem with the way you are presenting this... Is the unnecessary confusion between the indicative and imparitive. But there has always been a difference in this regard between the Reformed and the Presbyterians.

    Anyway... I've appreciated this discussion! Thanks! But I should study more before I say anything else!
    ReplyDelete
  56. Brandon,

    I followed this conversation when it first began. In all honesty, I find it odd that you deny casting Josh in a RC shadow especially since you are the one who keeps bringing it up. This would be akin to a baptist denouncing paedobaptism because Rome does it too. "Rome baptizes babies, you don't want to be like Rome do you?" It would not be a a red herring for the paedo defender to say, "I'm not advocating the Roman church." The only reason that you have to throw Rome around would be to link or insinuate Josh with Rome.

    If no one is advocating Roman Catholicism then why bring it up so often? Yes we know Rome has some bad mojo. We get it. But when Adam quotes James, your immediate response is "If you believe James 2 is referring to our justification before God, then yes, you are a Roman Catholic." Believe it or not the gospel is not at stake on this blog so we can relax a little bit.


    Meanwhile Calvin speaks to what Josh is getting at:

    Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them,they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ.Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.
    -Institutes 3.16.1

    It seems like a heap of waste for Christ to be our sanctification if it is as irrelevant as you claim.

    Peace,
    Faris
    ReplyDelete
  57. Kyle,

    Thanks for commenting again. Could you explain what you mean by this "the unnecessary confusion between the indicative and imparitive." I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you could illustrate where and how I am doing this. But as it stands I am not even sure what you mean.
    ReplyDelete
  58. Faris, you should have read more carefully then. You can read my comment here where I make it quite explicit that I do not believe Josh/Piper are saying the same thing as Rome:
    http://www.bringthebooks.org/2009/08/if-you-are-late-to-discussion.html?showComment=1251767024426#c6237770864155721696

    If you want me to be explicit again: I do not believe Josh is teaching the same thing as Rome. So, again, stop distracting from the discussion. The reason I mentioned Rome a couple of comments ago was to point out that there is a wrong way and a right way to guard against antinomianism. The correct way to guard against antinomianism is to have a proper understanding of God's law - not to make our good works play a determining role in whether or not we will go to heaven. Both Rome and Piper make our good works play a determining role - though they do so differently.

    Believe it or not the gospel is not at stake on this blog so we can relax a little bit.

    That's certainly a matter of opinion. I don't believe that Josh or Piper deny the gospel, but I do think they are very confused and I do believe their views are in conflict with the gospel - so they need to get it sorted out.

    And I'm going to go punch a teddy bear if one more person tries to say this is a discussion about whether or not a saved person will manifest works. Get it through your head: That is not what this discussion is about!!!!!!!

    It seems like a heap of waste for Christ to be our sanctification if it is as irrelevant as you claim.

    It is irrelevant TO JUDGMENT!!! Is it really that hard to understand?!

    This discussion is about the final judgment. Josh has not answered my question that is at the heart of this discussion: Is justification ("present" justification to use Piper's erroneous term) the same thing as the verdict rendered at the final judgment?

    Do you agree with Reymond when he says: “Justification possesses an eschatological dimension, for it amounts to the divine verdict of the Eschaton being brought forward into the present time and rendered here and now concerning the believing sinner.” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p743)?
    ReplyDelete
  59. Brandon,

    I know I'm late to this conversation, but I think that you are, in the case of the Piper/Fuller link, oversimplifying, and, in the case of commenting on the description of Piper's view in Christianity Today, just not clear.

    First, I don't want to in any way impugn your view of justification or sanctification. From my reading of these posts, both you and Josh and Adam seem to be making biblical statements about those. You difference is in your understanding of Piper.

    Second, trying to tie Piper or anyone else to Fuller just because they appreciate some part of his writing is not possible. Fuller is almost schizophrenic in his statements on this area of theology as well as several others, including inerrancy. He has gone back and forth on so many issues for so long that it would be hard to point to anyone who agreed with him and figure out just what part they're talking about. Even Piper's comments that are fairly specific are not specific enough to castigate him about. If it was clear that he was in agreement with Fuller on some of his bad theology then people would not be asking for him to clarify his statements about Fuller, they would be asking him to recant. He has never been completely clear about his areas of agreement and disagreement with Fuller. He probably should be more clear, but I'm sure some of this is clouded by personal relationship. As sad as that is, it's not the only place, either among today's theologians, or in the history of Christian theology, that this is the case.

    Finally, with regard to your statements about Piper's view of sanctification, I don't think you are clearly stating either what Piper believes, or what Christianity Today says that he believes. Here is the quote:

    This final judgment accords with our works. (In this statement Piper does not say that God uses our works to evaluate the evidence. Only that God's judgement/evaluation will be in accord with our works)
    That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ.(Again, he doesn't say that God will use this as evidence that he will judge by, only that our works will be presented before God as evidence of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives. I think the rest of the statement about Piper's view makes clear that God will judge solely on the basis of works.)
    Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation. (He is not saying there will be no future salvation because God will count our works for our salvation, but that we cannot possess justification without sanctification. I think this is clearly seen in the Calvin quote that Faris gave us.)
    ReplyDelete
  60. Brandon,

    I do agree with the Reymond quote, but I do not think it says everything about eschatological justification and final salvation.
    ReplyDelete
  61. Joshua,

    Thanks for your comments, but just so you know, you just killed my wife's teddy bear.

    I appreciate your word of caution regarding Fuller. I have not read his work, and some of the more important things are in journal articles unavailable to me, thus I am left guessing what Piper means when he says if he had to document Fuller's influence, it would be a footnote on every single page.

    My point was not to attempt guilt by association. I recognize that there are differences between the two. My point was to demonstrate that if Piper's views end up unintentionally making faith and works the instrumental causes of justification it is understandable because that is what his "most influential teacher" believes and teaches.

    That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ.(Again, he doesn't say that God will use this as evidence that he will judge by, only that our works will be presented before God as evidence of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives. I think the rest of the statement about Piper's view makes clear that God will judge solely on the basis of works.)

    What does it mean for evidence to be brought forward in a courtroom? It means it is being judged. And that's what Piper means. If you believe he means something else, don't just give me your interpretation, give me quotes from Piper that demonstrate so. Piper believes God will judge our works in order to determine if we are Christians. Piper is explicit in this. Our works are judged on the last day to determine if we are going to heaven (and yes, I know, for the hundredth time, not on the basis of our works, but on the basis of Christ's work).

    Piper explicitly disagrees with your interpretation of Piper:
    "Fourth, when we stand before Christ we will be judged according to our deeds in this life. 'For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor 5:10). [he also cites Matt 16:27 and Rev 22:12]... Is the aim of this judgment to declare who is lost and who is saved, according to the works done in the body? Or is the aim of this judgment to declare the measure of your reward in the age to come according to the works done in body? The answer of the New Testament, if you interpret carefully, is: both. Our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come." (Future Grace p363)
    --
    I think the rest of the statement about Piper's view makes clear that God will judge solely on the basis of works.

    I assume that is a typo?

    (He is not saying there will be no future salvation because God will count our works for our salvation, but that we cannot possess justification without sanctification.

    That's when I murdered the teddy bear. It's unbelievably annoying that we can't get passed this.
    ReplyDelete
  62. I do agree with the Reymond quote, but I do not think it says everything about eschatological justification and final salvation.

    Elaborate.
    ReplyDelete
  63. Brandon,

    I agree with everything that Reymond says about the future justification. But I think that what happens on the last day is more that just declaring the just to be just. For example, I think that rewards will be given to believers.
    ReplyDelete
  64. Piper....pew.

    He says nothing different that NT Wright. I have his book only to refute it in my dissertation.

    Sadly, his recent sitdown with tricky ricky warren shows how much of a fake he is.
    ReplyDelete
  65. "Nothing different"? Even if you disagree with what Piper says in his book, the fact that he wrote that book in DISAGREEING with Wright shows that you're using some pretty hyperbolic and overblown rhetoric, Nancy. I can't defend anything and everything Piper has said, but you and I both know that the statement "he says nothing different than NT Wright" is wrong - I would almost be tempted to say slanderous.
    ReplyDelete

Think hard about this: the world is watching!

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)