Interpretive Questions From a Visitor on Justification: Part 2
Dear visitor,
Your follow-up “questions” are copied below but I have decided to cut to the quick on this one. Along with another event that has transpired while working on the upcoming book, your correspondence has incited me to go ahead and address an issue regarding New Calvinism that I was going to address in the next volume.
Not only is New Calvinism the doctrine of the Australian Forum (COG), but Brinsmead’s doctrine was Reformed theology mixed with SDA theology; primarily, the Investigative Judgment. This taught that Justification had to be ongoing or God’s declaration that we are just is mere legal fiction. For years, SDA followers were in bondage to a system that required them to be fit for an upcoming judgment and found just according to the standard of the law.
After being influenced by an Anglican named Geoffrey Paxton, Brinsmead started the “Awakening” movement which taught that we stand in the judgment clothed with the righteousness of Christ and not our own. This was truly good news to the SDA folks. Only problem is, Christians don’t look toward a judgment, we have already been declared righteous; we look for glorification. However, your same concern with an ongoing justification can be seen clearly in your questions. The Forum’s COG (centrality of the objective gospel), like SDA theology, taught that sanctification was an ongoing higher state of justification, a progressive justification—just as New Calvinism teaches.
Therefore, I reject the premise of your questions and the either/or hermeneutic that is a necessity to employ because of your aforementioned views. This can be seen in the following statement:
“You don’t seem to like the idea of either/or but isn’t it true that we are either completely justified by God’s work of redemption or at least partially by our works?”
Note that you consider our work in sanctification/regeneration as a justification issue. But according to orthodox Christianity, our work in sanctification has nothing to do with obtaining justification—that’s a once and for all-time done deal. Therefore, SDA influence can be clearly seen in COG theology and New Calvinism as well.
Furthermore, like the Forum, New Calvinism has a problem with infused righteousness/grace because that is seen as saying God enables us to participate in being justified. Again, a false concept of progressive justification and the synthesis of justification and sanctification is in view here. But clearly, based on 1John 3:9, there is an infusion of righteousness:
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.”
God’s righteous seed is not only in us, but it results in a new birth. Why this does not result in a perfect righteousness in the here and now can be ascertained by examining 1John as a whole and John 13.
Moreover, your condescending and subtle form of abuse can be seen in your correspondence as well, and is a primary reason that I am devoted to “The Truth About New Calvinism.” New Calvinist elders perpetrate this type of abuse (and worse) on parishioners daily. News of it is reported to this ministry often.
paul
Thank you for your answers to these questions, I hope you don’t mind if I ask a few more questions prompted by your answers. On question #1, you are correct. This is directly related to limited atonement thought I would prefer to refer to this doctrine as definite atonement or particular redemption. I am not sure why you don’t know know how to answer the question. It seems to me, Jesus either accomplished redemption, justification, propitiation, and reconciliation for his elect people or he didn’t. My question to you is whether there is an objective accomplishment of those works or not? Perhaps a better way to ask the question is do the Scriptures refer to that work as an accomplishment or a mere provision for anyone who might take advantage of it by faith but that didn’t accomplish these blessings for anyone in particular?
I agree that the Father and the Spirit cannot be excluded when we talk about the work of redemption but Jesus is the redeemer in terms of his sacrifice. Given that no sinner will be justified apart from faith, my question is whether that faith, even faith given by God, forms any part of the basis of the sinner’s justification.
You speak of God granting us faith but what relation does that gift have to the work of regeneration?
You seem to say that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is difficult to find in Scripture. Is that really what you intended to say?
You don’t seem to like the idea of either/or but isn’t it true that we are either completely justified by God’s work of redemption or at least partially by our works?
I hope you understand what I am asking. Thank you again for your answers.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Lydia,
I don’t know the answer to your question. I believe you are right; we should press on reaching for the goal. In my years in the pastorate I have tried to always keep two views of the church in mind. One was the church I was called to minister to, the church as it is with all its warts and blemishes. The other was the church as God will finally make it, the church without spot or blemish or any such thing. Under the best of circumstances, we must now deal with the fact that the enemy will sow weeds among the wheat. Additionally, even the wheat is not yet in a glorified state. That doesn’t mean we don’t still keep pressing toward the mark, It simply means we can’t expect perfection in people who aren’t perfect yet. This is why Jesus taught about forgiveness.
LikeLike
“I don’t know the answer to your question. I believe you are right; we should press on reaching for the goal. In my years in the pastorate I have tried to always keep two views of the church in mind. One was the church I was called to minister to, the church as it is with all its warts and blemishes. The other was the church as God will finally make it, the church without spot or blemish or any such thing. Under the best of circumstances, we must now deal with the fact that the enemy will sow weeds among the wheat. Additionally, even the wheat is not yet in a glorified state. That doesn’t mean we don’t still keep pressing toward the mark, It simply means we can’t expect perfection in people who aren’t perfect yet. This is why Jesus taught about forgiveness”
The bible does say you are allowed to admonish people. Forgiving a pedophile is not going to stop it. I keep thinking of all those pastors across SGM that told the victims to forgive the member who molested their kid. In one story, the pastors said to the parents of a 3 year old who had been molested by a 16 year old that they “had to opportunity to forgive today! Oh, and don’t call the police he was just experimenting. Chrsitians should handle this inhouse. And if you tell others you are gossiping”. He is sorry so forgive him.
(Gee nevermind the Holy Spirit is NOT present in one molesting kids! Seems they did not think of that)
This is where this sort of lawlessness thinking leads us. Yes, I used a serious example but it starts somewhere and it sartarts with the fact that many are teaching error about sanctification.
LikeLike