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 
Paul,
You wrote: “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.”
Do you spell Paranoid with an upper case or a lower case P? How can you find abuse and condescension in these questions? They were just questions and you have failed to answer any of them. I would simply like to know if you believe we are justified right now as believers only by Christ’s righteousness imputed to us or partly by our works, even our works enabled by the infused grace of God. It is a simple question. All I am looking for is a simple answer.
LikeLike
Sure, but before I do, list all of your Scripture references for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us for justification here:
LikeLike
Quoted from above:
“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.”
Good point, the Bible presents our status in this life as “being transformed.”
2 Corinthians 3:18
And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are BEING TRANSFORMED into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Obviously, the apostle Paul didn’t claim perfection:
Philippians 3:12
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
In my opinion, there’s lots of symbolizm for infusion. If the Spirit is represented by water and pouring. The pouring out of the Spirit is accompanied by GRACE, FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE from NOTICE – both God, the Father and God, the Son and through the Holy Spirit. We see all Three members of the Trinity involved because they are “One” (One God) in the operations of our salvation.
Acts 10:45
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.
1 Timothy 1:14
The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the FAITH and LOVE that are in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 6:23
Peace to the brothers and sisters, and LOVE with FAITH FROM God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
GRACE, FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE, these are things that move us. God’s instruments as He works in us comforming us to His will. We should be GROWING in Grace, Faith, Hope, and Love. Our very obedience comes from a source, that source is Faith. We are called to “the obedience that comes from faith.” The faith that has been poured/infused into our hearts.
Romans 1:5
Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to THE OBEDIENCE THAT COMES FROM FAITH for his name’s sake.
Apparently, God does not want us to be finally condemned with the world. Sin is the thing that disqualifies and condemns us from the promises of God. What has He promised?….. Eternal Life!
1 Corinthians 11:32
Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Perhaps, it would be good if you and I decided on an acceptable definition for “impute.” Several have been given. For example, In his “Explanation of Biblical Terms,” Cruden has defined “impute” as follows, “1. Freely to account or ascribe to a person that which he himself hath not, or did not. 2. To lay to one’s charge, 3. To be held guilty. Similarly, Charles Buck wrote, in “Buck’s Theological Dictionary,” “Imputation is the attributing any matter, quality, or character, whether good or evil, to any person as his own.” A. A. Hodge, wrote, ” ‘Imputation’ is the charging or crediting to one’s account as the ground of judicial treatment.” Let me know if you have difficulty with these definitions.
Perhaps, the first question should be whether Jesus died under the penalty of his personal sins, or did he “bear our sins in his own body on the tree, . . . “?
Secondly, Was Adam’s transgression put to the account of his offspring? Is the death of those who lived between Adam and Moses to be attributed to their personal sins or to the sin of Adam? Paul wrote, “(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” (Rom 5:13-14). If sin is not imputed where there is not law, why did these die? Paul’s argument seems to be that they died because of Adam’s transgression [transgression being the operative word]. If this is true, in what sense is Adam the type or figure of Christ if not that he stood as the representative head of his posterity? Is this not what the “the one” and “the many” terminology refers to?
Were the sins of believers laid on Jesus? Isa. 53:6 seems to indicate they were. See also verse 11. Was he treated as if he were a sinner [2 Cor. 5:21] under God’s wrath so that he satisfied that wrath for his people? Romans 3:25 seems to indicate that he was. In fact, did not Jesus’ redemptive work vindicate God’s justice in passing over without punishment those sins committed prior to the cross Rom. 3:25-26)? In this case, had not God put to their account a righteousness that was not theirs as the basis of declaring them righteous in his sight?
Did Jesus redeem believers from the curse of the law being made a curse for us? And, did he do that so that the blessings of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. . . ? Gal. 3. Was that a curse we deserved and was it gratuitously put to his account? Were the blessings of Abraham blessings we deserved or were they put gratuitously put to our account?
When Paul wrote, “being justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3: 24), does he not mean that there was no cause of justification in us but that the entire cause of our justification was in Christ and through his redeeming work?
Paul, in Romans 4:23-25 and talks about God imputing righteousness to Abraham, then writes that God said this not for Abraham’s sake alone but also for the sake of those about to be justified. There seems to be a clear connection with the last verse of the chapter, “He [Jesus] was handed over because of our trespasses and was raised for the sake of our justification.” That is substitution and substitution involves imputation.
I could go on, but one shouldn’t have to when conversing with another professed believer. This should be one of those truths most assuredly believed among us. Apart from it, we have no gospel to preach.
LikeLike
Uh, there are specific verses everywhere about being justified by faith and righteousness being credited to our account because of faith, etc., so since you dissed me for saying that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was a difficult case to make (especially the imputation of His obedience), where are all the like specific verses that say that?
LikeLike
If you can’t see them in the above verses, you aren’t going to see them anywhere. What do you think righteousness being credited to our account means if it doesn’t mean righteousness is imputed to our account. Credited, accounted, imputed all mean the same thing.
Where are the verses that teach the doctrine of the Trinity? You can’t point to any that specifically teach the doctrine of the Trinity but the truth is clearly taught in the Bible.
And I didn’t diss you at all. You must really be sensitive. And are you going to try to answer my questions now?
LikeLike
There are a number of places in the Pauline Epistles where the phrase, “the faith of Christ” has been translated as an objective genitive [faith of which Christ is the object or faith in Christ] in which a case can be made for taking the genitive as subjective [the faith or faithfulness of Christ]. This would refer to Christ’s faithfulness to his covenant obligations under the Law. He magnified the law and made it honorable. It is this covenant faithfulness that forms the active obedience of Christ, the imputed basis of the believer’s justification.
One example: Gal 2:16 16“knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” We have believed in Christ that we might be justified by the faithfulness of Christ.
LikeLike
This still doesn’t say that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us.
LikeLike
The case for the imputation of Christ’s obedient life can’t be made.
LikeLike
It was His death, He is righteous by virtue of who He is.
LikeLike
So, does God not accept us in his sight as having obeyed his law, though we have not obeyed perfectly, inwardly and continually as the law demands? If he does accept us as obedient (righteous before the law) on what basis does he do so? What does Paul mean when he writes, “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? (2 Cor 5:21)?
LikeLike
Like I said before, see 1John.
LikeLike
Paul,
You wrote, “Note that you consider our work in sanctification/regeneration as a justification issue.” That is not my view at all. I don’t see how you could read that into my question.
LikeLike
One must use logical thought when interpreting the Scriptures. Clearly, we do that in seeking to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, If we had to point to a specific verse in which this term is found or even a verse of verses in which this doctrine is set forth in a succinct one verse proof text, we would be lost. Yet, we have a multitude of verses that when taken together and theologically understood form a clear basis for that biblical teaching. The same is true of the biblical teaching of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers.
LikeLike
By the way, let me know if you never intend to attempt an answer to any of my “questions” [I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to put that in quotes], just let me know and I will not waste anymore time raising what I believe to be important issues relative to the purity of the gospel.
LikeLike
Below, a few examples of verses about the acts of the saints that don’t seem to fit the Imputed Righteousness of Christ Alone outside of us. Whatever God wants to call the act, that’s what it is. To insert the Imputed Righteousness of Christ Alone outside of us into all the hundreds of verses about righteousness is a round peg in the square hole.
James 2:21
Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
1 John 3:7 The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.
1 John 3:12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.
Psalm 106:30
But Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was checked.
31 This was credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come.
Revelation 19:7
For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike