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 
Isn’t it interesting how New Testament writers proclaim the righteous acts and unrighteous acts of people throughout Scripture, even going all the way back to Cain and Abel. No question, it’s easy, right and wrong, good guy or bad guy, an issue of charactor and behavior throughtout the Bible. Some people obey, and others don’t. We can never completely throw out -“You will know them by their fruits.” If God has glasses on and only sees the imputed, perfect righteousness of Christ outside of me, why is He telling me to confess my sins when I do unrighteousness? Why are we disciplined by Him? Why is good behavior of “great value” in His sight?
Apparently, the Imputed Righteousness concept requires much reading into the Scripture texts. Many have pointed to a recent origin of the theory. Here’s one, he’s not a loner:
The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations by Robert Horton Gundry
“Besides, though an imputation of Christ’s righteousness made entry into the Protestant doctrine of justification at an early date, the earlier – and therefore most traditional – version of that Protestant doctrine did not include such an imputation.”
If Imputation is so important, was the church “Apostate” for 1500 years before the Reformation? Where are the commentaries about it? Shouldn’t this cause us to question and research things for ourselves?
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
What I see is that anonymous is again intertwining justification and sanctification. My test is the ignorant peasant test for understanding since my cousin was a missionary to mountain peasants in Romania for 20 years. What anonymous is saying does not pass the ignorant peasant test. It is really not this hard to understand.
I am starting to wonder why NC’ers bother to read the Epistles with all their admonitions, instructions and even pleading by Paul to do or not do certain things. Why bother if Christ obeys for us after we are Justified?
LikeLike
God NEVER imputed sin to Himself. Nor did Christ, the second person of the Trinity, fall short of the glory of God by the imputation of sin. God is “The Holy One,” and “The Thrice Holy” God at the same time, eternally and unchangeably. The Eternal Unity of the Godhead has never, ever, been broken by sin. Sin, by definition, is an offence against God. God hates sin. Sin separates from God. God does not offend Himself, as though He were confused. Nor do the three divine persons separate. God the Father did not hate Jesus Christ, His only son, because of sin. God cannot sin, that’s why we call Him God!
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
As I discuss in the book, once folks are hell-bent to believe a particular system, the endeavor to make it work with the rest of Scripture can get pretty crazy. My prayer is that when the newest thing causes someone pause–they have a place to go in order to back-up and get the whole story. And trust me, things will continue to get crazier. I still predict weekly re-baptisms. Stay tuned.
LikeLike
‘God NEVER imputed sin to Himself. Nor did Christ, the second person of the Trinity, fall short of the glory of God by the imputation of sin. God is “The Holy One,” and “The Thrice Holy” God at the same time, eternally and unchangeably. The Eternal Unity of the Godhead has never, ever, been broken by sin. Sin, by definition, is an offence against God. God hates sin. Sin separates from God. God does not offend Himself, as though He were confused. Nor do the three divine persons separate. God the Father did not hate Jesus Christ, His only son, because of sin. God cannot sin, that’s why we call Him God”
Yes Bill! It all starts here. This is what I could not put my finger on for a long time but finally started seeing it a few years back: They tamper with the Trinity to make it all fit. Sonship, ESS, it is all the same sort of thing…the teaching of a unity within the Trinity to make this error work.
You said it all here: Nor do the divine three persons seperate. When I try to point this out, I am accused of Modalism.
LikeLike
Oops, meant to say “a teaching on the LACK of unity to make the error work”.
Of course they do not admit it is a lack of unity at all. The Scream of the Damned sermon from Piper and Mahaney is part of this subtle teaching about the chain of command structure in the Trinity. ESS, which teaches that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father is HUGE in SBC seminaries. Grudem teaches it. They totally twist Phil 2 and 1 Corin 11 as foundational verses for this errant doctrine.
One thing I found out is that all Christian based cults tamper with the Trinity.
LikeLike
Lydia,
This seems to contradict New Calvinism’s eclipsing of the Father and HS by Christ. Piper even says that “God entered history through Jesus Christ.” I wonder in what context–what you speak of is being taught.
LikeLike
What God requires is obedience to his law. “He that does the law shall be justified.” The law demands not only death for disobedience; it also requires a perfect, continual and inward obedience. To be sure, as God, Jesus was completely righteous in himself, but it was not the righteousness of deity that the law required. It was as the second man, the last Adam that Jesus obeyed in the place of his people. Where the first disobeyed the law given to him, the last did always those things that pleased the Father. It was unnecessary that he should do that for himself. He was already righteous in his Father’s eyes. The purpose of his obedience was that we might be constituted righteous. This is the entire point of Romans 5:12-19. Adam was a type of Christ in that both Adam and Christ stood as representative heads of their respective people. Adam’s disobedience was imputed to his posterity; Christ obedience was imputed to his.
Lydia,
Anon is the only one here who is not intertwining justification and sanctification. The two are always to be found in the same persons but the must always be kept separate in our understanding. One is a judicial declaration; the other is an internal work of the Spirit.
Bill,
If the Father did not impute sin to the Son, how could he have died FOR our sins. If our sins have not been credited to him, in what way could he have been a propitiation for his people? If fact, how could he have died at all? He had no sins of his own, but death is the result of sin “and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). How could Peter write “Christ once suffered for us [the prepositions that are used in the NT in reference to Christ’s death involve not only his dying on behalf of, but in place of his people] the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God?
LikeLike
Anon,
Ya, an internal work of the Spirit that is strictly the fruit of justification. So, you are only making the distinction in regard to two operations of justification. Therefore, if Christians attempt to participate in sanctification, they are trying to reproduce the fruit of justification, and thereby trying to justify themselves by works. SO YES, you are synthesizing the two–both are intrinsically justification. Orthodoxy holds to the fact that our works in sanctification have NOTHING to do with the FINISHED work of justification–our work in sanctification glorifies the Father and displays the good news of the kingdom. YOU DON’T MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO–YOU ONLY MAKE A DISTINCTION IN TWO SUPPOSED ASPECTS OF JUSTIFICATION. Herein lies the deception. When New Calvinists talk about sanctification being the “fruit of justification,” people think: “Well, I agree, without justification, sanctification wouldn’t be possible.” But that’s not what New Calvinists are talking about; they are not talking about justification paving the way for sanctification–they are talking about all of sanctification flowing out of the legal declaration of God only. Therefore, any participation by the believer in sanctification is seen as trying to duplicate the fruit of justification, and therefore, works salvation. Very deceptive.
LikeLike
This is going to make a great post. Anon’s statement that the law has to continue to be perfectly obeyed to secure salvation is right out of the Australian Forum and inherited by New Calvinism. But we Christians now have a righteousness that is “apart from the law” So, if the law has to be kept perfectly to maintain salvation–THAT CERTAINLY CUTS US OUT OF THE PICTURE! But again, as Christians, we are dead to the law in regard to it being a covenant that we have to fulfill to keep our salvation, but it is our guidance for sanctification–which has nothing to do with justification except for justification making sanctification possible. New Calvinist turn that around, making everything point back to justification. This reduces the law to one use–the measure of righteousness only. Again, 1John negates what Anon is saying about the law above.
LikeLike
Paul,
Look at the way you begin your statement, “So, you are only making the distinction in regard to two operations of justification. Therefore, if Christians attempt to participate in sanctification, they are trying to reproduce the fruit of justification, and thereby trying to justify themselves by works. SO YES, you are synthesizing the two–both are intrinsically justification.” “SO, YOU ARE ONLY MAKING THE DISTINCTION. . . .” It is funny, but I don’t remember writing any of what followed. In fact, I don’t believe any of what followed. Maybe, it would be better if you would begin your statements with “SO, ARE YOU only making the distinction. . . .?” instead of “SO, YOU ARE making etc.” Don’t tell people what they believe. Let them tell you what they believe.
LikeLike
Sorry, can’t do that because they lie about what they believe by using doublespeak.
LikeLike
If our right standing before God depended on our obedience to the law, it would require our perfect and continual obedience. Our right standing before God requires no obedience to the law at all since Jesus has fulfilled it all for us in its minutest detail. I did not say, “that the law has to continue to be perfectly obeyed to secure salvation.” What I said is that the law demands continual obedience. “As it is written, cursed is everyone who does not CONTINUE in ALL the words that are written in this book of the law to do them.” That is, The law required continual and perfect obedience apart from which, it could not grant blessing. If a person is to be justified by the law, he must be perfectly obedient from the womb to the tomb. Not as single sinner has rendered or can render that kind of obedience to the law. For that reason, Jesus, by his sinless life under the law, rendered that kind of obedience as the substitute for all his elect people. His lifelong obedience was continual; ours never will be in this life.
LikeLike
Again, you deceptively switch the paradigm from the law being the standard for salvation to your supposed agreement that we are not required to keep it for salvation. But in fact, like all NC, you don’t believe we are required to keep it at all because we are unable to PERFECTLY–and because ALL OBEDIENCE HAS TO POINT BACK TO JUSTIFICATION LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. You then start in with the whole deal about Christ’s obedience being part of the atonement. But the only obedience required was his obedience to the cross. We were saved by His death. The system is also well suited to continue to argue points in a circle–that’s what vile false teachers do.
LikeLike
So, are you saying I am lying by using doublespeak and what I wrote really isn’t what I believe?
LikeLike
Yep, pretty much.
LikeLike
Paul,
Thank you for telling me what I believe instead of listening to what I am actually saying. I am sure I never would have realized I believed what you say I believe had I not had you to twist my words so well. I guess it is time for you to find someone else to abuse. Since you have sufficiently proven to me that you are false teacher, I won’t need to return to your blog. Have a nice life.
LikeLike
Ya, not a problem–always anxious to help people tell the truth.
LikeLike