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,
Oh well…. “have a nice life;” there goes another one. Ha! No hurry, these are things to ponder. Takes time.
Say, concerning all the hoopla about the absolute requirements of strict obedience to the law. NC say – “no one can do it but Jesus Christ.” “Jesus must do it all; or not at all.” Well, what does God say about this? I’m sure everyone has read:
Luke 1:5-6 “In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.”
Ok, great news!!! According to God some people actually do obey his law. So, LET GOD BE TRUE. God tells us He sees righteous people observing the law blamelessly. Shazzaaam! And these are OT people! Of course, they had measures given by God for the forgiveness of sins. But the obvious is this: We should not represent God as saying His law/word is absolutely and completely impossible to obey, therefore the only thing that matters is the imputed perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Another thought: if the word “blameless” means something no different than “wicked.” Anybody, I mean anybody, can be an Elder in the Church. Talk about self-destruction. “You destroy this temple, and God will destroy you.”
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
Good points. They “observed the law” meaning that obeying it was the primary goal of their life. Funny, when Christ said, “be ye perfect,” NC say: “See, Christ told them to be perfect so they would learn that it was impossible.” Which it is, but that’s not the point. The point is that perfection is always the goal. I’m writing a book, I know it’s not going to be perfect, but does that mean perfection isn’t the goal? In the verses you cited, we are supposed to be believe the Scriptures described them that way because they knew Christ obeyed for them. That’s obviously a stretch. Your point about elders is good too. “Blameless” only speaks to the imputed righteousness of Christ and not the elders? Don’t think so.
LikeLike
‘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.’
It is used to faciliate the belief there is not perfect unity in the Trinity. God the Father stands aloof. It is also taught in order to map human hierarchies to the Trinity. It makes pastors more important than laymen and men more important than women. The glaring problem with ESS is that it leaves out the Holy Spirit. Jesus, in eternity, reports to the Father.
“The eternal subordination of the Son means that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, equal in essence and in eternal divine nature with the Father, that the Father exercises eternal authority over the Son in function, and the Son eternally submits to the authority of the father. ”
From: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Eternal-Subordination-of-the-Son-The-Basics-Part-I
In effect, they say that Jesus is equal but then go on to argue He isn’t.
LikeLike
To continue (my comments get cut off) they do the same thing with doublespeak when it comes to ESS. They claim they are not teaching what they ARE teaching. It ignores Isaiah 9 which describes Jesus as “Everlasting Father” and the fact the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus becasue He was claiming equality with God. (John 5). There is more but I will stop. The point I am trying to make is that they complicate things and use doublespeak all the time. ESS comes in handy when you want authority in your church as the pastor. or, you want to elevate yourself above women in the ‘body.
LikeLike
“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.”
See, I do not disagree with this. But then I do not know what you mean by the “internal work of the Holy Spirit”, either. And I have found that definitions have changed drastically. So, I am wary.
The Holy Spirit will not read the Bible for me tonight. Nor will it parent FOR me. The Holy Spirit will convict me of my sin but it will not NOT sin for me. There are things **I ** have to do or not do.
LikeLike
“Another thought: if the word “blameless” means something no different than “wicked.” Anybody, I mean anybody, can be an Elder in the Church. Talk about self-destruction. “You destroy this temple, and God will destroy you.”
This is key. Blameless. I did a word study on this a while back because sin was being so dumbed down all around me. At the time I did not connect the dots at the time but I do now. As one guy told me a few days ago, you will never find a perfect church. I answered: Of course not. I just want a”pure” one. Why do people think that is impossible?
LikeLike
Lydia,
To your point, a “Oh well, nothings perfect anyway” mentality is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Rather, perfection is the standard.
LikeLike
Lydia,
sure, you got it right, blameless Elder. We’ve lived long enough to know what it means. The guy is a good man. Nobody has anything against him. Pure, clean living, owes nothing, etc.. It’s not that hard. Like Paul says, the New Calvinists are just trying to make it fit a theological model. Everything is a spoke tieing into the hub called Justification by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ. And so they distort, as they do other Scriptures.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
A quote from Piper’s book. More of the same pattern of shunning responsibility. Now here’s a man who has a severe phobia about saying he’s making any effort for God. Apparently, that is THE SIN. We are all losers who can’t win the warfare against sin. The allergy to the spiritual gift of self-control is keeping him from seeing the truth. He seems to accept life as being personally mastered by sin. He looks not for Christ’s help to overcome, but looks at what’s been done for him, to take his mind off the responsiblity.
COUNTED RIGHTEOUS IN CHRIST by John Piper:
“If the battle of sanctification is made part of our justification, as the newer challenge tends to make it, a great part of the foundation for triumphant warfare against sin is removed, and we are made to fight a battle that has already been fought for us and that we cannot win. Oh, there is a battle to be fought. And it is deadly. “If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Romans 13, ESV). “Be killing sin or [sin] will be killing you,” as John Owen says. But what is distinctive about the Christian warfare is that we can only kill the sin that has already been killed when we were killed in Christ. Or, to put it positively, we can only achieve practical righteousness as a working out of imputed righteousness. The battle is to become what we are in Christ: righteous with the imputed righteousness of Christ.”
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
WOE! That may make it into the manuscript before it goes to print!
LikeLike
Years ago, I really really tried to read Piper. I have several of his books. People raved about his books all the time. I thought he was confusing and unclear.
LIke this:
“Be killing sin or [sin] will be killing you,” as John Owen says. But what is distinctive about the Christian warfare is that we can only kill the sin that has already been killed when we were killed in Christ. ”
Notice how he seems to redefine Owen’s quote? What does it mean that we can only kill the sin that has already been killed when were were killed in Christ?
LikeLike
Amen Sister. Timothy Leary couldn’t hold a candle to Piper and his following would make Jim Jones weep with envy.
LikeLike
I definately agree about Piper, his line of thinking is so convoluted and ambiguous I often come away not having a clue about his point. In the quote above, there’s enough there to smell death. I think he frequently makes things ambiguous so if anybody makes a charge against it he can bail-out with denial. It must be one of the basic training techniques for New Calvinists.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
ABSOLUTELY! he deliberately words things so he has a backdoor to escape from. I have read a lot of his stuff, and constantly it’s, ” I know what he’s saying but if he were confronted he could say this, that, or the other because of the particular words he used. IT’S DELIBERATE DECEPTION.
LikeLike
“ABSOLUTELY! he deliberately words things so he has a backdoor to escape from. I have read a lot of his stuff, and constantly it’s, ” I know what he’s saying but if he were confronted he could say this, that, or the other because of the particular words he used. IT’S DELIBERATE DECEPTION.”
One of the tricks he uses when dealing with his “over the top” gender roles and rules is to use a ton of adjectives and adverbs. Just listening to him speak at the True Woman conference a few years ago, brought this home to me. One of the things he does is define the “proper attitude” for obedience and if that attitude is not present then THAT is the sin. For example, he is seems to be more “law” oriented when it comes to gender roles. (Even though I would debate the “law” on his specifics).
Piper says: Women must have “joyful humble submission” in all things. Seems only women are not allowed to have “Christ obey for them”. However, their “joyful humble submission” is taught as “the Gospel”. I has become a salivc doctrine.
If you notice he is real flowery in his writing and speech so people see and hear the passion and mistake that for truth.
LikeLike