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 
Bill,
Where do you find the least bit of ambiguity and built in exit in the following statement so that he can bail out with denial?
“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.”
If you and Lydia understood the teaching of Romans 6-8, you would have no difficulty understanding his statement. We don’t make our death to sin happen. It has already occurred in our death with Christ (See Romans 6:6). Our task in sanctification is to account that to be so (6:11). It is on that basis and on that basis alone that we are to refuse to yield our members as instruments of sin, mortify the deeds of the body etc. Why would anyone need to escape from that? Christ’s imputed righteousness is not a substitute for obedience in sanctification; it is the reason sanctification is possible.
11Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:11-12)
LikeLike
Lydia,
Please refresh my memory. Which of the NC stated that there is not perfect unity in the Trinity?
LikeLike
Lydia,
Churches are not pure here on earth because God’s people are not glorified yet. By the way, if you find a pure church, please don’t join it because if you do, it won’t be pure anymore.
LikeLike
Paul,
months ago I used to marvel at how quick and perceptive you were at picking up the implications of the NC writers. I’m sure 5 years research has enabled you to do that. Funny thing is, I’m getting the same way you are. Doesn’t take me long to figure out what Piper’s driving at in the quote above. It’s all about doing nothing, it’s done for you, justification with no sanctification. At bottom, it’s a real bad outbreak of Antinomianism.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Anonymous,
yeah, I see what you are saying by quoting Romans 6. I agree with you. That’s very good and practical.
However, with Mr. Piper I don’t believe he is really saying to actually fight, make effort, against the desires of the flesh. He seems to be saying we can’t win that battle, it’s something that Christ already fought for us. The battle is what we are in Christ, over there, outside of us, on the ledger. We can only kill the sin Christ has already killed.
Maybe to you it’s not the least bit ambiguous, but to me it is. These New Calvinists are notorious for only talking about Justification or NOT Justified by works. If they bring up works of Sanctification it’s because they are accusing people of trying to achieve Justification through works of Sanctification. To me Sanctification is as important as Justification. I’m seeing in Piper’s paragraph a possibility that he’s not really talking about doing holy and righteous acts. Admittedly, it’s ambiguous and could be argued the other way.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
“but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.”
Note it says PRESENT YOURSELVES….and your members as instruments of righteousness….”
Something you are told to “do”. How does one do that?
LikeLike
“Please refresh my memory. Which of the NC stated that there is not perfect unity in the Trinity?”
Oh, they state upfront that there is equality in “essence” in the Trinity for eternity past and future. But then they go on to describe the unequal roles of the Trinity for eternity past and future. I have heard it from Mohler, Piper, Bruce Ware, Driscoll, Russ Moore and others from the NC crowd. It is very subtle. Tjey do it to map it to hierarchy in the Body and in marriage.
A friend of mine did an analysis on it with this DVD:
http://www.mmoutreach.org/trinity.htm
The reason she picked up on it was because she has a ministry to JW’s and Mormons and she saw the same type of tampering with the Trinity in their teaching she sees in the cult ministries. She takes their own words and analyzes them within the whole periccope of the Word.
LikeLike
“Churches are not pure here on earth because God’s people are not glorified yet. By the way, if you find a pure church, please don’t join it because if you do, it won’t be pure anymore.”
????
“I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! 2For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since(A) I betrothed you to one husband,(B) to present you(C) as a pure virgin to Christ.” 2 Corin 11
“so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Eph 5
Would you like for me to include all the passages that tell us to be Holy and blameless or conformed to the likeness of Christ?
LikeLike
There is no question the church will be pure when Christ presents her to the Father or that the goal of our sanctification is spotless obedience. My point is that apart from our standing in justification, not one of us nor all of us collectively in the church has yet reached nor will we reach that level of purity in this life. You are talking about the goal. I am talking about the reality.
LikeLike
“I am talking about the reality.”
I know, it is pretty bleak. Why are not more “Christians” going for the “goal”. Pressing on? In the race? Shouldn’t we go for it even if we never reach 100% purity? Shouldn’t we strap on the cross, deny self and seek to be more righteous?
LikeLike