The difference between these Scriptures and the ever so popular Romans Road is that the Scriptures below are inclusive to the requirement of blood sacrifice, actually following Christ rather than “confessing” Him once, as well as Christ’s establishment of the Church. Historical Anglicanism teaches the Gospel in this way! Anglicans are completely aware of the heresy of Gnosticism and are guarded against it. We are also aware of the heresy of Pelagianism and are guarded against it as well.
______________________
Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
Romans 5:15 For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
Hebrews 9:16-22,26 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.
Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
Matthew 16:18,19 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Ephesians 4:10-13 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ…
Norman Shepherd’s book The Call of Grace, has aided to the current justification controversies within the Reformed faith. It is provocative to many Reformed, in my opinion, not because it is unbiblical, but because it ceases to be a part of any one particular camp. It really is a book that seeks to be both orthodox and ecumenical. It teaches covenant theology from a more rational and corporate perspective, rather than the individualistic and rhetorical perspectives that many teach through today.
In the beginning of the book, Norman Shepherd mentions how “there have been long standing differences between adherents of the historic Lutheran and Reformed confessions.” He goes on to say that there are significant differences in the doctrine of the law. No problem there, right? Reformed pastors teach the moral law to be valid after conversion, but Lutheran believe in a more “spiritual” law, or a law that is not still mandated by the Old Testament.
These type of disagreements have caused many to teach a law-gospel dichotomy; that the law is a type of detour sign that shows us the gospel. The law is said to be part of a “covenant of works” that no man could tackle and so the detour aspect comes into play to show “grace” to the recipient. Then, after conversion, depending on your denomination, a type of new law comes in to help guide the Christian.
But Norman Shepherd proposes something different, he says that the Abrahamic covenant was a covenant of grace (with conditions of obedience) and the Mosaic covenant was also a covenant of grace (with conditions of obedience).
Many Reformed teach that there was a covenant of works with Adam (Westminster Confession mentions this term but does not say it is a “meritorious” covenant). And yet some Reformed even teach, as the dispensationals do, that the Mosaic covenant was yet another covenant of works. This then leads to that law-gospel dichotomy; that the law was completely separate from grace, and that only the new covenant was a covenant of grace.
If the covenants of old were covenants of works then, at best, they were covenants of grace disguised as covenants of works. In other words, God would have had to be deceiving the people since, according to Paul, even the OT saints were saved the same way we were (Romans 4). Why would God lie? Or, why would Moses propose a false promise?
Shepherd goes on to say that the OT covenants were full of promise and grace. This then leads to the proposition that Christ did not come to morally earn a covenant of works, as many men teach. They call this Christ’s “active obedience.”
The author continues to move on through this little book to teach us that we should view election through covenant, rather than viewing covenant through election. He says that when we view covenant through election we attempt to become “as God.”(p.83)
Please allow me to comment a bit more: Ever since I became a pastor I have believed that we should teach election through covenant. To me it was the only way out of being tried as one who is judgmental. The accusations against Calvinists have been that they do not evangelize because they believe it is a waste of time to preach to reprobate, and that God will draw the elect. But we do not know who the elect are, as Shepherd proposes, and so we make a covenant assumption when evangelizing, hoping that all who we come in contact with are God’s elect. Subliminally we know this is likely not true, since God has told us there are people going to hell. But we don’t presuppose things based on what God knows, but based on what we know, on what God has revealed to us. And God has not revealed to us who the elect are and are not. The debate narrows to that epistemological question: Do we act on what God knows or what we know? Which is reality to us on earth: the invisible or the visible? Covenant or election? I believe it is covenant!
Many Protestants do not understand the implications of epistemology and polemics within theology. The study of knowledge and the art of debate have come a long way since the Reformation. We certainly need to learn how to apply the great doctrines of grace in a more concise and logical way to where God’s righteousness and God’s mercy (law and grace) do not oppose one another to create the confusion of today’s many divided camps. We need to know when the more platonic philosophy is important and when the Aristotelian philosophy is important (two camps that have created harsh and unreasonable dichotomies).
The new covenant, as Shepherd teaches, brings clarity. It is based on the same promises in the old covenants, but with that final fulfillment of the cross and resurrection. Christ is that living sacrifice that lives out His mercy and righteousness in our lives. Christ is obedient in us (p. 104); which is probably one of his harder statements to swallow if you are a modern Reformed - even though this is what Augustine taught. But suffices to say, the doctrine of sanctification and its very reason of existing (see Shepherd p. 62) is very seldom taught or written about in the Reformed world. In my opinion, this lack of knowledge has fueled and even ignited this whole controversy. Certainly Christ’s works are not infused like the Roman Catholics teach, but His works must indeed have an eschatological outcome of some sort.
The Call of Grace is packed with clear teaching if you are willing to break down the walls of today’s theological reductivism. And at only 105 pages, you should be able to read it in only a few days/nights.
In this post I shall make an attempt to explain that justification is eschatological by using Scripture, reason and tradition – the three-legged-stool, as Anglicans like to call it.
Justification Is Eschatological
Christ says in Matthew 24:13 that “he who endures until the end shall be saved.” Why does he say this? as if salvation is not finished once we “receive” Him.
Bishop NT Wright:
“It’s best to begin at the end, with Paul’s view of the future.(a) The one true God will finally judge the whole world; on that day, some will be found guilty and others will be upheld (Rom. 2.1-16). God’s vindication of these latter on the last day is his act of final “justification” (Rom. 2.13).”Again, Bishop Wright on justification and time:“Justification in the present is based on God’s past accomplishment in Christ, and anticipates the future verdict. This present justification has exactly the same pattern.(a) God vindicates in the present, in advance of the last day, all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Rom. 3.21-31; 4.13-25; 10.9-13). …The “faith” in question is faith in “the God who raised Jesus from the dead’; It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, “calling” them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to “obey” the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God’s purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance (”the works of the law”) as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6).”
Dr. James Bradley says, “God regards your actions in grace, doing good works, as meritorious - your works are rewarded; they are meritorious works!” Well how could he say such as thing? He says this because it is true, under the conditions of grace. He mentions how Augustine says that “when God crowns our works He is crowning His own works - His own grace” (slightly paraphrased).
Bradley then goes on to quote Augustine by saying that all merits are a gifts from God! The beginning and end of salvation are tied by God’s grace and include works. He is essentially saying that salvation is eschatological and that salvation cannot be reduced to some sort of half-a-second time frame of “receiving Jesus.” It is true that we are saved from our sin instantaneously, but it is also true that we are not fully saved until the end of our days. This is why Christ says in Matthew 24:13 that “he who endures until the end shall be saved.”
If the Federal Vision crowd - as well as any other denomination that is seeking to understand justification - would just take cover under St. Augustine, many ugly fights would be resolved. Is much of the Protestant/Reformed faith based on this type of drama-seeking? almost as if people like this drama. I sometimes wonder if it is a sort of legalism that Protestants partake in to make themselves feel like they are “wrestling with the Scriptures.”
My old Evangelical church thrived on the not-knowing. They carried their Bibles around the church; to their friends houses for dinner; nearly everywhere they went; not because they were scholars but because it made them feel they were scholars. Their chase of the Scriptures is based on that mountain that no one can seem to conquer. But if they would just acknowledge that it was already done, and that the ride to the top is free if one wants to submit to the historical church, then the zeal would finally turn into maturity.
With the above paragraph said, Augustine’s view of election/salvation does seem to pose danger for some: that assurance of salvation can be at stake, as one may always feel like they need to do more and more; and Bradley goes over this a bit. He mentions that the assurance that is seemingly missing in the epistemological aspect of Augustine’s teaching is gained in Augustine’s teaching of the Sacraments: that the Sacraments give assurance as they are distributed by the authorities that Christ has instituted - salvation is given through the Church and therefore assurance of salvation can be found there.
If one wants an existential/personal experience that is a bit more epistemological than the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus(Outside the Church there is no salvation), then one can look to Hebrews 12 to see that those that God does not discipline are bastards. I think it is fair to say that after we have been walking with Christ for some time, we know what we can and cannot get away with - so to speak. We should be knowing and feeling the disciplines of God and be thankful for these disciplines. So lack of assurance cannot be used as a valid argument against Augustinian theology. Faith is the conduit of salvation and we need to lean on it in any time of doubt.
Rev. Alister McGrath, in his book Iustitia Dei, quotes John Henry Newman’s thoughts on Luther. Newman says,
[Luther] He adopted a doctrine original, specious, fascinating, to the genius of the times which were to follow. He found Christians in bondage to their works and observances; he released them by his doctrine of faith; and he left them in bondage of their feelings. He weened them of seeking assurance of salvation in standing ordinances, at the cost of teaching them that personal consciousness of it was promised to every one who believed. For outward signs he substituted inward; for reverence towards the church contemplation of self. (p.301)
McGrath, quite a student of Luther, completely disagrees with Newman and quotes Luther to the extent of dismissing these accusations. Although, McGrath does admit that Newman’s hypothesis of Luther’s ministry may very well be the “prevailing Evangelical image of Luther, rather than the views of Luther himself.” (p. 302)
So is Luther guilty? In one sense he may be since we are judged by every little word we say. What I mean by that is that although Luther had it down in his mind and even in many of his documentations, he failed to realize the state of the culture. Many pastors and theologians, I think, are guilty of this. They do not speak to the flock but rather they speak to their circles from their ivory towers. I’m not sure Luther was guilty of speaking from an ivory tower, but when he spoke to the masses was he clear and concise? Or was he too broad in his ascertains as to systematically narrow things down to where they could fall into a sort of hyper-reductivism.
It appears, from hindsight of Luther’s works, that he could very well have been very pastoral in reducing concepts for the masses, and then giving details to his theological circles. It sounds brilliant, but perhaps an over-correction in his polemic; not that his doctrine was heterodox but that his pastoral skills were exceeded.
It’s not hard to just fire off a set of truths without thoroughly examining the consequences. Many of us have done it, including yours truly. Luther was a giant, no doubt, but he was also a sinner in need of God’s grace.
Introduction: Professor Alister McGrath begins this book by cutting to the chase and getting right to the point, quoting men that are somewhat controversial in Reformed circles and taking these quotes at face value by examining their worth to Christendom. “Influential New Testament scholars such as William Wrede and ALbert Scweitzer argued that the origins of the concept [of justification] were polemical, relating to the early tensions between Christianity and Judaism. ” (P. 1)
“…a new issue emerging after the Second World War…The Jewish theologian Claude G. Montefiore (1858-1938) argued that rabbinic Judaism did not hold - as Paul seemed to suggest - that Jews were self-righteous people who believed that they could earn their way to heaven. Judaism affirmed the graciousness of God, not human merit, in determining the destiny of Israel.” (P.2)
McGrath makes it a point to start his book with the quotes above since they seem to be the most honored amongst theologians today and are a real part of the Church’s modern history. He mentions how the men above helped spark the “new perspective of Paul.”
MacGrath states on page 4 “the Middle Ages, a period of remarkable theological creativity and systematisation.” He goes on to state that in the 17th century intellectual thought in Europe began to quetions just how reliable the systematizing of the previous centuries was.
In section 1.1 McGrath reviews the semantics of justification. Since the context of Paul the Apostle’s writings were within the heart of Judaism, and salvation itself comes out of Judaism, it seems appropriate for McGrath to thoroughly examine the Latin Vulgate in its relation to Hebrew language and thought. On page 7 he mentions how Christian theology contains a number of important concepts originating from a Hebraic context. He therefore begin examining the word ‘righteousness’ within this context: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Mcgrath demonstrates that the Hebrew word sedeq (righteousness) used in the OT points to a covenantal relationship between God and man. This can be said to be the Old Testament origins of the doctrine of justification.
In section 1.2 McGrath brings Paul into the picture explaining how Paul’s language is grounded in the Old Testament and that the very word dikaioun (justification) is expressed by Paul not as a noun but as a verb. On page 23 he mentions how Paul uses the word justification with a future and a past reference (Romans 2:13; 8:33; Galatians 5:4-5), and says,
“Justification language appears in Paul with reference to both the inauguration of the life of faith, and also is final consummation. It is a complex and all-embracing notion, which anticipates the verdict of the final judgement (Romans 8:30-4), declaring in advance the verdict of ultimate acquittal. The believers present justified Christian existence is thus an anticipation of and advance participation in deliverance from the wrath to come, and an assurance in the present of the final eschatological verdict of acquittal (Romans 5: 9-10). “
In 1.3 McGrath examines the pre-Augustinian era, and does not fail to mention that justification - in its systematic form - was “simply not a theological issue.” He mentions how the early church was not as threatened by works-based heresy but rather Gnosticism.
NOTE: This first chapter alone debunks many of the Baptistic and modern Presbyterian notions that Paul, in Galatians was teaching us that we are all natural legalists attempting to earn our salvation through the Mosaic Law. Paul was clearly working as a polemist and confronting the fact that the church was following these false teachers and doctrines found within that particular church. The heart of man is open to most any heresy, and the -works/law teaching was simply the one that they were snared by.
In 1.4 we learn about Augustine of Hippo’s understanding of justification. McGrath says that Augustine did not teach justification within a polemical context. He quotes Augustine a number of times to show how Augustine’s views really do not match those of the Reformation like many of us would like to think. On page 42 he quotes, “The one who created you without you will not justify you without you.” Augustine’s words here seem to imply more than just a forensic view of justification. It seems to imply that justification is more eschatological. More of Augustine’s quotes regarding justification seem to show that although Augustine believed in Total Depravity, the sinner could merit but only through Christ. In other words, Augustine believed that any good works that we do are strictly from the grace of God and not from our own self.
“When Good crowns our merits, he crowns nothing but his own gifts.” This is just one of the many quotes that McGrath has documented from Augustine. He also shows that Augustine did not believe in some sort of sinner’s prayer grace/justification but that one receives grace though baptism, if one is of the elect (p. 45).
Mcgrath demonstrates that Augustine teaches that justification “entails a real change in a person’s being, and not merely on his or her status.” He says that it is quite clear that Augustine understands justification to include the ethical and spiritual renewal of the sinner through the internal operation of the Holy Spirit…[that Augustine understands justification as] participationally, rather than relationally.”
Powerful stuff! The next chapter is on justification and the Middle Ages.
Stay tuned for an obrview of Fr. Alister McGrath’s IUSTITIA DEI A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. This is a very unabashed overview of some of the more serious thinkers of all time. I am on the first chapter and so far have been thrilled at what he has researched and expounded upon. He does not limit himself to the more elementary and modern paradigms, but seeks to establish an historically ecumenical perspective on the subject, one that is more inclusive to early thought and less inclusive to the modern Gnostic notions. But this lack of confronting modern Gnostic concepts may be what this book lacks. Nonetheless, it appears to give a thorough overview of the more High Church theology, which is needed in our day of disunity.
Some organizations just love to bicker at one another and divide over issues just so they can feel as if they are working hard for God. I believe the current justification debate is of this nature. When good and godly men attempt to teach traditional doctrines outside of the modern paradigms of their particular organization, arms begin to raise in hysteria! This is really a shame, especially since the Reformers themselves did this very thing - they expanded the paradigm of the Church in order to straighten what had become crooked, using different analogies and words in order to debunk the current misunderstandings and heresies of their day. These were all good words and systems of thought, but they were not all that is to be said about salvation. They themselves instituted the doctrine of Semper Reformanda (always reforming).
Jesus said that he came to save us from our sin and give us an entire kingdom through His death and resurrection. St. Paul, as a great polemist of his time, took what Jesus said and gave it a didactic nature in order to grapple as an apologist in an area of the world that was steeped in philosophical rhetoric. Paul used terms such as “justification.” Paul used these types of terms, not because Jesus or the prophets did, but because it was a fitting word for the circumstances. The term is used to describe the very transcendent nature of what Jesus said He brought us. Jesus said that he came to save sinners, but Paul was determined, by the Spirit of God no less, to explain just how this salvation transcends to a people in our time and space from a God in a different time and space (eternity).
So when Paul says that we were ‘justified’ he is merely explaining the legal atmosphere of salvation. But we know that salvation is much more complicated than the forensic model alone, and that justification is not some sort of floating barge that we can hop on when the time is right. Justification is the very philosophical means of what God has done to us when He died on that Cross and resurrection from the dead! Paul was expounding and yes declaring but he never even implied that the very word ‘justification’ was the end-all means to salvific doctrine. In fact, Paul uses the word interchangeably in different areas.
Remember, Jesus did not come down to earth, set up a court, and then try his people and sign a paper stating that we are righteous. No, he came down here, lived a righteous life, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead! THIS IS WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE DEFENDING - what the ancient Creeds declare, which is what Paul declares in his writings!
We are saved by Christ’s actions not Paul’s doctrine! This does not mean that Paul’s doctrine is not essential to the faith. It is, but the fact of the matter is that Paul’s doctrine did not die and resurrect! Christ’s body did.
The Reformed Baptist minister John Piper, whom I owe a significant amount of my ministerial growth to, is publishing a little book that attempts to refute the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, and his views of justification. Piper used to be in close connection to the “developed” perspective of justification as we will see in quotes from his 1995 book Future Grace (the name is a dead give away), but since then has become closer to C.J. Mahaney and other more modern baptistic theologians.
On page 21 of Future Grace Piper says,
From this angle I would say that the aim of this book is to explore how the faith that justifies also sanctifies…(p. 21)
the historic viewpoint of the Reformed confessions is that justifying faith is also sanctifying faith…(p. 25)
My point in this book is that the faith, which is the occasion of justification, is the same faith through which sanctifying power comes to the justified sinner. There are three assumptions here. The first assumption is that justifying faith is persevering faith. As Jonathan Edwards explained with careful and nuanced language, “Perseverance in faith is, in one sense, the condition of justification; that is, the promise of acceptance is made only to a preserving sort of faith, and the proper evidence of it being that sort is its actual perseverance Thus it is proper to speak of the moral effectiveness of justifying faith not merely because it brings us into a right standing with God at the first moment of its existence, but also because it is a persevering sort of faith, whose effectiveness resides also in its daily embrace of all that God is for us in Jesus.
A second assumption is that justifying faith is not only a trusting in the past grace of God, but also a trusting in the future grace of God, secured by the past grace of Christ’s death and resurrection…(p. 27)
No one can become a Christian without past grace. And no one can be a Christian moment by moment without future grace. Our standing as Christians is as secure as God’s supply of future grace…(p. 67)
In another chapter, A Love Affair with God’s Law, (close your ears all you antinomians) Piper demonstrates how the prophets of the Bible loved God’s Law and expected grace from His Law. He quotes passages such as Psalm 119: 47, 48, and 127. He goes on to say the following within this chapter:
The commandments of the Law are woven together with the threads of grace - past grace, future grace, forgiving grace and empowering grace…(p. 144)
[All Kline fans, turn away during this one] What brought a person to ruin in the Old Testament was not the failure to have the righteousness of sinless perfection. Rather the ruin was caused by the failure to be righteous, first, in the sense that Abraham was “reckoned righteous” by faith in future grace; and second, in the sense of habitual (though not perfect) obedience to God which was rooted in an abiding (though not perfect) faith in his future grace. Imperfection would be forgiven; but impenitent, habitual, distrusting disobedience would not.
It is terribly confusing when people say that the only righteousness that has any value is the imputed righteousness of Christ. I agree that justification is not grounded on any of our righteousness, but only the righteousness of of Christ imputed to us. But sometimes people are careless and speak despairingly of all human righteousness, as if there were no such thing that pleased God. They often cite Isaiah 64:6 which says our righteousness is as filthy rags…But that does not mean that God does not produce in those “justified” people (before and after the cross) an experiential righteousness that not “filthy rags”…(p. 151) [the term "filthy rags" is tantamount to worthlessness in many circles today. This denies sanctification all together]
Piper goes on in other chapters to demonstrate the value of God’s Law and how the law involves love rather than just condemnation as many teach. Here are a few more quotes to drive home Piper’s teaching on justification:
One of the most important implications of this conclusion is that the faith that justifies and the faith the sanctifies are not two different kinds of faith. “Sanctify” simply means to make holy, or to transform into Christlikeness…For faith is the act of the soul that connects with grace, and it receives it, and channels it as the power of obedience, and guards it from being nullified through human boasting…(p. 193)
The simple reason why the faith that justifies is also the faith which sanctifies is that both justification and sanctification are the work of sovereign grace. They are not the same kind of work but they are noth works of grace…(p. 194)
My claim is that justifying faith and sanctifying faith are one, and that the heart of this faith is future oriented, promise-trusting confidence in God…(p. 202)
There is not one god that justifies and another god that sanctifies. It is the same God with the same power, but sanctifying grace is the eschatological aspect of this power, where as justifying grace is the declarative and initiating power. Justifying grace is that power which first pulls the victim from the wreckage. Sanctifying grace is when that same power begins to stop the bleeding from the victim and nourishes them into the hospital (Church).
Let us not overreact to Rome, and separate the gospel into fragments that in no way make sense when they are attempted to be put together for the completion of the puzzle. The Reformers did indeed distinguish doctrines for us, since Rome had mixed them all together in the ecclesiastical blender, but they never meant for these doctrines to be loaners, and fragment the gospel and the Church itself!
Click here to purchase Future Grace!
The gospel is both ecclesiastical and eschatological (those are fun words to use:) Many get nervous when guys say that but I am very convinced that it is spiritually unhealthy to hone in on one forensic doctrine as the dividing “truth” of all Christendom, especially when it is not well understood. I think that many of us have been “Romaphobic” when we deny that the different doctrines of the gospel actually fit together to form continuity. We are so very paranoid of being Roman that we throw the baby out with the bath water by boxing every doctrine so separately that one cannot see the relation each of them have with the overall sphere of the kingdom.
For instance, “Justification” (the way modern exegesis views justification; primarily as salvation itself) must include the entire eschaton, somehow. This means that it must be inclusive to the Church. The Reformers taught that there was no salvation outside the Church, but today’s arguments and overemphasizing on the doctrine of Justification is giving room for people to simply believe in that doctrine alone for their salvation, even if they are not part of the Church. Today’s Justification is essentially a word that is very afraid of its peers. It needs to learn how to cooperate with the other “categories” of the faith, since all doctrines are “essentials,” although they pinnacle at the atonement and/or resurrection.
Salvation is by “grace” alone, when referring to the character of God. But once this character transcends to us, we have a whole new realm to explore and debate. What doe this “merciful act” look like once it leaves His thrown? Does it look (or have to be) purely abstract? And if it does, who is the arbitrator of this abstract(ness)? Can it be more organic and natural, more sacramental, more doctrinal, or a combination of all three?
Take for example, Luther- he screams the “three alones” and this later turns into five alones; now we are at about 150 alones with each denomination camping on one of those alones. So it’s the gospel of the end times, the gospel of justification, the gospel of sanctification, the gospel of sacraments, and so on.
What Wright and guys like Leithart are proposing is that the gospel is much more fluid than our modern propositions. It’s inclusive to ecclesiology, eschatology, sacramentology, and the likes. This does not cancel out grace alone but rather explains it in a much broader (and also deeper) fashion. It’s simply just not healthy to narrow the gospel down to one forensic doctrine, camp out on it, dividing from the rest of the Church over it.I don’t think these guys are against systematics, per se, but are against modern systematics. The argument from N.T. Wright is that Paul was not proposing an abstract doctrine but was simply using the language of the day; language that we are welcome to adopt, but certainly not welcome to abuse.
My prescription for someone that is wrestling against the modern trappings of reductionism is the book Against Christianity by Dr. Peter Liethart. This book will loosen you up a bit and allow you to begin broadening your horizons.
One nice aspect of the Anglican faith is the ecumenical opportunity it offers in study (not being as doctrinaly bound as many other traditions. Anglicanism does not claim to have all the answers, but rather believes that one day she will. This requires listening to others while on this journey to eschatological victory). This does not mean that we are tolerable to all the latest trends and relativistic concepts of others, but it means that we are not ashamed to congratulate non-Anglicans for helping us better understand ourselves and God. One non-Anglican that has in the past said and wrote many wonderful things is John Piper. He has been a great help in understanding the controversies of justification. In his book Future Grace (the 1995 edition) Piper lays out a biblical foundation as to just what justification looks like, without any fear, and probably offending both sides of the current debate (journalism says this is a sign of a great piece). Page 26-27 of Future Grace reads as follows:
The fist assumption is that justifying faith is persevering faith. As Jonathan Edwards explained with careful and nuanced language, “perseverance in faith is, in one sense, the condition of justification; that is, the promise of acceptance is made only to a perseverance sort of faith, and the proper evidence of it being that sort is its actual perseverance.” Thus it is proper to speak of the moral effectiveness of justifying faith not merely because it brings us into right standing with God at the first moment of its exercise, but also because it is a persevering sort of faith, whose effectiveness resides also in its daily embrace of all that God is for us in Jesus. A second assumption is that justifying faith is not only a trusting in the past grace of God, but also trusting in the future grace of God, secured by the past grace of Christ’s death and resurrection…Or as John Calvin says in his sermon on Ephesians 3:14-19, “If we come to Christ, with belief in him, that is to say, if we receive the promises of the gospel, let us assume ourselves that he will dwell in our hearts, even by means of faith.
Sound familiar? Look at the recent post on NT Wright’s teaching of justification and you will find that both are touching on the fact that justification must relate to eschatology – time itself, and the fact that God’s justifying faith does not stop once one becomes a part of His kingdom. This faith carries on and takes on an even richer form. And in the end, when we are finally glorified, that justifying grace that God first imparted to us has ceased to exist and we are now with him in eternity. To say that justifying faith/grace ceases to exist at some Baptistic point of (psychological) conversion is just another modern error of the Church. All throughout the Bible we can see that we are indeed sanctified by faith and that without the precious blood of Christ, we can do nothing. And since it is His blood that justifies us, it goes to say that this justification fuels our sanctification. While presupposing election, this makes perfect sense and should sit well with the Reformed and maybe even the Catholic.
Another good topic to publish is Bishop N.T. Wright’s view of justification. This was taken from the Mandate magazine. I think that this basic tenor of Wright’s argument is often overlooked and thus excludes many. So, here is a basic outline, from Wright, of his teachings of justification. But beware, once you begin to understand this you will have to be very careful with this information when around Reformed Presbyterians. There is much controversy about Wright and the Presbyterians he has influenced.
1. It’s best to begin at the end, with Paul’s view of the future.(a) The one true God will finally judge the whole world; on that day, some will be found guilty and others will be upheld (Rom. 2.1-16). God’s vindication of these latter on the last day is his act of final “justification” (Rom. 2.13). The word carries overtones of the law court.(b) But not only the law court. Justification is part of Paul’s picture of the family God promised (i.e. covenanted) to Abraham. When God, as judge, finds in favor of people on the last day, they are declared to be part of this family (Rom. 4; cf. Gal. 3). This is why law court imagery is appropriate: the covenant was there, from Genesis onwards, so that through it God could deal with sin and death, could (in other words) put his creation to rights.(c) This double declaration will take the form of an event. All God’s people will receive resurrection bodies, to share the promised inheritance, the renewed creation (Rom. 8). This event, which from one point of view is their ‘justification; is therefore from another their “salvation”: their rescue from the corruption of death, which for Paul is the result of sin. The final resurrection is the ultimate rescue which God promised from the beginning (Rom. 4).
2. Moving back from the future to the past, God’s action in Jesus forms Paul’s template for this final justification.(a) Jesus has been faithful, obedient to God’s saving purposes right up to death (Rom. 5.12-21; Phil. 2.6-9); God has now declared decisively that he is the Son of God, the Messiah, in whom Israel’s destiny has been summed up (Rom. 1.3f.).(b) Jesus’ resurrection was, for Paul, the evidence that God really had dealt with sin onthe cross (1 Cor. 15.12-19). In the death of Jesus God accomplished what had been promised to Abraham, and “what the law could not do” (Rom. 8.3): for those who belong to the Messiah, there is “no condemnation” (Rom. 8.1, 8.31-9).(c) The event in which all this actually happened was the resurrection of the crucified Jesus.
3. Justification in the present is based on God’s past accomplishment in Christ, and anticipates the future verdict. This present justification has exactly the same pattern.(a) God vindicates in the present, in advance of the last day, all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Rom. 3.21-31; 4.13-25; 10.9-13). The law court language indicates what is meant. “Justification” itself is not God’s act of changing the heart or character of the person; that is what Paul means by the “call’; which comes through the word and the Spirit. “Justification” has a specific, and narrower, reference: it is God’s declaration that the person is now in the right, which confers on them the status “righteous’; (We may note that, since “righteous’” here, within the law court metaphor, refers to “status’; not “character’; we correctly say that God’s declaration makes the person “righteous’; i.e. in good standing.)(b) This present declaration constitutes all believers as the single people, the one family, promised to Abraham (Gal. 2.14 - 3.29; Rom. 3.27 - 4.17), the people whose sins have been dealt with as part of the fulfilled promise of covenant renewal (Jer. 31.31-34). Membership in this family cannot be played off against forgiveness of sins: the two belong together.(c) The event in the present which corresponds to Jesus’ death and resurrection in the past, and the resurrection of all believers in the future, is baptism into Christ (Gal. 3.26-9; Rom. 6.2-11). Baptism is not, as some have supposed, a “work” which one “performs’” to earn God’s favor. It is, for Paul, the sacrament of God’s free grace. Paul can speak of those who have believed and been baptized as already “saved’; albeit “in hope” (Rom. 8.24). Among the remaining questions, three matters stand out at the moment. The “faith” in question is faith in “the God who raised Jesus from the dead’; It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, “calling” them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to “obey” the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God’s purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance (”the works of the law”) as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6). By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith” itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21).”Justification” is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get in to God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but in understanding what Paul is saying it is vital.
Wright is saying that salvation is broken down, not just in the forensic sense of escaping judgment,, but also in the corporate sense of the very family of God and the believers place in this family. He is also is inclusive to eschatology - how all of this pans out in time itself. Paul did not set out to create a systematic approach to salvation. He did not receive special instruction from God to reduce the Gospel to a mere rhetoric, although he did use rhetoric when he preached, wrote and generally debated. He used the word ‘justification’ as a polemist and not as a systematic theologian. It’s doubtful that Paul intended the word ‘justification’ to be used as a liturgy/doctrine. He did, though, use it frequently, but he used it interchangeably. He says in one area that we are justified by blood (Romans 5:9), then in another, grace (Romans 3:24), and yet in another, faith (Romans 5:1), and even by Christ’s name alone (1 Cor. 6:11). Well, which one is it? It is all of the above, because justification takes its form in relation to salvation itself. Justification is not, like many imply, a point in one’s life that must be identified to some sort of emotional or psychological “conversion.” I do not believe the Reformers taught that. That is simply modern Baptistic theology. Justification is about God “placing” us in his plan of redemption; and yes, declaring us righteous. But we should not get hung up on his ‘declaration.’ Law-court language is helpful but not inclusive to all God’s power, which is why Paul used the word interchangeably.
I am waiting for someone other than NT Wright to write something to the effect of “Pauline Apologetics.” This would be presuppositional in nature, but inclusive to the ancient Greek polemics and a high view of the Church-corporate; something that is inclusive to all three of the giants: Luther, Calvin and yes, Aquinas as well.