I was not saying that Wright was saying that imputation was by means of union. I was saying that Wright uses union to try to say the same thing as imputation. My point is that it doesn't.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I am not defending him, I am just trying to understand what he actually advocates.

As you note, that quote is refering to the Father's righteousness (i.e. the Judge's) not Christ's. To say that he rules out the imputation of the Son's righteousness in arguing that righteousness cannot be transferred is, in my mind, a misreading of him, especially when he has stated that "the accomplishment of Jesus Christ is reckoned to all those who are ‘in him’" and goes on to say, "This is the truth which has been expressed within the Reformed tradition in terms of ‘imputed righteousness’, often stated in terms of Jesus Christ having fulfilled the moral law and thus having accumulated a ‘righteous’ status which can be shared with all his people. As with some other theological problems, I regard this as saying a substantially right thing in a substantially wrong way".

NTW seems to be noting that whilst the righteousness cannot be transferred we get it by being placed into Christ.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

It doesn't in terms of NTW's presentation (i.e. his case is internally inconsistent) or it doesn't in terms of standard Reformed theology (i.e. NTW is not Reformed)?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

This still does not answer the question. Wright may think he is saying substantially the same thing in a different way, but it is precisely the "other way-ness" that is the problem. The idea of the alien righteousness of Christ being imputed to us is at the very heart of the Reformation. As Piper notes, Wright's formulation offers no distinction between the imputed and the imparted righteousness of Christ (see p. 126). If we are in Christ, and what is true of Christ is true of us, how then do we distinguish between justification by imputation and sanctification by impartation? How would you distinguish Wright's position from Rome? It is the distinctness of justification and sanctification that is the very issue here. Rome denies it, and so does Wright.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I will re-read Piper and have a wee ponder.

Incidently, when you say that NTW denies the distinctness of justification and sanctification is that your interpretation of what he says or has he actually said that?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

That is my interpretation. Wright is way too cagey to come out and say something like that, which would obviously put him out of step with the Reformation. Enjoy re-reading Piper.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Citation of Piper on Wright is good on a couple of scores. First, in his Counted Righteous, he takes on Westmont prof Bob Gundry for following the NPP lead on getting rid of imputation. Then, in his recent Future of Justification, he actually sends his book to Wright for critique and modifies his writings accordingly. Seldom do we find a scholar vetting his book by the object of his critique to check for accuracy and fairness. I know that some of you are not Piper fans, but his books are a great resource on these topics.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I'm new here, but not to the FV. You dear Sir are mistaken. Do you believe the law of God to be gracious? do you believe that in the N.C. the law was written on our mind and placed in our hearts? Of course you do, we all do. So why would it be so completely foreign to expect God's people to follow God's law? It isn't. That is what we are supposed to do. God requires it of us. For it is the doers of the law who will be justified on the last day (Rom. 2:13).

So where then is the rub? It lies in your mistake. "Staying in the Covenant is dependant on works." What you mean, if I am correct, is works absent from faith. But a faith that is absent of works is no faith at all. So, a living active faith that naturally produces works of righteousness, love, joy peace, patience, kindness... etc. is what required of us as God's people who are in Covenant with Him. This is the greatness of the N.C., that God's law was written on our hearts and not on stone. Why? So we don't have to obey it? Nooooo. Becuase God is gracious and has given His law to His people for them to live righteous lives on this earth.

The basic structure of Covenant is Promise, obligation. Now our obedience to these obligations is not works, it is grace thru and thru, for it is God who enables us to what He requires. This is not new, but Augustine said it this way, "Command what thou will, grant what thou Commands."

You are also mistaken in saying that "covenant is, properly speaking, broader than election, including more people." What you mean again here is the decretally elect. God is only in Covenant with the decretally elect. But this is not so. For Israel was elect, but not all Israel was Israel (general elect, special decretally elect). There is an elect within the elect. Calvin taught this very same doctrine.

Besides, if God was only in Covenant with the decretally elect, then how is it that in Hebrews 10:26-30 ,that a person could “receive the knowledge of the truth”, and by their deliberate sinning, “profane the blood of the Covenant by which he was Sanctified“, and subsequently in verse 30 have the author say that this person who will be judged is to be considered “HIS (God’s) PEOPLE”?????

This person received the truth, was in covenant with God, was sancitified by the blood of the (new) covenant, was considered to be God’s people, and yet can still “spurn the son of God, and profane the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified, and could outrag the Spirit of Grace”? This person will subsequently be judged by a fury of fire that will consume God’s adversaries (which this person is). If the New Covenant is only made with those who are decretally elect then how could Hebrews 10:26-30 make any sense?????

This where the concept of the covenant is most important. The covenant is not some abstract theological concept that only pertains to "out there", but it is the very substance and fabric of our relationship with God. This has huge implications for infant baptism. The way that you seem to be explaining this concept is like a Baptist would, which is another discussion for another day, how American Presbyterianism has been overtaken by revivalistic, Baptistic theology.

Anyway, I thought that I would just cut my teeth here at Puritan board by answering you on some controversy. Have a good day & God bless.

__________________
Michael Shover
Layman, Teacher PCA
Lansdale, Pennsylvania

Mr. Christian,

I think you might be arguing against a straw man (as to all FV proponents). Greenbaggins wasn't arguing for an anti-nomian position, as all who know him will agree.

If you are a FV proponent (I'm not sure if you are or aren't), you may want to consider that you agreed not to advocate FV on this discussion board. If you are a proponent, you should make it known to the Moderators. Here's an excpet from the guidelines:

"3. Federal Vision. The Puritan Board forbids the membership of "Federal Vision" proponents on this board. Every major NAPARC body has ruled the Federal Vision to be an un-Scriptural and un-Confessional doctrinal error that fundamentally re-casts doctines that are core to the Christian religion. Those who are proponents of this doctrine should refrain from registering and any members who embrace this doctrine should have the integrity to forfeit their membership privileges. Members who violate this rule will be suspended or banned."

Cheers,

__________________
Adam Brink, Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA, Pleasanton, California

"Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart: O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

Antonio - The Merchant of Venice (Act 1, Scene 3)

Not only that, taken in context Romans 2:13 is not saying what MrChristian made it out to say. Paul's not saying to the Jewish teachers, "Remember, you need to start obeying the law so you can be justified!", but he is showing that the Jews who have the law don't obey it, and therefore need to be justified by faith. That's why he sums it up in Romans 3 by saying, "None are righteous, no not one."

I now realize how much the FV differs from Lutheran theology on 'final justification' or conditional security. It sounds like the FV are saying we will be judged by our works on the final day, therefore we have to live righteous lives, While the Lutherans are saying we have to keep believing and trusting in Christ.

__________________
Andrew Clerebout
Joy Baptist Church, IFB (Westland, MI)

"Let us never forget that truth, distorted and exaggerated, can become the mother of the most dangerous heresies." - J.C. Ryle, Holiness

I know we just talked about Rom 2:13 on this board recently.

Rom 2:13 is a rebuke to people with a vain hope that simply possessing the law will make them right with God, not a proposition that indicates whether anyone can actually meet the condition of obedience unto justification. The propositional statement is categorical denial at the conclusion of the indictment, Rom 3:20 "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."

Soon as anyone finds a person besides Jesus Christ who is a "doer of the law," just send him to Mark 10:21.

The rest of us fall in that category of mere "hearers", because the only successful doer is a perfect doer, James 2:10. The rest of us keep finding ourselves in Rom 7 for some reason... Rom 7:21 "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." Is God going to do more to justify us that he has already? Gal 3:3 "Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect by the flesh?" Once we're "in the door" so to speak, are we now obliged to pursue some sort of "congruent merit" scheme to ensure our "final" justification? 'Pfwooot!' there goes assurance right out the window.

Thread is done. Lane, if you want to make a reply, you can either get right in here if you have the ability, or else I will open it again.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I do think you have misunderstood me. I am by no means saying that works are unnecessary. I am merely saying that they are unnecessary for staying in the covenant of grace. Otherwise, I think Galatians 3:1-6 makes no sense at all. We cannot begin by grace and finish by works. No, it is grace all the way through life. Now, that grace works in us to produce good fruit, which is the evidence of our justification. But we do not keep our justification by works, and even our sanctification is not based on our works (see the WCF on sanctification, which says that it is an act of God's grace). In other words, works, while essential to the Christian life, are not part of justification in any sense, are not part of keeping justification in any sense, and are not the basis of sanctification, but the result of sanctification.

On the issue of covenant, the WLC says explicitly that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and with all the elect seed in him. If covenant is broader than election in its essence, then the WLC is wrong. I don't think you can accuse the WLC of being Baptistic. But I make a distinction here that Baptists do not typically make: there is a difference between the essence of the covenant (which is made with the elect) and its administration (which includes all children of believers). There is an inner and outer distinction, a visible/invisible distinction. On the basis of the covenantal administration Presbyterians baptize infants, and yet they do not partake of the substance of the covenant except by faith. This distinction makes perfectly good sense of the warning passages in Hebrews, since such persons partook of the covenantal administration, but did not partake of the essence of the covenant.

Indeed, these are the several positions on the covenant: 1. Baptists and Roman Catholics share one thing in common: the covenant is equal to the church. The difference is that for Roman Catholics the covenant is equal to the visible church, and for Baptists it is equal to the invisible church. That is a big difference, by the way. And so, in terms of the difference, they are polar opposites: for Roman Catholics, the visible church equals salvation. For Baptists, the invisible church equals salvation. In this respect the Reformed and the Baptists have always been on the same side. However, the Reformed add an additional element to the discussion: a covenantal administration that is visible, corporate, and objective (while retaining the individual, subjective element of the essence of the covenant). The doctrine of apostasy and baptism are both dependent on the covenantal administration. Hope this is clear. The Reformed, Presbyterian position, in my mind, is the only position that does justice both to the passages that talk about the essence of the covenant being salvation, and yet also the passages that talk about baptism and apostasy.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?