austinbrown2
Puritan Board Freshman
Jonathan Edwards, “Justification by Faith Alone,” when contemplating the nature of perseverance and justification (Page 641 in the Works of Jonathan Edwards, Hendrickson Publishers) writes:
“So that although the sinner is actually and finally justified on the first acts of faith, yet the perseverance of faith, even then, comes into consideration, as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. God, in the act of justification, which is passed on a sinner’s first believing, has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith; and it is looked upon, and taken by him that justifies, as being as it were a property in that faith. God has respect to the believer’s continuation in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow; and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith, as much as it it were a property in it, it is then considered such, and so justification is not suspended: but were it not for this, it would be needful that it should be suspended, til the sinner had actually persevered in faith.”
And again, “But inasmuch as a sinner, in his first justification, is forever justified and freed from all obligation to eternal punishment; it hence of necessity follows, that faith and repentance are beheld, in that justification, as virtually contained in that first faith and repentance; because repentance of those future sins, and faith in a Redeemer, with respect to them, or, at least, the continuance of that habit and principle in the heart that has such an actual repentance and faith in its nature and tendency, is now made sure by God’s promise.”
>>>>>>
Now if we look down at the recent posts concerning Piper and Wilson and all the rest, one will see strong language thrown around. Piper is a pariah. Piper is slipping.
Listen, brothers. Be careful. Let’s not shoot the good guys. And yes, Piper is a good guy. Do not speak evil about such a dear brother (and that is the tone and language). We are all men who are imperfect.
Now as for Edwards. Was he a heretic? Was his language so confusing, so double-talk oriented, so plainly wrong that we should, if he were still alive today, avoid him altogether, or, surely this much, not invite him to a conference on Calvin?
While there are some disturbing points with the Federal Vision (I especially have a problem with denying imputation as well as the hermeneutical approach of the NPP and its implications), I’m not entirely convinced that their language concerning faith and justification is altogether wrong.
How so?
Well, allow me to pull away from anything they would say and express my own thoughts. If it is true that a justified saint must continue in the faith, and any good Reformed guy would shout “Amen!” here, then it is true that final salvation is contingent upon perseverance. We must continue or else. Now our persevering is ultimately the product of God’s grace (Christ’s intercession, discipline, hearing the warnings, etc.). That’s true. But perseverance is still necessary. This means that justification, in some sense, whether remotely or intimately, is contingent upon perseverance. We can talk about faith as the only instrument, and that is right biblically speaking, but if a failure to continue results in damnation, then how might that impact our struggle to communicate these twin truths?
Someone might be tempted to say, “Well, I kinda want to say, since perseverance is necessary, that our final justification, or maybe I should say final salvation, is dependent upon our continuing, which maybe, I guess, is a lot like obedience? Or faithfulness? I mean, what is persevering if it isn’t continuing to trust in Christ? And what is trusting in Christ, throughout one’s life, if it isn’t adhering to the Gospel and living a transformed life under the Lordship of Christ?”
Now granted, one must be very careful to keep sanctification and justification distinct realities. They are two different things. Justification is a forensic act. A declaration. And it is grounded in Christ’s work. And faith (assent and trust) is the only instrument by which we are justified.
But isn’t justification intimately related to our union with Christ? And isn’t our union with Christ, and the attendant blessings, contingent upon persevering faith? If so what is the appropriate language to communicate this reality?
Stefan T. Lindbald, in the Banner of Truth, decries John Armstrong saying, “So, does justifying faith include our obedience, properly understood as the fruit of Christ’s righteous, powerful, saving work? Of course it does.”
And again, but this time with Norman Shepherd, “repentance is necessary for justification” and “there is no justification without a penitent faith.”
Now I haven’t kept up with these men and what they stand for in their totality (Actually I know very little about them), but isn’t this what Edwards is saying? And aren’t these words true, when we look at justification within the larger matrix of salvation or union with Christ?
Let me conclude by asking whether or not this wrong:
We are justified by faith alone.
The Scriptures are clear that we are not justified by works.
So faith must be contrasted with works.
Perseverance is necessary for a justified saint to be finally saved.
God, according to His sovereign grace and power, keeps us in Christ. So we ultimately continue.
This perseverance is active. It trusts in Christ, which, in turn, means that it acts.
This acting might be called obedience? Faithfullness?
Well, whatever it is exactly, we must not confuse it with the clear contrast of “not by works.”
Maybe we should look at what the Bible says about perseverance and use language appropriate to that.
What might that be?
Well, what about 1 Timothy 4:16, as one example?
Is perseverance watching one’s doctrine closely, which means studying and leaning on other solid teachers?
So is it right to talk about justification, in some remote sense, being dependent upon this kind of perserverance?
Respectfully,
Austin
“So that although the sinner is actually and finally justified on the first acts of faith, yet the perseverance of faith, even then, comes into consideration, as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. God, in the act of justification, which is passed on a sinner’s first believing, has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith; and it is looked upon, and taken by him that justifies, as being as it were a property in that faith. God has respect to the believer’s continuation in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow; and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith, as much as it it were a property in it, it is then considered such, and so justification is not suspended: but were it not for this, it would be needful that it should be suspended, til the sinner had actually persevered in faith.”
And again, “But inasmuch as a sinner, in his first justification, is forever justified and freed from all obligation to eternal punishment; it hence of necessity follows, that faith and repentance are beheld, in that justification, as virtually contained in that first faith and repentance; because repentance of those future sins, and faith in a Redeemer, with respect to them, or, at least, the continuance of that habit and principle in the heart that has such an actual repentance and faith in its nature and tendency, is now made sure by God’s promise.”
>>>>>>
Now if we look down at the recent posts concerning Piper and Wilson and all the rest, one will see strong language thrown around. Piper is a pariah. Piper is slipping.
Listen, brothers. Be careful. Let’s not shoot the good guys. And yes, Piper is a good guy. Do not speak evil about such a dear brother (and that is the tone and language). We are all men who are imperfect.
Now as for Edwards. Was he a heretic? Was his language so confusing, so double-talk oriented, so plainly wrong that we should, if he were still alive today, avoid him altogether, or, surely this much, not invite him to a conference on Calvin?
While there are some disturbing points with the Federal Vision (I especially have a problem with denying imputation as well as the hermeneutical approach of the NPP and its implications), I’m not entirely convinced that their language concerning faith and justification is altogether wrong.
How so?
Well, allow me to pull away from anything they would say and express my own thoughts. If it is true that a justified saint must continue in the faith, and any good Reformed guy would shout “Amen!” here, then it is true that final salvation is contingent upon perseverance. We must continue or else. Now our persevering is ultimately the product of God’s grace (Christ’s intercession, discipline, hearing the warnings, etc.). That’s true. But perseverance is still necessary. This means that justification, in some sense, whether remotely or intimately, is contingent upon perseverance. We can talk about faith as the only instrument, and that is right biblically speaking, but if a failure to continue results in damnation, then how might that impact our struggle to communicate these twin truths?
Someone might be tempted to say, “Well, I kinda want to say, since perseverance is necessary, that our final justification, or maybe I should say final salvation, is dependent upon our continuing, which maybe, I guess, is a lot like obedience? Or faithfulness? I mean, what is persevering if it isn’t continuing to trust in Christ? And what is trusting in Christ, throughout one’s life, if it isn’t adhering to the Gospel and living a transformed life under the Lordship of Christ?”
Now granted, one must be very careful to keep sanctification and justification distinct realities. They are two different things. Justification is a forensic act. A declaration. And it is grounded in Christ’s work. And faith (assent and trust) is the only instrument by which we are justified.
But isn’t justification intimately related to our union with Christ? And isn’t our union with Christ, and the attendant blessings, contingent upon persevering faith? If so what is the appropriate language to communicate this reality?
Stefan T. Lindbald, in the Banner of Truth, decries John Armstrong saying, “So, does justifying faith include our obedience, properly understood as the fruit of Christ’s righteous, powerful, saving work? Of course it does.”
And again, but this time with Norman Shepherd, “repentance is necessary for justification” and “there is no justification without a penitent faith.”
Now I haven’t kept up with these men and what they stand for in their totality (Actually I know very little about them), but isn’t this what Edwards is saying? And aren’t these words true, when we look at justification within the larger matrix of salvation or union with Christ?
Let me conclude by asking whether or not this wrong:
We are justified by faith alone.
The Scriptures are clear that we are not justified by works.
So faith must be contrasted with works.
Perseverance is necessary for a justified saint to be finally saved.
God, according to His sovereign grace and power, keeps us in Christ. So we ultimately continue.
This perseverance is active. It trusts in Christ, which, in turn, means that it acts.
This acting might be called obedience? Faithfullness?
Well, whatever it is exactly, we must not confuse it with the clear contrast of “not by works.”
Maybe we should look at what the Bible says about perseverance and use language appropriate to that.
What might that be?
Well, what about 1 Timothy 4:16, as one example?
Is perseverance watching one’s doctrine closely, which means studying and leaning on other solid teachers?
So is it right to talk about justification, in some remote sense, being dependent upon this kind of perserverance?
Respectfully,
Austin