N.T. Wright's summary of Justification

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by pduggan

Originally posted by fredtgreco The Biblical view is that we are brought into the people of God because we are right with God;

Do we receive the Spirit of Sonship at some later point after the Spirit regenerates us then? And aren't we members of the invisible church before we are even called?

The ordo salutis is not (and was never intended to be) a strict chronological order, but rather a logical order. So while adoption happens simultaneously with justification, it is (as the WLC states) granted to the justified, not the reverse. This gets us to the nature of faith itself - which is another area that Wright botches - the faith of the believer is in Christ as the one crucified for him (cf. Isa 55; 1 Cor. 1:23) and it is on that basis that Christ becomes his King. The believer's faith is not in the sovereignty of Christ - the demons even believe that - but in the one who has borne the believer's own sins on the tree (1 Peter 2:24)

Originally posted by pduggan
Or perhaps we/I/wright? need to distinguish 'people of god' as being a part of the Messiah from being a 'child of god' maybe in an eschatological sense.

The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

and

The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.

Paul,

I trust that it is Wright who needs to revise his thinking and not you, since you have made the Westminster Standards your confession of faith, and he has not - indeed he radically departs from them.

As for the sections from the Confession you cite, they are perfectly correct, but they speak of the believer qua his election, not qua the ordo and his act of faith. That is why the same Confession can say:

WCF 11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

If we strictly take union with Christ in an absolute sense with respect to adoption, we must take it so with justification, and that is clearly contrary to the express language of 11.4. So the simple answer is that it cannot mean that.

 

[pduggan]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

As for the sections from the Confession you cite, they are perfectly correct, but they speak of the believer qua his election, not qua the ordo and his act of faith

I'm sorry, i don't see that. The LC is speaking of how union with Christ is worked out, that it is 'done' in the ordo specific part called 'effectual calling'. Effectual calling, where new life is given, and the heart of stone taken away, and the ability to that which is spiritually good, and the Holy Spirit (who IS the Spirit of Sonship) is given.

It would seem to me that union with the Christ (messianic representative of the people of God) necessarily implies membership in the people of God. Does there need to be a logical order keeping the reception of a person's citizenship separate from receiving their right to vote?

Yes, John 1 links them logically, but can that not be because the one is included in the other? (receiving Christ necessarily entails the right to become children of God, because Christ is the Son of God, and what is true of Christ is true of those who receive him)

If we strictly take union with Christ in an absolute sense with respect to adoption, we must take it so with justification, and that is clearly contrary to the express language of 11.4. So the simple answer is that it cannot mean that.

11.4 is saying there is no way to affirm temporally that justification comes before union with Christ. But it does not DENY that justification adoption and all of them are not reflexes of union with Christ. The express language of 11.4 speaks of 'in due time', which is temporally not logically restrictive. Effectual calling can give us Christ's righteousness even though logically, we await the declaration of righteous status in justification.

And justification is an act of God, not a trick of thought, otherwise, we'd be justified when God 'decreed' (a judicial statement) that we would be justified in time)

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by pduggan]

 

[Saiph]

Do we receive the Spirit of Sonship at some later point after the Spirit regenerates us then? And aren't we members of the invisible church before we are even called?

The Levitical priest could not enter the holy of holies without his holy attire.
We cannot enter God's presense without Christ's robe of righteousness. (alien righteousness)
That is why it is the logical order.

 

[pduggan]

Originally posted by Saiph

Do we receive the Spirit of Sonship at some later point after the Spirit regenerates us then? And aren't we members of the invisible church before we are even called?

The Levitical priest could not enter the holy of holies without his holy attire.
We cannot enter God's presense without Christ's robe of righteousness. (alien righteousness)
That is why it is the logical order.

Christ's robe of righteosuness is the robe of the one who by his righteousness is already in the presence of God on our behalf.

Our messiah is in heaven in his righteousness. When we receive him, we get it all.

 

[Saiph]

Christ's robe of righteosuness is the robe of the one who by his righteousness is already in the presence of God on our behalf.

Our messiah is in heaven in his righteousness. When we receive him, we get it all.

I agree. But logical and temporal are two different things. Justification is the logical antecedent to adoption.

I am ashamed to debate the matter, as if it were doubtful, with men who call themselves Christians. The doctrine of Scripture is clear. "We know," says John, ( 1 John 4:6,) "that we are the children of God." And he afterwards explains whence this knowledge arises, viz., from the Spirit which he hath given us. In like manner Paul, too, reminds us, ( 1 Corinthians 2:12) "That we have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which are given us of God." Elsewhere it is said still more explicitly, "We have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." ( Romans 8:15.) Hence that access with confidence and boldness which we mentioned a little ago. And, indeed, they are ignorant of the whole nature of faith who mingle doubt with it. Were Paul in doubt, he would not exult over death, and write as he does in the eighth of the Romans, when he boasts of being so certain of the love of God that nothing can turn him from the persuasion. This is clear from his words. And he assigns the cause, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us." By this he intimates that our conscience, resting in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, boldly glories in the presence of God, in the hope of eternal life. But it is not strange that this certainty, which the Spirit of God seals on the hearts of the godly, is unknown to sophists. Our Savior foretold that so it would be. "Not the world, but you alone in whom he abideth, will know him." ( John 14:17.) It is not strange that those who, having discarded the foundation of faith, lean rather on their works, should waver to and fro. For it is a most true saying of Augustine, (in Psalm 88,) "As the promise is sure, not according to our merits, but according to his grace, no man ought to speak with trepidation of that of which he cannot doubt."

John Calvin - Antidote to the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification (1547)

 

[JohnV]

Great quote, Mark. It right away brought to mind this text:

Joh 7:17
If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by pduggan

Originally posted by fredtgreco

The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

As for the sections from the Confession you cite, they are perfectly correct, but they speak of the believer qua his election, not qua the ordo and his act of faith

I'm sorry, i don't see that. The LC is speaking of how union with Christ is worked out, that it is 'done' in the ordo specific part called 'effectual calling'. Effectual calling, where new life is given, and the heart of stone taken away, and the ability to that which is spiritually good, and the Holy Spirit (who IS the Spirit of Sonship) is given.

Effectual calling is not justification. And justification does not happen at effectual calling. What you are describing here is the heresy of eternal justification.

Originally posted by pduggan
It would seem to me that union with the Christ (messianic representative of the people of God) necessarily implies membership in the people of God. Does there need to be a logical order keeping the reception of a person's citizenship separate from receiving their right to vote?

Yes, there does. We are made right by the legal declaration that we are not guilty, and that we are righteous in Christ, not because we are a part of the people of God. The converse is what is consistently affirmed by Wright (complete with his disdain for "legal fictions" and imputation), but it is not the position of the Standards or Reformed theology - nor the Bible.

Originally posted by pduggan
Yes, John 1 links them logically, but can that not be because the one is included in the other? (receiving Christ necessarily entails the right to become children of God, because Christ is the Son of God, and what is true of Christ is true of those who receive him)

If we strictly take union with Christ in an absolute sense with respect to adoption, we must take it so with justification, and that is clearly contrary to the express language of 11.4. So the simple answer is that it cannot mean that.

11.4 is saying there is no way to affirm temporally that justification comes before union with Christ. But it does not DENY that justification adoption and all of them are not reflexes of union with Christ. The express language of 11.4 speaks of 'in due time', which is temporally not logically restrictive. Effectual calling can give us Christ's righteousness even though logically, we await the declaration of righteous status in justification.

11.4 is not about temporal affirmation - it is an affirmation of the necessity of justification in time through the instrument of faith, and an express denial of eternal justification. I suggest that you read Buchanan or Owen on this. Union with Christ is not our justification - our justification is a legal declaration. Our justification does not come about because of who we are - whether the Romanist notion of infusion, or the New Perspective hijacking of union with Christ. We are not right with God because of who we are in Christ; we are right with God because He has declared it to be so. He makes that declaration, to be sure, based upon the merits of Christ, but it is a legal act, not a substantival act.

Originally posted by pduggan
And justification is an act of God, not a trick of thought, otherwise, we'd be justified when God 'decreed' (a judicial statement) that we would be justified in time)

The fact that you think that the forensic declaration of God in justify the sinner is a "trick" or that it is the same as an eternal decree is a clear sign that you do not understand what the Confession is saying. God is the justifier of sinners, not those who are already His people.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Double to Fred.

 

[pduggan]

Originally posted by fredtgrecoYes, there does. We are made right by the legal declaration that we are not guilty, and that we are righteous in Christ, not because we are a part of the people of God.

Those cannot be separated as you seem to do by saying one not the other. Who is Christ without a people to redeem? It seems as if you're talking about Christ apart from his federal headship. Being in Christ means being in the people of Christ. Being in the people of Christ means being in Christ.

Romans 4 says "the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations" One who shares the faith of abraham is one who is in the family of abraham. The forgiven family of abraham, but he shares in the forgiveness that comes to the whole family. When you get saved, you don't just have your salvation as an individual, you have it with abraham as your father and you as his offspring.

We are declared to not be guilty yes. But we already have his righteousness shared with us in our effectual calling (see quote from Fisher's catechism). God declares us righteous because he finds us to have the alien righteousness of Christ that we received by the Spirit uniting us to Christ imputatively.

You can't divide them with a false antithesis that takes Christ's people away from Christ. Jesus wasn't just some guy. He was a public person and a federal head. He's a king. You're in union with a king, so you're in union with the people of the king.

We the many are gathered into one loaf, but that loaf is also the body of Christ.

 

[pduggan]

Originally posted by fredtgrecoThe fact that you think that the forensic declaration of God in justify the sinner is a "trick" or that it is the same as an eternal decree is a clear sign that you do not understand what the Confession is saying. God is the justifier of sinners, not those who are already His people.

That's not at all what I think or I am saying. I'm saying if eternal justification were true it would be just a trick of thought. But it isn't.

Does not union with Christ occur in Effectual Calling?
If so, does not that union include his righteousness?
And then justifcation is on the grounds of that imputed righteosuness, no?

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This post takes us back a ways, back to the point where I offered a different court-scenario than Wright's. In response to this statement

Your analysis seems to assume to much of your own view of what the courtroom analogy must mean, and not actually what Wright means by it,

I simply state that, having read some of Wright himself, and read the work of others who have read him much more thoroughly and with far more accumen than I possess, I still do not think I am botching the description of Wright's courtroom.

This is the Hebrew court as Wright sets it up for the reader:
Wright places God at the front of the court. He is the impartial adjudicator, in a scenario evoked by such scenes as Mt. 5:25; Lk. 12:13-14; 18:3; etc. He places the enemies of God's people (one set of "litigants") on one side of the room, and the so-called "people of God" on the other (the other party. So-called, because aside from the written promises, the judgment has not yet come down, and is, as it were, still veiled. The issue is affected when the person of Jesus arrives (as promised) and steps into the court, taking up position with (and for) the "people of God". God promises to declare him--and all his--justified. The verdict may even be conceived of as actually in-hand, only sealed until the Day of Judgment.

This is justification for Wright. In his Arminianism, he now has God suspend the just declaration until the last day, and allows for a sifting of the court. People who reject Christ on the "covenant people" side drift over to the enemies side, and enemies may cross over themselves and identify with the Christ. Latecomers also come in and make a choice.


Now, I (and others) maintain that this court-scenario is not the judicial thinking behind Paul when he speaks of justification. There is another court-scenario spoken of in Scripture. It is not the court of adjudication between litigants equal before the law, but the King's high court. It is the court of the law-maker. Israel's kings were actually supposed to make no laws, but rather speak the voice of final authority, with reference to God's Law. They were to "be just, ruling in the fear of God," principally because they were also subject to the Law, and also because they were the declarers of the Voiceof God. In that capacity they were the Law, in a manner that the ungodly kings of the nations exercised in a usurped manner.

Nathan's confrontation with David (2 Sam. 12) is a fine illustration of this matter. David, in his hypocritical indignation, both declares his opinion that the wicked man should die, and restrains himself to inflicting the maximum penalty prescribed in the law for thieves. Nathan, after revealing that David is "the man" according to the Word of revelation, and after David's abject repentance, declares that God alone--who had the authority to strike David dead--has spared his life. Why could not a judge of the land declare David guilty under the Law, and order his execution? Because God alone had that prerogative with respect to the office of the king.

Also, we find another example in the gospels of the "oriental despot." Mt. 18:23-35, the parable of the unmerciful servant. The servant is guilty before the lord, he is a helpless debtor. His fate is entirely in the hands of the master, who contemplates selling him and his wife and children for a small recoupment of his loss.

My point is, that Wright's courtroom has left out this whole (greater)matter. In fact, he has made the lesser court the standard imagery of Paul and the New Testament. By leaving out the implications of the greater court, there is no place for its insertion. On the other hand, in the context of the King's court, there is ample room for those who have been granted standing and recognition to be vindicated (on that basis) against their foes.


Wright and others speak of justification as if the whole matter of individual right-standing before God were a side issue. They have boldly claimed to teach the children of the Reformation "what St. Paul really said," and taken (as far as they have been succesful) the church's attention off of justification as a declaration of an individual's status vis-a-vis the Law of God, and over to justification as a declaration of which is the faithful crowd. Thus, "justification is less about soteriology than about ecclesiology."

 

[fredtgreco]

Thank you Bruce.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Can Bruce or someone interact and respond briefly (or otherwise) to this article by Wright on becoming "Righteousness of God"... http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Becoming_Righteousness.pdf

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Rev. Buchanan, in response to what you posted, what do you (and others on the board) think about what Wright says here:

This moment is what he describes frequently as God's 'call'. Paul's own 'ordo salutis' goes like this: God loved, chose, called and glorified (2 Thess. 2.13-14), or, in the fuller terms of Romans, God foreknew, foreordained, called, justified and glorified. This sequence is very interesting. The 'call', for Paul, is what happens when the gospel is preached: God's word in that gospel works powerfully upon hearts and minds, and people find that they believe it -- the crucified Jesus really is Israel's Messiah, the world's Lord! But -- and this is my central point here, an exegetical point with large theological implications

Is justification then a 'process', as Barnett says I say -- with the result that he suggests my view ends up destroying 'assurance'? Absolutely not!

If centuries of theological tradition have used the word 'justification' to mean something else, that is another matter; but if that tradition leads us to misread Paul (as, in my view, it manifestly has), then we must deal with the problem at the root, and not be scared off from doing so by those who squeal that this doesn't sound like what they heard in Sunday school. Barnett of course doesn't do that, but he certainly misstates my point when he says that, according to me, 'justification' is 'a badge of membership'. It isn't, and I never said it was. Faith is the badge of membership, and, as soon as there is this faith, God declares 'justified'. For Paul, faith is the result of the Spirit's work through the preaching of the gospel (read 1 Cor. 12.3 with 1 Thess. 1.4-5 and 2.13); this is not driving a wedge between gospel and justification, but explaining how the gospel works to produce the faith because of which God declares 'righteous'.

Source: http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html

 

[Kaalvenist]

Gabe,

Have you read Guy Prentiss Waters on the subject (Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, published by P&R)? He gives a good analysis of the history behind it, summarizing each proponent's individual position, and giving valid critiques. Also, as others have mentioned, Dr. Fesko's review of What Saint Paul Really Said, in The Confessional Presbyterian, provides excellent analysis and critique of Wright. In both Waters and Fesko, I found their examination of second-temple writings especially interesting (since that is what NPP proponents especially rely on).

Sean

 

[pduggan]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
This is the Hebrew court as Wright sets it up for the reader:
Wright places God at the front of the court. He is the impartial adjudicator, in a scenario evoked by such scenes as Mt. 5:25; Lk. 12:13-14; 18:3; etc. He places the enemies of God's people (one set of "litigants") on one side of the room, and the so-called "people of God" on the other (the other party. So-called, because aside from the written promises, the judgment has not yet come down, and is, as it were, still veiled. The issue is affected when the person of Jesus arrives (as promised) and steps into the court, taking up position with (and for) the "people of God". God promises to declare him--and all his--justified. The verdict may even be conceived of as actually in-hand, only sealed until the Day of Judgment.

This is justification for Wright. In his Arminianism, he now has God suspend the just declaration until the last day, and allows for a sifting of the court. People who reject Christ on the "covenant people" side drift over to the enemies side, and enemies may cross over themselves and identify with the Christ. Latecomers also come in and make a choice.

I'm not sure why you accuse Wright of arminianism here. I read Wright as speaking of the historical moment that comes after the resurrection of Christ, where he is declared to be the righteous Messiah, and his people share in his righteousness (receiving forgiveness thereby) as they share in all he has. But prior to the resurrection, the "people of God" were most naturally identified as those defined by the covenant with Israel. So Jesus achieves for his people, but then we find that many Jews reject this achievement, and find themselves to be not a people, and many gentiles heed the call and become part of the Israel of God.

What about that is arminian? People respond to the call in Calvinism as I understand it.

Now, I (and others) maintain that this court-scenario is not the judicial thinking behind Paul when he speaks of justification. There is another court-scenario spoken of in Scripture.

Can you line out how this other court situation factors into what Paul is saying? And the place of Abraham in the narrative?

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by pduggan]