Reading the comments online over the role of our works following John Piper’s words in his foreword for Thomas Schreiner can be a little confusing. The reality is, the comments you read are the tip of an iceberg. Under the water there is a vast labyrinth of debate over biblical, systematic, and historical theology. My goal, in this post, is to give you a snapshot of that labyrinth, as succinctly as I can. The end will include a recommended bibliography.
(Dates are approximate)
- 1954: WTS professor (1930-67) John Murray (1898-1975) in The Covenant of Grace: A Biblico-Theological Study says covenant theology “needs recasting.”
- 1958: Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) rejects the Covenant of Works because God’s dealings with his creatures are exclusively gracious, thus teaching monocovenantalism (same covenant both pre and post-fall). Gospel always precedes law.
- 1973(?): In The Adamic Administration, Murray rejects the Covenant of Works on the grounds that it does not account for the elements of grace present. Eternal life was a promise of grace to Adam, not a meritorious reward to be earned. Lev 18:5; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12 state the obedience all image bearers naturally owe, not a principle of works. Murray indicated that he had actually been impacted a bit by Barth’s argumentation on the nature of the Covenant of Works.
- 1976-1982: Norman Shepherd (1933-) succeeded Murray in the chair of systematic theology at WTS (began teaching there in 1963). In a 1975 faculty discussion, Shepherd affirmed that works are an instrument of justification. The “Justification Controversy” begins when Shepherds’ students affirm that we are justified by faith and works in their ordination examinations. Shepherd further develops on Murray to fully embrace monocovenantalism, rejecting a “works-merit” paradigm in favor of a “faith-grace” paradigm to describe Adam’s pre-fall relationship to God, which is the same as ours today. The “antithesis between the covenant of works and an antithetical covenant of grace” is “schizophrenic.” He rejects the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, arguing that justification is only the remission of sins, which we receive through obedient faith. The controversy raged for 6 years until Shepherd was finally let go, though not fired for his unbiblical and unconfessional views. He was never tried for heresy (he was transferred to the CRC).
- 1981: An intended merger between the OPC and the PCA failed because of the OPC’s toleration of Shepherd’s doctrine of justification.
- 1965-: Richard Gaffin, after studying at WTS, began teaching there 2 years after Shepherd (1965-2014?). Gaffin was an outspoken, ardent defender of Shepherd throughout the justification controversy. His support for Shepherd continued long after Shepherd left. In 2000, Gaffin endorsed Shepherd’s book on monocovenantalism The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism, saying “God’s covenant is the only way of life that fully honors both the absolute, all-embracing sovereignty of his saving grace and the full, uninhibited activity of his people.” Gaffin has never recanted or withdrawn his support for Shepherd. Romans 2:6-16 becomes a central point for Gaffin’s theology. In his lectures on Romans, he says “It’s a life and death situation that’s in view here. Further, this ultimate judgment has as its criterion or standard… good works. The doing of the law, as that is the criterion for all human beings, again, believers as well as unbelievers. In fact, in the case of the believer a positive outcome is in view and that positive outcome is explicitly said to be justification… Eternal life follows upon a future justification by doing the law.”
- 2001: The 68th OPC GA votes to add Romans 2:6,7,13,16 as proof-texts for WLC90. It was not present in the original.
- 2002: Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church hosted its annual pastors’ conference with speakers Douglas Wilson, John Barach, Steve Wilkins, and Steve Schlissel addressing the topic “The Federal Vision: An Examination of Reformed Covenantalism.” This launched the Federal Vision movement, of which Norman Shepherd is often referred to as the father.
- 2002-03: John Kinnaird (1935-), a ruling elder in the OPC and vocal defender of Shepherd during the controversy (calling for judicial action against those who continued their opposition to Shepherd), is found guilty of teaching justification by faith and works by his session (congregation) for statements such as “[T]he pre-Iapsarian (before Adam’s sin) Covenant of Works with Adam, [is] but [a] sub-part of the Covenant of Redemption… It is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous on that Day of Judgement. WCF XXXIII.I and II Romans 2:1-16.” “On the day of judgment I will hear God declare me to be righteous… The reason will be first because it will be true because God will have changed me so that I am really and personally righteous. After all, we will be crowned with righteousness. This is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit in my sanctification in this life.” The verdict is upheld by the Philadelphia Presbytery (regional rule of elders). However the verdict is then overturned by the OPC GA on the basis of the 2001 addition of proof-texts to WLC90. Richard Gaffin defended Kinnaird as an expert witness during the trial and led the move to overturn the verdict on the floor of the GA where he said “In that future aspect of justification, the sanctification of believers – by which we could also say, their obedience, the good works for which they have been created in Christ Jesus – in that future judgment, in that future aspect, the sanctification of believers over the course of their lives, however imperfect, will come into consideration. Sanctification will come into consideration at the final judgment… That’s good news.” Kinnaird recently came to Piper’s defense.
- 2004: The 2004 OPC General Assembly reversed the proof-text change as the result of an overture by the Presbytery of Connecticut and Southern New York.
- 2005: Richard Gaffin delivers lectures at the Auburn Avenue pastors’ conference, together with N.T. Wright. Gaffin’s lectures become his book By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation.
- 2012: Federal Vision proponents publish a festschrift for Norman Shepherd titled Obedient Faith.
- 2013: Mark Jones writes foreword to 2nd edition of Gaffin’s book, which was “deeply influential in [his] own theological thinking.” Asking “what could I possibly say that is not already said better in this book?” Mark answers “it ocurred to me that extensive references to early modern Reformed divines (ca. 1500-1800) were absent… So I am happy to provide some historical background, especially when some have questioned Professor Gaffin’s theology in relation to the early modern period.” Thus Jones’ work has been to establish historic precedent for Gaffin’s view of justification.
- 1980: Daniel Fuller (1925-), son of the co-founder of Fuller Theological Seminary and professor at FTS (1953-93) writes a critique of both dispensationalism and covenant theology Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?: The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology in which he argues there is no antithesis between law and gospel. Therefore “the law and the gospel are one and the same.” In subsequent papers he affirms “Moses was justified by the work, or obedience, of faith… good works are made the instrumental cause of justification.” Fuller says the Covenant of Works is the “highest kind of blasphemy” because it puts God in man’s debt. “[T]he blessing Adam was to receive after passing his probationary test [was] a work of grace rather than the payment of debt.“
- 1991: John Piper, former student of Fuller, writes a foreword to Fuller’s The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God’s Plan for Humanity in which he says “No book besides the Bible has had a greater influence on my life than Daniel Fuller’s The Unity of the Bible. When I first read it as a classroom syllabus over twenty years ago, everything began to change… God’s law stopped being at odds with the gospel. It stopped being a job description for earning wages under a so-called covenant of works (which I never could find in the Bible)… The whole question of how saving faith relates to obedience was transformed. Obedience is not just tacked onto faith as a disconnected evidence… The life-changing effects of Fuller’s ‘The Unity of the Bible’ are not a fluke.”
- 1995: John Piper writes Future Grace: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God in which he says “Daniel Fuller’s vision of the Christian life as an ‘obedience of faith’ is the garden in which the plants of my ponderings have grown. Almost three decades of dialogue on the issues in this book have left a deep imprint. If I tried to show it with foot-notes, they would be on almost every page.”
- 2007: Piper writes The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright in which he says “Gaffin’s exegetical efforts in By Faith, Not by Sight and the careful work of many other scholars [i.e. Fuller], and my own efforts to understand Scripture persuade me that this is the true biblical understanding of the function of works in the final judgment.”
The list could go on for pages and pages, but hopefully this helps give a snapshot of what’s going on below the tip of the iceberg. I haven’t included here any of the response to this view, particularly that of Kline and his followers. Kline was the most vocal critique. However, Kline made some fundamental errors and intentionally rejected parts of the confession regarding the Covenant of Works. Thus his followers, though correct of justification by faith alone, are off the mark on other areas that make their response somewhat ineffective. A lot of what you’ll see online is argumentation between these two schools of thought, focused in WTS and WSC. I don’t fully side with either, though WSC does get sola fide correct.
In a subsequent post I will be reviewing Gaffin’s book and referring to this timeline. The key issue in this debate is the Covenant of Works/covenantal merit. The law/gospel antithesis is the Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace distinction. When that is rejected, one must re-interpret what justification apart from works means. These men do so by arguing that the works Paul has in mind are works done with a sinful motive to earn reward. We are justified apart from those works, not because they are imperfect, but because we cannot earn anything from God. However, as James says, we are not justified by faith alone apart from works. What James is referring to is “the obedience of faith.” Paul and James are referring to the same justification, but they are referring to different works. Justification is apart from self-wrought works of merit, but not apart from Spirit-wrought works of faith (so they say).
It all starts with the rejection of the Covenant of Works.
[T]here is no place in Shepherd’s theology for anything like the dichotomy between law and gospel that lays at the foundation of justification sola fide for the Reformation. If there is no such thing as meritorious works, if Christ’s work was believing obedience, if the obedience of faith is the righteousness of faith, then we are clearly dealing with a system of doctrine that has no way to express the Reformation’s contrast between law and gospel. Such a system cannot consistently affirm the justification sola fide squarely built on this contrast.
Allegiance to The Westminster Confession is often understood as subscription to its “system of doctrine.” The Westminster Confession accurately represents the Reformation system of doctrine when it grounds its soteriology on a contrast between the law (“the covenant of works”) and the gospel (“the covenant of grace”). Shepherd has no place for such a structure in his theology and cannot, therefore, affirm consistently the “system of doctrine” taught in the Confession he cites so often in his writings.
–Faith, Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures, p. 186
Recommended Reading:
- The Current Justification Controversy O. Palmer Robertson
- A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy John W. Robbins
- Faith, Obedience, and Justification Samuel E. Waldron
- The Doctrine of Justification John Owen
- Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Be Saved? John R. Robbins
- Can the Presbyterian Church in America Be Saved? Sean Gerety
- The Changing of the Guard Mark W. Karlberg
- Christianity & Neo-Liberalism Paul Elliot
- The Emperor Has No Clothes Stephen Cunha
- Not Reformed At All John W. Robbins & Sean Gerety
Excellent work brother. This is an extremely helpful summary!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gaffin’s thesis is that there is a future aspect to the justification of a sinner. His assumption is that it is faith (not election, and not legal imputation) which unites a sinner to Christ. It is God who gives the faith; it is God who gives the works; therefore it seems right to Gaffin to condition justification on the faith and works of the elect sinner. Gaffin does not tell us what gospel must be the object of the faith which unites to Christ. Nor does he tell us how imperfect works would have to be to miss justification and be condemned.
Gaffin: “Typically in the Reformation tradition the hope of salvation is expressed in terms of Christ’s righteousness, especially as imputed to the believer…however, I have to wonder if ‘Christ in you’ is not more prominent as an expression of evangelical hope…” p110 Gaffin wants to say both are his hope. Part of his hope is sanctification defined as something other than justification from sin, but as power over against sin despite our “incomplete progress, flawed by our continued sinning”.
Gaffin affirms many good and right things about imputation. For example, on p 51, he lists 3 options for the ground of justification. A. Christ’s own righteousness, complete and finished in his obedience…B. the union itself, the fact of the relationship with Christ…c. the obedience being produced by the transforming Spirit in those in union. Gaffin rightly concludes that “the current readiness to dispense with imputation” results from taking the last two options as the ground of justification.
But Gaffin always has a but, a not yet. Though we are justified now (because faith in something, even in the Arminian version of the “gospel”, unites us to Jesus), Gaffin also teaches a justification by sight, conditioned on works God causes us to do. . Instead of reading the “according to works” texts as having to do with the distinction between dead works (Hebrews 6:1,9:14) and “fruit for God” (Romans 7:4), Gaffin conditions assurance in future justification on imperfect but habitual working. Instead of saying that works motivated by fear of missing justification are unacceptable to God, Gaffin teaches a justification which is contingent on faith and works.
Gaffin follows his mentors John Murray and Norman Shepherd in taking Romans 2:13 as describing Christians. The hope for future justification is not Christ’s death, resurrection, and intercession alone. Denying that law-gospel antithesis applies anymore after we are Chrsitians, Gaffin teaches an “unbreakable bond between justification and sanctification” in the matter of assurance and hope for future justification. (p 100) Yes, faith (in which gospel?) is the alone instrument, he agrees, yes Christ’s righteousness is the alone ground, he affirms, but at the same time and however, works factor in also. Just remember that these works which factor into your assurance come from God working in you and not from you, remember that they are not “merits”, and Gaffins thinks there is no problem.
LikeLike
I’ll get into this in my review of Gaffin’s book, but just a quick note: Gaffin did not follow Murray on 2:13. He followed Murray on 2:6 and argued Murray was inconsistent on 2:13
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. This exchange makes me think I may have asked you before about Paul Helm’s essay on Romans 2. Helm’s not concerned with the Confessional language in this particular blog post. http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2011/07/romans-2-and-3-one-step-at-time-dear.html
I do look forward to your review of Faith/Sight. Gaffin asks some of the most important questions. But his answers are wrong, and often assume stuff he doesn’t seen to notice that he’s assuming.
LikeLike
I haven’t read Helm’s article. I’ll queue it.
LikeLike
Moo has lately changed his mind to follow Gaffin (and Piper and Schreiner)
“Justification in Galatians”, p 172, Moo’s essay in the Carson f (Understanding the Times)—
Nor is there any need to set Paul’s “juridicial” and “participationist” categories in opposition to one another (see Gaffin, By Faith Not By Sight, p 35-41).
The problem of positing a union with Christ that precedes the erasure of our legal condemnation before God ( making justification the product of union with Christ) CAN BE ANSWERED IF WE POSIT, WITHIN THE SINGLE WORK OF CHRIST, TWO STAGES OF “JUSTIFICATION”, one involving Christ’s payment of our legal debt–the basis for our regeneration–and second our actual justification-stemming from our union with Christ.”
LikeLike
That’s not the point Gaffin makes. His two stages of justification are resurrection of the inner man (regeneration) and resurrection of the outer man (glorification). Moo is just wrestling with how the cross relates to our justification before we are justified, which is different. I’m not sure how Moo is connecting the two. He seems to be confusing Gaffin’s distinction between historia salutis and ordo salutis with his distinction between justification already and justification not yet. Furthermore, Gaffin’s point/focus in the pages Moo references is that justification and sanctification are both blessings of Christ’s resurrection given in union with Christ. In that short quote Moo seems confused.
LikeLike
I just found the full quote. Moo is not referencing Gaffin on the “two stages of justification” comment. On that he references Henri Blocher. His reference to Gaffin is about juridical and participationist both being contemplated in union.
LikeLike
I would suggest you add the trilogy of essay collections by Mark Karlberg.
Engaging Westminster Calvinism, 2013
Federalism and the Westminster Tradition, 2006
Gospel Grace; the Modern Day Controversy 2003
Even though Karlberg agrees with you (and is even more dogmatic about the point) that it all starts with a denial that God promised Immortality for probationary obedience, he does recognize that the folks of the Protestant Reformed denomination (Engelsma, Hoeksema) deny “the covenant of works for Adam” and yet maintain the law-gospel distinction.
Engelsma–Highlighting the difference between Hoeksema and the men of the Federal Vision is the fact that, although they deny that Adam could have merited higher, eternal life, the advocates of the Federal Vision allow that Adam might, nevertheless, have obtained the higher life for himself and the race by “maturing” into that life through his obedience. Hoeksema would have condemned this notion as heartily as he did the notion of earning. The appeal to Hoeksema’s rejection of the covenant of works by the men of the Federal Vision is mistaken because Hoeksema’s fundamental objection against the covenant of works was different from that of the proponents of the Federal Vision. Hoeksema’s objection held against Adam’s obtaining higher life for himself and the human race in any manner whatever. Viewing the covenant with Adam in light of God’s eternal decree to glorify Himself by realizing His covenant in Jesus Christ, Hoeksema insisted that only the Son of God in human flesh could obtain the higher and better heavenly and eternal life for Himself and elect humanity, in the way of His cross and resurrection.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/there-is-no-covenant-of-works/
I write this not in defense of the Protestant Reformed position on all covenants being about friendship. Indeed, as a credobaptist, I very much reject their presumptive regeneration view (and agree with your critique of the Protestant Reformed). But I write this because I think it’s important to notice that justification by our works is not inherent in the rejection of “the covenant of works”. Kline is wrong when he assumes this. And Mark Karlberg is only being fair when he notices the exception (p 30-32, “Conflating Faith and Works in Final Judgment, in Engaging Westminster Calvinism..
Bolt and David Gordon also notice the Protestant Reformed exception in their respective essays in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of JustificationMar 6, 2007 by Gary L. W. Johnson and Guy P. Waters
It’s too bad that the books published by Robbins don’t have as much credibility as they should. The Cunha critique of Gaffin is good, despite the limitations. And it’s even worse that there is a near black list of the Steve Fernandez critique of Schreiner/ Caneday (Free Justification) is not very well known. But that being the case, you should include the pro-Kline volume The law is not of Faith (Westminster California) in your bibliography, along with the crossway By Faith Alone volume.
The Trinity Foundation, Mark Karlberg, Fernandez books have been shoved to the margins. But the questions they ask remain, and I commend you for noticing that the Reformation fight continues for faith alone in Christ’s death as that which justifies the ungodly. Lutherans seem to know the difference between law and grace, even if they don’t know anything about “the covenant of works”.
LikeLike
Yes, thank you. I’ve read the second and just forgot to add them to the list.
If I have time I will respond to Hoeksema’s rejection of the Covenant of Works, but a simple response is that it does not hold up. The Covenant of Works is necessary to maintain the law/gospel antithesis.
Also, the Fernandez book is on my list, thanks to your recommendation in the other post. As for TLNF and By Faith Alone… they are a mixed bag that confuse the debate quite a bit.
“Lutherans seem to know the difference between law and grace, even if they don’t know anything about “the covenant of works”.”
That’s because they embrace paradox/contradiction and do not claim to offer a solution. That’s what distinguished reformed from Lutheran: systematics (though on this point, modern “reformed” follow Van Til is embracing paradox/contradiction). In Luther’s commentary on Galatians, he tries to answer the scholastics regarding the righteousness that comes from works, but he fails. He cannot answer them correctly because he has no doctrine of the covenant of works. Instead he is influenced by Augustine’s incorrect reading of Lev 18:5 and sounds a lot like what is opposed above. In the end he throws up his hands and says even if he can’t figure it out, he’ll cling to the clear statements in Scripture regarding justification. The point is that he did not have a systematic answer. A systematic answer requires the Covenant of Works.
LikeLike
Perhaps there is more than one “systematic answer”. We should not assume too soon that answers which disagree with ours are not “systematic”. As you have suggested elsewhere, there is quite a bit of difference between your position (that the life promised not immortality but continued temporal existence) and the more majority view about “the covenant of works”
Even elect Gentiles (who were never under the Mosaic covenant) are justified because of Christ’s bearing the curse of the Mosaic law. Some who reject the need for vicarious law-keeping imputed are Socinians who deny the need for any law satisfaction at all. If forgiveness is sovereign, they claim, there is no need to satisfy the law at all in any way, Thus the Socinians say, if there is any need to satisfy the law, then there cannot be any forgiveness. They play off God’s sovereignty against God’s righteousness.
But the Protestant Reformed are not doing that. Neither were Piscator and other Porestant scholatics who disagreed. Christ’s death can keep you from death, they were told. But if you want life from the law, then Christ’s death won’t get you that, because for that, you need to be imputed with Christ’s Mosaic law-keeping.
But what is being kept from death if not life? (Here the immortality vs life for another day question comes back) The tradition seems to say that Christ’s death only gets us back to where Adam was, which was life on probation, which was life only because no sins were yet counted toward us. The majority tradition says that Adam could have gotten immortality if only he had kept the law (the tradition even tends to say that Adam was keeping the Sabbath, since it equates “moral law” with part of the Mosaic law), and therefore the tradition says that Christ got immortality for us not by His death but by His law-keeping.
Calvin—“In His death and resurrection, all things are furnished to us, expiation of sins, freedom from condemnation, satisfaction, victory over death, the attainment of righteousness, and the hope of a blessed immortality.”
I am very glad when those who teach the catechism at least don’t deny that the blood (the death of Christ) is any part of Christ’s righteousness. Some folks do in fact teach that Christ’s death is the new covenant remission, but that the Mosaic law-keeping is the righteousness
While agreeing with Calvin and Romans 4 that we can equate forgiveness and justification, we must teach that justification entitles us to all the positive blessings of salvation, not only forgiveness of sins but access to God and every other blessing. But it remains an open question (to me) if what we say about the kind of life Adam was promised changes what we must say about the kind of life which results from the justification which results from Christ’s obedience.
LikeLike
You have misunderstood my position. I never said that. The life promised to Adam was immortality.
Christ fulfilled the moral law as a covenant of works for Gentiles, not the Mosaic Covenant.
I find the rest of your comments rather confused/confusing.
LikeLike
Brandon—“I’m still not convinced that Scripture teaches that Adam could have earned eternal life for his offspring” –https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/
LikeLike
Gotcha. That’s a totally different topic. I am convinced Adam could have earned eternal life for himself. I am not convinced that Adam’s successful probation would have necessarily earned eternal life for those he represented in the way that Christ’s obedience earned eternal life for those he represented. But I’m not prepared to elaborate on that at this point. Still have to think through it more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you ever interact with the Lee Irons response to Waldron on Romans 2? I am trying to keep up with you, but I know you have been at this for a while. http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2010/05/romans-2613-response-to-sam-waldron-pt-1.html
http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/romans-2613-response-to-sam-waldron-pt-3.html
LikeLike
No, I haven’t written anything in response to that specifically. I did interact with Waldron in that: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/murray-conflicted-on-future-justification/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lee Irons—“Faith is related to justification not as a condition but as a means. Faith has never been viewed as a condition of justification in Reformed theology or in the Reformed confessions. Paul himself never uses the prepositional phrase dia + accusative, “justified because of faith.” Instead he uses dia+ genitive or ek + genitive, “justified by faith.” Faith is not the ground of justification, but the means by which we are justified, by which we rest upon Christ and receive the gift of his imputed righteousness. ..We do not receive the righteousness of Christ by works of obedience, even by Spirit-wrought works of obedience. And even faith itself is a sovereign gift of God. So it is simply wrong to say that faith is the condition of justification.” http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2015/10/faith-alone-and-the-importance-of-precise-terminology.html
LikeLike
Pingback: Is John Piper Confessional? | Contrast
Pingback: Piper’s Foreword | Contrast
You might want to check out the book by Irons on “righteousness”. It seems to be saying much the same as Mark Seifrid argued in the two Variegated Nomism books. I would be interested if you think “the new perspective” is inherent in certain versions of paedobaptist covenant theology. http://ixp8.com/devsites/rtsjournal/review/the-righteousness-of-god-a-lexical-examination-of-the-covenant-faithfulness-interpretation/
LikeLike
Pingback: OPC Report on Republication – Background | Contrast
Pingback: A Few Brief Thoughts On Romans 3 & The Current Justification Controversy – Josh Robinson
Pingback: Make Christ’s Work of Salvation Plain | Contrast
James 2:17 says, “Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
John Piper– Dead faith doesn’t justify anybody; therefore, faith without works is not the kind of faith that justifies anybody. These works are — here’s where it starts to get difficult for people, but let me see if I can help — these works are necessary.
“Works play no role whatsoever in justification, but are the necessary fruit of justifying faith.”
Hebrews says, “Strive for peace” — strive is the key word — “and [strive] for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). We won’t see the Lord Jesus — that is, we won’t be finally saved — without this “striving for holiness.”
What is that? Why is that? The apostle John says, “Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). Or he says later, “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers.” That’s how we know; it’s confirmed. “Whoever does not love abides in death” (1 John 3:14) — in other words, you haven’t been born again, you haven’t been united to Christ, you don’t have saving faith because it’s not confirmed by love.
Obedience and love are the necessary confirmations that we are born again, truly united to Christ by faith alone. Here’s the way Paul says it: “God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/will-we-be-finally-saved-by-faith-alone
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=333
LikeLike
Paragraph after timeline: critique or critic?
And, correct of or on justification?
LikeLike
John Piper–Works are not acceptable in the moment of initial justification. But when James affirms ‘justification by works’ he means that works are absolutely necessary in the ongoing life of a Christian to confirm and prove the reality of the faith which justifies..…For James, ‘justification by works’ means “maintaining a right standing with God by faith.”
https://heidelblog.net/2017/10/why-we-remember-the-reformation-part-3/
John Piper—The Council of Trent (1545–1563) was convened as a kind of “counter-reformation” to the Protestant Reformation. Here the Catholic views of justification were expressed so as to protect against the errors and dangers perceived in the Reformers’ teaching. You can hear their concern in these excerpts from the Council’s Decree on Justification:
No one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments. (Chapter XI)
If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema. (Canon XIX)
If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church . . . let him be anathema. (Canon XX)
If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema. (Canon XXI)
John Piper—All four of those statements are legitimate warnings against an unbiblical view of justification by faith alone. Both Reformers and Roman Catholics were zealous to preserve the biblical connection between justification by faith and a life of obedient love and righteousness.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no-love-lost
LikeLike
The notion of two stages of justification is not new to Gaffin and Beale. —James K Smith–That the English Puritan John Flavel constantly appears in this new collection of essays by Marilynne Robinson will surprise no one. He fits perfectly in the communion of Protestant saints that populate her essays, appearing alongside John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and Oliver Cromwell. But there is a particular idea from Flavel that keeps recurring throughout this collection, and it tells us something about the burden of Robinson’s project. As she recounts again and again in different chapters, Flavel entertained the idea of a two-stage judgment: he “considers the thought that we might all be judged twice, once when we die and again when the full consequences of our lives have played themselves out.” The notion depends on a unique intersection of eternity and history. Appointed once to die, we face the judgment, but the judgment in eternity takes account of time’s arrow in history. It’s like your soul gets a callback when the repercussions of your life have played themselves out across subsequent generations. The end of your life is not the end of your responsibility.
https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/5181/marilynne-robinsons-apologia-gloriae/
LikeLike