Covenant of Love

Posts Tagged ‘Reformed Theology’

Introduction: In this post I will be attempting to summarize the positions of the Traditional Reformed scholars understanding of the doctrine of Justification by Faith (typified by John Piper) and (in contrast) N.T. Wrights development of this doctrine.

What Piper is Saying:

The Traditional Reformed doctrine simply teaches that humans, born depraved and guilty of Adam’s sin (imputed guilt), are unrighteous in the eyes of God. No amount of self-righteousness (works of the law, trying to be good enough) can make someone “right” in the eyes of God (“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. “There is none righteous, no not one”).

But by the gift of faith (a gift given by God to his Elect) we are declared “justified” in the eyes of God. But how can God declare a guilty person to be “justified”? Wouldn’t that make God a bad Judge? Yes. So what is the answer? In enters Christ. Christ died on the cross for our sins (“he who knew no sin became sin for us”) and so our sins must have been imputed on to Christ (substitutionary Atonement). Since Christ was righteous (“knew no sin”) then while he took our sins upon himself, we in turn take his righteousness of us (“so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God”).

So Justification is at the heart of the doctrine of Salvation and at the heart of Justification is the doctrine of Imputation. It can be diagrammed like this:

Our sins are Imputed or Transferred to Christ while His Righteousness is Imputed or Transferred to us. We are declared righteous through the process of Imputation.

There are two things to keep in mind before we look at what Wright has to say on this subject:

First it is important to note that Luther developed this doctrine as a response to the works based religion of 16^th century Catholicism. Key text are Galatians 2:16 (“a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”) and Romans 3:22 (“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe”).

Second thing to notice is that Imputation is crucial to this whole Traditional Reform understanding of Justification by faith, as John Calvin says, “[Justification] consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” (Institutes III.xi.3). (This brings up a third point, the confusion between the terms “Christ’s righteousness” and “God’s righteousness” thinking of 2 Corinthians 5:21. But that is going deeper then I intend.)

So now you can understand why the Reformers find this statement of Wright’s so offensive:

“God’s righteousness belongs to Him. It isn’t something that, in the Law Court motif, could be imputed, imparted, bequeathed, bestowed, or otherwise tossed around the courtroom” (What Saint Paul Really Said? – more on this in the next post.)

What is Wright Saying:

Contrary to the traditional view outlined above, we are neither Justified by OUR faith (in the context of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22) nor are we IMPUTED Christ’s (or God’s) own righteousness. We are justified, but this is not a reference to a MORAL standing before God, justification is simply a status we incur when we enter Christ (the doctrine of “In Him”). But If we are not justified by OUR faith then how are we justified? The answer, again, is Christ. We are justified by Christ’s obedience to God the Father on the cross. We are not justified by our obedience or works, but we are justified by Christ’s obedience and works! (Philippians 2:8)

What this means is that 16^th century events formed a doctrine out of the scriptures which is not there. Luther and Calvin’s doctrine of Justification (however helpful it may have been at the time) is simply not what Paul was saying. Paul is not saying (in Galatians 2:16 or Romans 3:22) that we are Justified by our faith and not our works, what he is saying is that we are not justified by our works but by Christ’s works.

Key text are the same for Wright as they are for the Traditional Reformed scholars, Galatians 2:16 (“a man is not justified by observing the law, but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”) and Romans 3:22 (“this righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe”) but you’ll notice that I underlined a translation difference between here and how this text is traditionally translated. We are not justified by our faith, but by His Faithfulness. It is not by our BELIEF but by His OBEDIENCE.

And that is all N.T. Wright is trying to say about the doctrine of Justification (particularly in the context of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22). We are justified by what Christ did, not by what we do.

What About God’s Righteous Judgment?

But the question remains the same as for the Traditional Reform scholars: how can God be a righteous Judge if he declared people “justified” even though they are “guilty”? Wright believes that Traditional Reformed scholars at this point begin to confuse “Justification” with “Salvation”. If Salvation were a car, Reformed theology mistakenly assumes that “Justification” is also the car when in fact “Justification” is only the steering wheel. In other words, they have confused a “piece” of the car for the car itself. Justification is only one part of the salvation process it is not the whole thing. (See, for example, the video I posted here.)

So to the question, “how can God be righteous in declaring sinners “justified” even though they are “guilty”’, instead of reaching inside of the doctrine of Justification and creating something called “Imputation” (as Luther, Calvin and Piper do), Wright would rather reach for a category which Paul himself uses, the doctrine of “In Christ”. (2 Corinthians 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that IN HIM we might become the righteousness of God”. I should note here that I’ve added to where Wright would not. Tom Wright does not see this verse as applying to you and me, but rather specifically to the Apostle.  I think he is right, but I do not see sufficient cause to limit this passage only to the Apostle.)

Other ways in which God can be righteous in declaring the “guilty” as being “justified” are through the doctrine of sanctification (we are being made more holy every day until we die), the doctrine of the Holy Spirit who is conforming us into the image of Christ (since we are “IN HIM”) and not least the principle of Already but Not Yet. (Romans 2:13 “for it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous”. Notice the future tense “will be” is not based on faith but one works (“who obey the law”). God declares us righteous in the present in anticipation of a future declaration based on our works in the here and now.)

Given the biblical doctrine of “In Christ”, “Sanctification”, the “Holy Spirit” and the principle of “Already but Not Yet” we simply have no need to create a doctrine of Imputation or Impartation the way the Reformers imagined it. As Wright says, there are other ways to get there. Imputation is not a biblical category and is superseded by the doctrine of “In Christ” and Impartation is not a biblical category and is superseded by the doctrine of “Sanctification”.

Not only are the doctrines of Imputation and Impartation not necessary, they are actually incorrect for understanding Justification and the key text in play (Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22).

If we want to understand what Paul is saying we need to kick these categories to the curb, get rid of the old misunderstanding of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22 which has long been imbedded in the Reformed Tradition (ironically) and turn to the scriptures and what Saint Paul Really Said. The Reformers did many good things and many bad things. Let us be thankful for the good they did and correct their mistakes. And in this discussion they simply got it wrong.

In the next post we’ll look at the question: What Is At Stake?

***Stay Tuned***

I think dialogue – the good kind – can be very beneficial between different traditions of the Christian faith. More olive branches and less rhetoric, that’s the motto I want to display.

This doesn’t mean we don’t hold our own views or that we flip flop to everyone else’s. It means that we hold our views in humility, admitting – at least to ourselves – that we may not have all of the answers. That some of the things in our traditions may be incorrect.

On that note, N.T. Wright recently shared something he heard while visiting the Vatican city not long ago:

I spent three very happy weeks as the Anglican observer at the Vatican’s Synod of Bishops last October. They were talking about the Bible: about how for so long they have more or less banned the laity from reading or studying it, and how now they want to change all that, to insist that every Catholic man, woman, child, cat and dog should have the Bible in their own mother tongue and be taught to read it, study it, pray with it, individually and together. Hallelujah! Who knows what might happen!

Question: why did nobody say this in 1525? If they had, we’d have been saved a lot of bother.

Let’s engage cheerfully in as much discussion with our Roman friends as we can. They are among my best ecumenical conversation partners, and some of them are among my dear friends. – From Kingdom People Blog

We have all come along way and we all have much more ground to cover. But which person do you want to be, the one who they say about, “why didn’t he/she take that position back in 2010? It would have saved everyone a lot of bother”, or “here is a person who was more concerned about the Truth then defending the truths of their traditions”.

Join me in determining in ourselves to commit to making 2010 a year of Biblical and Theological Reform and Spiritual Renewal like never before.

Happy New Year!

Make it one to be proud of!

I have friends in the Catholic Church, and this post is for them.

You often charge: Faith is a work. I agree. You say: Salvation is of God, but conditioned by our response. I say “amen”. Then I scratch my head in bewilderment: what are we debating?

Yes the so-called neo-reformed are out in full bloom. Sure their doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura have no teeth. But I need to remind you that…

NOT ALL REFORMERS ARE THE SAME!

The Reformation stood on principles. PRINCIPLES! We are not crafted in cookie cutter fashion. We do not all agree on doctrines, we agree on principles.

• Principle 1: Sola Scriptura – Scripture is our highest authority (without rejecting the testimony of Tradition)

• Principle 2: Semper Reformanda (Always Reforming) – The Reformers recognized that there was much work to be done, and so we are challenged to keep in an attitude of reform, always returning to Principle 1!

• Principle 3: Sola Gratia – Salvation is by God’s good grace alone. Had God not sent his Son into the world to die for the world of undeserving people, no one would be saved.

• Principle 4: Sola Fide – Salvation, in order for it to take effect, calls for a response of faith from man. No one is saved by work of moral effort, nor can anyone will power themselves into the Kingdom.

You and I, we have very many differences. But when we discuss our differences, please keep in mind that I may not fit the mold of others you have debated in the Reformed Tradition.

The acronym T.U.L.I.P was invented by the followers of John Calvin as a convenient way to sum up the Philosophy and Creeds of their theology, in response to the five points of the Remonstrants. “Remonstrant” means, “one who protests”, and these protesters were the followers of Jacob Arminius who were protesting the Magisterium of Calvinism, in favor of having the liberty to disagree with Calvin’s idea of Particular Election.

The reason for this post is because traditionally followers of Arminius have readily rejected all (but one or two) of the Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. But recently I read a post in which one Arminian writer utilizes the T.U.L.I.P. acronym in favor of the Biblical teaching on these matters:

Total Depravity

Mankind is totally depraved, but God has extended His common grace to all so that every man or woman can search and find God [through the prompting and calling of the Holy Spirit].

Unconditional Election

[God has unconditionally Elected Christ before the foundation of the world to die for all men, and in this way] God elected all men to salvation but most refuse His offer.

Limited Atonement

The atonement of Christ is open to all men everywhere and is limited only by our refusal to be saved [our rejection of God's saving grace].

Irresistible Grace

The “common grace” [prevenient grace] of God is given to all men everywhere and it is irresistible, but saving grace can be refused by a stubborn heart.

Perseverance of the Saints

Once saved, a person will always be saved unless by defiant, continual, purposeful, rebellion he or she refuses God’s grace and chooses apostasy – from which there is no return.

Source:

The framework for this Arminian reinterpretation of T.U.L.I.P. was taken from the article The Triumph of Arminianism (and its dangers) by Keith Drury. I slightly modified each point.