Unequivocally Equivocal or Unambiguously Ambiguous: The Federal Vision

Though I’ve read A Faith That is Never Aloneed. P. A. Sandlin (La Grange: Kerygma, 2007), I’ve not yet commented on it here,  so I’ll take a post or two to do so.  The book was co-written by Federal Vision advocates of one degree or another; it was a response to Westminster Seminary California’s book, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry ed. R. S. Clark (Philipsburg: P&R, 2007).  Early warning: this is a much longer and more detailed post than I usually like to do, so my apologies ahead of time!

One thing I find when reading FV type works is straight up equivocation.  I don’t know what else to call it.  The section I’ll quote is from chapter four – Richard Lusk’s contribution – specifically the part where Lusk summarizes his discussion on justification, imputation, union, and faith.

“1) Christ is our righteousness; we are righteous in him (Rom 4.22-25, etc.).”

“2) Faith is imputed as righteousness = justification by faith (Rom 4.3ff).  To ‘impute’ in this context is to ‘declare’ or ‘reckon.’  It is not a transfer.”

“3) God imputes faith as righteousness because it is by faith that we are united to Christ, the Righteous One.  Faith’s key function in justification is unitive, though this cannot be severed from faith’s other functions.”

“‘Justification by faith’ is theological shorthand for saying we are united to Christ by faith, and in Christ there is no condemnation.  For the sake of exegetical purity, I do not think we should speak of Christ’s righteousness (or merit) being imputed (transferred) to believers.  That’s not how Paul puts it; that’s not how he uses imputation as a category.  Rather, we should say things like,

‘God imputes/declares/regards as righteous those who, by faith, are united to the crucified and risen Christ,’

or ‘God imputes faith as righteousness because faith unites us to Christ, the Righteous One,’

or ‘God does not impute sin against those who are united to Christ by faith, but rather imputes them as righteous.’”

“This is the ‘grammar of the gospel,’ so to speak, as I see it.  These are better summaries of the heart of Paul’s theology than those that focus on the ostensible transfer of Christ’s active obedience or merit to our accounts.  Again, there is no text in Scripture where imputation language is used to describe a transfer of Christ’s righteousness from his account to ours” (p. 130-131; emphasis his).

If you’re “schooled” in Reformation language, you probably had a few red flags pop up when you read that.  You probably noticed these things which I noticed: 1) Lusk implicitly pitted exegesis against systematics (i.e. “exegetical purity” above; he also does so clearly  on p.124, where he talks about “slippage” between Reformed theology and Paul). You also probably noticed, 2) that he clearly and consciensiously tweaked the confessional reformation (Lutheran and Reformed) definition of imputation.  You may have noticed, 3) that he also denied the confessional definition and doctrine of imputation.  You may have even noticed that 4) his language of ‘faith being imputed’ is an odd sort of Arminian hybrid, since the language is a biblical phrase Arminians have twisted – but the definition of impute is his own.  Perhaps you noticed 5) the semantic error of mashing reckon, declare, and impute into the same semantic domain.  Or maybe you noticed 6) the historic Reformed  “faith as instrument” language replaced with “faith…in justification…has several functions.”  You may have noticed 7) how the author tried to use context to determine meaning of “impute” only to later ignore context and say that Scripture never uses “impute” as “credit.”  Alternatively, maybe you noticed 8) how changing the definition and meaning of “impute” with regards to righteousness also means you must change it in discussing the non-imputation of sin to us but imputed to Christ instead (cf. 2 Cor 5.21).  The payment for sin in this FV paradigm thus becomes ‘legal fiction’ (swallowed by union), if I may use Old-School Roman Catholic language against the FV.  Finally, you may have noticed 9) the NPP-esque attitude of “you got Paul wrong, we get him right.”  Maybe you even had other red flags go up.

Now, I would be much less distressed if the author didn’t label this “Reformed.”  In the opening of the chapter, Lusk says two astounding things.  First, he says this issue of justification on which the FV and Reformed/Presbyterian churches disagree is important, but not something that should distance FV from Reformed folk.  This too is odd to me, since it runs in the blood of Reformed churches to contend that justification is the article on which the church stands or falls (see Calvin’s Institutes, III.XI.1 – “the main hinge on which religion turns”).  Lusk, however, opens with this: the “things we hold in common outweigh our differences” (p. 110).

Second, Lusk says clearly that his view (which we just read above) is totally confessional and Reformed: “the doctrine of justification articulated here [in his chapter] is within the boundaries of historic Reformed confessional orthodoxy” (p. 111).  This befuddles me, I confess.  He says he is historic and orthodox, confessional and Reformed, but in the very article he completely disagrees with and clearly changes the historic definition of justification.  He also takes Sproul out to the woodshed in a footnote, quoting Sproul on imputation, saying that Sproul does not reflect the biblical descriptions of justification (p. 125, fn 21).

In summary, though the above re/definitions were in some sense clear, they were also quite unclear.  I found the entire book, A Faith That is Never Alone to be unequivocally equivocal or unambiguously ambiguous, which is certainly perilous when it comes to the gospel of grace.

[Side Note: Strictly from a literary perspective, there are enough editorial errors in the book to give the reader a headache.  I usually don't mention typos on the blog, but this book has the most typos of any book I can remember reading in the last five years.]

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Abraham’s Faith: Romans 4.3

I’ve been using Mathew Poole’s (d. 1679) brief commentary on the whole Bible for a while now, and most of the time I have thoroughly enjoyed it.  It is concise and right to the point, and usually includes great cross-references in the margin and in the text.  Since I’m working through Romans 4.1-8 this week, I noticed Poole’s helpful discussion of verse 3, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness (ESV).

“He was justified thereby: to have faith imputed for righteousness, and to be justified by faith, is the same thing.  Faith is not our righteousness materially, but objectively and organically, as it apprehends and implies the righteousness of Christ, which is the matter of our justification.  Our adversaries the papists oppose the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us; they cavil (complain) at the very word, and call it putative (a.k.a. legal fiction) righteousness: and yet the apostle uses the word ten times in this chapter, and in the same sense that we take it.”

He continues,

“But how shall we reconcile our apostle with St. James, about the manner of Abraham’s justification: he says, expressly, James 2.21, that Abraham our father was justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac; and thence he infers, v 24, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.  They are easily reconciled, forasmuch as the one discorseth of the cause of our justification before God; the other, of the signs of justification before men.  The one speaks of the imputation of righteousness; the other, the declaration of righteousness.  The one speaks of the office of faith; the other, of the quality of faith.  The one speaks of the justification of the person; the other, of the faith of that person.  The one speaks of Abraham to be justified; the other, of Abraham already justified.”

This is one of the better whole Bible commentaries that I’ve used, even surpassing Matthew Henry in my opinion.  Note: to dig deeper into the Roman Catholic “putative” objection, see Thomas Ridgley’s Body of Divinity, Vol III, p.84ff – click here for that.

Quotes taken from Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Mclean: Macdonald Publishing Company, n.d.), III.490.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Olevian: Law, Gospel, and Justification

R. Scott Clark wrote a very solid piece on Caspar Olevian (one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism) called Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2005).  In this book, Clark discusses the main points of Olevian’s life as well as some of the high points of Olevian’s Reformation teaching (the Trinitarian doctrine of God and Federalist Christology as well as justification and sanctification – the double benefit of the covenant of grace).

Here’s a section from the chapter on justification.

“He [Olevian] began his definition of law by turning to creation.  The moral law (lex moralis) is written (inscripta) in the hearts of ‘all men’ in every time.  The law has been known from the time of Adam.  The Sinaitic law and the teaching of the patriarchs and prophets were only a re-publication and sealing of the same.  Its primary function is to prosecute sinners.  Because of its universality, no one is excusable and because of our primeval corruption no one is ‘able to be justified, i.e. able to obtain from God forgiveness of sins and eternal life, by their natural goodness and actions according to the law of nature.’  In our natural state, rather than making moral progress, we are more grossly contaminated by horrendous sin.

“‘At any event, the justice which can stand before God’s most righteous judgment ought to be perfect in all respects.’  ‘The law,’ however, ‘does not give righteousness, but requires it.’”

“The gospel promises, however, are equally ancient: the seed of the women will crush the head of the serpent.  The key to keeping law and gospel in proper order is to remember their respective purposes.  The purpose of the law was not to justify, but to drive sinners to Christ.  The purpose of the gospel was to justify and liberate sinners from sin and death.”

“Because law and gospel have different purposes, they perform distinct functions.  The law only condemns, and only the gospel justifies.”

Clark goes on to show how Olevian explained justification in a forensic way, as “a matter of God’s binding, legal declaration of the sinner’s justification, as opposed to justification by infused grace (gratia infusa) or justification through sanctification.  ‘Justification’ is ‘the pronouncement that we were absolved of our sins in the body of Christ.’”  The legal ground of our righteousness before God is Christ’s law-keeping, not ours.  Olevian clearly taught the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.  ‘The justified’ are those ‘clothed with Christ’s righteousness’ (induti iustitia Christi).  ‘Only Christ’s righteousness is true righteousness.’”

Quotes taken from pages 150-152; the quotes above within the quotes are Olevian’s words, mostly from his commentary on Romans.  Additional note: Reformation Heritage Books recently reprinted this book.  Click here for the link.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Thomas Ridgley on Imputation

In 1733, Thomas Ridgley commented on imputation in Body of Divinity (which is a sort of commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism).  Note: this is but a small taste of many pages of Ridgley’s commentary on this and similar topics (i.e. covenant of works, active/passive obedience of Christ, righteousness, etc.).

“Therefore Adam must be considered as constituted their [humanity's] head, in a federal way, by an act of God’s sovereign will, and so must be regarded as their representative, as well as their common parent; which, if it can be proved then they may be said to fall with him.  For the understanding hereof, we must conclude him to have been the head of the world, even as Christ is the Head of his elect; so that, in the same sense as Christ’s righteousness becomes theirs to wit, by imputation, Adam’s obedience had he stood, would have been imputed to all his posterity, as his sin is, now he is fallen.  This is a doctrine founded on pure revelation: and therefore we must have recourse to scripture, to evince the truth thereof” (vol II.109).

Later, Ridgley writes, “When we speak of persons being punished for a crime committed by another, as being imputed to them, we understand the word imputation in a forensick [sic] sense, and therefore we do not suppose that here is a wrong judgment passed on persons or things, as though the crime were reckoned to have been committed by them; accordingly we do not say, that we committed that sin, which was more immediately committed by Adam.  In him it was an actual sin; it is ours, as imputed to us, or as we are punished for it, according to the demerit of the offense, and the tenor of the covenant, in which we were included” (II.114).

Ridgley brilliantly talks about the two Adams, two covenants, and two examples of imputation – again, check out the broader context of the quotes for more detail and explanation.

Volumes II and III of his Body of Divinity can be found on Google Books; there you can search the text for keywords as well as download the entire book.  Enjoy!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Bavinck on Justification Part II: Imputation and Legal Fiction

As surely as the sun rises and sets each day, Herman Bavinck vigorously defended the imputation of Christ’s obedience in justification. In nearly prophetic language, he speaks to present day deniers of imputation: “The opponents of imputed righteousness should not lodge their objection against Luther and Calvin but against Paul.”

He goes on, especially dealing with an older Roman Catholic theologian, R. Bellarmine, who said that imputation was a legal fiction (the same language used by some today who deny imputation): “That picture [of legal fiction], however, is completely mistaken. Justification is as real as sanctification, and imputation is no less real than infusion. The only difference is this: in justification righteousness is granted to us in a juridicial sense, while in sanctification it becomes ours in an ethical sense. Both are very real and very necessary. The judge must first validate someone’s claim to a piece of property before one can take possession of it.”

“This first act [imputation] is not a fiction or an illusion that cuts no ice and conflicts with reality. On the contrary: needed first is an imputation of righteousness, the recognition of a claim, and only then can the infusion of righteousness follow, the act of taking possession of that to which one is entitled…. If God justifies the ungodly, that is not a fiction, a putative imputation, but a present and future reality…. After the ungodly have become righteous in a legal sense, they will certainly also become righteous in an ethical sense.”

In another helpful illustration, Bavinck wrote that imputation is like when a wealthy man legally adopts a poor child. The child, “can, as a future heir be called rich even though at the moment he or she does not yet own a penny.” In theological terms, as Bavinck said, we are not declared righteous based on something in us, but on something credited to our account – the righteousness/obedience of Christ. And those who are justified, will certainly be sanctified, but the former does not depend upon the latter.

No one can wrest Bavinck out of the arms of Reformed orthodoxy – Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Brakel, Berkhof, and others of that list would have embraced Bavinck with passion. Speaking of passion, let me re-quote Bavinck on imputation, just so no one misses it: “The opponents of imputed righteousness should not lodge their objection against Luther and Calvin, but against Paul.” [Side note: Bavinck here is also noting clearly that Calvin taught imputation.]

All quotes taken from Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 213-4.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Imputation: Lusk or the Heidelberg Catechism?

You can’t have both.

Lusk: “Justification requires no transfer or imputation of anything. It does not force us to reify ‘righteousness’ into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly accounting books” (Richard Lusk, “A Response to ‘The Biblical Plan of Salvation’” in The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision: The Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision [Fort Lauderdale: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004], 142).

Now the HC, Q/A 60: “How are you right with God (i.e. justified/righteous)? Only by true faith in Jesus Christ…without any merit of mine, only by sheer grace, God grants and imputes to me the…righteousness…of Christ.”

I’ve bolded the key words under observation. These statements are completely at odds. One cannot honestly harmonize the two.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Olevian on Alien Righteousness and Alien Curse

 

Olevian comments on Lord’s Day 15: “Q. Was it not a disgrace for the Son of God to become a curse…?  A. Not at all.  For we believe that Christ took upon Himself and bore and alien curse, namely ours….”

Commenting on Romans 4, Olevian says, “He [God] is declaring that ungodly person righteous on account of an alien righteousness in Christ, not in himself” (emphasis mine). 

[Double] imputation wasn’t legal fiction for Olevian.

Quotations from pages 67 & 110 of A Firm Foundation trans. Lyle Bierma (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995).

shane

sunnyside wa

Ursinus on Justification, Righteousness, and Imputation

“The righteousness with which we are here justified before God, is not our conformity with the law, not our good works, nor our faith; but it is the satisfaction which Christ rendered to the law in our stead; or the punishment which he endured on our behalf; and therefore the entire humiliation of Christ…whatever he did…is all included in the satisfaction which he made for us, and in the righteousness which God graciously imputes to us, and all believers” (Zacharius Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism trans. G. W. Williard [Phillipsburg: P&R, n.d.], 327).

“How can man, being a sinner, be just before God?…Man as a sinner can be regarded as righteous only on the ground of the imputation of Christ’s merits; and this is the question of which we speak when treating the subject of justification” (ibid, 328).

This is crystal clear; there are no ambiguities for Ursinus when it comes to justification, righteousness, and imputation.  None. 

For more examples, see pages 110, 289, 305, 322, and 495 of Ursinus’ commentary.

shane

sunnyside wa