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

The Two Covenants of Galatians 4.24

The old-school Dutch Reformed divine, Johannes VanderKemp, was a solid defender of the good old Reformation truths – of course, this included justification by faith alone.  In a sermon on Romans 3.27-28, he explained the Catechism’s (Q/A 62-64) defense of justification.  For VanderKemp, along with many other Reformed and Presbyterian theologians of his day, justification had much to do with a proper understanding of the covenants: works and grace.  Here’s one paragraph:

“It appears very plainly, that by these two covenants he (Paul in Gal 4.24ff) understands, (a) the covenant of works, the sum of which, together with the covenant of grace (which was administered in a legal manner under the Old Testament) was proposed at mount Sinai, and often exhibited for the condemnation of sinners, and in order to urge them to the Messiah, who was to come; and therefore the Jews, the Jerusalem of Paul’s time, seeking their righteousness and the inheritance by this covenant, showed that they, being born after the flesh, of the servile covenant of works, were also servile with their children, since they, like Ishmael, mocked and persecuted them, who were born after the Spirit.  (b)  The second covenant, which Paul mentioneth, is the covenant of grace, which is established only in promises; and therefore all who believe, the Jerusalem that is above, the true church, being born like Isaac, after the Spirit, of this covenant, are free, and obtain the inheritance by promise” (vol 1, p. 433 of The Christian: Entirely the Property of Christ in Life and Death by Vanderkemp). 

Though the Reformed were not exactly in agreement with every point concerning the covenants and how they were “found” in the Mosaic administration, there was a general consensus on the definitions and affirmations of the covenants (works and grace). 

If you want more info on this, you’ll have to check out this one and this one, among others.  Also, we’ve posted on this before, so if you want more info, check our covenant tags, or justification tag, or do a search.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A “Fresh” Definition of Faith?

It is no new thing for people to try to bring a new insight or “fresh” perspective to faith – one can trace this sort of thing throughout church history.  Today, many people like to talk about a “living faith” or a “faithful faith” or “obedient faith” which justifies.  Here’s a great response to those who are not content with the “unfresh” or “stale” definition of justifying faith.

“Faith may seem a slight thing to some; and they may wonder how salvation can flow from [simply] believing.  Hence they try to magnify it, to adore it, to add to it, in order that it may appear some great thing, something worthy of having salvation as its reward.  In doing so, they are actually transforming faith into a work, and introducing salvation by works under the name of faith.  They show that they understand neither the nature nor the office of faith.”

“Faith saves, simply by handing us over to the Savior.  It saves, not on account of the good works which flow from it; not on account of the love which kindles it; not on account of the repentance which it produces; but solely because it connects us with the Saving One.  Its saving efficacy does not lie in its connection with [our] righteousness and holiness, but entirely in its connection with the Righteous and Holy One.”

Quotes from Horatius Bonar, The Blood of the Cross (New Ipswich: Pietan Publications, 1997), 59.  This short booklet makes me want to read a few Banner of Truth publications by Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness and Words Old and New.  I’ve been on a Puritan “kick” again lately, along with the church fathers (still).  Stay tuned for some stuff from Hippolytus (c. 200 AD).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Final Justification According To Works? (Part II)

A short while back, Andrew posted a great excerpt from C. Venema on final judgment (here).

Turretin sounds similar:

Although our justification will be fully declared on the last day (our good works also being brought forward as the sign and proof of its truth, Mt. 25.34-40), still falsely would anyone maintain from this a twofold gospel justification – one from faith in this life (which is the first); and the other (and second) from works on the day of judgment (as some hold, agreeing too much with Romanists on this point).  The sentence to be pronounced by the supreme Judge will not be so much a new justification, as the solemn and public declaration of a sentence once passed and its execution by the assignment of the life promised with respect to an innocent person from the preceding justification.  Thus it is nothing else than an adjudicatory sentence of the possession of the kingdom of heaven from the right given before through justification.  And if works are then brought forward, they are not adduced as the foundation of a new justification to be obtained then, but as signs, marks and effects of our true faith and of our justification solely by it.”

Clearly, Venema and Turretin point out the historic Reformation point of view from which the New Perspectives on Paul and Federal Vision depart.  See here and here for earlier posts on a similar topic.  Read Turretin again – he lets the gospel of justification by faith alone remain good news.

Quote from Turretin found in his Institutes, vol II page 687.

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

Justification by Faith Alone in the Early Church

In 1 Clement 32.3-4 (probably written just before 100 AD), we get a great Pauline statement on justification by faith only.

“All (the OT saints) therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions that they did, but through His will.  And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified (dikaioumetha) through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety (eusebeias), or works (ergon) that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith (dia tes pisteos), by which the Almighty God has justified (edikaiosen) all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

This is a great statement.  Earlier in ch. 32, the author was talking about God’s gifts given in the OT era (Jacob, Levites, etc).  He ties the OT saints to the NT (and beyond) saints saying they were all justified by faith, not works or piety.

Cited from The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition ed. M. W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Mosaic Covenant: Works, Grace, What?

I finally got it: The Law is not of Faith (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2009).  If you’re in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition (or someone who just wants a peek at our “covenant” tradition), you’ll want to grab this.  It is a level-headed historical, theological, and exegetical discussion of the Mosaic covenant.

In the introduction, the editors make the case (which subsequent chapters support) that most of the Reformed/Presbyterian orthodox theologians in the past have in some way viewed the Mosaic covenant as foundationally the covenant of grace, with the covenant of works simultaneously operative at some level.  They do not argue that there is one single orthodox view which they are trying to advocate, but basically there is a sort of umbrella of agreement under which the old divines/scholastics worked.

In the intro the editors also ask the reader to well consider the history and exegesis of this discussion, which will “serve to renew significant conversations that have not been taking place in recent years, toward the goal of seeing Reformed churches come mutually to a richer understanding of the Old Testament in God’s larger redemptive plan” (p. 20).

In order to keep this post short, I’ll comment on the excellent first chapter later, where J. Fesko shows Calvin and Witsius’ explanation of the Mosaic covenant – as a “spoiler,” there are essential similarities with a few different emphases.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Bavinck on Justification

On what basis does God justify the sinner?  Rome and others say that God justifies a person insofar as he is sanctified; in other words, God justifies someone because the person has some grace-infused obedience inside himself.  Rome and others (like the NPP) thus say that the Reformation position – that God justifies the ungodly by faith alone only on the grounds of an external righteousness (Christ’s) – is a legal fiction.    They call this historic Protestant position legal fiction because God justifies someone who is not actually good inside.  Bavinck turns this argument on its head: actually, the position of Rome (et. al.) is the one that distorts the justice of God in justification.  Here he is:

Besides the fact that Holy Scriptures very plainly speak of justification as a legal or forensic act, this further fact must be pointed out to the opponents of the doctrine of justification: they have a mistaken notion of what justification is.  They say that such an acquittal of man on the basis of a righteousness outside of himself is unworthy of man and that leaves him quite unchanged.  But this charge comes back upon the heads of those who make it, for if they justify a person on the basis of a righteousness which is in him, they must themselves certainly admit that this righteousness in man here on earth is very frail and imperfect, and must therefore conclude that God justifies a person on the basis of a very inadequate righteousness and thus makes himself guilty of a false judgment.  On the other hand, an acquittal based on the righteousness which is in Christ is a perfectly just one for it was presented perfectly by God himself in the Son of his love.

This is penetrating.  If God does justify a person insofar as he is sanctified, this justification is unjust, because a person’s sanctification is imperfect and mixed with sin, and God would be accounting someone righteous who is imperfectly righteous.  The historic Protestant position says that God justifies the ungodly based on the perfect obedience (righteousness) of Jesus Christ, which is credited to their account by a God-given faith alone.   Bavinck goes on to explain.

Justification and sanctification are not the same, and ought to be sharply differentiated from each other.  For whoever neglects or erases this distinction again sets up a self-righteousness in man, does injustice to the completeness and adequacy of the righteousness of God which has been manifested in Christ, changes the gospel into a new law, robs the soul of man of its only comfort, and makes salvation dependent upon human merits.  In justification, faith has only the role of a receiving agency, like that of the hand which accepts something; by it the soul places its dependency solely in Christ and his righteousness.  …[Faith] justifies not by its own intrinsic moral worth but by its content, namely, the righteousness of Christ.

This entire section on the topic of justification in Our Reasonable Faith is worth a thousand dollars (p 439-468).  If you read one ST this year, please, make it this one!  This book is a Reformation antidote to Rome, NPP, and FV and a catalyst for confessional piety.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Covenant and Election

How do we answer the covenant moralists?  How do Reformation Christians answer those who say that our works have something to do with our justification?  Do we start with covenant and view election through covenant, with some moralists?  Do we deny the covenant of works and sneak it through the back door of the covenant of grace?

Bavinck is one antidote to covenant moralism.  He brings reformation and scholastic truths together and stands against any conflation, confusion, or rejection of covenants and election.  Actually, in the early 1900’s, he said “there are many, it is true, who are committed to a different idea” than the one of historic Reformation covenant theology and election.  “These take their vantage point in the covenant of grace and from that position deny and attack the counsel of redemption.  In the name of the purity of the Gospel they reject the confession of election.  Actually, they thus destroy the covenant of grace and convert the Gospel once more into a new law.”

This is brilliant.  To paraphrase, Bavinck is saying that those who tweak the historic Reformation understanding of the eternal, intra-trinitarian covenant (pactum salutis) and view it in light of the covenant of grace (the historical, organic outworking of the pre-temporal decree and covenant) – these people are ultimately attacking the pactum salutis and the eternal decree of election.   In simpler terms yet, if a person reaches back into the decrees of election with the lens of the historical covenant of grace, that person destroys the pactum and election.  One result of this is denying the covenant of works as distinct from the covenant of grace.  When this happens, the “merit” texts in Scripture are subsumed into the covenant of grace.  This equals covenant moralism, confusing justification and sanctification.  Here’s Bavinck:

“…When the covenant of grace is separated from election, it ceases to be a covenant of grace and becomes again a covenant of works.  Election implies that God grants man freely and out of grace the salvation which man has forfeited and which he can never again achieve in his own strength.  But if this salvation is not the sheer gift of grace but in some way depends upon the conduct of men, then the covenant of grace is converted into a covenant of works.  Man must then satisfy some condition in order to inherit eternal life.

“So far from election and the covenant of grace forming a contrast of opposites, the election is the basis and guarantee, the heart and core, of the covenant of grace.  And it is so indispensably important to cling to this close relationship because the least weakening of it [or, as he said earlier, conflating the order] not merely robs one of the true insight into the achieving and application of salvation, but also robs the believers of their only and sure comfort in the practice of their spiritual life.”

Notice how far reaching this is – reformulating the reformation truth of the covenants leads to a messed up view of election (saying there are different degrees of election), justification (injecting our works there where they do not belong), and sanctification (making justification dependent on sanctification).  It also throws our salvation back into stormy waters, teaching that only those who make it to the life raft will get out of the seas of death.  Who can be truly pious when their salvation depends on something they do?

Bavinck’s section on the covenant of grace in his book (which the above quotes are taken from) Our Reasonable Faith (pages 260-279) is a must read for any student of Reformation theology on the topic of covenants.

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