In his commentary Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi in the EP Study Commentary Series, Iain M. Duguid has a nice treatment of the well known passage in Zech 3.1-10 where Joshua, the high priest, is shown standing before the angel of the Lord being accused by Satan. In this text, rather than being cast away for his… Continue reading Iain M. Duguid on Joshua the High Priest
Not the way some would have you think. Cornelis Venema writes: If the confessions of the Reformation clearly speak of justification as a once-for-all act of God, which does not comport with a final justification according to works, this still leaves open the question regarding the way they handle the final judgment and the obvious… Continue reading A Final Judgment for the Justified According to Works?
Does the law of God require perfect obedience, or is the law simply given to sinners who thereby are not expected to render perfect obedience to its demands? Aren't those to whom the law is given called instead to live according to a reasonable degree of conformity to that law in order to be called… Continue reading Zacharias Ursinus on the Law’s Requirement of Perfect Obedience . . .
I find article 20 of the Augsburg Confession anticipating the NPP in a very real way. Notice the first sentences below (from art. 20). I've bolded the words that caught my attention: And lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is… Continue reading The Augsburg Confession (1530) and the NPP
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… Continue reading Imputation: Lusk or the Heidelberg Catechism?