PCA FV Study Report 2007

Looking back at the Presbyterian Church in America's Federal Vision Study report from 2007, I merely wanted to reproduce the 9 declarations that the PCA adopted as the right understanding of our Standards, and under those declarations also the fine recommendations of the Study Committee Report.

[ You can find the whole report here: http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf ]

Nine Declarations of the PCA FV Study Report:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as

regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the General Assembly commend to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.

2. That the General Assembly remind the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,” have been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”

3. That the General Assembly recommend the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

4. That the General Assembly remind the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

5. That the Ad Interim Study Committee on NPP, AAT and FV be dismissed with thanks.

Justification in Westminster Confession 11.1

I have yet to find a more succinct or accurate exposition of justification, especially in WCF 11.1:

"Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God." -Westminster Confession of Faith 11.1

In 2007, R. Scott Clark, history professor at Westminster Seminary California pens a piece on the origins and character of what has come to be known as "Federal Vision" or "Auburn Avenue" Theology. This is an excellent primer on one of the most serious threats to the Gospel in the Reformed community:

For Those Just Tuning In: What is the Federal Vision?

by R. Scott Clark

 

In talk radio the host is supposed to “re-set” the show at regular intervals. He is to remind listeners to which show they are listening and on what network or station. One reason why the host does this is because some listeners are just tuning in. Some people are “just tuning in,” as it were, to the Federal Vision (FV) controversy and this might be a good time to re-set the show.

The FV is 33-year old movement that originated, at least in this episode, with the Rev Mr Norman Shepherd who was then teaching systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). In 1974 he defined faith, in the act of justification, to be “faith and works.” It was not that, in justification, faith is “receiving and resting” and works are evidence and thus a sort of vindicatory justification of the claim that one believes. Nothing so nuanced or Reformed. Rather, he flatly claimed that there are two parts to faith in justification. When that created a predictable uproar, he modified his language to “faithfulness.” At the same time he, and others, was about revising covenant theology. In baptism, he wrote, we are all united to Christ and receive the benefits of Christ temporarily and conditionally. What is the condition of retaining them? Faithfulness!

READ MORE HERE

Justice and Mercy

There have been a lot of replies to Rob Bell's video "asking questions" leading towards Universalism. I really like this one though. Instead of hitting on "love" vaguely defined, it hits on justice, defined and satisfied:

Thankful for the Righteousness of Christ

Isaac Watts penned a line that I believe summarizes the gospel in one verse: "The best obedience of my hands / Dares not appear before thy throne; But faith can answer thy demands / By pleading what my Lord has done." This Hymn by Isaac Watts is simply headed: "The value of Christ, and his righteousness.

Phil. 3:7-9."

No more, my God, I boast no more
Of all the duties I have done;
I quit the hopes I held before,
To trust the merits of thy Son.

Now, for the love I bear his name,
What was my gain I count my loss;
My former pride I call my shame,
And nail my glory to his cross.

Yes, and I must and will esteem
All things but loss for Jesus' sake:
O may my soul be found in him,
And of his righteousness partake!

The best obedience of my hands
Dares not appear before thy throne;
But faith can answer thy demands
By pleading what my Lord has done.

White Horse Inn: On Justification

The latest episode of White Horse Inn was on justification. One of the best I've heard from them, they focus on the most important ignored doctrine in churches today:

On Justification and Imputation

Richard Sibbes on Union

I was reading Richard Sibbes and this section jumped out at me. Sibbes almost completely parrots Calvin on this point, but it is interesting how Sibbes frames the importance of Union. The Spirit in uniting us to Christ is spoken of as granting faith, assurance and making the purchased benefits of Christ's ours. For Sibbes, Union seems like another way of speaking of imputation and how imputation is a reality and not merely a legal fiction. I'm not quite sure about Sibbes' full thoughts on imputation and union, comments are welcome:

"But you will say, the liberty of justification is wrought by Christ; we are justified by the obedience of Christ; and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.

Answer: It is true that Christ is our righteousness. But what is that to us unless we have something to put it on? Unless we are united to Christ, what good do we have by Christ, if Christ is not ours? If there is not a spiritual marriage, what benefit do we have by him if we do not have him to pay our debt? For his riches to be ours and our debt to be his, there must first be a union.

Now this union is wrought by the Spirit. It is begun in effectual calling. From this union there comes a change: his righteousness is mine, as if I had obeyed and done it myself; and my debts and sins are his. This is by the Spirit, because the union between Christ and me is by the Spirit. For whatever Christ has done, it is nothing to me till there is a union.

And likewise, freedom is by the Spirit, because the Spirit of God works faith in me not only to unite and knit me to Christ, but to persuade me that Christ is mine, that all his is mine, and that my debts are his...so with this reflexive action [faith], the Spirit brings liberty in justification; just as it is a means of union by which all that is Christ's becomes mine, and mine becomes Christ's."

-Richard Sibbes. Glorious Freedom: The Excellency of the Gospel above the Law. pg 34-35

Harmonizing Vos on Forensic and Mystical Language

"Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith one-sidedly - only in its connection with justification - for the Reformed Christian it is saving faith in all the magnitude of the word. According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place. Everything depends on this justification, which is losable, so that the believer only gets to see a little of the glory of grace and lives for the day, so to speak. The covenantal outlook is the reverse. One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given. Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps the instantaneous justification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet Priest and King as his rich full Messiah."

-Geerhardus Vos. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. pg 256

"In our opinion Paul consciously and consistently subordinated the mystical aspect of the relation to Christ to the forensic one. Paul’s mind was to such an extent forensically oriented that he regarded the entire complex of subjective spiritual changes that take place in the believer and subjective spiritual blessings enjoyed by the believer as the direct outcome of the forensic work of Christ applied in justification. The mystical is based on the forensic, not the forensic on the mystical."

- Geerhardus Vos. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. pg 384



The Mystical and Forensic in Paul and Vos

Within the same volume of Vos' writings, we find these two quotations. Vos affirms both that the mystical is subordinate to the forensic AND that mystical union precedes forensic justification in the believer. Is Vos contradicting himself? Did Vos change his mind? Or can Vos hold both these positions simultaneously?

First, Vos declares that in the ordo salutis, the mystical union is prior to, and even the source of, the benefits of redemption including forensic justification. Justification is found “in Christ,” and is part of the spiritual blessings given to the believer in union with Christ (Eph 1:3). Although they come simultaneously, there is a logical priority to union with Christ before justification in Reformed soteriology, which avoids the “legal fiction” charge leveled against Lutheranism by Roman Catholics. This also seems to best conform to the language of Scripture about the benefits of redemption being rooted in union with Christ.

So how does the second quote on subordination of the mystical to the forensic not contradict this? Because the second quote is dealing with how the Gospel is accomplished and communicated. Vos is addressing the proclamation in totality of Christ's Gospel to the Church. In declaring the gospel, Vos says that the mystical is subordinate to the forensic and the mystical depends upon the forensic. This is certainly true in that if the forensic is the accomplishment of salvation by Christ in regards to the Law. Christ obeys the law in life, and takes the penalty of the law in death. This is an accomplishment in history rather than in the believer and so is often called the historia salutis. The mystical, on the other hand, is the application of the accomplishment of salvation in the Spirit uniting the believer to Christ (enumerated in the ordo salutis). Therefore, Christ must accomplish salvation in history before it may be applied to us. The application by Spirit in uniting us to Christ depends upon the accomplishment of Christ fulfilling the law. The ordo salutis depends on the historia salutis. The mystical depends upon the forensic.

There is, however, another context where we would bring the mystical aspect to the surface as of utmost importance. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 brings the mystical union to the forefront when addressing the context of the use of prostitutes by members of the church. Paul applies union to rebuke his audience that their conduct was inconsistent with the mystical salvation that belongs to believers: i.e. the body of Christ cannot be united to a prostitute. Yet, Vos' broader point (about the subordination of the mystical to the forensic) still remains true. Even this mystical aspect depends upon the accomplishment of the forensic/legal demand that Christ fulfills for His church. Paul begins 1 Corinthians with the defense of his preaching of the accomplishment of salvation by Christ's crucifixion (1 Corinthians 2:1-2). Paul must first establish the priority of the historical accomplishment of Christ (historia salutis) before the implications and benefits that come from union with Christ (ordo salutis).

In this way, Vos is not contradicting himself and we ought not fight between two different Voses. Rather, we ought to acknowledge that in the application of salvation to the believer, mystical union establishes justification. However, the basis of this mystical union applied to us is Christ's accomplishment forensically of salvation outside of us and is logically prior to us or the application of salvation to us. If we discuss the relation of the historia salutis and ordo salutis, then the forensic precedes and is necessary before any talk of the mystical can occur. But if we discuss specifically the ordo salutis by itself, then the mystical precedes, because it applies, the forensic.

Calvin on Justification, Union and Imputation

A thought provoking quote from Calvin. Note that he is not dismissing imputation, but a wrong view of it. But here we see Calvin placing the emphasis and foundation of every spiritual blessing as coming from union with Christ. [Wonder where he got that idea? (hint: Eph 1:3)] But such a quote seems to shut up both "legal fiction" critics and much of the protestations of New Perspective people that think they discovered the idea of union with Christ:

“I confess that we are deprived of this blessing [justification] until Christ is made ours. Therefore, that joining together of head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts–in short, that mystical union–are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body–in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.” -John Calvin. Institutes 3.11.10

HT: Sacramental Piety

Is Peter Kreeft a Catholic heretic?

An interesting passage from "The God Who Loves You" by Peter Kreeft.

[From the Chapter: The Twelve Most Profound Ideas I Have Ever Had]:

"7. The gift of God's love is ours for the taking.

I am a Roman Catholic. But the most liberating idea I have ever heard I first learned from Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II told the German Lutheran bishops that Luther was profoundly right about this idea. He said that Catholic teaching affirms it just as strongly and that there was no contradiction between Protestant and Catholic theology on this terribly important point, which was the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. I speak, of course, about "justification by faith" and its consequence, which Luther called "Christian Liberty" or "the liberty of a Christian" in his little gem of an essay by that name...

The point is amazingly simple, which is why so many of us just don't get it. Heaven is free because love is free. It is ours for the taking. The taking is faith. "If you believe, you will be saved." It is really that simple. If I offer you a gift, you have it if and only if you have faith to take it.

The primacy of faith does not discount or denigrate works but liberates them. Our good works can bow also be free - free from the worry and slavery and performance anxiety of having to buy Heaven with them. Our good works can now flow from genuine love of neighbor, not fear of Hell. nobody wants to be loved merely as a mean to build up the lover's merit pile. That attempt is ridiculous logically as well as psychologically. How much does Heaven cost? A thousand good works? Would 999 no do then? The very question shows its own absurdity. That absurdity comes from forgetting that God is love."

-Peter Kreeft. The God Who Loves You. pg 23-24.


Thoughts? I think he is wrong about the Protestant and Catholic agreement (or else someone owes Ridley, Latimer, De Bres, Cranmer, etc. a big apology for that whole burning at the stake thing). But if he really believes it, that prompts 3 possibilities: 1) Kreeft was being clever and vague - not use of "alone," even though he cites Luther. 2) Kreeft didn't understand what he was saying and has moved past it (thus his popularity among Catholics today) 3) Kreeft is an uncalled out heretic (Romanly speaking):

Guess the Heretic!

Some Protestants and Catholics misrepresent the doctrine of justification by faith as some entirely novel invention of Martin Luther. This is said by Roman Catholics to imply that no one before him had ever had the audacity or pure evil intentions to declare such a thing. And it is said by some non-Catholics to dismiss the church pre-1500 as irrelevant and to dismiss the idea of tradition having any proper role in aiding exegesis. But what if part of your exegesis of Scripture had to answer this question: "Has anyone before 1800, or 1500, ever interpreted this passage this way? If not, what do you have access to that they don't that would inform such a difference in interpretation?" Certainly, the doctrine of justification by faith in Luther and Calvin is more developed, but it is not novel:


"All effort of human argument must be postponed where faith alone is sufficient...the righteousness of faith, by which we are justified [consists in] that we believe in him whom we do not see, and that, being cleansed by faith, we shall eventually see him in whom we now believe." -Julian of Toledo, Bishop of Toledo (circa 7th Cent)

"[Justification is] thou art not only righteous, but art called 'righteous' a righteousness that justifies...The righteousness of God consists in his not sinning, but the righteousness of man consists in his being forgiven by God." -Bernard of Clairvaux, Catholic mystic (circa 14th Cent)

"God who does make the unclean clean and who by taking away sins does justify the sinner without works." -Ildefonsus of Toledo, Bishop of Toledo (circa 7th Cent)

"The beginning of human salvation comes from faith...which when it is in Christ, is justification to the believer." -Hincmar of Reims, Bishop of Reims (circa 9th Cent)

"We, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to Whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen" -Clement of Rome, presbyter/bishop? of Rome (circa 1st Cent)

"A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are work of the law these are not based on hte foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God." -Origen, early church theologian (circa 3rd Cent)

"No one has been so foolish as to say that merits are the cause of the divine act by which God predestines...There would indeed be injustice if the effects of predestination were rendered as a debt which is due, and not given by grace." -Thomas Aquinas, Latin Theologian (circa 13th Century) *

"We believe that man is justified by faith, not by works...we understand the correlative of faith, namely the righteousness of Christ, which faith, performing the function of a hand, grasps and applies to us salvation." -Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucaris, Greek Orthodox's highest bishop (circa 17th Cent.)

"no one, [Paul] saith, is justified by works, in order that the grace and loving-kindness of God may be shown. He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast...the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith." -John Chysostom, Greek preacher (circa 4th Cent)


*[Update: I do realize Thomas has an Augustinian idea of justification as "making righteous" but included him because the statement by itself without the identifier would be most often identified as sounding Lutheran/Reformed rather than Thomistic. Hence the title "Guess the heretic." This is only meant to show the seeds, not the full fruit of justification. The same premises that lead Thomas to his doctrine of presdestination lead Luther to his doctrine of justification. I mean no more.]

Horton critques N.T. Wright

Michael Horton has continued his task of critiquing N.T. Wright's view of justification (which denies a covenant of works and imputation) from a classical covenantal perspective. The series keeps getting better. [UPDATE: Get the entire review in one place here]

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Unity of the Covenant in justification

Part 3: Justification and God's People

Part 4: Justification and Eschatology & Imputation

Part 5: Justification and Imputation (cont.)

Part 6: Justification and the Works of the Law

Part 7: Is Wright Biblical or reading in his Systematics in Paul?

Part 8: Justification and Romans

UPDATE:

Part 9: Works of the Law: Soteriology and Ecclesiology

Part 10: Conclusion

Church Fathers on Faith

"Ver 8 - “For by grace,” saith he “have ye been saved.”
In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise thee too high, observe how he brings thee down: “by grace ye have been saved,” saith he,

“Through faith;”

Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds,

“And that not of ourselves.”

Neither is faith he means, “of ourselves.” Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? for “how,” saith he, “shall they believe, unless they hear?” (Rom. x. 14.) So that the work of faith itself is not our own.

“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.”

Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God.That he may excite in us proper feeling

Ver 9. - touching this gift of grace. “What then?” saith a man, “Hath He Himself hindered our being justified by works?” By no means. But no one, he saith, is justified by works, in order that the grace and loving-kindness of God may be shown. He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast."


- John Chrysostom on Eph 2:8-9

"For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6/Rom 4:3). Abraham believed God. Let us also believe, so that we who are heirs of his race may likewise be heirs of his faith."

-Ambrose of Milan

"Paul revealed that Abraham had glory before God not because he was circumcised nor because he abstained from evil, but because he believed in God. For that reason he was justified, and he would receive the reward of praise in the future."

-Ambrosiaster.

"Vain, too, are Marcion and his followers when they seek to exclude Abraham from the inheritance, to whom the Spirit through many men, and now by Paul, bears witness, that 'he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."

-Irenaeus

Sermon text: Habakkuk's Two Complaints

Two Complaints or The Gospel according to Habakkuk.

(BTW - Thanks to Jay Bennett for some revision help)

[TEXT: Habakkuk 2:4]

We just sang:

Thy justice, like mountains, high soaring above
Thy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.

Open your pew Bibles to the book of Habakkuk and let us see see how Habakkuk responds to such grand thoughts of God's justice:

Hab 1:2 O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you "Violence!" and you will not save? Hab 1:3 Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise. Hab 1:4 So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth.

You may have read our text from Habakkuk 2:4 on the front cover, one of the most quoted OT verses in the New Testament. But Habakkuk, believe it or not, does not start in chapter two, but begins with Habakkuk, registering a complaint with God. In fact, Habakkuk has two complaints before we get to 2:4. We are looking at these two complaints together tonight, as we take a quick journey through the whole book of Habakkuk.

Habakkuk begins his prayer, skipping any formalities, naming of grand attributes of God, or praising of God's name and goes straight to “Why are you not listening?!” I cry “violence” and why will you not save. Habakkuk lives near the end of the time of the kingdom of Judah. Israel has been conquered and taken into exile, and Judah alone remains. Judah had been known as the good kingdom compared to Northern Israel, but at this time Judah is worshiping Baal and Mannassah, King of Judah, had even sacrificed his own son by fire to foreign gods! It's a horrible situation in Judah. Habakkuk cries out to God, if you are Holy and Just, why do you not save us from this evil?!

We find ourselves among much evil. The scary part is when it comes from within the people of God, within the church. The recent approval of sexual perversion by multiple denominations in their own clergy. We saw a so-called revival meeting last year in Florida that ended with money stolen from participants and an affair by the main pastor leading it. We see sex abuse scandals involving clergy and children. We think of the middle ages when there was dishonest theft from the poor by the church to build a building in Rome.

Are we not tempted to shout with Habakkuk: “Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise. So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth.” What good is the law with all this evil?!

It may seem impious and irreverent to say such things. We like to critique the attitude of Biblical characters. But that's what makes Old Testament characters like Job and Habakkuk so interesting and relevant is they shock us with their honesty. They haven't learned to hide their doubts and even anger at God as well as we have. The words shock us, but they do not shock God. God is not at a loss for words.

In response to Habakkuk's complaint, crying to be saved from human evil, God assures him that His Justice is coming, in verse 6, he says He is raising up the Chaldeans, a tribe of the Babylonians, to violently seize their nation from them in God's Justice. God's wrath against sin and human evil will be shown in His Justice.

The end. Habakkuk's happy now, right?

Of course not! Habakkuk then files a second complaint and says:

1:13 You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

Basically he says: “The Chaldeans will judge us?! That's not the answer I wanted! They are worse than we are!” What's the problem now? Habakkuk is realizing he's targeting the very ship he is standing on! Habakkuk is a member of the nation of Judah. And as a part of Judah, how can God allow a less righteous people come to punish a more righteous nation?!

Let's look at this dialog: First Habakkuk cried for salvation from human evil. Then, God's Justice acts and promises swift justice and wrath. Then, Habakkuk needs salvation from God's Justice.

Habakkuk appeals for deliverance. But, on what grounds? What grounds does Habakkuk appeal to God from, that God would spare Judah? “We're better than those guys.” We are more righteousness than them. Sure, I just admitted we are really evil. But we're not THAT BAD.

The guy who killed someone in the paper, he deserves justice. But us? We only kill my boss in my mind everyday when we see that idiot. We're not actually going to do it! The guys in the papers that had a string of bank robberies, they deserve to go to prison. We may just under-report my assets to the IRS. It's different. We are relatively more righteous than those other horrible people! I should live on account of my righteousness! Can't you grade on a curve, God!? It's only fair.

Habakkuk sits back and thinks he has God in a corner (2:1). God answers the second complaint, letting Habakkuk know the Chaldeans will have to answer His justice, but this is where we get the answer of 2:4, our text. This is the problem 2:4 comes to answer. God must explain to more-righteous-than-them Habakkuk what sort of righteousness God is looking for in man. Not a puffed up pride, as better-than-the-next-guy righteousness, but

Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

Notice what God did not say. The righteous do not live by man's righteousness. They do not live by being better than the next guy. He lives by faith.

Jesus has a nack for taking a hard teaching and making it offensive. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector going to the Temple to pray, the Pharisee prays: Thank you that I am not like this man, who openly steal from his people. The tax collector merely beat his chest and said, have mercy on me, a sinner. Luke's account tells us that Jesus has the audacity to say the one known to steal from his people openly, the tax collector, "went home justified." But the Pharisee lived better! In comparison, he was more righteous! How can a less righteous acting man be justified? Only the tax collector had pleaded for God's mercy in faith, rather than pleading his own righteousness.

God's Justice does not grade on a curve. You see the man who pleads his own righteousness does have a sort of faith. But where is that faith? In himself and his righteousness. “his soul is puffed up.” The righteousness God speaks of is different. It is marked by the righteousness of the object of faith, not the person believing.

When Habakkuk gets his third time to speak, well, the third time's a charm. Habakkuk first wanted God to save them from human evil because God is Holy. When God's Holy Justice answers with wrath against sin, Habakkuk needs salvation from God's wrath. But when God takes away the ground of Habakkuk's righteousness, Habakkuk finally gets it in chapter 3. In 3:2. He asks the Lord in fear:

Hab 3:2 in wrath, remember mercy.

Finally, Habakkuk asks for salvation from God's wrathful justice against human sin by appealing to God's mercy, rather than Habakkuk's righteousness. What that faith ultimately looks like is that faith does not plead one's own righteousness, but faith pleads the righteousness of Another, which Habakkuk is going to do. Isaac Watts wrote in a hymn: “The best obedience of my hands, dares not appear before Thy Throne, but Faith can answer Thy Demands, by pleading what my Lord has done.” Is it our obedience or Christ's we trust? Is it what we have done or Christ has done?

I argue that Habakkuk had faith in Christ's work. How can I say that, since Habakkuk lived before Christ? Indeed, but the God had covenanted with his people in order that mercy and grace might be shown, from Genesis 3:15 on, where the seed of the woman would “crush the head of the serpent,” the source of evil. This is what Habakkuk is appeals to in 3:13 where he expectantly says

Hab 3:13 You went out for the salvation of your people, for the salvation of your anointed. You crushed the head of the house of the wicked, laying him bare from thigh to neck.

Habakkuk has turned from himself to God's promise. As God has done before with defeating Pharaoh and will do with the Chaldeans and again definitively in the Promised Messiah. The ground of appeal had to be moved from a false righteousness to the promise of the seed crushing the head of evil. The ground of faith is the Righteous One and His promises. Habakkuk ends his prayer in 3:18, appealing to “the God of my salvation, The Lord is my strength” or the word can also be translated resources or wealth, or treasure. The grounds of Habakkuk's appeal have fully moved from his own power and treasure of righteousness to God's righteousness and mercy.

The Ancient Jew had to rest on God and His promises in faith alone, that He would save him. We are no different in essence on this side of the coming of Jesus. Where is Habakkuk's ultimate hope? “The God of my salvation” (3:18)

Where is our hope? In Jesus. In Yeshua. In the name that literally means: “The Lord saves.” Habakkuk trusts the “God of my salvation” just as we trust Jesus “The Lord saves.” Will God answer the problem of evil? Yes in Holy Justice. How can we be saved then from God's wrath in justice? How can God “in wrath, remember mercy?” being both Just and merciful? By God Himself taking on the wrath of God. Only by God Himself being the one that fulfills all righteousness under the law. Only in the God of our salvation. Only in Yeshua, the Lord saves.

From human sin, from the wrath of God's Justice, we fly to no other source when we come to the table. We do not trust our flesh to fulfill all righteousness under the law, but trust Christ's truly righteous flesh. We do not pay our penalty with our tainted blood, but plead Christ' truly righteous blood as payment. We come to exchange. Our righteousness, which at best is filthy rages, for true righteousness.

Come to the table to plead with our God with the words of the prophet: “in wrath, remember mercy, oh God of my salvation.” Amen.

Dan Wallace vs N.T. Wright

Dan Wallace, a New Testament Scholar at DTS, has written an article evaluating N.T. Wright's view of "Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ" or the righteousness of God. Wallace's conclusion is wonderful:

“it has coherence when it is not interacting with the particulars of the text, but it wreaks havoc at the lexical level for it is self-defeating...I would view Wright’s synthesis of Romans as a brilliant failure—brilliant because of how coherent it is, but a failure because it sits three feet above the text at all points where it would be inconvenient to wrestle with what the text actually says.”

Text here.

If Final Judgment is by works...still plead for mercy

Ezekiel Chapter 7

7:1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “And you, O son of man, thus says the Lord God to the land of Israel: An end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land. 3 Now the end is upon you, and I will send my anger upon you; I will judge you according to your ways, and I will punish you for all your abominations. 4 And my eye will not spare you, nor will I have pity, but I will punish you for your ways, while your abominations are in your midst. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

5 “Thus says the Lord God: Disaster after disaster! Behold, it comes. 6 An end has come; the end has come; it has awakened against you. Behold, it comes. 7 Your doom has come to you, O inhabitant of the land. The time has come; the day is near, a day of tumult, and not of joyful shouting on the mountains. 8 Now I will soon pour out my wrath upon you, and spend my anger against you, and judge you according to your ways, and I will punish you for all your abominations. 9 And my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. I will punish you according to your ways, while your abominations are in your midst. Then you will know that I am the Lord, who strikes.

10 “Behold, the day! Behold, it comes! Your doom has come; the rod has blossomed; pride has budded. 11 Violence has grown up into a rod of wickedness. None of them shall remain, nor their abundance, nor their wealth; neither shall there be preeminence among them. 12 The time has come; the day has arrived. Let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn, for wrath is upon all their multitude. 13 For the seller shall not return to what he has sold, while they live. For the vision concerns all their multitude; it shall not turn back; and because of his iniquity, none can maintain his life.

14 “They have blown the trumpet and made everything ready, but none goes to battle, for my wrath is upon all their multitude. 15 The sword is without; pestilence and famine are within. He who is in the field dies by the sword, and him who is in the city famine and pestilence devour. 16 And if any survivors escape, they will be on the mountains, like doves of the valleys, all of them moaning, each one over his iniquity. 17 All hands are feeble, and all knees turn to water. 18 They put on sackcloth, and horror covers them. Shame is on all faces, and baldness on all their heads. 19 They cast their silver into the streets, and their gold is like an unclean thing. Their silver and gold are not able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord. They cannot satisfy their hunger or fill their stomachs with it. For it was the stumbling block of their iniquity. 20 His beautiful ornament they used for pride, and they made their abominable images and their detestable things of it. Therefore I make it an unclean thing to them. 21 And I will give it into the hands of foreigners for prey, and to the wicked of the earth for spoil, and they shall profane it. 22 I will turn my face from them, and they shall profane my treasured place. Robbers shall enter and profane it.

23 “Forge a chain! For the land is full of bloody crimes and the city is full of violence. 24 I will bring the worst of the nations to take possession of their houses. I will put an end to the pride of the strong, and their holy places shall be profaned. 25 When anguish comes, they will seek peace, but there shall be none. 26 Disaster comes upon disaster; rumor follows rumor. They seek a vision from the prophet, while the law perishes from the priest and counsel from the elders. 27 The king mourns, the prince is wrapped in despair, and the hands of the people of the land are paralyzed by terror. According to their way I will do to them, and according to their judgments I will judge them, and they shall know that I am the Lord.”

Horton vs Wright

In reading the debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright on Justification, though thankful for Piper's work, I have been disappointed with aspects of Piper's approach. Piper leans more "New Covenantal" rather than classical covenantal in his approach to the concept of covenant and imputation, which oddly means that there are times that I agree with Wright over Piper, even though I agree with Piper's conclusion and not Wright's.

Michael Horton, however, has taken up the task of critiquing N.T. Wright's view of justification (which denies a covenant of works and imputation) from a classical covenantal perspective. The series is very helpful:
[UPDATE: Get the entire review in one place here]

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Unity of the Covenant in justification

Part 3: Justification and God's People

Part 4: Justification and Eschatology & Imputation

Part 5: Justification and Imputation (cont.)

Part 6: Justification and the Works of the Law
 
Part 7: Is Wright Biblical or reading in his Systematics in Paul?

Part 8: Justification and Romans

Part 9: Works of the Law: Soteriology and Ecclesiology

Part 10: Conclusion

Are justification and sanctification separate?

As a follow up to my reflection on justification, adoption and sanctification I thought I would also share Larger Catechism Question 77. Often, Reformation Christianity is criticized by Arminians and Catholics alike as dividing justification and sanctification. This accusation, at least in formal confessional theology, is a slander. The Reformed faith distinguishes, but does not divide justification and sanctification. But one might protest that a distinction and a division are the same thing. Are they?

As R.C. Sproul says, one of the most important things to learn in theology is the difference between a division and a distinction. It is quite important to a person whether I distinguish between your body and your spirit, for then I have done you no harm, or if I divide your body and spirit, for then I have killed you.

In viewing salvation, the difference is important too. A division between justification and sanctification results in antinomianism, a definition of salvation grasped by a faith that may be exercised by natural man. A confusion of justification and sanctification results in legalism, where one believes one is forgiven on the basis of the progress made in religious duty. A distinction, however, avoids a definition of salvation involving a faith without effect in life, as well as a definition of faith as an effect in life with no guarantee of salvation. The distinction informs us that the merit of salvation is Christ’s, and its effect is real in life, but that salvation is not on the basis of the effect, but results in it.


Question 77: Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?

Answer: Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enables to the exercise thereof; in the former [justification], sin is pardoned; in the other [sanctification], it is subdued: the one [justification] does equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other [sanctification] is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.

Reformed Spirituality: Reflection on Justification, Adoption and Sanctification

A Reflection on Smaller Catechism Questions 30-35.

In Question 32, we are told that our union with Christ (in Q30) results in us being made to “partake of justification, adoption, sanctification,” which are then described in Questions 33, 34, and 35 respectively. Looking at the answers in the catechism: what is similar and what is different between these three benefits of Justification, Adoption and Sanctification?

Question 33 defines justification as “an act of God’s free grace.” Reformation Christians know justification is an event, whereby we are once found in the courtroom of the Judge and once declared righteous based on Christ’s work. What might make this doctrine more precious to the believer is realizing not all Christians enjoy this Pauline perspective on justification. Roman Catholicism sees justification as a process, and so we are never out from under the glare and judgment of the righteous Judge. Our works are continually on trial, to be weighed in justification. How we view God and relate to Him in the rest of our Christian walk flows from this difference.

In our calling, we receive a new relationship between us and God. Obedience is not to appease a Judge, but in love of the Father as we are now, in an event and act, also adopted as sons and daughters (Question 34). Thus, our obedient works are not under the eyes of a Judge, but a Father and accepted as such. Our elder brother Jesus has perfectly pleased our Father, and now our poor works are accepted in that light, as a Father accepts a bad drawing of a child, so our good works are accepted by the Father. Still we grow, still our good motives are mixed with bad so that we must repent even of our good works, but seeing the Christian life as a life of repentance, as both Calvin and Luther described it, does not mean was live in fear in a process of justification, but in joy in the light of adoption.

The means of our status as children of God also informs our devotion. Paul tells us in Galatians 4:4-5, “God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” We receive our adoption by the work of the Son. This is because, as Paul tells the Galatians earlier, of their union with Christ. “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God”( Gal 3:26) Christ has his Sonship by nature. In Christ’s work, He allows us union with him to share in the blessings of sonship. Paul tells us the Holy Spirit applies this to us in chapter 4, “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”(Gal 4:6) Paul specifically describes this as adoption in his later letter to Romans where he writes, “you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Romans 8:15)

Seeing all the members of the Trinity involved in our salvation softens our hearts to our new family role. A Father we once feared has been given the title of “Abba” or “Daddy.” Close familial love replaces our alienation. Christ is looked up to as, firstly our Savior, but also our example. We learn from Jesus as we would an older brother. As an adopted member of the family, we can look to Him to see how to talk to the Father as Jesus gives us the Lord’s Prayer. We can see what actions please the Father in Jesus’ conduct. We can relate about suffering we both share in the experience of life. All these are benefits given to us by the Holy Spirit, the tie and rope that raises us up into the divine family.

What is accomplished by following the Law then? Certainly, we add nothing to Christ’s fulfillment. We do, however, share in the likeness of our Lord in our conduct. Just as Paul delighted in “filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions,” not that Christ lacked full punishment of sin, but that Paul could walk in the same path as Christ. The imitation of Christ as the Son of God allows the believer as the adopted son of God to pattern their life in the manner in which they will grow up into. This might be likened to a child following an older sibling's foot prints walking in deep snow. The future perfection will allow us to walk more fluidly and perfectly, but until then we merely have the example of our older brother to follow. We add nothing to His path, but make gains in the path due to His going ahead of us.

Sanctification is infused with new meaning in this light, for sanctification occurs in the shadow of adoption. We are in the process of being “renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin and live unto righteousness.” The application of Christ’s death and resurrection, thus, are applied to sons and daughters of God.

[If you would like to explore the aspects of Adoption as related to Obedience, listen to an interview of Peter Lillback as he discusses this theme in Calvin.]