# No Reformed Theology of Justification?



## brymaes (Oct 6, 2007)

In _Ordained Servant_


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 6, 2007)

Interesting article. I think he makes some valid criticisms.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 6, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Interesting article. I think he makes some valid criticisms.




And those are?

rsc


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 7, 2007)

That we need to be careful to distinguish Reformed and Lutheran theologies. Have you or any of the others he cited responded to this article or argument anywhere? I'd be interested to see your response. I've read parts of the CJPM book he refers to, which I found helpful. But I share Garcia's concern that we articulate a distinctively Reformed theology.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Oct 7, 2007)

Moreover, whilst both Lutherans and the Reformed held to a law / gospel distinction, this distinction was interpreted in different ways. Lutherans had a fairly uniform understanding, especially after the Formula of Concord. But a variety of construals can be found in the Reformed tradition.

Dr Clark you particularly say that the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative. That is the Lutheran position, and of _some _Reformed divines. But here are two examples (I could multiply these examples, they're in a chapter of my ThD thesis still being written) that show differently:

Example 1: Zwingli wants to include commands in the gospel when he says:

"I understand gospel here to be everything which God has made known to us through his own Son. It is *also gospel *when he says: You shall not be angry with one another […] I understand it thus: The true believer is gladdened and nourished with every word of God, even if it is against the desires of the flesh." (_CR _89 Z II.76.12-78.16)

Example 2: Ursinus explicitly denies the indicative only notion and says the gospel also includes the command to repent and believe:

"Ans. We deny the major [i.e. We deny there is no precept, or commandment belonging to the gospel], if it is taken generally; for *this precept is peculiar to the gospel, which commands us to believe, to embrace the benefits of Christ, and to commence new obedience, or that righteousness which the law requires*. If it be objected that the law also commands us to believe in God, we reply that it does this only in general, by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it. But *the gospel commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace; and also exhorts us by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word, to walk worthy of our heavenly calling*. This however it does only in general, not specifying any duty in particular, saying thou shalt do this, or that, but it leaves this to the law; as, on the contrary, it does not say in general, believe all the promises of God, leaving this to the law; but it says in particular, Believe this promise; fly to Christ, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee." (_Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism _19.3.4, Williard, p. 105.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> That we need to be careful to distinguish Reformed and Lutheran theologies. Have you or any of the others he cited responded to this article or argument anywhere? I'd be interested to see your response. I've read parts of the CJPM book he refers to, which I found helpful. But I share Garcia's concerned that we articulate a distinctively Reformed theology.



I made an observation like that about a year ago. I was quoting WTS President Peter Lillback. I got slammed and nearly ridiculed for being a FV revisionist.


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 8, 2007)

But make a distinction between Reformed and Lutheran theologies regarding what? Justification? With regard to the doctrine itself, that is common ground among all the magisterial Reformers. Just look at the creeds. Its relationship to other doctrines might be put differently among Lutherans and Reformed folk.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 14, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> That we need to be careful to distinguish Reformed and Lutheran theologies. Have you or any of the others he cited responded to this article or argument anywhere? I'd be interested to see your response. I've read parts of the CJPM book he refers to, which I found helpful. But I share Garcia's concern that we articulate a distinctively Reformed theology.



I am learning all of this the past few months but...why do we necessarily need a distinction if there is no large difference. I can understand on matters such as the Atonement and Lord's Supper. Nuances are one thing but on Justification is there that much different between the two schools. Both Lutheran and Reformed hold to a 66 books canon of Scripture. Is there a distinctly Reformed 66 books take on the matter?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 15, 2007)

1. re: Ursinus. I've commented on that passage before on this board. Read the quotation carefully. Do I disagree with Ursinus? Sure. Is it fundamental? No. It all depends on the question being addressed. Ursinus said a number of things with which, as a matter of dogmatics, I would disagree. He was also crystal clear on the distinction between law and gospel. 

2. The evidence that the Reformed distinguished between law and gospel in justification is overwhelming and it is documented in CJPM.

3. I've never denied that there are differences between the way the Reformed and the Lutheran talk about some aspects of justification but the idea that there is a distinctively Reformed doctrine of justification entirely or fundamentally is a myth. What is different is the way the Reformed expressed the doctrine of justification via covenant theology. 

4. I've discussed the significant differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran on this list and in print for any one who cares to read it. See my book on Olevianus for a detailed discussion of the differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran Christologies. 

I just finished an essay on the Lutheran view of Calvin and another essay on Calvin's doctrine of predestination. I'm quite aware of the differences. 

I'm also aware of the similarities between the Reformed and the Lutherans on justification as were all the Reformed in the 16th and 17th centuries.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 15, 2007)

*Berkhof on Union and Justification*



> The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.



Louis Berkhof, _Systematic Theology_,452. (HT: Brian Chang on the WSCAL list)


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Oct 15, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Do I disagree with Ursinus? Sure. Is it fundamental? No. It all depends on the question being addressed.



Dear Dr Clark, thanks for your response. I guess it depends on what one means by "fundamental". For many years I believed that the gospel was simply an indicative (_a la_ Luther). However, I discovered that the NT evidence doesn't bare this out. The gospel surely must have an imperative within it when we are told that people don't "obey" (_hypakouo_) it:

2The 1:8 (NIV) He will punish those who do not know God and *do not obey the gospel* of our Lord Jesus. 

Paul seems to show that the command "to turn" is in the very gospel message itself:

Acts 14:15 [Paul] "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you, preaching the gospel to you, telling you *to turn* from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. 

Another example that includes imperatives.

Reve 14:6 (NIV) Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth--to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7 He said in a loud voice, "*Fear God and give him glory*, because the hour of his judgment has come. *Worship him* who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

The question might not be fundamental but it's not trivial. It was a particular point over which the 17th century English Antinomian controversy occurred. The Antinomians argued that there were no commands in the gospel itself, i.e. the gospel was simply an indicative (for example Tobias Crisp, _Sermon_ 37, _Works_ 3:234).

However, as John Owen (amongst others) argued (_Works_ 3:606-609) it's not the existence of commands / imperatives that make something law or gospel its the purpose (or "end") of the commands. The gospel commands people to do, not to be justified (as does the law), but because one is justified.



R. Scott Clark said:


> 4. I've discussed the significant differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran on this list and in print for any one who cares to read it. See my book on Olevianus for a detailed discussion of the differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran Christologies.



I very much look forward to reading your book--I'm just about to review it for the _Reformed Theological Review_. It's exciting days for the study of post-reformation historical theology.

Every blessing.


----------



## caddy (Oct 15, 2007)

*Does Justification Still Matter? M.Horton*

Modern Reformation - Articles


----------



## mybigGod (Oct 16, 2007)

Is nt it responding in faith that is obeying the gospel? 

"But we are not of them that draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” The drawing back to perdition includes the loss of a justified estate, really so or in profession. In opposition whereunto the apostle places “believing unto the saving of the soul;” that is, unto the continuation of justification unto the end. And herein it is that the “just live by faith;” and the loss of this life can only be by unbelief: so the “life which we now live in the flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us, and gave himself for us,” Gal. ii. 20. The life which we now lead in the flesh is the continuation of our justification, a life of righteousness and acceptation with God; in opposition unto a life by the works of the law, as the next words declare, verse 21, “I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then is Christ dead in vain.” John Owen


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Oct 16, 2007)

mybigGod said:


> Is nt it responding in faith that is obeying the gospel?



The gospel is the declaration that Christ is Saviour and Lord (Rom. 1:2-4); in his death he has reconciled, and in his resurrection he is instated as ruler / Lord / boss of all creation and rules (as King) by the Holy Spirit.

Hence, the gospel offers both a right relationship with God (a new position) in justification, adoption, reconciliation, but also a changed life (a new condition). If Christ is saviour we must respond in faith and if he is Lord we must respond in repentance. Faith alone ensures that I'm brought into a new relationship with God, not by anything I've done, but by Christ's cross-work (justification by faith alone), and the *fruit* of this is the repentant new life that the gospel calls us to.

The commands of the gospel are repent and believe (Mark 1:14-15 et. al.). Repentance doesn't save but indicates I'm already saved, justified, reconciled etc. The gospel commands but our obedience to those commands are *not* the gospel but it's effect / fruit.


----------



## mybigGod (Oct 17, 2007)

If Christ is saviour we must respond in faith and if he is Lord we must respond in repentance.

I understand the different sides to saving faith. Justification by faith is not dependent upon our works. So it is not tied to our ability to persevere. There is no cause in us to remain justified. The first cause of our being justified is God alone.

"And the same, for the substance of it, is the judgment of some of them who affirm the continuation of our justification to depend on our own works, setting aside that ambiguous term of merit; for it is on the account of the righteousness of Christ, they say, that our own works, or imperfect obedience, is so accepted with God, that the continuation of our justification depends thereon. But the apostle gives us another account hereof, Rom. v. 1–3; for he distinguishes three things:— 1. Our access into the grace of God. 2. Our standing in that grace. 3. Our glorying in that station against all opposition. By the first he expresses our absolute justification; by the second, our continuation in the state whereinto we are admitted thereby; and by the third, the assurance of that continuation, notwithstanding all the oppositions we meet withal. And all these he ascribes equally unto faith, without the intermixture of any other cause or condition; and other places express to the same purpose might be pleaded. John Owen ,DOJ pg 114


----------



## Archlute (Oct 17, 2007)

Hello Marty,

Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith. The distinction here, which would more clearly show the separation between law and Gospel than most who cite this passage would like to see revealed, rests upon the relationship of the participle to the dative of direct object which follows. When 'upakouow' is used in this manner it can take on the meaning of embracing a belief in full surrender to it, or can be used of one accepting a given invitation. This would cause the passage to read "inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God, and on those who do not embrace (by faith) the Gospel of our Lord Jesus". For me, this also more clearly emphasizes the aspect of God's wrath upon those not covered by Christ's penal substitutionary atonement. The actions of the persecutors are not what brings a special wrath of God, rather, Paul comforts the persecuted that even as the unbelief of the Jews issues forth in their violent actions, so will that root of unbelief be punished.

Some may question this rendering, which is well attested to in the Greek literature of the time, by asking why no English translation has rendered it in this manner. My response is the same as that of my dear Greek prof Steve Baugh who, when queried by students as to what we should do when the English translations all seem to go against a better understanding of a phrase, replied by asking why ministers would be studying Greek at all if they wanted merely to rely on translation committee consensus. It is well known that numerous English translations are basically identical in their wording, not because each committee did a fresh study of each passage, but rather because they took the bulk of a previous translation (RSV to ESV for example) and reproduced it nearly verbatim. The same holds true for much of the Geneva - King James - American Standard - New King James line as well. It is known that when Tyndale changed 'presbyteros' from 'priest' to 'elder' in the New Testament that it was considered a novelty and caused an ecclesiastical tumult. It had nothing to do with whether or not Tyndale had the better understanding of this term, but rather with the fact that a translation tradition, which had made it easy to uphold the idea of the minister as a priest offering up a sacrifice in the eucharist, was placed at stake.

I believe that 2 Thess. 1:8 is best understood in this manner, and find that this fits best with the clear distinction between action and faith in Mark 1:15 as well.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 17, 2007)

So having read the review in the Ordained Servant my guess is that Mark Garcia is a Shepherd supporter who wants to emphasize, along with Shepherd, that there is a distinctly Reformed way of viewing justification through a covenantal lens, one which places a much greater emphasis upon works in salvation (really as a ground of justification, although that will not be made clear) than does the supposed "Lutheran distinction" between Law and Gospel. Does anyone here know more clearly of his sympathies?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 17, 2007)

Archlute said:


> So having read the review in the Ordained Servant my guess is that Mark Garcia is a Shepherd supporter who wants to emphasize, along with Shepherd, that there is a distinctly Reformed way of viewing justification through a covenantal lens, one which places a much greater emphasis upon works in salvation (really as a ground of justification, although that will not be made clear) than does the supposed "Lutheran distinction" between Law and Gospel. Does anyone here know more clearly of his sympathies?



I know Mark personally. You can't pin him down on any one man. He likes John Murray. He likes Meredith Kline. He is NOT favorable to the Federal Vision.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 17, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > So having read the review in the Ordained Servant my guess is that Mark Garcia is a Shepherd supporter who wants to emphasize, along with Shepherd, that there is a distinctly Reformed way of viewing justification through a covenantal lens, one which places a much greater emphasis upon works in salvation (really as a ground of justification, although that will not be made clear) than does the supposed "Lutheran distinction" between Law and Gospel. Does anyone here know more clearly of his sympathies?
> ...




Klinean all the way. He taught one of my classes here (which was great by the way), and he definitely is not a Shepherd/FV fan. He did emphasize Gaffin's view alot regarding union with Christ.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 17, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Archlute said:
> ...



Agreed. But he also liked John Murray, whom Klinean David Gordon called the "drunk uncle of Reformed theology." Mark also likes Gaffin, which many Klineans do not.


----------



## mybigGod (Oct 17, 2007)

Is it not that faith is the instrumental cause? But it being a gift from God who causes? So that justification cannot be caused by anything in us. 

But our works are filthy rags, and thats why we need Christ righteousness.


----------



## MW (Oct 17, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith.



The compound carries the sense of "submission." It is used again in 3:14, where it clearly means to give compliance to demands. To put the matter beyond any doubt, Eph 6:5 states, "Servants, *be obedient* to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ."

Against the idea that "gospel" must be confined to indicatives, in 1 Tim. 1:9-11 we have an example of "gospel" being used in the highest moral sense possible: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, *and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel* of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

But let's frame the issue theologically -- what has become of duty-faith? Do the proponents of this "indicative-gospel" view really mean to suggest that men do not have an obligation to believe on the name of the Son? 1 John 3:23.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 17, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Archlute said:
> ...



Thanks guys. 

We would do well not to cast aspersions on our brothers so recklessly just because they don't fit totally into our camp. What was posted above is no more fair than someone saying "I suspect all Klineans and the WSCAL crowd are antinomians who favor gay marriage and who don't believe scripture is sufficient."


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Oct 17, 2007)

Dear Adam,

Thanks for your response.



Archlute said:


> Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith.



Yes, of course, which implies that the gospel demands (at least) faith and is not simply an indicative, but includes an imperative. _Hypakouo _can't be fudged to mean something other than "obey", which must imply injunction in the gospel (see also Rom. 10:16 it makes exactly the same point). This is how I understand Paul's controverted phrase "the obedience of faith", i.e. the obedience which is faith.

I agree that we don't build a theology on just one verse, however, I didn't just enumerate 1 verse but many, and I could mutliply them. Moreover, these verses are the reflection of the theology of the gospel itself: Christ is saviour and Lord. It's difficult to have a doctrine of Christ as the reigning Lord who has all authority in heaven and on earth and not see that this involves repentance. The repentance doesn't save us, and even our tears of repentance are washed in Christ's blood, but repentance nonetheless is commensurate with the gospel (Acts 14:15). That is why we see Jesus accompanying his declaration of in-breaking of the Kingdom--a new creation in which Christ rules--with the commands of repentance and faith. One can preach the gospel without mentioning faith or repentance (1 Cor. 15:3-4). But one can't unpack the gospel without mentioning the obligations of faith and repentance.

God bless brother.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith.
> ...





Sorry Matt, but your linguistic approach is a little too simplistic. Just because a lexeme that occurs later in a writing requires a particular sense does not mean that an earlier occurance must conform to that use. This goes for writings within the scope of a single author just as well as for variance of usage between multiple authors. It could well be that Paul meant "to embrace in faith" in 1:8 while he meant "to obey" in 3:14; context and other factors bear more weight in the discussion than any sort of presuppositions of linguistic uniformity.

As well, the verb under discussion, when combined with certain datives of direct object, has a broader range of meaning than just "submission", as you hold. Both BDAG (3rd ed.) and Liddell-Scott-Jones (9th ed., unabridged) clearly show this, and the range of meaning runs from obeying, to embracing, to surrendering oneself, to accepting an invitation, to answering a question.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 18, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Adam,
> 
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> ...



I disagree with your strictures regarding how 'upakouo' may be rendered, brother. It is not "fudging", but a proper understanding of linguistics and the semantic range of a word. See my post above to Matt.



> I agree that we don't build a theology on just one verse, however, I didn't just enumerate 1 verse but many, and I could mutliply them. Moreover, these verses are the reflection of the theology of the gospel itself: Christ is saviour and Lord. It's difficult to have a doctrine of Christ as the reigning Lord who has all authority in heaven and on earth and not see that this involves repentance. The repentance doesn't save us, and even our tears of repentance are washed in Christ's blood, but repentance nonetheless is commensurate with the gospel (Acts 14:15). That is why we see Jesus accompanying his declaration of in-breaking of the Kingdom--a new creation in which Christ rules--with the commands of repentance and faith. One can preach the gospel without mentioning faith or repentance (1 Cor. 15:3-4). But one can't unpack the gospel without mentioning the obligations of faith and repentance.
> 
> God bless brother.



I think that we are in agreement on understanding the _implications_ of the Gospel. My concern is to clarify the difference between the broader use of the term and its more specific meaning. Specifically, the Gospel refers to the good news of the saving coming and work of Jesus Christ. Mark did not say that "the Gospel of the kingdom of God is at hand - repent and believe!", but rather "the kingdom of God is at hand - repent and _believe in the Gospel_!" The Gospel is good news to be believed, it is no longer good news when the law is mixed with the Gospel.

In a word search on 'Gospel' within the four Gospel accounts there is not a single use of that term which speaks of anything other than faith. I believe that the Scriptures that you cited earlier in the thread may all be understood without mixing law with faith, and are not as much of a difficulty as they may seem to you. The Gospel as preached by Christ and the apostles must be foundational to any understanding of how the term is to be understood in the epistles. There is no discrepancy between the two, obviously, but it is possible to read later uses in a way that do not conform to the understanding given earlier in the Gospels.

As I said before, there are implications upon us that a proper understanding of the Gospel will bring about, but the Gospel itself is merely faith in the good news of God come in the flesh to redeem a fallen creation.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 18, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



I disagree, Chris. I was working with what he wrote, not with a stereotype based upon what school he attended. I have read enough from, and spoken enough with, Shepherd supporters within the OPC to understand their language. Maybe Mark is not one of them, but I have spoken with men who have invited Shepherd to teach his theology at their churches, who have incorporated his theological paradigms into their preaching and discipline, but when questioned pointedly about their support for his views have outright denied it (knowing that he was given the boot from WTS thirty years ago for it).

BTW, the Federal Vision and Norman Shepherd's theology, although overlapping at points, are not the same thing. So, theoretically, one could be a Shepherd supporter, and still state that they are in complete opposition to the FV. I know men in the OPC who have done as much.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Oct 18, 2007)

Dear Adam,

Thanks again for your response.



Archlute said:


> I disagree with your strictures regarding how 'upakouo' may be rendered, brother. It is not "fudging", but a proper understanding of linguistics and the semantic range of a word. See my post above to Matt.



I agree that words have different meanings in different contexts and depending on their usages. No problem there. However, the issue is not what a word could possibly mean but what it _probably means in context_. Added to this is other uses of the word (and cognates) elsewhere. And also, the teaching about the topic in other contexts where the specific word is not mentioned (word studies though useful are always incomplete because the concept can be discussed without it's word being used). In other words, linguistics only goes so far.

Hence, as I have studied this topic I have:

[1] Gone through all the occurrences of _euaggelion_ and _euaggelizomai_ in the NT (and beyond).
[2] Looked at the theology of the gospel itself to also help makes sense of the word's usage.

I've not drawn a conclusion based on simply 2 Thess. 1:8.



Archlute said:


> I think that we are in agreement on understanding the _implications_ of the Gospel.
> My concern is to clarify the difference between the broader use of the term and its more specific meaning. Specifically, the Gospel refers to the good news of the saving coming and work of Jesus Christ.



Well it actually refers to more please see the other verses I've quoted like Acts 14:15 and Rev. 14:6-7. They are clear. Moreover, the gospel and it's implications cannot be separated only distinguished. Implications are by nature inherent in the entity itself.



Archlute said:


> Mark did not say that "the Gospel of the kingdom of God is at hand - repent and believe!", but rather "the kingdom of God is at hand - repent and _believe in the Gospel_!"



Yes, I remember once arguing the same a few years ago, but it doesn't fit with all the other usages of the gospel (not simply in the gospels but in the NT corpus as a whole) nor is this necessarily what I suspect John Mark had in mind when writing those words. Believing what is to commanded in the gospel is a part of faith anyway. As I said in an earlier post one must make a subtle distinction: the gospel commands, but my _actual obedience_ to those commands is not the gospel (but its fruit).



Archlute said:


> The Gospel is good news to be believed, it is no longer good news when the law is mixed with the Gospel.



You've imported a theological concept of "law" into your reading of the text. You take law = commands (_a la _Lutheranism). However, that's not quite right. Law = Commands + Punishment for a failure to do the commands ("the one who does these things will _live by them_"). By simply saying Law = Commands, the waters get considerably muddied. Christ now commands Christians not because they'll be punished if their obedience is not perfect. Rather, gospel commands arise precisely because he has reconciled us to the Father, and we are new people in Christ. This constitutes large chunks of the NT (see Col. 3:1ff; Rom. 6:1ff etc. etc.). It is reductionistic to make the law / gospel distinction simply comands verses promises, or imperatives versus indicatives.

God bless brother.


----------



## MW (Oct 18, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Sorry Matt, but your linguistic approach is a little too simplistic. Just because a lexeme that occurs later in a writing requires a particular sense does not mean that an earlier occurance must conform to that use. This goes for writings within the scope of a single author just as well as for variance of usage between multiple authors. It could well be that Paul meant "to embrace in faith" in 1:8 while he meant "to obey" in 3:14; context and other factors bear more weight in the discussion than any sort of presuppositions of linguistic uniformity.
> 
> As well, the verb under discussion, when combined with certain datives of direct object, has a broader range of meaning than just "submission", as you hold. Both BDAG (3rd ed.) and Liddell-Scott-Jones (9th ed., unabridged) clearly show this, and the range of meaning runs from obeying, to embracing, to surrendering oneself, to accepting an invitation, to answering a question.



Feel free to call me Matthew, but not Matt.

As I wasn't providing a linguistic approach, I fail to see how it can be labelled "simple." I gave other examples of the word in question, where the prima facie meaning can be nothing other than compliance. This was in response to your "bare suggestion" that the word can possibly mean "embrace." As Marty notes, one can't build a semantic argument upon bare possibility. In the absence of any other contextual evidence, your bare suggestion does nothing to improve on the prima facie meaning.

You make mention of lexical entries. I hope you don't consider this a "complex" linguistic approach. One would need to determine what the word connotes in *specified* contexts. This you have made no attempt to do.


----------



## mybigGod (Oct 18, 2007)

Justifying faith is simply receiving what is offered. Other wise it would be according to something we do, positively. "Not by works of righteousness that we have done" Why? because there is nothing good in us to present to God in order to be justified. Our works are do do. 
Even as a believer every work that we do is corrupted and unacceptable. Its only because of Christ work on our behalf that makes us acceptable. There is no one who seeks after GOD. There is no one who does good. No not one.

O k John Westley (in a collective sense) We are all here in the presence of God and we want to know what works you have done to present yourself as acceptable before God? We are all standing here waiting to hear with baited breath. He He.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 18, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Puritan Sailor said:
> ...



This is correct. For example someone could be a Shepherd sympathizer but also be firmly committed to the RPW and strongly against paedocommunion although that's not usually how it seems to work out. 

Earlier I was pointing out what seemed to be speculation on your part. 

I admit I haven't studied Lutheranism much and will withdraw from this thread for now.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 18, 2007)

To return to the issue at hand - have any of you actually read _CJPM_ in its entirety (not just the parts that Mark critiques), or are you just responding from a vacuum of understanding?

I find it pretty incredible that you can have a collection of well-written essays, composed by recognized scholars in their respective fields of studies, with Ph.Ds from prestigious institutions, whose thesis is endorsed by men such as Ligon Duncan III and Guy Prentiss Waters (who are in no way theologically naive churchmen), covering the span of exegetical/biblical/systematic/pastoral theology, all of whom agree upon the fact that the Lutheran and Reformed views of justification are essentially identical, who can then be critiqued by a man who looks to be a part time pulpit supply without a PhD (much less the collective knowledge of combined Ph.Ds) on the basis of his thesis that a "pan-confessional view" is really just a lowest common denominator approach more suitable to those with evangelical sympathies than to a "truly reformed" understanding. 

That is just silliness and rubbish. I will side with Godfrey when he writes, "It is important to underscore that the Reformation speaks with one voice on this point. Luther and Reformed theologians are agreed about justification and about faith alone. *The contention that the Reformed somehow have a distinctive doctrine of justification is simply false, and can be articulated and defended only by those who do not understand either Lutheran or Reformed theologies*." (CJPM, 268)

I would say that the reviewer falls into this category. Every time that I have heard Reformed folk attempt to articulate a "distinctly Reformed view" of justification, it always ends up sounding something like Shepherd and the neonomian crowd, all of whom want to add obedience and works to justification in some manner.

It is no mistake that Ligon Duncan wrote, "*The historic Reformational understanding* of justification, imputation, active obedience, and covenant theology is under assault even from within sectors of the Reformed community."

Anything other than this is historical revisionism.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 19, 2007)

*Fesko: The Westminster Standards and Confessional Lutheranism on Justification*





pp.15-26

See also J. Wesley White, "The Denial of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ," in the same issue (pp.147-54).


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Oct 19, 2007)

Dear Archlute,

Thanks for your response and comments, we may be speaking past each other.



Archlute said:


> To return to the issue at hand - have any of you actually read _CJPM_ in its entirety (not just the parts that Mark critiques), or are you just responding from a vacuum of understanding?



I certainly have read CJPM, and I loved it. I've got no time for Norman Shepherd's construal of justification and interpretation of James, nor is Wright's take on justification convincing at all. I LOVE the WCF's take on justification. You don't get theological formulation better than that.

The issue at hand for me was not whether there was a Lutheran versus a Reformed understanding of justification (_a la_ Garcia) but a Lutheran versus a Reformed understanding of the *gospel*. A very much Lutheran understanding of the gospel was propounded in CJPM at points, which concerned me. And this is an issue that was sparked by the topic of this thread. (Perhaps we should debate it on a new thread).


God bless brother.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 19, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Archlute,
> 
> Thanks for your response and comments, we may be speaking past each other.
> 
> ...



JO,

You are right that they are two separate issues, but I have never heard in all of my personal studies and seminary courses (at either seminary attended) that there is actually a Lutheran verses a Reformed understanding of the Gospel. There may be, but that is news to me.

As for your evaluation of the WCF on justification - (insert "high-five" smiley here). Right on, that is something that we both clearly agree upon.

Take care.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Oct 20, 2007)

Dear Arch,

So glad that that we're in agreement!



Archlute said:


> [...] but I have never heard in all of my personal studies and seminary courses (at either seminary attended) that there is actually a Lutheran verses a Reformed understanding of the Gospel. There may be, but that is news to me.



Yes, it's something I discovered as I've worked on my doctorate.

The Lutheran understanding of the law / gospel distinction is: command _versus_ promise or imperative _versus_ indicative.

Whereas the Reformed understanding of the law / gospel distinction came to be understood covenantally as: the covenant of works _versus_ the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace naturally includes more than just indicatives.

The law is not just commands but _commands + punishment for failure to do *all* commands_ ("those who do these things _will live by them_"). And the gospel cannot simply be an indicative but includes imperatives, but not for the purpose of justification, rather because of prior justification by Christ alone (Col. 3:1ff.). Hence, it's commonplace for the reformed divines speak of *obedience* to the gospel (so Acts 14:15 etc.). Hence, the WCF speaks of obedience to the gospel:

*Chapter 3.VIII. *The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely *obey the gospel.*

*Chapter19.V. *The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ *in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation*.

*Chapter 33.II. *The end of God's appointing this day, is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord: but the wicked, who know not God, and *obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ*, shall be cast into eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.


God bless you brother,

Marty.


----------

