# Getting the difference



## michaelspotts (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm reading Cornelis Venema's little book, "Getting the Gospel Right," that assesses justification in light of the Reformation and the New Perspectives on Paul. Are there any patient souls here who can diagnose whether I am getting the difference clearly? I know the Reformed position, but do not want to misrepresent the NPP side.

In the third chapter, Venema mentions E. P. Sanders' conclusion that Second Temple Judaism emphasized, not strict legalism, but salvation through covenant participation, the covenant itself being initiated graciously. "Justification"—here defined as being in right relationship to God in the covenant—is maintained through faithfulness to the terms, or laws, given to the covenant people, including making use of means for atonement as often as necessary.

Sanders argues the difference between Judaism and Christianity is Judaism's failure to update to the latest terms of entry and participation in the covenant community, including the revelation of Christ himself as means of atonement. However, he claims, both systems offer salvation through essentially the same pattern of personal faithfulness as the basis for justification. Such a scheme can even make room for monergism, as some some Federal Visionists maintain.

The question is, to my mind, "Does the apostle Paul teach a form of justification which is present, perfect, and perpetual, on the grounds of imputation and unbreakable union with Jesus Christ, received through faith alone?" If so, this is the difference between Pauline theology and Judaism, and Sanders misses the point.

In this case of present, perfect, and perpetual justification, which is articulated in the Reformed confessions, salvation is certainly assured to every believer, because believers are invariably just and perfect in Christ, who has fulfilled all righteousness in their place; who is stationed at throne of God as priest and king, to ceaselessly administer his cleansing blood and defend his members from accusation; and preserves the faith of all believers by the same inexhaustible divine power which raised his mortal body from the dead.

In the Judaistic scheme, justification—the state of being regarded as righteous before God—may be forfeited through personal neglect and sin, because the principle of justification is personal faithfulness to the terms of the covenant. One may enter such a covenant through grace, and may be even be preserved in personal obedience, “faithfulness”, by grace; but the final ground of justification is obedience wrought within and through the covenant member, rather than the obedience of Christ as the Covenant Head.

Am I getting the difference clearly? Thanks.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 24, 2012)

I think you are getting the picture.

Our hope is in a justification grounded absolutely in an event outside of us entirely, and for those believers living after the historic event of the cross, behind us and unrepeatable.

The application of this verdict to particular recipients is not "eternally past" (eternal justification), nor at the cross (historic justification), nor at the last Judgment (future justification) but at individual conversions; which is the time and place when faith first apprehends Christ in his saving office.

Justification is certain and comprehensive and full at the moment the verdict is rendered, because what is true of the Head is true of his body, united to him. It is true with finality, and not (with respect to tares amid the wheat) at places "conditionally true," or true-for-the-moment. The NT is simply replete with references to the fact that believers "were justified," "have been justified," "are justified." God is known as he who "justifies the ungodly," Rom.4:5.

Is there any sense in which our justification might be related to the last Judgment? There is a use of the term (not often employed in the NT) which conveys the sense of "vindication." So Lk.7:35, "But wisdom is *justified* of all her children."

The Standards make careful use of language in this case, since "justification" is so loaded and freighted a theological term, and because of controversy the church has worked to specify its language for the affirmation of truth and rejection of error. So they use this language: "At the resurrection, believers being raised up in glory, shall be *openly acknowledged and acquitted* in the day of judgment, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoying of God to all eternity" (WSC A.38).

Thus, it becomes clear that the technical meaning of "justification" as a subjective soteriological term is properly reserved in our theological discussions for the description of the condition of the elect before God from the moment of his conversion. Whereas, in the End the witness of his acceptation with God (which may have been a secret from the majority of men, and even obscured by their positive though mistaken reproach--as was Christ himself on the cross) will be publicly attested. The individual Christian's justification, perfected and applied to him by God at conversion, is universally proclaimed not later than the Last Day.

By letting justification "swing free" on conditional pronouncements, even the elect are robbed of assurance. The focus of the Christian turns from faith in Christ, to confidence in the Christian's faithfulness as a thing that can be measured and gauged. If justification is a verdict that is suspended on performance, perhaps even coming and going, vacillating over time; and the last statement may be as true as the first statement, but different--then justification has actually become the "legal fiction" of Roman caricatures of Reformed theology. Rome at least understands that in their system justification must wait to the End, and even beyond it to the emptying of Purgatory, before the "in-wrought" nature of righteousness grounds the declaration of Heaven.

But for the Reformed, justification will never be grounded on that which is original in man. The 'holy thing" God makes his justified one to become conforms him to the verdict, not the other way around. The performative Word once again creates a reality that did not exist prior. Our justification is forever grounded on the unsullied righteousness of Another, when God turned a twisted verdict by unrighteous humanity against him into a declaration of divine approval by raising him from the dead.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 24, 2012)

Thank you Bruce for such a clear and succinct display of the true Biblical doctrine of Justification! Long after NPP'ers have been forgotten the truth of our standing being grounded in an alien righteousness will still be under attack. May it please our Lord to raise up in every generation those unwavering shepherds who will protect the sheep.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 24, 2012)

Michael,

You certainly have one aspect of the criticism of the NPP. I believe another criticism can be laid at a couple of ideas that come out of the NPP:

1. The notion that there was a single Second Temple Judaism position. Sanders and Wright tend to paint the teaching of the Jews as monolithic during this period where this is not the case. Consequently, even if Paul was really saying something else about Justification according to what the Jews understood salvation and justification to be (as opposed to our supposed later reading of his words) the question is not one of finding _the_ Jewish position on Justification.

2. There is a great tendency in the NPP to take an aspect of theology that may be neglected in the present time (the notion that salvation is not merely individual) and not only emphasize it but to make _everything_ that Paul says about covenant participation. In other words, it takes a valid point on the periphery, shifts it to the center, and makes salvation completely about this one issue. Because the scholarship to keep up with the idea is relatively complex the work that it takes to detect this is overwhelming and many who will be impressed by scholarly ideas that we Western Europeans missed Palestinian theology becomes appealing to those who can neither detect the straw men being erected about the nature of Reformed Theology nor are skilled enough in the other loci of salvation to detect that the NPP is incredibly imbalanced. 

I commend these lectures to you by D.A. Carson:
The New Perspective on Paul - Download free content from Reformed Theological Seminary on iTunes

He has contributed to a couple of works on this as well:

http://www.amazon.com/Justification...rsuchungen/dp/080102272X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801027411/


----------



## py3ak (Jun 24, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> There is a great tendency in the NPP to take an aspect of theology that may be neglected in the present time (the notion that salvation is not merely individual) and not only emphasize it but to make everything that Paul says about covenant participation.



That's a keen observation, Rich. I know I rather gasped in amazement when N.T. Wright said that putting victory over the powers at the center of our understanding of the Cross allowed us to preserve the other aspects appropriately. It seems fairly obvious that allowing victory over the powers to replace atonement at the center creates problems, and falsifies the flow of Biblical history: all the sacrifices that culminated in the death of the lamb of God were not about overcoming the powers!


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 24, 2012)

As one who possesses a sorely limited ability to comprehend these complex considerations, I am grateful to know that my position before the throne of God is not incumbent or conditioned upon my faithfulness, but is instead founded certainly and unshakeably upon the faithfulness of my Blessed Redeemer. Thirty-three years of stumbling around after conversion would indicate nothing but hopelessness if that were not so. Thank you, Jesus!


----------

