# N.T. Wright's summary of Justification



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 27, 2005)

How does this compare with the WCF's viewpoint?

Where is he in disagreement/agreement?

What is wrong/right about this and why?



> Let me sum up Paul's doctrine of Justification. We had better take this carefully, step by step, according to the three key categories I mentioned earlier, namely, the covenant, the law court, and eschatology.
> 
> 1. Covenant. Justification is the covenant declaration, which will be issued on the last day, in which the true people of God will be vindicated and those who insist on worshipping false gods will be shown to be in the wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## AdamM (Oct 27, 2005)

Gabe, I think from the start it is important to remember that Wright himself juxtaposes his teaching against the traditional view. That's why the "New Perspective" is called "new."

If you want a full examination of Wright's thinking on justification from a Reformed perspective, in my opinion, the best response has been done by Dr. J.V. Fesko in the current Confessional Presbyterian. http://www.cpjournal.com Fesko's essay alone is with the price (which is now lower, btw.) So maybe read Wright, read Fesko and then let's discuss?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Gabe, I think from the start it is important to remember that Wright himself juxtaposes his teaching against the traditional view. That's why the "New Perspective" is called "new."
> 
> If you want a full examination of Wright's thinking on justification from a Reformed perspective, in my opinion, the best response has been done by Dr. J.V. Fesko in the current Confessional Presbyterian. http://www.cpjournal.com Fesko's essay alone is with the price (which is now lower, btw.) So maybe read Wright, read Fesko and then let's discuss?


Ay!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 27, 2005)

Wright's "courtroom" is not Paul's "courtroom". Wright has the individual come to the court and decide whether he wants to be on Jesus' side or the other side. But the biblical court is set up very differently. In the biblical court Jesus stands on one side and all humanity stands on the other side. All humanity is guilty before God. How does one get out from under the sentence of "guilty"? This is Paul's point. And its one Wright doesn't seem to get. How can Christ's righteousness, the declaration of God's favor to him be transferred to me?

God's already declared me guilty! I can't just get up and walk across the courtroom and say, "Hey there King Jesus, I was just screaming filthy epithets at you until 5 minutes ago, when the gavel cane down, but you know, ever since I was condemned, your Lordship has been looking pretty good to me, so I'm now on your side! 'Kay? Cool." What right have I got to do that? Man, I don't even _want_ to do that! In my sin I still want to kill Christ and the Father!

Wright is committed to libertarian free-will. So that's why he thinks the condemned have been given this chance to see what the verdict "in the middle of history is" and choose which side they want to end up on. Wright can't seem to comprehend Luther's, and the Reformed's view of Paul's argument. He certainly doesn't appreciate its power. And for the Reformed's stance, Wright's substitue arrangement is equally incomprehensible, given the facts.

The only way out from under the GUILTY verdict is by God's translation of the person out of the DOCK, and into Christ by a sovereign act of mercy. Because before God declared *him* NOT GUILTY, he poured out his wrath in indignation upon "him who knew no sin," becoming sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Wright is not Reformed. He cannot incorporate a Reformed understanding into his arrangement.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 27, 2005)

I'm going to have to, at this point, disagree with your assessment of Wright's position, Rev. Buchanan. I'll think about it some more and get back to you on what I think he's saying. There is so much to take in and think about.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm going to have to, at this point, disagree with your assessment of Wright's position, Rev. Buchanan. I'll think about it some more and get back to you on what I think he's saying. There is so much to take in and think about.



Wright is saying exactly what Bruce has assessed:



> Despite the long popularity of [the view that the righteousness of God refers to a righteousness given to humans], the overwhelming weight of Jewish evidence, including many passages in scripture that Paul either quotes or alludes to, push us decisively into [the fact that] the righteousness of God´ must refer to God´s own righteousness (WSPRS p. 103)





> the covenant status Paul now enjoys is the gift of God: it is a dikaiosune ek theou, a "˜righteousness from God´"¦ Paul here is referring to the status of covenant membership; it is the gift of God, not something acquired in any way by the human beings involved (124)





> If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom (98)





> What Paul is saying is that he and his fellow apostles"¦are not just talking about God´s faithfulness; they are actually embodying it"¦ If, however, you insist on reading 2 Corinthians 5:21 with a meaning [of] "˜imputed righteousness´ "“ you will find, as many commentators have, that it detaches itself from the rest of the chapter and context, as though it were a little floating saying which Paul just threw in here for good measure (105)





> It is difficult to squeeze any precise dogma of justification out of this shorthand summary {1 Cor 1:30}. It is the only passage I know where something called "˜the imputed righteousness of Christ´ a phrase more often found in post-Reformation theology and piety than in the New Testament, finds any basis in the text (123)





> This popular view of "˜justification by faith´ [i.e. Lutheran and Reformed view, that which owes a good deal both to the controversy between Pelagius and Augustine and between Luther and Erasmus], though not entirely misleading, does not do justice to the richness and precision of Paul´s doctrine (113)



Especially what of this:


> baldly put, if you start with the popular view {i.e. the Reformed view} of justification, you may actually lose sight of the heart of the Pauline gospel (113)



Wright is constantly taking away with one hand what he purports to give with the other. His use of "not so much as" is especially imprecise and useless for a theologian.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 28, 2005)

Fred, how would you define 'imputation'? 'God's righteousness'?


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 28, 2005)

> Covenant. Justification is the covenant declaration, which will be issued on the last day, in which the true people of God will be vindicated and those who insist on worshipping false gods will be shown to be in the wrong.



The problem with this is how Wright defines justification. It has nothing to do with sotieriology. As Wright has noted in his book, the Gospel message is strictly about the declaration that Christ is King. As a person recognizes this fact, they are included in the covenant and will remain in the covenant as long as they are faithful to the covenant and the commands of the King.




> 2. Law court. Justification functions like the verdict in the law court: by acquitting someone, it confers on that person the status 'righteous'. This is the forensic dimension of the future covenantal vindication.



Note in this definition that we are acquitted and are given the status of being righteous. But how are we righteous? Are we made righteous by acknowledging Christ as King? The demons know this. Are we inherently righteous? Wright certainly would not agree with this (of course he doesn´t get into the issue of sin). So how are we acquitted and given the status of being righteous? Since Wight denies imputation, then the only way that God can acquit us is that we have done something to earn that status, ie; covenantal faithfulness.




> 3. Eschatology. This declaration, this verdict, is ultimately to be made at the end of history. Through Jesus, however, God has done in the middle of history what he had been expected to do - and, indeed, will still do - at the end; so that the declaration, the verdict, can be issued already in the present, in anticipation. The events of the last days were anticipated when Jesus died on the cross, as the representative Messiah of Israel, and rose again. (This was Paul's own theological starting-point.) The verdict of the last day is therefore now also anticipated in the present, whenever someone believes in the gospel message about Jesus.



The problem is that the "œpresent" declaration can change if you do not remain in the covenant. Therefore there is no real assurance that the final declaration will be an acquittal.




> 4. Therefore - and this is the vital thrust of the argument of Galatians in particular, but it plays a central role in Philippians and Romans as well - all who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ are already demarcated as members of the true family of Abraham, with their sins being forgiven.



Needless to say, this scenario is very problematic. With an erroneous view of forensic justification, denial of imputation and a distorted view of the covenant (note that in the book he states that the reformed view of covenant as outlined in the WCF is wrong), sin is not forgiven and we are not members of the true family of Abraham.




> Paul, as usual, retains the shape of the Jewish doctrine, while filling it with new content. For him, covenant membership was defined by the gospel itself, that is, by Jesus Christ. The badge of membership, the thing because of which one can tell in the present who is within the eschatological covenant people, was of course faith, the confession that Jesus is Lord and the belief that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9).



This is a major problem of Wright´s. He bases his whole view of Christ´s work on a faulty premise and that is what he believes about Second Temple Judaism. 




> Two conclusions to this discussion suggest themselves, in relation to some current discussions of the subject.
> 
> First, it becomes apparent that Sanders has not carried his reform far enough; but that, when it is carried as far as it should be, it turns out not to undermine, but rather to flesh out more fully, a thoroughly orthodox reading of Paul. The false antitheses of Wrede, Schweitzer, Bultmann, Davies, Kasemann, Sanders and many others, by which Paul has been dismembered in the search for coherence, must be put aside. A covenantal reading of Paul, such as I have suggested, holds together the otherwise disparate elements of his thought, allowing each aspect, not least Christology and the cross, to appear more clearly, not less, than before.
> 
> Second, I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by 'the gospel'. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But 'the gospel' is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ. If we could only get that clear in current debates, a lot of other false antitheses, not least in thinking about the mission of the church, would quietly unravel before our eyes. Let us be quite clear. 'The gospel' is the announcement of Jesus' lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. 'Justification' is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other.



This pretty much sums it up. What he fails to point out is "œwhat is this faith"? How do we get it? Is it a gift from God or is it something we have within ourselves? How does the Holy Spirit fit in? What is his role? 

What I find interesting about these comments (and he notes this at the beginning of this book) is he is attempting to deal with issues brought up by Wrede, Bultmann, etc., etc. These are liberals and existentialist. He makes no attempt to engage anyone from the Reformed camp, ie; Calvin, Owens, Edwards, Hodge, etc. I think he doesn´t engage the Reformed camp because he considers it to be based on Luther´s introspective view of salvation.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Fred, how would you define 'imputation'? 'God's righteousness'?



Imputation means to credit something to a man's account in such a way that it is reckoned to be the man's. Galatians 3:9 quotes the OT saying that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. 2 Corinthians 5:11 says that He who knew no sin became sin for me. From these Scriptures we see that my sin was credited (imputed) to Christ and His righteousness was credited (imputed) to me.

God's righteousness depends on the context. In salvation, it is not the intrinsic property of God that somehow "waves away" the debt of the sinner. It is the righteousness of the believer that he gets solely from God.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

> It is the righteousness of the believer that he gets solely from God.



Otherwise known as *Alien Righteousness*, because it is "outside" us, or _extra nos_.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

Some intriguing quotations from Luther's treatise on Two Kinds of Righteousness.

1) The first sort is "alien righteousness": 

"The first is alien righteousness, that is the righteousness of another, instilled from without. This is the righteousness of Christ by which he justifies though faith, as it is written in I Cor. 1:30: 'whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.' In John 11:25-26, Christ himself states: 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me.....shall never die.' Later he adds in John 14:6, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life.' This righteousness, then, is given to men in baptism and whenever they are truly repentant. Therefore a man can with confidence boast in Christ and say: 'Mine are Christ's living, doing, and speaking, his suffering and dying, mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, suffered, and died as he did.' Just as a bridegroom possesses all that is his bride's and she all that is his "for the two have all things in common because they are one flesh[Gen. 2:24] "so Christ and the church are one spirit [Eph. 5:29-32]."

2) Luther does not consider this "alien righteousness" to be fixed and static. It does not all come at once: 

"Therefore this alien righteousness, instilled in us without our works by grace alone "while the Father, to be sure, inwardly draws us to Christ "is set opposite original sin, likewise alien, which we acquire without our works by birth alone. Christ daily drives out the old Adam more and more in accordance with the extent to which faith and knowledge of Christ grow. For alien righteousness is not instilled all at once, but it begins, makes progress, and is finally perfected at the end through death."

3) The second sort of righteousness is the righteousness of our good deeds: 

"The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that manner of life spent profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with respect to the self, of which we read in Gal. 5:24, 'And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.' In the second place, this righteousness consists in love to one's neighbor, and in the third place, in meekness and fear towards God. The Apostle is full of references to these, as is all the rest of Scripture. He briefly summarizes everything, however, in Titus 2:12, 'In this world let us live soberly (pertaining to crucifying one's own flesh), justly (referring to one's neighbor), and devoutly (relating to God).'

4) The righteousness of good deeds depends on the progressive "alien righteousness": 

"This [second] righteousness is the product of the righteousness of the first type, actually its fruit and consequence, for we read in Gal. 5:22, 'But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.' For because the works mentioned are works of men, it is obvious that in this passage a spiritual man is called 'spirit.' In John 3:6 we read, 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'"

And this second righteousness works along with the first in a process of "sanctification": 

"This righteousness goes on to complete the first for it ever strives to do away with the old Adam and to destroy the body of sin. Therefore it hates itself and loves its neighbor; it does not seek its own good, but that of another, and in this its whole way of living consists. For in that it hates itself and does not seek its own, it crucifies the flesh. Because it seeks the good of another, it works love. Thus in each sphere it does God's will living soberly with self, justly with neighbor, devoutly toward God."

I got this from Peter Leithart, but the treatise can be found HERE

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 28, 2005)

Does the WCF define imputation by the following statement??



> I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; 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.



In other words, is "they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith" the definition of imputation?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Does the WCF define imputation by the following statement??
> 
> 
> ...



No. I think that described the _instrumentality_ of justification. Faith and resting are in the sphere of the believer (i.e. what he does by the grace and work of God), the obedience and satisfaction (righteousness) of Christ is what the object of imputation, and imputation is the act of God in transmitting to or transferring to or making the possession of the believer.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 28, 2005)

So the imputed righteousness of God is:

- The righteousness of Christ, in the sense of His satisfaction and perfect obedience?

or

- The justice of God in declaring us righteous according to the satisfaction and perfect obedience of Christ?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

Gabriel, I think it is both.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 
Rom 3:22 *the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.* For there is no distinction: 
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 
Rom 3:24 and are *justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,* 
Rom 3:25 whom *God put forward* as a *propitiation by his blood*, to be *received by faith*. This was to show *God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance* he had passed over former sins. 
Rom 3:26 It was to show *his righteousness* at the present time, so that he might be *just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.*

Propitiation Note:

In Rom_3:25 and Heb_9:5 (A.V., "œmercy-seat") the Greek word hilasterion is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Exo_25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew kapporeth, which means "œcovering," and is used of the lid of the ark of the covenant (Exo_25:21; Exo_30:6). This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitiation or reconciliation by blood. On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the "œmercy-seat," and so made propitiation.

In 1Jo_2:2; 1Jo_4:10, Christ is called the "œpropitiation for our sins." Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is "œthe propitiation," because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured. (Compare Heb_2:17, where the expression "œmake reconciliation" of the A.V. is more correctly in the R.V. "œmake propitiation.") EBD

It is as if Christ is like the animal skins God provided Adam and Eve. *He provided the sacrifice, and did the covering.*

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 28, 2005)

To impute is to "count" or "hold" or "credit" or consider as belonging to, as in "not imputing (counting/holding) their sins against them." And "Blessed is he against whom the Lord will not impute (count) his iniquity."

With respect to the above "either-or" question, the "imputed righteousness of God" conceived as such fits the first definition fine, as the righteousness of Christ credited to us. Such is the scriptural usage of the terminology. I do not see how the _imputed_ righteousness of God fits the second definition, as it begins "the justice of God in declaring us righteous," at least not in the same sense as that above.

It is not "God's straight dealings", his _justice_ in other words, that constitutes his donation to us, but the obedience of Christ.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> To impute is to "count" or "hold" or consider as belonging to, as in "not imputing (counting/holding) their sins against them." And "Blessed is he against whom the Lord will not impute (count) his iniquity."



Or to estimate or reckon something that is not as if it were. An interesting study is to look up  Î»Î¿Î³Î¹ÌÎ¶Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ in Liddel & Scott and see the Classical Greek (i.e. non-NT) meaning. It is very "Reformed."


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> To impute is to "count" or "hold" or "credit" or consider as belonging to, as in "not imputing (counting/holding) their sins against them." And "Blessed is he against whom the Lord will not impute (count) his iniquity."
> 
> With respect to the above "either-or" question, the "imputed righteousness of God" conceived as such fits the first definition fine, as the righteousness of Christ credited to us. Such is the scriptural usage of the terminology. I do not see how the _imputed_ righteousness of God fits the second definition, as it begins "the justice of God in declaring us righteous," at least not in the same sense as that above.
> ...



Excellent answer Bruce.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

Yes Bruce, well said. 

I misundertood Gabriel's question I think. I thought he was asking if all members of the trinity were involved in justification. Specifically, the roles of the Father and Son.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 29, 2005)

So why does Wright's "hebrew law court" system break down? Because of the greek word Fred mentioned?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 29, 2005)

The CPJ just came. And I have spent a few hours reading it. The Fesko analysis is indeed very useful. He acknowledges that Wright properly finds at least three "strands" of interconnected theme in the whole matter of justification--covenant, court, eschatology--thus making justification a cord not easily broken. However, he shows how Wright's analysis in each case is inadequate.

With respect to the court strand, here is Fesko's analysis (which stands in substantial agreement with my own above; yes, is qualitatively superior to it, as one would expect from a man of his credentials)


> ...what is problematic is the orientation of the court. According to Wright the people of God look for vindication before the world. Yet, once again, while this may be the view of second-temple Judaism, it is not how Paul explains justification. In the context surrounding Romans 4, Paul's great concern is seeking justification before the tribunal of God, not the world...(Rom 3:20). According to Paul the one who has been justified has peace with God... (Rom 5:1). *Paul shows no concern for what the enemies of the people of God might or might not think;* Paul shows concern only for what God will say concerning the one who stands before his throne. Justification, therefore, is not about the vindication of the people of God before the world as Wright maintains. *Rather it is about the verdict that God passes upon the person who stands in his presence, the verdict of guilty or innocent*.... God will not acquit the wicked, which is why Paul explains that Abraham receives his righteousness, or innocent status, by faith. Moreover, God imputes the obedience, or righteousness, of Christ to Abraham. This interpretation is also confirmed by Christ's use of the term, justification.
> 
> [brief exposition of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Lk. 18]
> 
> ...


CPJ, Fesko, pp 113-114.

Returning to my comments above, Wright sets up his court with God's people on one side, and their enemies on the other. From the earthly standpoint it is not immediately apparent who will be exonerated. Up until Christ comes, the faithful go with God's program (OT law and ceremonies) because salvation is promised (so they've been told, so they believe) to those who demonstrate loyalty. Rome is just the latest in a series of enemies who seek to oppress the faithful--outside the court, inside the court, wherever. The test of faithfulness is not giving up on the unseen promises. Those who "stick it out" in this preliminary phase get rewarded... 

As do those who make the correct choice in the hour of deliverance. For when Messiah arrives, the loyalty-condition is modified. The Messenger of the Covenant shows up, and now the test of _performance_ is eclipsed by a test of personal loyalty. And given the nature of the test, nationality no longer carries the weight it did, "identity badges" (circumcision, etc) fall away as crucial, and even former enemies can "cross over" to stand with the covenant people (they could previously as well, but the benefits were less obvious, the cost prohibitive, the hoops to jump through were more involved, etc.). This demonstration of personal loyalty "Jesus is (my) Lord" is the ground, therefore, of God's endorsement of the covenant people and his reprobation of their enemies. Justification, in Wright's own words, "is more about ecclesiology than about soteriology."

So, where in Wright's courtroom is the "covenant" people's acknowledgment that they are _not_ in the right but desperately in the wrong? In Scripture, though there are occasions where God's people cry out to God to deliver them from their persecutors, from injustice, etc., it has no reference to their need for a "righteous" declaration from God, but rather based on the fact that they are _already_ "the righteous", already declared innocent, already _forgiven_ that they have an appeal to this Judge. This situation, as it obtains, does not explain the true ground for such an original declaration at all. God is indeed a righteous judge, who will by no means clear the guilty: which means Adam and every single human being decending from him by ordinary generation stands CONDEMNED.

Fesko writes,


> And, as classic reformed covenant theology has argued, the Abrahamic covenant, which Paul calls the gospel (Gal 3:8), is built ultimately upon the protoevangelium, not the hopes of first century Jews of being delivered from their Roman overlords. The protoevangelium, of course, was the promise to deliver Adam and Eve out from under the dominion of sin, death, and to conquer the serpent and his seed (Gen 3:15).


 p 113.

The "court" as Paul is at pains to describe it, is more akin to the court of criminal justice, the king's court of law, before whom all men stand condemned. God is all over the courtroom. He is both judge and prosecutor. He is also the victim--both in the sense of being the offended one, and in the sense of Jesus the Savior, condemned by men and suffering at their criminal hands (as well as absorbing God's penal sanction punishment in the place of his people--the sacrificial victim). It is GOD in the person of the SON who is repeatedly (in the sense of individual trials) vindicated, against you and me. "That every mouth might be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God."

So, again, the question is, how do I escape the wrath to come, the sentence of death? How can I be righteous when I am not? Occasional law-keeping, or even a preponderance of law-keeping, will not relieve me of my just doom. How can God be both (perfectly) just and the justifier of the ungodly? When he is on record as One "who will by no means clear the guilty?" Who will make up my debt (that which I have lost), and who will complete my failure to fill up my duty (that which I have not done).

I need a perfect righteousness I haven't got, both infinitely lost and infinitely short. I need works of superlative merit that are _somehow_ creditable to another beside the one who performed them, fulfiling both his own due and mine! How can that happen? For a righteous man someone might possibly dare to die... but God commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us! I need some kind of righteousness from God!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The CPJ just came. And I have spent a few hours reading it. The Fesko analysis is indeed very useful.


And to think this was rejected by a major Christian journal as toooo Presbyterian and Westminsterian; oh well, our little rag's gain. It was also the only unsolicited piece for 2005 and sort of fell into the editor's lap unlooked for a month prior to going to the printer.


----------



## pduggan (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Wright's "courtroom" is not Paul's "courtroom". Wright has the individual come to the court and decide whether he wants to be on Jesus' side or the other side. But the biblical court is set up very differently. In the biblical court Jesus stands on one side and all humanity stands on the other side. All humanity is guilty before God. How does one get out from under the sentence of "guilty"? This is Paul's point. And its one Wright doesn't seem to get. How can Christ's righteousness, the declaration of God's favor to him be transferred to me?
> 
> God's already declared me guilty! I can't just get up and walk across the courtroom and say, "Hey there King Jesus, I was just screaming filthy epithets at you until 5 minutes ago, when the gavel cane down, but you know, ever since I was condemned, your Lordship has been looking pretty good to me, so I'm now on your side! 'Kay? Cool." What right have I got to do that? Man, I don't even _want_ to do that! In my sin I still want to kill Christ and the Father!



As I understand Wright, The courtroom matters have already been decided through Christ's action. In Christ, God has condemned 'sin itself' shown it to be sin, and judged it. People who come into the courtroom have already been called there and responded to the call and find that their sins have already been atoned for on the cross. In the court (in Christ messiah, not in their individual naked selves) they find that they share in the verdict which God placed on the public person and their representative messiah.

Your analysis seems to assume to much of your own view of what the courtroom analogy must mean, and not actually what Wright means by it.

You are not "in your sin' when you come into the court for justification, because you've already been called.

And in WCF-speak, the effectual call already implies a change in spiritual status away from being unable to will that which is spiritually good. The law is written on the heart in regeneration, and then faith can respond to the call. Wright is pushing some of what we associate with justification back onto the call. 

Fisher's catechism explains:


> Q. 4. What is the connexion between effectual calling and justification?
> 
> A. In effectual calling, sinners, being united to Christ by faith, have thereby communion with him in his righteousness, for justification, Phil. 3:9.


For Fisher, it seems that justification and adoption are not discrete acts following on the call, but rather reflexes of the union with Christ effected by the call.



> How can Christ's righteousness, the declaration of God's favor to him be transferred to me?


That's just it. The righteousness of a corporate representative like Christ (= messiah = davidic king = public person) must of necessity be imputed to his people. asking that question is like asking "how can my senator's decision on my behalf be accounted as being a decision on my behalf". We'll, its sorta true by definition.

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by pduggan]

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by pduggan]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 4, 2005)

I do not seem to have a problem with those that say justification includes more than forensic declaration, but it is certainly not less.

The early Luther taught that spiritual healing was part of the process of justification. 

http://www.quodlibet.net/dorman-luther.shtml

However, forensic justification should be foremost and predominant in the understanding of the gospel.

1Co 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 4, 2005)

> That's just it. The rigtheousness of a corporate representative like Christ (= messiah = davidic king = public person) must of necessity be imputed to his people. asking that question is like asking "how can my senator's decison on my behalf be accounted as being a decision on my behalf". We'll, its sorta true by definition.



I am not quite following you here. The first part of your statement makes since but what follows does not. Are you saying that Christ's righteousness (Active/Passive obediance) is not really being credited to those whom he died for?


----------



## pduggan (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_So, where in Wright's courtroom is the "covenant" people's acknowledgment that they are _not_ in the right but desperately in the wrong?



"God has made this Jesus, *whom you crucified*, both Lord and Christ." When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, *Repent*.

Its in the acknowledgment that the Lord to whom they submit in the gospel is the Lord they killed and the Lord who shamefully bore the curse of the law they never kept.


----------



## pduggan (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > That's just it. The righteousness of a corporate representative like Christ (= messiah = davidic king = public person) must of necessity be imputed to his people. asking that question is like asking "how can my senator's decision on my behalf be accounted as being a decision on my behalf". We'll, its sorta true by definition.
> ...



Not at all.

I'm saying that the bible does not present a sequence like this

1. God calls Jesus to redeem his people
2. Jesus obeys, suffers and dies and is resurrected
3. God calls a person to believe in Jesus
4. God imputes the righteousness of Jesus to that person
5. The person is saved

but rather

1. God sets up his messiah, which is an occupation/job description that necessarily entails respresentitive acts on behalf of a people.

2. That messiah dies for his people, and rises because of his righteousness.

3. Individuals are called to find salvation already accomplished in their representative. They share in his status when they submit to him as Lord because submission to any messiah/lord always includes sharing in that Lord's status.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Paul,

Thank you for very clearly presenting the fact that Wright's view is not the Reformed/Westminster view or the view of the Bible.

Westminster clearly states that the sinner is justified by the pardoning of sins, not the inclusion in the people of God (which is what Wright maintains). The Biblical view is that we are brought into the people of God because we are right with God; Wright's view is that we are right with God because we are brought into the people of God. That is why the New Perspective and Wright have completely botched the doctrine of adoption, as set forth in WCF 12.1:



> WCF 12:1 All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption: by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God;



and in John 1:12, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"

But I guess that it might be such an "American" question of inerrancy to try and make the "Johannine" Gospel speak with the same terms as the "Pauline" gospel.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 4, 2005)

John 1:12, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"

Excellent point.


----------



## pduggan (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_ The Biblical view is that we are brought into the people of God because we are right with God;



Do we receive the Spirit of Sonship at some later point after the Spirit regenerates us then? And aren't we members of the invisible church before we are even called?

Or perhaps we/I/wright? need to distinguish 'people of god' as being a part of the Messiah from being a 'child of god' maybe in an eschatological sense.


> The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; *which is done* in their effectual calling.


and


> The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.



[Edited on 11-4-2005 by pduggan]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_ The Biblical view is that we are brought into the people of God because we are right with God;
> ...



The ordo salutis is not (and was never intended to be) a strict chronological order, but rather a logical order. So while adoption happens simultaneously with justification, it is (as the WLC states) granted to the justified, not the reverse. This gets us to the nature of faith itself - which is another area that Wright botches - the faith of the believer is in Christ as the one crucified for him (cf. Isa 55; 1 Cor. 1:23) and it is on that basis that Christ becomes his King. The believer's faith is not in the sovereignty of Christ - the demons even believe that - but in the one who has borne the believer's own sins on the tree (1 Peter 2:24)



> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> Or perhaps we/I/wright? need to distinguish 'people of god' as being a part of the Messiah from being a 'child of god' maybe in an eschatological sense.
> 
> 
> ...



Paul,

I trust that it is Wright who needs to revise his thinking and not you, since you have made the Westminster Standards your confession of faith, and he has not - indeed he radically departs from them.

As for the sections from the Confession you cite, they are perfectly correct, but they speak of the believer _qua_ his election, not _qua_ the ordo and his act of faith. That is why the same Confession can say:



> WCF 11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.



If we strictly take union with Christ in an absolute sense with respect to adoption, we must take it so with justification, and that is clearly contrary to the express language of 11.4. So the simple answer is that it cannot mean that.


----------



## pduggan (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; *which is done* in their effectual calling.
> ...



I'm sorry, i don't see that. The LC is speaking of how union with Christ is worked out, that it is 'done' in the ordo specific part called 'effectual calling'. Effectual calling, where new life is given, and the heart of stone taken away, and the ability to that which is spiritually good, and the Holy Spirit (who IS the Spirit of Sonship) is given. 

It would seem to me that union with the Christ (messianic representative of the people of God) necessarily implies membership in the people of God. Does there need to be a logical order keeping the reception of a person's citizenship separate from receiving their right to vote?

Yes, John 1 links them logically, but can that not be because the one is included in the other? (receiving Christ necessarily entails the right to become children of God, because Christ is the Son of God, and what is true of Christ is true of those who receive him)



> If we strictly take union with Christ in an absolute sense with respect to adoption, we must take it so with justification, and that is clearly contrary to the express language of 11.4. So the simple answer is that it cannot mean that.



11.4 is saying there is no way to affirm temporally that justification comes before union with Christ. But it does not DENY that justification adoption and all of them are not reflexes of union with Christ. The express language of 11.4 speaks of 'in due time', which is temporally not logically restrictive. Effectual calling can give us Christ's righteousness even though logically, we await the *declaration* of righteous status in justification.

And justification is an *act* of God, not a trick of thought, otherwise, we'd be justified when God 'decreed' (a judicial statement) that we would be justified in time)

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by pduggan]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 4, 2005)

> Do we receive the Spirit of Sonship at some later point after the Spirit regenerates us then? And aren't we members of the invisible church before we are even called?



The Levitical priest could not enter the holy of holies without his holy attire.
We cannot enter God's presense without Christ's robe of righteousness. (alien righteousness)
That is why it is the logical order.


----------



## pduggan (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Do we receive the Spirit of Sonship at some later point after the Spirit regenerates us then? And aren't we members of the invisible church before we are even called?
> ...


Christ's robe of righteosuness is the robe of the one who by his righteousness is already in the presence of God on our behalf.

Our messiah is in heaven in his righteousness. When we receive him, we get it all.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 4, 2005)

> Christ's robe of righteosuness is the robe of the one who by his righteousness is already in the presence of God on our behalf.
> 
> Our messiah is in heaven in his righteousness. When we receive him, we get it all.



I agree. But logical and temporal are two different things. Justification is the logical antecedent to adoption.



> I am ashamed to debate the matter, as if it were doubtful, with men who call themselves Christians. The doctrine of Scripture is clear. "We know," says John, ( 1 John 4:6,) "that we are the children of God." And he afterwards explains whence this knowledge arises, viz., from the Spirit which he hath given us. In like manner Paul, too, reminds us, ( 1 Corinthians 2:12) "That we have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which are given us of God." Elsewhere it is said still more explicitly, "We have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." ( Romans 8:15.) Hence that access with confidence and boldness which we mentioned a little ago. And, indeed, they are ignorant of the whole nature of faith who mingle doubt with it. Were Paul in doubt, he would not exult over death, and write as he does in the eighth of the Romans, when he boasts of being so certain of the love of God that nothing can turn him from the persuasion. This is clear from his words. And he assigns the cause, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us." By this he intimates that our conscience, resting in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, boldly glories in the presence of God, in the hope of eternal life. But it is not strange that this certainty, which the Spirit of God seals on the hearts of the godly, is unknown to sophists. Our Savior foretold that so it would be. "Not the world, but you alone in whom he abideth, will know him." ( John 14:17.) It is not strange that those who, having discarded the foundation of faith, lean rather on their works, should waver to and fro. For it is a most true saying of Augustine, (in Psalm 88,) "As the promise is sure, not according to our merits, but according to his grace, no man ought to speak with trepidation of that of which he cannot doubt."
> 
> John Calvin - Antidote to the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification (1547)


----------



## JohnV (Nov 4, 2005)

Great quote, Mark. It right away brought to mind this text:


> _Joh 7:17_
> If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Effectual calling is not justification. And justification does not happen at effectual calling. What you are describing here is the heresy of eternal justification.



> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> It would seem to me that union with the Christ (messianic representative of the people of God) necessarily implies membership in the people of God. Does there need to be a logical order keeping the reception of a person's citizenship separate from receiving their right to vote?



Yes, there does. We are made right by the legal declaration that we are not guilty, and that we are righteous in Christ, not because we are a part of the people of God. The converse is what is consistently affirmed by Wright (complete with his disdain for "legal fictions" and imputation), but it is not the position of the Standards or Reformed theology - nor the Bible.



> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> Yes, John 1 links them logically, but can that not be because the one is included in the other? (receiving Christ necessarily entails the right to become children of God, because Christ is the Son of God, and what is true of Christ is true of those who receive him)
> 
> 
> ...



11.4 is not about temporal affirmation - it is an affirmation of the necessity of justification in time through the instrument of faith, and an express denial of eternal justification. I suggest that you read Buchanan or Owen on this. Union with Christ is not our justification - our justification is a legal declaration. Our justification does not come about because of who we are - whether the Romanist notion of infusion, or the New Perspective hijacking of union with Christ. We are not right with God because of who we are in Christ; we are right with God because He has declared it to be so. He makes that declaration, to be sure, based upon the merits of Christ, but it is a legal act, not a substantival act.



> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> And justification is an *act* of God, not a trick of thought, otherwise, we'd be justified when God 'decreed' (a judicial statement) that we would be justified in time)



The fact that you think that the forensic declaration of God in justify the sinner is a "trick" or that it is the same as an eternal decree is a clear sign that you do not understand what the Confession is saying. God is the justifier of _sinners_, not those who are already His people.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 4, 2005)

Double  to Fred.


----------



## pduggan (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_Yes, there does. We are made right by the legal declaration that we are not guilty, and that we are righteous in Christ, not because we are a part of the people of God.



Those cannot be separated as you seem to do by saying one not the other. Who is Christ without a people to redeem? It seems as if you're talking about Christ apart from his federal headship. Being in Christ means being in the people of Christ. Being in the people of Christ means being in Christ. 

Romans 4 says "the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the *father of us all*, as it is written, "I have made you the *father of many nations"* One who shares the faith of abraham is one who is in the family of abraham. The forgiven family of abraham, but he shares in the forgiveness that comes to the whole family. When you get saved, you don't just have your salvation as an individual, you have it with abraham as your father and you as his offspring.

We are declared to not be guilty yes. But we already have his righteousness shared with us in our effectual calling (see quote from Fisher's catechism). God declares us righteous because he finds us to have the alien righteousness of Christ that we received by the Spirit uniting us to Christ imputatively.

You can't divide them with a false antithesis that takes Christ's people away from Christ. Jesus wasn't just some guy. He was a public person and a federal head. He's a king. You're in union with a king, so you're in union with the people of the king.

We the many are gathered into one loaf, but that loaf is also the body of Christ.


----------



## pduggan (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_The fact that you think that the forensic declaration of God in justify the sinner is a "trick" or that it is the same as an eternal decree is a clear sign that you do not understand what the Confession is saying. God is the justifier of _sinners_, not those who are already His people.


That's not at all what I think or I am saying. I'm saying if eternal justification were true it would be just a trick of thought. But it isn't.

Does not union with Christ occur in Effectual Calling?
If so, does not that union include his righteousness?
And then justifcation is on the grounds of that imputed righteosuness, no? 

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 4, 2005)

This post takes us back a ways, back to the point where I offered a different court-scenario than Wright's. In response to this statement


> Your analysis seems to assume to much of your own view of what the courtroom analogy must mean, and not actually what Wright means by it,


I simply state that, having read some of Wright himself, and read the work of others who have read him much more thoroughly and with far more accumen than I possess, I still do not think I am botching the description of Wright's courtroom.

This is the Hebrew court as Wright sets it up for the reader:
Wright places God at the front of the court. He is the impartial adjudicator, in a scenario evoked by such scenes as Mt. 5:25; Lk. 12:13-14; 18:3; etc. He places the enemies of God's people (one set of "litigants") on one side of the room, and the so-called "people of God" on the other (the other party. So-called, because aside from the written promises, the judgment has not yet come down, and is, as it were, still veiled. The issue is affected when the person of Jesus arrives (as promised) and steps into the court, taking up position with (and for) the "people of God". God promises to declare him--and all his--justified. The verdict may even be conceived of as actually in-hand, only sealed until the Day of Judgment.

This is justification for Wright. In his Arminianism, he now has God suspend the just declaration until the last day, and allows for a sifting of the court. People who reject Christ on the "covenant people" side drift over to the enemies side, and enemies may cross over themselves and identify with the Christ. Latecomers also come in and make a choice.


Now, I (and others) maintain that this court-scenario is _not_ the judicial thinking behind Paul when he speaks of justification. There is another court-scenario spoken of in Scripture. It is not the court of adjudication between litigants equal before the law, but the King's high court. It is the court of the law-maker. Israel's kings were actually supposed to make no laws, but rather speak the voice of final authority, with reference to God's Law. They were to "be just, ruling in the fear of God," principally because they were also subject to the Law, and also because they were the declarers of the Voiceof God. In that capacity they _were_ the Law, in a manner that the ungodly kings of the nations exercised in a usurped manner.

Nathan's confrontation with David (2 Sam. 12) is a fine illustration of this matter. David, in his hypocritical indignation, both declares his opinion that the wicked man should die, and restrains himself to inflicting the maximum penalty prescribed in the law for thieves. Nathan, after revealing that David is "the man" according to the Word of revelation, and after David's abject repentance, declares that God alone--who had the authority to strike David dead--has spared his life. Why could not a judge of the land declare David guilty under the Law, and order his execution? Because God alone had that prerogative with respect to the office of the king.

Also, we find another example in the gospels of the "oriental despot." Mt. 18:23-35, the parable of the unmerciful servant. The servant is guilty before the lord, he is a helpless debtor. His fate is entirely in the hands of the master, who contemplates selling him and his wife and children for a small recoupment of his loss.

My point is, that Wright's courtroom has left out this whole (greater)matter. In fact, he has made the lesser court the standard imagery of Paul and the New Testament. By leaving out the implications of the greater court, there is no place for its insertion. On the other hand, in the context of the King's court, there is ample room for those who have been granted standing and recognition to be vindicated (on that basis) against their foes.


Wright and others speak of justification as if the whole matter of individual right-standing before God were a side issue. They have boldly claimed to teach the children of the Reformation "what St. Paul really said," and taken (as far as they have been succesful) the church's attention off of justification as a declaration of an individual's status vis-a-vis the Law of God, and over to justification as a declaration of which is the faithful crowd. Thus, "justification is less about soteriology than about ecclesiology."


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 4, 2005)

Thank you Bruce.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 4, 2005)




----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 15, 2005)

Can Bruce or someone interact and respond briefly (or otherwise) to this article by Wright on becoming "Righteousness of God"... http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Becoming_Righteousness.pdf


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 15, 2005)

Rev. Buchanan, in response to what you posted, what do you (and others on the board) think about what Wright says here:



> This moment is what he describes frequently as God's 'call'. Paul's own 'ordo salutis' goes like this: God loved, chose, called and glorified (2 Thess. 2.13-14), or, in the fuller terms of Romans, God foreknew, foreordained, called, justified and glorified. This sequence is very interesting. The 'call', for Paul, is what happens when the gospel is preached: God's word in that gospel works powerfully upon hearts and minds, and people find that they believe it -- the crucified Jesus really is Israel's Messiah, the world's Lord! But -- and this is my central point here, an exegetical point with large theological implications





> Is justification then a 'process', as Barnett says I say -- with the result that he suggests my view ends up destroying 'assurance'? Absolutely not!





> If centuries of theological tradition have used the word 'justification' to mean something else, that is another matter; but if that tradition leads us to misread Paul (as, in my view, it manifestly has), then we must deal with the problem at the root, and not be scared off from doing so by those who squeal that this doesn't sound like what they heard in Sunday school. Barnett of course doesn't do that, but he certainly misstates my point when he says that, according to me, 'justification' is 'a badge of membership'. It isn't, and I never said it was. Faith is the badge of membership, and, as soon as there is this faith, God declares 'justified'. For Paul, faith is the result of the Spirit's work through the preaching of the gospel (read 1 Cor. 12.3 with 1 Thess. 1.4-5 and 2.13); this is not driving a wedge between gospel and justification, but explaining how the gospel works to produce the faith because of which God declares 'righteous'.



Source: http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html


----------



## Kaalvenist (Nov 28, 2005)

Gabe,

Have you read Guy Prentiss Waters on the subject (_Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul_, published by P&R)? He gives a good analysis of the history behind it, summarizing each proponent's individual position, and giving valid critiques. Also, as others have mentioned, Dr. Fesko's review of _What Saint Paul Really Said_, in _The Confessional Presbyterian_, provides excellent analysis and critique of Wright. In both Waters and Fesko, I found their examination of second-temple writings especially interesting (since that is what NPP proponents especially rely on).

Sean


----------



## pduggan (Dec 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> This is the Hebrew court as Wright sets it up for the reader:
> Wright places God at the front of the court. He is the impartial adjudicator, in a scenario evoked by such scenes as Mt. 5:25; Lk. 12:13-14; 18:3; etc. He places the enemies of God's people (one set of "litigants") on one side of the room, and the so-called "people of God" on the other (the other party. So-called, because aside from the written promises, the judgment has not yet come down, and is, as it were, still veiled. The issue is affected when the person of Jesus arrives (as promised) and steps into the court, taking up position with (and for) the "people of God". God promises to declare him--and all his--justified. The verdict may even be conceived of as actually in-hand, only sealed until the Day of Judgment.
> 
> This is justification for Wright. In his Arminianism, he now has God suspend the just declaration until the last day, and allows for a sifting of the court. People who reject Christ on the "covenant people" side drift over to the enemies side, and enemies may cross over themselves and identify with the Christ. Latecomers also come in and make a choice.


I'm not sure why you accuse Wright of arminianism here. I read Wright as speaking of the historical moment that comes after the resurrection of Christ, where he is declared to be the righteous Messiah, and his people share in his righteousness (receiving forgiveness thereby) as they share in all he has. But prior to the resurrection, the "people of God" were most naturally identified as those defined by the covenant with Israel. So Jesus achieves for his people, but then we find that many Jews reject this achievement, and find themselves to be not a people, and many gentiles heed the call and become part of the Israel of God.

What about that is arminian? People respond to the call in Calvinism as I understand it.



> Now, I (and others) maintain that this court-scenario is _not_ the judicial thinking behind Paul when he speaks of justification. There is another court-scenario spoken of in Scripture.


Can you line out how this other court situation factors into what Paul is saying? And the place of Abraham in the narrative?

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by pduggan]


----------

