Anyone Have a Problem with This Statement on Justification (et al)?

[Marrow Man]

I came across the following statement in a (not Reformed) systematic theology book. I will momentarily withhold the name of the author so as not to taint the discussion. The author says some ok things about justification elsewhere (though he dilutes them a bit), but this section troubles me greatly, though I may be overreacting. What say ye about the following?

In conversion, the Spirit applies to us the provision made available by Jesus. In do doing, he mediates to us God's regeneration, justification, freedom, and power. But the saving work of the Spirit is not intended to overcome the problem of sin as an end in itself. Rather, these grand effects of teh Spirit's activity in conversion are all directed toward a higher, more glorious goal, which is nothing less than the central focus of the saving action of the triune God. We are rescued from sin in order that we may participate in the fellowship of the redeemed humanity living in a redeemed world and enjoying the presence of the Redeemer God. Conversion, therefore, is the event which marks our entry into the ongoing activity of God in bringing his creation to this grand telos, the establishing of community. ... For this reason, the great biblical metaphors of salvation focus on fellowship with the Father through the Son. "Regeneration" refers to the relational dimension of fellowship. We who were God's enemies now experience community with him, because the Spirit has effected our new birth into the Father's family as the brothers and sisters of the Son. Similarly, "justification" signifies the legal aspect of fellowship. The Spirit has caused us to exchange our unrighteousness, which formerly barred the way to community, with the righteousness of the Son himself, thereby bringing us to enjoy fellowship with the Father.

 

[Roldan]

I came across the following statement in a (not Reformed) systematic theology book. I will momentarily withhold the name of the author so as not to taint the discussion. The author says some ok things about justification elsewhere (though he dilutes them a bit), but this section troubles me greatly, though I may be overreacting. What say ye about the following?

In conversion, the Spirit applies to us the provision made available by Jesus. In do doing, he mediates to us God's regeneration, justification, freedom, and power. But the saving work of the Spirit is not intended to overcome the problem of sin as an end in itself. Rather, these grand effects of teh Spirit's activity in conversion are all directed toward a higher, more glorious goal, which is nothing less than the central focus of the saving action of the triune God. We are rescued from sin in order that we may participate in the fellowship of the redeemed humanity living in a redeemed world and enjoying the presence of the Redeemer God. Conversion, therefore, is the event which marks our entry into the ongoing activity of God in bringing his creation to this grand telos, the establishing of community. ... For this reason, the great biblical metaphors of salvation focus on fellowship with the Father through the Son. "Regeneration" refers to the relational dimension of fellowship. We who were God's enemies now experience community with him, because the Spirit has effected our new birth into the Father's family as the brothers and sisters of the Son. Similarly, "justification" signifies the legal aspect of fellowship. The Spirit has caused us to exchange our unrighteousness, which formerly barred the way to community, with the righteousness of the Son himself, thereby bringing us to enjoy fellowship with the Father.

Seems to me that this person sounds more poetic with his theology than a strict theological language.....eh IDK....I don't see anything wrong with that I guess...It is a legal aspect and we do enjow fellowship and we have exchanged our filthy rags righteousness for His but I guess what bothers me is the non-emphasis on the primary legal declaration of being just in the sight of the Father then I would have stated the fellowship, but thats just me

 

[toddpedlar]

A number of issues come to mind, though the boldened portion isn't necessarily the worst of it from my perspective. These are only a few off-the-top-of-my-head issues:

1) the "chief end" of all God's saving work is NOT so that we can, being redeemed, enjoy Him in this world: God's glory is the primary end... I presume the author means
by "redeemed world" the new Heavens and new Earth, but so much is left out of that sentence.

2) "the establishing of community" makes me want to gag. That simply isn't God's "grand telos". His chief end is the declaration and manifestation of His own glory.

3) Regeneration is not about "fellowship", nor does it primarily relate to it. Regeneration is a work done on the human being himself by the Spirit, as a means to producing faith and sanctification (among other things). I just don't see "fellowship" as the primary end of regeneration.

4) I'm not sure about the author's need to keep referring to the instrumentality of the Spirit... "caused us to exchange our unrighteousness" is a very strange way of discussing justification. We can't exchange anything - that's for God to do, not for us. Justification is God's declaration of us as righteous, as the confession and catechisms clearly state. There isn't any participation on our part in justification, though that piece surely makes it sound as though there is.

I'll refrain from guessing who this is - but it sounds like a charismatic evangelical's take on these things.

 

[Roldan]

A number of issues come to mind, though the boldened portion isn't necessarily the worst of it from my perspective. These are only a few off-the-top-of-my-head issues:

1) the "chief end" of all God's saving work is NOT so that we can, being redeemed, enjoy Him in this world: God's glory is the primary end... I presume the author means
by "redeemed world" the new Heavens and new Earth, but so much is left out of that sentence.

2) "the establishing of community" makes me want to gag. That simply isn't God's "grand telos". His chief end is the declaration and manifestation of His own glory.

3) Regeneration is not about "fellowship", nor does it primarily relate to it. Regeneration is a work done on the human being himself by the Spirit, as a means to producing faith and sanctification (among other things). I just don't see "fellowship" as the primary end of regeneration.

4) I'm not sure about the author's need to keep referring to the instrumentality of the Spirit... "caused us to exchange our unrighteousness" is a very strange way of discussing justification. We can't exchange anything - that's for God to do, not for us. Justification is God's declaration of us as righteous, as the confession and catechisms clearly state. There isn't any participation on our part in justification, though that piece surely makes it sound as though there is.

I'll refrain from guessing who this is - but it sounds like a charismatic evangelical's take on these things.

Yes...I was thinking also that it was an incomplete statement and left me with questions to what he meant....kinda reminded me of N.T Wright

 

[Marrow Man]

Todd, you've hit squarely upon some of the same things that bothered me. I'll comment on just a couple.

2) Community -- according to the author, this is the grand purpose of theology. Community is the paradigm through which everything theological is filtered (it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to see what he does with election here -- he lands firmly upon "corporate election"). He bases this upon the "Trinitarian community." This seems to me to be very much the community tail wagging the theological dog. If you read the entire book, after you see the number of times he mentions "community", you wouldn't just be gagging.

4) Exchanging our righteousness -- this is exactly what bothered me. It sounds very synergistic, in my opinion.

The author isn't charismatic (or connected with the charismatic movement), but a Baptist (obviously not a RB). He sounds more influenced my postmodernism than anything else, In my humble opinion.

 

[Marrow Man]

Excellent point, Josh. I just checked the index and he does not even discuss the doctrine of adoption. Perhaps he is not even aware of such an animal (sad) and is conflating it with justification.

 

[toddpedlar]

I Todd, but I would also make the caveat that Justification is primarily a legal declaration of our standing before God. It is Adoption, I think that relates more to the relational and fellowship aspect of our salvation. Of course, Adoption springs from Justification.

I guess I wasn't clear Justification - God's declaration of the sinner as righteous - IS a legal declaration, to be sure.

 

[Marrow Man]

Just to be fair, the author does, just a few pages before this quote, correctly identify justification in this way: "Justification, then, is a forensic term, referring to a change in our legal standing before God." He also references Berkhof favorably when referring to this, stating, "Reformed theologians often describe justification as God's act of imputing to a sinful person the righteousness of Christ."

However, elsewhere in the book, in a discussion on original sin, he denies the imputation of Adam's guilt to the human race (though not denying the effects of sin), which I believe is standard semi-Pelagian argumentation.

 

[Whitefield]

1) the "chief end" of all God's saving work is NOT so that we can, being redeemed, enjoy Him in this world: God's glory is the primary end... I presume the author means
by "redeemed world" the new Heavens and new Earth, but so much is left out of that sentence.

Just a minor point on this .. the Westminster Shorter has the conjunction and when answering the question as what is the chief end of man. Not only is it to "glorify God" but also to "enjoy Him forever."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"We" (by the Spirit's cause) exchange our unrighteousness for his righteousness?

That seems far too synergistic, re. justification. We are "in the dock". We don't get to cross the courtroom, and change places, or put the other team's t-shirt on when we don't like how the trial is going.

We need a God who translates us from one side to the other. Who then declares us innocent, as associated to Christ, the Innocent One and the Just. (This is a place where NTW gets the courtroom analogy seriously wrong.)

 

[Marrow Man]

"We" (by the Spirit's cause) exchange our unrighteousness for his righteousness?

That seems far too synergistic, re. justification. We are "in the dock". We don't get to cross the courtroom, and change places, or put the other team's t-shirt on when we don't like how the trial is going.

We need a God who translates us from one side to the other. Who then declares us innocent, as associated to Christ, the Innocent One and the Just. (This is a place where NTW gets the courtroom analogy seriously wrong.)

Very well put. I concur; I just wanted to make sure I wasn't overreacting.

One point about the courtroom analogy that sometimes gets missed (I just heard a lecture by D.A. Carson on the NPP last evening where he makes this point) -- God is the judge, but He is also the offended party. We can sometimes overlook that b/c it doesn't really happen in our western courts of law. But unless we fully realize how we offended the holy and just God who created us, we will not truly understand the gospel nor the doctrine of justification.

 

[toddpedlar]

1) the "chief end" of all God's saving work is NOT so that we can, being redeemed, enjoy Him in this world: God's glory is the primary end... I presume the author means
by "redeemed world" the new Heavens and new Earth, but so much is left out of that sentence.

Just a minor point on this .. the Westminster Shorter has the conjunction and when answering the question as what is the chief end of man. Not only is it to "glorify God" but also to "enjoy Him forever."

Yes of course. My objection was not about the chief end of man, but about the chief end of God's work, which is what the author was dealing with.

The author conflates the chief end of God's work and the chief end of man....

 

[christianhope]

I came across the following statement in a (not Reformed) systematic theology book. I will momentarily withhold the name of the author so as not to taint the discussion. The author says some ok things about justification elsewhere (though he dilutes them a bit), but this section troubles me greatly, though I may be overreacting. What say ye about the following?

In conversion, the Spirit applies to us the provision made available by Jesus. In do doing, he mediates to us God's regeneration, justification, freedom, and power. But the saving work of the Spirit is not intended to overcome the problem of sin as an end in itself. Rather, these grand effects of teh Spirit's activity in conversion are all directed toward a higher, more glorious goal, which is nothing less than the central focus of the saving action of the triune God. We are rescued from sin in order that we may participate in the fellowship of the redeemed humanity living in a redeemed world and enjoying the presence of the Redeemer God. Conversion, therefore, is the event which marks our entry into the ongoing activity of God in bringing his creation to this grand telos, the establishing of community. ... For this reason, the great biblical metaphors of salvation focus on fellowship with the Father through the Son. "Regeneration" refers to the relational dimension of fellowship. We who were God's enemies now experience community with him, because the Spirit has effected our new birth into the Father's family as the brothers and sisters of the Son. Similarly, "justification" signifies the legal aspect of fellowship. The Spirit has caused us to exchange our unrighteousness, which formerly barred the way to community, with the righteousness of the Son himself, thereby bringing us to enjoy fellowship with the Father.

It is true that we can't have fellowship with God without conversion, however, the author is seeming to place our fellowship with God as the end, which is not the end, rather, it has very little to do with our fellowship with God and everything to do with the glorifying and worshipping of God. Certainly our fellowship with God is glorifying to Him- but that is a secondary effect, to place fellowship as the end is to put the cart before the horse! It places man as equal with God in importance concerning this issue. Poor explanation indeed...

Also, I found that paragraph to sound distorted and unclear. Especially the usage of 'freedom, and power' which the author used without explanation- freedom and power to do what? Sounds pretty liberal and man-pleasing to me.

 

[Marrow Man]

Also, I found that paragraph to sound distorted and unclear. Especially the usage of 'freedom, and power' which the author used without explanation- freedom and power to do what? Sounds pretty liberal and man-pleasing to me.

Sorry, that part is my fault. He does explain freedom and power after this, but it is a lengthy section and I could not copy all of that.

But, in the spirit of clarification, this is how he defines those terms:

Freedom = "the ability to reject sin and choose God's will."

Empowerment = "In conversion the Spirit bestows on us power for service. ... Specifically, his presence is the power we need for a lifetime of service to God and for God's kingdom."

 

[larryjf]

4) Exchanging our righteousness -- this is exactly what bothered me. It sounds very synergistic, in my opinion.

That's what jumped out at me as well.

 

[KMK]

Todd, you've hit squarely upon some of the same things that bothered me. I'll comment on just a couple.

2) Community -- according to the author, this is the grand purpose of theology. Community is the paradigm through which everything theological is filtered (it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to see what he does with election here -- he lands firmly upon "corporate election"). He bases this upon the "Trinitarian community." This seems to me to be very much the community tail wagging the theological dog. If you read the entire book, after you see the number of times he mentions "community", you wouldn't just be gagging.

What were you expecting from a book entitled, "Theology For The Community Of God"?

 

[Marrow Man]

What were you expecting from a book entitled, "Theology For The Community Of God"?

Lawrence guessed the book/author (via PM) as well. Egads; can't sneak anything by you Baptists.

Well, since the postmodernist cat is out of the community bag, would any of you care to elaborate on the late and not-so-great theology of Stanley Grenz?

 

[Roldan]

4) Exchanging our righteousness -- this is exactly what bothered me. It sounds very synergistic, in my opinion.

How? I guess it depends on what you think he means by "exchanging".

1. It could mean as you suggest, that we are involved in the process of exchanging our Righteousness hence synergistic.

or

2. He could just mean that by faith we have exchanged our dirty robes for Christ spotless robe and thats no denying it was a decision we made, though also by grace oviously.

IDK I think we are looking to much into that one if you ask me....again he needs to define his terms.

 

[Marrow Man]

If a man is bold enough to write an 800+ page systematic theology, the least he can do is be clear and precise with his terminology.

 

[Roldan]

If a man is bold enough to write an 800+ page systematic theology, the least he can do is be clear and precise with his terminology.

LOL...you would think huh.....thanks to N.T Wright hahaha jk

 

[KMK]

What were you expecting from a book entitled, "Theology For The Community Of God"?

Lawrence guessed the book/author (via PM) as well. Egads; can't sneak anything by you Baptists.

Well, since the postmodernist cat is out of the community bag, would any of you care to elaborate on the late and not-so-great theology of Stanley Grenz?

Perhaps you could first explain why you are reading it.

 

[Marrow Man]

Perhaps you could first explain why you are reading it.

It is a required textbook for a class I took last year. I am working as a grad assistant (part of my practicum requirement) alongside the same prof, who is this time teaching an undergrad class using the same book. So I am having to re-read it, at least sections of it.

The prof asked for my input into books for the class. I tried everything I could to steer him away from using that awful book again, but to no available. My hope was that we could have instead used Grudem (it is a Baptist school), the shortened version of his ST. But at least the supplementary texts are Mere Christianity (for which they have to write a book review) and Keller's The Reason for God (for which they have to write a paper on one of the sections and give a presentation for another), so a least that was a small victory.

OK, I answered, now your turn.

 

[toddpedlar]

Heh, Tim. I thought you were going to tell us that a shining angel named Moroni came down and presented it to you, along with special glasses so you could properly interpret it....

 

[Skyler]

Heh, Tim. I thought you were going to tell us that a shining angel named Moroni came down and presented it to you, along with special glasses so you could properly interpret it....

I need to get me some of those glasses...

 

[Marrow Man]

Here they are:

 

[Skyler]

Here they are:

Yay! Now I never have to worry about false doctrine again!

 

[Romans 9:16]

There is much that is wrong with the paragraph. The worst of it is making man the agent of the exchange.

Righteousness/unrighteousness is not a ‘thing’ with spatial properties that we can exchange as one would a defective product. It is a state and condition. God alone imputes/reckons (or if you will ‘exchanges’). The great exchange is an act of God (2 Cor 5:21).

One of the ways you can demonstrate the nonsense of the position in the paragraph is by asking the author whether it would be righteous or not to exchange our righteousness. If a moral state / condition is something that we can transfer than the act of transfer must be a-moral. And if it is a-moral (neither right nor wrong), what reason is there to oblige us make such a transfer?

 

[kceaster]

It bothered me also that faith isn't clearly stated. Perhaps it is implied.

But if faith is the alone instrument of our justification, then it is pretty important to state that explicitly.

In Christ,

KC