Corporate Justification

[AV1611]

I have been meeting with our curate on a weekly basis now and he studied under Doug Wilson at Oak Hill here in the UK. Today we had our meeting and we have been going through Hebrews. Now it has been very helpful, I have now some to see some of the problems of Hoeksema's covenantal theology however the curate is sympathetic with FV and aspects of NPP.

He was talking about corporate justification today, that faith places us in Christ's death and ressurection and that is our justification. So our individual justification is through faith placeing us into the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6). He denies the imputation of an "alien righteousness" but I couldn't grasp what he was on about.

I know that some FVers have seen justification as wholly corporate so I was wondering what your thoughts were.

Also he loves Turretin and I was wondering if Turretin teaches this (I guess not) and what are some good Turretin quotes?

 

[Robert Truelove]

I'm not sure it is accurate to say that Federal Vision advocates see justification as wholly corporate. My reading is that they see in the Scriptures dealing with justification in two primary ways. That is, the justification of the individual (those decreed to election), and the justification of the covenant community as a whole (included the non decreed elect).

Regarding the later, if they would stop right there, I would not have such an issue with them. The trouble is, rather than keeping the 'corporate justification' in the general corporate sphere, they then make application to the individual so we have individuals under this scheme that are said to be 'saved', 'regenerate, 'spirit filled', 'salvifically in Christ', etc.

Consider Steve Wilkin's quote in the article he wrote in the book "The Federal Vision" (P.58).

"In fact, covenant is a real relationship, consisting of real communion with the Triune God through union with Christ."

Now, with a proper understanding of what this means, I would actually not have no problem with this. Covenant is a real relationship, and even the covenant member who is unregenerate is in union with Christ. However, this union is merely 'external' or 'legal' in nature, not 'internal', 'living' or 'vital' ('For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel').

But Wilkins goes on two sentences later to define this union with Christ as...

"being in covenant gives all the blessings of being united to Christ"

To make this even more clear, the first sentence of the following paragraph says...

"Because being in covenant with God means being in Christ, those who are in covenant have all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. Union with Christ means that all that is true of Christ is true of us."

The context makes it clear that he is not speaking of those who are in Christ by covenant as a result of election from eternity, but ALL who have a covenant relationship with God.

He says all of this much more clearly in the first paragraph of the same page (the above quotes are his development on the statement below)...

"The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect--they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn't negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostacy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ."

Here is the problem, what is spoken of as 'corporate (covenantal) election' and 'corporate (covenantal) justification' are then applied directly to each member in covenant. The ‘discussion’ ceases to be over something that is ‘corporate’ in nature as soon as you start applying all of the details to individuals.

So there it is; I can affirm with the Federal Vision advocates that there is a corporate (covenantal) sense spoken of in the Scriptures regarding election and justification but when the Scripture addresses the church corporately as ‘saved’, ‘elect’, ‘regenerate’ etc. it is entirely inappropriate to then take each individual in each church and say these things are true of them. At this point, we are no longer speaking corporately.

I have been meeting with our curate on a weekly basis now and he studied under Doug Wilson at Oak Hill here in the UK. Today we had our meeting and we have been going through Hebrews. Now it has been very helpful, I have now some to see some of the problems of Hoeksema's covenantal theology however the curate is sympathetic with FV and aspects of NPP.

He was talking about corporate justification today, that faith places us in Christ's death and ressurection and that is our justification. So our individual justification is through faith placeing us into the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6). He denies the imputation of an "alien righteousness" but I couldn't grasp what he was on about.

I know that some FVers have seen justification as wholly corporate so I was wondering what your thoughts were.

Also he loves Turretin and I was wondering if Turretin teaches this (I guess not) and what are some good Turretin quotes?

 

[greenbaggins]

I would only add here that your teacher may love Turretin, but Turretin is no friend of the FV or the NPP. Turretin is simple splendid

 

[JohnOwen007]

He was talking about corporate justification today, that faith places us in Christ's death and ressurection and that is our justification. So our individual justification is through faith placeing us into the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6). He denies the imputation of an \"alien righteousness\" but I couldn't grasp what he was on about.

That makes no sense to me. Rom. 6 clearly teaches that Christ's alien death and resurrection are imputed to believers. Why would we then say that his righteousness is not? We can't split up Christ into parts. Either we're united to Christ and have all his benefits imputed to us, or we're not and we have none.

BTW Don Carson has written a brilliant article on imputation in an edited volume of essays entitled "Justification: What's at stake". You can read about it here.

God bless AV.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

He was talking about corporate justification today, that faith places us in Christ's death and ressurection and that is our justification. So our individual justification is through faith placeing us into the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6). He denies the imputation of an \"alien righteousness\" but I couldn't grasp what he was on about.

That makes no sense to me. Rom. 6 clearly teaches that Christ's alien death and resurrection are imputed to believers. Why would we then say that his righteousness is not? We can't split up Christ into parts. Either we're united to Christ and have all his benefits imputed to us, or we're not and we have none.

BTW Don Carson has written a brilliant article on imputation in an edited volume of essays entitled "Justification: What's at stake". You can read about it here.

God bless AV.

Why do you think that many FVers have denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience? I suspect it is so that they can replace it with their own obedience.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Why do you think that many FVers have denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience? I suspect it is so that they can replace it with their own obedience.

No, I can't find that reason in their writings. Remember, many of the FV boys affirm imputation.

In my humble opinion some of the FVers reject imputation because they want to find it taught in the NT with a certain explicitness. The fact is, no one text actually says that "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us". The NT speaks of the "righteousness of God" becoming ours (2 Cor. 5:21). And Rom. 4:6 speaks of "righteousness" being reckoned to Abraham (but doesn't explicitly say the righteousness of Christ). And Rom. 6:1ff. speaks of Christ's alien death and resurrection being imputed to believers. But it doesn't go all the way and make it completely explicit.

However, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is a "good and necessary" consequence of the above texts understood as a whole, and implied by the doctrine of the believer's union with Christ.

Remember, the NT doesn't explicitly tell us which books are in the NT. We construct the canon list from a "good and necessary" consequence of the doctrine of apostolicity (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 2:6-16).

Blessings Daniel.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Why do you think that many FVers have denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience? I suspect it is so that they can replace it with their own obedience.

No, I can't find that reason in their writings. Remember, many of the FV boys affirm imputation.

In my humble opinion some of the FVers reject imputation because they want to find it taught in the NT with a certain explicitness. The fact is, no one text actually says that "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us". The NT speaks of the "righteousness of God" becoming ours (2 Cor. 5:21). And Rom. 4:6 speaks of "righteousness" being reckoned to Abraham (but doesn't explicitly say the righteousness of Christ). And Rom. 6:1ff. speaks of Christ's alien death and resurrection being imputed to believers. But it doesn't go all the way and make it completely explicit.

However, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is a "good and necessary" consequence of the above texts understood as a whole, and implied by the doctrine of the believer's union with Christ.

Remember, the NT doesn't explicitly tell us which books are in the NT. We construct the canon list from a "good and necessary" consequence of the doctrine of apostolicity (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 2:6-16).

Blessings Daniel.

In his book Danger in the Camp John Otis takes a different view. While some FVers claim to believe in imputed righteousness, I must ask why they don't separate from heretics like Rich Lusk and Norman Shepherd who clearly deny it?

 

[JohnOwen007]

In his book Danger in the Camp John Otis takes a different view. While some FVers claim to believe in imputed righteousness, I must ask why they don't separate from heretics like Rich Lusk and Norman Shepherd who clearly deny it?

That is a valid question. However, I would want to be a little more generous and not call someone who denies imputation a heretic. If this is the case then everyone prior to Luther was a heretic. Luther really was the first (that we can find since the 2nd century) to explicitly teach imputation. I don't want to say there was no church for some 1300 years.

Blessings.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In his book Danger in the Camp John Otis takes a different view. While some FVers claim to believe in imputed righteousness, I must ask why they don't separate from heretics like Rich Lusk and Norman Shepherd who clearly deny it?

That is a valid question. However, I would want to be a little more generous and not call someone who denies imputation a heretic. If this is the case then everyone prior to Luther was a heretic. Luther really was the first (that we can find since the 2nd century) to explicitly teach imputation. I don't want to say there was no church for some 1300 years.

Blessings.

That is a fair point, but I think Norman Shepherd and Rich Lusk are teaching justification by works. This could not be said of everyone who has not fully understood imputation.

P.S. Is your college the one Leon Morris taught at?

 

[JohnOwen007]

P.S. Is your college the one Leon Morris taught at?

No. Leon Morris taught at Ridley college in Melbourne (over on the Eastern side of Australia, I'm on the West in Perth). However, I did have the privilege of meeting Leon Morris several times. He was a good friend of my father. Thanks for asking.

BTW I do think Norman Shepherd's understanding of justification is very muddled indeed, and yes, I also think he slips works into justification as well. Lusk I'm not as familiar with.

Blessings bro.

 

[SouthernHero]

Rich Lusk is a friend of mine and one of the nicest guys in the world, and has written some good books. I am certainly not FV however. One of my biggest concers with the FV is thier corporate / personal justification and more specifically the losing of that justification:

They would say that being baptised, being a church member and partaking the sacraments unites one to and gaines one the benefits of the covenant (granted, the FV definition of covenant tends to get convoluted and complex, to say the least), then you are to grow in grace and continue to be ministered to by the church (sacraments, corporate praise and worship, liturgy, etc.),

But what happens then (as we've all seen, sadly) people fall away, they denounce Christ and the church. Then they die in that state. What happened here? Presbyterians say that they were never truly saved to begin with, which is a mystery of the Lord, since they had so many signs of the covenant and apparent blessings from the Lord. The FV says that they were elected unto the covenant, tasted the covenant and was % 100 a part of it, but then after being saved here, fluctuated in a hazy removal of personal regenerating grace and fell away as a covenant breaker, ultimately a non-elect, despite their previous state as justified in the church.

I hope that I am being honest as to the FV belief here. I could never adopt any belief system that preaches even a roundabout way to lose your salvation. I'll also never get over their sympathies with rome. But I certainly wouldn't call Rich Lusk a heretic.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Rich Lusk is a friend of mine and one of the nicest guys in the world, and has written some good books. I am certainly not FV however. One of my biggest concers with the FV is thier corporate / personal justification and more specifically the losing of that justification:

They would say that being baptised, being a church member and partaking the sacraments unites one to and gaines one the benefits of the covenant (granted, the FV definition of covenant tends to get convoluted and complex, to say the least), then you are to grow in grace and continue to be ministered to by the church (sacraments, corporate praise and worship, liturgy, etc.),

But what happens then (as we've all seen, sadly) people fall away, they denounce Christ and the church. Then they die in that state. What happened here? Presbyterians say that they were never truly saved to begin with, which is a mystery of the Lord, since they had so many signs of the covenant and apparent blessings from the Lord. The FV says that they were elected unto the covenant, tasted the covenant and was % 100 a part of it, but then after being saved here, fluctuated in a hazy removal of personal regenerating grace and fell away as a covenant breaker, ultimately a non-elect, despite their previous state as justified in the church.

I hope that I am being honest as to the FV belief here. I could never adopt any belief system that preaches even a roundabout way to lose your salvation. I'll also never get over their sympathies with rome. But I certainly wouldn't call Rich Lusk a heretic.

I would advise you to read John Otis' book Danger in the Camp to see what Rich Lusk believes. He may be a gifted man - as nearly all FV men are - but he is well outside the bounds of orthodoxy on justification.

Sadly, because many of us have been helped immensely by the past writings of FVers, it is difficult to judge them impartially. But it is my view that they are leading people to Rome and that we have a responsibility to warn others about them.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I would further add that it breaks my heart to say anything against Steve Wilkins, Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Peter Leithart and others, but they have erred grievously, and we have to be discerning, even when gross error is set forth by those who have been our teachers in the past. This is not easy, but it is what the Lord demands.