No Reformed Theology of Justification?

Status
Not open for further replies.
:ditto:
Klinean all the way. He taught one of my classes here (which was great by the way), and he definitely is not a Shepherd/FV fan. He did emphasize Gaffin's view alot regarding union with Christ. :2cents:

Thanks guys.

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

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

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

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

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

I admit I haven't studied Lutheranism much and will withdraw from this thread for now.
 
To return to the issue at hand - have any of you actually read CJPM in its entirety (not just the parts that Mark critiques), or are you just responding from a vacuum of understanding?

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

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

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

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

Anything other than this is historical revisionism.
 
Fesko: The Westminster Standards and Confessional Lutheranism on Justification



pp.15-26

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

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

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

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

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


God bless brother.
 
Dear Archlute,

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

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

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

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


God bless brother.

JO,

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

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

Take care.
 
Dear Arch,

So glad that that we're in agreement!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


God bless you brother,

Marty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top