Righteous by Forgiveness

When I was in the Plymouth Brethren, one of my fellow church-members said to me that Adam was created "neither good nor evil."  This conclusion was reached because in the text of Genesis, God says that Adam, in his Fall, will become like God, "knowing good and evil."  The implication is that Adam, as created, did not "know good and evil."

This friend's sentiment bothered me a great deal, because it was always my conclusion from the Scripture text that Adam was created good, which implied a created righteousness.  If he were not good (righteous in some sense), then how could he fall?  What would the Fall mean?

I believe that I've now come to realize the source of the sentiment expressed by my friend.  I think it is embedded within the later history of Reformed Theology, with the development of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works.

Before getting into this, however, let me explain concepts about the relationship between righteousness and sin.  There are two paradigms:

1)  Righteousness is a positive good, and sin is a negative evil.  One can have ones sins cancelled, but this leaves him with no positive good.  Something else must happen to create the positive good.  To use a physical analogy, good and evil are separate substances, each handled differently, though they do affect one another.  One can eliminate the evil, but this does not create the good.  Or,

2)  Righteousness is the absence of sin.  To have a sin forgiven is to be put in the position of never having done it.  If that sin is the omission of an act of righteousness, then forgiveness makes it exactly as if that act of righteousness were done.  Therefore, forgiving all a person's sins is exactly the same as reckoning that person to be entirely righteous!  All the positive evil is reckoned as if never done.  All the failed good works are reckoned as if they were done.  The process by which this is done is identically the same in both cases.  The forgiveness of sin is the reckoning of righteousness.  They cannot be separated.

I believe it to be the case that the two paradigms shown above imply major differences in the resulting theologies of salvation.

Now back to Reformed Theology.

It is commonly said that Adam and his elect offspring need both the de-imputation of their sins (forgiveness), and the imputation of righteousness from God.  Simply by its mode of expression, this is based in paradigm #1 above.  The need for forgiveness and the need for righteousness are regarded as separate issues.  These are commonly tied to the passive and active obedience of Christ.  In the passive obedience (the endurance of punishment) Christ bore the punishment of our sin and exhausted that punishment.  Therefore, the liability is removed and the sins are canceled.  Furthermore, the active obedience of his life is a righteousness that is put to our account.  This is a separate issue.  But, in any case, having both forgiveness and a positive righteousness, we have full acceptance before God.

Note, however, according to paradigm #1, Adam, put in the Garden at the beginning of his trial of perseverance, had no sin, but this did not mean that he was as fully developed in righteousness as God required for eternal life (Westminster Confession).  Adam obeys the Covenant of Works by persevering in it.  Similarly, in the analogy between Adam and Christ, this would imply that Christ needs to develop his righteousness, because in his human nature even he would be sinless but without developed righteousness at his human birth.  Therefore, in order to carry out the job that Adam failed at, Christ would need to fully create his active righteousness, and that, first, for himself.  Without this, it could not be imputed to our account.

But, contrarily, we are faced with Calvin's (and Augustine's) conviction that Christ in his human nature was entirely and completely righteous from the first instant of his human conception.  This is based in paradigm #2 above.  Reasoning back to Adam, this would imply that Adam was originally righteous, too.  But, if Adam is originally righteous, in the same way as Christ conceived as a man is originally righteous, then the process of perseverance in the state in which each was made does not create the righteousness that each already has by creation or conception.  Perseverance illustrates and confirms the righteousness, but does not create it.  This view of the relationship between righteousness and sin shows that each is the obverse of the other.  Adam, newly created, and Jesus, newly conceived, are each righteous, though they have done nothing.  In other words, sinlessness equals righteousness.  The absence of sins exactly is the presence of righteousness.  The forgiveness of sins which we receive through Christ exactly is the imputation of righteousness.  The imputation of righteousness is therefore not a separate imputation.  There is no distinction between the de-imputation of sins and the imputation of righteousness.  They are the same thing.

Following out the argument, then, there would be no distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ.  His life and his death, but principally his death, all have the same effect upon us, taken together.  There are not two separate and independent imputations.  He was made sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.  But the "dual imputation," or two-way imputation is not an imputation of sins separately from an imputation of righteousness.  In the dual imputation, our sins going to Christ and his righteousness coming to us is not merely simultaneous, but two sides of the same coin.

This is why Calvin says somewhere that justfication by faith alone (ie, the imputation of righteousness to us) is defined as the cancellation of our sins.  That is, by cancellation of our sins we are righteous.  Or, he says in another place, that Christ by his righteousness (which he had from conception) caused the cancellation of our sins.  Or, that Christ's "merit" is that he created the Christian life in us.  Calvin vehemently denies that Christ's righteousness was obtained for himself first (as the Covenant of Works requires).  All that Christ did was not at all for himself, but all for us.

This needs a lot of thought.  The proper definition and explanation of the Covenants of Works and Grace, the definition of the purpose of the Creation, the real doctrine of Sanctification, and the real focus of Eschatology are all knotted together here.

I think it likely to be the case that the two paradigms of the relationship between sin and righteousness imply different theologies in all these realms.

Neonomianism and the "New Perspective on Paul"

This post is a continuation of a previous post, containing a review of the book:

C. Fitzsimons Allison, The Rise of Moralism -- The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter, Regent College Publishing, 2003 (originally 1966).

This book details the rise of Neonomianism in Anglican Theology in the 17th century. The previous post may be found at the following link (ignore the absurd wording of the link, over which I appear to have no control):

http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/06/test-ignore-this-post.html

My purpose in this succeeding post is to evaluate the potential connection between Neonomianism and the doctrine of justification seen in the "New Perspective on Paul," as propounded by N T Wright.

The "New Perspective on Paul" vis-a-vis Neonomianism

Allison's book is a good historical and doctrinal introduction to an era in the theological history of the Church of England, whose theology is still said by Allison to be dominant in that body today.  For this reason and others, I believe that this book provides a useful introduction which may help discern the roots of the doctrine of justification often seen in the "New Perspective on Paul," especially as it is propounded by N T Wright.

Allison's book was originally written before the ministry of N T Wright, even before many of the other academic originators of the New Perspective.  However, what this book details when describing the doctrine of Jeremy Taylor and the other most influential "revisionist" Anglican divines in the Church of England seems similar to the doctrine of justification that Wright teaches (insofar as I understand it).

The aberrant doctrine of the era reported on by Allison holds the following points:

1)  Faith is implicitly a work, not an instrument
     (even though we are moved to it by the Spirit);

2)  There is no imputation of the righteousness of Christ
     to sinners;

3)  Justification (not justification by works, or the second justification,
     but simply final justification, and so, eternal destiny)
     is fully contingent, in the Last Judgment, on our total
     personal history in faith and evangelical obedience.

This is usually called "neonomianism," and is most prominently in our circles associated with the name Richard Baxter.

Simply put, Christ's work "lowered the bar" in the covenant, so that it becomes possible (instead of impossible) for sinners (in the power of the Spirit) to keep the stipulations (works) of the covenant.  The distinction between faith and evangelical obedience is needless, and is done away.  We are simply justified by obedience to an "easier" covenant, the first "work" of which is to believe the gospel by which we are initially justified.  But, that justification is not final.  Your justification will be revisited at the Last Judgment, where your life history of faith and works will be reviewed.

One distinction I am able to recognize between Wright's doctrine and Neonomianism is that the latter can tend toward pessimism in its preaching, but Wright appears to me to be optimistic about the Judgment.  Therefore, when Neonomianism preaches on the final judgment, it's typically to bring warning or even terror.  But, I can't tell that Wright takes this approach.

Regardless of the difference in tone, however, it is clear why Wright insists that Christians should not be worrying about their final destinies in this life:  By his doctrine you cannot know your destiny for sure until the Last Judgment.  The thing to do now is to get busy.  He does appear (in tone) to be saying that you can be assured of acceptance at the Judgment if you persevere in faith and works, that is, you will be accepted based on the covenantal validity of your faith and works (not simply based on what Christ did for you, applied to you through faith as an instrument).

As Wright himself insists (references are needed here, but are easily found in his relevant writings), he does not teach the Reformation imputational doctrine on justification, but opposes it.

The Rise of Moralism (v4)

As a student of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), I'm constantly on the watch for books on the subject of justification, and the relationship between faith and works.

For the benefit of others who are attracted to this subject, I recommend:

C. Fitzsimons Allison, The Rise of Moralism -- The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter, Regent College Publishing, 2003 (originally 1966).

In this interesting history Allison details the gradual evolution of teaching in the Church of England of the late 16th and 17th centuries, as certain influential bishops "moderated" the Reformational doctrine of total depravity and imputation, and removed the basis and sense of need for justification by faith alone -- and sometimes even denied this doctrine. 

The motivation behind this doctrinal evolution was to improve the morality of Christians, who, they felt, were hiding behind "justification by faith alone" in order to avoid true repentance.  The answer, as these bishops saw it, was to tilt their public doctrine in the direction of the demand for obedience, and to connect Christian assurance (and even justification) to obedience, at the expense of speaking freely about "free grace."

Allison argues strongly for the Reformational emphasis on justification by faith alone, since he sees that the Scripture and Christian experience support the need for spiritual freedom, doctrinally and pastorally.

Theologians who read this book will be interested in how Allison uses the scholastic (Aristotelian) descriptions of the various modes of causation, in order to describe the real difference between Trent and the Reformation.  This is something you may not have seen described exactly this way before.  I have not fully penetrated the depths of Allison's argument, but I'm reasonably certain that he is right.  The argument between the Reformation and Trent is an argument about how to order and label the causes of justification.  It is not an argument over the list of causes.  The list enumerated by the two sides is the same.  The doctrinal difference lies in how the causes imply and affect one another.

Allison's observation is that Reformation and Rome (Bellarmine) agree that the difference (on the doctrine of justification) lies only in the identification of the formal cause.  For the Reformation the formal cause of justification is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to sinners through faith, which is trust in Christ clothed in the gospel, and apart from their works.  This, in turn, by their union with Christ, must and does eventuate in evangelical obedience.  For Rome, the formal cause of justification is the sinner's own faith and evangelical obedience, or actual covenantal righteousness, which is in him by grace.  Both sides thus grant the need for faith and evangelical obedience, or covenantal righteousness, but in different ways.

For the Reformation:

grace -> faith

faith  -> union with Christ

union with Christ -> justification now, evangelical obedience begins

This is also the order of the Reformation preaching of this doctrine.  Christian assurance of salvation can be given, subject only to perseverance in faith.

For Rome:

grace -> faith and evangelical obedience
faith and evangelical obedience, if present -> final justification

This is also the order of the Roman preaching of this doctrine.  Christian assurance of salvation cannot be given, because no one knows whether his faith and evangelical obedience have "kept covenant" until the final judgment.

This book is likely to be helpful for those who may be struggling with understanding the relationship between faith and works for any reason -- especially those with doctrinal questions whether the Reformation doctrine of justification is exactly right or not.

My comments

Properly describing the relationship between faith and works remains something hard for men.  This subject, which also involves the vital doctrine of Christian assurance, remains a perennial subject of investigation. Luther was certain that after his day, the doctrine of free justification would again be eclipsed.  He was right.  However, it has never been eclipsed throughout the whole church as badly as it seems to have been within the pre-Reformation medieval inheritance.

I think that the reason that Luther's dictum (that justification by faith alone is the mark of a standing or falling church) is accurate and true is that this doctrine is a sentinel which describes the spiritual health of the church.  Justification by faith alone is only understood by those who take their morality seriously, who truly mourn over their sins, and who, filled with gratitude, pant to receive this free salvation as a gift. 

The "New Perspective on Paul"

The material which originally appeared here concerning relevance to the "New Perspective on Paul" has been expanded and put into a new post, which may be found here:

http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/07/neonomianism-and-new-perspective-on.html

Imputation and Penal Substitution

In recent academic research in New Testament exegesis, on matters which affect the doctrine taught in the church, it has become the fashion in some quarters to deny the imputation (or divine reckoning) of the righteousness of Christ to Christian believers.  This "new perspective" is found in more well-known teachers, both Lutheran and Reformed, then we want to know.

We need to tune our thinking up when we hear this.  It is common to hear this denial of imputation expressed in terms of a denial of the whole concept and mechanism of it.  But, denying the whole concept and mechanism of imputation also implies denying the imputation of our sins to Christ. 
 
It needs to be understood that denying the imputation of our sins to Christ is a not uncommon doctrine in the whole church history of theology, but when this is done we have to understand that this means that Christ, though he for sure dies as our substitute in some sense, or dies as a righteous man to pay back the honor of an offended God, or dies to show God's displeasure with sin, yet he does not die as a sinner, taking our punishment.  In other words, there are lots of doctrines of "substitutionary atonement" that are not "penal substitution."  In these other doctrines of "substitution" Christ does not truly endure the divine curse and the penalty of our sins.

The next thing to know is that teachers of these non-penal substitutions, particularly today, commonly do not teach that we need this penal substitution at all.  God can forgive whomever he wishes, any time he wishes, without any sacrifice by Christ at all.  This lowers the "power" in the concepts of holiness, of redemption, and of grace.

This is one big problem with the "new perspective."  There is too low a view of the stringency of the requirement for perfect obedience.  That is, there is too low a view of the Law.  There is too low a view of the requirement for holiness.  There is too low a view of the divine curse against sin. Therefore, there is too low a view of the need for "penal substitution."  As a consequence, there is too low a view of the immensity of the free grace expressed toward us in Christ.

Because the concept of sin is too small, the concept of grace is too small.

When we're "laid back" about the law, and about sin, then we're also too laid back about holiness and repentance.  And, when we're too laid back about holiness and repentance, then we're too laid back about the need for total grace.  Grace becomes banal and loses its flavor.  We speak glibly using the word "grace," but it isn't grace.  "Laid back" isn't grace.  "Easy-going" isn't grace.

On the other hand, when the screaming tension between the horror of true sin and the incomprehensible miracle of grace astounds our hearts continuously, then we at least have a chance, by the Spirit, to detest our sin daily, and flee to grace daily, and exult in God, and in the things to come from heaven, and see the power of the Spirit working holiness in our lives.

We have to understand the reason for all that blood in the Old Testament sacrifices.  We have to understand why the Son of God who taught us not to fear death feared his own death, and sweat blood over it -- and he was no coward.  We have to understand the cry of dereliction from the cross -- and the simultaneous piety of it.  This man on the cross was a truly righteous man -- who was spiritually deserted by his God.

Since this man took our punishment, we are delivered from it forever.  Our sins are canceled by what Christ endured on the cross.  Because of what he did, we are now considered righteous.

This is imputation.

Faith and Obedience -- Not Double Justification

It's clear from Paul and from James that those with a spiritual allegiance to God have the Holy Spirit, and thus show evidence of an imperfect righteousness.

By the strict judgment of the Law, this imperfect righteousness is sin, and yet by the cleansing judgment of God, made in light of the death of his Son, these imperfect works are cleansed and accepted by him.

Furthermore, it is a commonality of Scripture that those who are in a right state with God do show evidence of these works (visible to God at least -- an important caveat), and that the Lord often declares such persons to be "righteous," even though they are sinfully imperfect.

Beyond this, God even justifies -- approves -- the right, though imperfect, actions of his saints, and indicates the eternal, heavenly destiny of people who act like this from a true heart.

But, at root, it is clear that the presence of the Holy Spirit who generates these works in us is a free gift of God, whose coming to us is evidenced by "faith alone" in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the favorable judgment that God makes of the believers' works is a consequence of the favorable judgment he makes of the believers totally apart from their works.  Justification by works is brought about by complete justification apart from works.  There are not two separate hoops to jump through:  first, the judgment of faith; later, the judgment of works.  It is not as if one could have faith and then fail the judgment of works.  Rather, the judgment of works is a vindication of the efficacy of justification by faith only.

Double justification could have been asserted if the first justification (by faith) were incomplete or temporary, so that the threat of doom (in the judgment of works) hung over even those justified by faith.  But, the Paul who asserted "justification by obedience" in Chapter 2 of his Epistle to the Romans, goes on to teach "justification by faith and no works at all" in immediately following chapters of his epistle.

We have to conclude that the term "justification" is a flexible term used with various meanings, just as we use it in ordinary conversation.  We say that a man "justifies himself" when he gives good reasons for his actions that have been questioned.  Likewise, we are justified by our behavior because it reveals who we are spiritually.  But, the power relationship that leads to Christian behavior is a power relationship not to the "do this and live" of the Law, but to salvation as a total gift of free grace in Christ.

This is why the zeal to teach that our faith does inevitably eventuate in good works must be tempered by a larger zeal to make plain the active spiritual connection to Christ, by faith only, which is the source of such a life.

It ought to be considered that the one who is really justified, when the believers are justified in their works, is God.  This is why:  In bringing us to salvation and righteousness, God's method of salvation by grace alone is what is being justified, contrary to the accusations of Satan!

Imputation -- a "New Perspective"?

The mainspring for seeing Law (works) and Gospel (faith) as mutually exclusive paths to salvation comes by seeing the total and exclusive damning power of the Law.  This is the reason that imputation of righteousness (or union with Christ) was so important to the Reformation.  If the exclusive, complete and total damning power of the Law is a false interpretation of Paul, as the "New Perspective" on Paul asserts, then there is no need for the imputation of anything.  In this view, we may be "saved by faith," but this has nothing to do with putting a full set of righteousness to our account.  By "believing" we have just ticked off one of the requirements for salvation.  There is no imputation required, because God does not keep accounts this way.  We just don't need the righteousness.

But, Paul's doctrine is clear.  The natural creation is under the condemning power of the Law, totally and completely.  Because we do need the righteousness, there is no exit but by judgment and death.  There is no salvation unless that death in which we die is the death of Christ.  The first creation comes to an end in judgment, inside or outside Christ.  The new creation in Christ, and all its righteousness, is given to us as a gift. 

We do need the righteousness.  And, we have it!

Paul's Doctrine of Law -- A "New Perspective"?

Recent decades have seen influential academic research and discussion presenting a "New Perspective" on Paul the apostle's doctrine of the Law.  This discussion denies the paradigmatic attitude about an overarching threat from the Law of God, which they say was an inaccurate understanding of Paul's doctrine stemming from misunderstandings which developed during the Reformation.

We need to be careful about this.

Paul's doctrine is that through the law we died to the law.  We as believers died to the Law in Christ when he died.  We and he are still dead to the law, and dead to its curse. We believers live in the resurrected Christ in a new way, by the Spirit.  We are members in him of the New Creation. 

All persons and cultures not believing in Messiah Jesus are part and parcel of the First Creation, which is a fallen creation, and which has been and will be judged unto death.  According to Paul, all such persons and cultures are the natural offspring of Sinai.  All are "legal," no matter how much they may speak of "grace." And, because they are "legal" and do not keep the Law, they are doomed to death.

The only hope is resurrection, a spiritual birth into the New Creation in Christ, through faith in him, and ultimately a physical rebirth in the resurrection of the body.

This only is the resurrection and the life.

What St. Paul said about Nullifying the Grace of God

Galatians 2:19-21   19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.  20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.  21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

It cannot be the case that the temporary epoch of the Law, given at Sinai, is referred to here by Paul.  Of course, it is a truism in Paul that "The Law" is most often a reference to the Law of Moses which came on Sinai.  However, it's hard to believe that Paul simply refers to the temporary, Israelite-bound economy of that Law from Sinai, when he states that it took the crucifixion of Christ to deliver him from it.  Furthermore, in the crucifixion of Christ, he sees the activity of the Law itself.  Christ gave himself unto the death of the cross, for Paul, in order to deliver Paul from the law.  Thus we conclude the the Law given from Sinai is representative of a bigger Law -- a Law so big that it required -- and got -- the crucifixion of the Son of God.

The administration of the Law under the Old Covenant truly is a temporary administration.  But, it is only temporary because Christ died.  "The Law" is not just a temporary administration of food laws, Jewish customs, and rituals of worship.  The deliverance that Christ brings is bigger than deliverance from "Jewish boundary markers."

It didn't take the death of Christ simply to free the Jews to have a ham sandwich (HT: Lee Meckley).