Think Wink.

Here is a very important paragraph in Edwards Sermon, “The Final Judgment,”

Christ’s redemption of fallen man includes not only his obeying the Divine law, making atonement for sinners, or in preparing the way for their salvation. His redemption is also actually fulfilled in the converting of sinners to the knowledge and love of the truth, in carrying them on in the way of grace and true holiness through life, and finally raising their bodies to life, and glorifying them. This is completed by actually pronouncing of the sentence upon them, and crowning them with honor and glory in the sight of men and angels.

It is necessary that Christ should do this in order to finish the work He has begun. Raising the saints from the dead, judging them, and fulfilling the sentence are parts of their salvation. Christ must be appointed Judge of the world, in order that he might finish His work (John 6:39-40; John 5:25-31). The redemption of the bodies of the saints is part of the work of redemption; the resurrection to life is called a redemption of their bodies (Romans 8:23).

It is the will of God that Christ Himself should fulfill that for which he died, and suffered so much. The very reasons He suffered and died were to complete and secure salvation for His people. This final salvation will be obtained at the last judgment, and not before.

When Christ had finished His appointed sufferings, God put the purchased inheritance in His hands to be kept for believers and be given to them at the Day of Judgment

Edwards hits on a really important point. We cannot talk about salvation in terms of the cross and sins being propitiated alone. Our redemption is still incomplete at that point, our salvation still lacking. Our resurrection is vital to our salvation and redemption. Until we are resurrected, judged, and the sentence carried out that is our receiving the glory and honor in being the people of God and members of Christ’s kingdom, we are not saved.

Too often we talk about “walking the aisle and gettin’ saved.” Salvation is a category that includes being raised up to new life on the Day of Judgment and entering into the new heavens and new earth. The walking the aisle is conversion, not salvation. One of N. T. Wright’s biggest problems with contemporary Christianity is that the term salvation has come to equal and mean certain parts of salvation, i.e. salvation = conversion or salvation = justification. Salvation is going from God-hater and being brought into his eternal kingdom in the new Jerusalem on new earth as a God-lover. It’s the whole thing, not part of it. I know that a person who is converted is so assured of his entrance into the kingdom that he is said to be saved. A square is indeed a rectangle. But a rectangle is not a square. I hope we do a better job of keeping this in mind.

Edwards Quote of the Day

A taste of My Friday Morning

A Blissful Headache

In his sermon on the final judgment, Jonathan Edwards made this observation about that Day for his beloved saints,

How comforting it is for saints to know that their Redeemer is appointed to be their Judge. The same One who spilled His own blood for them has determined their ultimate fate. There is no doubt that they will obtain what has cost Him so much to purchase.

Oh, what joy it will be for them on that last day to lift up the…ir eyes and behold the very Person in whom they have trusted for salvation, fled to for refuge, and whose voice they have often heard, inviting them to Himself for protection and safety, coming to judge them.

It truly is a comfort to know that the one who died and rose for me is the one who will pass sentence upon me on the Last Day. I am confident that the Messiah will honor his own death and resurrection on my behalf when carrying out God’s contention against this evil age.

A taste of My Friday Morning

A Blissful Headache

Two Goals for the Summer

In reading Martin Luther’s commentary on 1 Peter I found his comments on 1 Peter 1:3, on pages 29-30, to be especially informative and helpful,

What kind of word is that? Even that which is preached among you concerning Jesus Christ, that he died for you sins and the sins of the whole world, and arose again on the third day that he make satisfaction by his death for sins of the whole world and by his resurrection bring us righteousness, life, and salvation…it is not through the works of the law, much less through his own righteousness, but through the suffering and resurrection of Christ, he is righteous and a saved person.

…He arose again from the dead, triumphed over all these adversaries and led them captive, not for his own person–for he never had any need of that–but for the benefit of us poor, condemned sinners. We believe on him, in order that those adversaries could not henceforth through all eternity do us any harm or condemn us, although they at times while we still live here terrify and torment us.

Here it seems that Luther is locating justification, “bring us righteousness,” in the resurrection and not the crucifixion of Jesus Messiah. Righteousness comes with life that is found in resurrection. A person must experience both the death and resurrection of Jesus by to be “righteous and a saved person.”

Furthermore, when I read this section I tend to think that may be Luther felt that the Christus Victor motif (CV) belongs more to the resurrection than to the death of Jesus. To be sure Luther says that Jesus surrendered to death and the adversaries who oppress the creation. But the victory comes not in his death to them but in his resurrection to life, thus defeating their oppression and death. As penal substitution (PS) seems to emphasize the death of Jesus and the resurrection supports the death, so it seems to me that CV should emphasize the resurrection of Jesus, with his death supporting it. In PS it is the death that achieves the desired effect and the resurrection provides the High Priest to present the offering in the heavenly Tabernacle and to intercede for his people. In CV it seems while the death allows Jesus to take on the powers and adversaries, it is the resurrection that defeats these enemies of God and creation. It is not in death that Jesus defeats Satan, but in resurrection life.

I find this to be a good middle road to allow the full weight of both motifs to give their voice to the symphony that is the work of the Messiah.

Martin Luther and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Faith: Created or Wooed

Luther on Ingratitude and Thanksgiving.

Lane Tipton of WTS-Philly really gets Calvin, especially Calvin’s views on justification and that union with Christ is the foundation for out justification. It’s like the person of Jesus should come before the benefits of Jesus and yet somehow I find many evangelicals missing that. Hmph.

H/T: Euaggelion

This is how its done

Happy Reformation Day

A Theocentric Cross

As part of a teaser for the Desiring God National Convention this year on Calvin, Mark Talbot offers some wise words about why John Calvin is so controversial in church history.

Doug Wilson, who is also going to be at the conference with Talbot, offers these words.

Two Good Links

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 7

My Eucharistic Theology

Guy Waters has offered his critique of N.T. Wright’s new book Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. I like how Wright describes present justification, although I disagree with how he understands righteousness, as the believer sharing in Christ’s vindication by union with the resurrected Christ through faith. Christ represented everyone who believes in him on the cross dying their death in their place. God vindicates him by raising him from the grave, declaring Christ to be righteous–more specifically the Righteous One (I am more and more convinced that imputation is the systematic reality that explains how the exegetical reality of “in Christ” justifies; imputation is not how Paul speaks of justification, union is, imputation clarifies how union works). I think this paragraph by Guy Waters really shows where Wright’s theology becomes inconsistent with itself,

Wright’s articulation of present and future justification in Justification amplifies but does not modify his earlier statements and formulations. For Wright, justification is both a forensic and a transformational grace. The merits or righteousness of Christ are not imputed to the believer. The believer is united to Jesus Christ in his death and his resurrection and shares in the status of Jesus’ vindication. The believer’s sins are therefore forgiven. Indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, he has a new relationship with sin and righteousness, and is inwardly and progressively transformed. The verdict pronounced at the last day will be grounded upon the transformational work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. For that reason the basis of the verdict of future justification cannot be identified with the basis of the verdict of present justification. This fact raises the question how the two verdicts, in Wright’s understanding, can be the same verdict. If the basis of future justification is one’s works, and these works do not yet exist at the moment of present justification, then how can present justification and future justification be the same verdict? Furthermore, on what basis can one have assurance in the present that he will be justified in the future?

One verdict achieved in two completely opposite manners? That seems a little to out in left field for me. I just wish that those of us in the Reformed tradition would pay a little more attention to Wright. He gives some very true and important critques that show we need to reform our own Reformed doctrines.

Michael Horton’s Review of N.T. Wright

Reviews of N. T. Wright’s New Book

Some Things of Note

Here are two Radio Free Geneva programs where James White reviews Dr. William Lane Craig’s merger of Molinism, Roman Catholic Synergism and Protestantism. I just don’t get how one can agree with Rome on the nature of grace and the relationship between God’s grace and man’s response to that grace, hold to the Jesuite theology of Molinism (which Rome now rejects) in relationship to God’s sovereignty (as if it is somehow less deterministic that Calvinism), but yet still believe in the Reformed understanding of justification. I just don’t get it. Here are the programs. I have to say that the Star Trek references were awesome, especially to the episode “Mirror, Mirror” from the original series.

May 21, 2009
May 26, 2009

James White and Molinism

James White on Steve Gregg

James White on John 3:16-17

The Sophists, who delight in sporting with Scripture and in empty cavils, think they have a subtle evasion when they expound works to mean, such as unregenerated men do literally, and by the effect of free will, without the grace of Christ, and deny that these have any reference to spiritual works. Thus according to them, man is justified by faith as well as by works, provided these are not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration; Paul’s only object in so expressing himself being to convince the Jews, that in trusting to their ohm strength they foolishly arrogated righteousness to themselves, whereas it is bestowed upon us by the Spirit of Christ alone, and not by studied efforts of our own nature. But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded (Gal. 3:11, 12). For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again (Rom. 10:5-9). Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. And, indeed, the passage above quoted, in which Paul declares that Abraham had no ground of glorying before God, because he was not justified by works, ought not to be confined to a literal and external form of virtue, or to the effort of free will. The meaning is, that though the life of the Patriarch had been spiritual and almost angelic, yet he could not by the merit of works have procured justification before God.

Could this section from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.11.14) be what he would say to those who advocate the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), such as N. T. Wright? I came across this passage this morning before I went to work and the NPP was the first thing that came to mind.

Reviews of N. T. Wright’s New Book

Islam, the Pope, and the Christian Response

Conversing with Muslims

First is a review by Michael F. Bird of a panel discussion at Boyce college, the undergrad program at SBTS. The panel discussed N.T. Wright’s book-response to John Piper’s critique of Wright. Bird breaks down the panel by speaker and then offers some of his own thoughts. I have the discussion downloaded, I’m just needed to make some time to listen to it. Bird is very insightful and I am even more excited to hear it.

Some time ago, Honzo gave a critique of Calvin in Geneva. Now I’ll grant that Calvin’s reforms probably wouldn’t be well received today. But William Wileman, writing on Calvin and Servetus, reminded me that I can’t judge Calvin by today’s standards. Not only that, Calvin actually sought for Servetus to recant his heresies. When Servetus refused and was sentenced to death, a sentence agreed upon by not only Rome but also neighboring churches, Calvin actually pleaded for a milder form of execution and continued to seek Servetus’ recantation until the very end of Servetus’ life. Calvin wasn’t as hard as we might think he was FOR HIS TIME. (H/T: The Contemporary Calvinist)

Eschatology and Antichrist

Two Good Links

Justification

Douglas Wilson reviews Wright’s new book, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. I really enjoyed this review and it reminds me of that old saying, “There’s nothing new under the sun” (or is it “Son”?). Wilson sees a lot of what Wright argues in other authors such as B.B. Warfield, Jonathan Edwards and others ranging from the year 1550 to 1900. Denny Burk notes in his review of the preface and the first chapter, that the book does not start out with the irenic tone that it is touted to have. Both men agree that Wright needs to read more of his American opposition, Lord knows what Wright is saying is very conservative in his own backyard of Anglicanism and academia, because he would have less objections to what they are saying if he would.

For those of you who don’t know, this latest work by Wright is his book-length response to John Piper’s work The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright where Piper seeks to defend the more traditional view of justification against the views found in the various streams of the New Perspective(s) on Paul (aka NPP), with a twist that comes from Piper’s Edwardsian worldview. Before reading Wright’s book, you should read Piper’s book. It probably would be better to read the works Wright has put out on Paul prior to The Future of Justification as well as Piper’s work The Justification of God, a work that has basically exegetically set Piper on the path that has put him where he is today and forms the foundation for how he understands certain words like “righteousness.”

I find it very exciting to see such titans of theology debating like this. It kind of reminds me of the Luther-Erasmus debate from the Reformation! I really hope this does a lot to help people nail down just what is justification?

More Thoughts On N. T. Wright’s Justification

Michael Horton’s Review of N.T. Wright

James White on William Lane Craig and Molinism