"B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God."
This is good as far as it goes, but Scripturally, more must be said about justification. Justification in union with Jesus--Jesus as the Messiah vindicated by His resurrection, ascension, the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, and even the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70--is more than mere clemency or even "acquittal" in the heavenly courtroom.
If we understand Romans 5:12-21 and parallel texts like 1 Cor. 15:45-49 and 2 Cor. 5:21 correctly, we understand that just as humanity inherited the guilt of Adam because of his original sin and their identification with him by virtue of being fallen humans, Christians are clothed--imputed--with the positive righteousness and obedience of Jesus the Last Adam.
There is a big difference between affirming mere forgiveness of sins of commission such that believers go from -10 to an eternal, neutral 0 (plus, perhaps, some Spirit-wrought and "justified" good works of their own) and affirming the fullness of justification such that believers' spiritual "rap sheets" go from -10 to 10 in the heavenly courtroom.
Unfortunately, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's "active obedience" to believers has come upon hard times of late, with the influence of many "New Perspective on Paul" writers, as well as those of the "New Finnish school" of interpretation of Luther (akin to Eastern views of theosis), and others not associated with either of those movements who nevertheless are somewhat hostile to the traditional Reformation view of justification for one reason or another.
The answer to these objectors lies not only in a careful exegesis of the aforementioned texts, not only in demonstrations that they are at the end of the day just as reductionistic as their caricatures of Reformed thinking try and show it to be, and not only in a robust biblical theology and typology of Christ as the true Israel, faithful Israelite, and ultimate man; but also in a deeper understanding of the necessary nature of the forgiveness of sins.
Some "anti-imputationists" point to Romans 4:6-8 to try and show that in Paul's mind, justification is simply synonymous with the forgiveness of sins without any reference to the imputation of a positive righteousness at all, since Paul quotes David's discussion of his experience of being forgiven as an example of justification by faith. What they fail to see, however, is that Paul can quote a bare discussion of the forgiveness of sins as an example of full justification precisely because a full understanding of "forgiveness" of sins would include forgiveness of sins of omission; and what does the forgiveness of sins of omission amount to if not imputation of positive obedience (and whose but Christ's could be imputed)?
Moreover, Piper is correct in his writings to point out that in the commercial metaphor of Rom. 4:4-5, the thing credited to the believer's/worker's account comes from somewhere external to them. It will not do to simply view the faith itself as what is credited as righteousness apart from Christ's obedience, although Paul speaks in this way as theological shorthand at times (cf. the last phrase of v.4). All of this must be understood within the context of Paul's theology of union with Christ, as that is spelled out more explicitly in Romans 5 and 6 and elsewhere.
God not only makes prohibitions, but also gives us positive commands, failure of which to obey constitutes sin. Interestingly, just about every positive command of Scripture is supplemented by negative forms of the same divine standard elsewhere in Scripture, and vice versa. "Love your neighbor" is one of the most supreme and comprehensive commandments, an obvious example of the negative form of which would be "You shall not murder." Likewise, "Keep the Sabbath holy" is parallel with "You shall not do any work [on the Sabbath], etc. (and these appear together frequently in the same exact text)! One may even go as far as to say every sin is both a sin of omission as well as a sin of comission, because of this dynamic. Therefore, what could forgiveness of every sin of commission be but also the forgiveness of every sin of omission--and again, what would forgiveness of sins of omission be but the crediting of a person with doing what God had commanded in each of those instances? Is this not imputation of active obedience? Is Christ not the only perfectly obedient man, faith-union with Whom is the only hope for true justification?
It would be possible to approach this whole discussion from a related, but slightly different, angle. Romans 4:25 has been under-interpreted by preachers for ages, and the resurrection of Christ for our justification is pregnant with meaning beyond "a stamp of God's approval of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice," taking us into realms of federal representation and inaugurated eschatology. Suffice it for now to say that the implications of Christ's resurrection, and even His ascension and intercession (cf. Rom. 8:33-34), for the achievement and (infallible) maintenance of our (punctiliar and everlasting) justification, go far beyond "acquittal."
Nevertheless, I'm thankful for an orthodox--if brief and incomplete--exposition of justification in the BF&M.
distinguish them as two different events.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Baptist Faith & Message Ch. 4 "Salvation" Part 2
"A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour."
Amen. But now to the scruples, as usual. The second sentence seems to avoid deciding (clearly, at least) between the temporal or "logical" order of regeneration, which, given the goal of the SBC as a whole to neither officially adopt nor anathematize Reformed soteriology, is commendable (however commendable or not such a goal is in the first place...I think at this stage of the SBC's history it probably is commendable). It does seem like it could be read, however, to be saying that man's response of repentance and faith is a prerequisite to the full experience of regeneration. After all, the first sentence says that regeneration is "a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ" (a bit ambiguous, but possibly suggesting that there is such a thing as a believer in Christ who is for a split second or two not regenerated).
Moreover, it is unclear whether that to which a believer is said to respond in the second sentence is the regeneration, or the conviction of sin--the person thereby acting as a cooperative agent of regeneration. Scripture, however, seems to attribute full causality of regeneration to the Holy Spirit, with man's faith and repentance as the mere responses and effects of the initial "regeneration" of the rebirth. One could argue that "the regeneration," broadly conceived as the renewal of all things (the primary use of the word in Scripture) includes all of sanctification, and therefore would include the faith and repentance of believers. But the new birth is what is obviously primarily in view here.
1st John 5:1 says that everyone who believes (present, ongoing) that Jesus is the Christ (literally) has been born of God. The instant a person has the kind of faith in Jesus that is vital and persevering, it is true of them that they have been regenerated; they are not "almost" regenerated or half-regenerated the instant they first believe. Compare the syntax of 1 Jn. 4:7 (certainly our love does not cause the new birth), and that of 1st Jn. 2:29 (certainly our practicing righteousness does not cause our rebirth!)
In Ephesians 2 it is God alone who has "made us alive together with Christ" when we were "dead" in our trespasses and sins.
Additionally, two of the most dominant Old Testament metaphors for regeneration are the replacing of hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, and circumcision of the heart. And a heart of stone cannot take itself out--even halfway through the process--and replace itself with a heart of flesh, nor can an uncircumcised heart circumcise itself or even help "complete" the process. Yes, the Israelites are also commanded to circumcise their hearts; but their history recorded in the OT shows the impossibility of them doing this themselves.
For these reasons and more, I personally believe that regeneration as taught in the NT is fully and unilaterally causal and creative of repentance and faith, and that saving faith begins immediately upon regeneration as a result of regeneration. As for the BF&M, as I said, it doesn't appear that the drafters wanted to clearly express either a monergistic or a synergistic view of regeneration here. I only worry that synergism may be seen as implied, given a certain way of reading the paragraph.
Finally, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the language included here in the definition of saving faith, "commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior." I'm not contradicting myself and turning to any anti-Lordship/"free grace" perspective. Here's all I'm trying to say: this language is actually better used to clarify and flesh out repentance, and is acceptable only so long as the reader realizes we are not speaking here of perfect repentance or commitment on the part of a brand new Christian (or any living Christian prior to the consummation).
Of course genuine repentance and saving faith are inseparable and are "two sides of one coin," as I've said before. But the dominant pictures of faith in Scripture are pictures of receiving, and of restful hope and assurance. In John 6, faith is eating Jesus' body which is the bread of life and drinking His blood. In John 4, it's quenching thirst with the water of life only He can give. So it's joyful satisfaction in Christ as He is received, like nourishing food. And in Hebrews, faith is the assurance of things hoped for and a conviction of things not seen (ch. 11), as well as a resting from one's own works, in a certain sense (ch. 4).
So systematically, yes, yes, genuine saving faith and repentance involve committing one's whole self to Christ (if imperfectly). But speaking in scriptural language, the emphasis of "faith" itself is receiving Christ and the benefits of His saving work, not giving something to Him. And yes, that includes receiving Christ Himself as Lord, which has huge implications for repentance and a life committed to obedience, etc.
Overall, this portion of the BF&M is a half-decent short explanation of regeneration as an act of God's re-creative grace. The possible hints at synergism are my main concern.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour."
Amen. But now to the scruples, as usual. The second sentence seems to avoid deciding (clearly, at least) between the temporal or "logical" order of regeneration, which, given the goal of the SBC as a whole to neither officially adopt nor anathematize Reformed soteriology, is commendable (however commendable or not such a goal is in the first place...I think at this stage of the SBC's history it probably is commendable). It does seem like it could be read, however, to be saying that man's response of repentance and faith is a prerequisite to the full experience of regeneration. After all, the first sentence says that regeneration is "a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ" (a bit ambiguous, but possibly suggesting that there is such a thing as a believer in Christ who is for a split second or two not regenerated).
Moreover, it is unclear whether that to which a believer is said to respond in the second sentence is the regeneration, or the conviction of sin--the person thereby acting as a cooperative agent of regeneration. Scripture, however, seems to attribute full causality of regeneration to the Holy Spirit, with man's faith and repentance as the mere responses and effects of the initial "regeneration" of the rebirth. One could argue that "the regeneration," broadly conceived as the renewal of all things (the primary use of the word in Scripture) includes all of sanctification, and therefore would include the faith and repentance of believers. But the new birth is what is obviously primarily in view here.
1st John 5:1 says that everyone who believes (present, ongoing) that Jesus is the Christ (literally) has been born of God. The instant a person has the kind of faith in Jesus that is vital and persevering, it is true of them that they have been regenerated; they are not "almost" regenerated or half-regenerated the instant they first believe. Compare the syntax of 1 Jn. 4:7 (certainly our love does not cause the new birth), and that of 1st Jn. 2:29 (certainly our practicing righteousness does not cause our rebirth!)
In Ephesians 2 it is God alone who has "made us alive together with Christ" when we were "dead" in our trespasses and sins.
Additionally, two of the most dominant Old Testament metaphors for regeneration are the replacing of hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, and circumcision of the heart. And a heart of stone cannot take itself out--even halfway through the process--and replace itself with a heart of flesh, nor can an uncircumcised heart circumcise itself or even help "complete" the process. Yes, the Israelites are also commanded to circumcise their hearts; but their history recorded in the OT shows the impossibility of them doing this themselves.
For these reasons and more, I personally believe that regeneration as taught in the NT is fully and unilaterally causal and creative of repentance and faith, and that saving faith begins immediately upon regeneration as a result of regeneration. As for the BF&M, as I said, it doesn't appear that the drafters wanted to clearly express either a monergistic or a synergistic view of regeneration here. I only worry that synergism may be seen as implied, given a certain way of reading the paragraph.
Finally, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the language included here in the definition of saving faith, "commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior." I'm not contradicting myself and turning to any anti-Lordship/"free grace" perspective. Here's all I'm trying to say: this language is actually better used to clarify and flesh out repentance, and is acceptable only so long as the reader realizes we are not speaking here of perfect repentance or commitment on the part of a brand new Christian (or any living Christian prior to the consummation).
Of course genuine repentance and saving faith are inseparable and are "two sides of one coin," as I've said before. But the dominant pictures of faith in Scripture are pictures of receiving, and of restful hope and assurance. In John 6, faith is eating Jesus' body which is the bread of life and drinking His blood. In John 4, it's quenching thirst with the water of life only He can give. So it's joyful satisfaction in Christ as He is received, like nourishing food. And in Hebrews, faith is the assurance of things hoped for and a conviction of things not seen (ch. 11), as well as a resting from one's own works, in a certain sense (ch. 4).
So systematically, yes, yes, genuine saving faith and repentance involve committing one's whole self to Christ (if imperfectly). But speaking in scriptural language, the emphasis of "faith" itself is receiving Christ and the benefits of His saving work, not giving something to Him. And yes, that includes receiving Christ Himself as Lord, which has huge implications for repentance and a life committed to obedience, etc.
Overall, this portion of the BF&M is a half-decent short explanation of regeneration as an act of God's re-creative grace. The possible hints at synergism are my main concern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)