HOME

ABOUT US

FORUMS

SEARCH

FEEDBACK

Apologetics Bible Church

History

Miscellaneous Sacra ents Soteriology Ser ons

For a Ti e Such as This The Obe!ience o" Faith

#orship $in%s
<Print-Ready>

Ver la 23
Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works By Rev. Norman Shepherd Presented to the Presbytery of Philadelphia of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church November 18, 1978. 1. y nature all men are sinners and are under the !rath and condemnation of "od.

#. $here is nothin% that any man can do to save himself from condemnation or to contribute to his salvation in any sense or at any point, so that any attempt on the part of man to save himself not only fails but even serves to compound his %uilt. &. 'ustification is an act of "od, by !hich (e for%ives sinners ac)uittin% them of their %uilt, accounts and accepts them as ri%hteous, and besto!s upon them the title of eternal life. *. $he term +,ustification+ may be used !ith reference to the ac)uittal and acceptance of a believer at his effectual callin% into union !ith Christ, or !ith reference to the state of for%iveness and acceptance !ith "od into !hich the believer is ushered by his effectual callin%, or !ith reference to "od-s open

ac)uittal and acceptance of the believer at the final ,ud%ment ./att. 1#0&1, &72 3om. &0##,#*2 4012 8012 "al. 4045. 4. $he %round of ,ustification or the reason or cause !hy sinners are ,ustified is in no sense to be found in themselves or in !hat they do, but is to be found !holly and exclusively in 'esus Christ and in his mediatorial accomplishment on their behalf. 1. y faith the sinner receives and rests upon Christ and his ri%hteousness as held forth in the %ospel, and in this !ay is ,ustified. 7. 6n the application of redemption in the case of adults, ,ustification is by faith and the sinner must believe in order to be ,ustified2 ho!ever, the ,ustifyin% verdict and the %ift of faith are received together at the moment the sinner is united to Christ by the (oly 7pirit. 8. 8lect infants !ho are saved in infancy and other elect persons, incapable of, or prevented from exercisin% faith or repentance or yieldin% obedience to Christ, are ,ustified !hen they are united to Christ by the (oly 7pirit. 9. 6n the case of redeemed infants, ,ustification precedes faith in time, but re%eneration %iven to%ether !ith ,ustification in union !ith Christ inevitably manifests itself in the exercises of faith, repentance, and obedience to Christ as the child matures. 19. :lthou%h believers are ,ustified by faith alone, they are never ,ustified by a faith that is alone, because faith as a %ift of the (oly 7pirit is %iven to%ether !ith all the other %ifts and %races flo!in% from the cross and resurrection of Christ, and the exercise of faith is coterminous !ith the exercise of the other %ifts and %races so that !hen a man be%ins to believe he also be%ins to love "od and brin% that love to expression throu%h obedience to "od .;est. Conf. of <aith =6, #5. 11. 'ustifyin% faith is obedient faith, that is, +faith !or>in% throu%h love+ ."al. 4015, and therefore faith that yields obedience to the commands of 7cripture. 1#. <aith !hich is not obedient faith is dead faith and neither saves nor ,ustifies2 livin% and active faith ,ustifies .'ames #01*?#15. 1&. <aith and repentance are so inextricably intert!ined !ith each other that there cannot exist a true and savin% apprehension of the mercy of Christ !ithout a %rief for and hatred of sin, a turnin% unto "od, and a purposin% and endeavorin% to !al> !ith "od in all the !ays of his commandments .;est. Conf. of <aith, =@,#5. 1*. 3epentance, inclusive not only of %rief for and hatred of sin but also of turnin% from sin and endeavorin% to !al> !ith "od in all the !ays of his commandments, althou%h not the %round of for%iveness, is nevertheless so necessary for all sinners, that there is no pardon !ithout it .;est. Conf. of <aith =@, &5. 14. $he for%iveness of sin for !hich repentance is an indispensable necessity is the for%iveness of sin included in ,ustification, and therefore there is no ,ustification !ithout repentance. 11. Prior to re%eneration in union !ith Christ, sinners can neither believe, nor repent, nor perform deeds appropriate to repentance because they are dead in their trespasses and sins. 17. 3e%eneration is such a radical, pervasive, and efficacious transformation that it immediately re%isters itself in the conscious activity of the person concerned in the exercise of faith and repentance and ne! obedience.

18. <aith, repentance, and ne! obedience are not the cause or %round of salvation or ,ustification, bur are as covenantal response to the revelation of "od in 'esus Christ, the !ay .:cts #*01*2 66 Peter #0#, #15 in !hich the Aord of the Covenant brin%s his people into the full possession of eternal life. 19. $hose !ho believe in the Aord 'esus Christ and are his disciples, !ho !al> in the 7pirit and >eep covenant !ith "od, are in a state of ,ustification and !ill be ,ustified on the day of ,ud%ment2 !hereas unbelievin%, un%odly, unri%hteous, and impenitent sinners !ho are covenant brea>ers or stran%ers to the covenant of %race, are under the !rath and curse of "od, and on the day of ,ud%ment !ill be condemned to hell forever, unless they flee from the !rath to come by turnin% to the Aord in faith and repentance .Psalm 12 'ohn 40#8,#95.

#9. $he Pauline affirmation in 3omans #01&, +the doers of the Aa! !ill be ,ustified,+ is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons !ho fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Aord 'esus Christ !ill be ,ustified .Compare Au>e 80#12 'ames 10##?#45.
#1. $he exclusive %round of the ,ustification of the believer in the state of ,ustification is the ri%hteousness of 'esus Christ, but his obedience, !hich is simply the perseverance of the saints in the !ay of truth and ri%hteousness, is necessary to his continuin% in a state of ,ustification .(eb. &01, 1*5. ##. $he ri%hteousness of 'esus Christ ever remains the exclusive %round of the believer-s ,ustification, but the personal %odliness of the believer is also necessary for his ,ustification in the ,ud%ment of the last day ./att. 70#1?#&2 #40&1?*12 (eb. 1#01*5.

#&. ecause faith !hich is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in ,ustification, and because abidin% in Christ by >eepin% his commandments .'ohn 14042 192 1'ohn &01&2 #*5 are all necessary for continuin% in the state of ,ustification, %ood !or>s, !or>s done from true faith, accordin% to the la! of "od, and for his %lory, bein% the ne! obedience !rou%ht by the (oly 7pirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, thou%h

not the %round of his ,ustification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for ,ustification .3om. 1011, ##2 "al. 107?95. #*. $he +!or>s+ .8ph. #095, or +!or>s of the la!+ .3om. &0#82 "al. #0115, or +ri%hteousness of my o!n derived from the la!+ .Phil. &095, or +deeds !hich !e have done in ri%hteousness+ .$itus &045 !hich are excluded from ,ustification and salvation, are not +%ood !or>s+ in the iblical sense of !or>s for !hich the believer is created in Christ 'esus .8ph. #0195, or !or>s !rou%ht by the ind!ellin% (oly 7pirit .3om. 8092 "al. 40##? #15, or !or>s done from true faith .6 $hes. 10&5, accordin% to the la! of "od, and for his %lory, but are !or>s of the flesh ."al. &0&5 done in unbelief ."al. &01#5 for the purpose of meritin% "od-s ,ustifyin% verdict. CrBtica al catolicismo mCs aba,o.
#4. $he 3eformed doctrine of ,ustification by faith alone does not mean that faith in isolation or abstraction from %ood !or>s ,ustifies, but that the !ay of faith .faith !or>in% by love5, as opposed to the +!or>s of the la!+ or any other conceivable method or ,ustification, is the only !ay of ,ustification. .'ohn Calvin, 6nstitutes, 666, 11, #9. +6ndeed, !e confess !ith Paul that no other faith ,ustifies -but faith !or>in% throu%h love- D"al. 401E. ut it does not ta>e its po!er to ,ustify from that !or>in% of love. 6ndeed, it ,ustifies in no other !ay but in that it leads us into fello!ship !ith the ri%hteousness of Christ.+5. #1. $he 3oman Catholic doctrine that ,ustification is a process in !hich the un,ust man is transformed into a ,ust man by the infusion of sacramental %race confuses ,ustification !ith sanctification, and contradicts the teachin% of 7cripture that ,ustification is a forensic verdict of "od by !hich the un%odly are received and accepted as ri%hteous on the %round of the imputed ri%hteousness of 'esus Christ. #7. $he 3oman Catholic doctrine that faith merits .con%ruent merit5 the infusion of ,ustifyin% %race, and that faith formed by love performin% %ood !or>s

merits .condi%n merit5 eternal life contradicts the teachin% of 7cripture that ,ustification is by %race throu%h faith apart from the !or>s of the la!. #8. 6n the ri%ht use of the la!, the people of "od neither merit nor see> to merit anythin% by their obedience to "od, but out of love and %ratitude serve the Aord of the Covenant as sons in the household of the <ather and in this !ay are the beneficiaries of his fatherly %oodness ./al. &011?185. #9. $he proclamation of the %ospel of soverei%n %race must include not only a settin% forth of the sufficiency and perfection of the 3edeemer 'esus Christ as the only name under heaven %iven amon% men !hereby they must be saved, but must also include an earnest appeal to sinners to come to Christ in faith, to forsa>e sin and unri%hteousness, and to perform deeds appropriate to repentance .:cts #1019, #95. &9. 'esus Christ cannot be received as 7avior !ithout submission to him as Aord in one and the same act of faith, and he cannot be received as 7avior and Aord unless he is presented as 7avior and Aord in the proclamation of the %ospel. &1. ecause faith is called for in all %ospel proclamation, exhortations to obedience do not cast men upon their o!n resources to save themselves, but are %rounded in the promise of the 7pirit to accompany the proclamation of the !hole counsel of "od !ith po!er so that the response of the !hole man called for in the %ospel is !rou%ht in the sinner. &#. $he election of "od stands firm so that sinners !ho are united to Christ, ,ustified, and saved, can never come into condemnation2 but !ithin the sphere of covenant life, election does not cancel out the responsibility of the believer to persevere in penitent and obedient faith since only they !ho endure to the end !ill be saved ./att. #*01&2 /ar> 1&01&5. &&. $hou%h believers are never !ithout sin in this life, they have no excuse for sinnin% inasmuch as they have died and are risen !ith Christ2 nevertheless, their sin does not brin% them into condemnation only because it is covered by the blood of 'esus to !hich the believer has continual recourse in prayer. &*. $he ,ustification, sanctification, and life of the believer reside !holly and exclusively in Christ 'esus, and therefore the proclamation of the sole? sufficiency and all?sufficiency of 'esus Christ is a source of perpetual assurance, encoura%ement, and comfort to believers in their !arfare a%ainst 7atan in obedience to the Aordship of 'esus Christ. <O3 <F3$(83 38:G6N" The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminate Salvation and !vangeli m " Norman Shepherd Norman 7hepherd has published his lecture on Aa! and "ospel in Covenantal Perspective !hich he %ave on /arch 11 at the 7ymposium on Aa! and "ospel held in ;arrenville, 6A, under the auspices of 3eformation H 3evival /inistries and the Center for Cultural Aeadership. $o obtain a free copy send a stamped .&7 cents in the F75, self?addressed business envelope .I195 to the author at *&1 ;ave Court, (olland, /6 *9*#*?##&8. Canadians should send a dollar !ith a re)uest for the pamphlet. 7ee also +'ustifyin% <aith0 : #rima $acie @indication of Norman 7hepherd :ccordin% to 3eformed Orthodoxy+ .PG<5

$hirty?four $heses on 'ustification in 3elation to <aith, 3epentance, and "ood ;or>s y 3ev. Norman 7hepherdPresented to the Presbytery of Philadelphia...

PCANews
Justification

Print | Back

The New Perspective is ' nother Gospel'

By An!y #ebb

$he system of salvation by Covenant Nomism that ;ri%ht advances is a different %ospel.

P! News -

I was extremely grateful to see Prof. Douglas Kelly's recent article on N.T. Wright and others and the so-called New Pers!ecti"e on Paul in P#$N%W&. 'y ho!e is that it will not only ser"e to inform mem(ers of the Pres(yterian #hurch in $merica a(out the nature of the modern attac) on the historic Protestant and *eformed doctrine of +ustification, (ut that it will also ser"e to alert us that mem(ers of our own church ha"e come under the influence of these new theories, and that in many cases the doctrines that Prof. Kelly refuted so a(ly are actually (eing !roclaimed from our !ul!its. $s I ex!ected, Prof. Kelly's article is already (eing assailed (y men who ha"e themsel"es em(raced these doctrines, and already the assertion is (eing made that contrary to Prof. Kelly's essay, N.T. Wright's no"el doctrine of +ustification is somehow com!ati(le with the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster #onfession, and that somehow Wright's New Pers!ecti"e on Paul is actually *eformed. This has already (een refuted in detailed analyses (y men li)e Prof. *ichard -affin of Westminster Theological &eminary in Philadel!hia, writing on the su(.ect in the Westminster Theological +ournal, (ut !erha!s another consideration of whether Wright's New Pers!ecti"e on +ustification is really *eformed is in order. $ W*I-/TI$N *%01*'$TI1N2 If N.T. Wright's "iew of +ustification had !re"ailed at the time of the *eformation, instead of the *eformational one, then the *eformation and its aftermath would ha"e loo)ed radically different. In fact, most of the de"elo!ments we ha"e seen in the history of the *eformed church would not ha"e ha!!ened at all. 0or the *eformation doctrine of +ustification, I'll (e using #al"in's definition3 Therefore, we ex!lain .ustification sim!ly as the acce!tance with which -od recei"es us into his fa"or as righteous men. $nd we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the im!utation of #hrist4s righteousness 5Institutes, 6.778. This is in su(stance, the same as 9uther's definition, and also the definition that Pres(yterians ha"e historically confessed3 +ustification is an act of -od's free grace, wherein /e !ardoneth all our sins, and acce!teth us as righteous in /is sight, only for the righteousness of #hrist im!uted to us, and recei"ed (y faith alone 5 Westminster Shorter Catechism, :. 668. Now when we tal) a(out the *eformation, we need to remem(er that it occurred

(ecause two different issues had reached a !oint of critical mass - the worldliness and corru!tion of the church, and the !romulgation of (ad theology. The *oman #atholic counter-*eformation attem!ted to address the first !ro(lem while defending the theology of the second. $t the heart of the !ro(lem with the theology, lay the doctrine of +ustification. The redisco"ery of the -ree) texts led the *eformers to conclude that when the $!ostles s!o)e of +ustification, they were tal)ing a(out a forensic or legal declaration of ac;uittal on the (asis of the righteousness of #hrist, im!uted to (elie"ers. In other words, they (elie"ed that the <i(le taught that #hrist died on the cross to !ay for the sins of his shee!, he literally !ro!itiated -od (y ex!iating the sins of the elect. Their theology necessarily in"ol"ed what is sometimes called dual im!utation = the doctrine that our sins are im!uted to #hrist and his !erfect righteousness is im!uted to us. Thus the (elie"er is declared not guilty and moreo"er declared to (e righteous. This comes through union with #hrist, which is on the (asis of faith alone 5-al. >37?8. This was radically different from the *oman doctrine of the time which maintained that righteousness was something that was gradually infused into (elie"ers via the sacraments, rather than it (eing the result of im!utation. The *eformed doctrine was, according to the @atican, a legal fiction. /ow, *oman #atholic theologians !rotested, could -od acce!t someone who wasn't really righteous2 They (elie"ed im!utation eliminated the necessity for real holiness, and without real holiness, no one could (e sa"ed. Those wor)s of o(edience that the (elie"er did could not merely (e fruits of some sort of inward change, they must ha"e some merit = which also stemmed from the grace of -od = towards our final .ustification. If doing good wor)s is a necessary !art of sal"ation, they must logically (e !art of that sal"ation. Therefore *oman #atholicism maintained that +ustification was a !rocess, not a declaration, and that it could not (e declared to (e finished at any !oint in a (elie"er's lifetime. 0or *oman #atholics, de"elo!ing an ordo salutis, or order of sal"ation, that logically se!arated things li)e .ustification and sanctification was anathema. %nter N.T. Wright. Wright's !osition on +ustification is that (oth the 'edie"al *oman #atholics $ND the *eformers (adly misunderstood the Pauline conce!t of +ustification. <oth erred, he maintains, in !lacing it in the realm of soteriology 5the theology of sal"ation8 rather than ecclesiology 5the theology of the church8. The *eformers, howe"er, got it more wrong than *ome in that they eisegetically misread Paul, assuming that Paul's !ro(lems with the +udaiAers o"er the doctrine of +ustification were "ery similar to the Protestant struggle with the *oman church. 9i)e the Dis!ensationalist who reads the (oo) of *e"elation through the lens of modern e"ents in the 'iddle %ast, the *eformers read Paul, Wright maintains, through the lens of their struggle with &emi-Pelagianism. Not only that, Wright (elie"es that *eformers li)e 9uther im!orted their own !sychological angst into the textB, seeing +ustification in terms of /ow do I, a guilty sinner, get right with a holy -od2 and assumed that this was Paul's own inner struggle as well, rather than seeing +ustification in Paul's su!!osedly ecclesiological terms and as)ing, Who is a mem(er of -od's co"enant !eo!le2 5Prof. #arl Trueman of

Westminster &eminary in Philadel!hia, Penn., masterfully refutes this thesis in an article entitled3 A Man More Sinned Against than Sinning? The Portrait of Martin Luther in Contemporary e! Testament Scholarship" Some Casual #$servations of a Mere %istorian a"aila(le online at3 htt!3CCwww.crcchico.comCco"enantCtrueman.htmlC.8 '+ustification' in the first century was not a(out how someone might esta(lish a relationshi! with -od. It was a(out -od's eschatological definition, (oth future and !resent, of who was, in fact, a mem(er of his !eo!le 5N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul &eally Said, !.77D8. $ll of the ;uestions therefore that deal with the indi"idual and his .udicial standing (efore -od, and the answers and theology that ha"e flowed from them are, Wright asserts, essentially misguided. 1ur "iew of +ustification should ha"e (een cor!orate, not indi"idual, and dealt with the doctrine of +ustification = and all the theology that deals with it = from the !oint of "iew of mem(ershi! in the co"enant of community. In essence this means that the early church had the right em!hasis, from Wright's !oint of "iew. Things in a "ery real sense can (e said to ha"e started going seriously wrong with medie"al wor)s examining .ustification in soteriological 5and worse yet indi"idual terms8 such as $nselm's Why the 'od Man? This is (ecause according to Wright, sal"ation is !redicated on (eing a mem(er of the community of (elie"ers, it is a (elief in +esus as the resurrected 9ord 5Wright is cons!icuous in !referring to translate the title +esus #hrist as King +esus, rather than +esus the &a"ior8. Therefore (y (elie"ing in +esus the King, I enter into the #o"enant #ommunity. It is the mem(ers of this #o"enant #ommunity who will (e .ustified at the end of time. Therefore faith, rather than (eing the sole means (y which we are indi"idually united to #hrist, is a (adge of my mem(ershi! in the #o"enant #ommunity. 0aith is not rec)oned as righteousness. 0or Wright there is no category called im!uted righteousness = the righteousness of 'od is merely the Pauline way of referring to -od's co"enant faithfulness. It is -od who "indicates the #o"enant #ommunity at the end of time. In other words, Wright teaches that the law court language of the *eformers is fundamentally misguided. If we must use any law court image, it can only ha"e reference to the assurance that at the end of time, -od will "indicate his co"enant !eo!le (y declaring that they were right and the !eo!le who did not (elie"e were wrong. The massi"e differences (etween Wright's "iew of +ustification and that of the *eformed confessions should (e ;uite a!!arent. It is not a ;uestion of indi"idual !ardons or declarations of righteousness and it is also not a ;uestion of !ro!itiating an angry -od. $ll of those ideas, Wright maintains, (elong to the wrong 7?th century !aradigm. It is -od who is the righteous one, and it is his co"enant faithfulness 5not the im!utation of #hrist's righteousness8 which is the )ey to his !eo!le's final "indication3 .ustification is the co"enant declaration, which will (e issued on the last day, in which the !eo!le of -od will (e "indicated and those who insist on worshi!!ing false gods will (e shown to (e wrong 5i$id, !. 7678. +ustification then, according to Wright, has wrongly di"ided Protestants and #atholics, (ecause we ha"e (oth "iewed it from the wrong soteriological !aradigm. It does not concern infused or im!uted righteousness. *ather, instead of (eing di"ided o"er +ustification, we should ha"e (een .oined (y it. $ #hristian, a mem(er of the #o"enant

#ommunity, is someone who (elie"es that +esus is 9ord, the second mem(er of the trinity, that -od raised h/im from the dead, and is li"ing in o(edience to his commands. In Wright's system, all of this arguing o"er im!utation, how we are sa"ed, how we maintain that sal"ation, and all the other flotsam and .etsam that di"ides Protestants and #atholics is ultimately extraneous, (ecause (y right of our (elief in the risen King +esus and our desire to o(ey his commands, we ha"e all entered into the co"enant community. +ustification is for Wright the great ecumenical doctrine 3 The doctrine of .ustification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine which #atholic and Protestant might .ust (e a(le to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endea"or. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that re(u)es all our !etty and often culture-(ound church grou!ings, and which declares that all who (elie"e in +esus (elong together in the one family 5i$id, !. 7EF8. Therefore for Wright, e"eryone who affirms the (eliefs he has identified as the essentials (elongs at the ta(le of the 9ord's &u!!er, %"angelicals, #atholics, %astern 1rthodox, etc., should sit down together and eat and drin) at the great ecumenical meal of the co"enant community3 <ecause what matters is (elie"ing in +esus, detailed agreement on .ustification itself, !ro!erly concei"ed, isn't the thing which should determine eucharistic fellowshi! G <elie"ing in +esus = (elie"ing that +esus is 9ord, and the -od raised him from the dead = is what counts 5i$id, !. 7ED8. &$H9 10 T$*&H& $9*%$DI &$@%D Paul then, according to Wright, was already a mem(er of the #o"enant #ommunity and thus already +ustified, on the Damascus road. What ha!!ened is that Paul's world was roc)ed with the realiAation that +esus was 9ord and King, and that now entry into the #o"enant #ommunity would in"ol"e (elie"ing in +esus, it had (een extended (eyond .ust the (orders of Israel. Thus while Paul's "ocation was changed as a result of his encounter with #hrist, this was not a con"ersion from sinner to saint. *ather, it was when Paul went from misguided saint, to saint with a mission. Wright strongly (elie"es the current historical trend that says that no first century +ew actually (elie"ed in an indi"idual wor)s-sal"ation, he (elie"es that this is an inauthentic o"erlaying of the Pelagian contro"ersy onto Pauline theology. Instead, +ews held that they would (e finally .ustified = "indicated = at the final rec)oning. It was (ecause they (elie"ed and had the (adges of co"enant mem(ershi! that they were !art of the community. Wright teaches that faith, li)e the sacraments, is one of those (adges. What had ha!!ened is that the (adges changed, the !arameters of faith changed to include +esus as 9ord, and the (adges changed, too. Therefore, Paul's conflict with the -alatian +udaiAers had nothing to do with a wor)s (ased sal"ationJ Wright (elie"es that idea to (e .ust another eisegetical mista)e of the *eformers. Wright (elie"es that the -alatian !ro(lem was with +ews who were attem!ting to get #hristians to acce!t the 9aw 5which Wright understands in this context as the National #harter of the +ewish *ace 8 when it was not necessary. /ere Wright sums u! his "iew of the message of -alatians3 +ustification, in -alatians, is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in #hrist (elong at the same ta(le, no

matter what their racial differences 5i$id, !. 7>>8. $gain, Wright has +ustification, the great ecumenical doctrine leading us to the ecumenical meal. #$N W*I-/T <% *%01*'%D2 &hould we then follow the ad"ice of some of our P#$ (rethren and im!ort this new !ers!ecti"e into *eformed theology, finally freed u! from all this intros!ecti"e angst 5$m I really sa"ed2 Is my faith authentic2 $m I trusting in #hrist $91N%28, and with the )nowledge that we ha"e a lot more (rothers in #hrist than we e"er did (efore2 I don't (elie"e that is !ossi(le if we are to maintain our orthodoxy. We must, after all, ne"er forget that in s!ea)ing of +ustification we are not (atting around some sort of minor or o(scure theological conce!t. We are s!ea)ing of the "ery thing that 9uther descri(ed as the article u!on which the church stands or falls. &im!ly !ut, if our understanding of +ustification (ecomes defecti"e, we cease to (e a true church of +esus #hrist. /a"ing said that, I am only too well aware that in defending Wright's New Pers!ecti"e on +ustification, some in the *eformed cam! ha"e asserted that Wright is not teaching anything essentially at odds with the doctrine of +ustification contained in the Westminster Confession. <ut to ado!t this line of argument is disingenuous to say the least, (ecause it contradicts one of Wright's own central theses = namely that the historic *eformed !ers!ecti"e on Paul was fundamentally misguided. $s a matter of fact, in defending Wright some ha"e tried to simultaneously maintain that Wright's "iew of .ustification is fundamentally the same as that of the Westminster Confession and the "iew that while there are differences, since the #onfession was su!!osedly written to address theological !ro(lems s!ecific to the 77th century, Wright's answers are much (etter. While I ha"e (ecome used to this )ind of so!histry in his defense, I do not !ersonally (elie"e it is good !olicy to em!loy it. To maintain that Wright's new theology is essentially the same as our old #onfessional theology is com!letely untena(leJ after all, this is the e! Pers!ecti"e not the #ld Pers!ecti"e on Paul and Wright himself attac)s the old *eformed understanding. 0or exam!le Wright fre;uently uses language regarding +ustification li)e the following3 Des!ite a long tradition to the contrary, the !ro(lem Paul addresses in -alatians is not the ;uestion of how !recisely someone (ecomes a #hristian, or attains to a relationshi! with -od 5What St( Paul &eally Said, !.7>K8. Therefore, it would (e far (etter if those within the *eformed cam! who choose to defend Wright ado!ted the stance that Wright's New Pers!ecti"e on Paul is indeed different from the old *eformed understanding, and then argue that his a!!roach is more scri!tural, as Wright himself does. The use of (oth arguments simultaneously (y his *eformed defenders, on the other hand, is sim!ly illogical. If I can, let me (riefly attem!t to show where .ust a few of the fundamental incom!ati(ilities (etween Wright's New Pers!ecti"e theology and the theology of the Westminster #onfession lie. $s I ha"e shown a(o"e, N.T. Wright !laces +ustification under the heading of

%cclesiology 5the doctrine of the church8 and not &oteriology 5the doctrine of sal"ation8. This is contrary to the !ractice of the *eformers and most *eformed systematic theologies that ha"e (een !u(lished to date. <ut the fact that he does so highlights the differences (etween Wright's "iew of +ustification and that of the *eformed. 0or Wright, +ustification is not a(out /ow do I, a guilty sinner, get right with a holy -od2 5soteriology8, (ut a(out Who is a mem(er of -od's #o"enant !eo!le2 5ecclesiology8. Hnfortunately, in an attem!t to *eform Wright's theology, his defenders often themsel"es ma)e se"eral *eformed lea!s that Wright himself ne"er ma)es. 0or instance, it is sometimes (oldly alleged that Wright does indeed teach .ustification (y faith alone. <ut while Wright sometimes uses the !hrase .ustification (y faith, I ha"e ne"er once read him use the !hrase .ustification (y faith alone( $!ologists will realiAe that e"en the *oman #atholics are willing to state that +ustification is (y faith, (ut that they will ne"er say that it is (y faith alone. $dditionally, what his defenders fail to note is that when Wright uses the terms )ustification and *aith he means something "ery different from what the *eformed &tandards mean (y those terms. 0or instance, in defining +ustification Wright gi"es us the following definition3 '+ustification' is thus the declaration of -od, the .ust .udge, that someone is 5a8 in the right, that their sins are forgi"en, and 5(8 a true mem(er of the co"enant family, the !eo!le (elonging to $(raham. That is how the word wor)s in Paul's writings. It doesn't descri(e how !eo!le get in to -od's forgi"en familyJ it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, (ut in understanding what Paul is saying it is "ital 5The Shape of )ustification, N.T. Wright8. Whereas the 9arger #atechism says this3 +ustification is an act of -od's free grace unto sinners, in which he !ardoneth all their sins, acce!teth and accounteth their !ersons righteous in his sightJ not for any thing wrought in them, or done (y them, (ut only for the !erfect o(edience and full satisfaction of #hrist, (y -od im!uted to them, and recei"ed (y faith alone 5Larger Catechism, :.7K8. While Wright's defenders may fail to do so, Wright himself understands and ma)es the critical delineation (etween his definition and the *eformed one. 0or the Westminster &tandards, +ustification is an act and it is the means (y which a sinner is made a mem(er of the in"isi(le church. It is not a declaration that they are mem(ers of the co"enant family as Wright insists = that declaration (eing "isi(ly made in the *eformed sense "ia the sacraments. $lso, for Wright, faith is not the means (y which we are united to #hrist and thus the )ey to .ustification, it is a (adge that mar)s one as a mem(er of the !ill $e finally vindicated and thus +ustified #o"enant #ommunity. $s Wright !uts it3 0aith is the (adge of mem(ershi!, and, as soon as there is this faith, -od declares '.ustified' 5The Shape of )ustification,. Thus Wright ex!lains that faith functions in a "ery similar manner to the (adges in the 1T that delineate the (elie"er from !agans3 Torah !ro"ided three (adges in !articular which mar)ed the +ew out from the !agan3 circumcision, sa((ath, and the )osher laws ... it was Torah, and !articularly the s!ecial (adges of sa((ath and !urity, that demarcated the

co"enant !eo!le, and that therefore !ro"ided litmus tests of co"enant loyalty and signs of co"enant ho!e....the 'wor)s of Torah' were not a legalist's ladder, u! which one clim(ed to earn the di"ine fa"our, (ut were the (adges that one wore as the mar)s of identity 5The e! Testament and the People of 'od, !!. >67,>6F8. In his writing, Wright indicates that he "iews (a!tism, not +ustification, as the means (y which we formally enter into the co"enant family, and our .ustification as we ha"e seen is (ased on our (eing a mem(er of that co"enant family. 0rom the a(o"e we can see that Wright's wor) with what is sometimes referred to as Covenant omism in the 1ld Testament and the New Testament is a continuity, and to introduce fundamentally different understandings of +ustification and 0aith that deal with the indi"idual sinner's +ustification, is im!ossi(le. 0rom the !oint of "iew of the Westminster Confession I am .ustified at the moment I (elie"e and am united to #hrist. 'y .ustification in turn is (ased on the dual im!utation of my sins to #hrist and his righteousness to me. I thus enter into the in"isi(le church at that !oint in time (y my .ustification. Wright, howe"er, ne"er uses the language of .ustification (ased on dual im!utation in his wor)s, in fact, .ust what #hrist did on the cross in relation to the sin de(t of indi"iduals is always left "ague in his writing. The definition of the im!utation of #hrist's righteousness as it occurs in the Westminster &tandards is ;uite clear. Wright does not retain that definition (ut rather totally redefines it3 The force of what !eo!le ha"e (elie"ed when they ha"e used the idea of im!utation is com!letely retained in what I ha"e tried to do. Why2 <ecause in #hrist we ha"e all the treasures, not only of wisdom and )nowledge 5#olossians 7, and also7 #orinthians 78, (ut in whom we ha"e the entire !ac)age, meaning sanctification and wisdom, as well as righteousness. &o Paul's theology of (eing in #hrist gi"es you all of that 5 &eformation and &evival )ournal, 7737 5Winter >KK>83 777-76D8. 0or Wright im!utation is not the transfer of our sinfulness to #hrist and the transfer of his righteousness 5gained (y his !erfect o(edience to the law8 to us, recei"ed (y faith alone. In the definition gi"en a(o"e Wright is confusing theological terms. What Wright is descri(ing are the gifts and (enefits that (elie"ers recei"e via their union with #hrist. These gifts and (enefits are descri(ed in the cha!ters of the Westminster #onfession dealing with ado!tion, sanctification, etc., (ut are not descri(ed as !art of the "ital transfer that ta)es !lace as !art of our .ustification. $ ;uote from another *eformed standard may hel! to highlight the huge difference (etween what Wright is tal)ing a(out in the ;uote a(o"e, and the *eformed doctrine of dual im!utation. The %eidel$erg Catechism defines im!utation in the following manner3 :. /ow are you righteous (efore -od2 $. 1nly (y true faith in +esus #hrist3 that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I ha"e grie"ously sinned against all the commandments of -od, and ha"e ne"er )e!t any of them, and am still !rone always to all e"ilJ yet -od,

without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and im!utes to me the !erfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of #hrist, as if I had ne"er committed nor had any sins, and had myself accom!lished all the o(edience which #hrist has fulfilled for meJ if only I acce!t such (enefit with a (elie"ing heart 5%eidel$erg Catechism, 9ord's Day >68. Now while Wright claims he has retained the force of im!utation (y s!ea)ing of the treasures we inherit in our union with #hrist 5i.e., when we (ecome co-heirs8, this is clearly not what the *eformed ha"e classically s!o)en of when they ha"e mentioned the critical im!ortance of im!utation. $ll of this should !oint out some of the critical differences that Wright's defenders seldom ta)e into account. 'erely saying that your theology is com!ati(le with another theology (ecause you ha"e se"eral words in common doesn't ma)e it so. N.T. Wright uses many words in common with the *eformers, (ecause they are (i(lical terms and thus sta!les of #hristian theology. /owe"er, his definitions of these words are often very different. *eformed !eo!le ha"e many theological terms in common with *oman #atholics, 'ormons, and +eho"ah's Witness, (ut as we define them "ery differently, they are at a core le"el not the same terms at all. The same goes for many of these terms as Wright uses them 5+ustification, *ighteousness, Im!utation, etc.8 Wright recogniAes and !oints out these differences, arguing that his redefinitions are more scri!tural. We should at least accord him the res!ect of using his terms as he redefines them rather than !retending they are the same terms as they are mentioned in *eformed confessions. $@1IDIN- #$*I#$TH*%& While it is not *eformed, Wright's New Pers!ecti"e on Paul is also not sim!ly a new incarnation of *oman #atholic semi-!elagianism. We should (e willing to readily ac)nowledge that it is exactly what it claims to (e, a ne! perspective on the Apostle Paul and his theology. Wright has in the !ast accused those who disagree with him of sim!ly lum!ing him in with the *oman #atholicsJ I am not attem!ting to do this at all. Wright's co"enant nomism, while it has certain similarities with the new *oman #atholic em!hasis on familialCrelational theology 5the family room "s. the law court, etc.8 is a theological no"um in its own right, and my criticisms of his wor) are (ased on my reading of it and not my association of it with *oman #atholicism. I am also not defending the confessional doctrine of +ustification (ecause I am addicted to the *eformers or (ecause I ha"e any desire to li"e in the 7?th century. I defend the confessional doctrine sim!ly (ecause I (elie"e it to (e an accurate summary of the doctrine taught in &cri!ture. They may (e the old !aths, (ut I ha!!en to strongly (elie"e that they also ha!!en to (e the true ones. $s far as the allegation that the #onfessions answer ;uestions s!ecific only to the 7?th century is concerned, this is news to me. When I first encountered *eformed doctrine I em(raced it (ecause it scri!turally answered the ;uestions that I, a confused child of the late >Kth century, was as)ing. I firmly (elie"e that the truths taught in the Westminster Confession are eternal truths and that they answer the ;uestions that men as) in every age, (ecause although our technology may change, the fallen human heart and our need

of redem!tion will remain the same until the end of this e"il age. 0urther, I am not ta)ing Wright and his theology or e"en his defenders to tas) out of any !ersonal animus. 9et me try to gi"e you an exam!le that I ho!e will ho!efully illuminate this !oint. I sometimes ha"e to s!end time in the garden remo"ing "arious weeds from the flower(ed. I do not !ull u! these weeds (ecause I hate themJ I !ull them u! (ecause they are cho)ing the flowers. 'any of these weeds would (e harmless if they had (een growing elsewhere. I also do not !ull them u! (ecause I en.oy doing it or the !ainful (listers and aching (ac) weeding !roduces. I do it (ecause it had to (e done. 'y "iew of Wright's theology is "ery similar. /is "iew of .ustification has (egun to grow in the *eformed flower(ed. It is not a natural !art of that flower(ed. It is not one of the *eformed flowers !lanted (y our forefathers, and gi"en enough time, it will (egin to consume and cho)e those flowers. There are many elements in Wright's wor) that would (e fine anywhere else, (ut growing where they are, they are harmful to all the (eautiful flowers that LKK years of nurture and irrigation via the (lood of the martyrs ha"e culti"ated in that (ed. Therefore, while it is (y no means en.oya(le to do so, they need to (e identified as weeds, not flowers, and u!rooted. What I ha"e attem!ted to do in this essay is to show exactly how radical and far reaching these differences really are, and how incom!ati(le the New Pers!ecti"e is not only with the current doctrine of +ustification, (ut the entire cor!us of *eformed soteriology that has de"elo!ed out of, and alongside that understanding. This is not .ust a case of twea)ing, im!ro"ing, or minor re"isionsJ this is, I (elie"e, a *eformation rewrite, a new and different *eformation that would ha"e to su!ersede and re!lace the old one. This is a *eformation that (y -od's grace, I ho!e I will ne"er see in my lifetime, or at any !oint in the history of the church. The system of sal"ation (y #o"enant Nomism that Wright ad"ances is, in my o!inion, a different gos!el. MMMMMMMMMMMM T% $ndy We(( is the church !lanter of Pro"idence P#$ 'ission in 0ayette"ille, N.#. 0or more articles li)e this go to P#$News.