New Credo

The latest issue of Credo is now online.

The theme of this issue is the doctrine of justification.
Contributors include:
Thomas Schreiner
Phil Ryken
Michael Horton
Guy Waters
Fred Zaspel

The Relationship Between Justification and Sanctification

Justification and Sanctification: What's the Problem? from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

God's "Yes" and "No" to Humanity

Good stuff from Stephen Nichols:

I know it is summer time, but here is a quiz. It’s only one question and it’s fill in the blank. Ready? Christology is by nature bound up with the doctrine of _________ ?

This sentence comes from lectures given by Dietrich Bonhoeffer at the University of Berlin in 1932. After that year, the Nazis would rise to power in Germany. Bonhoeffer would lose his license to teach and eventually become the director of one of five underground seminaries to serve the Confessing Church—a church that rose up against the German Lutheran Church, which had embraced and endorsed the Nazi party.

Now back to the quiz. Here’s Bonhoeffer’s answer: “Christology is by nature bound up with the doctrine of justification.” This sentence comes from his lectures on twentieth-century systematic theology. He began the last lecture, which he entitled, “Preaching,” with a simple but urgent and ultimate question, “What should we preach?” We must preach Christ, he declares. Preaching Christ means nothing other than preaching the gospel. Preaching the gospel means, and only can mean, preaching the doctrine of justification.

Pulling a page from Luther’s playbook, Bonhoeffer speaks of how the cross is God’s “No” to humanity and to any attempt to achieve salvation, to attain righteousness. The cross slams the door on any and all attempts to merit salvation, to merit God’s grace. The cross is also simultaneously God’s “Yes” to us. Through his active and passive obedience, Christ has achieved for us what we could not. Christ died for the penalty of sin, enduring God’s wrath. Christ fully kept the law as the perfectly obedient Son. At the cross, Christ both undid what Adam had done and did what Adam could not do. “This is the reason,” Bonhoeffer says, “for the cross.” We have no hope without it.

Continue reading.

Wilson on Wright on Justification

Doug Wilson has weighed in on the justification debate at this year's meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). Wilson makes some important points that I have been wondering about. Not least of Wilson's concerns is Wrights recent remarks about his lack of knowledge concerning the theology of the Reformers. Is it just me, then, or is it outrageous for a scholar as influential as Wright to make definitive pronouncements about the doctrine of justification articulated by the Reformers?

Wilson writes:

He consistently has set his views over against the "traditional" Reformation view, and adherents of that view may be pardoned for thinking that he knew what he was talking about which, as it turns out, he didn't. His area of expertise is not historical theology of the Reformation era, and it shows. And he managed to write an entire book responding to John Piper without really responding to him, which, let's face it, looks fishy.

Wilson spends the bulk of his time however pointing out some of the deficiencies of Wright's understanding of "the righteousness of God." As you may already know, Wright maintains that "righteousness" means covenant membership thus making justification more about ecclesiology than soteriology. But this is two-dimensional at best.

As Wilson points out:

Great. Righteousness, when applied to a human being, refers to his covenant membership. This view is not Romanist, but there are more ways to be wrong than that. There are numerous ways to show the faultiness of Wright's position here, but let us just take one.

Suppose someone made a historical claim, saying that whenever John Adams used the word patriotic, he was referring to a man's willingness to pay his taxes, and that's all. If that were the claim being made, it would be relevant to the discussion to bring in all the times when John Adams used the word unpatriotic. And if the claim were correct, unpatriotic would need to refer to an unwillingness to pay taxes. If it turns out that the word unpatriotic applies to a bunch of other things, then the claim would necessarily fall.

Read the entire post HERE.

The growing evangelical agnosticism toward Justification

Much has already been said and written about the recent meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). The theme of this year's gathering was the doctrine of the Justification. Much attention was gained by the fact that N.T. Wright would be 'debating' Tom Schreiner and Frank Theilman on the subject. Wright, an excellent scholar and skilled communicator is now famous (infamous?) for maintaining that the Reformers erred in their understanding of Justification. There is not enough space here to go into the details of Wright's thesis but essentially he states that Justification is on the basis of works. Surprisingly, Wright stated at the ETS meeting that he has never written that justification is on the basis of works but is, rather, in keeping with works. There is a profound difference between those two notions. Disappointingly, however, Wright has indeed written, on many occasions that justification is "on the basis of works." So it is unclear if Wright is truly ignorant about his own writings or if he sees no fundamental difference between "on the basis of" and "in keeping with."

What is becoming clear however is that Wright is a bit of a rock star among many evangelicals who do not seem to think that departures from the historic Protestant doctrine of Justification is any big deal. This is disturbing indeed.

Gene Veith weighs in on this very point:

Might justification by faith end up as just another weird idea those Lutherans believe? That teaching–that we are declared righteous because of the Cross of Jesus Christ–used to be common to all Protestants, but it is under attack today, not just by liberal theologians but by evangelicals.

I was at the Evangelical Theological Society convention very briefly to give a paper on vocation. The overall theme was justification. The keynote speaker was N. T. Wright, the former bishop of the Church of England, who draws on “the new perspective on Paul” to put forward a new view of justification. According to Wright, Luther got it wrong when he thought that we are justified by faith in the sense of being saved from our moral transgressions.

Rather, justification is not soteriological but ecclesiastical. That is, it is not about salvation from sin but about the inclusion of Gentiles into the Church. When Paul talks about the Law that Christ frees us from, he does not mean the moral law; rather, he means the Jewish ceremonial law. Here is how Christianity Today summarized his position a while back ago:

Justification refers to God’s declaration of who is in the covenant (this worldwide family of Abraham through whom God’s purposes can now be extended into the wider world) and is made on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ alone, not the “works of the Law” (i.e., badges of ethnic identity that once kept Jews and Gentiles apart)...

Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God. The present verdict gives the assurance that the verdict announced on the Last Day will match it; the Holy Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived.

My impression is that many and probably most of the papers at the ETS took the traditional stance towards justification and criticized Wright’s position, though Luther and Lutherans were largely absent from the program. Still, I heard that Wright’s reading of Paul Epistles is becoming a settled issue in New Testament scholarship.

The Christianity Today piece linked above sets up a point/counterpoint between Wright’s position and the traditional position articulated by John Piper (again!), who wrote a book criticizing Wright’s view. Would some of you read the whole article? Does Piper get it right? (His seems to be a Calvinist take on the issue, full of “God’s glory” talk, whereas Lutherans would put some of this quite differently. Where do you note the differences?)

It seems to me that Wright’s view of justification makes salvation a matter of works. It also seems to lead to some variety of the social gospel–that the purpose of Judaism and now Christianity is to improve the world. As such, it eviscerates the Gospel.

The notion that Christianity is primarily about inclusion sounds like the language of the ELCA’s latest dictate on homosexuality. Perhaps it lies behind the megachurches that want to include all the people they can, regardless of what they believe.

At any rate, if the doctrine of justification is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, as the early Reformers insisted, today’s Church is tottering.

Justification Still Matters

Modern Reformation launches its book publishing efforts, appropriately, with a volume on the doctrine of justification.

Watch Michael Horton discuss challenges to and the lasting relevance of the doctrine of justification HERE.

Read the introduction on PDF HERE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Engaging N. T. Wright and John Piper
by Michael S. Horton

2. Confusion about the Law in Paul
by T. David Gordon

3. Does Faith Mean Faithfulness?
by Simon Gathercole

4. The Nature of Justifying Faith
by David VanDrunen

5. An American Tragedy: Jonathan Edwards on Justification
by George Hunsinger

6. Not by Faith Alone: The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Justification
An Interview with Robert Sungenis

7. What "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" Ignores
by R. C. Sproul

8. Ten Propositions on Faith and Salvation
Edited by Michael S. Horton

9. The Doctrine of Justification
by J. A. O. Preus III

10. A More Perfect Union? Justification and Union with Christ
by John V. Fesko

11. Christ at the Center: The Legacy of the Reformed Tradition
by Dennis Tamburello

12. The Discomfort of the Justified Life
by Jerry Bridges

13. Holiness: God's Work or Ours?
by Harold L. Senkbeil

14. Conclusion-Does Justification Still Matter?
by Michael S. Horton

Carl Trueman on Scripture

Carl Trueman will be one of the featured speakers at Church of the Saviour for the Full Confidence Conference on September 24-26, 2010. Hope you are planning to attend.

Wright's Bad Habit

Tom Wright has a bad habit of mischaracterizing the views of those with whom he disagrees.

His latest book, After You Believe has been reviewed in CT by Michael Horton. While Horton appreciates much in Wright and his latest book, the bishop's bad habit is on full display once again. Horton is confounded by Wright's assertion that the Reformers were not interested in personal virtue. Anyone who has a remedial acquaintance with the writings of the Reformers will find this charge to be somewhere between amusing ("O, that's just Bishop Wright!") and dishonest ("Why are we still reading this guy?").

Of course the bigger issue with Wright is his continued denial of the biblical doctrines of justification and imputation. If he had little or no influence then we could just move on. But Wright's influence is deep and profound. He has impacted not only the dwindling ranks of the emergent kids but is having an impact on many PCA congregations.

John Piper sums up his concern over Wright's theology and influence in his outstanding book The Future of Justification:

My conviction concerning N. T. Wright is ... that his portrayal of the Gospel—and of the doctrine of justification in particular—is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognise as Biblically faithful. It may be that in his own mind and heartWright has a clear and firm grasp on the Gospel of Christ and the Biblical meaning of justification. But in my judgment, what he has written will lead to a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God (p. 15).

Read Gerald Bray's excellent critique of Wright HERE.

The problem with Bishop Wright’s analysis is that in attempting to get beyond the limitations of the individual, he constructs a pattern of salvation that is essentially abstract. This can be seen from the way in which he establishes a parallel between Israel and Jesus. How was Israel originally expected to save the world? The entire nation could not have died as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, so that idea must be ruled out. Could Israel have fulfilled its side of the covenant by keeping the law, in faithfulness to the God who gave it to them? This also seems very unlikely, not least because every single Israelite would have had to keep every jot and tittle of the law for that to have happened. But who would have been able to police that? The truth, of course, is that Israel was never intended to save the world. God chose Abraham and his descendants to be a blessing to the nations, but that is not the same thing as salvation. The presence of Jews or Christians is a blessing to any society, but that does not guarantee that it is thereby saved. Israel was meant to be a light to the nations, proclaiming God’s standards and promises to those who accepted them, but only until such time as the Messiah should come. Far from being a sort of plan B, the incarnation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ was the culmination of the divine purpose from the beginning. For that reason, Israel must be interpreted in the light of Christ and his work, not the other way round. Bishop Wright’s elaborate hermeneutical construction is unsound at the root, and so we should not be surprised that it has been rejected as unsatisfactory by those like Mr. Piper who have taken the trouble to examine it.

Michael Horton on Wright's understanding of Justification HERE.

Dan Wallace critiques Wright's rhetoric and exegesis HERE.

Justification, N.T. Wright, and the New Perspective on Paul

Ligonier Ministries has posted a wealth of helpful resources addressing N.T. Wright's theology, commonly referred to as the New Perspective on Paul. Check it out HERE and HERE.

Unity without truth is an illusion

Good post from Rick Phillips concerning an article in Christianity Today which offered an analysis and critique of Together for the Gospel:

Once while worshiping at a church in Africa, I heard a woman preaching the health-and-wealth gospel. If that wasn't bad enough, she was preaching from the book of Job. I feel similarly about the appeal for unity-without-truth in Christianity Today's negative critique of Together for the Gospel (T4G) . It's bad enough that the author, Bret McCracken, endorsed N. T. Wright's dictum that "nothing justifies schism" (on this, see Phil Johnson's excellent blog post) and relegated the doctrine of justification to the category of "theological minutia," commenting, "Paul, after all, speaks of justification only in a few places (Romans, Galatians, etc.)." This is bad enough, but did he have to make this argument from the book of Galatians?! When Wright and, by extension, McCracken base their appeal to unity without truth on Galatians 3:28, they, like the woman preaching the prosperity gospel from Job, fail to recognize the context. After all, Paul speaks of unity in Christ only after the apostle rejects those who differ on justification as anametha (1:9) and divides even with the apostle Peter over this matter of doctrinal "minutia" (2:11-14). This, then, is my prayer for today: Please, Lord, no more prosperity gospel sermons from Job and no more unity-without-truth appeals from Galatians!

I had a similar response when I read the CT piece. McCracken seems to miss the point ENTIRELY.

A better analysis of the T4G conference in comparison to the Wheaton conference can be found HERE.

Piper at T4G

T4G 2010 -- Session 6 -- John Piper from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Masterful!

Did the apostle Paul preach the same message as that of Jesus?

This question pops up periodically. Theological liberals say "absolutely not! Jesus preached kindness, justice, and love. He preached ethics not doctrine. Paul was an angry, misogynistic theologian who invented the doctrines of imputation, the atonement, and justification by faith alone."

This refrain is repeated by the emergent crowd who are always looking for another biblical doctrine to deny. But as the lights on emergent dim and they find themselves increasingly irrelevant the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), led quite effectively by N.T. Wright, is raising the same objection.

This evening at T4G John Piper delivered a message that was nothing short of masterful. In one message he overturns any notion that the gospel Paul preached differed in any way from that which Jesus preached. This was a truly important message. You can read the text HERE.

Three Precious Words

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
- Romans 3:21-26

Martin Luther refered to Romans 3:21-26 as, "“the chief point, and the very central place of the epistle, and of the whole Bible.” There are three words in this text that ought to be a part of every Christian's personal lexicon.

1. Redemption
We are “justified by His grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (v.24).

Redemption applies to our bondage to sin. It carries with it the notion of being purchased. In this case we have been bought back from slavery to sin. We are told in 1 Corinthians 6 that we have been “bought with a price.” The purchase price of our redemption was the death of God’s beloved Son. In 1 Corinthians 1 we’re told that Christ has “become our redemption.” In Titus 2:14 Paul tells us that Jesus, “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.”

2. Propitiation
“…Whom God put forward as a propitiation, by his blood, to be received by faith” (v.25).

Propitiation applies to God’s wrath toward us as sinners and rebels. To propitiate is to turn away wrath. John Murray writes, "To propitiate means to placate, pacify, appease, conciliate.” Propitiation, the satisfaction of God’s wrath, is an idea that is attacked quite often. But it is essential to our understanding of ourselves, our understanding of God, and our understanding of what God has done to save us.

We will never understand the cross apart from a proper appreciation for God’s wrath. Graham Cole writes, “Wrath seems unworthy of God only if our own sense of sin has become so atrophied that we think that it is God’s business to forgive it” (74). James Denney in his classic The Death of Christ wrote:
“Christ’s death, we may paraphrase (Romans 3:25), is an act in which God does justice to himself…He would not do justice to himself if he displayed his compassion for sinners in a way which made light of sin, which ignored its tragic reality, or took it for less than it is. In this case he would again be doing himself an injustice.”

Christ’s atoning work on the cross fundamentally changed God’s attitude toward us. We moved from being “children of wrath” (Eph 2) to being children of mercy. This is why we sing, “In my place condemned he stood. Hallelujuah! What a Saviour!”

3. Justification
Justification applies to the reality of our guilt and the alienation that comes from that. Justification presupposes two realities: 1) God is our Judge and 2) our problem is that we are guilty. And just as people resist propitiation because it necessitates belief in God’s wrath, people resist justification because it necessitates belief that God is Judge.

Theologian Miraslav Volf, a Croation who experienced first hand the bloody war in the former Yugoslavia and was himself tortured helps us understand the importance of God as Judge:

To the person inclined to dismiss [divine judgment], I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone. Among your listeners are people whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers had their throats slit. The topic of the lecture: A Christian attitude toward violence. The thesis: We should not retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover that it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence corresponds to God’s refusal to judge. In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent it will invariably die (Cole, 76).

We all need to be justified. We need to be made right. We need to be fit in such a way that we will not be obliterated the moment we appear before a God who is holy. To be justified means that we have received the pronouncement of “not guilty” from our Righteous Judge. And this extraordinary change from guilty sinner to justified saint all comes about by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Justification is both acquittal and acceptance. That is to say, it involves both the forgiveness of sins and the receiving of the righteousness of Christ. God not only declares us "Not guilty!", he also declares us "Righteous!" Pardon alone would leave us spiritually naked with no righteousness. Pardon might save us from hell but it alone is not enough to bring us into the presence of God. For this we need the fullness of Justification.

Paul is amazed by God’s grace. He is not surprised that the God of the Scriptures is gracious. He is well acquainted with God’s grace throughout human history. What amazes Paul is that the God of grace shows His grace and bestows His grace in such a way that His justice is not compromised.

In Proverbs 17 God Himself had said, "Cursed is the judge who condemns the innocent and who acquits the guilty." But we are being told here that God, the Judge, does indeed acquit the guilty. And this is the thrilling reality of the gospel. Because in the gospel, God’s justice and His righteousness and His grace and His mercy are all displayed side by side, never warring against or contradicting one another. The cross is where the holy justice and tender mercy of God meet in a beautiful expression of God’s perfections.

Why we need a righteousness not our own

One of the key doctrines generally rejected by adherents to Federal Vision theology, New Perspective on Paul, and various emergent types is the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. Dr. James McGoldrick of Greenville Presbyterian Seminary addresses the meaning and necessity of this doctrine in a recent article.

One of the most pressing questions ever asked comes from one of the ancient books of the Bible. Job asked, “How can a mortal [man] be righteous before God?” (Job 9:2). The apostle Paul found the answer in the gospel of Christ. After describing his impressive achievements as a rabbi, he related how he obtained the righteousness he needed. To his friends in the church at Philippi he wrote:

I consider them [my attainments] rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith (Philippians 3:8-9).

In the gospel Paul discovered alien righteousness, which means the righteousness of another—in this case, the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, is perfectly righteous. Of him God the Father said “This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). Jesus pleased the Father because of his sinless perfection—his flawless righteousness. By active obedience to God, Jesus met all the divine requirements. He therefore could dare his critics by asking, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” (John 8:46). The sinless character of Christ made it
appropriate for the apostle Peter to refer to him as a “lamb without spot or defect” (1 Peter 1:19).

The righteousness of Christ is his by nature. It becomes an alien righteousness when sinners admit their failure to meet God’s demands and trust in Christ alone for forgiveness and eternal salvation. At that point the righteous God imputes, or accounts, the righteousness of his Son to the credit of believing sinners. Like Paul, at that instant, those who trust in Christ obtain the righteousness “which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith” (Philippians 3:9).

Read the entire article HERE.

Why is N.T. Wright speaking at Redeemer?

I like Tim Keller. His passion for urban church planting has served as both model and inspiration for a new generation of church planters. His commitment to biblical exposition and clarity in the Gospel are an encouraging alternative to the doctrinal carelessness which prevails in far too many churches. Redeemer Presbyterian Church, which Dr. Keller serves as senior minister, is a theologically conservative member of the PCA and fully affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith. For these reasons I am confused, indeed concerned why N.T. Wright has been invited to speak at Redeemer Presbyterian.

N.T. Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham is the most effective spokesperson for what is termed "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP). To be extremely brief Dr. Wright denies the doctrine justification by faith alone. He also denies the doctrine of imputation whereby our sins were imputed to Christ as His righteousness is imputed to us through His work on the cross (Rom 5). Wright argues that the church has been wrong on these central doctrines. Now, however, he and few others equally enlightened scholars are here to help us understand what the Bible really says.

These are not small matters. It would be one thing if Redeemer had invited a premillenialist to speak or someone who believes in an old earth (or young earth). But they have invited a man who has fundamentally redefined the Gospel and the doctrine of justification. They have invited a man to speak who denies that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to the believer. These are not peripheral doctrines.

Now, some may say, "It is good to hear various views. N.T. Wright is an important biblical scholar. It's a good oportunity to engage in meaningful discussion." But we must remember that the church is not a lecture hall or university. We do not gather to entertain various "opinions" on the Gospel and justification. We are called to proclaim and defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California puts it well:

If there is anything about which a church must be unapologetically clear and unequivocal it is the good news of Jesus Christ and the good news is not that we’re in by grace and we stay in through faith and works. The good news is not that in the resurrection of Christ God has vindicated himself and merely broken down the old ceremonial barriers between Jew and gentile. The truth is that the Rev Dr Wright has fundamentally re-defined what justification is. He has re-defined the good news such that it isn’t “the” good news any more, i.e., it’s not that Jesus has died as the substitute for elect sinners and that his suffering active obedience and his death have been imputed to all who believe in him and that he was raised on the third day for their righteousness with God.

I fear that Redeemer's invitation to N.T. Wright will be seen as an endorsement, at least at some level, of his views. But if not an endorsement Wright's appearance will likely suggest that redefining the Gospel and justification is not that big a problem. It will give his views a veneer of acceptability from one of the most influential Reformed churches in the country. It is not, in my opinion a good idea.

Clearing the fog away from Justification

The Christian Science Monitor has published a nice article by Kevin DeYoung about, of all things, the doctrine of Justification. DeYoung briefly sketches the controversy between the Protestant and Roman traditions over Justification and shows how the controversy continues primarily through the "New Perspective on Paul."

The 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification – signed by Catholics, Lutherans, and later by Methodists – thawed this historical ice in some quarters, but most Catholics and Protestant theologians still don't agree on justification. More recently, a number of respected Protestant scholars such as E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright have argued for a "New Perspective on Paul."

They maintain that Luther read too much of his own personal angst into Paul's epistles. The faith versus works debate was about ethnic boundary markers, not attempts to merit God's favor. Justification, therefore, is not so much about how we get saved as it is about how we know who belongs to the people of God. They say we've gotten Paul, and justification, terribly wrong. Justification, contra Luther, is based on the whole life lived and has nothing to do with having God's righteousness.

Even some Evangelicals have questioned whether it's right to speak of Christ's righteousness being counted for the believer's righteousness. There's some evidence that the New Perspective is leading Evangelicals closer to a Catholic understanding of salvation – one that bases our final justification, in part, on what we do.

At the heart of the Protestant faith is the conviction that there is nothing we contribute to our salvation but our sin, no merit we bring but Christ's, and nothing necessary for justification except faith alone.

The main purpose of DeYoung's article is pastoral. He does an excellent job of demonstrating how a proper [i.e. biblical] understanding and apprehension of Justification makes all the difference in our spiritual and emotional health.

As a pastor in a Protestant church, my whole ministry centers on the conviction that by grace we are saved through faith. And it's not our faith that delivers us, as if believing something, anything at all were pleasing to God. It's the object of our faith – Christ's life, death, and resurrection – that saves us.

The doctrine of justification is not an esoteric wrangling about words to the people in my congregation. Justification by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone means we can have confidence before God. There's no need to figure out venial versus mortal sins. There's no purgatory for remaining imperfections because God looks on his people and sees them clothed in the "Lord our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6; Zech. 3:1-5).

Justification means I don't have to find the god within because I have already been declared innocent by the God without. It means an end to all my futile attempts at self-justification, whether by politics, parenting, or preaching. Justification means I can sleep soundly at night, whether I wake up in the morning or not, knowing that God is for me and not against me.

Much of the impotence of American churches is tied to a profound ignorance and apathy about justification. Our people live in a fog of guilt. Or just as bad, they think being a better person is all God requires. Even a cursory look at church history in the past few hundred years shows that the church is at its best and most vibrant when justification through faith alone is heard from her pulpits and clearly articulated by her most prominent spokesmen.

After so much time and so many controversies, there are still plenty of Protestants – be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, or Pentecostal – who still believe justification is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. I guess I'm one of them.

Read the entire article HERE.

"Creating Fog" - A review of N.T. Wrights "Justification"

David Mathis has written a clear and, in my mind, accurate assessment of N.T. Wright's "Justification." More than a review of Wright's latest book, Mathis offers a critique of Wright's tendency toward a less than careful exegesis of the biblical text as well as a frustrating avoidance to truly engage his critics.

Tom Wright has done it again. He has produced yet another title in addition to his esteemed and still-in-progress series Christian Origins and the Question of God. Even the growing many who question whether Wright has ventured off course in his retelling of Paul’s doctrine of justification can appreciate his productivity. Put this reviewer in that category.

Wright tackles Justification in two parts. “Introduction” addresses perspective, rules of engagement, backgrounds, and definitions in a lengthy prolegomena; “Exegesis” then aims to show his vision of Paul’s vision from Paul’s texts—first Galatians; then Philippians, Corinthians, and Ephesians; and finally, Romans. Wright says, “I am writing this book to try, once more, to explain what I have been talking about—which is to explain what I think St. Paul was talking about” (p. 21). He finds that John Piper, author of The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), as well as Wright’s mounting list of critics, “hasn’t really listened to what I’m saying” (p. 21).

It is easy to pen a quick list of the good in this book. Wright constantly reminds us of Sola Scriptura, emphasizes the necessity of exegesis, underscores the corporate nature of Paul’s theology, highlights the role of Israel in redemptive history, wields a wonderful Christology (and registers his disagreement with the Christology of James D. G. Dunn, to whom he has strangely dedicated this book), acknowledges that Romans is primarily about God (p. 40) and that it is “one of the greatest documents ever written by a human being” (p. 175), and condemns the use of the “loose language” of salvation by faith. Wright even refreshingly admits that he, Dunn, and Richard Hays have “not always followed either history or exegesis perfectly” (p. 196), and that he is sorry for giving wrong impressions in the past (p. 180).

But despite the smattering of good, it is disheartening to find that Wright is not yet addressing the issues he must in order to move the discussion forward, thus leaving his inquisitors with the same unanswered questions. The places where Wright creates disappointment and leaves questions can be clustered into a sequence of five groupings.

Read the entire review HERE.

"Sick in fact but healthy in hope"

"Now notice what I said above, that the saints at the same time as they are righteous are also sinners; righteous because they believe in Christ, whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them, but sinners because they do not fulfill the Law, are not without concupiscence, and are like sick men under the care of a physician; they are sick in fact but healthy in hope and in the fact that they are beginning to be healthy, that is, they are “being healed.” They are people for whom the worst possible thing is the presumption that they are healthy, because they suffer a worse relapse."

Martin Luther

Luther's Works vol. 25 (Lectures on Romans)

Panel Discussion on N.T. Wright

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary hosted an excellent panel discussion on N.T. Wright's view of justification. The particiapants were Albert Mohler, Tom Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, Brian Vickers, and Denny Burk.

Take time to LISTEN or WATCH.

Wright Reviewed

Paul Helm has offered three insightful critiques (with a fourth on the way) of N.T. Wright's view of the doctrine of justification expressed in his latest book titled appropriately Justification. The book is, at least in part an effort to refute his critics, not least of whom is John Piper. Professor Helm's posts are worth reading not simply because they deal effectively with Wright but because in doing so he ably defends the biblical and historic Protestant understanding of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Read the posts Here, Here, and Here.

Michael Horton weighs in helpfully Here, Here, and Here.

Kevin DeYoung evaluates Bishop Wright's understanding of the phrase "the righteousness of God." Check it our Here.