On Judgment

July 3, 2007 at 8:42 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)

Leithart’s next few points all have to do with how God is a judge (pp. 213-216). He makes the point that God is not like human judges of today, whose sole concern is passing a sentence (the carrying out of which is left to someone else). God’s sentence actually carries out the sentence. Let me say that to a certain extent I agree with Leithart here. God’s sentence is by no means futile. It accomplishes that for which God declared it. The declaration of justification is thus a deliverance from sin’s guilt for the believer. Justification is not, however, a deliverance from sin’s personal power over us. That is accomplished by sanctification, which occurs simultaneously with justification, and is inseparable, yet distinct, from justification. Both occur based on union with Christ. This is Calvin’s duplex gratia. Yes, God’s judgment occurs not only as a sentence, but also the carrying out of that sentence. But what is the sentence? “Not guilty!” That is the sentence passed on the believer who has been united to Christ by faith alone, which is the gift of God. What Leithart wants to do is to conflate justification and sanctification, and make them one act (p. 211-212). They are simultaneous acts which are inseparable, yet distinct. It doesn’t matter here that Leithart is only making this claim for definitive sanctification. That does not lessen the problem for confessionalism. Definitive sanctification still involves the infusion of the Holy Spirit. And if Leithart can say that justification and definitive sanctification are one act, then he has allowed for justification by infusion, which is directly contrary to the WS (see WCF 11.1). Justification is not by infusion, but by imputation. Otherwise, let’s just pack up and cross the Tiber.

9 Comments

  1. Xon said,

    July 3, 2007 at 10:13 am

    What Leithart wants to do is to conflate justification and sanctification, and make them one act (p. 211-212).

    “One act” in what sense? (There I go again!) One and the same, definitionally speaking? Or two logically distinct features/results of the same act?

    The declaration of justification is thus a deliverance from sin’s guilt for the believer. Justification is not, however, a deliverance from sin’s personal power over us…..Yes, God’s judgment occurs not only as a sentence, but also the carrying out of that sentence. But what is the sentence? “Not guilty!” That is the sentence passed on the believer who has been united to Christ by faith alone, which is the gift of God.

    In what form does this “not guilty” verdict come, though? God does not just ‘pound His gavel’ and make a pronouncement as the defendant stands before the bench. Something else is going on in this particular declaration, it is made in a different way. God raises Jesus from the dead; that is His “not guilty!” verdict. This man is not guilty; watch Him rise!

    This sounds to me like it contains an element of deliverance from “the personal power of sin,” as Leithart says. Now, I know that you have already affirmed that such a deliverance occurs at the same time as the verdict of “not guilty,” because as you put it (sticking with good standard historical Reformed theology) sanctification “occurs simlutaneously with justification.” So you are saying (am I reading you correctly?) that in this same act of God whereby He unites us to Christ that we are both justified and definitively sanctified, but that these two things must also be kept strictly separate so that the justification part = “verdict of ‘not guilty!'” and the sanctification part = deliverance from personal power of sin. Right?

    But then this brings us squarely back to that pesky verse in Romans that Matt has been pointing to already in other threads. Jesus was raised, not for our sancification, but for our justification. When we are united to Christ, we are raised with Him, and this resurrection is (a significant part of) our justification, acc. to Paul. So what does this do to your insistence that justification is the “verdict” while sanctification is the deliverance from sin’s power? It looks like Paul says that resurrection (which is certainly deliverance from sin’s power) is part of what it means to be justified.

  2. A mute declaration? (John Piper, the PCA Federal Vision Study Committee, etc) at once more with feeling said,

    July 3, 2007 at 11:47 am

    […] am somewhat bewildered at this understanding of Leithart’s work on justification (just as I am bewildered at the mess the PCA federal vision committee report made of the […]

  3. markhorne said,

    July 3, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    “And if Leithart can say that justification and definitive sanctification are one act, then he has allowed for justification by infusion”

    Leaving aside the question of whether infusion is an issue in what Leithart says, the above sentence is fallacious. You draw a conclusion that does not follow. The judges act of speaking may be the same event as the Judge pronouncing judgment, but that doesn’t mean a verdict is identical to soundwaves.

  4. Matt said,

    July 3, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    Lane,

    I had thought that you were going to deal with all the passages Leithart discusses. Maybe this post is not continuing that series, but is a different criticism? Or do you not have an exegetical answer to Leithart’s handling of the passages that he claims as examples of “deliverdict”?

    You aren’t using “infusion” as a label for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and concomitant union with Christ, are you? For justification most certainly DOES happen by our union with Him, as WLC 69 says. Unless we are in Him and He in us, we cannot have Christ FOR us either.

  5. markhorne said,

    July 3, 2007 at 2:38 pm

    #2: I don’t know why I went from “judges” to “Judge.” I mean the same person–standing for any human judge.

  6. rich (not lusk) said,

    July 3, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    I’m a lay person trying to understand this post. I don’t get how you are equating Leithart’s position with swimming the Tiber. It seems to me that there are two major differences. Aren’t these differences essential to the Roman doctrine?

    1. Rome’s justification is by a process infusion. It is not equated to the Romans 6 “Sin no longer has dominion over you” definitive sanctification.

    2. Rome’s justifying verdict is made on the ground of that infusion; it is not one and the same as that infusion. I know that their term justification refers to that infusion, but their verdict of not guilty is on the ground of infusion.

    Aren’t these things the problems that makes Rome’s doctrine so heinous?

  7. David C. Moody said,

    July 3, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    Some questions:

    1. Isn’t it splitting hairs to separate justification from the declaration of justification? (You said the declaration of justification is deliverance from sin, but justification is not.)

    2. Then you say that justification is not a deliverance from sin’s personal power over us. Why not? I’m sure you have a good reason for saying this. But if Leithart can find evidence that the Bible defines justification that way, then can’t we just make up a new term which describes what you describe as justification. That way, we avoid the RC doctrine of infused righteousness. In other words, why use the term justification in one way when the Bible uses it more widely? Why not instead make up a new term to describe what we might incorrectly call justification?

    3. Could you provide a specific quote from Leithart which explains his reasoning and shows that he conflates justification with sanctification?

    4. Could you then prove that he is using those terms unbiblically? (Because, in my mind, if he’s using terms biblically, then to hell with the Westminster Confession’s terminology; or, perhaps more kindly, why not sanctify the Westminster Confession’s terminology so that its doctrines are more biblically justified?)

    5. Definitive sanctification still involves the infusion of the Holy Spirit, you say. What is the infusion of the Holy Spirit? How is that the same as the infusion of righteousness that the WCF condemns in 11.1?

    6. Where is your argumentation? You state a lot of “facts” which sound “proven,” but you provide no exegesis. If you have no argumentation, then why should someone who hasn’t sworn an oath to the WCF care about your “point of view”? For what it’s worth, I find appeals to the WCF to be … inappropriate. This is where anti-FVers fall short. They go off about the WCF this, and the WCF that. But the FVers go off exegeting Scripture. “Thus saith the Lord” is a powerful phrase, and until the anti-FVers start saying it, they will find that the FVers aren’t really going to listen to them very much.

    Finally, I think you’re doing a fine job here. Your previous posts have been fairly good compared to say … the PCA’s study committee report. Keep up the interaction with the FVers; but also keep up the biblical exegesis. That is what appeals to FVers, not some well-worded confession.

  8. Steven Carr said,

    July 3, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    A comment on your first question, David. Lane said, “The declaration of justification is thus a deliverance from sin’s guilt for the believer. Justification is not, however, a deliverance from sin’s personal power over us.” Lane is by no means splitting hairs here.

    A comment on your sixth question. You said, “This is where anti-FVers fall short. They go off about the WCF this, and the WCF that. But the FVers go off exegeting Scripture.” The anti-FVers quote the WCF and other Reformed Confessions because they have studied the Bible and the WCF together and have found them in harmony with each other. I could make a list a mile long about Bible commentaries written by “anti-FVers.” But perhaps I am stating something that you have already been told.

  9. markhorne said,

    July 4, 2007 at 12:56 am

    Here is John Murray in his commentary on Romans:

    “Justified from sin” will have to bear the forensic meaning in view of the forensic import of the word “justify.” But since the context deals with deliverance from the power of sin the though is, no doubt, that of being “quit” of sin. The decisive breach with the reigning power of sin is viewed after the analogy [3] of the kind of dismissal which a judge gives when an arraigned person is justified. Sin has no further claim upon the person who is thus vindicated. This judicial aspect from which the deliverance from the power of sin is to be viewed needs to be appreciated. It shows that the forensic is present not only in justification but also in that which lies at the basis of sanctification. A judgment is executed upon the power of sin in the death of Christ (cf. John 12.31) and deliverance from this power on the part of the believer arises from the efficacy of this judgment. This also prepares us for the interpretation of the forensic terms which Paul uses later in 8.1, 3, namely, “condemnation” and “condemned,” and shows that these terms may likewise point to that which Christ once for all wrought in reference to the power of sin (8.3) and our deliverance from this power in virtue of the judgment executed upon it in Jesus’ cross (8.1).


Leave a comment