Psalms and Prophets, part 3
July 18, 2007 at 11:56 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
The next passage that Leithart deals with is Psalm 94. Leithart’s point here may be answered quite easily. He argues that “an appeal for God to judge the wicked is an appeal for Him to do something about the wicked, and an appeal to God to establish ‘righteous judgment’ is an appeal for Him to do something to save His people” (p. 220, emphasis original). His point here is that God does not mouth a verdict without action being the result. We can agree with this in every particular. What is not clear is how this affects his argument. No redefinition of justification to include definitive sanctification is necessary as a result of this point. God’s declaration has results: we have a changed status. Of course God’s declaration does something. In justification, we are de jure and de facto free from all condemnation. And that guarantees the verdict on the final day. (Aside: This is the problem with N.T. Wright’s formulation of final judgment on the basis of a life lived. Does this raise the possibility in Wright’s formulations that one can be truly justified, and yet not achieve final justification? If initial justification is based on Christ’s Person and Work, and it guarantees the final justification, then doesn’t Christ’s Person and Work ground our final justification as well? On the one hand, Wright says that initial justification is the final verdict brought into the present; on the other hand, he says that the bases of final and present justification differ. These statements cannot both be true. If one is simply the other, then they must have the same basis) As Leithart himself says, God’s Word is performative. Has any Reformed scholar since the Reformation been ignorant of this principle? How does that prove that the deliverance from sin that justification effects is anything other than a deliverance from the condemning power of sin only? Romans 8:1 sums up the consequence of justification: we are free from all condemnation. Freedom from the power of sin is part of sanctification, and is always imperfect in this life.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Kevin D. Johnson said,
July 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Honestly, the muddiness and ambiguity of Leithart’s “exegesis” just simply doesn’t add anything to these matters.
My personal opinion as to why his arguments about the text gain any traction at all among the people is because most people are absolutely unprepared and unable to delve into the details of the exegesis and interpretation of the Hebrew Old Testament. So what can they do other than take his word for it?
His work shows us, I believe, how much the sheep need real shepherds to guide the people away from this sort rhetorically attractive mishmash.
Steven Carr said,
July 18, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Lane,
Have you read Paul Helm’s Analysis of N. T. Wright’s Ordo Salutis? It is one thing you don’t want to miss.
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/
greenbaggins said,
July 18, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Yes, it’s good stuff.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 18, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Lane,
I’ve not read Leithart’s book, so I could be wrong here….
Isn’t Peter’s point (1) That the deliverance that accompanied God’s “justifying” verdict in the OT was not just judicial (”You are free from sin’s guilt”), but actual (”I will now destroy your enemies”); and (2) That this deliverance was not something that follows from God’s verdict, but is part and parcel of that verdict (meaning that freedom from the power of sin is a part of justification itself)?
In my reading of him, Leithart’s understanding of justification as including definitive sanctification does indeed require a redefinition of the traditional doctrine.
Looking forward to your response.
greenbaggins said,
July 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Jason, welcome to my blog. I would say that’s a fair assessment of his position.
We might be able to say that the vindication that Psalm 94 is talking about is the same as the vindication of the Final Day. What do you think?
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 18, 2007 at 1:36 pm
So you’re saying that the cries for judgment and justfication, cries which combine deliverance and verdict, are synonymous with praying “Thy kingdom come”?
That is an interesting way to respond to Leithart.
If we do take that approach, then we must also say that the instances in the OT in which God does “justify” his people by delivering them from the power of their enemies (i.e., through “sanctification”
are typological intrusions of the last day into this present age (a conclusion I have no problem with, I’ve just never thought of it that way).
So the crux of the problem with Leithart’s formulation, then, would be his over-realized eschatology, as seen in his expectation for the victory in the last day to be fully ours in the here-and-now.
A quick aside: I was intrigued by your charge, to Leithart, of commiting the word-concept fallacy, but I also thought you kind of begged the question a bit. If you could point me toward a resource that gets into some more detail on this, I’d appreciate it.
Cool blog.
Adrian Keister said,
July 18, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Effects or affects?
Your bro.
greenbaggins said,
July 19, 2007 at 8:46 am
Thanks for catching the typo. It’s affects.
Psalms and Prophets, part 4 « Green Baggins said,
August 24, 2007 at 1:29 pm
[...] article, I will direct people to read the first three articles on this section of his article here, here, and here. In this post, we will look at Leithart’s treatment of Isaiah 54:11-17. The [...]
Federal Vision Index « Green Baggins said,
October 22, 2007 at 4:17 pm
[...] part 5 (On Judgment), part 6 (Psalms and Prophets, part 1), part 7 (Psalms and Prophets, part 2), part 8 (Psalms and Prophets, part 3), part 9 (Psalms and Prophets, part 4), part 10 (Paul, part 1), part [...]