Romans 4:25
October 2, 2007 at 12:34 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy, NT-Romans)
Leithart agrees with Gaffin’s exegesis, which says that Christ’s resurrection was, in a sense, His justification. Since that involved redemption from the state of death, therefore justification involves liberation, or deliverance, from our state of death, argues Leithart. Leithart coins the term “deliverdict” to describe this. I understand he is currently writing a book with that title.
Romans 4:25 is translated this way: “Who was handed over for our transgressions and was raised for our justification.” The Greek is as follows: ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. What this says needs to be carefully argued. First of all, note that the first phrase and the second phrase are parallel: the handing over for our transgressions is parallel with the being raised for our justification. This indicates that the meaning of the two phrases should also be parallel. The force of the preposition “for” (διὰ) is vitally important. It could be translated “with a view to.” This should not be read as implying any kind of hypothetical aspect into the phrase. In other words, it expresses the infallible purpose of God, not some sort of contemplation by God of what Christ’s death and resurrection might possibly be useful to accomplish. The sins of the elect are taken care of by Christ’s being handed over. Similarly, the justification of the elect is in a sense accomplished by Christ’s resurrection (although, as Calvin very carefully notes, it is not as though Christ’s sacrifice contributes nothing to our justification, p. 185 of his commentary). So there is a definite link from Christ’s death to the forgiveness of our sins. There is a further link from Christ’s resurrection to our justification. The nature of the latter link should be at least analogous to the former link. Therefore, I am not sure that we can conclude from this text that Jesus’ resurrection was His justification. I do believe that 1 Timothy 3:16 says this. Calvin is on the right track here:
First, that our sins were expiated by the death of Christ, -and secondly, that by his resurrection was obtained our righteousness. But the meaning is, that when we possess the benefit of Christ’s death and resurrection, there is nothing wanting to the completion of perfect righteousness…the efficacy of justification is ascribed to his resurrection. From page 185 of his commentary on Romans.
Furthermore, Calvin’s objection to the “renovation” view mitigate also against Leithart’s view:
But I cannot assent to those who refer this second clause to newneww of life; for of that the Apostle has not begun to speak; and further, it is certain that both clauses refer to the same thing. For if justification means renovation, then that he died for our sins must be taken in the same sense, as signifying, that he acquired for us grace to mortify the flesh; which no one admits.
The logic of Calvin’s argument can be used against Leithart’s position, as well (renovation being a synonym for deliverance from the power of death): the context of Romans 4 is plainly talking about the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (see verses 3-8, 11, 15). The aspect of sin in view in the context is not the enslaving power of sin, which, as Calvin notes, Paul has not begun to treat of yet (he starts that in chapter 6). Rather, the aspect of sin in view is the debt to the law (verse 15). Sin’s relationship to the law is therefore in view in verse 25. That means that the corresponding righteousness must also be related to the law. Christ’s resurrection, while it does indeed have implications for our deliverance from the power of sin, is nevertheless here spoken of in terms of Christ’s righteousness as being able to be imputed to us now that Christ has risen. A dead Messiah’s righteousness does no one any good. This interpretation is further confirmed by the following context (5:1), where peace with God (since the law’s demands have been fully met, both the penal demands of the law against sin and the positive demands of the law for righteousness) is now ours by faith. Peace with God is not directly related to being delivered from the power of sin. Rather, it is directly related to being delivered from the guilt of sin. We have not only peace with God, but also access into this grace by which we stand (verse 2). The peace was obtained by Christ’s death, and the access was obtained by Christ’s resurrection. The former corresponds to the propitiation that is Christ’s sacrifice, and the latter corresponds to the righteousness of Christ, which can only become ours because our Messiah is no longer dead.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
pduggie said,
October 2, 2007 at 12:51 pm
“The aspect of sin in view in the context is not the enslaving power of sin, which, as Calvin notes, Paul has not begun to treat of yet”
Except he defined the enslaving power of sin as the just penalty of sin in Romans 1.
“Rather, the aspect of sin in view is the debt to the law (verse 15). Sin’s relationship to the law is therefore in view in verse 25.”
It is because of God’s wrath that we are under sin’s realm. If we are not under God’s wrath, we are not under sins’ realms.
The power of sin is the law. Justified w.r.t. the law means no power for sin.
“Peace with God is not directly related to being delivered from the power of sin.”
Sure it is, because wrath with God was directly related to being put under the power of sin. Its the just forensic penalty.
David Gadbois said,
October 2, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Paul, none of your point in the least mitigate against Lane’s critique of Leithart. The penalty that is the result of guilt, while being *related*, is not guilt itself. So Leithart is wrong, justification does not definitionally include being freed from the power of sin (as the penalty which spring from that guilt).
pduggie said,
October 2, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Guilt is liability to a penalty.
We have liability to a penalty taken away, and not have the penalty taken away in the same act?
Hodge said that justification secures delivery from sin’s penalty directly. Are you denying that?
I (and I think Leithart) am construing the power of sin as a legal realm and a legal bondage, not as a defilement of nature as is comprehended in standard sanctification.
David Gadbois said,
October 2, 2007 at 10:11 pm
“We have liability to a penalty taken away, and not have the penalty taken away in the same act?”
One follows the other - they have a causal relation, but they are not “the same act.” You ane Leithart have the worst time seeing that, simply because certain things are connected and related, that does not mean that the definition of the one includes the other and we can just smear all the concepts together into a homogenous paste.
“Hodge said that justification secures delivery from sin’s penalty directly. Are you denying that?”
Sure, justification *secures* it, but that is not what justification *is*.
GLW Johnson said,
October 3, 2007 at 8:11 am
pduggie
Do the NECM possess this ” delivery from sin’s penalty directly” by virtue of their ‘union with Christ’ ? If not, how can the FV say they are ‘justified’ in any sense?
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 8:24 am
They just have a stay of execution.
GLW Johnson said,
October 3, 2007 at 8:28 am
pduggie
You can’t be serious-unless you really are an Arminian!
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 8:38 am
So which is justification: the legal imputation of righteousness to the sinner, or the declaration, subsequent to legal imputation, that a man is righteous before God?
And see Turretin “smearing” adoption into justification.
“From these positions, it is gathered that to no purpose do some anxiously ask here how justification and adoption differ from each other, and whether adoption is by nature prior to justification (as some hold, who think it is the first and immediate fruit of faith by which we are united and joined to Christ; or whether posterior to and consequent upon it, as others). For it is evident from what has been said that justification is a benefit by which God (being reconciled to us in Christ) absolves us from the guilt of sins and gives us a right to life, it follows that adoption is included in justification itself as a part which, with the remission of sins, constitutes the whole of this benefit.”
and then describes this adoption and right to life as “a spiritual and mystical manumission obtained for us by the blood of Christ, by which from the spiritual bondage of the law, of sin, of the world, and Satan we are brought into the liberty of the sons of God through which being called into fellowship with God (as our Father) and with Christ (as our brother), we obtain dominion over the creatures and are heirs of the kingdom of Heaven.”
This seems more to me what Leithart (who calls it justification because Paul does) and Murray (who doesn’t call it justification) are getting at by the kind of deliverance from sins power/definitive sanctification thats in view..
Looking at the WLC and Fisher’s catechism on “how do justification and sanctification differ” it seems like about 95% of the things that are differences are NOT differences in the kind of forensic deliverance from the penalty-power of sin constituted as realm that Leithart is contemplating.
I’ll specify that later
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 8:41 am
Really? Arminians say they actually are forgiven. A stay of execution isn’t release from guilt at all.
I’ll grant I’m being a bit flip, because I was recently re-reading Ray Sutton’s “That You may prosper” and finding alot of the same kinds of FV questions dealt with. He uses the Matthew parable of the unmericiful servant to say the unelect within the covenant who haven’t met the condition of faith have a “stay of execution” granted for them. But if they never meet the condition, they ‘never really were saved”
GLW Johnson said,
October 3, 2007 at 8:47 am
pduggie
But Wilkins and Lusk, to name two of the FV, actually say that the NECM
DO temporarily possess all that is involved in salvation i.e. adoption, justification which includes the forgiveness of sins. If a person can come into the reality of what it means to be justified and then lose that- how is that not Arminian?
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 9:54 am
This thread was discussing Leithart’s proposals on definitive sanctification.
magma2 said,
October 3, 2007 at 10:36 am
Pathetic evasion pduggie. You are slinking way like some kid caught with his hand in the cookie job. Why don’t you just say, “oops, you caught me.” LOL
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:19 am
Is Arminianism logically impossible, or just unbiblical?
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:21 am
I’ve attempted discusions of NECMS and Wilkins about 100 times in 300+ post threads in the last several months.
back off
greenbaggins said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:22 am
13: why are you even asking this question?
14: see my newest post.
pduggie said,
October 3, 2007 at 11:56 am
Definitive sanctification in response to fisher
here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/archive/2007_10_01_arc.html#6750210450077069699
pduggie said,
October 4, 2007 at 9:32 am
15: I asked the question because sometimes it seems like the claim is that the idea that someone could be forgiven IN ANY WAY by God and then have the forgiveness revoked is a logical impossibility. That’s different then saying the bible teaches God WILL never revoke his forgiveness.
I readilly agree that the bible teaches God will never revoke forgiveness for the elect.
I’m not so sure that God couldn’t do something that counts as a kind of forgiveness (Sutton would prefer to say Stay of execution and probation, paid for by the blood of Jesus on the cross) that logically could be revoked.
pduggie said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:31 am
So, are the “ways in which definitive sanctification and sanctification differ” and the “ways in which DS is more like Justification than Sanctification” that I lined out helpful? Do they answer the “justification would be incomplete” objection?
Bump.
pduggie said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:31 am
So, are the
Ways in which definitive sanctification and sanctification differ
and the
ways in which DS is more like Justification than Sanctification
that I lined out helpful? Do they answer the ‘justification would be incomplete’ objection?
Bump.
Jeff Cagle said,
October 6, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I was about to ask a confused question, and then realized that my confusion was caused by Leithart himself.
The problem is not some hair-splitting distinction between the verdict of “not guilty” and the verdict of “not liable to a penalty.” The second is logically entailed by the first, and the judge is pronouncing the second when he says “not guilty.”
The problem is that Leithart begins with
My work on justification has focused on passages where the Bible uses “justification” terminology to apply to delivering acts of God. In these passages, “justify” is still a judicial term and describes a judicial act. God is acting as judge. But the verdict that He gives is an enacted verdict, a verdict that takes the form of deliverance from enemies and death.
which makes justification sound forensic, but then continues with
That is, God delivers a verdict of righteous that takes the form of liberation from sin’s power.
which makes justification sound positively Tridentine.
Personally, I think it’s a fascinating exegetical question: Why does Paul here say that we are “δεδικαιωται” from sin, in the middle of a discussion about freedom to not live under the sin nature anymore? Why not say “ερρυσθη”?
And, Leithart has the right to insist that our understanding of the Biblical term “justification” needs to include this usage in its semantic range.
BUT, it seems awfully confusing to put it the way he does without acknowledging the 16th century at all. There needs to be a way to understand Rom. 6.7 without expressing it as “justification means deliverance from sin”, end of story. Perhaps his book will provide the necessary nuance.
So: why *does* Paul use δεδικαιωται here?
Jeff Cagle
greenbaggins said,
October 19, 2007 at 10:33 am
Jeff, good question. I would argue that Paul is not using the term in the normal declaritive sense in Romans 6:7. That being said, it is an illegitimate leap to go from there to saying that therefore our doctrine of justification needs to include this use of the term. That is the illegitimate totality transfer concept in reverse. Just because a word is used in more than one way doesn’t mean that our doctrine of justification has to reflect every usage of the term “dikaioo.” I think the best explanation of the passage is that Paul is saying that justification and sanctification are always inseparable.
Paul, a stay of execution is not forgiveness of sins. Many people have their sentences delayed, but their debt to the law still remains.