Basis or Accordance?

November 12, 2007 at 11:35 am (Federal Vision, Heresy, New Perspective on Paul)

Wilkins’s response to declaration 9 is actually much less problematic than any of the other sections of his response. However, he does lapse when he forgets the distinction between justification being based on something, versus being in accordance with something. The failure to appreciate this distinction leads Wilkins to misunderstand declaration 9. The ninth declaration is not denying that the final verdict is “according to” (or in accordance with) our works. Rather, it says that our final verdict is not based on our works. Let me carefully explain this difference (which involves walking a razor edge, by the way!). In the final acquittal (which in no way conflicts with the present finality of justification, since the final acquittal is not a new declaration, but rather a making public in front of the whole world what has already been declared in the throne room of God when we come to faith), works serve as evidence of the reality of our justification. This is what “according to” means in the WS. The world accuses Christians of not really being right with God. God is going to show the world our works, which flow from justification, and say, “See, world? You falsely accused my sons and daughters. Contrary to your assertions, these works prove that they really were justified, since such works can only come from someone who is justified. They are acquitted, and you are not, since you show no evidence of belief by your works.” In this way, works serve an evidentiary purpose on the Day of Judgment. What the committee is rejecting is any way, shape or form of saying that the final justification is based on our works. By using this term in this way, the phrase “based on” is clearly a synonym for “ground,” or “cause.” Failure to see this distinction is also problematic in N.T. Wright’s theology, where he says that present justification is not based on our works, but future justification is based on the whole life lived. There is at best equivocation there, and at worst a wrong attribution for the place of works. And, contrary to Meyers, this distinction is vital to maintain. It is not some antiquated scholastic distinction, but rather a very helpful one.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

11 Comments

  1. pduggie said,

    November 12, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    How does “evidence” function at a trial?

  2. pduggie said,

    November 12, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    Does evidence demand a verdict?

  3. greenbaggins said,

    November 12, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    Is the verdict still future? Is our salvation somehow unsure? The verdict of “not guilty” is in no way still future. That verdict is based on Christ’s righteousness alone. That is still the basis for the Christian being declared before the world to be not guilty. The evidence put forth is the Christian’s works. It’s two different kinds of evidence. Christ’s person and work is the grounding evidence (primary evidence), and our works are the evidence that Christ’s person and work really did do what God said it would do (secondary evidence).

  4. greenbaggins said,

    November 12, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Is the verdict still future? Is our salvation somehow unsure? The verdict of “not guilty” is in no way still future. That verdict is based on Christ’s righteousness alone. That is still the basis for the Christian being declared before the world to be not guilty. The evidence put forth is the Christian’s works. It’s two different kinds of evidence. Christ’s person and work is the grounding evidence (primary evidence), and our works are the evidence that Christ’s person and work really did do what God said it would do (secondary evidence).

  5. pduggie said,

    November 13, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    Is the verdict still future?

    Yes? Yes and no? Already and not yet?

    Is our salvation somehow unsure?

    No. Our savior is undefeatable, therefore our salvation is sure.

    The verdict of “not guilty” is in no way still future.

    in NO way? Is the verdict of ‘guilty’ for the reprobate in any way still future?

    Why is there history?

    And ok, if the verdict is already passed for Christians, is it right to say that “Even on the last day, all we will have to present before the Lord is the imputed merits of Christ. None of our righteousness will count, it’s all filthy rags” You have heard people talk that way, haven’t you?

  6. greenbaggins said,

    November 13, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Paul, you have not yet shown that you understood my comments. There are all sorts of distinctions which you are running over here, the difference between declaritive and evidential, for instance.

  7. pduggie said,

    November 13, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    I admit I’m pretty confused when I hear you say

    “there is no way that X is the case”

    and

    “we can made a distinction where X is the case, only in this way”

    Sorry I’m not getting it.

    Is the last judgment not even a forensic event between us a God? in ANY way?

  8. pduggie said,

    November 13, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    What if we said Christ’s work is the superior cause, and our works were the inferior causes of salvation (Calvin)

  9. greenbaggins said,

    November 13, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    Where did Calvin say this, precisely?

  10. pduggie said,

    November 13, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/the-tenses-of-justification

    “The fact that Scripture shows that the good works of believers are reasons why the Lord benefits them is to be so understood as to allow what we have set forth before to stand unshaken: that the efficient cause of our salvation consists in God the Father’s love; the material cause in God the Son’s obedience; the instrumental cause in the Spirit’s illumination, that is, faith; the final cause, in the glory of God’s great generosity. These do not prevent the Lord from embracing works as inferior causes. But how does this come about? Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good works (III.14.21).”

  11. Andrew Duggan said,

    November 13, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    Paul,

    Well there is certainly a whole lot more in III 14, than just 21, I think it’s a big mistake to take 21 out of the context as you’re supposed to understand it in the light of the rest of Chapter 14. (it is the last section) So, it seems to me that Calvin supports what Lane wrote in his post. Christ and His righteousness are the basis of our justification , and any works done by the regenerate are in accordance.

    For example earlier in III:14:11 Calvin says:

    We must strongly insist on these two things: That no believer ever performed one work which, if tested by the strict judgment of God, could escape condemnation; and, moreover, that were this granted to be possible (though it is not), yet the act being vitiated and polluted by the sins of which it is certain that the author of it is guilty, it is deprived of its merit…

    or later in section 14

    How can boasting in works of supererogation agree with the command given to us: “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do?” (Luke 17:10). To say or speak in the presence of God is not to feign or lie, but to declare what we hold as certain. Our Lord, therefore, enjoins us sincerely to feel and consider with ourselves that we do not perform gratuitous duties, but pay him service which is due. And truly. For the obligations of service under which we lie are so numerous that we cannot discharge them though all our thoughts and members were devoted to the observance of the Law; and, therefore, when he says “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,” it is just as if he had said that all the righteousness of men would not amount to one of these things….

    In III: 14 Calvin, doesn’t support you, he is answering you.

Post a Comment