Steve, do you have a firm stance on the idea of Secondary/Double Justification? Most days I agree with it, some days I don't. I see the secondary justification more as a "vindication" of our professed faith, and by extension of ourselves. Since, assuming we live long enough and don't die immediately after being initially justified, genuine faith always leads to graciously empowered good works. Works which are imperfect in themselves, but acceptable in God's sight and will receive a reward, because any imperfection or staining of sin has been forgiven on account of Christ's atonement. All those whom God justifies, He also always sanctifies to some degree (again assuming one lives some period of time after initial justification and isn't immediately killed in, say, an explosion). Even the repentant thief on the cross was sanctified to some degree as Piper noted in this brief video HERE.
Without this double justification/vindication we will not be allowed entrance into the Kingdom of God/"Heaven". Though the merit of gaining entrance into heaven are based SOLELY on Christ's active and passive obedience. However, without this secondary vindication based on our works, we will not be granted entrance, since such works are an affirmation and evidence that God has done a work of salvation [with all its aspects like justification, sanctification etc.] in the life of the professed, and now proven/vindicated, believer. Gaining and Granting entrance are two different things.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of Eternal Justification, but in general I agree with the following statement by A.W. Pink:
//Let it be said in conclusion that the justification of the Christian is complete the moment he truly believes in Christ, and hence there are no degrees in justification. The Apostle Paul was as truly a justified man at the hour of his conversion as he was at the close of his life. The feeblest babe in Christ is just as completely justified as is the most mature saint. Let theologians note the following distinctions. Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience; finally so at the Day of Judgment, when God shall sententiously, and in the presence of all created things, pronounce them so.// - A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, chapter 10, last paragraph [bold added by me- AP] https://web.archive.org/web/20180205183443/http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/index.htm
I meant to say "gaining" and "being granted" entrance are two different things. The former implies merit, the later doesn't. In double justification our works are a condition for entrance, but not the basis or ground of our acceptance before the perfectly Holy God. The basis/ground being the atonement of Christ and his perfect merits which forgives our sins and the righteousness of which is imputed to the believer through the instrumental cause of faith alone/sola fide.
It's confused because it's using the same word for two different concepts. The exclusion of works in Pauline justification isn't just a distinction between initial and final justification, but a categorical denial.
Good works are evidence of sanctification, the grace of sanctification, the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians. That's in a different domain from the Pauline framework.
Hi Annoyed. I can't get into all the details here, but I think union with Christ and inaugurated eschatology alleviates some of the tensions mentioned by you. Rather than see a "double justification" or an "initial" and "final", it may be better to speak of inaugurated and consummated justification. I'm thinking particularly the discussions by Beale in his Biblical Theology and Gaffin in Resurrection and Redemption and By Faith and not by Sight. Those are two examples of what I see as an overwhelming trend in NT studies as a whole to recognise the soteriological aspects of inaugurated eschatology, as well as the function of Christ's resurrection in our own salvation. The crucial role that viewing justification as inaugurated and consummated allows us to maintain that the two justifications *must be qualitatively identical* - in that the consummated justification is not built upon inaugurated justification so much as it is the eschatological revelation - vindication and subsequent resurrection of the believer. Much to say on the topic but atleast here's some food for thought.
Steve, I agree it's unfortunate that the same word, 'justification', is used for the secondary event. That's why some, like myself, like to see it as a kind of vindication. Which is another aspect or nuance to the Biblical terms most often translated righteousness or justification [both OT and NT].
At the moment I can't think of a passage where the Biblical terms are used to refer to this secondary event. However, proponents of the idea of "double/secondary justification" at the very least ground it in the many passages where the reception of eternal life is said to be received at the future eschaton and is in some way according to, or in relation to works. For example, the many passages in the Gospels where our Lord does so.
Passages that Roman Catholics like to cite to support their understanding of justification by faith and works, despite the fact that the same passage don't always include a reference to faith [or initial justification being through faith and/or baptism], and certainly never allude to the concept of graciously empowered condign merit. In which case, if they were more consistent with their hermeneutic, based on the words of Scripture [though not its meaning] they ought to argue that salvation is based on Pelagian strict merit [which even the Catholic Church rejects as heretical].
It doesn't seem enough [at least to me] to merely say that such passages are descriptive and not prescriptive. In addition to being descriptive, there does seem to be an element of prescription in those passages.
As we Protestants recognize, not being as Hellenized as Paul, the Lord and the Apostle James spoke/wrote in the more Semitic style of Jewish practical wisdom when it came to justification and salvation. While Paul in terms closer to systematic theology. With the Greek emphasis on ontology and clear[er] distinctions. The Semitic emphasis being more holistic, while the Hellenistic more atomistic.
That's why we Evangelical Protestants believe the Apostle Paul's doctrine of justification and salvation in general should take precedence over the Apostle James'. Because Paul 1. spoke at greater length on the topics; 2. more precisely; 3. more clearly; 4. more thoroughly, 5. with greater distinctions [e.g. justification, sanctification, glorification], 6. was more educated than James and 7. encountered more opposition from a greater number of people and a larger area than James [whose sphere was localized to Jerusalem]. With greater opposition, one hones and fine-tunes one's theology more precisely and with greater nuance so that it can better deal with more heresies and objections. So we should try to fit James' soteriology into Paul's overall framework, rather than the other way around.
Swrath, the idea of referring to the two aspects as "inaugurated and consummated justification" is intriguing. I'll have to think about that.
I think we can allow for a "secondary" justification as long as the primary justification is the controlling thesis; in other words, as long as the initial verdict (as Wedgeworth puts it in his article) cannot be changed or lost. Calvin, after all, was in agreement with the concord reached with the Catholics at Regensburg. (By contrast, most who hold to double justification today, Anglo-Catholics for example, believe in a believer's actual potential for apostasy.)
So often, however, a "secondary" tenet is just an excuse to get around disliked aspects of the primary belief. And thus, after a while, it begins to take precedence. Libertarian Free Will means more to Molinists than God's actualization of a particular possible world. The believer's "participation with the divine" means more to Catholics than God's sovereign grace.
Daniel C., in his article, speaks of Trent's embrace of grace as the essential cause of justification. But he neglects to mention that what they give with one hand they take back with the other:
"[T]he alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation."
In other words, it's not grace at all, but our own efforts which make all the difference.
Steve, do you have a firm stance on the idea of Secondary/Double Justification? Most days I agree with it, some days I don't. I see the secondary justification more as a "vindication" of our professed faith, and by extension of ourselves. Since, assuming we live long enough and don't die immediately after being initially justified, genuine faith always leads to graciously empowered good works. Works which are imperfect in themselves, but acceptable in God's sight and will receive a reward, because any imperfection or staining of sin has been forgiven on account of Christ's atonement. All those whom God justifies, He also always sanctifies to some degree (again assuming one lives some period of time after initial justification and isn't immediately killed in, say, an explosion). Even the repentant thief on the cross was sanctified to some degree as Piper noted in this brief video HERE.
ReplyDeleteWithout this double justification/vindication we will not be allowed entrance into the Kingdom of God/"Heaven". Though the merit of gaining entrance into heaven are based SOLELY on Christ's active and passive obedience. However, without this secondary vindication based on our works, we will not be granted entrance, since such works are an affirmation and evidence that God has done a work of salvation [with all its aspects like justification, sanctification etc.] in the life of the professed, and now proven/vindicated, believer. Gaining and Granting entrance are two different things.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of Eternal Justification, but in general I agree with the following statement by A.W. Pink:
//Let it be said in conclusion that the justification of the Christian is complete the moment he truly believes in Christ, and hence there are no degrees in justification. The Apostle Paul was as truly a justified man at the hour of his conversion as he was at the close of his life. The feeblest babe in Christ is just as completely justified as is the most mature saint. Let theologians note the following distinctions. Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience; finally so at the Day of Judgment, when God shall sententiously, and in the presence of all created things, pronounce them so.//
- A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, chapter 10, last paragraph [bold added by me- AP]
https://web.archive.org/web/20180205183443/http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/index.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI meant to say "gaining" and "being granted" entrance are two different things. The former implies merit, the later doesn't. In double justification our works are a condition for entrance, but not the basis or ground of our acceptance before the perfectly Holy God. The basis/ground being the atonement of Christ and his perfect merits which forgives our sins and the righteousness of which is imputed to the believer through the instrumental cause of faith alone/sola fide.
DeleteIt's confused because it's using the same word for two different concepts. The exclusion of works in Pauline justification isn't just a distinction between initial and final justification, but a categorical denial.
DeleteGood works are evidence of sanctification, the grace of sanctification, the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians. That's in a different domain from the Pauline framework.
Hi Annoyed. I can't get into all the details here, but I think union with Christ and inaugurated eschatology alleviates some of the tensions mentioned by you. Rather than see a "double justification" or an "initial" and "final", it may be better to speak of inaugurated and consummated justification. I'm thinking particularly the discussions by Beale in his Biblical Theology and Gaffin in Resurrection and Redemption and By Faith and not by Sight. Those are two examples of what I see as an overwhelming trend in NT studies as a whole to recognise the soteriological aspects of inaugurated eschatology, as well as the function of Christ's resurrection in our own salvation.
DeleteThe crucial role that viewing justification as inaugurated and consummated allows us to maintain that the two justifications *must be qualitatively identical* - in that the consummated justification is not built upon inaugurated justification so much as it is the eschatological revelation - vindication and subsequent resurrection of the believer. Much to say on the topic but atleast here's some food for thought.
Steve, I agree it's unfortunate that the same word, 'justification', is used for the secondary event. That's why some, like myself, like to see it as a kind of vindication. Which is another aspect or nuance to the Biblical terms most often translated righteousness or justification [both OT and NT].
DeleteAt the moment I can't think of a passage where the Biblical terms are used to refer to this secondary event. However, proponents of the idea of "double/secondary justification" at the very least ground it in the many passages where the reception of eternal life is said to be received at the future eschaton and is in some way according to, or in relation to works. For example, the many passages in the Gospels where our Lord does so.
Passages that Roman Catholics like to cite to support their understanding of justification by faith and works, despite the fact that the same passage don't always include a reference to faith [or initial justification being through faith and/or baptism], and certainly never allude to the concept of graciously empowered condign merit. In which case, if they were more consistent with their hermeneutic, based on the words of Scripture [though not its meaning] they ought to argue that salvation is based on Pelagian strict merit [which even the Catholic Church rejects as heretical].
It doesn't seem enough [at least to me] to merely say that such passages are descriptive and not prescriptive. In addition to being descriptive, there does seem to be an element of prescription in those passages.
As we Protestants recognize, not being as Hellenized as Paul, the Lord and the Apostle James spoke/wrote in the more Semitic style of Jewish practical wisdom when it came to justification and salvation. While Paul in terms closer to systematic theology. With the Greek emphasis on ontology and clear[er] distinctions. The Semitic emphasis being more holistic, while the Hellenistic more atomistic.
That's why we Evangelical Protestants believe the Apostle Paul's doctrine of justification and salvation in general should take precedence over the Apostle James'. Because Paul 1. spoke at greater length on the topics; 2. more precisely; 3. more clearly; 4. more thoroughly, 5. with greater distinctions [e.g. justification, sanctification, glorification], 6. was more educated than James and 7. encountered more opposition from a greater number of people and a larger area than James [whose sphere was localized to Jerusalem]. With greater opposition, one hones and fine-tunes one's theology more precisely and with greater nuance so that it can better deal with more heresies and objections. So we should try to fit James' soteriology into Paul's overall framework, rather than the other way around.
Swrath, the idea of referring to the two aspects as "inaugurated and consummated justification" is intriguing. I'll have to think about that.
I think we can allow for a "secondary" justification as long as the primary justification is the controlling thesis; in other words, as long as the initial verdict (as Wedgeworth puts it in his article) cannot be changed or lost. Calvin, after all, was in agreement with the concord reached with the Catholics at Regensburg. (By contrast, most who hold to double justification today, Anglo-Catholics for example, believe in a believer's actual potential for apostasy.)
ReplyDeleteSo often, however, a "secondary" tenet is just an excuse to get around disliked aspects of the primary belief. And thus, after a while, it begins to take precedence. Libertarian Free Will means more to Molinists than God's actualization of a particular possible world. The believer's "participation with the divine" means more to Catholics than God's sovereign grace.
Daniel C., in his article, speaks of Trent's embrace of grace as the essential cause of justification. But he neglects to mention that what they give with one hand they take back with the other:
"[T]he alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation."
In other words, it's not grace at all, but our own efforts which make all the difference.