FOUR REASONS PROFESSOR WRIGHT IS WRONG ON JUSTIFICATION

[The Biblicist]

No, the covenant is with man (it does not make sense that God makes a covenant with Himself - the point is that God Himself has met the conditions of the covenant He has made with man). .

No, you are teaching conditional covenant righteousness - justification by works. It makes perfect sense that God makes a covenant with Himself as three divine persons IF substitutionary atonement is its basis in Christ. The whole point is that God accomplished "in Christ" the substitute what cannot be accomplished "in Adam."

God told Adam that if he ate of the fruit he would die (Covenant with man),

That is not a "covenant" that is a decree made by God without any consent made by man whatsoever.

God told Abraham that he would bless him and through him redemption would come (Covenant with man),

That is the unconditional "everlasting covenant" obtained "in Christ" and performed by Christ. However, his covenant with Abraham conditioned on circumcision is another story.

God told Moses (and Israel) to do those things and live (Covenant with man),

Half truth! Israel agreed and said they would (other half of truth, thus an actual covenant between two parties).

and Jesus said "repent and believe", "believe and live",

These are commands not a covenant! The everlasting covenant secured the demands among his elect as that was the covenant responsibility of the Holy Spirit.

that God loved the world in this way - He sent his only Son that whoever believed would have everlasting life (Covenant with man)

That is not a covenant with man but the declaration of the everlasting covenant

 

[The Biblicist]

We are seen as "saints", and "priests". But do you think that God looks upon us as if we had kept the "moral law" or do you think that God looks at us as if we are in a right standing in terms of the new covenant through faith?

Your whole argument is based upon a complete distortion of my view. You are arguing as though I believed we are justified by keeping the law when I believe we are justified by Christ satisfaction of the law in my behalf. The term "saints" simply means "set apart" and we have been "set apart" by the everlasting covenant between the Divine Persons, we have been set apart by the substitionary Person and work of Christ. We have been set apart by the work of the Holy Spirit in and through us and we shall be set apart in the resurrection of the just. We are called "priests' as a METAPHOR because we have direct access to God by the Spirit through the High Priestly work of Christ.

 

[JonC]

It is on legal ground. In fact we get our very idea of what is legal from God. I believe you are over thinking this to some degree.

I can agree to an extent it is on legal ground (a covenant, after all, is a legal term). Thanks for that correction.

I don't, however, believe it is on moral grounds.

 

[Yeshua1]

We are seen as "saints", and "priests". But do you think that God looks upon us as if we had kept the "moral law" or do you think that God looks at us as if we are in a right standing in terms of the new covenant through faith?

God looks at us thru the lens of the Cross of Christ, as he imputs to us the same law keeping/ perfection done for us by Jesus Himself!

 

[Yeshua1]

The Bible says God IS righteous! Is his righteousness definable or undefinable? If it is undefinable it means nothing to us. If it is definable, then there must be a standard of definition. Paul says that before the incarnation of Christ, that definition was the Law of God as interpreted by the prophets. At the incarnation the law of God became incarnate as the ultimate standard for the written law was the very holy nature of God which for the first time in history could be seen, touched and heard (1 Jn. 1:1-2).

Imparted righteousness and/or infused righteousness (union) does not justify our own lives in God's sight as our own lives are still filled with sin. Hence, neither imparted or infused righteousness can remove our own life out from under the condemnation of the Law of God.

Eventually, imparted righteousness will provide a sinless person AFTER THIS LIFE but not during this life. Infused righteousness does not remove sin from our daily life.

The ONLY possible life that the law or nature of God can declare righteous rather than declare condemned is an absolute sinless life and the ONLY possible way we can obtain that sinless and thus justified life is by imputation through faith in the substitutionary life and death of Christ - there is no other way.

God imparts to me the very Holiness of Jesus, as he kept the law fully in ine stead, and died inmine stead...

 

[Yeshua1]

I can agree to an extent it is on legal ground (a covenant, after all, is a legal term). Thanks for that correction.

I don't, however, believe it is on moral grounds.

Didn't the Reformers hold to being imparted/declared by God with rightousness of Christ Himself?

 

[The Biblicist]

Is "sin" a "moral" issue? If sin is a "moral" issue then whatever standard that defines sin and condemns sin must be a "moral" standard. Is it "sinners" that need justificaition? If not then why justification? If so then justification is a "moral" issue.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is "sin" a "moral" issue? If sin is a "moral" issue then whatever standard that defines sin and condemns sin must be a "moral" standard. Is it "sinners" that need justificaition? If not then why justification? If so then justification is a "moral" issue.

On what grounds does God save sinners? Its by imputing the work of Jesus towards us the redeemed!

 

[JonC]

Is "sin" a "moral" issue? If sin is a "moral" issue then whatever standard that defines sin and condemns sin must be a "moral" standard. Is it "sinners" that need justificaition? If not then why justification? If so then justification is a "moral" issue.

That's part of your issue here. You look to sin as the problem redemption came to solve. But Scripture looks at sin as a manifestation of a deeper problem. Scripture looks at sin as birthed our of man's own lusts. The problem in the Garden, then, was not Adam's sin but Adam's desire to be like God. Adam was tempted, carried away by his own lusts which once conceived gives birth to sin.

We can look at sins as moral issues, and we can look to the Law as explaining both sin and human sinfulness, but we cannot take the explanatory as if it were the basis itself. Righteousness is covenantal, and it has in mind the right standing necessary to exist within the promises God made with man. This is not a covenant between God and God (or the Persons of the Godhead) but between God (the Persons of the Godhead) and man. And no, this is not a "works based" righteousness at all, for man's part is not "work" but faith. The work is in the sending of the Father, the obedience of the Son, and the work of the Spirit. Faith is a gift from God, and men's condition is nothing but faith, to believe.

And finally, this is a covenant between God and man because Jesus is our representative in the covenant. Here, Jesus is presented as representing mankind as the "Last Adam". If this covenant was not with man, then men would be excluded from the covenant. You are confusing who is responsible for actually meeting the terms and for whom those terms are descriptive.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's part of your issue here. You look to sin as the problem redemption came to solve. But Scripture looks at sin as a manifestation of a deeper problem. Scripture looks at sin as birthed our of man's own lusts. The problem in the Garden, then, was not Adam's sin but Adam's desire to be like God. Adam was tempted, carried away by his own lusts which once conceived gives birth to sin.

We can look at sins as moral issues, and we can look to the Law as explaining both sin and human sinfulness, but we cannot take the explanatory as if it were the basis itself. Righteousness is covenantal, and it has in mind the right standing necessary to exist within the promises God made with man. This is not a covenant between God and God (or the Persons of the Godhead) but between God (the Persons of the Godhead) and man. And no, this is not a "works based" righteousness at all, for man's part is not "work" but faith. The work is in the sending of the Father, the obedience of the Son, and the work of the Spirit. Faith is a gift from God, and men's condition is nothing but faith, to believe.

And finally, this is a covenant between God and man because Jesus is our representative in the covenant. Here, Jesus is presented as representing mankind as the "Last Adam". If this covenant was not with man, then men would be excluded from the covenant. You are confusing who is responsible for actually meeting the terms and for whom those terms are descriptive.

Is the new Covenant based upon Law or upon the Cross of Christ then?

 

[JonC]

Is the new Covenant based upon Law or upon the Cross of Christ then?

Christ. But the New and Old covenants are within an overarching covenant - God's covenant with Abraham, which in turn is directly linked to God's covenant with Adam (God dwelling with man, but if you eat of the fruit).

Righteousness points to men as covenant breaker, God as covenant keeper, and redemption through Christ as the Righteousness of God (God's "Righteous One").

 

[The Biblicist]

That's part of your issue here. You look to sin as the problem redemption came to solve. But Scripture looks at sin as a manifestation of a deeper problem. Scripture looks at sin as birthed our of man's own lusts. The problem in the Garden, then, was not Adam's sin but Adam's desire to be like God. Adam was tempted, carried away by his own lusts which once conceived gives birth to sin.

1. The problem is you don't understand sin! First it is not wrong to be LIKE God. The problem was his desire TO BE God. Why did he want TO BE God? Because he wanted TO BE THE LAW MAKER or his own SELF RULE.
2. That is why the essence of the Christian life is DYING TO SELF (negative side) and whatsoever, ye think, say or do to the GLORY OF GOD (positive side)
3. That is why THE LAW can be summed up in the two great commandments in the order they are given but ultimately in one word "love" as God IS love.

 

[The Biblicist]

by his own lusts which once conceived gives birth to sin.

Here is the essence of your wrong diagnosis. You don't understand what "HIS OWN LUSTS" means! It means HIS OWN AGENDA -meaning SELF-RULE. That is why all sin is AGAINST GOD because it is replacing God by your own agenda - self-rule! That is why THE LAW OF GOD is a moral issue because the violation at any point is a direct attack upon the whole Being of God as God. Violation of His law is the assertion that YOU are God and God is not God. His law must be vindicated, it must be satisfied fully if God is to be God as to "come short" is to rob God of His glory as God who alone has the right to decree what is right and what is wrong.

 

[The Biblicist]

We can look at sins as moral issues, and we can look to the Law as explaining both sin and human sinfulness, but we cannot take the explanatory as if it were the basis itself.

You don't understand either sin or the Law as it is not a matter of abstract issues but about REPLACING GOD IN TOTALITY! It is about establishing SELF-RULE. It is about the question who is really God?

 

[The Biblicist]

Righteousness is covenantal, and it has in mind the right standing necessary to exist within the promises God made with man.

Righteousness is about submission to God as God and the issue who is God. Sin is about usurping God by self-rule or becoming the law unto themselves.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is not a covenant between God and God (or the Persons of the Godhead) but between God (the Persons of the Godhead) and man.

The everlasting covenant is about God's own redemptive purpose of grace and restoring creation to its rightful relationship to its creator where God is God and all within that created order recognize and glorify Him as God, thus God reconciling his creation to Himself. It is about the Father sacrificing his only Son for God haters. It is about the Holy Spirit restoring the image of God in undeserving sinners. It is about the Son satisfying the wrath of God against usurpers of His kingdom.It is an "everlasting" covenant which man has no part with regard to covenantal actions or responsibilities but is the UNDESERVING object. It is God doing everything to restore His creation to Himself as an act of pure grace with regard to sinners.It begins with Grace it is by grace and it concludes with grace in every aspect from beginning to end. The law must be completely satisfied as anything "short" of complete satisfaction is robbing God of his "glory" of BEING GOD as the Law is the manifestation of God's rule, thus God's right to be God.

 

[The Biblicist]

And no, this is not a "works based" righteousness at all, for man's part is not "work" but faith. The work is in the sending of the Father, the obedience of the Son, and the work of the Spirit. Faith is a gift from God, and men's condition is nothing but faith, to believe.

No, faith is not mans part as man is incapable of faith (Jn.6:44). Faith is the work and gift of God (Jn. 6:29; Eph. 2:8; Philip.1:29) and that is why it is "of grace" (Rom.4:16). Moreover, it is not abstract "faith" but faith "IN" the SUBSTITUTIONARY Person and work of Christ as revealed in the gospel. It "faith" IN Christ's Person and work in satisfying what the sinner could not satisfy - the Law's penalty satisfied by his death, the law's righteous standard - satisfied by his sinless perfection, being IMPUTED to the believers POSITION before the law of God and IMPARTED to the believer PERSONALLY by infusion through regeneration and in practice by progessive sanctifiation and that is why the law is written upon his heart in regeneration (2 Cor. 3:3). Vindicating the law is vindicating God to be God. Satisfying the laws demands is a necessity in the Kingdom or rule of God for God to be God. If sin and sinners can get away with violating His law they are God and He is not God.

 

[The Biblicist]

And finally, this is a covenant between God and man because Jesus is our representative in the covenant. Here, Jesus is presented as representing mankind as the "Last Adam". If this covenant was not with man, then men would be excluded from the covenant. You are confusing who is responsible for actually meeting the terms and for whom those terms are descriptive.

Jesus is not a mere man but the Second Person and covenant responsible party in the everlasting covenant within the Godhead. Just a mere sinless man could not reconcile sinners with God. He must be a God/man and that is why the everlasting covenant EXCLUDES all but the Trinity. Read Ephesians 1:4-14 where the covenant responsibilities of the covenant parties are spelled out and you will find NO MAN delegated any covenant responsibility but man is consistently the OBJECT of this covenant. Read Romans 8:28-35 and you will find NO MAN delegated any covenant responsibility in the everlasting "purpose" of redemption but man is consistently the OBJECT of this covenant.

 

[The Biblicist]

The whole issue of sin and the law is all about really who is God. Sin disputes God's right to be God. The whole issue of the everlasting covenant is reestablishing His rule over His creation. It is vindicating, as well as satisfying HIS LAW as to fail to do either one is to relinquish His right to rule over His own creation. It is restoring HIS LAW over all, thus declaring Himself to be God. That is why the new birth is described in creative MORAL terms as the restoration of God's own image as the righteousness or true holiness of God in fallen man.

The Law is his standard to judge all rational beings. The law is his standard to define right and wrong. The law is his standard to condemn and thus define sin. The Law is his standard to delcare what is and who is righteous. The law is that standard because the law declares God to be God and that is why the first three commandments directly relate to the absolute preeminence of God, and why all ten can be summarized by two and those two can be summarized in one word "love" for God IS love.

The Law is the declaration that God is God while sin is the dispute over that declaration. The Everlasting Covenant is about settling that dispute forever and restoring all creation to that declaration (Revelation 4-5).

 

[JonC]

Jesus is not a mere man but the Second Person and covenant responsible party in the everlasting covenant within the Godhead. Just a mere sinless man could not reconcile sinners with God. He must be a God/man and that is why the everlasting covenant EXCLUDES all but the Trinity. Read Ephesians 1:4-14 where the covenant responsibilities of the covenant parties are spelled out and you will find NO MAN delegated any covenant responsibility but man is consistently the OBJECT of this covenant. Read Romans 8:28-35 and you will find NO MAN delegated any covenant responsibility in the everlasting "purpose" of redemption but man is consistently the OBJECT of this covenant.

I trust that this is not a denial of Jesus as the "last Adam" (although in fact, this seems to be what you are doing).

To set your mind at ease, let's not devolve into foolishness. As a presupposition I believe that you are a Christian. I expect that you extend me the same courtesy (neither of us are denying the divinity or humanity of Christ).

But, again, you miss the point of Jesus becoming a man. You miss the point of Jesus actually being human, taking on humanity in himself. Christ's work reconciling mankind to God did not begin as the soldiers nailed him to the cross.