You mentioned that you are familiar with Blake’s writings. To save you the suspense, I am largely in agreement with Blake. When I have more time to write, I will try to answer your questions more directly.

Best,

TYD

Are you saying we should not even talk of justification in the Church, because the way Paul talks about it, is not the same way we understand/talk about justification today.

And here is another question; if we can talk about it in a meaningful way, in your opinion, is justification an event or a process?

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/07/the-advantages-of-bad-theology/410/

Best,

TYD

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Compare Ephesians 1:10-11:

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

“Worketh all things after the counsel of his own will?” That is the doctrine of divine sovereignty in a nutshell.

Now I agree that passages such as these do not make an iron clad case that Paul was a theological determinist. The problem is, having read much of the debate between Arminians and Calvinists on the subject, I think the latter have a rather stronger scriptural case that Paul was a theological determinist than the Arminians have that he was not. Saying nothing of the theological merits of the positions themselves, of course.

It also follows that Paul isn’t some proto-Calvinist and certainly not talking about some individual predestination or determinism. He believes that Christians and the Church are going to be saved and glorified. But of course such a position has no bearing whatsoever on salvation as particular individuals.

In addition, without seeing more details, it seems to me that the idea of making the interpretation of the entire epistle of Romans turn on Romans 1:17 is bizarre to say the least. The verse just isn’t specific enough for it to make a difference either way.

Questions of theological determinism aside, what exactly about Calvin’s approach to Romans does the NPP explicitly reject? Theologically speaking, what is “new” about the new perspective on Paul? I can’t possibly imagine that the covenantal nomism described should be considered a new thing at all. Romans and other epistles are riddled with Paul’s (re)interpretation of God’s covenant with Israel in these terms. No one paying attention could possibly read Paul to be justifying antinomianism either (quite the opposite), and that includes Calvin himself.

The primary debate in Protestant Christendom for several centuries running is the Arminian-Calvinist debate about free will and theological determinism, a debate which has enormous implications for any question of causation. There is considerable evidence (it seems to me -see e.g. Romans 8:28-30) that Paul was a theological determinist (i.e. a proto-Calvinist) as paradoxical as that position is, and the influence of that position is the main reason why Paul is often “hard to be understood”, the general soundness of his approach to notwithstanding. Does the NPP claim otherwise?

I understand that “once saved always saved” (i.e. the doctrine of Eternal Security) is a relatively recent, largely Baptist innovation that has to be regarded as a heresy in terms of traditional Calvinism.

In traditional Calvinism, the perseverance of the saints means that the true saints will indeed persevere unto salvation, but on the other hand that it is difficult to be sure who the true saints are, i.e. those who God has elected (and indeed predestinated) unto salvation. And certainly the mere confession of faith in Christ would not be regarded as particularly convincing evidence of that fact.

Quoting from the Westminister Confession of the Faith on the subject:

This infallible assurance [of grace and salvation] does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.

And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness (WCF, Chapter XVIII, Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation)

According to the WCF, whom God elects, he justifies, whom he justifies he sanctifies, and whom he sanctifies he saves. There is no “once” about it, nor any trivial means of determining who belongs to this set:

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace (WCF, iii)

Stephen Robinson tends to believe we are justified by faith.

Just curious.

Having read Blake’s books, I tend to agree with him.