![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/55\/2014\/04\/tom11.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nBetween pp. 944 and 966 we get as clear a short exposition of Tom\u2019s views on \u2018justification\u2019 as one is likely to find, certainly more focused and succinct than in his book on Justification, and it merits a couple of blog posts of discussion. He will make seven points about his \u2018seventh\u2019 point in the sequence of Pauline thought that leads to Paul\u2019s treatment of justification. <\/p>\n
Firstly, it is Tom\u2019s view that present justification is a declarative thing, God declaring a person \u2018in the right\u2019 or \u2018within the covenant\u2019 all those who hear, believe, and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ (on obedience see Rom. 10.16; 2 Thess. 1.8). In his view the future verdict, often called final justification, is brought forward into the present. Unless one concludes that the phrase \u2018the obedience of faith\u2019 means faith as a form of obedience, then Tom is saying something rather different here than the traditional \u2018justification by grace through faith\u2019 (plus nothing, including no deeds or works) idea. He would also be at odds with John Wesley who argued that \u2018initial\u2019 justification is not simply final justification brought forward into the present, not least because final justification according to 2 Cor. 5.10 and other texts involves an evaluation of the believer\u2019s works, and not just a matter of justification by faith. This being the case \u2018initial justification\u2019 is not the final verdict brought forward in time, from Wesley\u2019s point of view. You will not be surprised to hear that I think Wesley is closer to the mark than Tom on this point. <\/p>\n
I do however agree with Tom that one of the elements of initial justification is the declaration of \u2018no condemnation\u2019 or put Tom\u2019s way, that this person is now \u2018in the right\u2019. I would prefer the phrase \u2018set right\u2019 rather than \u2018in the right\u2019 because that is what God does in the act of faith\u2014 he sets us right, not merely declares us to be in the right. In other words, initial justification is not just a matter of a legal declaration. The reason \u2018set right\u2019 is a better English equivalent is because previously the person in question was indeed \u2018in the wrong\u2019 and was under condemnation. It is not merely a matter of a court finding in favor a person who was wrongly accused of something. This is precisely why I think that the forensic approach can be pushed too far. I would stress again that the language of \u2018reckoning\u2019 is not law court but rather business language, the language of credits and debits. In fact \u2018reckoned\u2019 could just as well be translated \u2018credited\u2019.<\/p>\n
Secondly, when a judge declares a person \u2018not guilty\u2019 or at least \u2018not condemned\u2019 (which has a different nuance than \u2018not guilty\u2019) he is not at the same time declaring a person to be either \u2018in the right\u2019 or \u2018righteous\u2019. That positive evaluation is another matter. I can\u2019t say I\u2019ve ever heard of a judge saying that a person was \u2018dikaios\u2019 when what he meant was that his guilt was not proved or that there would be no condemnation of whatever he did do. Nor do I know of any Greco-Roman or Jewish judge or court that talked like that. So for example when Paul speaks of pardon and of sins being covered the judge in that case is certainly not declaring a person \u2018righteous\u2019 or \u2018in the right\u2019 in any normal sense of those words. What he means is, despite what he has done, his sins have been paid for, and so he is not condemned\u2014 he is pardoned for his crimes, knowing quite well that he committed those sins and he has not himself paid for them.<\/p>\n
What the declaration \u2018no condemnation\u2019 does do is \u2018set right\u2019 the accused, and gives him legal \u2018right standing\u2019. That\u2019s all, and it has nothing to do with obedience. On p. 945 however Tom is right to say that the speech act of the judge, declaring \u2018no condemnation\u2019 does create a new status for the person\u2013 they have right standing before the law. <\/p>\n
The further point made on p. 946 is spot on\u2014 that since the \u2018set right\u2019 or \u2018right standing\u2019 of the accused is declarative it has nothing to do with the \u2018righteousness\u2019 of the judge himself (or the transfer of the judge\u2019s righteousness to the accused). Exactly right, which means such a declaration has nothing to do with the idea of \u2018imputed righteousness\u2019 in the usual sense of that phrase, nothing to do with the imputing of Christ\u2019s righteousness to the believer. Here in n. 479 I think Tom has a point in critiquing both Gorman and McCormack\u2013 a legal declaration transforms only the status of the person in question, it does not transform their character. That is quite another matter. Justification only has to do with the former\u2014 the giving of someone right standing before the judge or law. It is however true that justification and the new birth are coincident in time so that the effective transformation of character, the real \u2018setting right\u2019 (internally) of the person transpires at the same juncture with the legal declaration of \u2018no condemnation\u2019 or \u2018in right standing\u2019 with the law. The critique in n. 480 of the traditional Reformed ways of framing this discussion and the muddling up of God\u2019s righteousness with Christ\u2019s and indeed with the believers right standing is well done here. He is right that Is. 61.10 does not refer to the righteousness of God, but to the \u2018righteous\u2019 status given as a gift by God to his people. <\/p>\n
Is God thereby acquitting the guilty, or even saying they were in the right all along? On p. 948 Tom says, yes\u2026and no, to such questions. More to the point Tom in good Reformed fashion wants to say that the declaration of the judge is permanent, not temporary. He says \u201cthe status of dikaiosune is not temporary. It truly anticipates the verdict which will be issued on the last day.\u201d But since we have been using the analogy with human judicial processes all along, I will say that here is where he is wrong. The fact is that a person after such a legal judgment can go on to violate the law again, \u2018even if he got off scott free the first time\u2019 and will be judged again. And nothing about Paul\u2019s discussion of final judgment suggests it is identical with the initial judgment, or is even done on entirely the same basis. Final judgment alone involves an evaluation of the believer\u2019s works including a minister\u2019s works, resulting in either rewards or \u2018escaping as through fire\u2019. While it is true that salvation is not on the BASIS of works, if one commits apostasy, one is disqualified from final salvation and final justification. And furthermore, there are rewards in the kingdom based on good behavior as well, though salvation itself is not a reward. While this issue is complex, it is definitely over simplifying what Paul actually says about justification to suggest it is simply final justification retrojected back in time, and it further muddles things up to say that the initial verdict is permanent (and precludes a different final verdict). This was neither Jesus nor Paul\u2019s view, and for that matter, you will not find it elsewhere in early Judaism either, so far as I know. This is the view of Reformed theology, slipped into Paul\u2019s narrative Jewish thought world. <\/p>\n
On p. 949 Tom makes the correct point (his second sub-point) that this declaration of right standing is entirely dependent upon Christ\u2019s death on the cross. The finished work of Christ opens up the new world of forgiveness, as Tom puts it. <\/p>\n
On p. 950 we have the third sub point\u2013 namely the people declared to be \u2018in the right\u2019 (Tom\u2019s language, not mine) are incorporated into the Messiah (not quite\u2014 they are incorporated into the body of Christ which is connected to the head who is Christ. This is what it means to be \u2018in Christ\u2019\u2013 see 1 Cor. 12). Tom equates the declaration of \u2018Son of God with power\u2019 by means of the resurrection (Rom. 1.3-4) with the declaration of believers as \u2018adopted sons and daughters of God\u2019). The problem is that this is probably not what Rom. 1.3-4 means\u2014 Jesus was appointed Son of God in power, not merely declared to be something. In other words, what happened to Jesus at the resurrection has nothing to do with a legal judgment, thought certainly the event vindicated his prior claims. But that is not the point in Rom. 1.3-4. Paul believes he had already been the Son of God before his resurrection, but that at the resurrection he went from being Son of God in weakness to Son of God in power. This was no mere legal declaration, it was a transformation of his very nature, now having a resurrection body, and so enabled to be Son of God in power\u2014 immune to disease, decay, and death. This is hardly analogous to the declaration of sinners as pardoned. <\/p>\n
Tom is however right that what happened at the resurrection does not amount to Christ having a right standing which then could be imputed to believers who are \u2018in him\u2019. Tom is absolutely correct (p. 951) that Paul never speaks of Christ as \u2018having righteousness\u2019. He thinks not even 1 Cor. 1.30 says this (and I agree). What that says is Christ is God\u2019s wisdom, and we become or receive those other things through him. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Between pp. 944 and 966 we get as clear a short exposition of Tom\u2019s views on \u2018justification\u2019 as one is likely to find, certainly more focused and succinct than in his book on Justification, and it merits a couple of blog posts of discussion. He will make seven points about his \u2018seventh\u2019 point in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":8206,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n