<\/p>
Distinctions between inner and outer, between status and being, run through Berkhof\u2019s treatment of justification in his systematic theology. For instance: <\/p>\n
Justification does not, as some languages imply, \u201cdenote a change that is brought about in man\u201d but rather means \u201cto effect an objective relation, the state of righteousness, by a judicial sentence\u201d (p. 511). Do we want to distinguish the being of man from his relation to God in this fashion? <\/p>\n
\u201cJustification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, and does not change his inner life, though the sentence is brought home to him subjectively\u201d (p. 513). Berkhof, as I\u2019ve commented before, brings in the concept of subjective justification \u2013 the experience of joy and relief that comes with being accepted by God. That\u2019s helpful. Yet, it seems that a declaration from God that we are righteous marks a change in who we are. That may not be exactly what Berhof means by \u201cinner life.\u201d In all likelihood, he has in mind moral character and subjective experience. But the distinction of inner and outer obscures the reality (or what I take as the reality) that God\u2019s declaration of justification has an \u201contological\u201d efficacy, since we simply are who we are in God\u2019s judgment. Or, to put it differently, status before God and our being are not separable, and I would suggest not even distinguishable. <\/p>\n
\u201cWhile [justification] has respect to the sinner, it does not change his inner life. It does not affect his condition, but his state, and in that respect differs from all the other principal parts of the order of salvation\u201d (p. 513). Condition apparently here means \u201cmoral condition\u201d and state means \u201cstatus.\u201d The same questions above arise here, though. Another way to ask the question is: Is the \u201cinner\u201d or \u201cmoral\u201d sphere distinct from one\u2019s status before God in such a way that one\u2019s status can change without any change in the \u201cinner\u201d sphere? What is the anthropology that\u2019s driving this distinction? <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Distinctions between inner and outer, between status and being, run through Berkhof\u2019s treatment of justification in his systematic theology. For instance: Justification does not, as some languages imply, \u201cdenote a change that is brought about in man\u201d but rather means \u201cto effect an objective relation, the state of righteousness, by a judicial sentence\u201d (p. 511). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theology-soteriology"],"yoast_head":"\n