← Back to sermon library

Paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 of 
Justification. Those whom God effectually calleth, 
he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into 
them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting 
their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them 
or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith 
itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience 
to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing Christ's act 
of obedience unto the whole law and passive obedience in his 
death for their whole and soul righteousness. They receiving 
and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have 
not of themselves, it is the gift of God." Just a couple of 
quotes here to open our session. You'll remember last time we 
looked at the importance of justification. This isn't, of course, some sideline 
A doctrine, this, yes. Oh, okay. Oh, interesting. Okay. 
That's why people were looking around to see if they're following 
along. Okay. All right, good. Yeah, no, that's 
good. A couple quotes here. Remember, 
we talked about the importance of justification last time, and 
obviously we'll continue to note that this morning. The doctrine 
is not something that is a sideline doctrine. It's not relegated 
to the basement of theological discussion, but is always and 
should always be in the fore of our minds. Because Paul, in 
the book of Romans, brings it to the fore when he discusses 
the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a doctrine of the utmost 
importance. This is Cyril of Alexandria against 
Nestorius in the 5th century. Seeing then that the law condemned 
sinners and sometimes imposed the supreme penalty on those 
who disregarded it and was in no way merciful, how was the 
appointment of a truly compassionate and merciful high priest not 
necessary for those on earth? one who would abrogate the curse, 
check the legal process, and free the sinners with forgiving 
grace and commands based on gentleness. I, says the text, I am he who 
blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not 
remember your sins, Isaiah 43, 25. For we are justified by faith, 
not by the works of the law, as scripture says, Galatians 
2, 16. By faith in whom, then, are we 
justified? Is it not in him who suffered 
death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one 
Lord Jesus Christ? John Calvin, of course, the 16th 
century doctrine is in any degree impaired. The church has received 
a deadly wound and brought to the very brink of destruction. 
Whenever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ 
is extinguished, religion abolished, the church destroyed. It is a 
vital doctrine, as of course you know and you have known as 
we've studied this throughout the years. And so we'll continue 
to study it this morning. Just a review from last week, 
we noted in the introduction that justification touches on 
or involves a number of other things. It's not just justification 
itself in a vacuum, but rather touches upon and involves the 
following concepts. The pure and condemning law of 
God, the sinner's standing or status before that law, the justice 
of God, covenant theology and federal headship, the guiltiness 
of man, the righteousness of Christ, the cross of Calvary 
and the blood shed upon it, and the resurrection of Christ on 
the third day. All of these things intimately touch upon justification. 
Reciprocally, justification intimately touches upon all of these things. 
We noted the definition of justification is given in paragraph one, a 
nice extensive definition. We talked about the Westminster 
Shorter Catechism, a definition of justification. Justification 
is an act of God's free grace wherein he pardons all our sins 
and accepts us as righteous in his sight only for the righteousness 
of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. We noted that 
the 39 articles of the Church of England, the Belgic Confession, 
Other, of course, reformed creeds, the Westminster, the Savoy, all 
define justification in the historically biblical and Protestant and right 
way. We noted the importance of justification 
and just a quick reminder of those things that we listed with 
regards to the importance of this doctrine. First, it was 
a denial of the biblical doctrine of justification is a damnable 
position. You reject biblical justification 
and you are outside the safe confines of Christ. A rejection 
of biblical justification is the evidence of an unregenerate 
heart. Departures from the biblical doctrine of justification diminish 
the holiness and justice of God. You'll remember we noted that 
biblical justification upholds the holiness and justice of God. 
Deficient, defective definitions of the doctrine diminish the 
holiness and the justice of God. Departures from the biblical 
doctrine of justification contradict the most free purpose of God 
in his eternal decree. We'll note that this morning 
as well, the stuff of paragraph 4. Departures from the biblical 
doctrine of justification lessen the severity of sin and steal 
from the exclusivity of Christ as Savior. Why? Because contrary 
doctrines of justification import into the doctrine or import into 
salvation man's contribution, whether faith as meritorious 
or works necessary for our justification by God. And then lastly, departures 
from the biblical doctrine of justification steal away the 
believer's peace. Remember what biblical justification 
brings to the heart of the believer. Therefore, having been justified 
by faith, we have peace with God. through our Lord Jesus Christ. And of course, being justified 
by Christ, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 
And then lastly, we noted the theological climate or landscape. 
Positively, the Baptists are in line. They have a reformed 
affinity with the Presbyterians of the Westminster and the Congregationalists 
of the Savoy in their chapter on justification. Negatively, 
we noted that the climate of the Baptists of that time and 
the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists were Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism would say that 
a justified individual or a Christian must be prepared and disposed 
by the movement of his own will, that he is preserved and also 
increased before God through good works, and that there remains 
some debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this 
world or in the next in purgatory before the entrance to the kingdom 
of heaven can be open to him, of course, blasphemous and abominable 
doctrine. The Anabaptists as well, negatively, 
the confessionalists dealing with them, they insisted that 
the only ground on which sinners can be acceptable to God is a 
real righteousness wrought within the justified person. So justification 
does not come from without, Imputed to us by the free gift and grace 
of God, but rather it is wrought within so the righteousness of 
justification is our own righteousness in The Anabaptist world and we'll 
note shortly that that continues today When we say Anabaptist, 
it doesn't necessarily mean them back then though They might might 
have appeared in different flavors in different garb, but that error 
continues today under modern Anabaptists and then our minions 
the act of believing is the effectual cause of our justification. So 
now then, moving on to modern deviations from biblical justification. Hopefully, we'll note that the 
errors we just noted that they dealt with are alive and well 
in our modern era. Roman Catholicism, we wouldn't 
call it a modern deviation, but modernly, we have the Roman Catholics 
with us, don't we? And it isn't just an ancient 
problem. Those Roman Catholics back then, We have Roman Catholics 
now, but prevalent in our era are evangelicals going to Rome 
because of the influences of modern deviations from biblical 
justification, such as the new perspective on Paul and the federal 
vision. But the Anabaptists and the Arminians, 
they weren't just 15th and 16th and 17th century you know, aberrations or theological 
problems that the Reformed, our Reformed forebears faced, but 
rather these ideas and this theology, their theology, is prevalent 
today as well. So we're going to look at three 
things under modern deviations from biblical justification. 
First off, Arminian evangelicalism. Secondly, the new perspective 
on Paul. And then thirdly, the federal vision. Focusing probably 
more on the new perspective on Paul, but nevertheless those 
are the three things that we're going to look at. Under Arminian 
evangelicalism and the doctrine of justification, there are two 
streams in modern Arminian evangelicalism, and when we say that, we're essentially 
saying any non-Calvinistic system of Christian Church denomination 
association today. Those who subscribe to some form 
of an Arminian view where the free will of man is exalted, 
where predestination is diminished if not eliminated outright, where 
those reformed historical, Protestant, and biblical doctrines of the 
sovereignty of God in salvation are stolen away and replaced 
with the primacy of man essentially in all things whether implicit 
or explicit. We would see most of Pentecostalism, 
Charismaticism, Independent, you know, Fundamental Baptists, 
those sorts of things, and anything, again, anything essentially that 
is in opposition to historic Reformed Christianity. So those 
two streams are this. First, the righteousness of justification 
is the act of believing. So the righteousness of justification 
is the act of believing. Remember, I mean, just looking 
for a minute at the bare language of justification by faith alone. Someone untaught and unstable 
takes that to believe that justification then is by our faith. In other 
words, justification is on account of our faith. It is our faith. 
that justifies us before God. That, of course, is incorrect. 
When we read justified by faith, we are not to take that to mean 
on account of our faith, but by or through, upon the event 
of. It is through faith that we are 
justified. Just like the confession says, 
they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by 
faith, which faith they have not of themselves, It is a gift 
of God. Paragraph 2, faith thus receiving 
and resting on Christ and His righteousness is the alone instrument 
of justification. So faith is the instrument of 
justification. It is not the objective ground 
of it. Remember Adam Clark quote that 
we noted last time, to say that Christ's personal righteousness 
is imputed to every true believer is not scriptural. Remember this 
quote is bad. He is in opposition to what our 
confession is saying. To say that he has fulfilled 
all righteousness for us in our stead, if by this is meant his 
fulfillment of all moral duties, is neither scriptural nor true. 
In no part of the book of God is Christ's righteousness ever 
said to be imputed to us for our justification. Hopefully 
you can think of two right at the outset, not that that exhausts 
the scriptures, but 2 Corinthians 5, 21 and Romans 5, specifically 
verses 12 to 12 to 19. It is certainly true that Christ 
has fulfilled all righteousness for us in our stead. To oppose 
that and to say it's not biblical is to rip the gospel of glorious 
substitutionary truth that Christ is our righteousness, that he 
fulfilled the law in our stead and bore the punishment in our 
stead. The second stream We'll talk 
about some responses to these here in a little more detail 
in a moment, but the second stream under modern deviations from 
biblical justification, subheading Arminian evangelicalism, is our 
justification comes from a God-wrought righteousness in us. That would 
be the second stream, the modern deviation under Arminian evangelicalism, 
that our justification comes from a God-wrought righteousness 
in us. It is essentially papal justification 
dressed up in Protestant garb. This is Phil Johnson again noting, 
quoting Timothy George with regards to the Arminians and again which 
continues today in many conceptions of justification under evangelicalism. They denied the forensic nature 
of justification. That simply means legal. the 
legal nature of justification. Remember, that is what the confession 
upholds here, that God accounts us as righteous. He makes a legal 
declaration that we are righteous based upon the righteousness 
of Christ, His obedience to the law, His perfect work, His perfect 
obedience even unto death upon Calvary's tree. It does not come 
from us. They denied the forensic nature 
of justification and insisted that the only ground on which 
sinners can be acceptable to God is a real righteousness wrought 
within the justified person. With regards, again, to the Anabaptists, 
Menno Simons and Anabaptists generally did not accept Luther's 
forensic doctrine of justification by faith alone because they saw 
it as an impediment to the true doctrine of a lively faith, which 
issues in holy living. Now, why are we going back to 
the Anabaptists of old? Well, we would have this this 
doctrine or this conception of justification by faith upheld 
in many Mennonite churches today and of course seen in many Armenian 
evangelical churches. Now one of the things we would 
probably note at this point is that there is something, there 
is a, there is in a sense an anti-credal or a credal ignorance 
with regards to many Christian churches and denominations. Not 
to say that they're deliberately trying to avoid doctrine, but 
there seems to be, as opposed to the historic reformed churches, 
an emphasis away from commitment to creedal Christianity. And 
so you don't really have systematic minds or doctrinal minds necessarily 
in a lot of these churches. that you probably wouldn't see 
them working through on a Sunday morning the confession of faith 
for the fourth or fifth year in a row. Well, actually, we've 
been doing it since 2007, I think, but for the fourth or fifth time 
in a row, working through the confession and these sorts of 
things. So they're not inundated in a positive way. They're not 
constantly fed with creedal and biblical doctrine. But nevertheless, 
there is going to be these seeds of doctrine in the preaching 
and in the writings and those sorts of things. So while you 
might not come across, you know, a lot of Mennonites or evangelicals 
who could, you know, adequately formulate their definition of 
justification, Perhaps if you were to ask them, what does it 
mean to be justified? Well, they would answer that 
we, by our act of faith, are justified by God. We're saved 
when we believe. Rather than saying, God in his 
grace regenerates us, we believe, we lay hold of Christ and his 
righteousness, they may abandon themselves unto this idea that 
the righteousness of justification is the act of believing or that 
our justification comes from a God-wrought righteousness in 
us, however they would word it, and however they might communicate 
that to you. How would we respond to this 
deviation or these deviations of or from a biblical justification? First off, the biblical language, 
and we've already noted this, is that we are saved by, through, 
or upon faith, not because of our faith. What happens if we 
What happens when we say that we're saved because of our faith 
is that we have now said that faith is meritorious. That is, our faith merits our 
justification. So faith is now a work, isn't 
it? If faith merits our justification, 
or if we're saved on account of our faith, then now faith 
has become a work. And Paul painstakingly, everywhere, 
pits faith in Christ over and against the works of the law. So when we do that, not only 
are we destroying justification, but we're destroying faith in 
that we're making it a work, or we're adding works to faith, 
thus destroying faith and destroying the proper biblical distinctions. 
Again, if our faith merits our justification, then faith is 
now a work. This would be in opposition to 
Paul everywhere, who, as Raymond writes, pits faith in Christ 
over and against every human work. So the problem with the 
modern Arminian evangelicalism is, well, it's twofold. It's 
that faith is now a work. Actually, it's threefold. It's 
either that faith is now a work, or that our justification is 
from a God-wrought righteousness in us, so it's no longer a legal 
declaration. But it's now a process. It's 
now no longer a one-time legal declaration from God as judge 
that we are righteous based upon Christ's perfect work, but rather 
God making us righteous by his spirit progressively as we do 
those things befitting a Christian in their conception. And then, 
of course, thirdly, it is a rejection of the glorious biblical doctrine 
of imputation. Remember what we say in imputation 
and what the Bible presents to us with regards to that. Imputation 
is theologically, there is a legal imputation and the theological 
one is legal and it's close. But it is the crediting or accounting 
of one righteous vicariously based upon someone else's virtue, 
work, or righteousness. And so these deviations from 
biblical justification are in clear opposition to that glorious 
biblical doctrine of imputation. Adam's sin is imputed to all 
his progeny, all human beings, of course, save for Christ, the 
God-man. But Adam's sin is imputed to 
all men and women, boys and girls. All of the elect's sins are imputed 
to Christ, and Christ's righteousness is imputed to all the elect. This doctrine of imputation is 
vital. Christ's righteousness, imputed 
or credited or accounted to us, and God's legal declaration of 
justified is based upon that imputed righteousness to the 
believer. Any questions hopefully will 
be answered in the course of this, and if any remain, please 
ask me afterwards. Moving on then secondly to the 
New Perspective on Paul, remember modern deviations from biblical 
justification. The New Perspective on Paul, 
some of the major authors of the New Perspective, some living, 
some dead, William G.T. Shedd, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Gunn, N.T. Wright. I believe 
we should probably also throw Norman Shepard in there. William 
G.T. Shedd? or excuse me, I think 
I transposed that one in there instead of Shepard. I apologize. 
Let's remove William G. T. Shed and his commentary from 
Romans out of there. That was a typo. Norman Shepard, 
E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Gunn, and 
N.T. Wright. Please, if Jonathan Hall's 
listening or whoever's editing this, you can pull that part 
out of there. William G. T. Shed. Sorry, William. Okay. There's four things that 
we want to look at under the new perspective on Paul. Four 
things that we want to consider here. The first off is the new 
perspective, and these are characteristics or attributes or affirmations 
with regards to their view of justification that are in opposition 
and fly in the face of the biblical data. These come by way of help 
from Sam Waldron. The new perspective on Paul claims 
that the Judaism of Paul's day was not really a religion of 
self-righteousness where salvation depended on human works and human 
merit. Yeah. I mean, right away you 
should be going, what? Wait a minute. I mean, if anything, 
when we've been listening to Pastor Butler's good sermons 
through the book of Matthew, we bump up against the reality 
that The Judaism of Paul's day was a religion of self-righteousness 
and salvation depending upon human works and merit. Christ 
is coming up against that constantly in his opposition to the scribes 
and the Pharisees. But in their conception and their 
understanding, when Jesus is speaking against them and instructing 
his disciples later, when, let's say, Paul is a great example, 
is writing in Romans and Galatians, He's not writing against a Pharisaical 
Judaism that is marked by self-righteousness and human merit, but rather it 
is this. They would say, the new perspective 
on Paul adherence would say that the Pharisees weren't legalists 
as it turns out. They were not guilty of teaching 
salvation by human merit and they had a strong emphasis on 
divine grace. For centuries upon centuries, 
Christians have erred in their understanding of the Pharisees, 
those poor, maligned, demonized Pharisees. So the church for a couple millennia 
have been confused. Also, they would say that Paul 
is interpreted through the distorted, now this would be Paul by us, 
by historic Protestant Christianity. Paul is interpreted through the 
distorted lens of contemporary issues throughout church history. Pelagianism in the case of Augustine, 
Roman Catholicism in the case of Luther and Calvin and the 
Reformers. So in other words, they would say that because Augustine 
is bumping up against Pelagius, that that discourse, those debates, 
influenced, if you will, Augustine's interpretation of Paul. Similarly, 
the new perspective on Paul would say that Luther, Calvin, the 
reformers after them, the confessionalists after them, that they were tainted, 
if you will, by their opposition to Roman Catholicism to such 
a degree that that debate and contention affected or influenced 
their interpretation of Paul in, for example, the books of 
Romans and Galatians. I think we would want to say 
that those contentions and those debates only affected a more 
diligent interpretation of Paul, a more diligent diving into the 
text, a more diligent exegetical task to ensure that the biblical 
doctrine of justification by faith alone was upheld in the 
opposition of error. You will read in the commentaries, 
for example, maybe mostly because Calvin wrote commentaries on 
a number of books, and he's brought up here. In Calvin, you will 
see a lot of times where he's commenting on verses, and then 
he'll bring up just as the papists, and then hammer the Roman Catholics, 
rightly. I mean, in places like in Jeremiah 
7. talking about the sacrificing 
of babies to pagan deities, he'll bring up the Roman Catholics. 
And so I think what can happen is people, theologians, persons 
who are either prominent in this or influenced by it will read 
that and say, oh, yeah, you see, they're affected too much by 
their anti-Roman Catholic stance that they have distorted interpretations. I think we can see, though, that 
Theologians will write, commentators will write, and they will want 
to make reference to contemporaneous deviations theologically so that 
the recipients or the readers of their works can attach that 
to something, can fix upon things that affect the contemporary 
landscape. All of that to say they're wrong 
when they write that, first off, The Judaism of Paul's day was 
not a religion of self-righteousness and human merit. And they're 
wrong when they say that we interpret or that Paul is interpreted through 
a distorted lens. So how would we respond? Well, 
we would want to respond by simply pointing out the Pharisee and 
the publican in Luke 18.9. Over and against this idea that 
we're misunderstanding the Pharisaical Judaism of Christ's day, of Paul's 
day, we would want to point out Luke 18.9, the Pharisee and the 
Publican. Also, according to Christ, the 
Pharisees were marked by external self-justification and were an 
abomination in the sight of God, Luke 16.15. I mean, it takes 
a reading, a simple reading by a regenerate heart of the gospel 
accounts. to simply come across these things 
where Christ is dealing with self-righteous Pharisees. The 
woes pronounced upon the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 and 
Luke 11, we come to those passages of scripture and we see Christ 
pronouncing these woes upon them and the stuff of self-righteousness 
and human merit in opposition to faith in Christ is clear. These things are indicative of 
a real polemic with theological and the doctrine of sin implications. So it's not the case that Paul's... the Judaism of Paul's day was 
not a religion of self-righteousness and human merit, but it was exactly 
that, and we need to uphold that. Secondly, they deny that he had 
any serious... that Paul had any serious or 
significant theological disagreement with the Jewish leaders of his 
time. So there was no significant theological 
disagreement with the leaders of his time. The religion of 
the Pharisees was a religion not of human merit, but of grace. 
And Paul had no fundamental disagreement with them on soteriology. Remember, 
that is the doctrine of salvation. That's what they would say, that 
he had no significant disagreement or fundamental disagreement with 
them on the doctrine of salvation. So what was it then? Well, we'll 
get to that. Paul's contention is solely focused upon matters 
on an ethnic level, the way they looked upon and treated the Gentiles. So at the core of the issue is 
not that there is this doctrinal perversion and error being perpetuated 
that we can be justified by the works of the law, but rather 
the core of the issue in their minds is that there is this Jewish 
exclusivity and that they were being mean to the Gentiles. And 
so that what they needed to understand was that what the Jews or what 
the recipients of, you know, the letter to the Galatians, 
what they needed to understand was that salvation did not come 
through adherence to the ceremonial law, but it came through faith 
and obedience or covenantal faithfulness. So the Gentiles can be saved. 
They need not adhere to the ceremonial law. They just need to be covenantally 
faithful. They're justified just like Abraham 
was by his faithfulness. That's what they would say. And 
so the corrective in Galatians is against this ethnic exclusivity, 
where the Gentiles need to pony up and adhere to Mosaic ceremonies. That was, in their view, the 
problem in Galatia. No, the problem in Galatia was 
that the Judaizers were saying that to be justified, you must 
be circumcised and adhere to Mosaic law in order to be saved. Paul's contention is solely focused 
upon matters on an ethnic level, again, the way they looked upon 
and treated the Gentiles. Racial and cultural issues, not 
issues of soteriology, or again, the doctrine of salvation. Paul's 
main concern is concord or unity within the covenant community 
that recognized and embraced diversity and concessions Jew 
to Gentile, Gentile to Jew. Remember, we're rehearsing errors 
of the new perspective on Paul. again, this is one of their views, 
that Paul's main concern is concord or unity within the covenant 
community that recognize and embrace diversity and concessions. Jew to Gentile, Gentile to Jew. So the issue isn't justification 
soteriologically. The issue isn't that the gospel 
of grace is being perverted, and by that gospel of grace we 
mean that we're saved solely and alone by Jesus Christ, his 
life, his death, his resurrection. But rather, the big problem is 
disunity. The big problem is Jewish exclusivity 
against the Gentiles. How would we respond to that? 
Well, we would go to the book of Acts and in many places see 
that the pattern of apostolic preaching is to set forth the 
gospel of Christ, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth as the one 
crucified and resurrected for the forgiveness of sins. It is 
not a gospel that finds its center in non-exclusivity and ethnic 
unity, though of course that should come along with it. There 
is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, man nor woman, all 
are one in Christ Jesus, etc. But the issue is, for example, 
in Acts 13, 38 to 39, the forgiveness of sins and a, we may say, soteriological 
justification, that is a justification that finds itself in the heart 
of the doctrine of salvation and not some concern of unity 
within the covenant community. The Book of Romans, we would 
want to respond to their arguments. The Book of Romans, in the amount 
of time Paul deals with sin, opening with the wrath of God 
upon it, and then moving to the righteousness of God in Christ 
Jesus. You see, at the heart of the 
argument in the book of Romans is not some sort of corrective 
or remedy for racial disunity, but rather it is God's wrath 
revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness 
of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, the universality 
of sin that there are none who are righteous, no, not one, and 
then the answer to that which is God's righteousness revealed 
through the propitiatory work of Christ Jesus the Lord and 
his justifying substitution. And so Acts, the book of Acts 
and the pattern of apostolic preaching, a good example of 
which is Acts 13, 38 to 39, the book of Romans and the character 
and content of it. Also, the polemical aspect of 
Galatians 1, and the anathema that follows. Remember, they 
were turning away from the grace of God to another gospel, which 
is no gospel at all. There were those who were troubling 
them, perverting the gospel of grace. And Paul gives that anathema. If anyone brings another gospel, 
which is no gospel at all, of course, let him be anathema. 
And so the polemical aspect of Galatians 1 is clearly at the 
point of those perverting the doctrine of justification. And 
the point is, from Paul, to uphold the fact that we are justified 
by faith, not by the works of the law. For by the works of 
the law, no flesh shall be justified in his sight. And that whole 
section, remember, is punctuated by verse 21. If righteousness 
comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. That's the implication 
there. It is the doctrine of salvation, 
the doctrine of justification. some strange idea that the prime 
problem is Concord of the Covenant community. Thirdly, the gospel 
or good news of Jesus Christ is a message mostly concerning 
the Lordship of Christ. So that would sort of be that 
it primarily for those who adhere to the new perspective on Paul, 
the gospel or good news of Jesus Christ is a message mostly concerning 
the Lordship of Christ. They'll use grace, they'll talk 
about the forgiveness of sins, but the primacy of the gospel 
or the prime matter in the gospel or the good news is a message 
mostly concerning the Lordship of Christ. For example, with 
regards to their view on this, Christ has been declared as Lord 
of creation and King of the cosmos by his death, resurrection, and 
ascension. And this is the good news. Christian soteriology contains 
nothing of personal and individual salvation, no redemption from 
the guilt and condemnation of sin. Now again, they'll traffic 
in much of that language, but the force and the emphasis is 
upon covenant community, unity, and our covenant obedience or 
faithfulness to God as our justifying righteousness. Paul, of course, 
as we would counter to this idea, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, gives 
the historical, and you can turn there as we turn to our Bibles 
now, you can turn in your Bibles to 1 Corinthians 15, because 
there we have two things that answer this conception of the 
gospel. First, and actually kind of working 
backwards, gives the historical content of the gospel, and it 
pertains to the forgiveness of sins, doesn't it? Notice 1 Corinthians 
15 and verse 3, for I deliver to you first of all that which 
I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to 
the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again 
the third day according to the scriptures. So we see there the 
historical content of the gospel, and a vital Irremovable constituent 
element is that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. Isn't that not the heart of the 
gospel, the forgiveness of sins, going back to the covenant promise 
of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31? I will forgive their sins. I will no longer remember their 
transgressions. It is the case that this is the 
gospel, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 
and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according 
to the scriptures. But notice as well, answering 
this idea that there is nothing of personal and individual salvation, 
verses one and two, moreover brethren, I declare to you the 
gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, and 
in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold 
fast that word which I preached to you, unless you believed in 
vain. So there is, of course, an individual aspect to redemption 
and salvation. That is an ABC of gospel verity. Ephesians 1.13 and Ephesians 
2.1-10, this speaks to the fact that the gospel as it respects 
the individual and also the divine reality behind their believing. 
When we read in Ephesians 1.13, near the end, of that glorious doxology to 
God the Father with regards to triune saving perfection we read, 
we read, in him you also trusted after you heard the word of truth 
the gospel of your salvation in whom also having believed 
you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. The individual 
Christian aspect of salvation is everywhere in the Holy Scriptures 
and then of course We won't read it, but Ephesians 2, 1 to 10 
highlights, emphasizes, and bolsters the argument. Romans 1, the progression 
of the text, you don't need to turn there, but just by way of 
opposition to this idea of the gospel being a message mostly 
concerning the Lordship of Christ, the progression of the text in 
Romans 1 to Romans 3, 21 regarding the universality of sin and the 
announcement of the good news immediately following. Now remember, 
the gospel of Jesus Christ, we ought not to say that it does 
not touch upon or concern the lordship of Christ when we talk 
about Christianity and the gospel. But remember what the gospel 
truly is. It is 1 Corinthians 15, three 
and four, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures 
and that he rose again. He was buried and rose again 
the third day according to the scriptures. He was delivered 
up Because of our offenses, he was raised for our justification. We would also want to note the 
antithetical relationship of condemnation to justification 
and the contrast of the revelation of wrath to the revelation of 
righteousness. You see, justification hits upon 
this important note, condemnation. The opposite to justification 
is not unholiness or wickedness. The opposite of justification 
is condemnation. You see, this is why it's so 
important to see in justification the vital nature of the legal 
aspect of it and the doctrine of imputation. If the opposite 
of justification is unholiness or wickedness, then it would 
make sense that our righteousness is infused or that our justification 
is based upon a God-wrought righteousness in us, because that would answer 
wickedness and unholiness. But what answers wickedness and 
unholiness? Well, first off, effectual calling 
through regeneration. But maybe more to the point, 
firstly, definitive sanctification that Christ washes us in his 
blood and consecrates us perfectly unto service to God. But then, 
nextly, progressive justification. Sorry, progressive sanctification. Subtract that. Progressive sanctification, 
definitive sanctification, and progressive sanctification. We 
grow in the grace and in the knowledge of Christ. Those two 
aspects of sanctification answer wickedness and unholiness. Justification 
answers condemnation. That's why it must be a legal 
declaration rendered by the divine magistrate with regards to our 
status before him. Either we're condemned in unbelief 
or we're justified in belief. Our condemnation is based upon 
our union with Adam, he as our federal head. Our justification 
is based upon Christ and his imputed righteousness to us and 
our union with him. And so justification is not an 
answer to wickedness and unholiness, but rather it is the opposite 
to condemnation. And the Bible brings this forth. There is now, therefore, no condemnation 
for those who are in Christ Jesus. Justification answers the problem 
of condemnation. Regeneration and sanctification 
answer the problem of wickedness and unholiness. He speaks in 
no uncertain terms. This is Wallace on Paul's focus 
in Romans. He speaks in no uncertain terms 
that God is absolutely holy, leading to his major point in 
Romans 3, 21 to 26, that our only access to this God is through 
his son, not through our covenantal obedience, not through our evangelical 
obedience in our faithfulness, but solely and alone because 
of and through his son. The good news, John 3.16, Romans 
5.8, 1 Timothy 1.15, the individual aspect of salvation and the fact 
that it pertains to being saved from sin destroys any notion 
of the gospel being mostly concerning the lordship of Christ, as opposed 
to primarily being concerned with the salvation of sinners 
from their sin. Lastly, under the new perspective 
on Paul, when Paul wrote about justification, this would again 
be one of their views. When Paul wrote about justification, 
his concerns were corporate, national, racial, and social, 
not individual and soteriological. They would say when Paul wrote 
about justification and his concerns, oh, this is just repeating what 
I just said. Justification, they would say, doesn't really pertain 
to salvation. It fits more perfectly in the, 
properly in the category of ecclesiology or the doctrine of the church. 
So it's taken away from, now and you see why this is so attractive 
to many is because it puts an emphasis on community and the 
church, which is good and which we ought to have proper emphasis. 
But it should not be at the expense of the biblical doctrine of justification 
and proper salvation. We have a biblical doctrine of 
justification and salvation. We should have and seek after 
a diligent acquisition of the doctrine of the Church. But these 
two aren't in opposition. It is this that builds this. It is this that populates this. And it is this that will protect 
this from those who elevate this over that. And so it's very vital 
to note that the proper things in their proper categories, when 
we confuse, when we conflate, or when we elevate at the expense 
of other things, then we no doubt will enter into error and we 
will do what Calvin warns. It is about, justification is 
about membership in the covenant community. This is what Wright 
says, justification in Galatians is the doctrine which insists 
This is again a wrong, a bad quote by N.T. Wright. Justification 
in Galatians is the doctrine which insists that all who share 
faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their 
racial differences, as they together wait for the final new creation. It's just weird and wrong. That 
is not what justification in Galatians is. Justification in 
Galatians is that we are justified by faith alone and not by the 
works of the law. That if righteousness comes through 
the law, then Christ died in vain. It cuts to the heart, Galatians 
does, of the biblical gospel and justification as a soteriological 
or doctrine of salvation truth. Their view sees the covenantal 
faithfulness of God and our covenantal faithfulness working together 
unto a future justification rendered at the eschaton or last day. 
So you could see why, I don't want to step on anyone's toes 
who's a Piper fan, but you could see why John Piper would ask 
Doug Wilson to, you know, to speak with him at conferences. And you could see why he would 
say that NT Wright gets the gospel right, is because there is this 
idea of a future justification based upon eschatological proclamation. and reward for works of obedience. 
Now, I would qualify by saying that John Piper is inconsistent. He would uphold justification 
by faith alone, but introduces some dangerous and confusing 
concepts in his writing, especially in his response in Christianity 
Today to N.T. Wright. One man has noted that 
he probably wasn't the best choice to render a response to N.T. Wright on justification. There 
were many other better candidates. but all that for another time. The historic Protestant view 
of justification, according to them, does not do justice to 
the richness and precision of Paul's doctrine and indeed distorts 
it at various points. So we would want to respond, 
of course, and there will be a longer response in two weeks' 
time as we unfold the biblical doctrine in an entire Sunday 
without having then to deal with modern deviations. But we would 
want to, again, point to the Book of Acts and justification 
by Christ that the pattern of apostolic proclamation is centered 
around Christ's work, his death, his resurrection for the forgiveness 
of sins. The individual aspect, again, 
in the example of the publican, the tax collector, and the Pharisee, 
and, of course, Paul in Galatians 1, and maybe even more in Galatians 
2, 16 through 21. Romans 5.1 and Ephesians 2.14, 
Romans 8.1, the historical, the declarative, and completed aspect 
of justification in opposition to this idea that it is progressive 
leading unto a future eschatological declaration of justified. The 
biblical evidence, the clarity of the Bible is that justification 
is a one-time legal declaration made by God concerning the status 
of the believer as righteous in his sight based upon the righteousness 
of Christ. Romans 5, 1, remember, therefore 
having being justified by faith, we have peace with God through 
our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul eloquently and decisively, 
Wallace says, with firm echoes from OT legal literature, Old 
Testament legal literature, shows that God has not lowered his 
standard of holiness in the cross, but has in fact established it. 
You see, it is again a reduction of the holiness of God to propagate 
these views of the doctrine of justification. He would go on 
to write, Wallace would, Exodus 23.7 and Isaiah 5.23, Proverbs 
17, clearly show that to justify the ungodly in legal contexts 
can mean to declare the ungodly innocent. In other words, they 
carry legal, of phraseology similar to those 
instances. Romans 3.21 to 26 and Romans 
4.5 can be compared with Exodus 23.7, Isaiah 5.23 and Proverbs 
17 to see that these are legal concepts and legal phraseology. 
Again, justification on one side, condemnation on the other. Just 
as God or just as, you know, we're not made wicked so in condemnation, 
so in justification, we're not made righteous but declared so. 
Condemnation is a legal declaration. Justification is a legal declaration. So that brings us close to the 
end here with regards to the new perspective on Paul. Just 
to sum up the federal vision, Next time what we'll do is we'll 
focus on the biblical presentation of justification, the fourfold 
aspect of it that we noted last time with regards to the author, 
the grounds, the instrument, etc. But with regards to the 
federal vision, another danger to the historical and Protestant 
and biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, and other modern 
deviation from biblical justification. Two modern proponents, there 
would be others, would be Doug Wilson and Peter Lightheart. 
Some of the aspects of their view with regards to justification, 
they would view righteousness as relational, not necessarily 
moral. There would be a failure to make 
clear, this comes from an article by the OPC actually on their 
site. A failure to make clear the difference 
between our faith and Christ's. You see what we would see there? 
Christ's faithfulness is what avails for our justification. There can be a failure to properly 
distinguish between those two things and have them in their 
proper categories. It is Christ's faithfulness alone 
that merits the believer's justification, not our faith or faithfulness. 
A denial of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ 
in our justification. Defining justification exclusively 
as the forgiveness of sins. The reduction of justification 
to Gentile inclusion. Again, that relates well with 
the new perspective on Paul. And then including works by use 
of faithfulness or obedience in the very definition of faith. 
You see, the definition of faith is vital to uphold. We cannot 
allow for works and obedience to be imported into faith as 
one of its constituent parts. Works necessarily follow and 
necessarily flow from one who truly has a regenerate faith, 
but it is not to be confused with, brought into, and conflated 
with faith in any conception of biblical theology. And so 
those are some modern deviations from from biblical justification. If there's any questions after 
we close, feel free to ask. Next time, in two weeks' time, 
we'll have a look at positive things. We'll have a look at 
what the biblical data says with regards to justification, what 
God says with regards to justification. But to close with a couple quotes 
from our old brother, C.H. Spurgeon, on modern deviations 
to historical doctrine. A great inventor is to make bread 
without flour, and he is preparing the plan of a house which is 
to have no foundations. Wonderful, isn't it? We are no 
longer to eat grapes as they come from the vines. They are 
so old-fashioned. We are to have them after they 
have been squeezed in a patent press and have been fashioned 
into cakes of mathematical shape. We should not be at all surprised 
to hear that our steamboats are all a mistake and have become 
things of the past, being in fact superseded by electrified 
tablecloths, which each man withdraws from his dining table, spreads 
on the top of the water, and then uses as an instantaneously 
prepared raft, which he steers with his knife and fork. When 
this comes about, we shall still be found sticking to the unchanged 
and unchangeable word of God. There will be no new God. nor 
a new devil, and we shall never have a new savior nor a new atonement. Why should we then be either 
attracted or alarmed by the error and nonsense which everywhere 
plead for a hearing because they are new? What is their newness 
to us? We are not children nor frequenters 
of playhouses. Truly, to such a new toy or a 
new play, truly, such a new toy or a new play has immense attractions, 
but men care less about the age of a thing than about its intrinsic 
value. To suppose that theology can 
be new is to imagine that the Lord himself is of yesterday. A doctrine which is said to have 
lately become true must of necessity be a lie. Falsehood has no beard, 
but truth is hoary with an age immeasurable. The old gospel 
is the only gospel. Pity is our only feeling toward 
those young preachers who cry, see my new theology. in just 
the same spirit as Little Mary says, see my pretty new frock. 
There is something so enticing and yet so flimsy in the modern 
theological school that I feel constrained to warn you constantly 
against it. Its mystery is absurdity and 
its depth is pompous ignorance. There is no theology in it. It 
is a futile device to conceal the want of theological knowledge. 
A man with an education that may be complete in every department 
except that in which he should excel, stands up and would teach 
Christians that all they have learned at the feet of Paul has 
been a mistake, that a new theology has been discovered, that the 
old phrases which we have used are out of date, the old creeds 
broken up. Well, what shall we do to this 
wiseacre and his fellow sages? Serve them wherever you meet 
them or their disciples as Job did so far. Laugh at them. Dash 
their language to pieces. and remind them that the best 
things they tell us are only what the fishes of the sea or 
the fowls of the air knew before them, and that their grandest 
discoveries are but platitudes which every child has known before, 
or else they are heresies that ought to be scouted from the 
earth. Amen. We believe in the old perspective 
on Paul, which is the Bible, God's presentation of justification, 
and that being solely based on the perfect, finished, and completed 
work of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray. Heavenly 
Father, we rejoice in the ability to gather in freedom to discuss 
doctrine, to learn, to study, to know what you have revealed 
to us concerning how a man can be righteous in your sight. And 
we rejoice knowing and having been made known by your Spirit 
and by your Word that the only way a man can be justified is 
through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that the righteousness 
of justification is not our own, but rather is that of Christ, 
His perfect work rendered in our stead. We do pray that you 
would help us to glory in this truth, to not simply rest upon 
it as a bit of knowledge acquired, but to rejoice in the biblical 
doctrine of justification, that we would as Paul exhorted and 
as Paul wrote, that having been justified by faith, that we would 
rejoice in that peace that we have with you. We do pray that 
you'd help us now as we go into worship, help us to rejoice in 
you, that we would sing the praises of our triune God, rejoice in 
the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and that you would be the recipient 
of all honor and praise. And we pray in Christ's name, 
amen.