"Of course, it goes without saying that if Luther's fundamental understanding of Paul was in error, so was John Calvin's. While there are no doubt subtle differences between the two magisterial Reformers, there can also be no doubt that as far as the matter of justification goes, they are in essential agreement. Like a long line of carefully positioned dominos falling one upon another, if Calvin's view of justification is erroneous, the entire confessional Reformed tradition which developed in his shadow, on both ecclesiastical and academic levels, will be forced to undertake a drastic revision of its understanding of the nature of the gospel and the central article of its faith. The church semper reformanda will indeed need to reform its own gospel. It is hard to imagine a more radical undertaking this side of 1517." - Kim Riddlebarger

The point of my post is not to argue against the validity of the New Perspective on Paul, or NT Wrights views on Justification. My point is to simply point out, that you cannot and should not call yourself "Reformed" and/or "Presbyterian" and be an advocate of the New Perspective on Paul. I will argue in later posts about the validity of the New Perspective. I have found myself lately arguing with men who go to Presbyterian Churches, or Reformed and Confessional Churches and while holding to the New Perspective on Paul. This is the point of contention for me. I want to simply point out that any denial of the imputation of Christ' righteousness to the Believer is to make oneself (Non-Reformed).

The issue- is Imputation.

NT Wright says in his book, What St. Paul Really Said on the doctrine of imputation- "“‘Righteousness’ is not a quality or substance that can thus be passed or transferred from the judge to the defendant. The righteousness of the judge is the judge’s own character, status, and activity, demonstrated in doing these various things.” In contrast, for defendants to be declared righteous is simply “the status they possess when the court has found in their favor. Nothing more, nothing less.”[98] Wright re-defines impuatation as God's Covenant Faithfulness.     "N. T. Wright’s denial of Christ’s imputed righteousness fits the pattern of his more general redefinition of the doctrine of justification, and it bears all the mark of Wright’s emphasis on ecclesiology over soteriology. "- Richard Phillips

Alister McGrath has stated so succinctly, "if Wright is correct, Martin Luther is wrong." Alister McGrath, "Reality, Symbol & History: Theological Reflections on N.T. Wright’s Portrayal of Jesus," Jesus and the Restoration of Israel, edited by Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1999), 169.

It is my claim that Wright and the NPP deny the Classic Reformed View of Imputation. Again, there may be some that would dispute my claim, but I think it is evident that Wright does deny the Reformed view of imputation. With that said, I come to the point. To deny imputation is to no longer be Reformed, and Presbyterian. I am not arguing (at the moment) that those who deny imputation are outside the faith, I am arguing that they are outside the Reformed and Presbyterian Church. Why are so many men trying to stay in the PCA, or even the PCUS, or any Reformed/Confessional Church while advocating the New Perspective. I had a friend who went over to the NPP and we discussed how could he stay in a Presbyterian Church and be in favor of the NPP? I think it is dishonest to stay in Reformed/Confessional and/or Presbyterian bodies and hold to the NPP.

Here's why:

WCF- CHAP. XI. - Of Justification.

1. 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 any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

2nd Helvetic Confession- Chap. XV

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ's sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ's righteousness to us as our own (II Cor. 5;19 ff.; Rom. 4;25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us.

Westminster Shorter Catechism- Q/A 33

Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

Heidelberg Catechism- Q/A 60 and 61

Q. 60- How are thou righteous before God?

Answer . Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

Answer . Not that I am acceptable to God, on account of the worthiness of my faith; but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God; and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only.

If one finds himself advocating the New Perspective, then one should leave the Reformed Church, the PCA, or any other Confessional body that holds to the Reformed and Classical view of Imputation.  To do anything else would be disingenuous at best.  Try the Anglican or Methodist Church instead.

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

My friend John Chitty over at Captain Headknowledge got me to thinking about Lent in his response to my post on Fat Tuesday.  So, I decided to see what John Calvin had to say on the matter.  He has something to say... You be the judge.

Calvin's Institutes Book 4, Chapter 12, Section 20-21

20. Degeneration of fasting in the history of the church

Then the superstitious observance of Lent had everywhere prevailed: for both the vulgar imagined that they thereby performed some excellent service to God, and pastors commended it as a holy imitation of Christ; though it is plain that Christ did not fast to set an example to others, but, by thus commencing the preaching of the gospel, meant to prove that his doctrine was not of men, but had come from heaven. And it is strange how men of acute judgement could fall into this gross delusion, which so many clear reasons refute: for Christ did not fast repeatedly, (which he must have done had he meant to lay down a law for an anniversary fast,) but once only, when preparing for the promulgation of the gospel. Nor does he fast after the manner of men, as he would have done had he meant to invite men to imitation; he rather gives an example, by which he may raise all to admire rather than study to imitate him. In short, the nature of his fast is not different from that which Moses observed when he received the law at the hand of the Lord, (Exod. 24: 18; 34: 28.) For, seeing that that miracle was performed in Moses to establish the law, it behaved not to be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem inferior to the law. But from that day, it never occurred to any one, under pretence of imitating Moses, to set up a similar form of fast among the Israelites. Nor did any of the holy prophets and fathers follow it, though they had inclination and zeal enough for all pious exercises: for though it is said of Elijah that he passed forty days without meat and drink, (1 Kings 19: 8,) this was merely in order that the people might recognise that he was raised up to maintain the law, from which almost the whole of Israel had revolted.

It was therefore merely false zeal, replete with superstition, which set up a fast under the title and pretext of imitating Christ; although there was then a strange diversity in the mode of the fasts as is related by Cassiodorus in the ninth book of the History of Socrates: "The Romans," says he, "had only three weeks, but their fast was continuous, except on the Lord's day and the Sabbath. The Greeks and Illyrians had, some six, others seven, but the fast was at intervals. Nor did they differ less in the kind of food: some used only bread and water, others added vegetables; others had no objection to fish and fowls; others made no difference in their food." Augustine also makes mention of this difference in his latter epistle to Januarius.

21. Depraved indulgence in seasons of fasting

Worse times followed. To the absurd zeal of the vulgar were added rudeness and ignorance in the bishops, lust of power, and tyrannical rigour. Impious laws were passed, binding the conscience in deadly chains. The eating of flesh was forbidden, as if a man were contaminated by it. Sacrilegious opinions were added, one after another, until all became an abyss of error. And that no kind of depravity might be omitted, they began under a most absurd pretence of abstinence, to make a mock of God; for in the most exquisite delicacies they seek the praise of fasting: no dainties now suffice; never was there greater abundance or variety or savouriness of food. In this splendid display they think that they serve God. I do not mention that at no time do those who would be thought the holiest of them wallow more foully. In short, the highest worship of God is to abstain from flesh, and, with this reservation, to indulge in delicacies of every kind. On the other hand, it is the greatest impiety, impiety scarcely to be expiated by death, for any one to taste the smallest portion of bacon or rancid flesh with his bread. Jerome, writing to Nepotian, relates, that even in his day there were some who mocked God with such follies: those who would not even put oil in their food caused the greatest delicacies to be procured from every quarter; nay, that they might do violence to nature, abstained from drinking water, and caused sweet and costly potions to be made for them, which they drank not out of a cup, but a shell. What was then the fault of a few is now common among all the rich: they do not fast for any other purpose than to feast more richly and luxuriously. But I am unwilling to waste many words on a subject as to which there can be no doubt. All I say is, that, as well in fasts as in all other parts of discipline, the Papists are so far from having anything right, anything sincere, anything duly framed and ordered, that they have no occasion to plume themselves as if anything was left them that is worthy of praise.

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

One of the strangest things I have ever heard was a conversation that one of my family members had with my Dad.  I'll never forget it.  My family is uniquely Protestant, at least the family that I know.  So the question posed to my Dad, seemed strange to me.  I'll never forget her whimsical attitude about the question.  She asked my Dad, "So what are you giving up for Lent?  I'm giving up Chocolate!"  My Dad didn't blink an eye.  He simply said, "I'm giving up Homosexuality."  She said, "But you aren't homosexual."  He said, "Well, as long as we are giving up something easy, I figured that would be pretty easy." 

I have always been fascinated with the ritual of Lent, Fat Tuesday, Ash Wednesday etc... But growing up Baptist in my early years, I always knew this kind of tradition to be uniquely Roman Catholic.  I know today that it is not, and there are Protestants and Reformed Christians who observe the Calendar.  Growing up Baptist, I was pretty clueless about the events around Lent, and Lent itself.  A few years ago,  a co-worker of mine who was Roman Catholic was late to work, because of Ash Wednesday.   She came into my office, and as we spoke, I went to point and wipe something she had on her forehead.  She quickly jumped back and told me what it was.  I had no idea... it was the sign of the cross on her head in ash-form.  (My mistake).  In the past few years, I've done some digging into the Calendar concerning Lent and what Lent is in and of itself.   Here's a link if you care.

One of the things that never made any sense to me was "Fat Tuesday."  How does anyone see the merit in "living it up" a "Carnival" prior to these "worthy" acts of contrition and sacrifice? Anyway, just a thought.  

If you are Protestant, do you follow Lent?  If you are following Lent, what are you giving up?  Hmmmm?  Is it easy?  Any thoughts?

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

1. Why has your presbytery acted and made the statements that you made?

Lane- Our presbytery acted because there was a motion to accept the MVP (Missouri Valley Presbytery) report which failed due to people wanting us to do our own work. So, a study committee was erected (the membership of which is on the original blog post). This was in April of '05.

2. What if any events led up to the decision?

Lane- I believe this has been answered in number 1.

3. Is it right and proper to call your decisions at the Presbytery level, merely a position? Or is it a judgment of a lower court?

Lane- The report is the position of the presbytery. It does not have constitutional authority, because it is a thesis.

4. Is it binding? In other words, if the PCA's (GA) finds no fault or rules that NPP and FV are in the pale of orthodoxy, will your Presbytery leave the PCA?

Lane- It is currently binding. I seriously doubt that the PCA will rule that the FV and NPP is within the bounds of orthodoxy. Dr. Dominic Aquila will see to that. But, in the hypothetical case that they would rule that way, I don't think I could stay in the denomination. I don't think that the presbytery would leave, however.

5. Do you see a wider debate coming in the PCA that will lead to another split akin to the split between the PCUS that led to the formation of the PCA?

Lane- I think we will lose some churches over this. I wouldn't say that it would involve a huge church split, however. In the words of Rick Phillips, we will lose more than we hoped, but fewer than we feared.

6. Do you personally view those in the NPP and FV camps to be outside the pale of Reformed Thought, Orthodoxy, or just not being good Presbyterians?

Lane- I view the distinctives of NPP and FV as outside the pale of orthodoxy as set forth in the WS. They are not compatible with the WS. Whether they are soul-damning heresies, however, is another issue, which our study committee did not specifically address.

I appreciate Lane’s candor. More to come on the NPP and Federal Vision Debate.

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

It seems that a Presbytery in the PCA has handed down a verdict concerning the controversial view of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision.  It seems that the Siouxlands Presbytery has done something unique and made a decision on the veracity of the New Perspective and the Federal Vision.  This is most interesting considering the fact that the PCA hasn't officially ruled on anything yet as a denomination.  According to a letter by the clerk of the Presbytery in July of 06, a committe is investigating the views.  Why has the Siouxlands Presbytery acted?  I think that is a question for another post.  More to come, but you can read for yourself, what the Presbytery decided. 

1. Whereas, all these men do contradict and call into question some or all of the affirmations;

2. And whereas we affirm that any affirmation of what is here denied or any denial of what is here affirmed is a contradiction of the Scriptures and the Westminster standards and constitutes these men outside the system of doctrine expressed in the Westminster standards;

We conclude the following:

1. The proponents of these views are outside the system of doctrine of the Westminster standards and do contradict the Scriptural teaching.

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

(Old Perspective Guy)