LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

as formulated by the advocates of the so-called New Perspective on Paul is nothing less than a fundamental repudiation not just of that Protestantism which seeks to stand within the creedal and doctrinal trajectories of the Reformation but also of virtually the entire Western tradition on justification from at least as far back as Augustine.75

      Wright believes the Reformers saw in first century Judaism a people who were seeking acceptance with God through their good works, and, no doubt, he would fully endorse the words of Duncan:

At the heart of the NPP’s critique of both Protestant and Catholic teaching interpretation of Paul is the charge that Reformational-era theologians read Paul via a medieval framework that obscured the categories of first century Judaism, resulting in a complete misunderstanding of his teaching on justification. The ideas of “the righteousness of God,” “imputation,” and even the definition of justification itself-all these have been invented or misunderstood by Lutheran and Catholic traditions of interpretation.76

      Again, Wright agrees with Alister McGrath in his two-volume work on justification, where he states the doctrine:

Has come to develop a meaning quite independent of its biblical origins, and concerns the means by which man’s relationship with God is established. The church has chosen to subsume its discussion of the reconciliation of man to God under the aegis of justification, thereby giving the concept an emphasis quite absent from the New Testament. The ‘doctrine of justification’ has come to bear a meaning within dogmatic theology which is quite independent of its Pauline origins.77

Are we seriously to believe that the old perspective’s understanding of justification is “independent of its Pauline origins”? That “Imputation is nowhere to be found, in either the teaching of Paul or anywhere else in the New Testament? I have no doubt that McGrath’s words fit a number of views on this doctrine from the church’s long history, however, I find it hard to accept that such a critique can be applied to the Reformed position. One could well ask what it is that makes McGrath’s interpretation true, while others, as qualified as him, argue the opposite? While I agree that there is more to our salvation than justification, for example, regeneration, adoption etc., which, it should be noted, the Reformers would not deny, it is Wright’s understanding of this doctrine that falls short of the mark. He tells us that: “I want my people to understand and hear the whole word of God, not just the parts of it that fit someone’s system.”78 I don’t believe there is any who would not acquiesce with this. However, at the subconscious level, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for one to put aside all previous ideas. One finds that Wright has contorted the word to make it fit his own system; effectively he has taken a preconceived idea and has galloped through the New Testament with it.

      Although agreeing with the Reformers that justification is expressed forensically in the terms of the law court, Wright denies any two-way exchange:

In the Hebrew law court, the judge does not give, bestow, impute, or impart his own “righteousness” to the defendant. That would imply that the defendant was deemed to have conducted the case impartially, in accordance with the law, to have punished sin and upheld the defenceless innocent ones. “Justification” of course means nothing like that. “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. The “righteousness” of the defendants is the status they possess when the court has found in their favour. Nothing more, nothing less. When we translate these forensic categories back into their theological context, that of the covenant, the point remains fundamental” the divine covenant faithful is not the same as human covenant membership.79

      To be accepted by God there must be both the forgiveness of sin, and also the imputation of that which Christ secured by his active obedience. This is why the believer’s possession of Christ’s righteousness lies at the heart of the Reformed Baptist understanding of justification. The words of Owen are particularly pertinent here

      It is not enough to say that we are not guilty. We must also be perfectly righteous. The law must be fulfilled by perfect obedience if we would enter into eternal life. And this is found only in Jesus (Rom 5:10). His death reconciled us to God. Now we are saved by his life. The perfect actual obedience that Christ rendered on earth is that righteousness by which we are saved. His righteousness is imputed to me so that I am counted as having perfectly obeyed the law myself. This must be my righteousness if I would be found in Christ, not having my own righteousness which is of the law, but the righteousness which is of God by faith (Phil 3:9).

      The holy character of God cannot, as Wright claims, just find in favor of the sinner, he can only do this if an actual righteousness is present. To do otherwise would be to undermine his holiness. Again, to quote Owen:

For that any may be reputed righteous—that is, be judged or esteemed to be so—there must be a real foundation of that reputation, or it is a mistake, and not a right judgment; as any man may be reputed to be wise who is a fool, or be reputed to be rich who is a beggar. Wherefore, he that is reputed righteous must either have a righteousness of his own, or another antecedently imputed unto him, as the foundation of that reputation. Wherefore, to impute righteousness unto one that hath none of his own, is not to impute him to be righteous who is indeed unrighteous; but it is to communicate a righteousness unto him, that he may rightly and justly be esteemed, judged, or reputed righteous.80

      Maintaining Christ’s redemptive work to have only secured the forgiveness of sins is to grossly misconstrue the true nature of justification. In the words of John Murray:

. . . it is prejudicial to the grace and nature of justification to construe of it merely in terms of remission. This is so to such an extent that the bare notion of remission does not express, nor does it of itself imply, the concept of justification. The latter means not simply that the person is free from guilt but is accepted as righteous; he is declared to be just. In the judicially constitutive and in the declarative sense he is righteous in God’s sight. In other words, it is the positive judgment on God’s part that gives to justification its specific character.81

      The righteousness that God bestows on those in Christ occurs instantaneously, being a forensic declaration that one is now considered both forgiven and righteous. It is a consequence of being placed into Christ. This righteousness must not be confused with that which the apostle refers to in texts like Romans 8:3–4, where the righteousness is not forensic, but concerns the believer’s progressive sanctification. In regard to justification, the only ones who may dwell in his presence are those who meet the necessary criteria, namely, possessing righteousness and being forgiven for sin, as the Psalmist said, “O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill? He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart” (Ps 15:1–2). Wright, however, maintains that forgiveness and membership of the covenant is sufficient:

Paul can assume that “reckoning righteousness apart from works and “not reckoning sin against someone” are equivalents. The covenant, we must always remind ourselves, was there to deal with sin; when God forgives sin, or reckons someone within the covenant [=justifies], these are functionally equivalent. They draw attention to different aspects of the same event.82

      He holds no punches in regard to the imputation of righteousness, maintaining it to be impossible, even nonsense:

To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works . . . If and when God does act to

Скачать книгу