BOOK REVIEW: Justified - Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

SPOTTS VERDICT: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Several weeks ago Dr. R. Scott Clark quipped that for a limited time one could "get justified" for less than $10. Of course he was referring to the sale-price of a recently published collection of essays edited by Ryan Glomsrud and Michael Horton for Modern Reformation, simply titled Justified. The irony of the joke is that even to imagine purchasing acceptance with God at any price besides the freely imputed righteousness of Christ alone received by faith alone is ludicrous, and yet it is an idea all too pervasive in Evangelical and even formally Reformed bodies of professed Christians today. While one might not be so blatant as to offer God his Discover Card (which proves again to unacceptable everywhere), there is a widespread de-emphasis away from the once-for-all finished work of Christ as Substitute onto the "faithfulness" of individuals to respond in a way which puts the final ground of justification on their own infused sanctity. To combat this error, the editors have introduced an effective volume aimed squarely at informed laymen and pastors which is rich and scriptural without being overly technical or heavy-handed. Their goal is, "to present a few catalyzing arguments that have the potential to move forward what we think is a stalled debate in evangelicalism and the wider world of New Testament studies," concerning the nature of justification, while showing that "justification still matters."

Incorporating concise, erudite articles from some of the brightest Reformed theologians and teachers, as well as balanced contributions by Lutheran and Roman Catholic Scholars, Justified is a compelling and current treatment of the issues which confront the classic Protestant formula, sola fide, solus Christus. In the first chapter, which itself is worth the price of the book, Horton delivers a error-smashing opening blow to the nasal cartilage of convenantal nomism as put forward by N. T. Wright  and others in the New Perspectives on Paul. Horton informs readers that proponents of the NPP and closely-allied Federal Vision espouse a view that, "believers will be justified or vindicated on the last day on the basis of their cooperation with the Spirit.  For the record this is precisely the official Roman Catholic position.  It is not Pelagian, but it is also not Pauline."

With a dazzling display of academic footwork, Horton summons to court no less than eminent Jewish scholar, Jon D. Levenson, and Roman pontiff Benedict to make the case (from their own wings!) that there are in fact two sorts of ways God relates to man revealed in scripture, covenants of law and covenants of grant. Benedict goes so far as to affirm, "The covenant sealed in the Last Supper, in its inner essence, seems 'new' in the sense of the prophetic promise: it is not a contract with conditions but the gift of friendship, irrevocably bestowed. Instead of law we have grace." Unfortunately, both men confound their admissions by subsuming grace under Law. Benedict asserts, "the covenant with Moses is incorporated into the covenant with Abraham, and the Law becomes a mediator of promise...the law itself is the concrete form of grace. For to know God's will is grace." In his view, the New Covenant that is ratified at the Last Supper "is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant, which is not abrogated, but renewed". (Emphasis mine)

Horton responds, "The deepest distinction in Scripture is not between the Old and New Testaments but between the covenants of law and the covenants of promise that run throughout both.  The two covenant traditions are distinguished in form and content, even throughout the same unfolding history of redemption." Whereas covenants of law function bilaterally and require fulfillment of certain terms of obedience by the subject in order to receive the promised benefits, covenants of grant are purely one-sided. God takes upon Himself to ensure the reception of promised benefits to the one with whom such a covenant is made. In the New Covenant, the elect are assured everlasting life through headship of Christ received by faith alone. "Reformed theology has never argued that God's essential righteousness is transferred to believers, but that the complete fulfillment of the law by our covenant head becomes the basis for the imputation of righteousness...Jesus fulfill all righteousness on behalf of his co-heirs.  So we are saved by works after all, but by Christ's rather than by our own."

Other essays in this fourteen-hit combo-punch include Van Drunen's discussion of the nature of justifying faith; Gathercole's incisive treatment of whether faith means faithfulness; Sproul's criticism of the ecumenical documents, Evangelicals and Catholics Together; Hunsinger's insightful analysis of the tragic confusion introduced by Jonathan Edwards into the doctrine of justification; as well as many other excellent and understandable contributions. The whole volume is as warmly edifying as it is intellectually robust, and cannot fail to stir all but the stoniest hearts.

God granting grace, I believe the editors have succeeded in fashioning a tool capable of helping recover the importance of the classic Protestant understanding of the doctrine justification, if only enough persons can be enticed to discover and wield the truly good news it affirms. Wright, et al, are wrong and Modern Reformation is right: Justification through imputation sola fide still matters.


Was this helpful to you? Please share. Thanks!
© Michael Spotts:. 2010
———————
You are permitted to reproduce and distribute this article in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and that you do not charge any fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For printed copies, as well as web posting, please include the following statement:

By M. Benjamin Spotts:.
Copyright © The Open Life
www.theopenlife.com
Titus 3:3-8



0 comments:

 
befriend