The Future of Justification

[neilhowes]

I Thank you and bless god for your work and time John P.

[Bibliotechno]

I would even go back to "the works of the law" being seen as "boundary markers" interpretation, and ponder if they were actually more like 'badges of honour" or like "wearing the tee shirt" which means they represented a deeper malaise seen in the testament as the Pharisee in Luke 18 (and the comments before v9),   the Korban rule, swallowing gnats, etc.  But also alongside this the "no going back" of Hebrews.  Paul's obvious rage, Then add in the Temple being violently destroyed in the end in AD70. I suspect a lot more was at stake, than just "let's all get along".

[paulpaul-n]

N T Wright is more faithful to the Bible than you Pastor Pipe

[TheCannonofMohammed]

John, with each passing day we are anticipating your commentary on the election, culture, transgenderism, abortion and the equality act. Since you injected yourself into the fray, you owe us a word or two, don't you think?

[philipbenjamin]

Here in only a few words is why both Wright’s view and the Calvinist view of justification are each wrong - and what the correct position is.
Wright separates God’s presence from his approval - so he says we can receive the Holy Spirit at conversion but this isn’t approval - he says the presence of the Spirit is proof that we should expect God to approve of us on the final day. But then what is approval on the last day if not our being united eternally with God - and what is that if not the in dwelling presence of God? So it doesn’t make sense to separate God's presence from his approval - it only succeeds in undermining the foundations and motivation for our being righteous (Wright says we must be righteous as a result of the Spirit’s work to meet with God’s approval).

The Calvinist position says that Gods presence is not only his approval - but his unconditional approval. In saying that the Calvinist must consider God willing to stand with any possible behaviour that a person who has tasted grace manages to exhibit - even knowing defiance of him. But grace is not unconditional acceptance - it is undeserved relationship. The actions of a person who professes a faith which amount to their knowingly setting their lives to live in defiance of God are not under grace. Such a person could theoretically still repent but this is never a reality - people who taste the grace of God once and manage to set their lives to live in defiance of him will not suddenly find anything in God's grace worthy of leading them to repentance. The Calvinist may then attempt to say that the person who behaves this way was never saved - never approved of - but for reasons I will make clear below this is not a possible view.

The correct position is that God’s presence is his approval - but nothing about this arrangement prevents a person who professes a faith from walking away from God and his approval. But this possibility doesn’t mean that people are still lost in their sin - this doesn’t undermine salvation - people who walk away from God don’t do so because they are enslaved - unable to desire or choose to do right. If we are ever under the fullness of grace we always have the desire and freedom to do what is necessary to remain under it. But we are not forced to and so some walk away from God.
I only need to quote 2 Pet 2:20 to show that option 3 is the only correct view of the nature of our relationship with God at conversion. It says enough not only to endorse option 3 but also to refute both option 1 and option 2:
ESV
“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first”.
Option 1 is wrong because it says that have ALREADY escaped the defilements of this world BEFORE the last day
Option 2 is wrong becaue the verse says they can after escaping become entangled and overcome
Therefore Option 3 is correct.