Justifying Justification? What Next?

Word has it that some parts of the world of Reformed Christianity have got all up in arms about something called "covenantal nomism," and the way in which some people wish to use the word "justification" in connection with this awkward label. Before banning it altogether from my blog (finally! I am king over something even if tis but a small fiefdom), I shall offer a few brief comments upon it.

Although I think VanTillian types have well earned the right to say - but only once in a long while - "covenantal epistemology," no one should ever be caught saying "covenantal nomism." Is this contagious? It sounds far too Leibnizian, and might easily lead people to think you are in love with Latin. Take a medical degree if you must, but please find a less awkward way to speak. Surely, the array of terms found on the Reformed soteriology menu can already manage what you wish to say in more familiar language. Do we really need a new flavor for every dessert?

The truth is that "justification," a forensic (legal or juridical) act of God, in which He, acting as Judge, formally acquits -- declares innocent, not guilty -- a man for the sake of Jesus, represents an act occuring in history at the moment a person is "born again." Theologians like to call this new birth "regeneration." This way, God renders the man He aquits actually fit for the acquittal, since the new nature (the seed born of God) cannot sin.

And, of course, this means world war 3 is on. And you are caught in the middle.

The flesh battles against the Spirit, and the Spirit strengthens the inner man or new nature, against the flesh. The new nature, empowered by the indwelling Spirit -- who may need to slap you around from time to time to get your attention -- always gains the victory in the end. I know, but you should see the other guy.

This man then, by the means of grace and the providential "hammering" of the Almighty in his life, grows in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. Remember those seven golden lampstands? Each was made of "hammered" work. Yes, it says in Hebrew roughly "Hit you with big hammer." Churches do not usually advertise this.

This means that when you pray for sanctification, you are asking for a good old-fashioned heavenly whoopin. Christians learn to pray for sanctification so they can learn to pray for mercy. It's a vicious cycle without the vice.

This growth in holiness of life, "sanctification," seldom occurs in a smooth, even way. Job and Peter took sanctification on the chin. Paul was a veritable wound collection, whose resume of beatings for the kingdom could even have impressed Jonah. Jonah, you will recall, was eaten alive and partially digested with seaweed, like an oceanic pizza. Some have argued that he actually died and was raised since the Lord refered to his own resurrection as the "sign of Jonah." One thing is sure, Jonah got bleached very bright white.

Sanctification is the necessary outgrowth (or better, up-growth) of regeneration. The new nature feeds on Christ by faith and the appointed means for so doing, is nurtured, grows and becomes established only fully and finally at death. The man who walks according to the law and Gospel keeps covenant, as the Spirit both enables and sovereignly keeps him in it, until the last day of his life.

When he dies in the Lord, God confirms him forever in the covenant of grace by the same oath Christ entered God's rest. Hebrews mentions two oaths: one against those who fell in the desert -- if they shall enter my rest -- and one to the seed of Abraham (which is Christ and those in Him), "The Lord hath sworn, and will not change His mind: you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." So much for Arminian views of salvation. If you could choose your way in, you could thereafter choose your way out at any future time. Heaven would never be secure against backsliding (and then fore-sliding) Arminians. Fortunately for you and me, Salvation is of the Lord. So heaven has no yo-yo members, saved on Wednesday, but not on Friday.

This renders the Arminian view of heaven somewhat like Wal-Mart, where with falling prices, you never really know from week to week how much someone has to pay to get the goods. And it turns out you are only renting anyway. You're in, you're out. Back in! Not so much. It was just another purchasing dept. prank. The sliding doors at Wal-mart are very busy.

Some view the priesthood of Melchizedek as only belonging to the Lord Jesus, as though the saints do not inherit along with him all things. Revelation plainly teaches that God has made us "priests and kings to OUR God," after the manner of the Lord Jesus, and for His glory. Levitical priests cannot be kings. Never could, never will be. The priesthood of every believer is that of Christ, who alone sits as High Priest. But there are many priests. Whoever heard of a priesthood with just one priest? That doesn't even work in football.

In any case, the two oaths of Hebrews turn out to be simply the blessings, on the one hand, and curses on the other, of one and the same covenant of grace. All tickets to purgatory have been canceled because biblical covenants have no third option. Covenant theology and Rome's "great ideas" do not mix.

The sticking point in the two-part justification controversy of late seems to be the question: "What do you call that point of entering glory, when a faithful man is confirmed finally in the covenant of grace at his death? Some wish to call this the second part or aspect of "justification."

This amounts to a recommendation for a wholesale revision of the way Reformed types have used theological language for a very long time, and the way the Church of Christ has used it in her confessions. Part of the problem is that we do not have a technical term for the final step in "improving one's baptism," a concept well familiar to the Westminster Assembly. But the final step in so doing, in which God confirms and establishes one's soul forever in the state of grace, this may yet need a name. Traditionally, departing the estate of sin and misery, and entering the final state of grace (glory) -- for the grace of God leads to glory -- has simply been called "glorification."

But the Bible does speak of this in terms of covenantal progress, with respect to oath-keeping, or keeping the covenant of grace. So the covenantal vantage point from which those wishing to name this point of final transition actually has a biblical picture of sanctification in mind. It asks questions worth asking.

If you keep doing this (confirming your baptismal oath of loyalty to Jesus), you will do so eventually one last time, since people die. God does in fact -- by way of Lex Talionis -- make a kind of reciprocal declaration here, which amounts to a vindication, or victory declaration, a final establishing of that man in the covenant of grace forever. But this is not the "second half" of anything, but a kind of reciprocal act of faithfulness on God's part.

Moreover, it could be viewed in a larger context, which keeps going. After this the man is brought by angels into the presence of Christ who acknowledges the saint before God and the angels as Christ promised. Aha! what do we call this! And then there is the heavenly stay, and its point of exit at the resurrection (heaven is not eternal since Jesus is leaving it), where the dead in Christ rise first. "The Lord said to My Lord, "Sit Thou at my right hand UNTIL all your enemies are made a footstool for your feet."

This point of general migration from heaven to earth (what goes up ....) forms the first part of the general resurrection (then those alive in Christ are translated into glory apart from death). So perhaps a theological event-label committee is in order, to hammer out the finer points of just which event happens when -- and just what we should call each -- in personal and corporate soteriological actions of significance to the covenant theology of the Bible.

This final confirming of the man in the covenant of grace does, however, initatiate a two-part (or three if you zoom out) process. First, Hebrews calls this the "spirits of just men made perfect," or "glorified spirits" we commonly say. But the spirit enters glory ahead of the body, which is raised only later, so that Christians inherit together at one and the same time.

But they die, and enter glory, at different times throughout history, when the spirit departs the body. So, while recognizing what the confessional standards have taught all along -- this is not as new as some would have us believe -- that a man who recieves baptism God calls to confirm it repeatedly, repenting and confessing his sins and seeking after newness of life in Christ as a way of life, does in fact at his life's end receive upon entering glory a confirming affirmation from the Lord, which establishes him forever in the covenant of grace. We might consider this as one and the same vindication as that which a man receives before God and the angels in heaven.

What baptism initiates (only once), the Lord's supper is appointed to confirm repeatedly, namely, an oath of allegiance to Jesus (the baptismal formula of old was simply "Jesus is Lord"), which brings him into the community of faith, called the Church. The final point of this covenantal trajectory of fidelity probably needs a name we can all agree on, but I, for one, suggest we make it something other than "justification." This term is already taken, and it's use in this manner only invites extreme confusion.

I prefer vindication, which, some could lobby against on this or that ground, depending on just how we might wish to cut the soteriological cake. Vindication actually comprises a biblical term used for the resurrection of Christ. Resurrection, of course, forms the second "half" of glorification. Thus, I am recommending a use of vindication for three distinct events: 1. entry in glory of the spirit of a just man made perfect (this covenantal confirmation happens at death) 2. Christ's heavenly declaration before God and angels 3. The resurrection of the body unto glory at the end of the millenium. These we could distinguish easily with the prefixes "earthly," "heavenly" and "final."

This would mean that in my proposed vocabulary that earthly vindication forms the point of contention in the present debate. Whatever the prefered label ("final confirmation" is biblically acceptable), I think we would be better off calling it "escaping the I.R.S." than "justification."

And at least the former we can agree hasn't been used yet.

Now kids, stop throwing stones at each other. Taint Christian. Personally, I suspect that anyone who says "covenantal nomism" more than once in a half hour is probably keeping my ears busy while he's reaching for my wallet -- a covenantal no-ism -- under the eighth commandment.

I, the sovereign of this blogspace, do hereby declare that there will be no overusing of terms with too many syllables, and no inventing of new flavors on the Baskin Robins ice cream menu. You have 31 to mix and match already. Try chocolate syrup this time, or something else we already know about without reinventing whipped cream.

Okay, that settles it. I'm hungry.