Here is what Dr. Richard Gaffin said during the fifth lecture at the 2005 Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference:
What about justification and the “not-yet” of our salvation? May we think of our justification as, in some sense, still future?
In other words, as I would want to pose the question for us now, and I would hope that you would be with me in this—on the same page—should we see Paul’s teaching on justification in terms of his already/not-yet view of the Christian—the anthropological grid provided by Second Corinthians 4.16?
Now it might seem, as an initial action, that our answer here should be in the negative, and, in fact, an emphatic negative. And the reason that many have for this reaction is not only understandable, but bound to be appreciated. To speak of justification as in any sense future, that appears to take away from its already definitive character, its settled certainty. To view justification as in some sense still future seems to threaten or to undermine its definitive finality for the Christian.
And I will just say here that it would surely betray and misrepresent Paul if anything I go on to say here should be heard or allowed to call into question that settled certainty. No more or no less, by the way, than the settled certainty of my/our already being resurrected.
But now, consider with me for a few moments that Paul’s teaching on justification should not be excluded or isolated from his present/future, already/not-yet outlook on the Christian.
Some reasons that I think point us to that conclusion:
But first—not so much as a reason, but to put things in a certain theological/historical/confessional perspective—a background that is provided by the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Shorter Catechism 38 asks this question: “What befits to believers receive from Christ at the resurrection?” The Larger Catechism asking, as I understand it, essentially the same question, phrased somewhat differently: “What shall be done to the righteous at the Day of Judgment?” And the answer to that question includes this phrasing, as many of you will be aware: “believers shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the Day of Judgment.”
So, you see, the point of the Westminster Standards is that, for Christians, the Final Judgment is relevant and will involve, in fact, our acquittal—what is said more precisely to be an open acquittal. And, as you might anticipate in terms of the principle of Second Corinthians 5.7, that notion of open acquittal, the openness, is an important factor, as we’ll see further.
See, for believers, the outcome, the verdict (still future), and what the Shorter Catechism identifies as one of the benefits involved, that outcome/verdict (judicial) will be their acquittal, their being declared “not guilty.”
Now, to be acquitted or to be justified, are largely interchangeable. They overlap semantically, even if they’re not fully synonymous. Acquittal is at the heart of justification. So the catechisms are saying, in effect, virtually, for the believer the Final Judgment will have in some sense an acquitting, that is to say, justifying significance. The Final Judgment will be in some sense my justification.
I’ll be posting more of what Dr. Gaffin said in a bit. But for the moment I want to compare this to what is claimed in the OPC’s report about the so-called “Federal Vision.”
At first everything seems quite Gaffinesque. For example, lines 172-174:
Justifying the guilty is a noble act taken in a transformative sense; it is reprehensible when taken in a forensic sense. Among relevant examples are Exod 23:6-7 (“I will not acquit [justify] the wicked”); Deut 25:1 (judges should be “acquitting [justifying] the innocent and condemning the guilty”)…
Lines 261-263:
In the Mosaic law, God declares his inability to render a verdict that is not based strictly on the works of the accused: “I will not acquit [justify] the wicked” (Exod 23:7).
Here, there is no comment that the English translation of the Bible the committee is using is somehow inaccurate. They simply ensure that readers know the same Hebrew word is being used in these verses. Acquit, in this context, means “justify.” And again in lines 1937 and 1938:
This parallel reveals that justification is a present reality pronounced over the sinner who believes in Christ. The “now” adds the fine distinction of the continuing “just” status of those who are acquitted.
So far this use of terminology is perfectly consistent with Dr. Gaffin’s own exposition of the Westminster Catechisms. But then, in lines 1949-1952 everything changes:
Our doctrinal standards do not speak of a second justification but rather in terms of an open acknowledgement and acquittal on the day of judgment: “What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment? A. At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted” (WLC 90; emphasis; cf. WSC 38).
I don’t know how to account for this, unless the Committee means something strange by “second” justification that they impute to the writers they are attacking. If so, as one of their named targets, I simply deny the charge and point out that the Committee needs to prove their case.
The justification Jesus received at his resurrection, the justification we receive when we are effectually called by the Spirit to be united to Christ by faith, and our open acquittal at the Last Day are all one. Jesus’ resurrection was not a separate harvest but the firstfruits of the one harvest, the one Judgment that will occur at the Last Day. If we are entrusted to Christ then that Final Judgment verdict already applies to us and will be declared openly at the resurrection as it was declared on Jesus at his resurrection.
Mark – is there an appropriate way for me to get my hands on the OPC report? My email address is kenchristian@cox.net
Mark,
I think the key is the use of the word “second”. Gaffin has made plain in all his discussions on this matter that the “not yet” of our justification is not a “different/seperate/second” justification but the same justification that we now have by faith made visible (by sight) on the last day.
I think Jesse is right as far as Dr. Gaffin is concerned. If you call the final, open aquittal a second justification then it is extremely difficult (at least for me)not to see that as a new, dinstinct justification that was not secured when we placed our faith in Christ.
Would it not be better to affirm with Dr. Gaffin the “oneness” of justification in its two aspects (present/future) so as to not even give a hint that you are arguing for a first justification by faith and a second justification at the judgment that is not a present and secure reality for the Christian?
Or is this precisely what you are affirming and I am misundertanding?
Ben
Ben, are you surprised I would affirm this? I’m sorry if I sound bitter, but as far as I can tell, Wright himself has insisted that justification is that final future verdict brought into the present.
Do we see any real argument in the report for this perjorative construction of Wright (to say nothing of the Presbyterians who appreciate Wright)? As far as I can tell, the report is worthless unless you trust a bunch of unargued assertions on matters of fact regarding the content of what the reports’ targets believe and teach.
And in any case, Benedict Pictet has long been affirmed as a stalwart of Reformed Orthodoxy, and he explicitly states that James is speaking of a “second justification.” This shibboleth test teaches us much about how social groups are able to affirm themselves by alienating others, but it tells us nothing about how one derives and confesses a consistent theology from Scripture or the Westminster Confession, or the Reformation heritage.
Above and beyond all this, there is still an amazing gap between the way Gaffin argues from the term “acquitted” in the Westminster Standards, and the way the Committee dismisses that same word (or between the Committee’s own use of English Bible translations and their dismssal of the Confessions use of the word). Here again there is no logic to follow. There are simply conclusions asserted in the face of obvious precedents. This is about group identity, not faithfulness to Scripture or love of the Reformed tradition.
Ben, does it not bother you at all that no one called me or Rich Lusk or Peter Leithart or anyone else and asked about “two justifications”?
I am not saying that you believe something that is wrong, I am just attempting to show how it seems extremely liable to misunderstanding to affirm two justifications (whether Pictet did so or not).
I think I would put the issue of regeneration in the same category. Calvin obviously used regeneration to refer to much more than the initial work of the Holy Spirit causing a person to be spiritually enlightened, but given the systematic sense attached to the term in Reformed circles now, we should be very careful to affirm (if we follow Calvin) what the current sense of the word regeneration affirms as well.
I do agree with you that people should attempt to understand what you mean by two justifications, but it seems to me that it wouldn’t hurt to jetison that language (even if you mean it in a completely orthodox sense) simply because of the confusion it is causing.
I don’t see how you have to deny in any way what you are wanting to affirm about justification by also saying that there are not two distinct justifications.
It would probably help me if you could simply lay out what you mean, because I find myself (probably my own fault) confused by the language of two justifications. I don’t see how the “oneness” and organic solidarity of present and future aspects of justification can be affirmed when two justifications are affirmed.
I suspect that you mean the same thing that Gaffin means… although I am fairly sure that he is not comfortable using the language of two justifications.
Ben
I realized that you laid out what you think in the last paragraph of your post.
That seems to be exactly what Dr. Gaffin affirms, however I still, for the life of me, cannot see why we would want to call this “two justifications”.
Why not just say as you have:
“The justification Jesus received at his resurrection, the justification we receive when we are effectually called by the Spirit to be united to Christ by faith, and our open acquittal at the Last Day are all one.”?
Regardless of what Pictet says (which I am not familiar with), what you have said here seems to be a much better way of putting it and in line with the WCF.
Ben
I don’t understand how people can fulminate about how Justification is totally “forensic” and yet not see that an “aquittal” is precisely the word for a forensic justification.
Ben, if I have affirmed “two justifications” (I can’t remember doing so but that doesn’t mean I didn’t do it at some point), I would be happy to change the expression in line with what I wrote above and that you quoted. That is my theology.
As far as I know, the claim that there were two utterly different justifications that cannot be explained in terms of the already/not-yet dynamic of the Bible, is one that originates in the OPC report, not in Wright or anyone else. It would be easy to construct an accusation against Gaffin on this point if was to read him uncharitably. I’m asking for the same respect to be shown to others.
Thank you a thousand times for this post! I just finished Gaffin’s Acts & Paul course at WTS. Time and again, as he explained the already/not-yet character of all of the benefits of salvation (justification) included, I found myself shaking my head in utter consternation that Gaffin continues to think he differs substantially from Wright, whose “future justification being pulled back into and applied in the present” is really saying quite the same thing.
At one point in the course, Gaffin even made the emphatic point that in Paul’s theology, the present flows out of the future, rather than vice versa.
Pingback: Catholic-Protestant Dialogue » Blog Archive » Athanasian Creed