The Apostle Paul writes that Jesus was “justified by the Spirit” (First Timothy 3.16), an obvious reference to his resurrection (Romans 1.3, 4; 8.1ff).

Does this mean that Paul regarded Jesus as unrighteous before that point in time? Of course not.

“Righteous” is a relational concept. The OT saints were justified before God, yet their access was deliberately restricted. Paul can both contrast the justification we have today with that of the OT saints and yet use Abraham as an example of what we have in justification by faith. While the saints were righteous in God’s sight before and after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the ending of restrictions from God’s presence was a real justification–a bestowal of a new status with new rights and privileges.

Biblically speaking, a person can be justified when he is already justified. So, to say some event is a justification, a declaration that one is in the right, is not necessarily to say that the person was unjustified previous to that point.

(Remember, the Westminster documents give a definition of justification that is only meant to apply to certain cases. If you applied that definition to First Timothy 3.16 you would end up blaspheming Jesus.)

This is why heated reactions to baptismal justification or final justification are premised on faulty logic—a false antithesis that says in such cases one must have not be justified in any real sense prior to the event.

The positions may still be wrong, but one cannot dismiss them on this basis. One will have to argue from the Bible.

One Presbyterian critic writes regarding Norman Shepherd and his book The Call of Grace,

What, then, does Shepherd teach about the Mosaic Covenant, and the Law as its central feature? First, he denies that the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works. “At its core the Mosaic Covenant does not simply drive us to Christ, but further unfolds the gracious covenant relationship that the Lord established with Abraham and his children.” (COG 27)Shepherd eviscerates the Pauline distinction between the Old and New Covenant, and, citing Matthew 5:20, states “The obligations of the New Covenant include not only faith and repentance, but also obedience.” (Emphasis added) (COG 47). It is hard, then, to see why the New Covenant is so superior to the Old, or how it is founded on “better promises.”

The RCUS report makes the same assertion with no argumentation but merely a reference to one unquoted journal article by Mark Karlberg.

Shepherd especially takes issue with the reformed idea that the works/merit principle plays a key role in the Mosaic covenant… According to reformed theology, the Mosaic covenant reminded Israel of the original condition of the covenant of works, namely, that God bound Adam’s posterity to perfect obedience as a condition of eternal life; therefore, in order to obtain eternal life, man must satisfy this condition, either by himself or by another.

All of this is flatly contradictory to the teaching of many Reformers and the actual doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. The position being vilified is simply Reformed Orthodoxy in this matter.

In his section on the covenant, Zacharias Ursinus insists that the Mosaic Covenant and that of the Christian Church are substantially the same. Since there is “one way of reconciliation, one faith, and one way of salvation for all who are and have been saved from the beginning,” the covenants are “one in substance” (p. 98). Further, Ursinus explicitly addresses the issue of obligations:

There is but one covenant, because the principal conditions, which are called the substance of the covenant, are the same before and since the incarnation of Christ; for in each testament God promises to those that repent and believe, the remission of sin; whilst men bind themselves, on the other hand, to exercise faith in God, and to repent of their sins (p. 99; emphasis added).

Ursinus goes on to assert that the Old and New Covenants agree, “in the condition in respect to ourselves,” and explains that “in each covenant, God requires from men faith and obedience” (ibid; emphasis added). “The new covenant, therefore, agrees with the old in that which relates to the principle conditions, both on the part of God and on the part of man.” The benefits of these two covenants, incidentally, are “the remission of sins and eternal life” (ibid).To remind readers of the limits of this essay, it is still conceivable that this Reformed position is wrong and it is logically possible that his dangerously so. Critics may offer arguments from Scripture if they wish to do so. But these arguments ought to admit the scope of their attack. It is the author of the Heidelberg Catechism of whose views our brother should write: “It is hard, then, to see why the New Covenant is so superior to the Old, or how it is founded on ‘better promises.’”

The Westminster Confession is quite explicit that the Mosaic Law was given as part of the Covenant of Grace. Chapter 7 is entitle “Of God’s Covenant with Man” so one would think that a comparison of Shepherd’s thought to that of the Westminster Divines would inspire some comment on that chapter from his critics. But, other than appealing to paragraph 2 and gratuitously inserting the concept of merit into the covenant of works, the silence is deafening. Here are paragraphs 2, 3, and 5:

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

The Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. It is noteworthy that many of Shepherd’s opponents want to insist that we are in the Abrahamic Covenant as an unconditional covenant of grace, in opposition to the Mosaic Covenant, which supposedly “is a covenant of works.” The Reformed view of the Westminster Confession is amply supported by the catechisms. Nowhere do they compare the covenantal status of believers to that of the Abrahamic covenant in contrast to that of the Mosaic. On the contrary, according to the Larger Catechism, the giving of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai is a type of the Gospel administration of the same covenant of grace.

Q101: What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual thralldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments (emphasis added).

The Shorter Catechism is, of course, shorter, but even more provocative in context. Compare question and answer #44 with #20 and #21:

What doth the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?
The preface to the Ten Commandments teacheth us, That because God is The Lord, and our God, and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all His commandments.Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.

Who is the Redeemer of God’s elect?
The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever (emphasis added).

The Mosaic Covenant is not a covenant of works, but rather a type of the Gospel covenant and the same in substance with it as an administration of the covenant of grace. The Ten Commandments promise God as our redeemer. The Decalogue did not tell the Israelites to obey the law sinlessly in order to inherit life, much less to merit life by their obedience. Rather, it told them they were chosen by God to be delivered from misery and brought into an estate of salvation. Because of this grace they were bound to obey God, trusting in Him alone as their redeemer.Thus, the exposition of the Decalogue in both catechisms jumps back and forth between the Old and New Testaments. Pauline imperatives were never meant as a covenant of works, though they show us God’s perfect righteousness and our own sinfulness in contrast. The Decalogue is no less of the Covenant of Grace and, as with Paul, the indicatives precede the imperatives.

(From here and originally from my defense of Norm Shepherd)

One of the unrecognized and most deadly evil of modern life’s facets is Chinese food. Most people are wholly unaware of the critical nature of the Chinese food question, and blithely continue to participate in this wicked and dangerous activity: eating Chinese food. Of course, to speak against such a hallowed institution as Chinese food is to be regarded as a fanatic, or even as sacrilegious, but we must be true to the faith!

A moment’s reflection by any serious and committed Christian will show transparently why Chinese food must be rejected. Chinese food is an expression of Eastern monism. Not only does it come from the East, the heart of the world’s most sophisticated paganism (which in itself is reason to reject it as dangerous); it also in its very nature and composition reflects the monistic philosophy of the East.

Christianity gives equal ultimacy to the one and the many. In the West, this has meant that on one’s plate there are several kinds and portions of food: salad, vegetables, meat, and dessert. These are not, however, all mixed up together in a monistic unity, but are left diverse. It is the harmony and combination of the various foods, eaten one bite at a time, which gives expression to unity and diversity.

Chinese food, however, tries to break this down. All the foods — salad, vegetables, meats, and sweets — are mixed together in an attempt to destroy diversity and create a food-monad. This is obviously perverted and evil. Beyond this, sweet and sour are mixed together, in accordance with the philosophy of yin and yang. What could be more pagan?

There is more. Because the perverse nature of Chinese food causes it to be so intrinsically unpalatable to the human tongue, vast quantities of monosodium glutamate are added to make it taste better. Now, monosodium glutamate, or M.S.G. as it is popularly known, is recognized to be a poison, causing hyperactivity in children and cancer in adults. Not only is Chinese food pagan, it is also poisonous.
It is also idolatrous. This is in part due to the addicting nature of M.S.G., which causes the widely-recognized “Chinese restaurant syndrome.” The present writer, however, has further cause for alarm. Over the years I have tried to alert friends and family to the danger of Chinese food, and I have always met with rejection and ridicule. There can be only one possible reason for this — an idolatrous attachment to Chinese food. Why won’t people give it up? The arguments I have presented are clear as crystal, and obviously Scriptural and Christian. The reason can only be that people have an idolatrous attachment to Chinese food.
Non-Christians, of course, are more crazy about Chinese food than are Christians. I say this: Anything the pagans are that crazy about must be evil, and so Christians should keep as far away from it as possible.

There is still more. Few modern Christians have studied the classic exposé of Chinese food by Alexander Slipshod: The Four Babylons. Slipshod in his masterful work demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that Chinese food originated at the Tower of Babel. Nimrod and three of his cousins, descendants of the four sons of Ham and known as the “gang of four,” developed Chinese food as a subtle means of undermining the true faith. People would become addicted to Chinese food, they believed, and as they ingested the food, they would absorb the monistic philosophy. For instance, if they ate sweet and sour pork, they would become committed to the philosophy of yin and yang. This has surely proved to be the case! We must beware of eating demons hiding in Chinese food! (Slipshod’s book has, I am aware, not been well treated by reviewers. Its arguments, however, are obviously correct. Let the reader obtain a copy and find out for himself. The reviewers, obviously, are Chinese food addicts.)

How did Chinese food come into the West? Slipshod shows that it was the Bishop of Rome who introduced Chinese food into the Christian world. Do we ever read about Chinese food in the New Testament? No, of course not. So, I rest my case. It can only be a Romish plot to destroy God’s true faith. Do we read anything about Chinese food in the Westminster Confession of Faith? No; so clearly the WCF is totally opposed to all Chinese food.

Have you ever noticed how fanatical people are about Chinese food? Not only do they eat the stuff, but they are willing to pay money for it. They even set up and support Chinese restaurants, wholly given over to the production of this evil, poisonous, idolatrous, and subversive food. When you try to get people to quit eating Chinese food, they act as if you are crazy. The whole world has to stop, just so they can eat their darling sin — Chinese food!

Like Luther before me, HERE I STAND! And if others do not like it, then it must be TRUTH BEFORE FRIENDSHIP!

Read the rest.

A:

The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.“If a man is righteous and does what is just and right— if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity, does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, does not lend at interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man, walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully—he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord God.“If he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things (though he himself did none of these things), who even eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.“Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise: he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife, does not oppress anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no interest or profit, obeys my rules, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity.“Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.

“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die. Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

A:

Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

B:

The Lord has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of trouble.

A:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

B:

And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.”

A:

Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
when your fathers put me to the test
and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work.

B:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

A:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

B:

‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.

A:

Let me sing for my beloved
my love song concerning his vineyard:
My beloved had a vineyard
on a very fertile hill.
He dug it and cleared it of stones,
and planted it with choice vines;
he built a watchtower in the midst of it,
and hewed out a wine vat in it;
and he looked for it to yield grapes,
but it yielded wild grapes.

And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem
and men of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
What more was there to do for my vineyard,
that I have not done in it?
When I looked for it to yield grapes,
why did it yield wild grapes?

I weary of proving the obvious. Consider this a meme and continue it on your blogs (which means, I now repent of my aloofness of memes and announce myself hostage to the blogosphere–so you know this means a lot to me!)

Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.”

If the essential problem with Pharisaism was a soteriological doctrine of works-righteousness, then Paul here is being a traitor to his call to preach the gospel and is proclaiming another gospel.