Peter grows his list from seven to ten (though the last might be more properly assigned to his Brain Drain category):

1. Justification & Judgment
2. My Work on Justification
3. Asking Questions

My problem with My Work on Justification is that “deliverdict” is already part of the definition of “verdict.” True, there may be some Biblical details that should be included, but it has always been the case that Reformed theology has insisted that justificaiton is declaritive. You can’t stand by such a definition and, at the same time, claim that there is no declaration, no gesture or sign or communication, on the part of God in justification. That is a flat contradiction.

Peter is not revising anything as I see it. That was done by John Piper. He, under the pretense of defending Reformed Orthodoxy from Robert Gundry (who, as far as I know, is still awaiting a compelling response), leads readers to think that Gundries interpretation of Romans 6.7 is part of his novel position, rather than the standard and mainstream interpretation of the passage.

As I wrote in part a few years ago,

From his book and from his preaching [http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/00/101500.html] Piper seems to be basically confused by the meaning of the word “forensic.” In his mind, anything that God does that actually changes things cannot be “forensic.” “This is the meaning we should give the passage because the ordinary meaning of the word “justify” … is ‘to pronounce just,’ not ‘to make just’ and not ‘to liberate from sin’” (p. 77). He quotes Leon Morris from The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (p. 285): “The verb denotes the giving of a verdict whereby [people] are adjudged righteous or acceptable with God” (Ibid).What are we to say to this? Every discussion of justification involves the appeal to the situation in a courtroom before a judge. This situation is quite appropriate to Romans in which Paul says much about sinful man being under God’s judgment. Juridical words abound. Very well. When a man serving time in prison has his sentence overturned so that the judge declares him “not guilty,” is it common in any society for the man to remain legally in prison? Does nothing change? Is being legally released from the power of one’s prisoners only a subsequent act?

When two people are married they are given a new status by law that involves in the act new rights and privileges and obligations. When a couple legally adopts a child it is not some subsequent action by the judge, a non-forensic action, that obligates them to feed and clothe the child. It is all one. It changes everything. And it is, by all known grammar, simply and “merely” a forensic change.

In other words, if God is “giving a verdict” in justification, where is that verdict given or declared? It might be possible to separate physical release from incarceration from the act of passing sentence in a modern courtroom, but consider what would happen if, at the point of rendering judment, a judge became stock still and silent, neither speaking or touching his gavel. Would this not be the withholding of a verdict? What if, when questioned, the judge argued that the had passed a forensic sentence by thinking, and that should count since, after all, giving a verdict doesn’t involve changing physical things? Frankly, such a judge would show such a basic misunderstanding of grammar and language that he would be probably committed for a time to a mental institution.

Now, Peter has argued that, rather than a gavel, in the Bible it is an act of deliverance that denotes a vindication This is exactly what we see in First Timothy 3.16 where Jesus’ resurrection by the Spirit is called his justification by the Spirit. But this hardly means we need “deliverdict” any more than “gavelerdict” today. I confess, I had never run into Turretin claiming that Romans 6.7 was an “improper” use of the word. Maybe Turretin needed more information about ordinary language and technical terms. But disagreeing with him is hardly proof, by itselt, of anything subversive. I’m just happy that Peter is taking up the cause of Calvin,

Now, many passages of Scripture show that he [i.e. the Holy Spirit] is the author of regeneration, not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy; and not only so, but that he is also the author of future immortality. In short, all the peculiar attributes of the Godhead are ascribed to him in the same way as to the Son. He searches the deep things of Gods and has no counsellor among the creatures; he bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech, though God declares to Moses (Exod. 4:11) that this is his own peculiar province. In like manner, by means of him we become partakers of the divine nature, so as in a manner to feel his quickening energy within us. Our justification is his work; from him is power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thought, since it is from the Spirit alone that all good gifts proceed.

Actually, that is not quite true. A couple of years ago or more I was happy that Peter is doing that. Since then I have reached the point of overload. I’m sick of answering to the dead. It is one thing to be respectful of the heritage. It is another thing to worship it. It is enough that Peter is doing valuable work with Scripture. For that reason, I wouldn’t blame him if he wanted to emphasize his differences with any late tradition just to end this unending parade of accusations.