This blog is devoted to discussing the pursuit of eternal life.
Discussion and participation by readers is desired,
but contributions should correlate to the book,
The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology
of Perseverance & Assurance

by
Thomas R. Schreiner
& Ardel B. Caneday



Monday, July 13, 2009

German Translation of The Race Set Before Us

Today I received word that Betanien Verlag will be publishing a German translation of The Race Set Before Us. The book should be available in the autumn 2009.

See the announcement here.

Thomas Schreiner / Ardel Caneday
Mit Ausharren laufen. Gibt es Heilsgewissheit ohne Heiligung?
Originaltitel: The Race Set Before Us.Paperback, ca. 340 Seiten Stand der Bearbeitung: In Übersetzung seit Dezember 2008 bis vorraussichtlich
Sommer 2009. Erscheint vorraussichtlich Herbst 2009.

Generally, the above may be translated:

Running with Endurance: Is there any certainty of salvation without sanctification?
Original title: The Race Set Before Us. Paperback, approx 340 pages
State of processing: In translation since December 2008 until early summer 2009.
Appears early autumn of 2009.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

More on N. T. Wright and John Piper Concerning Justification

Today I want to focus briefly upon the final two portions of the juxtaposition of Piper's and Wright's statements. I focus upon their respective statements concerning How This Happens and Future Justification.

How This Happens

Piper: By faith we are united with Christ Jesus so that in union with him, his perfect righteousness and punishment are counted as ours (imputed to us). In this way, perfection is provided, sin is forgiven, wrath is removed, and God is totally for us. Thus, Christ alone is the basis of our justification, and the faith that unites us to him is the means or instrument of our justification. Trusting in Christ as Savior, Lord, and Supreme Treasure of our lives produces the fruit of love, or it is dead.

Wright: God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ (the faithful Israelite), has come, allowing the continuation of his plan to rescue human beings, and, through them, the world. The Messiah represents his people, standing in for them, taking upon himself the death that they deserved. God justifies (declares righteous) all those who are "in Christ," so that the vindication of Jesus upon his resurrection becomes the vindication of all those who trust in him. Justification refers to God's declaration of who is in the covenant (this worldwide family of Abraham through whom God's purposes can now be extended into the wider world) and is made on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ alone, not the "works of the Law" (i.e., badges of ethnic identity that once kept Jews and Gentiles apart).

Future Justification

Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Wright: Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God. The present verdict gives the assurance that the verdict announced on the Last Day will match it; the Holy Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived.

Summary statements, even provided effectively by others such as by Trevin Wax, give expression to the most salient features of ideas or beliefs. This is especially true when those whose views are being summarized have an opportunity to adjust, correct, expand or otherwise rectify summary statements concerning their beliefs about matters as crucial and vital as those that John Piper and N. T. Wright were asked to address by Trevin Wax.

It may be a surprise to some of my readers, who seem to misunderstand some of my beliefs, that I find my own expressions concerning these matters resonating with the summary expressions that John Piper approved rather than the summary expressions N. T. Wright approved. By this I mean that in order to make the above summaries my own I would not need to offer any correctives but only perhaps a brief expansion to the two summaries of John Piper's beliefs, but to the two summaries of N. T. Wright's beliefs I would need to offer correctives or at least significant qualifications or clarifications. My agreements with the summaries of N. T. Wright's views are heterogeneous and variegated, calling for qualifications, adjustments, and corrections. My agreements with the summaries of John Piper's views are quite homogeneous, not that I wouldn't add a statement here or there to supplement what is said.

Within the two brief summary statements cited above I find at least two significant points of departure between N. T. Wright and John Piper. First, under How This Happens John Piper understands the essence of justification to be soteriological--how one is set right with God. N. T. Wright understands the essence of justification to be ecclesiological--who is set right with God. As they endeavor to define justification, the two focus upon very different questions. Piper sees justification as concerned with how a sinner is set right with God; Wright sees justification as concerned with who is set right with God. Recognition of this fact that the two men view justification as oriented around two significantly different questions seems largely lost in the exchange between the two, featured in their respective books--Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision and in The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. Not only does it seem to be lost in the exchange between the two men but also among most who follow the debate.

Under How This Happens the summary of John Piper's beliefs entail the following statement: "By faith we are united with Christ Jesus so that in union with him, his perfect righteousness and punishment are counted as ours (imputed to us). In this way, perfection is provided, sin is forgiven, wrath is removed, and God is totally for us."

Compare and contrast this statement with the summary of Wright's beliefs. Yet, as we consider the summary of Wright's beliefs, it is important to take note that the summary entails pulling in two diverse directions.

First, Wright's view of justification entails soteriological aspects: "God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ (the faithful Israelite), has come, allowing the continuation of his plan to rescue human beings, and, through them, the world. The Messiah represents his people, standing in for them, taking upon himself the death that they deserved. God justifies (declares righteous) all those who are 'in Christ,' so that the vindication of Jesus upon his resurrection becomes the vindication of all those who trust in him." This is a soteriological summary. For Wright, justification is soteriological in that "God justifies . . . all those who are 'in Christ'" and this means that "the vindication of Jesus upon his resurrection becomes the vindication of all those who trust in him." This statement, though expressed differently from the summary statement that captures Piper's belief, agrees that justification is soteriological and that what belongs to Christ Jesus God declares to belong to all who are in him.

However, for Wright, justification is essentially ecclesiological, and this aspect has come to loom large in, even dominate, his expressions concerning justification, with the consequence that it draws much attention even accusation. "Justification refers to God's declaration of who is in the covenant (this worldwide family of Abraham through whom God's purposes can now be extended into the wider world) and is made on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ alone, not the "works of the Law" (i.e., badges of ethnic identity that once kept Jews and Gentiles apart)." The issue I am pointing out concerning Wright's view finds reinforcement under Future Justification with the summary statement: "Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God."

There is some biblical warrant for Wright's belief that our formulations concerning justification ought to account for who is justified, for, after all, the apostle Paul does speak to the question of who will be justified when he says, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Romans 2:13).

Given Paul's statement, when we formulate our doctrinal statements concerning justification, surely we need to account for the fact that the New Testament speaks to the question concerning "who will be justified before God." This is especially so because the New Testament itself actually speaks this way. Consequently, I would include within my own summary statement concerning justification a statement that reflects this biblically warranted concern.

Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that Romans 2:13 and passages like it (e.g., Matt 25:31-46) warrant reorientating the focus of the definition of justification to focus upon who is justified rather than how one is justified. How one is set right with God is the essence of what justification entails. Who is set right with God surely is essential to the gospel and as such biblical assertions concerning who is justified inseparably link justification in Christ before God and sanctification in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, our doctrinal formulations ought to represent these biblical facts as accurately as possible. In my estimation, this is getting to the heart of N. T. Wright's concerns, though I am convinced that my expressions state more carefully his concerns than he himself has expressed his concerns. The way I express it above and elsewhere (e.g., throughout this blog), I avoid the problems that adhere to Wright's formulations as, for example, I point out below.

I find a second point of departure between Piper and Wright. Given the above crucial distinction between the views of the two ministers of the gospel, Piper's defining justification exclusively in terms of soteriology and Wright's definition of justification spanning both soteriology and ecclesiology but with the latter being the essential feature, it should not be surprising that under How This Happens Piper's and Wright's expressions concerning the basis of justification are quite different. Piper's view is summarized: "Christ alone is the basis of our justification, and the faith that unites us to him is the means or instrument of our justification." It is not as though Wright does not believe this. Surely his writings indicate that he does believe it. Nevertheless, given his empasis upon defining justification essentially in terms of ecclesiology rather than in terms of soteriology, Wright's view is summarized: "Justification refers to God's declaration of who is in the covenant . . . and is made on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ alone, not the "works of the Law" (i.e., badges of ethnic identity that once kept Jews and Gentiles apart)." Again, under Future Justification Wright's view is well summarized as "Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God."

I offer my own critical assessment of Wright's formulation here. Elsewhere I address the issue of the basis of justification such as
here but especially here, where I pose the question, "Is Our Faith the Basis of Our Justification before God?" I point out the common evangelical mistake of identifying our faith as the basis of justification before God. I even point out that John Piper made such statements until my blog entry became the occasion for him to recognize the error and to correct it. My blog entry includes the following update.

In response to this blog entry interaction with his expressions concerning justification, John Piper has adjusted the way he expresses the relationship between faith and justification in the on-line document "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism." No longer does the document speak of the first act of faith as the basis of our justification.

Thus, as far as Trevin Wax's summary statement goes concerning John Piper's understanding of justification in the Day of Judgment it comports with my own. The statement reads,

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works.

Justification before God, whether spoken of in terms of the already or the not yet is based solely on the substitutionary work of Christ Jesus, not upon our faith in Christ Jesus. Belief is instrumental but not the basis or ground of our right standing before God now or in the Last Day. I am persuaded that formulation of John Piper's view has this correct in contrast to N. T. Wright's formulation, which in my estimation is confusing at best when he approves the summary statement: "Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God."

Monday, June 29, 2009

Trevin Wax Summarizes the Beliefs of John Piper and of N. T. Wright Concerning Justification

I am very pleased to see Trevin Wax's brief article finally published by Christianity Today. I commend this to everyone, for I know that Trevin worked hard to make sure that he accurately summarizes the beliefs of both John Piper and N. T. Wright. Once again, Trevin has done us all a wonderful service.

This past spring Trevin submitted his summary of John Piper's beliefs to John Piper and his summary of N. T. Wright's beliefs to N. T. Wright to have them independently assess and correct any elements within his summaries that were inaccurate, inadequate, or misdirecting. At the same time Trevin submitted his summaries of the two men's beliefs to several scholars that he trusts. Evidently he trusts me, for he sent his summaries to me for my assessment. I was happy to oblige Trevin. I made some crucial observations which some others made as well.

All in all, I believe that Trevin serves the church very well with his piece:
The Justification Debate: A Primer--Two of the world's most prominent pastor-theologians on justification—and what difference it makes. John Piper and N.T. Wright, compiled by Trevin Wax.

As I read the piece at first and now again, in published form, I cannot let it pass without saying at least two positive things. First, I am struck by how much John Piper and N. T. Wright complement one another's expressions of beliefs. Each offers his own emphasis in each of the categories. Second, once again I am struck by how much overlap and agreement the two express. To be sure, there are differences, but the differences do not appear as enormous as when the two engage one another toe to toe, as in Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision and in The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright.

See also "Not An Academic Question" by Tevin Wax and Ted Olsen.





Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Tom Schreiner Published Run to Win the Prize

Tom Schreiner's new book, Run to Win the Prize: Perseverance in the New Testament, is now published by IVP in the United Kingdom. The title of his new book is the original title we had given to our jointly authored book. Our editor with InterVarsity suggested the title The Race Set Before Us. We gladly accepted his suggestion.

The Christian life is like a marathon race set out before us. There is a reward in running well, but particularly in finishing. Christians agree that this is a consistent pattern of New Testament teaching.

However, is the prize a reward for having finished well? Or is the prize salvation itself - and can it be lost? Is everyone who started the race guaranteed a share in the prize? Do the warnings in Scripture tell believers that it is up to them to succeed or fail in the race? If so, is there no assurance of salvation? Or can we affirm that 'once saved, always saved', and that only a difference in rewards awaits us?

Thomas R. Schreiner's study, based on his lectures at the Twelfth Oak Hill Annual School of Theology, explores the nature of admonitions and warnings in New Testament theology, their role in relation to perseverance and assurance in practical Christian living, and their pastoral implications. He offers clarification of some controversial issues, and responds to misunderstandings.

Read an excerpt from the book here.

Crossway Books will publish Run to Win the Prize in the U.S.A.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Universal Forgiveness without Universal Salvation?

Belief in universal forgiveness without believing in universal salvation is a strange anomaly that many evangelicals embrace and do so evangelistically and zealously.

Early in February I posted an entry titled, "The Sin of 'Unconditional Forgiveness.'" I completely rewrote my essay with the intention of publishing it, which I still plan to do once I can take time to do so. I presented my rewritten essay, titled "A Biblical Primer and Grammar on Forgiveness of Sin", at our Faculty Scholarship Symposium at Northwestern College.

My presentation sparked some folks (whose zealous disagreement with my essay greatly exceeded their admitted lack of actual study of the biblical teaching on the issues) to engage in a short-lived discussion with me. Their fundamental assumption is that Christ's words from the cross, "Father, forgiven them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), mean that Jesus Christ forgave the sins of his assailants quite apart from their repentance. I sufficiently address this passage and the issue in both versions of my essay. So, I won't revisit this passage.

Nevertheless, I found an intriguing article, "Most Evangelicals Need Evangelizing," in the March/April 2009 issue of Grace in Focus, published by Robert Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society. Robert Wilkin makes the following statements in his short essay.

Most Evangelicals believe that the lost are barred from heaven because of their sins. That is why most Evangelicals indicate that the sinner must somehow deal with his own sin problem via repentance, commitment, and perseverance in good works.

The reality is that Jesus has already dealt with the sin problem (John 1:29, 35; 3:14-16; 19:30; 1 John 2:2). He didn’t show us how to handle our sin problem. He took away the sins of the world when He died on the cross for the sins of everyone. Not a single person will be condemned because of his sins (see Rev 20:11-15). The cross takes care of the sin problem even for the atheist or people of other religions.

As Lewis Sperry Chafer used to say, “Because of Calvary, unbelievers don’t have a sin problem, they have a Son problem.”

Of course, unbelievers are still spiritually dead and on their way to the hell if they do not believe in Jesus. But what keeps them from eternal life is their unbelief, not their sins. The most sinful person who believes in Jesus has eternal life. The most wonderful Evangelical who does not believe in Jesus in the Biblical sense doesn’t have eternal life.

The notion that all humans have already received forgiveness of all their sins is altogether too widely embraced and preached, even among evangelicals. For example, in Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell states, ""Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust. Ours or God's" (p. 146).

How could Lewis Sperry Chafer make such a foolish assertion as, "Because of Calvary, unbelievers don’t have a sin problem, they have a Son problem"? I've read his systematic theology. I know that he believed this nonsense. But, still, how could he or Bob Wilkin or Rob Bell or others hold to this belief that is so transparently contrary to all things Scriptural? If everyone has already received forgiveness of all their sins, why preach the gospel? Why preach repentance? Why preach the necessity of belief in Messiah Jesus? Why decry sin? Why preach the necessity of holiness?

The notion that God has granted forgiveness to all people everywhere for all of their sins is preposterous and has the added disadvantage of being contrary to Scripture, if we are to regard such a letter as the apostle Paul's letter to the Ephesians as Scripture.

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient (Ephesians 5:3-6).

God will banish humans to eternal perdition on account of their sins? Yes, this is precisely what the apostle says and means. Hence, banishment to perdition for immorality, impurity, greed, idolatry, etc., etc. puts the lie to the claim that God has already forgiven every sin that every human has committed except the singular sin of unbelief.

Of course, this is hardly the only passage that contradicts belief that God has already forgiven every human sin. It is, perhaps, the passage that most explicitly ruins Robert Wilkin's claim shared by so many others.

Another passage that is rather clear is Revelation 22:14-15.

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

This passage makes it rather obvious that people are excluded from having the right to the tree of life and entrance through the city gates because of their sins, not merely the sin of unbelief in Jesus Christ, but sins such as practicing (1) witchcraft, (2) sexual immorality, (3) murder, (4) idolatry, (5) falsehood. Of course, the list is but a sample; it is hardly exhaustive. Yet, one thing is entirely clear: human sinfulness excludes people from paradise. Expressed another way: human practice of all varieties of sinning damns people to perdition.

At another time I will address misunderstandings of John 3:18 that lead to the notion of universal forgiveness of sin and that the only sin for which humans will perish eternally is unbelief in Jesus Christ.

Downloadable Charts for Teaching through The Race Set Before Us

Since publication of The Race Set Before Us I have received requests for teaching aids that might assist teachers who would like to use the book for a course such as an adult Bible class. Occasionally I have electronically sent the following charts to individuals who desired to use them when teaching through the book. Some time ago it dawned on me that I could make them available to others via this blog.

The following charts are from Chapter 1 of The Race Set Before Us. If you are teaching or planning to teach a study using the book, you may download the charts, colored of course, and insert them into a PowerPoint presentation. I developed the charts before publishing the book for teaching purposes. I removed color when we inserted them into the book. The charts below show in the order they appear in the book

To download each chart:
  1. Click on a thumbnail picture;
  2. Right-click the mouse;
  3. Go to "Save picture as";
  4. Download the picture to your desired folder;
  5. Repeat for each picture.











If you find these helpful, please let me know.

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

N. T. Wright on Justification

I've been busy with several home projects that prevent me from blogging and from doing much else at my computer these days. Consequently, I'm not getting back to offering any comments concerning N. T. Wright's latest book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision.

In the meantime, perhaps, Scot McKnight's series of blog entries will keep you busy: Justification and New Perspective.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Public Sins Done in the Darkness

Last Lord's Day John Piper preached a message on John 3:16-21, titled, "This Is the Judgment: Light Has Come into the World." His focus was upon 3:19-21. You may watch a video of the sermon here. Locate the portion to which I refer at minute 31:37. The video presentation is fuller than the manuscript version.

Among the various significant things John addressed, one that stood out is his clarification that we must not confuse behavior done "in the light" with behavior done in "public."

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

Jesus is not saying that no sins happen in public. Many people flaunt their sins in public. But they only do this where the light of Christ is so banished that they can get approval from the people that matter to them. In other words, where darkness abounds publicly, you can sin publicly without coming into the light.

Here is a transcript from the video portion I link above.

If it is so terrifying to come into the light, why are sins so publicly flaunted in our day? There’s a real simple reason. As long as the public banishes the light, there are enough people to admire the sinful behavior that you don’t feel ashamed but approval. As long as the light of Christ is kept out of the sphere in which you are acting out your evil, public sin is in the dark. Public doesn’t mean light. Public means dark people observing dark behavior and liking it because it confirms their own.

John Piper's distinction is quite crucial. As our society persists in defining sin downward (cf. Moynihan's Defining Deviancy Down), sinful behavior becomes increasingly mainstreamed and approved. All kinds of sinful behavior formerly done under the cloak of darkness or privacy have now fully emerged from the closet and from secrecy. Consider any kind of sinful behavior, such as, premarital sexual engagement, sexual immorality, lying, falsifying testimony, gossiping, etc. Sufficiently large enough numbers of people approve of these and of many other sinful practices so that there is no longer any shame attached to doing these openly and publicly.

Hence, we must not confuse the light and darkness, of which John 3:19-21 speaks, with public and private respectively. Light and darkness are not at all the same as public and private.

Circles of Confession of Sin

Recently Justin Taylor posted "Another Perspective on Confessing Sins Publicly" that reproduces a comment made by Ken Stewart on Justin's blog entry titled, "The Risk of Confessing Our Sins."

Below is my comment on Justin's blog.

____________________________

It is as if Ken Stewart rifled through my files of unpublished materials or eavesdropped on numerous conversations I've had. He has expressed precisely the same things that I have been preaching for decades. It must be that we're deriving our beliefs from the same source, the Scriptures.

Tony Cooper mentioned his observations concerning the so-called "revival" in 1995 at Northwestern College where I teach. I remember well that student leaders came to me to ask for my assessment of what was happening and for guidance. I offered my assessment, as requested, and offered guidance. Student leaders did not welcome my imparted wisdom. One student was not satisfied with the response of his fellow students. He took some of his fellow students with him to seek John Piper's wisdom. John told them essentially the same things that I offered. They were willing to hear him and accept his cautions, thankfully. However, by that time, enormous damage had already taken place.

I remember distinctly that at 10:30 am on April 5, 1995, I took the opportunity to leave chapel at the normal closing time, when given the opportunity to do so. I left because I knew what would be erupting, namely a stream of students who would be making public confessions of private, even secret, sins. I left because I had no desire to know the intimate and secret sins of students whose faces I would be seeing in my classes. I did not want to have entirely unnecessary, unwarranted, and ungodly knowledge of their intimate sins. I did not want to have such things deeply imprinted upon my rather potent memory. I did not want to be caused to stumble during a lecture on holy things while looking into the faces of students in my classes.

Thus, I left chapel and did not return. Despite my efforts to guard myself from being contaminated with public confessions of private and secret sins, I could not escape entirely because I overheard conversations (gossip) among faculty, staff, and students concerning various students who stood to confess publicly their very private sins.

I could go on and on about this. One of my former Student Assistants greatly shamed herself by making such a confession of a sin that she had committed several years earlier and of which she had repented and to which she had never returned. Weeping, she came to speak with me. She was so profoundly distraught because of her public foolishness that she wanted to leave Northwestern College. From my contacts with her following that event, I observed a very changed woman. She severely injured herself to such an extent that she foundered for several years thereafter.

When students asked for my assessment of the "revival," I often asked a sequence of questions. Do people hang their freshly washed underwear out on a clothesline to dry on their front yards? Why, then, would they ever hang out their very private sins for all to view in their public disclosures in public confessions? The teaching of the gospel is clear. Is it not? Confess sins in as wide a circle as the committed sin is known. If it is simply a sinful thought, why would any of us confess a sinful thought to anyone other than to our High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ?