Steve Fernandez on The Race Set Before Us: Eighth Installment

This entry builds upon the seventh installment and assumes that you have read it. In that entry I show how Steve Fernandez has misunderstood and has misrepresented what Tom Schreiner and I wrote concerning Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13. Now I shall continue by focusing upon pages 91-93 of his book, Free Justification, where he attempts to explain how we should understand what Jesus means when he says, "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 10:22; ESV).

Fernandez explains,

The evidence indicates that we should understand the verse to mean something else. Rather, it teaches that perseverance is the inescapable experience that all believers undergo before they come into the glory of final salvation. There are at least three reasons for undertanding the verse in this way.

First, it is consistent with Paul's teaching on the finality of justification in the book of Romans. . . .

Second, Christ's words in Matthew 10:22 are conspicuous by the absence of the language of conditional and instrumentality. Christ does not say "if one has endured to the end he will be saved." There is no conditional "if" clause. It must be read into the text.

In addition, there are no prepositions that indicate instrumentality either. That is, He does not say that endurance is that, "by which," or "through which," we will be saved. There is a glaring omission of prepositions such as, "by" or "on account of" or "through;" prepositions which express cause and instrumentality. In short, Christ does not say "it is the one who by enduring to the end who will be saved."

On the other hand, Paul regularly uses prepositions when he speaks of the relationship of faith to justification. . . . Paul is careful to use prepositions to indicate that grace and faith are the means and instruments of justification. Christ, in contrast, does not say we are saved "by" or "through," let alone, "on account of" endurance. He simply asserts, "it is the one who has endured . . . who will be saved."

Third, and this is most significant, Christ does not say, "it is the one who has endured . . . who will be justified." Christ says "will be saved." There is a great difference! It is one thing to say, "it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved." It is another thing to say "it is the one who has endured to the end who will be justified." While they often overlap, the terms are not synonymous or equivalent. Therefore, the terms must be carefully distinguished. Why?

Justification is narrow and specific in meaning. It means to declare righteous in relationship to the law. It is a verdict in relationship to law and justice. As a verdict, by definition, it is once-for-all. There are no phases or steps to a justifying verdict. Salvation, on the other hand, is comprehensive and all-encompassing. In general it means "to rescue or deliver" (Acts 27:31). It is the basic term for deliverance. It can include justification, sanctification, the future redemption of the body, as well as glorification and our final inheritance.

Therefore, because it is broad in meaning, salvation has both an 'already' aspect and a future 'not-yet' aspect. Justification, on the other hand, being narrow and specific, has only an 'already' accomplished aspect.

Since the terms do overlap, sometimes "saved" may refer to the 'one-time,' finished reality of justification. Ephesians 2:5, 8 is an example, Paul using the perfect tense says, "you have been saved." The tense of the verb stresses a past completed act, with a present unchanging, ongoing result. At other times salvation refers to a future, yet-to-be completed aspect, things such as; the redemption of our bodies and deliverance from judgment, etc. (Romans 13:11). However, the future aspect of salvation, although often prominent in Scripture, is never said to include justification.

The point I am making, that some fail to see, is this: Christ does not say, "justified," He says "saved." And salvation is not justification. It is deliverance which is the result of justification. This is evident in Romans 5:9, where Paul uses both terms. He says, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."

As he has done since verse one, Paul is pointing out the great blessing of a completed justification. One futher blessing of this "now" justification is that it guarantees our future salvation, and deliverance, from wrath. There is no mention of a future justification, for the simple reason that the verdict of justification has already been declared. . . .

All of this supports the conclusion that what Christ is saying in Matthew 10:22 (reiterated by Paul in Romans 5:9) is that believers can look forward to a future final salvation. But, of a future justification, Christ (like Paul) says nothing. Therefore, we must not read justification into Christ's words and teach what He is, in fact, not teaching. Like Paul, we must clearly distinguish the two terms. To confuse the two is to add works to justification, and undo the gospel of the grace of God.

We can conclude that the Scriptures do not teach that final salvation or justification is conditioned or attained by perseverance. There is no need. Christ has attained all. He has done all. We now stand complete and justified in Him; clothed in His perfect righteousness alone, imputed to us by faith. To Christ alone be all the glory.

So ends the book.

Before I offer any critical engagement of what Steve Fernandez asserts as quoted above, I observe that he states the following that in Matthew 10:22 Jesus "teaches that perseverance is the inescapable experience that all believers undergo before they come into the glory of final salvation."

I wonder how this substantially or materially differs from what Tom and I have affirmed in our exegetical discussion of the passage. Why does Fernandez contend against us? What is his complaint against us? Does he not affirm substantially the same thing that we affirm?

If perseverance in loyalty to Jesus Christ is the inescapable experience that all believers undergo before they come into the glory of final salvation, is this not necessarily saying that perseverance in loyalty to Jesus Christ is a necessary condition or means unto salvation in the Last Day? How does what Fernandez affirms differ from what Tom and I affirm in the very discussion Fernandez criticizes? What do we affirm when we contend that sustained belief in Jesus Christ (which is biblically depicted as perseverance, steadfastness, faithfulness, loyalty, endurance, remaining in, etc., etc.) is a necessary condition or means for the sustaining of salvation unto the end? We contend that sustained belief in Jesus Christ is a necessary condition unto eternal life as sustained breathing is a necessary condition unto life in this age. As breathing is a condition without which no one shall live, so believing (i.e., persevering faith) is a condition without which no one shall have eternal life either in this age or in the age to come. (For expanded elaboration upon distinguishing condition from basis or ground read this blog entry.)

Seriously, then, how does what we affirm materially differ from what Steve Fernandez affirms when he claims that in Matthew 10:22 Jesus "teaches that perseverance is the inescapable experience that all believers undergo before they come into the glory of final salvation"?

Now I turn to offer some critical analysis of Steve Fernandez's claims on the final three pages of his book. I could say much, but I will endeavor to be brief.

Fernandez exhibits considerable confusion as he presses his prejudiced conclusion that drives the entire book, namely, that justification can have no future aspect because if it were to have a future aspect, then justification would be grounded in our works. Besides not accounting for many biblical passages that compel us to acknowledge that justification does have a future aspect, as I demonstrate here, Fernandez's reasoning is fallacious. Indeed, many falter when they attempt to account for the future aspect of justification, as I have demonstrated in many places on this blog, such as here and here. However, to reason that if justification entails a future aspect, as salvation entails a future aspect, necessarily adds "works to justification" and obliterates "the gospel of the grace of God" is seriously flawed and exhibits an anti-Roman Catholic prejudice that blinds one to the fact that Scripture requires us to tread carefully lest we commit either Fernandez's error of suppressing biblical evidence to deny justification's future aspect or the error of viewing justification as grounded upon our deeds, as many have done.

I leave it to readers to sort out further Fernandez's general theological fallacies concerning justification and salvation. For my purposes, I turn your attention to a few considerations concerning how Fernandez has misunderstood, misrepresented, and hopelessly confounded what Tom and I actually say concerning Matthew 10:22.

Instead, I direct your attention to the second and third reasons Fernandez offers to explain why his understanding of Matthew 10:22 is correct and why ours is wrong. First, I will focus upon the third reason. To refresh your memories, he asserts, "Christ does not say, 'it is the one who has endured . . . who will be justified.' Christ says 'will be saved.' There is a great difference!"

Nowhere, throughout our exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22, do Tom and I introduce the notion that when Jesus says that "the one who perseveres to the end will be saved" he means to say, "the one who perseveres to the end will be justified." As I methodically demonstrate here, Fernandez, not Tom Schreiner and I, hopelessly confounds what we say because of his sloppy, selective, and elliptical quotations of our words that prejudices his understanding by ignoring what we say as he cherry-picks a portion of a sentence from page 154 and then leaps to page 160 to combine that partial quotation with two more partial quotations from an entirely new segment that is introductory to our discussion of admonition and warning in Paul's letters and then finally takes another leap to page 161 to connect his now utterly disjointed elliptically concocted quotation with another partial statement. As I have shown previously, here and here, Fernandez's distorted quotation reads,

"Conditional warnings and admonitions suspend God’s judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age . . . since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul’s doctrine of justification . . . with the effect that Paul’s orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed . . . for Paul, justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict. . ." (Ibid., p. 154, 160-161).

This convoluted elliptically concocted quotation confounds Fernandez, and well it should. As with Victor Frankenstein who despised his monstrous creation, Fernandez creates this sloppy, prejudicially selective, and freakish concoction that leads him to loathe what he fails to recognize that he himself has created which loathing, in turn, leads him to impute to Tom Schreiner and to me his wrong and unfounded accusation which reads,

This is clearly an interchangeable use of salvation and justification. In their system God's judgment on the last day [which is justification], is held in suspense. First, conditions must be met. The believer will then attain final salvation and the verdict of justification. For, in their words, "justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict." The problem they are correcting, is that "many overstate Paul's doctrine of justification." This "overstatement" it seems, is the historic teaching that justification is a complete and final declaration with no future element contingent on works.

Thus, by way of his own concoction, what Tom Schreiner and I have published in The Race Set Before Us becomes Fernandez's principal foil throughout his book to the very final pages which I have reproduced for you above. Of the two of us, Tom takes more hits that I do because Fernandez goes after his commentary on Romans spanning pages 77-80 when he returns to take us both on again on pages 81-83.

Now I offer a few comments on the second reason Fernandez offers for his understanding of Matthew 10:22. Keep in mind that Fernandez is addressing himself to what he thinks that Tom Schreiner and I have said concerning this passage. Once again, here is what Fernandez claims about our exegetical discussion of the passage.

Christ's words, "but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved" are interpreted to say, 'it is the one who has endured to the end, because he has endured, who will be save.' In other words, endurance or perseverance is seen as a condition, or means, of attaining final salvation and justification. Schreiner and Caneday, for example, commenting on Matthew 10:22 write,

The text says, the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. Jesus' words indicate that perseverance to the end is the necessary condition. Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved.

Nowhere, throughout our discussion of the passage, do we hint at the interpretation that Fernandez has attributed to us by interjecting the words he italicizes--because he has endured--which expresses causation. Even if we had done this, which Fernandez falsely claims we did, it would not have to be considered fatal theologically.

Nowhere, throughout our exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 do we introduce any prepositions into the passage, such as, "by which" or "through which." Nor do we pretend that the passage says, "it is the one who by enduring to the end who will be saved," as Fernandez implies. Again, if we had done this, it would not have to be considered fatal theologically. What is odd, however, is that Fernandez seems to presume that language depicts "condition or instrumentality" only by way of prepositions or by way of an explicit "if" clause. Consequently, he contends that we "read into the text" the notion of "condition."

It seems apparent that Steve Fernandez fails to understand adequately how language functions. He could have reviewed what Tom and I state on page 41 of The Race Set Before Us, in anticipation of readers such as he. Under the segment titled "Conditional promises and conditional warnings", we pose the question, "What do biblical warnings look like?" We answer,

Most biblical warnings use suppositional or conditional language to express a threat or a promise. It may be helpful to identify what conditional language entails. A condition expresses a contingent relationship. Ordinarily we express this contingency with a conditional sentence that consists of two clauses: (1) a dependent clause ("if"), also called the protasis, and (2) an independent clause ("then"), also called the apodosis. Another word to describe a condition is supposition. English readers usually think of the word if as the indicator of a condition. Though perhaps most conditional expressions in English do use the word if, there are other ways to express a conditional idea. We often use the imperative, a command, to express a contingency, such as, "Swallow arsenic, and you will dies." Sometimes we simply express a conditon by saying, "Suppose you swallow arsenic--you will die." But we also use other grammatical structures to express a contingency. For example, we regularly use a relative clause for this purpose: "Whoever swallows this bottle of arsenic will die." We also use a gerund: "Swallowing arsenic will kill you." Or we may rephrase it, "The one who swallows arsenic will die." What is true in English is also true in the biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek.

Now, reflect upon Matthew 10:22 in light of our helpful review of the varied ways language may express conditional or suppositional concepts. Once again, the passage reads, "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 10:22; ESV).

In our discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13 we painstakingly demonstrate that the pertinent portion of the verse presents a supposition that entails a conditional clause and a consequence clause. And, to make our point how and why so many Christians convert the conditional clause and the consequence/conclusion clause, we offered a diagram. Click on the diagram to enlarge it for easier reading.

Fernandez's grammatical error that leads to his theological mistakes should now be obvious. Why he fails to recognize that the passage clearly expresses a conditional relationship between persevering and being saved, I do not understand. Nor do I understand why he fails to acknowledge our helpful and clear explanation of the varied ways condition are expressed (p. 41). What I do know and understand is how tragically sad it is that Steve Fernandez has badly misread, misunderstood, and misrepresented what Tom and I have published for all to read and to assess in The Race Set Before Us.

Now, lest my series of responses become longer than Fernandez's book, I bring it to a close.

May God employ The Race Set Before Us for the instruction, encouragement, and salvation of all who read it, and may he protect all who read the book from drawing wrong and false inferences from whatever we may have poorly or inadequately expressed in the book that would impair their perseverance in faith and trip them up. May God also correct Tom and me to whatever degree what we have written is in error. Certainly, reading a book such as Steve Fernandez's Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner brings to light how some read the book with significantly impair understanding. I pray that the Lord will give such individuals eyes to see and to read what is actually written in the book in order that they might benefit from what they read rather than lapse into making false accusations and engage in misrepresentation.

May the Lord enable us all to be sympathetic readers when we read others who labor in writing and in publishing for the good of Christ's people, the church.

Updated 8/08/2008.

Steve Fernandez on The Race Set Before Us: Seventh Installment

This is the seventh installment of what was originally planned to be three parts concerning Steve Fernandez's numerous misquotations and abuses of The Race Set Before Us first in his PDF version of "Free Justification: A Hill to Die On" and then in his published book Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner. Find all previous installments in this series here.

In my fifth installment I demonstrate that, without any regard for context, Steve Fernandez cherry-picked quotes from The Race Set Before Us and then wrongly inferred that our discussion of salvation in Matthew 24:13 and Mark 13:13 was about justification. I state in the third installment that

Because Steve Fernandez rips our words out of the context of our careful exegetical discussion of Matthew 24:13 and Mark 13:13, he commits the common reductionistic error of presuming that any discussion of salvation is necessarily a discussion of justification. Without any warrant, Fernandez substitutes justification for salvation when he states, "My problem is the word 'attaining.' Persevering is not a necessary evidence of justification, but it actually attains justification."

As I observe in the sixth installment, on page 58 of Free Justification Steve Fernandez strangely does observe the above distinction as the third of "four biblical truths which demonstrate" his aim for the chapter is "to present the biblical case for a completed once-for-all justification: a justification which has no future aspect" (p. 57). Again, for my purposes, I quote only the third of his four statements because of its pertinence.

Third is the distinction in Scripture between justification and salvation. Justification is narrow and specific in meaning. It is a verdict with a focus on once-for-allness. Salvation, however, is comprehensive and broad in meaning. It means deliverance, and has a not-yet-completed element. In short, salvation has both an already partially accomplished aspect, and a future not-yet-accomplished aspect. Justification, on the other hand, has only an already fully accomplished aspect.

As I indicate in my previous installment, I agree with Steve Fernandez that there is a biblical distinction between justification and salvation. Nevertheless, also as I show in my previous entry, I cannot agree with Fernandez that unlike salvation, justification "has only an already fully accomplished aspect."

Having offered the above as review, now I turn attention to Steve Fernandez's later abuses of his failure to acknowledge that throughout our discussion of Matthew 24:13 and Mark 13:13 on pages 147-160 we maintained a proper biblical distinction between salvation and justification without separating the two. So, now let's reflect upon Fernandez's resumption of engaging the discussion of Matthew 24:13 and Mark 13:13 on the final pages of his book, pages 90-93.

On page 90 Fernandez begins his final segment of the fifth and final chapter of the book. The chapter is "Justification, Works, and the Final Judgment." The final segment is "Enduring to the End Is Not a Condition of Attaining Final Salvation or Justification." Here is what Fernandez writes.

Besides passages in Hebrews, another verse which is interpreted to teach that justification and final salvation are conditioned on perseverance in obedience is Matthew 10:22 (parallel passages are Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13). In it Christ says,

You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Christ's words, "but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved" are interpreted to say, 'it is the one who has endured to the end, because he has endured, who will be save.' In other words, endurance or perseverance is seen as a condition, or means, of attaining final salvation and justification. Schreiner and Caneday, for example, commenting on Matthew 10:22 write,

The text says, the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. Jesus' words indicate that perseverance to the end is the necessary condition. Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved.

They do not leave any doubt as to what they have in mind when they say, "perseverance is a means by which one will be saved." For they write in a footnote,

At times we will use the words condition and means interchangeably. When we use the word means, we use it in the sense that perseverance is a necessary means that God has appointed for attaining final salvation.

The authors are to the point: Perseverance is a "condition and means . . . by which" one actually attains final salvation. Their emphasis must not be missed: Perseverance is not merely an evidence of salvation, or that through which we enter into final salvation. It is actually a condition and means of "attaining final salvation." To attain salvation, by perseverance, is to work for it. A primary dictionary definition of attain is, "to achieve, or accomplish; to arrive at, esp. after some labor or tedium." Therefore, to speak of "attaining salvation," is the language of works, whether it is said to be so or not (cited as published; Free Justification, pp. 90-91).

In his engagement of The Race Set Before Us within the above cited material, Fernandez commits several mistakes, not all of them equally fatal. Nevertheless, I will itemize his errors because these errors continue to exhibit his sloppy reading, quotation and use of our book, which, I fear, is indicative of how Fernandez reads, quotes, and uses others also.

1. Fernandez, by enclosing the highlighted following words with single quotation marks and by naming Schreiner and Caneday, seems to imply that the words are ours: "but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved" are interpreted to say, 'it is the one who has endured to the end, because he has endured, who will be saved.'
   
   
2. Even if one generously grants that Fernandez does not intend to suggest that the words are ours, he unambiguously claims that his wording accurately represents our understanding of the passage. Fernandez, however, is wrong. Tom Schreiner and I do not say 'it is the one who has endured to the end, because he has endured, who will be saved.' Nowhere do we make such a claim. Anyone who gives our detailed exegesis of the Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13 a reasonable and fair reading will recognize that Fernandez's understanding is badly skewed.
   
   
3. Though I authored The Race Set Before Us, I could not readily locate Fernandez's quotation of our book from page 151. Why could I not easily locate the quotation? The reason is that once again Fernandez does not correctly cite what he quotes. First, he fails to indicate that his quote breaks into the midst of a sentence. Thus, he should have begun the quotation this way: [T]he text says. . . ." Second, he fails to indicate that there is a paragraph break between the first sentence, "[T]he text says, the one who perseveres to the end will be saved." and the next sentences, "Jesus' words indicate that perseverance to the end is the necessary condition. Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved."
   
   When anyone incorrectly cites another person's writing, published or unpublished, one commits a rather serious error of misrepresentation. One of the reasons reputable publishers hire skilled editors is to check and to correct improperly cited statements that others have made. The numerous citation errors, that I have pointed out, belong to Steve Fernandez, but the reputation of his publisher, Kress Christian Publications, is at stake, for as poorly as the publisher edited Fernandez's book, one has reasonable doubts about all their other books.
   
   
4. Indeed, Tom Schreiner and I do clarify in footnote 11 on page 151 what we mean by "condition" and "means." Two comments are worth making.
   
   First, again picayunish as it may be to point out, once again Fernandez fails to cite our words with the kind of accuracy authors owe other authors. He fails to italicize our words in the statement, "At times we will use the words condition and means interchangeably. When we use the word means, we use it in the sense that perseverance is a necessary means that God has appointed for attaining final salvation."
   
   Second, if Fernandez had read our book with care and with accurate understanding, he would have realized that we explain what our use of "condition" and "means" with considerable care and length on pages 41-43, a fact that he could have easily located in the index of subjects on page 339.
   
   Third, if Fernandez had read our discussion on pages 41-43, he would also have realized that John Piper, who is Fernandez's contemporary theological champion, shares our usage of the term "condition" as we make clear in footnote 57 on page 42, where we state that "we essentially concur with John Piper's discussion of 'conditional promises.' For his discussion see The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1995), pp. 231-59."
   
   
5. Instead of accepting our carefully nuanced usage of "condition" and "means," Fernandez imputes to us a meaning that we do not accept. More emphatically stated, he imputes a meaning that we explicitly reject within our exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13.
   
   Consider the progression of Fernandez's skewed reasoning.
   
   First, he claims, "Their emphasis must not be missed: Perseverance is not merely an evidence of salvation, or that through which we enter into final salvation."
   
   How frustrating! Contrary to Fernandez's claim, on the very page from which he lifts his mangled citation, we state that, though we disagree with John MacArthur's exegesis of of Matthew 10:22 when he converts "the consequence of perseverance (salvation not yet attained) into the cause of perseverance (salvation already possessed)", we agree with his theology that perseverance is an evidence of salvation, and that this "is both biblically and theologically accurate, but the text we are examining does not say that. It is a case of good theology but from the wrong verse" (p. 151).
   
   Likewise, Fernandez claims that we reject the concept that "Perseverance is not . . . that through which we enter into final salvation" (emphasis added). Actually, this is precisely what we do not mean by "means" and "condition." Any fair reading of what we say would readily acknowledge this.
   
   Second, after denying us what we do mean, Fernandez uses the adverb "actually" to emphasize prejudice his readers when he states, "It is actually a condition and means of "attaining final salvation."
   
   Third, to fit his theological biases, Fernandez redefines our use of "attain" in our careful attempt to represent accurately the theological significance of Matthew 10:22. He claims, "To attain salvation, by perseverance, is to work for it." Repeatedly throughout The Race Set Before Us and in our larger discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13, we explicitly identify the notion merit, that Fernandez imputes to us, as a theological error.
   
   Fourth, after he redefines "attain" to suit his theological purposes, then Fernandez appeals to a modern English dictionary as proof that he is right: "A primary dictionary definition of attain is, 'to achieve, or accomplish; to arrive at, esp. after some labor or tedium."
   
   Fifth, Fernandez leads his readers to the false allegation that "Therefore, to speak of 'attaining salvation,' is the language of works, whether it is said to be so or not." In other words, as for Fernandez, it does not matter what we have carefully argued and affirmed concerning "attaining salvation," despite our careful exegetical nuance.
   
   Sixth, it seems evident that Fernandez fails to understand the predicament into which he has placed himself. What will he tell the apostle Paul, or at least the translators of the ESV? Paul says, "that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead." Fernandez's claims concerning the meaning of "attain" are both wrong and silly.

I will post one more entry on Fernandez's comments concerning our exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 that will disclose how badly he has failed to understand either our discussion or the biblical text.

Steve Fernandez on The Race Set Before Us: Sixth Installment

This is the sixth installment of what was originally planned to be three parts concerning Steve Fernandez's numerous misquotations and abuses of The Race Set Before Us first in his PDF version of "Free Justification: A Hill to Die On" and then in his published book Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner. Find all previous posts in this series here.

In my third and fifth installments I address Steve Fernandez's PDF version of "Free Justification: A Hill to Die On," endnote 12 on page 15 and footnote footnote 12 on pages 19-20 of Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner.

I do not reproduce the endnote/footnote here, so please review the note here, if you have not already done so in order that you might understand more clearly what I say in this entry.

In my fifth installment I demonstrate that, without any regard for context, Steve Fernandez cherry-picked quotes from The Race Set Before Us and then wrongly inferred that our discussion of salvation in Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13 was about justification.

In the third installment, I reasoned that

Because Steve Fernandez rips our words out of the context of our careful exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13, he commits the common reductionistic error of presuming that any discussion of salvation is necessarily a discussion of justification. Without any warrant, Fernandez substitutes justification for salvation when he states, "My problem is the word 'attaining.' Persevering is not a necessary evidence of justification, but it actually attains justification."

The strange fact is that in his book, Free Justification, Steve Fernandez does observe this distinction on page 58 as the third of "four biblical truths which demonstrate" his aim for the chapter is "to present the biblical case for a completed once-for-all justification: a justification which has no future aspect" (p. 57). For my purposes, I quote only the third of his four statements because of its pertinence.

Third is the distinction in Scripture between justification and salvation. Justification is narrow and specific in meaning. It is a verdict with a focus on once-for-allness. Salvation, however, is comprehensive and broad in meaning. It means deliverance, and has a not-yet-completed element. In short, salvation has both an already partially accomplished aspect, and a future not-yet-accomplished aspect. Justification, on the other hand, has only an already fully accomplished aspect.

So, Fernandez does recognize that there is a biblical distinction between justification and salvation. I concur with him that such a distinction is biblically warranted. However, I do not agree with Fernandez that unlike salvation, justification "has only an already fully accomplished aspect."

In his excessive anti-Roman Catholic zeal, Steve Fernandez exhibits a non sequitur in his reasoning that renders him incapable of reading accurately anyone who disagrees with his anti-Roman Catholic hermeneutic and seeks to represent accurately the biblical evidence that depicts justification with two aspects, both now and not yet.

Fernandez cites John Owen for support:

I say, therefore, that the evangelical justification, which alone we plead about, is but one, and it is at once completed. . . . Those of the Roman Church do ground their whole doctrine of justification upon a distinction of a double justification; which they call the first and the second (cited on p. 57).

I reiterate, then. As he asserts the purpose of chapter 4 (Once and Forever), Fernandez reasons,

The doctrine of a future or last-day justification, conditioned on the evaluation of the believer's works, undoes the gospel. The gospel of grace is utterly defeated by it. Therefore, in this chapter, my aim is to present the biblical case for a completed once-for-all justification: a justification which has no future aspect (p. 57).

What is Fernandez's non sequitur? He falsely assumes that anyone who contends that the New Testament requires that we acknowledge that justification before God entails a Last Day and therefore future aspect has succumbed to the dreaded doctrine of "double justification" that John Owen and Steve Fernandez find offensive in the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification.

Not anywhere in his book does Steve Fernandez include or discuss Matthew 12:36-37, which should put to rest Fernandez's notion that as for the New Testament it unambiguously speaks of "a justification which has no future aspect." According to Matthew 12:36-37 Jesus unambiguously speaks of justification in the Day of Judgment when he says, "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

I will not presume to defend others, such as N. T. Wright, against Fernandez's charge of advancing the doctrine of "double justification," for on page 56 N. T. Wright falls under his indictment. Elsewhere, such as here and here, I have commented on what I believe entails confusion in how N. T. Wright formulates his understanding of the future aspect of justification. Yet, though I believe that Wright's formulation is confusing and misguiding, I am generous toward him as I give him the benefit of the doubt that his beliefs are more biblically sound than his words may betray.

I will, however, defend myself against Fernandez's allegation that The Race Set Before Us, of which I was a co-author, advances the notion of a "double justification" that is subject to Fernandez's indictment that it is Roman Catholic. Elsewhere on this blog, when discussing Norman Shepherd's views concerning justification, with whom I am in large and substantial agreement, I make the following observations that should put to rest Steve Fernandez's false allegations concerning what Tom and I have published in The Race Set Before Us. Find the following citations here.

Norman Shepherd does not believe in two separate justifications, one now and another on the Last Day. For Shepherd, justification does not consist of two separate parts. To reduce his understanding of justification now and not yet to the notion that justification consists of two separate parts, we have part now and we will receive the other part later, is to fail to do justice to the singularity of justification as Shepherd understands it and explains it.

Replace the word parts with aspects. The word parts, for most people, tends to connote "the idea of division." Thus, they think of justification now as separate from justification not yet. If you will replace the word parts with the word aspects, you will help yourself to avoid the wrong implications concerning what Shepherd is saying and meaning.

The term aspects tends to connote phases of one singular thing, as in aspects or phases of the moon. The not yet justification is of a piece with the already justification. Justification is singular. There is not a past justification that is separate from a future justification. Not yet justification is simply the Last Day phase of what God has already declared over us in and through the gospel in the
present time.

There is no more separateness or division between the now and the not yet phases or aspects of justification than there is between the first quarter and the last quarter aspects or phases of the moon. It is the same and singular moon with distinguishable phases or aspects. It is the same and singular justification with distinguishable aspects or phases, one now and the other not yet.

Can anyone reasonably argue with this expression concerning justification? Justification is singular, just as eternal life and salvation and redemption each are singular, even though each of these expressions biblically portrayed has distinguishable aspects, both now and not yet aspects. Concerning these biblical portrayals and more, all with discernible aspects of both now and not yet, I commend chapter 2 of The Race Set Before Us.

To acknowledge that the Scriptures depict two aspects or two phases concerning justification--both an already aspect and a not yet aspect--is not at all the same as embracing a "double justification," the kind that Fernandez and Owen condemn. As I have contended throughout my adult professional career, justification is singular or unitary with two aspects, both now and not yet. In fact, my teaching and writing record unequivocally shows that, with Owen and Fernandez, I reject a "double justification" that treats the now and the not yet aspects of justification as grounded upon anything other than the substitutionary sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. I affirm that justification now is of a piece with justification in the Last Day. I use the idiom, "of a piece," to mean that the two phases or aspects of justification are of one singular whole. The already verdict of being declared righteous is the not yet verdict of being declared righteous in advance of the Last Day on the basis of Christ's substitutionary sacrificial death announced to us through God's latter day good news, the message of the cross.

Biblically speaking, the not yet aspect of justification is wholly grounded in the sacrificial death of Christ Jesus who endured God's wrath poured out upon him in the place of everyone for whom he was appointed to bear eternal punishment as their substitute. In other words, when we hear God's justifying verdict declared openly and publicly in the Last Day, it will be the same verdict that we already know by faith in the Son of God and it will be on the same basis, Christ's sacrificial death, as the verdict that we already know by belief in Jesus Christ.

The now aspect of justification and the not yet aspect of justification are inseparably bound together as one by virtue of the fact that Christ's first and second advents are inseparably bound together. For on the cross Christ Jesus underwent God's wrathful judgment of sin in advance of the Last Day. In other words, in his first advent, Christ Jesus brought the Day of Judgment, the Last Day, forward so that now, in the gospel, we who believe in Jesus Christ already receive God's Last Day verdict of not only "not condemned" (Roman 8:1) but of "justification" (Romans 5:1).

In my next blog entry I will resume aspects of this entry as I endeavor to pick up the argument in Fernandez's book as he engages The Race Set Before Us.

Edited and Updated 8/08/2008.

Steve Fernandez on The Race Set Before Us: Fifth Installment

This is the fifth installment of what was originally intended to be three parts. Find the first installment here, the second here, and the third here. This series concerns Steve Fernandez's book, Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner.

Now that I have received my copy of his book it seems right and honorable to indicate that Fernandez modified one of his notes in which he misrepresents things Tom Schreiner and I published in The Race Set Before Us by sloppy elliptical quotations. Originally, Fernandez published the first chapter of his book as a PDF copy of Free Justification: A Hill to Die On, available on the internet.

In this entry I will show first the PDF version endnote 12 on page 15 followed by Steve Fernandez's modified note in his book, Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner. As I will show, his sloppy ellipstical quotations still mask what Tom Schreiner and I actually wrote in The Race Set Before Us. First, here is endnote 12 on page 15 of the PDF version.

Schreiner and Caneday insist that perseverance is an actual means of attaining justification. They say, "Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved . . . we will use the words condition and means interchangeably. When we use the words [sic] means, we use it in the sense that perseverance is a necessary means that God has appointed for attaining final salvation." Schreiner and Caneday, p. 151. My problem is the word "attaining." Persevering is not a necessary evidence of justification, but it actually attains justification. It would follow that our justification is held in suspense until the final judgment. Schreiner and Caneday acknowledge this for they also say, "Conditional warnings and admonitions suspend God’s judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age . . . since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul’s doctrine of justification . . . with the effect that Paul’s orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed . . . for Paul, justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict. . ." (Ibid., p. 154, 160-161). The ‘overstatement’ of justification, it would seem, is clearly their disagreement with the Reformed teaching that justification is a completed and final declaration made at the point of first believing.

Below is the modified note as footnote 12 on page 19 of Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner. I highlight the modified or added portion for your easier detection.

Schreiner and Caneday insist that perseverance is an actual means of attaining justification. They say, "Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved . . . we will use the words condition and means interchangeably. When we use the word means, we use it in the sense that perseverance is a necessary means that God has appointed for attaining final salvation." Schreiner and Caneday, p. 151. My problem is the word "attaining." Persevering is not a necessary evidence of justification, but it actually attains justification. It would follow that our justification is held in suspense until the final judgment. Schreiner and Caneday acknowledge this for they also say, "Conditional warnings and admonitions suspend God’s judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age . . . since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul’s doctrine of justification . . . with the effect that Paul’s orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed . . . for Paul, justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict. . ." (Ibid., p. 154, 160-161). This is clearly an interchangeable use of salvation and justification. In their system God's judgment on the last day [which is justification], is held in suspense. First, conditions must be met. The believer will then attain final salvation and the verdict of justification. For, in their words, "justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict." The problem they are correcting, is that "many overstate Paul's doctrine of justification." This "overstatement" it seems, is the historic teaching that justification is a complete and final declaration with no future element contingent on works.

Could Fernandez's mistake be more obvious? After skipping, jumping, and leaping from page 154 ("Conditional warnings and admonitions suspend God’s judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age. . . .) to page 160 (". . . since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul’s doctrine of justification . . . with the effect that Paul’s orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed. . . .) and then to page 161 (" . . . for Paul, justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict. . . ." ) Fernandez indiscriminately merges what Tom Schreiner and I discuss with proper biblical distinctions throughout those eight pages and then he attributes to us his own misguided and merged inferences as certain and true, when it is clearly neither certain nor truthful. Only Fernandez's sloppy and elliptical quotation could bring him to his conclusion that "This is clearly an interchangeable use of salvation and justification" in his own mind, not in actuality.

In a later blog entry I will return to this sloppy elliptical quotation because Steve Fernandez returns to it on pages 90-92 of Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner.

Steve Fernandez on The Race Set Before Us: Fourth Installment

Today, I received my copy of Steve Fernandez's book, Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner (available also here) of which he had published the planned initial chapter titled, Free Justification: A Hill to Die On, on the internet.

Wow! What an overpriced book! It consists of only 97 pages, including the Scripture index and an advertizing page. The book is listed for $11.99. I purchased it at a discount for $9.59. At $11.99 the book costs more than 12 cents per page, considerably more costly per page than most books I purchase. This book's price competes with the price per page that one finds with most E. J. Brill books. Brief as the book is, I completed reading it within an hour after I opened the package today. I will be adding further commentary on aspects of the book. Watch for new blog entries on the book.

The book consists of a preface plus five chapters.

Preface--Free Justification and Joy in Honduras

Chapters

1. Free Justification: A Hill to Die On
2. Counted Righteous in Christ: Part One--What Is "The Righteousness of God" Imputed for Justification?
3. Counted Righteous in Christ: Part Two--How Is "The Righteousness of God" Imputed for Justification?
4. At One and Forever--Why is Justification Final and Complete, So That There Is No Future Justification?
5. Justification, Works, and the Final Judgment--Where Do Works Fit in, in Relation to Free Justification?

Steve Fernandez is President of The Cornerstone Seminary, Senior Pastor of Community Bible Church, Vallejo, California, and host pastor of the Exalting Christ Conference sponsored by Exalting Christ Ministries.

Steve Fernandez on The Race Set Before Us: Third Installment

This is the third installment of three parts. Find the first installment here and the second here. This concerns a re-posting of a single document that I had originally published on another of my blogs a few years ago but shortly thereafter removed it for reasons that I explain here and here.

Now that Steve Fernandez has published his book, Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner, and has reproduced in it his misrepresentations and abusive citations of The Race Set Before Us as found in his internet published PDF copy of Free Justification: A Hill to Die On, which constitutes the first chapter of his book.

In this entry I will address the PDF version endnote 12 Page 15 where, once again, Steve Fernandez sloppily quotes and exploits ellipses that mask what Tom Schreiner and I actually wrote in The Race Set Before Us. (Find the following footnote 12 on page 19 of Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner.)

Schreiner and Caneday insist that perseverance is an actual means of attaining justification. They say, "Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved . . . we will use the words condition and means interchangeably. When we use the words [sic] means, we use it in the sense that perseverance is a necessary means that God has appointed for attaining final salvation." Schreiner and Caneday, p. 151. My problem is the word "attaining." Persevering is not a necessary evidence of justification, but it actually attains justification. It would follow that our justification is held in suspense until the final judgment. Schreiner and Caneday acknowledge this for they also say, "Conditional warnings and admonitions suspend God’s judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age . . . since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul’s doctrine of justification . . . with the effect that Paul’s orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed . . . for Paul, justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict. . ." (Ibid., p. 154, 160-161). The ‘overstatement’ of justification, it would seem, is clearly their disagreement with the Reformed teaching that justification is a completed and final declaration made at the point of first believing.

Several errors need to be corrected.

1. The context from which Steve Fernandez rips the statements on page 151 of The Race Set Before Us is not a discussion of justification. Instead, it is a discussion concerning Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13--The one who perseveres to the end will be saved--a discussion that begins on page 147 and concludes on page 160. On the page from which Fernandez rips our statements Tom and I show how exegetes transpose Jesus' conditional promise, expressed in these two passages, by inverting the two clauses as follows.
   
   Click on the diagram to enlarge it for easier readability. Click here to see the chart on its page at Amazon.com.
   
   Immediately prior to the words that Fernandez lifted out of context, we explain that the result of exegetes' inverting the two clauses "is that they convert the consequence of perseverance (salvation not yet attained) into the cause of perseverance (salvation already possessed). With this conceptual reorientation, one comments: "Jesus, speaking to His disciples, said, 'It is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved' (Matt. 10:22; cf. 24:13). Now at first glance that appears to contradict the truth that God is going to keep us saved, but it doesn't. We are energized to endure by the indwelling Spirit. The mark of justification is perseverance in righteousness to the very end." [quoted from John MacArthur, Jr. Saved Without a Doubt {Wheaton: Victor, 1992}, p. 149] This a remarkable comment, characteristic of many Calvinists, for without realization or intention, anyone who explains the text this way inverts the two elements of the conditional promise. This explanation essentially reads the text as saying, "The one who is saved will persevere unto the end." This both biblically and theologically accurate, but the text we are examining does not say that. It is a case of good theology but from the wrong verse. Rather, the text says, "The one who perseveres to the end will be saved."
   
   Jesus' words indicate that perseverance to the end is the necessary condition.
   
   Charitable, though I want to be generous toward Steve Fernandez, his abuse of the ellipsis in his quotation is strains charity. Consider what Fernandez does with this quotation: "Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved . . . we will use the words condition and means interchangeably. When we use the words means, we use it in the sense that perseverance is a necessary means that God has appointed for attaining final salvation."
   
   Two things need to be said about the first portion of the quotation [Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved].
   
   First, it is a complete sentence. It is not a portion of a sentence as Steve Fernandez represents it by his misuse of the ellipsis marks. He should have placed closing quotation marks at the end of the sentence following the word "saved".
   
   Second, the first portion of the quotation is from the text on page 151, but the portion that follows the ellipsis marks (. . .) is part of footnote 11 on page 151.
   


2. How else can one describe what Steve Fernandez has done except sloppy, at best, when he shifts his quotation from the text to footnote 11 on the same page but represents the quotation from the footnote as if it followed in the text portion just as the first portion of the quote?
   


3. Because Steve Fernandez rips our words out of the context of our careful exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13, he commits the common reductionistic error of presuming that any discussion of salvation is necessarily a discussion of justification. Without any warrant, Fernandez substitutes justification for salvation when he states, "My problem is the word 'attaining.' Persevering is not a necessary evidence of justification, but it actually attains justification." In chapter 2 of The Race Set Before Us we discuss carefully and at length the many and varied imageries that Scripture uses to portray salvation. We make every effort throughout our book to honor the imagery for salvation in each biblical text and not to confound the imagery. Throughout our exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13 we are careful to speak of the passage in the terms that the passage presents and not to introduce other biblical imagery for salvation into the passage. Fernandez, not Schreiner and I, confounds salvation with justification and then imputes error to us.
   


4. Because Steve Fernandez wrongfully presumes that our exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13 is an abstract discussion of justification, next he draws an entirely unwarranted conclusion that actually contradicts what Tom and I readily acknowledge on the very page from which Fernandez rips our words. He states, "My problem is the word 'attaining.' Persevering is not a necessary evidence of justification, but it actually attains justification."
   
   For the sake of Fernandez's argument, let's give him the benefit of the doubt by accepting his substitution of justification for salvation. We affirm that the statement The one who is saved will persevere unto the end "is both biblically and theologically accurate, but the text we are examining does not say that. It is a case of good theology but from the wrong verse. Rather, the text says, 'The one who perseveres to the end will be saved.'" What does this mean, assuming Fernandez's substitution of justification for salvation? It means that Tom and I affirm that persevering is a necessary evidence of justification. We agree that everyone who is justified by God's grace will persevere in faith unto the end, just as we affirm on page 151 that "The one who is saved will persevere unto the end."
   


5. Again, because Steve Fernandez wrongfully presumes that our exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13 is an abstract discussion of justification, next he draws another wholly unwarranted conclusion that actually contradicts what Tom and I readily acknowledge on the very page from which Fernandez rips our words. Fernandez states, "It would follow that our justification is held in suspense until the final judgment." If Steve Fernandez would read The Race Set Before Us as a whole and not cherry pick our words to suit his purposes, he would have to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his abusive quotations and of his conclusions and repent of his error. Tom and I would be eager to forgive his wrongs against us, if he would acknowledge them.
   
   Throughout the book Tom and I affirm exactly the opposite of what Fernandez claims. For example, on page 78 where we discuss the biblical imagery of justification or righteousness, we state, "'Everyone who believes is justified' (Acts 13:39), showing that righteousness becomes theirs when they believe. Righteousness is given to all now when they believe through God's grace (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22, 24, 28, 30; 4:3, 5-6, 9, 11, 13, 22; 5:1; 8:30, 33,; 9:30; Gal 3:6; Phil 3:9; Tit 3:7). Paul specifically says, "We have been justified now by his blood" (Rom 5:9 NIV; cf. 5:1). The word now indicates with certainty that righteousness is a present gift. In the vast majority of instances, righteousness is said to belong to believers now. As with forgiveness, New Testament writers wanted to emphasize that believers are right with God in this life" [all underlined emphases added].
   
   Tom and I included an entire chapter in The Race Set Before Us, titled "Running with Confidence: Being Assured That We Shall Win the Prize" (pp. 268-311), in which we argue that assurance of salvation is of the essence of belief. By this we mean that assurance that God's Last Day justifying verdict is already ours is integral to faith in Jesus Christ. If you doubt me, read our book. Read chapter 7, "Running with Confidence," and discover for yourself that I speak the truth and that Steve Fernandez is wrong in his understanding and judgment of The Race Set Before Us.
   
   From our exegetical discussion of Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13 Fernandez has drawn the wrongful conclusion: "It would follow that our justification is held in suspense until the final judgment." Now bad as this error is, Steve Fernandez's next error is a case of gross malpractice or malfeasance. To this wrongful conclusion, he adds, "Schreiner and Caneday acknowledge this for they also say, 'Conditional warnings and admonitions suspend God’s judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age . . . since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul’s doctrine of justification . . . with the effect that Paul’s orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed . . . for Paul, justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict. . .' (Ibid., p. 154, 160-161)."
   
   Again, Fernandez commits several errors with his quotation, seven that I detail in items 6 through 12.
   
   
6. First, Fernandez wrongfully cites the words "Conditional warnings and admonitions suspend God's judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age. . . ." Apart from taking considerable time to locate these words on page 154 of The Race Set Before Us, who would realize that Fernandez capitalizes the word "conditional" without telling his readers that he has done so? Who would realize that the words that he has cited are the final words of a sentence which explains why exegetes so easily transpose Jesus' warning in Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13, as shown in the diagram above? Consider, then, the context of the words that Fernandez quotes: "Without realizing it, this author transposes Jesus' warning from a prospective incentive for perseverance to the end into a retrospective test that exposes pseudodisciples by their past behavior. How does this transposition occur? It begins with conceptual discomfort because conditional warnings and admonitions suspect God's judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age." This citation is sloppily cherry picked. Is it not?
   
   
7. Second, Fernandez follows this cherry picked quotation with an ellipsis that not only leaps over pages 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 to page 161, but also leaps into a completely new section of chapter 5 (Admonition and Warning in Paul's Letters) and furthermore, leaps into the middle of a sentence. Thus, his quotation is nonsensical because the subject of the sentence on page 161 is not "conditional warnings and admonitions". Consider Fernandez's malpractice in citing the words in italicized and underlined bold from page 160: "Although we have already shown in chapter two how New Testament writers have a dual orientation in their concept of salvation, including both already and not yet, it may be helpful to summarize briefly Paul's perspective. We do so primarily because, since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul's doctrine of justification." The portion Fernandez fails to quote is in red.
   
   
8. Third, Fernandez's abuse of quotation gets even worse because he refuses to quote the above bolded/italicized/underlined sentence in its entirety but breaks the sentence at its most crucial point where Tom and I explain the result of overstating Paul's doctrine of justification. So, despite repetition, here is the whole portion again, this time with the crucial resultant clause retained. "Although we have already shown in chapter two how New Testament writers have a dual orientation in their concept of salvation, including both already and not yet, it may be helpful to summarize briefly Paul's perspective. We do so primarily because, since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul's doctrine of justification, so that it swallows up all other metaphors for salvation." Observe, then, how Steve Fernandez ripped the bolded/italicized/underlined portion from its context to say what he wanted to say.
   
   
9. Fourth, observe also that Steve Fernandez is guilty of committing the error that Tom and I identify in the resultant portion that he passed over in the statement from which he cherry picked "since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul's doctrine of justification." As I demonstrate above, in #3, Fernandez "commits the common reductionistic error of presuming that any discussion of salvation is necessarily a discussion of justification." In other words, Steve Fernandez is guilty of letting his understanding of justification swallow up other imageries for salvation.
   
   
10. Fifth, Fernandez follows the words "since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul’s doctrine of justification" with an ellipsis that leaps into the middle of the next sentence to quote the following words ". . . with the effect that Paul’s orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed" followed by another ellipsis. These words are in a sentence that actually explains Fernandez's theological error, for Tom and I explain what we mean when we say that "many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul's doctrine of justification, so that it swallows up all other metaphors for salvation." We explain, "The consequence has been to exaggerate salvation's already aspects with the effect that Paul's orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed into an overrealized view that the whole of salvation is already fully ours." Once again, I have highlighted the segment that Fernandez cherry picks for his purposes and I have placed the ignored portions in red. Given the fuller context, is not Fernandez's malpractice obvious? He has mutilated the meaning that Tom and I gave to our own words.
    
    
11. Sixth, again, Fernandez abuses our words and our meaning by elliptical quotation. He cuts the quotation short by ignoring the all important prepositional phrases following the verb collapsed and instead inserts ellipsis marks and then leaps to the midst of the final paragraph on page 161 to quote the words "for Paul, justification remains fundamentally the eschatological verdict. . . ." Fernandez misleads readers again by failing to indicate that he cites the beginning of a new sentence and does not drop into the midst of a sentence. He fails to show his readers that he has changed the capitalized "For" to the lower case "for."
    
    
12. Seventh, then Steve Fernandez reaches back to page 160 where Tom and I explain that "since the Reformation many Protestant Christians have tended to overstate Paul's doctrine of justification, so that it swallows up all other metaphors for salvation." Fernandez concludes that "The ‘overstatement’ of justification, it would seem, is clearly their disagreement with the Reformed teaching that justification is a completed and final declaration made at the point of first believing." Clearly, Steve Fernandez fails badly to understand what Tom and I wrote and meant. No, the overstating of Paul's doctrine of justification to which we refer is emphatically not as Steve Fernandez presumes to claim. The overstatement is exactly as we explained in those portions of the text that Fernandez chose to ignore and passed over in his cherry picked quotations, just as I have explained in the fourth and fifth points immediately above. Steve Fernandez is guilty of the overstating of Paul's doctrine of justification of which we wrote. He is guilty of this by allowing his understanding of Paul's doctrine of justification to swallow up other imageries for salvation, including salvation itself. Fernandez has so exaggerated "salvation's already aspects with the effect that Paul's orientation on salvation as not yet fully realized has virtually collapsed into an overrealized view that the whole of salvation is already fully ours" (The Race Set Before Us, p. 160).
    
    As a matter of fact, if Steve Fernandez had read The Race Set Before Us with understanding, he would have recognized his erroneous conclusion. In the very portions that Steve Fernandez chooses to ignore with his cherry picked quotations, Tom and I unequivocally affirm the present assuredness of God's justifying verdict. In one of the portions on page 161 that Fernandez leaps over with his ellipsis we state,
    
    

    Paul announces in his gospel that God has revealed his righteous judgment in the present time (Rom 3:21-26). God has already begun his good work in us (Phil 1:6) by calling us to believe "in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (Rom 4:24). God has brought the verdict of the day of judgment forward, into the midst of redemptive history, for God has graciously revealed his righteousness through the gospel (Rom 1:17), which announces that God's obedient son, Jesus Christ (Rom 5:19), has already appeared in the flesh (Rom 1:3-4) and has already borne God's wrath for us by becoming a sin offering on our behalf (Rom 8:3). Because God condemned his own Son in our place, he has already rendered his judgment, vindicating his own righteousness, so that he now justifies all who embrace Jesus Christ (Rom 3:26). Thus, God already gives the eschatological gift of righteousness in advance of the day of judgment (Rom 5:17). Therefore, as far as the believer is concerned, the verdict of God's judgment is already in, though the day of judgment has not yet arrived. The verdict is acquittal (Rom 5:1; 8:1). This verdict is irrevocable for all whom God has called to believe (Rom 8:30), for because Christ Jesus died and was raised and now intercedes for us, God's verdict is final; God will not hear any further charges against his chosen ones, for his verdict stands (Rom 8:34).

Now, I ask you readers. Which part of this extended quotation, that Steve Fernandez chose to ignore by passing over in his selective quoting, confirms his conclusion that for Schreiner and Caneday "The 'overstatement' of justification, it would seem, is clearly their disagreement with the Reformed teaching that justification is a completed and final declaration made at the point of first believing"?

How lamentable are Steve Fernandez's numerous errors! How lamentable that he refused to respond to the several overtures that both Tom and I extended to him! How lamentable that a minister of the gospel would engage in the malpractice of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and misquotation. As a teacher I have read thousands of student papers of varied lengths. Yet, I cannot recall reading any paper that reflects abusive cherry picked quotations that lead the writer to such blatantly wrong conclusions about what others have written as I have read in Steve Fernandez's first chapter of his book. Given the uncorrected sloppiness of his first chapter that he published a few years ago on the internet, I am fearful lest his published book be full of the same kind of sloppiness.

Christian scholars, of all scholars, ought to be the most careful, given the ethic of the gospel we confess. If we ought to measure every spoken word that dissipates and becomes irretrievable, how much more should we measure every written word, especially when we are critiquing the beliefs of others. I am reminded of what Paul has to say concerning those who misrepresented his preaching and teaching. "Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved" (Romans 3:8).

Once again, I quote one of my favorites, Thomas Sowell. "Although I am ready to defend what I have said, many people expect me to defend what others have attributed to me."

Steve Fernandez on The Race Set Before Us: Second Installment

This is installment two of three parts. Find the first installment here. This concerns a re-posting of a single document that I had originally published on another of my blogs a few years ago but shortly thereafter removed it for reasons that I explain here and here.

Now that Steve Fernandez has published his book, Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner, and has reproduced in it his misrepresentations and abusive citations of The Race Set Before Us as found in his internet published PDF copy of Free Justification: A Hill to Die On, which constitutes the first chapter of his book.

I will address the PDF version. Consider Steve Fernandez's endnote 11 on page 15. (Find the following footnote 11 on page 19 of Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner.)

Schreiner and Caneday say that our final complete justification is conditioned on our earnest pursuit of holiness. They say, “By faith he concentrates every nerve, every muscle, every desire on the singular goal that lies before him to win Christ (v. 9). For to win Christ is the only hope of being declared righteous before God in the day of judgment. . . . Paul extends his use of athletic imagery in Philippians 3:12-15, lest anyone presume to have won Christ already without the need for steadfast faith to the very end” Ibid, pp. 111-112. The emphasis is clear. Christ is not fully ours in this life; we must await the final judgment to see whether Christ will be ours and we will be declared righteous. I must confess that I am not able to see how this is not justification by works. Nor how this differs from the Roman Catholic teaching of a final justification by infused grace. It seems that in the final analysis, sanctification is turned into justification, and the gospel of grace, with an immediate free and full pardon by faith in Christ, is gone.

Now consider how much fuller Fernandez's endnote/footnote would have been if he had not cherry-picked words and sentences to achieve his agenda. Unless his readers actually pick up The Race Set Before Us to read the segments that he quotes, those readers will not realize that Fernandez uses the ellipsis marks (. . .) to leap over two absolutely crucial paragraphs. In fact, as you read those two paragraphs in red below, you will discover that these two paragraphs completely contradict the conclusions that he draws concerning what we say and mean.

Here, then, is Steve Fernandez's endnote/footnote filled out with the missing paragraphs from page 111 of The Race Set Before Us. Also, following the segment that Fernandez quotes I have included two paragraphs from page 112 which make it obvious that we simply expressed what Paul's own words from Philippians 3:12-15 express. It shows that Fernandez's quarrel, ultimately, is not with us but with the Apostle Paul.

Schreiner and Caneday say that our final complete justification is conditioned on our earnest pursuit of holiness. They say, “By faith he concentrates every nerve, every muscle, every desire on the singular goal that lies before him to win Christ (v. 9). For to win Christ is the only hope of being declared righteous before God in the day of judgment. . . . [It may seem that Paul mixes metaphors–the athletic and the courtroom–for he introduces the imagery of judgment. However, because judges enforced the rules of the games in the athletic arena (cf. 2 Tim 2:5), Paul’s imagery is consistent with the arena metaphor. Paul is determined to run his race with complete devotion in order that he might win Christ, which is the same as “knowing Christ” (Phil 3:8) and being “found in him” (vs. 9). The expression, “that I may be found in him,” does not deny that the Christian is already “in Christ.” It is a phrase that derives from the courtroom where the defendant is found either guilty or not guilty. Without denying his present state of righteousness in Christ, Paul makes it clear that he determines that God’s righteous verdict shall be his in the day of judgment. Therefore, he portrays his own Christian faith as a race in pursuit of Christ and the wreath of righteousness which will be awarded to all who persevere in faith to the end (cf. 2 Tim 4:7-8).

Paul elaborates upon the intensity of his athletic-like faithful pursuit of being found in Christ when God judges. The pathway of this pursuit brings acquired knowledge of both Christ and the power resident in his resurrection, and it brings about a real participation with Christ in his sufferings as one, who like him, dies to sin. Only if we run this pathway that brings us through death to sin, to the world, and to self, is there any hope that we will attain the resurrection of eternal life (Phil 3:10-11). One cannot win Christ at the end without faithfully running this course now. Faith endeavors to overcome every obstacle of the race course now in order that it may victoriously clutch Christ as the prize when it attains the end.]

Paul extends his use of athletic imagery in Philippians 3:12-15, lest anyone presume to have won Christ already without the need for steadfast faith to the very end.

[Not that I have already arrived or have already been perfected, but I pursue it, if I also may lay hold of that for which I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brothers and sisters, I do not yet regard myself as having laid hold of it. I do but one thing: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I pursue the goal to attain the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. As many as are perfect, let us think like this. And if someone thinks differently, God will reveal this understanding to you also. Only let us live up to what we have already attained (Phil 3:12-15).

Like a marathon runner, Paul disavows satisfaction with past accomplishments and sets his eye upon the goal. He recognizes that there are obstacles to overcome that lie between his present attainment and the goal because he has not yet arrived at the goal line. Continuity between the starting block and finish line of this race course is attained only by faith in the God who exists and who rewards all
who pursue him.]” Ibid, pp. 111-112. The emphasis is clear. Christ is not fully ours in this life; we must await the final judgment to see whether Christ will be ours and we will be declared righteous. I must confess that I am not able to see how this is not justification by works. Nor how this differs from the Roman Catholic teaching of a final justification by infused grace. It seems that in the final analysis, sanctification is turned into justification, and the gospel of grace, with an immediate free and full pardon by faith in Christ, is gone.

Steve Fernandez thoroughly misrepresents our affirmations that the “not yet” verdict of the day of judgment has become ours “already” in Christ, and because of this, we may in this present age already have bold confidence and assurance of our acquittal before God that will be ours in the Last Day. We scrupulously and carefully distinguish the biblical imageries of justification and sanctification without separating them and without effacing either with the other.

Once again, consider the following portion that Steve Fernandez deliberately left out of his citation of our book.

The expression, “that I may be found in him,” does not deny that the Christian is already “in Christ.” It is a phrase that derives from the courtroom where the defendant is found either guilty or not guilty. Without denying his present state of righteousness in Christ, Paul makes it clear that he determines that God’s righteous verdict shall be his in the day of judgment.

Given what we say, how could Steve Fernandez possibly and in good conscience draw the following contrary conclusion?

The emphasis is clear. Christ is not fully ours in this life; we must await the final judgment to see whether Christ will be ours and we will be declared righteous.

The conclusion Steve Fernandez has drawn is both unreasonable and wrong. Tom and I devote an entire chapter, "Running with Confidence: Being Assured that We Shall Win the Prize" (pp. 268-311), to affirm and demonstrate from Scripture why we are convinced that assurance of salvation is of the essence of faith. In other words, we contend that being assured that we shall be saved in the Last Day is integral to Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Did Steve Fernandez read this chapter? If he did, it would seem that he did not read it with understanding.

Add the following erroneous, unwarranted, and ridiculous conclusions that he states in the same endnote/footnote.

I must confess that I am not able to see how this is not justification by works. Nor how this differs from the Roman Catholic teaching of a final justification by infused grace. It seems that in the final analysis, sanctification is turned into justification, and the gospel of grace, with an immediate free and full pardon by faith in Christ, is gone.

What? Justification by works? To offer a response would run the risk of giving dignity to the foolishness of Fernandez's charge. Yet, I run the risk. What part of the two following statements is so difficult to understand that what we are talking about is faith, belief in Christ Jesus?

Therefore, he portrays his own Christian faith as a race in pursuit of Christ and the wreath of righteousness which will be awarded to all who persevere in faith to the end.

Faith endeavors to overcome every obstacle of the race course now in order that it may victoriously clutch Christ as the prize when it attains the end.

That Steve Fernandez could possibly draw the conclusion that Tom and I advocate the notion that the Apostle Paul's pursuit was to achieve his own righteousness before God on the basis of his own works is preposterous. How did we not make it clear that Paul's pursuit of righteousness before God was entirely focused upon being "found in Christ"? What does this mean except that Paul's only hope was to be found righteous before God on the basis of Christ's accomplishments on his behalf and not on any achievement of his own which we expressed this way, as we echo Paul's words: "Like a marathon runner, Paul disavows satisfaction with past accomplishments and sets his eye upon the goal."