Gathercole and Justification Part 3

Simon Gathercole has an interesting view on God's final judgment. First, Gathercole believes that Paul’s Jewish contemporaries anticipated in a final judgment based on works.

“[T]he function of works, then, is, for Paul’s Jewish contemporaries, not primarily to mark them out as distinct from Gentiles but to secure vindication at the eschatological judgment. This is what is most immediately in view in Romans 3:19-10: Paul is opposing the idea that his Jewish contemporaries will be vindicated by God at the final judgment on the basis of a wholehearted obedience to the law. [pg. 239]

Secondly, Gathercole thinks Paul's principal disagreement with his Jewish contemporaries is the idea that sinful man (the flesh) can’t receive “God’s transforming grace” not that the final judgment is based on works.

“Paul particular complaint is that this impossible for the flesh, for the sinful person who has not received God’s transforming grace in Christ. Paul is not opposed in principle to the idea of final vindication on the basis of obedience; in this respect he agrees with his Jewish interlocutor (Rom. 2:7-10) What he disputes is the ability of the flesh to obey sufficiently to attain this justification (Rom. 8:3,7) [pg.239]

“In the light of this, then, Paul can be seen to be opposing the confidence of Jews in final vindication on the basis of obedience to the law. Again, this is not because he disagrees with the eschatological framework of his Jewish contemporaries or because he thinks obedience is unimportant but, rather, because he views obedience to Torah as impossible without the transforming power of Christ and the Spirit. [pg.240]

Lastly, Gathercole has some interesting thoughts on the relationship between “initial justification” and “the final judgment”, with the link being perseverance.

“Can this diversity, even within Paul himself, be accounted for? If can as long as we do not have a monolithic conception of justification whereby it only ever refers in the New Testament to the justification of the ungodly. A particularly important clue comes in the Jesus tradition from Matthew 12. The New Testament does not offer two ways of salvation, one by faith and one by works. Rather, the category of those who are justified by faith is coextensive with those will be justified on the final day after a whole life of perseverance. The two groups are identical; there are none who begin in faith but, as a result of not obeying, are not vindicated. Similarly, for Paul, it does not make sense to speak those who have somehow managed to obey outside faith. Obedience is the “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5, etc.). [pg.235]



[1] These quotes are taken from the book "Justification in Perspectives: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges" edited by Bruce McCormack

Gathercole and Justification Part 2

In my opinion, Gathercole has a unique view of how God justifies the ungodly. Normally, I think of justification as occurring after regeneration and faith, but Gathercole seems to have justification as creating the latter two.

Gathercole, speaking on the “potential dangerous” of Protestant view, writes:

“The principal trouble is if one supposes that God can declare something to be the case (namely, that the sinner is righteous) but that in reality the opposite state of affairs persists: in God’s eyes, that believer is justus (“righteous”), but his or her real being is fundamentally as peccator (“sinner”). We should more properly consider that God’s “speech-acts” are what determine reality; they do not merely create an alternative, Platonic reality. If God declares a sinner to be righteous, then he or she really is righteous. Reality at the forensic level (justus) is no less real then the reality made up of human actions (peccator).” [pg. 226]

Later Gathercole writes:

“In the light of the explanation of justification as a declaration with creative power, it is proper to see it as constituting a true definition of the being of the believer. The believer has not had an infusion of moral righteousness but is determined by God- in the cross- to be righteous. The righteousness here should not be understood either as an infused moral power or as covenant membership (as we will see in discussion with Wright below). According to Paul, when we are reckoned righteous, it is not that we have done what God requires, such that he is recognizing the status quo. Rather, even as we are ungodly, he declares us righteous. By God’s creative word, then, we stand as embodying everything that God requires. In our identity and being we have been determined righteous by God”. [pg 227].

Towards the end of the Gathercole’s essay, he states that “God’s creative word” gives faith in order to allow Christians to meet God’s entire requirement:

“Paul says “yes” to the alternative “instrumental cause” of faith, which he understands as trusting God’s promise. By divine decision, this reckoned as righteousness. That is to say, the believer is reckoned as having accomplished all that God requires. Justification then is not merely a reckoning as being in covenant membership. It is something bigger- God’s creative act whereby, through divine determination, the believer has done everything that God requires. [pg 240]

Thank Mike

All of FPC is indebted to Mike Chiu's humble service at the church. If it wasn't for him, FPC wouldn't have experienced the great successes and joys over the years or be where it is at today. About 10 years ago, Mike was left as the only godly shepherd at FPC EM after the departure of most (and later all) of the adult leaders. From there, Mike could have easily left FPC for green pastures but instead decided to stay to help the remnant of youth still at the church, thus laying the foundation for its future successes and blessings.

Without Mike, there would have been no John Potter, Powerball, study on Romans, graduation banquet at Pepper Tree, Mexico and New Orleans mission trips, basketball goal, lock-in, corny jokes, bowling, stupid Jedi/Ninja videos, Darko, Marie nicknames, City Fest, Wii, help on school projects, worship team, expository preaching, membership class, good bbq at that one retreat, Chi Chi's summer group, Wilson turning CRAZY at the sight of a wasp, no "Silly, Billy, or Killy", Circle of Death, Chicken butt, and retreat shirts with a chicken on it.

Maybe the statement above is overstated and that we in some measure would have experienced all these things at FPC even without Mike, but I know for a fact it wouldn't have been the same enjoyable, life changing, and God-exalting experience without him. So as Mike leaves for San Diego, we should all remember to "thank Mike".

Seifrid and Alien Righteousness

"Faith spans the gap between the present and the day of judgment. It is the true worship, which sets the believer in constant movement forwards, and which counts as righteousness before God (Phil. 3 verses 3, 9). Paul has it as his aim 'that I might be found in him not having my own righteousness which is from the law, but the righteousness which through "the faith of Christ", the righteousness from God on the basis of faith' (verse 9). Here he has in view the day when God will examine him, and hopes to meet that judgment with the 'righteousness of faith'. The righteousness Paul desires come from God, 'on the basis of faith'. Faith, not the righteousness from the law, constitutes piety before God. Yet this righteousness accorded to faith is an 'alien righteousness', which does not belong to Paul as his righteousness from the law once did. Faith and its righteousness from the law once did. Faith and its righteousness are present only "in Christ'. The 'faith of Christ' is faith which has its source in him, in his death and resurrection (verse 9). Paul's thought here is very close to his discussion of Abraham's faith in Romans 4. The 'righteousness from God on the basis faith' is at once absolute gift and recompense of obedience. "

- from Mark Seifrid's book "Christ, our Righteousness" pg. 90

Gathercole and Justification Part 1

In Simon Gathercole’s essay “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond” [1], he describes a view of the righteous that is “found in Christ”and how it relates to justification that is different to what I am accustomed to. Normally, I am use to hearing Christ’s fulfilling all of the law in order to earn salvation (Christ’s active obedience) [2].

In Gathercole’s “Forgiveness and Justification” selection, his view of how righteous relates to justification becomes clearer through his equating the term “righteous” with “forgiveness”. He writes while commenting on Romans 4:1-5:

“Despite numerous attempts by a wide variety of very different interpreters to avoid the face, Paul seems here to be defining the reckoning of righteousness as forgiveness of wrongs, covering sins, and not reckoning sin.” [pg 224].

From there, Gathercole explains why defining “righteousness” as “forgiveness” is tough for some people to do.

“The reason for the difficulty that interpreters have with this idea stems, it seems, from understanding forgiveness in too minimalistic terms. It is sometimes regarded merely as wiping the slate clean, which leaves us at zero-where we have no record of sin against us but no positive righteousness either. Paul, however, combines forgiveness with blessed and justification (Rom. 4:6-8) and also with reconciliation and justification (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Forgiveness appears, then not merely as a clearing of the account; it has (and there is a thoroughly Pauline mixing of metaphors) relational contours as well. Justification is not forgiveness in the sense of forgiveness of a debt in abstraction from a relationship (e.g. a waiver of a debt to a bank). Rather, it is forgiveness of a personal wrong (disobedience and offense against God’s glory), such that forgiveness of the personal wrong means restoration of the relationship. And restoration of the relationship is tantamount to talking of divine acceptance, since the initiative needs to come from the divine side. There has perhaps been too much separation of images such as justification, forgiveness, and reconciliation when such a separation does not really seem to work with Paul: for him, one image often suggests another (Rom.3:24-26;5:8-9; 2 Cor.5:17-21)” [pg 225]

[1] This essay is found in the book "Justification in Perspectives: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges" edited by Bruce McCormack

[2] Gathercole in discussing the current debates surrounding imputation states plainly that he holds to traditional view of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. See pg 223

No More ICEEs

My beautiful doctor-wife, Julia, sent me to get a blood test last week. And I found out that I am high in Triglycerides, which means:

1. Eat less of foods high in sugar ('sweets' like candy, cookies, cake, pie; non-diet sodas; fruit juices).
2. Eat less of the foods high in rapidly-digested starches (white bread, rice, potatoes, noodles or pasta). The 'Sugar Busters' diet book, available in most bookstores, suggests alternatives like whole wheat bread and pasta, brown rice, and sweet potatoes (without marshmallows or brown sugar topping).
3. Limit your intake of alcohol to no more than 2 drinks a day.
4. If your triglyceride level is very high, avoid alcohol altogether.
5. Eat more broiled or baked fish (twice a week). The best sources of healthy 'omega-3 fatty acids' are fatty fish like salmon, herring, sardines, trout, and tuna. If you don't eat fish often enough, you could take 3 fish oil capsules a day (or the number needed to supply the recommended total of 1 gram of omega-3 fatty acids EPA & DHA).
6. Minimize your intake of saturated fat by following the guidelines above.
7. Exercise as close to daily as possible, for at least 30 minutes each time (walking, jogging, biking, etc.)
8. Lose weight if you are overweight or obese, and keep your weight as close to ideal as possible


I also found out that I am "pre-diabetic" which means:

1. Limit sweets in diet.
2. Increase exercise
3. No more ICEEs

It's time for a new lifestyle. Which should be easy since I got friends to encourage me like Pat, who said: "haha. you don't need any more cookies, fatso."

Ezekiel 18 and Individual Sins

Ezekiel 18 addresses how God not only takes into account Israel's corporate sin but also the sins of the individual (v.1-4) for "the soul who sins shall die" (v.4). Even though God punish the wicked for their sins (v.10-13), he also gives life to the righteous, who is described as obeying God's commandments (v.5-9):

"5"If a man is righteous and does what is just and right-- 6if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity, 7does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 8does not lend at interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man, 9walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully--he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord GOD" (Ezekiel 18:5-9)

And if the wicked (v.10-13) repents and turns to God, his or her sins will be forgiven (v.21-23).

"21"But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. 23Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" (Ezekiel 18-21-23)

But if the righteous (v.5-9) departs from faith, he will be punished (v.24)

24But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die. (Ezekiel 18:24)

Ezekiel 18 ends with a call to repent and turn to God with "a new heart and new spirit", which seems to echo the New Covenant (Ezekiel 37:14 and Jeremiah 31:33)

30"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.^[c] 31Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." (Ezekiel 18:20-32)

It's interesting that Ezekiel's audience considered God's way of life and punishment as unjust (v.25-27) in the OT, which appears to be solved by Christ's propitiatory death in the NT (Romans 3:21-26).

21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-16)

The New Covenant in Jeremiah 30-33

New Covenant= Regeneration and Justification?

When I first heard of the New Covenant I thought it just consisted of 1) Regeneration (law written on the “heart” (Jer. 31: 33)) and 2) Justification (forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31.34)) as expounded in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

31"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts (REGENERATION). And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more(JUSTIFICATION)".

The Return from Exile and The Restoration of Israel and Judah

But as I examine the surrounding context of Jer. 31:31-34, it seems that the “regeneration” and “justification” elements are situated in the “Return from Exile” (Jer. 30:3, 10,18, 31:6,8-9.10,16-17,21, and 32:37) and the “Restoration of Israel and Judah” (Jer. 30:3.7,10,11,17-20,22,31:1,4,38,40 and 33:6-9,11, 14) motifs.

An example of the“regeneration” element being found in the context of the “Return from Exile” and the “Restoration of Israel and Judah” motifs can be found in Jeremiah 32:37-41:

“37Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place (RETURN FROM EXILE), and I will make them dwell in safety. 38And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever (REGENERATION) , for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul (RESTORATION).”

Also an example of the "justification" element being situated in the “Restoration of Israel and Judah” motif can be found in Jeremiah 33:6-9:

6Behold, I will bring to it health and healing, and I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security. 7I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and rebuild them as they were at first (RESTORATION). 8I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. (JUSTIFICATION) 9And this city[c] shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and a glory before all the nations of the earth who shall hear of all the good that I do for them. They shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provide for it (RESTORATION).

Conclusion

So maybe when the Jews of Jesus’ and Paul’s day heard the term “new covenant” (Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25), they thought of “regeneration” and “justification” in the context of Return from Exile” and “Restoration of Israel and Judah” motifs

Ballin

Check-out John MacArthur, C.J. Mahaney, and Thabiti Anyabwile ballin. (HERE)

And check-out The Office fellas below:

Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 1

I love both of John Piper's and N.T. Wright's writings and I also believe both of these guys are precious gifts to the church. Beyond this, I know Piper's upcoming book will do justice to Wright's view of justification even though they will probably and ultimately disagree because of their different views on "imputation of Christ's active righteousness".

I believe Piper's biggest problem with Wright's view of justification is his belief that works will some how "merit", "earn", or "be credited for" our final justification. In some sense, Piper is right to note this, for Wright clearly states that Christian good works will some how be "credited" for our final justification. Wright states

"What we are not encouraged to do is to draw up a checklist of things done and not done, to weigh them against one another and thereby to arrive at the final verdict. This suggests that Paul is being careful not to endorse the merit-measuring schemes that, despite not being at the covenantal heart of Judaism, nevertheless played some role in discussions of final judgment" [1]

"What is our hope and joy and crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus Christ at his royal appearing? Is it not you? For you are our glory and our joy.’ (1 Thess. 3.19f.; cp. Phil. 2.16f.) I suspect that if you or I were to say such a thing, we could expect a swift rebuke of ‘nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling’. The fact that Paul does not feel obliged at every point to say this shows, I think, that he is not as concerned as we are about the danger of speaking of the things he himself has done – though sometimes, to be sure, he adds a rider, which proves my point, that it is not his own energy but that which God gives and inspires within him (1 Cor. 15.10; Col. 1.29). But he is still clear that the things he does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him." [2]

Add to this, Wright's open denial of Christ crediting his perfect obedience to Christians (imputation) and it seems we got a problem. Wright states:

What I do object to is calling this truth by a name which, within the world of thought where it is common coin, is bound to be heard to say that Jesus has himself earned something called ‘righteousness’, and that he then reckons this to be true of his people (as in the phrase ‘the merits of Christ’ [3]

In Piper's theological system, he also believes in the necessity of Christian good works at the final judgment, but he can describe these good works as "evidences" or "fruits" of truth faith and not something that "earns" justification because in his system, Christ's has already perfectly obeyed the law and thus "earned" and is the "basis" of the Christians' justification. Piper commenting on Romans 2:6-10:

(I)n general, there are two possible answers to this question. One says that eternal life would be based on perfect obedience if anybody had it. But nobody does, and so the only way to eternal life is by faith in Christ. The other way says that God never promised eternal life on the basis of good deeds, but always makes good deeds the evidence of faith that unites us to God in Christ, who is the basis of eternal life.

The other answer would say, it means that God does indeed give eternal life to those who persevere in obedience not because this obedience is perfect or because it is the basis or the merit of eternal life, but because saving faith always changes our lives in the power of the Holy Spirit so that true believers persevere in doing good. In other words, a changed life of obedience to God's truth (verse 8) is not the basis of eternal life, but the evidence of authentic faith which unites us to Christ who is the basis of eternal life. [4]

So within Piper's theological system, Wright will always be a "semi-Pelagian", no matter how many times he states that Christians are saved by grace. But it's important to note that in order for Piper to make Wright fit into his theological system, he needs to first prove that God requires perfect obedience from all men for salvation, which I believe is a very hard thing to do [5].


[1] Wright's Romans commentary pg 440

[2] Wright's essay “New Perspective on Paul"

[3] Wright's essay "Paul in Different Perspective"

[4] John Piper's sermon, "The Final Divide: Eternal Life or Eternal Wrath, Part 2"

[5] See "A Defense of the “Active Obedience” of Jesus Christ In The Justification of Sinners: A Biblical Refutation of Norman Shepherd on the Perceptive Obedience of the Savior" by Brian Schwertley

Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile

Brant Pitre's book, " Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile" is one of the most interesting and stimulating books I have ever read. In the book, Dr. Pitre carefully works through OT, NT, and 2nd Temple Jewish sources and concludes:

"Jesus, speaking of himself as both Son of Man and Messiah, deliberately took the suffering of the tribulation upon himself in order to atone for the sins of Israel, sins which had led them into exile. Because he saw this tribulation as nothing less than an eschatological Passover, he sought to inaugurate it in both word and deed and thereby, to bring about the End of the Exile and the restoration of the twelve tribes in a New Exodus." - pg 506

Rockets' Play Day

Rockets' Play Day consisted of:


shooting on the Rocket court (I missed all 8 three-pointers...I was nervous)



free hotdogs
free nachos and sodas
BillyBen with Big Jake
Ben with J. Ho (the real one)


me and Luther

Shane playing ping-pong with the kidsBen with Novak
Yao with the people
Yao playing air hockey with the kids



And Dirk scaring the kids

Federal Telephone Excise Tax Credit

Don't forget to claim the Federal Telephone Excise Tax credit, which saves you anywhere between $30 to $60 bucks depending on the number of exemptions you claim.

Check out the details at Money Girls.

My Job as a CPA

Iustitia Dei Part 6: Protestant's View of Justification (1530-1730)

1. Justification is defined as the forensic declaration that believers are righteous, rather than the process by which they are made righteous, involving a change in their status rather than in their nature.

2. A delibrate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within humans). Although the two are treated as inseparable, a notional distinction is thus drawn where none was conceded before.

3. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification,is defined as the alien rightousness of Christ, external to humans and imputed to them, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to them, located within them, or which ins any sense may be said to belong to them. God's judgement in justification is therefore synthetic rather than analytic, in that there is no righteousness, within humans which can be considered to be the basis of the divine verdict of justification; the righteousness upon which such a judgement is necessarily based ins external to humans.

[1] pg 212-213

Iustitia Dei Part 5: Justification and the Sacraments

"In conclusion, it may be stated that the medieval period saw that justification of the sinner firmly linked to the sacramental life of the church, a sound theological link having been established between justification and the sacraments. This linking of justification to the sacramental system of the church has profound theological and pastoral consequences, of which the most important is the tendency to assert iustificatio extra ecclesiam non est. Although the theologians of the medieval period were aware that God was not bound by the sacraments, the tendency to emphasise the reliablity of the established order of salvation, of which the sacramental system is part, can only have served to convey the impression that the sinner who wishes to be reconciled God must, de facto, seek the assistance of a priest"

- Alister McGrath pg. 127 of Iustifitia Dei

Active and Passive Justification

In the past, Reformed theologians made a distinction between active and passive justification according to McGarth's book,IUSTITIA DEI. McGrath commenting on both: "The distinction refers to the act of God by which the sinner is justified (active justification), and the subjective feelings of grace subsequently evoked in the conscience of the justified sinner(passive). God acts to justify and humanity is passive in receiving this justification. The importance of the distinction lies in the fact that God's act of justification, in which the sinner is declared righteous, is perfect, accomplished once and for all, whereas the realisation by humans of this state of justifcation is imperfect, in so far as it is based upon the feeling of grace evoked in this conscience" (pg. 271)

Therefore, it seems that Reformed theologians believed that regeneration (if I can safely say faith comes from "regeneration") came both prior and posterior to justification with the "divine/objective" justification coming before regeneration. McGrath states: "the Reformed theologians were able to state that faith was posterior to objective, and prior to subjective justification" )pg. 272)

Bruce McCormack and Calvin

In Bruce McCormack’s article “What’s at Stake in Current Debates over Justification?” the author notes that the (Reformer’s view of justification) "break with Medieval Catholicism was actually less than complete due to a residual commitment to Medieval Catholic understandings of regeneration and a shaky grasp of the relationship of justification and regeneration.”(pg. 84) based on the Reformer’s failure to directly engage in ontological issues.

McCormack cites that both Luther (pg.94) and Calvin failed in this regard. What is particularly interesting is to hear Calvin articulate a relationship between justification and regeneration that has the latter FOLLOWING the former (I always thought Calvin believed regeneration came first).

McCormack writes “Calvin makes justification to be logically prior to-and the foundation of – that bestowal of the sort of adoption by means of which the believer is regenerated. On this view, regeneration would have to be seen as the logical consequence of the divine verdict registered in justification. In sum, Calvin’s understanding of justification is strictly forensic or judicial in character. It is a matter of a divine judgment, a verdict of acquittal. And the means by which it is accomplished is imputation”.

Even though Calvin’s states this plainly, McCormack later notes that Calvin became less clear of the relationship of justification before regeneration in his other writings on soteriology (pg 101 -103) and Eucharistic feeding (pg.104). McCormack notes that lack of clarity was a result of Calvin refusing to engage in ontological questions (pg .105).

Iustitia Dei Part 4: Gabriel Biel and Pactum

I wonder if Gabriel Biel is the first covenant theologian?


"Gabriel Biel's doctrine of justification is based upon the concept of a pactum (covenant) between God and humanity which defines the conditions which humans must meet if they are to be justified, as well as emphasising the divine reliability. The present order of salvation, although radically contingent, is nevertheless totally reliable and strictly immutable. Thus God, having freely and of his liberalitas determined to enter into such a binding contract with humanity, is now obliged to respect the terms of that covenant. God gives grace to those who 'do their best', precisely because of God's decision and promise to behave in this way."

pg 87 of Iustitia Dei by Alister McGrath

Iustitia Dei Part 3: Medieval Period

"From its beginning to its end, the medieval period saw justification as involving a real change in the sinner - an understanding which precludes any distinction between iustification and regeneratio. The processus iustificationis includes regeneration or renewal as one of its integral elements, making any such distinction intensely problematic. The notional distinciton that came to emerge in the sixteenth century between iustificatio and regeneratio (or sanctificatio) provides one of the best ways of distingushing between Catholic and Protestant understanding of jusification, making the Reformers' discontinunity with the earlier western theological tradition."

-pg 71-72 Iustiitia Dei by Alister McGrath