I've been thinking that through lack of disciplined thinking my understanding of justification is in need of some sharpening up. This is thanks largely to a post by Tim Suffield and Michael Jensen's continuing review of Chris Wright's Mission of God. Michael Jensen has been pointing out a lot of Chris Wright's 'conceptual confusions', and I've been thinking that if I were ever to write anything it would be infested with the same problem. So, anyway, you may find me blogging a little on Justification for a while. Today I read this:
If the meaning of justification is forensic, then the understanding of justification is basically 'acquittal'. To be justified is thus to be the recipient of God's favorable verdict in regard to our final state. Justification, whose basis is forgiveness, is not itself forgiveness (with which it is often popularly identified), but the declaration that forgiveness, which confirms our new relationship with God, has been granted. The judge has pronounced in our favor! True, by our acquittal we have been forgiven, but justification is the recognition that forgiveness has occurred, not forgiveness in itself. Forgiveness is the gift, justification its recognition. Justification says that, as a result of forgiveness, we are now in right relationship with God.
Justification by grace through faith announces that we have moved from under the wrath of God to new life in Christ. The basic movement has occurred through the work of the Spirit in regeneration and it is this movement which justification recognizes. [...] Justification is the declaration of our change in status from sinner to membership of the new people of God.
(p. 53, Romans: A New Covenant Commentary, William J. Dumbrell)
I'll have to keep this in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment