I recently enjoyed reflecting on this encouraging hymn text with solid theology penned by Augustus Toplady (ERF | ODCC):

From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged on thee?

Complete atonement thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate’er thy people owed;
How then can wrath on me take place
If sheltered in thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with thy blood?

If thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand—
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.

Turn then, my soul, unto thy rest!
The merits of thy great High Priest
Have bought thy liberty;
Trust in his efficacious blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.

Amen!

This is quoted in J. I. Packer, “The Doctrine of Justification in Development and Decline Among the Puritans,” in A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), 156n15 and comes from Diary and Selection of Hymns of Augustus Toplady (Gospel Standard Baptist Trust: Harpenden, 1969), 193. It is also hymn 370 with the title “From Whence This Fear and Unbelief?” in Hymns of Grace and Glory (BJUP | MCBC) (edited by Joan J. Pinkston and Sharalynn E. Hicks), appearing with only one minor modification: instead of “utmost farthing paid” it reads “utmost Thou hast paid.”

Packer comments that this text

mirrors most strikingly in devotional response the particularistic efficacy, i.e., the genuinely substitutionary character of Christ’s atoning death. This hymn, as Toplady wrote it (verbal smoothings in modern printings sometimes smudge the theology), brilliantly focuses the Reformed recognition of what Jesus and the apostolic writers meant by saying that the death at Calvary was ‘for’ people (Greek, huper and anti).

Does anyone know if this hymn is available in audio anywhere?

Update: I contacted Bob Kauflin, the Director of Worship Development for Sovereign Grace Ministries, and asked him if he knew of any CD containing this text put to music. He said that he didn’t and wasn’t aware of this text. I also asked him if he would consider writing a new tune for it and including in a future Sovereign Grace CD, and he said that he would. He will probably adjust the lyrics a bit as well so they are more understandable to a modern-day audience. This is exciting news. Keep an eye out for this song in a future Sovereign Grace recording.

Guy Prentiss Waters. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response. P&R, 2004. 273 pp.

I just recently came across Perrin’s evaluation of Waters’s Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul (WTSBooks).

“Whatever the merits of Justification and the New Perspectives as a primer on twentieth-century Pauline scholarship, the author has been less than successful in his interaction with the NPP. Indeed, assuming that Waters’s primary goal is to construct a convincing argument against the NPP (and N. T. Wright in particular), the book must be judged to have failed at a fundamental level.”¹

I found his assessment to be very similar to what I wrote two years ago.

Waters’s work is a helpful treatment of the issues surrounding the NPP. The value of the book is in its historical survey of Pauline scholarship leading up to the NP and in its very thorough annotated bibliography that orders its entries in chronological order, not according to when they were written but according to the time relevance of their subject matter. That by itself is worth the price of the book. Waters’s writing style is very easy to follow. His points are clearly articulated by “first,” “second,” “third,” etc., which allows the reader to follow the flow of thought with precision and ease. Waters’s critique of the NP is a very small portion of the book and is unfortunately brief and shallow. As a result it seems that Waters is merely regurgitating the traditional Reformed position as assertion rather than argumentation. Where Waters does offer some argumentation, it seems to be based upon presuppositions that Waters just assumes to be true rather than arguing that they are true. Thus, all the consequent argumentation will be discounted by those who do not accept his premises (and for those who do accept them, the argumentation is probably unnecessary!). So in my view, Waters’s book succeeds as a review but largely fails as a response. Certainly he makes some good points along the way. Unfortunately, though, this section of the book, while probably the most crucial in some ways, is the most disappointing.²

Has anyone else read and/or reviewed Waters’s work? I’d enjoy hearing your thoughts.

See also:

• Tim Gallant’s very thorough and helpful review (PDF) at RabbiSaul.com
• Cornelis Venema’s brief and unpenetrating review at OPC.org

Footnotes

1. Nicholas Perrin, “A Reformed Perspective on the New Perspective,” WTJ 67:2 (Fall 2005): 381-89. ↩
2. Read my full review—actually, more of a summary with brief evaluation: Word or PDF. ↩

A Faith That Is Never Alone: A Response to the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, edited by P. Andrew Sandlin and published by Kerygma Press, is due out sometime this fall. It is a response to Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, edited by R. Scott Clark and published by P&R.

Here are the planned chapters and contributors:

CHAPTER 1—John H. Armstrong: “Preaching the Faith That Is Never Alone”

CHAPTER 2—Norman Shepherd: “Faith and Faithfulness”

CHAPTER 3—Mark Horne: “Reformed Covenant Theology and Its Discontents”

CHAPTER 4—Peter Leithart: “Adam the Catholic? Faith and Life in the Adamic Covenant”

CHAPTER 5—P. Andrew Sandlin: “The Gospel of Law and the Law of Gospel”

CHAPTER 6—Norman Shepherd: “The Imputation of Active Obedience”

CHAPTER 7—Don Garlington: “The New Perspective, Mediation and Justification”

CHAPTER 8—Rich Lusk: “From Birmingham, With Love: A ‘Federal Vision’ Postcard”

CHAPTER 9—Don Garlington: “Covenant Nomism and the Exile”

CHAPTER 10—Peter Escalante: “Has History Repeated Itself? An Examination of Julius Kim’s Comparison of the Latitudinarians and the Federal Vision”

It is interesting to note that John Frame has dropped out of the lineup, apparently because of time constraints.

Time constraints prevented John’s participation. While he’s by no means FV, he agrees with certain of its propositions and, as is usually the case with John, wants the entire discussion to proceed civilly.

HT: ReformedCatholicism

In anticipation of part two of “When Was Abraham Justified?” and particularly the explication of what exactly Genesis 15:6 means if it does not designate the point at which Abraham was converted and justified, I’d like to bring up the related issue of the frequency of forensic justification before God. Most evangelicals today speak of justification as a one-time act that takes place at the moment when saving faith is first exercised. This declaration is unique, unalterable, and unrepeatable.¹

I was surprised a year or two ago to find out that Luther and Calvin didn’t see it quite that way, or at least didn’t always express it that way. Rather, they acknowledged the necessity of thinking of justification as an ongoing and continual experience and perhaps a repeated occurrence. This is to be carefully distinguished from a process whereby the justified individual becomes progressively more justified than he was before, increasing in his righteous status. Luther and Calvin both affirm that the believing sinner is just as forensically righteous when he first believes as he ever will be. The real issue is whether justification should be considered a one-time, unrepeatable act whereby God imputes Christ’s righteousness once and for all to the believer’s account or whether it should be connected to faith as often as it is exercised so that the believer may be said to be justified repeatedly.²

While we finds hints of the concept of a repeated or continual justification in Luther and Calvin, it is most clearly set forth in Brakel. The italics in the quoted text below is mine and is added for emphasis.

Here are two selections from Luther:

The adversaries do not want to admit this. Therefore they laugh when we say that faith justifies and yet sin remains. For they do not believe that incredible magnitude of God’s power and mercy beyond all mercy. He who is righteous is willing to concede this, but he who is not righteous wants to consider himself righteous. This imputation is not something of no consequence, but is greater than the whole world and all the holy angels. Reason does not see this, for there is a kind of neglect of the Word of God. But we should give thanks to God, I say, because we have such a Savior who is able to cover us and to count our sin as nothing. For God’s mercy is pardoning and love is meanwhile forgiving, and God really takes sin in such a way that it does not remain sin, because he begins materially to purge and to forgive completely. On no condition is sin a passing phase, but we are justified daily by the unmerited forgiveness of sins and by the justification of God’s mercy. Sin remains, then, perpetually in this life, until the hour of the last judgment comes and then at last we shall be made perfectly righteous. For this is not a game or delusion, that we say, “Sins are forgiven by faith and only cling to us, because that newness of life has miraculously begun.” In short, the term “to be justified” means that a man is considered righteous.³

The imputation of God is greater than pure justification. For justification is the greatest, because it does not impute the sin which remains in human nature, as if it did not exist, but rather it shows that righteousness exists on account of Christ. Faith perceives that the love of God conceals sins. The mercy of God thus makes nothing out of all sin, just as he created all things out of nothing. We are urged by reason and knowledge of philosophy to attain to a knowledge of the gospel. Daily we sin, daily we are continually justified, just as a doctor is forced to heal sickness day by day until it is cured.⁴

Here are two selections from Calvin:

It is certain that David [in Psalm 32] is not speaking of the ungodly but of believers such as he himself was, because he was giving utterance to the feelings of his own mind. Therefore we must have this blessedness not once only, but must hold it fast during our whole lives.⁵ Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described.⁶

Abram was justified by faith many years after he had been called by God . . . . It therefore follows, that even to the end of life, we are led towards the eternal kingdom of God by the righteousness of faith. On which point many are too grossly deceived. For they grant, indeed, that the righteousness which is freely bestowed upon sinners and offered to the unworthy is received by faith alone; but they restrict this to a moment of time, so that he who at the first obtained justification by faith, may afterwards be justified by good works. By this method, faith is nothing else than the beginning of righteousness, whereas righteousness itself consists in a continual course of works. But they who thus trifle must be altogether insane. For if the angelical uprightness of Abram faithfully cultivated through so many years, in one uniform course, did not prevent him from fleeing to faith, for the sake of obtaining righteousness; where upon earth besides will such perfection be found, as may stand in God’s sight? Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world. If any one object, that Abram previously believed God, when he followed Him at His call, and committed himself to His direction and guardianship, the solution is ready; that we are not here told when Abram first began to be justified, or to believe in God; but that in this one place it is declared, or related, how he had been justified through his whole life. For if Moses had spoken thus immediately on Abram’s first vocation, the cavil of which I have spoken would have been more specious; namely, that the righteousness of faith was only initial (so to speak) and not perpetual. But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death. I confess, indeed, that after the faithful are born again by the Spirit of God, the method of justifying differs, in some respect, from the former. For God reconciles to himself those who are born only of the flesh, and who are destitute of all good; and since he finds nothing in them except a dreadful mass of evils, he counts them just, by imputation. But those to whom he has imparted the Spirit of holiness and righteousness, he embraces with his gifts. Nevertheless, in order that their good works may please God, it is necessary that these works themselves should be justified by gratuitous imputation; but some evil is always inherent in them. Meanwhile, however, this is a settled point, that men are justified before God by believing not by working; while they obtain grace by faith, because they are unable to deserve a reward by works. . . . The righteousness even of the most perfect characters perpetually consists in faith; since Abram, with all the excellency of his virtues, after his daily and even remarkable service of God, was, nevertheless, justified by faith.⁷

This concept is most explicit in Brakel:

God justifies man by faith, and thus justification is God’s judicial pronouncement toward man. This sentence is not only pronounced once upon the first act of faith, but is made as frequently and as often as man exercises faith in Christ unto justification. This is not an assurance that they are justified once and for all, but it constitutes an actual and daily act of forgiveness.⁸

The justification which occurs upon the first act of faith, and which occurs time and again after that, each time includes the forgiveness of sins—sins to be committed subsequently virtualiter, that is, as far as virtue and efficacy are concerned; thus declaring that they would also each time be forgiven actualiter, that is, actually. However, sins cannot be forgiven in actuality prior to being committed.⁹

Thus the basis for all their abominable and carnal propositions is a misconception and abuse of the doctrine of justification. They therefore answer the question presented above by stating that justification does not occur frequently and daily, but that it has occurred once and for all.

Having said this by way of preface, we shall now proceed to prove the following truth: Justification from eternity, at the time of Christ’s death, or upon the first act of faith, did not take place so as to exclude daily justification in reference to committed sins.¹⁰

See esp. Brakel’s extended discussion, “Justification: A Daily Occurrence,” 2:381–9, which I do not quote here because of its length.

If you are aware of others who spoke (or speak) this way about justification, please share in the comments.

Several observations can be made:

1. One could argue that Calvin and Luther have in mind merely the ongoing experience of being righteous before God, which is always connected to faith alone, rather than justification itself being repeated. But it must be admitted that Luther and Calvin are not so careful as modern-day evangelicals to speak of justification only in terms of conversion. In fact, I think it would not be an entirely accurate reflection of the Reformers’ conception of justification to speak of it as we customarily do.
2. What may be implicit in Calvin and Luther is unmistakably explicit in Brakel, who makes it clear that it is not the mere experience of justification that is repeated, but the very act itself.
3. In all three the focus on forgiveness of sins is predominant (i.e., rather than focusing on the corresponding imputation of Christ’s righteousness). The logic is something like this: since forgiveness of sins is an ongoing reality and since justification includes the forgiveness of sins, it is necessary, then, to see justification at least in this sense as being a daily act.

Perhaps this raises more questions than it answers. Good. That was largely my intent. I will try to tie up the loose ends in my part two of “When Was Abraham Justified?”

Footnotes

1. Surely justification by works, about which James speaks, and future justification should also be brought into the discussion at this point, but I must resist heading in that direction—at least for now. ↩
2. At the heart of this question are the meanings of and relationship between justification and imputation, which take shape in these two main issues: (1) whether justification is a declaration of righteousness to be distinguished from imputation or whether imputation is a subset of justification (or perhaps whether they are identical), and (2) whether imputation is best viewed as an accounting term of crediting (which would suggest one-time and unrepeatable) or whether it carries the idea of reckoning or considering (which would lend itself to repeated occurrences. ↩
3. LW, 34:167. ↩
4. LW, 34:191. ↩
5. Editor’s Note: In these days of “crisis evangelism,” and of crisis “decisions for Christ” upon which professing Christians so often rest their lifelong confidence concerning their possession and assurance of eternal life, this point is in great need of being stressed. Calvin most assuredly speaks frequently of conversion and of initial entrance into Christ’s kingdom as a definite act, but he does not (as so many in our day appear to do) stop there! Rather, he stresses that, just as the regenerate man is initially reconciled to God by faith, so he continues throughout his entire lifetime to have imputed to him the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ by faith. This emphasis, then, upon the Christian life as a life of faith (rather than merely one initial step of faith), a life of reconciliation and forgiveness (rather than merely one initial experience of reconciliation), a life of justification (rather than merely one initial act of justification) is very important for a proper understanding of many of Calvin’s terms, concepts, and constructions. ↩
6. ICR, trans. and ed. Beveridge, III, xiv, 11. ↩
7. “Genesis 15:6,” Genesis, Calvin’s Commentaries. ↩
8. The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:358. ↩
9. Ibid., 2:378. ↩
10. Ibid., 2:380. ↩

When was Abraham justified? This might seem like a rather elementary question with an obvious answer: Abraham was justified when he believed the Lord and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness, which is recorded in Genesis 15:6. Certainly Paul’s use of this text in defense of justification by faith apart from works in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 confirms that Genesis 15:6 was the precise point of Abraham’s justification, doesn’t it? This is probably what most people assume. This is what I thought—prior to giving it some careful consideration.

I’m now convinced that Abraham was already justified prior to the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 15. In this post I’d like to give some arguments in favor of this position, and in the next post I will answer objections and respond to potential problems.

As I see it, the main issue hinges on one central point:

Abraham had genuine faith in God prior to Genesis 15.

Here are some arguments that demonstrate this point:

1. The Form of the Hebrew Verb: The Hebrew construction strongly suggests that this was not the first time Abraham believed; rather, faith was Abraham’s characteristic response to God. The verb אמן (“to believe”) is a waw perfect (וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן) rather than a waw consecutive imperfect (ואמן). The waw consecutive imperfect is the normal form for past action. The independent perfect carries basically the same force. Moses had two options available to him to convey the simple past, “he believed.” He chose neither. This is what we would expect if Genesis 15:6 recorded Abraham’s first act of genuine faith. The independent imperfect and the waw perfect are often semantically equivalent and are used to convey modality, frequentativity, or futurity. The frequentative is the most likely meaning in this context. The idea would be something like, “And he kept on believing the Lord.” The grammatical evidence, then, suggests that this was not Abraham’s first act of faith, and consequently not the point of his justification. (See this document (Word | PDF) for supporting sources, esp. Carson, et al., NBC; Ross, BKC; Vickers, JBR; and Wenham, WBC.)
2. Evidence from Abraham’s Life: While it is true that the first mention of the word for faith (the verb אמן) in the Bible is not until Genesis 15:6, the act of faith is clearly present prior to that. From the very beginning of the account of Abraham’s life, the Scripture records his devotion to the Lord and his response of faith to all that the Lord promised him and asked him to do. The continual pattern of Abraham’s life for the first ten years of its recorded history was radical obedience rooted in a deep trust in God.
3. New Testament Confirmation: Removing all doubt, Hebrews 11:8 makes clear that Abraham’s faith in Genesis 12 was genuine faith: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.” The author of Hebrews, in setting forth examples of faith to be followed, intentionally begins the story of Abraham with Genesis 12, when he “by faith” obeyed the Lord, believing His promises to him to be reliable. Had Abraham still been an idolater (cf. Joshua 24:2) and his faith something less than genuine, surely the author of Hebrews would have cited Genesis 15 or some point later in the narrative as the start of Abraham’s exemplary faith.
4. Conclusion: If we conclude, then, that what Abraham had prior to Genesis 15 was genuine faith in God and His promises—which is where all the evidence points, it seems we must also conclude that Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15. To resist this conclusion is to reject Scripture’s teaching that God justifies at the moment genuine faith exists. (One may argue in response that such an interpretation is anachronistic and is guilty of reading NT theology back into the OT. I grant that the OT does not explicitly connect justification to the first act of faith. But I think the burden of proof lies on the one who would suggest that justification does not take place when genuine faith first exists. Furthermore, such a position would seem to make the precise time of justification rather arbitrary.)

Here are a couple of additional considerations:

1. The Gospel in Genesis 12: Paul quotes (with slight modification) Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8 and says that Abraham had the good news preached to him, which—I have sought to demonstrate—he believed. This calls into question the notion that Abraham had substantially different revelatory content—which would have been insufficient for Abraham to have been saved—prior to Genesis 15.
2. Post-Conversion Reckoning as Righteousness: The language of God’s reckoning as righteousness is perhaps used as non-conversion language. Paul’s use of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:22, where he says, “Wherefore it was reckoned to him as righteousness (διὸ [καὶ] ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην),” is connected to Abraham’s faith in Genesis 18, which is post-conversion for both the Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 views. Some argue on this basis that God reckoned Abraham’s subsequent faith as righteousness as well. This would mean that God’s reckoning righteousness need not be connected merely to conversion, but to faith as often as it is exercised throughout the Christian life. This is essentially the point Calvin makes (see this document [Word | PDF]). We are always considered or reckoned righteous through faith—from start to finish.

Sources Supporting the Genesis 12 View

As confirmation to the above conclusion, it is nice to know that virtually all the commentators and theologians that I have come across who deal with the issue are in agreement that Abraham was justified by the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 12. Luther, Calvin, Brakel, and Spurgeon defend a Genesis 12 justification, as do O. Palmer Robertson and Brian Vickers. (See this document [Word | PDF].)

Here are a few selections:

Luther:

Therefore if you should ask whether Abraham was righteous before this time, my answer is: He was righteous because he believed God. But here the Holy Spirit wanted to attest this expressly, since the promise deals with a spiritual Seed. He did so in order that you might conclude on the basis of a correct inference that those who accept this Seed, or those who believe in Christ, are righteous. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Calvin:

Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world. . . . But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Brakel:

Since justification is the fruit of faith when first exercised, justification is also the fruit when faith is exercised by renewal. This we observe for example in Abraham. Abraham was already a believer and had long before been justified prior to the promise in Genesis 15 being given to him, namely, “So shall thy seed be” (vs. 5). It is nevertheless stated in verse 6, “And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.” . . . Abraham was already justified prior to this; nevertheless, when subsequently he believed again, he was again justified. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Spurgeon:

I take it, beloved friends, that our text does not intend to teach us that Abram was not justified before this time. Faith always justifies whenever it exists, and as soon as it is exercised; its result follows immediately, and is not an aftergrowth needing months of delay. The moment a man truly trusts his God he is justified. Yet many are justified who do not know their happy condition; to whom as yet the blessing of justification has not been opened up in its excellency and abundance of privilege. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Robertson:

The fact that this declaration concerning the faith and resulting righteousness of Abraham comes at this particular juncture does not imply that now for the first time he believes and his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness. To the contrary, he continues in a state of faith and its resulting righteousness. But the placing of this declaration of righteousness at this juncture of the patriarch’s life underscores the fact that nothing has been added to faith as the way to righteousness. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Vickers:

When Paul chooses to include Abraham in Romans, he is not simply using a handy example that just happens to support his argument, nor does he merely use Genesis 15:6 as a proof text. While Genesis 15:6 is not, as we will see, the first time Abraham believed, and subsequently not the time of his, so to speak, conversion, it is a pivotal moment in the biblical narrative. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Sources Supporting the Genesis 15 View

The view that holds that Abraham was not saved until Genesis 15 finds virtually no support at all throughout church history (at least not that I have been able to find in hours of research in scores of commentaries and hundreds of journals) and puts one in the company of Origen and Walter Eichrodt. (See this document [Word | PDF].) I welcome other supporting sources.

Here are two selections:

Origen:

Was Abraham justified just because he had the faith to believe that he would be given a son? Or was it also because of all the other things which he had believed previously? . . . Before this point, Abraham had believed in part but not perfectly. Now, however, all the parts of his earlier faith are gathered together to make a perfect whole, by which he is justified. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Eichrodt:

To see in this impressive picture of the decision of faith, as it lays hold of the promise of God, and thus becomes assured of a new way into an unknown land, only adherence to and perseverance in an essential relationship of trust already existing is manifestly to underrate its importance. . . . Here a new understanding of God’s activity and of his own position is opened up to him. To speak in this context of nothing more than the reinforcement of an earlier faith of Abraham is clearly to mistake the significance of this element in the thematic structure of the historian’s work. Abraham makes his decision for affirming the new condition offered him in the promise, and for basing his whole future life on this foundation. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

In the next post, I’ll try to deal with objections to this view and potential problems or questions that it may raise.