Doctrine of Justification

While many Christians claim to be Dispensationalists, the entirety of the dispensational theology, as opposed to the covenant theology, rises or falls on one major issue: Israel and the Church. Dispensationalism has ramifications that reach outside of theology and reach into the foreign policy of the United States whereas relations between Israel and America are concerned. Most evangelicals, embracing a dispensational theology, hold that U.S.  foreign policy with Israel should be set on the basis of dispensational theology. To accept dispensational theology, it has to be shown that God deals with Israel and the Church, the Jew and the Christian, in ways that are different. Yet, by studying the history of Judaism and Christianity it becomes apparent that God has not—and it will be shown in this paper that He has no plans in the future— dealt differently with these two groups. Dispensationalism is not a key to Bible prophecy as God does not treat the Jew and the Christian differently.

This essay investigates Paul’s use of the word δικαιόω and its oddity among his Greco-Roman contemporaries.  In Paul, δικαιόω always occurs with a personal object (or, in the passive, with a personal subject), and “justifying” always means something done in favor of the person justified (“deem righteous,” “acquit,” “vindicate,” etc.).  This meaning occurs also in the Septuagint and a few texts from early Jewish sources.  Everywhere else, however, δικαιόω means something done to the detriment of the justified (“punish” or “condemn”).  This contrast of usage is frequently neglected when scholars inquire after the origins of Paul’s theology of justification.  Why should the Apostle to the Gentiles have spoken to them of God as “justifier”?  The present paper considers the origins of Paul’s justification-theology in light of this lexical-semantic oddity.
This essay investigates Paul’s use of the word δικαιόω and its oddity among his Greco-Roman contemporaries.  In Paul, δικαιόω always occurs with a personal object (or, in the passive, with a personal subject), and “justifying” always means something done in favor of the person justified (“deem righteous,” “acquit,” “vindicate,” etc.).  This meaning occurs also in the Septuagint and a few texts from early Jewish sources.  Everywhere else, however, δικαιόω means something done to the detriment of the justified (“punish” or “condemn”).  This contrast of usage is frequently neglected when scholars inquire after the origins of Paul’s theology of justification.  Why should the Apostle to the Gentiles have spoken to them of God as “justifier”?  The present paper considers the origins of Paul’s justification-theology in light of this lexical-semantic oddity.

Der Aufsatz fragt nach der paulinischen Verwendung des Wortes δικαιόω und ihrer Ähnlichkeit bzw. Unähnlichkeit zum Gebrauch bei den römischen Zeitgenossen des Paulus.  Bei Paulus tritt δικαιόω immer mit persönlichem Akkusativobjekt (oder passiv mit persönlichem Subjekt= auf, und «rechtfertigen» bedeutet immer etwas Gutes für den Gerechtfertigten («gerecht sprechen», «freisprechen», o.ä.).  Diese Bedeutung von δικαιόω begegnet auch in der Septuaginta und in einigen frühjüdischen Belegen.  In den profanen Schriften bedeutet δικαιόω jedoch etwas, das zu Ungunsten der gerechftertigten Menschen geschieht («strafen», «verurteilen»).  Diese Unstimmigkeit wird in der Paulusforschung bei der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Rechtfertigungslehre oft nicht hinreichend beachtet.  Warum sollte der Heidenapostel gegenüber ehemaligen «Heiden» von Gott als «Rechtfertiger» gesprochen haben?  Vor dem Hintergrund dieser sprachlichen Unstimmigkeit wird die Frage nach den Impulsen aus dem Griechisch sprechenden Judentum und Urchristentum erörtert, die Paulus in seinen Rechtfertigungsaussagen bestimmt haben.

This paper was originally presented at the Oxford Patristics Conference in 2019, and is being published in Studia Patristica in 2021. It has been commonly held by Pauline scholars and theologians -- myself included! --  that the factitive understanding of justification (i.e. being "made righteous") originated with Augustine’s Latin misreading of the underlying Greek verb. This paper presents a brief overview of the the conception of justification in Greek and Latin patristic sources prior to Augustine, which surprisingly finds the factitive understanding to be widely attested in earlier centuries.

A partire da un’allusione alla celebre affermazione paolina «per me il vivere è Cristo » (Fil 1, 21), riconoscibile nell’orazione post communionem della Messa Votiva di San Paolo Apostolo del Messale Romano e di quello Ambrosiano attualmente in uso, la presente indagine biblica esamina alcuni passi salienti della Lettera ai Filippesi nel contesto delle relazioni pastorali che l’Apostolo strinse con la comunità cristiana di Filippi e soprattutto della dura prigionia in cui egli si trovava quando la compose.

Prompted by an allusion to Paul’s celebrated affirmation « For to me to live is Christ » (Phil 1: 21), recognizable in the postcommunion of the Votive Mass of St Paul the Apostle
in the current Roman and Ambrosian Missals, the present biblical enquiry examines some salient passages of the Letter to the Philippians with reference to the pastoral relations
forged by the Apostle with the Christian community of Philippi, and especially to the harsh imprisonment he was undergoing at the time of the Letter’s composition.

This thesis is primarily an examination into Eberhard Jüngel’s concept of theological anthropology. Secondarily, this thesis examines how Jüngel’s theological anthropology can support the correction that Howard Zehr for in his book Changing Lenses. Zehr proposes that a better approach to our penal system would be to transition it from a retributive justice orientation to a restorative justice orientation. While Zehr makes a very good point, his biblical theological approach to supporting why such a change can be supported from a Christian perspective neglects the doctrine of justification, relegating it to a side note at the end of the discussion. It is the opinion of this author that Jüngel’s theological anthropology with its emphasis on the doctrine of the justification of sinners is the groundwork for Christian support for a program like Victim Offender Reconciliation program.

Tendo como missão oferecer reflexão teológica de qualidade como subsídio para a pesquisa e a prática pastoral tendo em vista o objetivo de promoção da produção acadêmico-científica, a Revista Cultura Teológica (ISSN: 2317-4307), da PUC/SP - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, celebra o centenário de nascimento de Dom Paulo Evaristo Arns e a sua importância para a Igreja brasileira e latino-americana, organizando uma Edição Especial em sua homenagem que traz a publicação do artigo do Professor-Pesquisador Luiz Carlos Mariano Da Rosa intitulado "Da justificação e a fé como evento escatológico enquanto obediência e decisão fundada no ato da graça de Deus segundo a Teologia do apóstolo Paulo em Rudolf Bultmann". O Dossiê da Revista Cultura Teológica da PUC/SP intitulado “Mística, profecia e pastoreio de D. Paulo Evaristo Arns em São Paulo” tem o objetivo de explicitar tanto quanto possível os principais aspectos da trajetória eclesial de Dom Paulo Evaristo Arns e o impacto de sua ação pastoral, em consonância com o Concílio Ecumênico Vaticano II e a Conferência de Medellín, cujas marcas são percebidas sobretudo na cidade de São Paulo.

Deel 4 van de hertaalde uitgave van Petrus van Mastricht Theoretisch-Praktische Godgeleerdheid. In dit deel gaat het over de verlossing zoals die toegepast wordt aan de zondaar en over de kerk. De volgende onderdelen van de heilsorde worden behandeld: roeping, wedergeboorte, bekering, vereniging met Christus, rechtvaardiging, aanneming tot kinderen, heiligmaking en heerlijkmaking. In het boek over de kerk gaat het ondermeer over de dienaren van de kerk, de sacramenten, tucht en kerkregering.

출판사 소개글: 칭의는 하나님이 주권적으로 죄인을 의롭다 하시는 것으로서, 모든 공로는 그리스도에게 있다. 그렇다면 칭의 때 인간이 하는 역할은 무엇인가? 이 질문은 교회 역사에서 끊임없이 제기되어 왔지만, 안타깝게도 하나님의 주권과 인간의 역할 사이에서 균형을 잃은 칭의 이해가 반복되었고 지금도 반복되고 있다. 칭의에 대한 이해에서의 오류는 과거에도, 현대에도 여전히 있다. 그러므로 "교회가 넘어지고 서는 조항"인 칭의에 대한 바르고 건강한 이해는 매우 시급하고 중요하다.

박재은 박사의 <균형 있게 이해하기 시리즈>의 첫 번째 책 『칭의, 균형 있게 이해하기』는 하나님의 주권과 인간의 역할 사이에서 균형을 잃었던 과거의 칭의론들(아르미니우스주의의 칭의론, 반/신율법주의의 칭의론, 하이퍼 칼빈주의의 칭의론, 영원으로부터의 칭의)과 현대의 칭의론들(주재권 구원 논쟁, 페더럴 비전의 칭의론, 바울에 대한 새 관점의 칭의론)을 살펴보고, 헤르만 바빙크와 헤르만 비치우스의 균형 잡힌 정통 개혁파 칭의론을 그 해결책으로 제시한다.

최근에 미국 칼빈 신학교에서 이 주제에 대한 연구로 박사학위를 취득한 지은이는, 다소 복잡하고 난해한 주제를 다루면서도 각각의 칭의론이 가진 문제점을 지적하고 해결책을 제시하는 것에서 전문성을 보여 준다. 그뿐 아니라 이 책은 방대한 내용을 일반 성도도 쉽게 이해할 수 있도록, 쟁점이 되는 논의를 간명하게 보여 주고 해결책을 제시한다. 다양한 칭의 이해로 혼란스러운 현실에서, 독자들은 이 책을 통해 성경적인 칭의 이해가 무엇인지 알고, 칭의에 대한 이해의 폭이 넓어지는 것을 경험할 수 있다.

In "Was the Reformation a Mistake?" Matthew Levering examines the Protestant Reformation from an epistemological perspective, that is, whether the reformers correctly challenged the truth claims of the Roman Catholic Church. The subtitle summarizes the thesis of the book: Why Catholic Doctrine is not Unbiblical. The Bible tells Christians to seek truth together with the church as a whole, which Levering suggests will lead to an openness to the teachings of the Catholic Church. In the afterward, “A Mere Protestant Response,” Kevin Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, provides a lively and incisive rebuttal from an evangelical perspective.

SUMMARY
Nel «Commento alla Lettera ai Romani» di Lutero la «giustificazione» divina è effettivamente resa in termini forensi: non solo quindi come «estranea» all’uomo, ma anche come a lui «imputata» da Dio. Tuttavia essa è efficace a tal punto che nel battezzato il peccato, pur permanendo, non è più «dominante», ma «dominato». D’altronde, il Riformatore ha attinto dalla Bibbia la verità di fede dell’efficacia della parola divina, che, se dichiara che il battezzato è giusto, lo rende realmente tale. Questi due temi, ben presenti nel «Commento», mostrano la validità di una tesi di più ampio respiro: il sistema linguistico-concettuale con cui Lutero ha espresso la nozione di «giustificazione» è irriducibilmente diverso da quello tridentino, benché non sia incompatibile con esso.

SUMMARY
In Luther’s «Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans» God’s  «justification» is expressed in truly juridical terms: and hence  not only as «extraneous» to  man, but also as «imputed» to him by God. However the «justification» is effective to the point that in the baptized individual sin, though it persists, is no longer «dominant», but «dominated». Moreover, Luther drew from the Bible the truth of faith regarding the efficacity of God’s word, which, when declaring that the baptized person is just, renders him such in reality. These two themes, both clearly present in the «Commentary», show the validity of a broader thesis: that the linguistic and conceptual system with which Luther expressed the notion of «justification» is irreducibly different from that of Trent, although it is not incompatible with it.

ABSTRACT: The study examines John Calvin(1509-1564) and Alexander Comrie’s(1706-1774) doctrine of justification in light of the sixfold causality of justification(i.e., efficient, material, formal, instrumental, meritorious, final cause). In order to understand the doctrine of justification condignly, the sixfold causality of justification is useful and valuable, since justification should be dealt with various dimensions such as God’s salvific plan and its execution, Christ’s active and passive obedience, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, believer’s faith, God’s glory, etc. To defend the traditional and biblical doctrine of justification, Reformed theologians made good use of several causalities of justification against the doctrine of justification asserted by Roman Catholic Church, Arminianism, antinomianism, neonomianism, hyper-Calvinism, etc. Specifically this study pays attention to the continuity and discontinuity between Calvin’s and Comrie’s view of the sixfold causality of justification. Based on the discussion, the study will find the theological implication and sound theological viewpoint on the doctrine of justification.
국문초록: 본고는 나더러 레포르마치(Nadere Reformatie) 시대의 네덜란드 신학자 알렉산더 꼼리(Alexander Comire, 1706-1774)와 개혁신학의 탁월한 선생이었던 존 칼빈(John Calvin, 1509-1564)이 전개한 칭의론을 칭의의 6중 원인(작용인, 질료인, 형상인, 도구인, 공로인, 목적인)의 빛 아래서 고찰해 볼 것이다. 칭의 사건을 설명함에 있어 6중 인과관계의 틀은 유용하다. 칭의 사건은 하나님의 구원 계획과 실행, 그리스도의 능동적, 수동적 순종, 그리스도 의의 전가, 신자의 믿음, 하나님의 영광 등 다양한 칭의 요소들을 복합적으로 고려할 필요가 있기 때문에 6중 인과관계의 틀은 칭의 사건을 이해하는데 있어 훌륭한 도구적 장치이기 때문이다. 특히 로마 가톨릭 교회, 아르미니우스주의, 반(反)율법주의, 신(新)율법주의, 하이퍼(hyper) 칼빈주의 등이 전개한 칭의론은 전통적 칭의론의 틀과 사뭇 다른 점이 있었기 때문에 개혁 신학자들은 다양한 인과관계들을 선용(善用)하여 전통적 칭의론을 수호해나갔다. 본고는 칭의의 6중 원인에 대한 꼼리와 칼빈의 시각 사이의 연속성과 비연속성에 주목할 것이고 이 연속성과 비연속성을 기반으로 어떠한 신학적 함의가 그 안에 숨어 있는지를 발견할 것이다. 이러한 논의를 통해 과연 칭의의 원인을 건전하게 바라보는 신학적 시각은 무엇인지가 최종적으로 드러나게 될 것이다.

This article proposes to take George Lindbeck’s project forward into new territory by taking his account of the role of doctrines in the shaping of religious experience and emotion into the realm of concrete examples. It calls this strategy attending to the ‘affective salience of doctrines’, and demonstrates how it can be done in an historical as well as an empirical mode by examining specific strategies of theological argument that emphasize the perceived affective consequences of doctrines. It then applies this approach to Philipp Melanchthon’s classic articulation of the forensic model of justification in light of critiques of the doctrine as a propositional ‘legal fiction’, in particular the recent version of this argument by John Milbank. The article concludes by drawing on contemporary psychological and philosophical accounts of emotion and cognition to demonstrate the surprising psychological plausibility of Melanchthon’s description of the relation between justification and its affective consequences in ‘love’, ‘joy’, ‘peace’, and ‘consolation’.

In Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings, Martin Luther is ubiquitous. Too often, however, Bonhoeffer's Lutheranism has been set aside with much less argumentative work than is appropriate in light of his sustained engagement with Luther. As a result, Luther remains a largely untouched hermeneutic key in Bonhoeffer interpretation. In Bonhoeffer's Reception of Luther, Michael P. DeJonge presents Bonhoeffer's Lutheran theology of justification focused on the interpersonal presence of Christ in word, sacrament, and church. The bridge between this theology and Bonhoeffer's ethical-political reflections is his two-kingdoms thinking. Arguing that the widespread failure to connect Bonhoeffer with the Lutheran two-kingdoms tradition has presented a serious obstacle in interpretation, DeJonge shows how this tradition informs Bonhoeffer's reflections on war and peace, as well as his understanding of resistance to political authority. In all of this, DeJonge argues that an appreciation of Luther's ubiquity in Bonhoeffer's corpus sheds light on his thinking, lends it coherence, and makes sense of otherwise difficult interpretive problems. What might otherwise appear as disparate, even contradictory moments or themes in Bonhoeffer's theology can often be read in terms of a consistent commitment to a basic Lutheran theological framework deployed according to dramatically changing circumstances.

Table of Contents
0. Introduction: An Argument for Bonhoeffer Interpretation
-Taking Luther’s Ubiquity Seriously
-What is ‘Lutheran’? Issues of Definition and Method
-Arguing for the Lutheran Character of Bonhoeffer’s Thinking

1. On the Way toward Christocentrism
--Karl Holl: Luther’s Religion of Conscience
--Christ or the Conscience?
--Conscience against Conscience
--Meager Christology
--Justification as the Unconditional, Effective Word of Christ’s Personal Presence as the Church

2. Christology in Conversation with Barth and the Lutheran Tradition
-Once more, Barth and Bonhoeffer on whether the Finite is Capable of the Infinite
-The History and Pre-History of the (in)capax Phrases
---This Man Is God
---This Is My Body
---The Finite is Capable of the Infinite
-Barth’s Rejection of the capax and the Majestic Genus
---The Finite is Not Capable of the Infinite
---The Common Actualization of Divine and Human Essences in Christ
-“The is may not be interpreted any further”: Bonhoeffer’s Christology

3. Caricatures of the Two Kingdoms
-Denials of Bonhoeffer’s Two-Kingdoms Thinking
-From Luther’s Two Kingdoms to the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms
---The Two Kingdoms in Luther’s Theology
---Church and State from a Lutheran Confessional Perspective
---Church and State in Confessional Comparison
---The Twentieth-Century Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms
---Troeltsch and the Niebuhrs

4. The Twofold Form of Christ: Bonhoeffer’s Two-Kingdoms Thinking
-Early Two-Kingdoms Thinking
---“The Nature of the Church”
---“Lectures on Christology”
---“Thy Kingdom Come!”
---“The Church and the Jewish Question”
-The Two Kingdoms in Discipleship
-Late Two-Kingdoms Thinking
---“Protestantism without Reformation”
---“Heritage and Decay”
---Green, Rasmussen, Hauerwas
---“Ultimate and Penultimate Things”

5. Anabaptists and Peace
-Bonhoeffer’s Non-Commitment to Nonviolence
-The Doubly Curious Association of Bonhoeffer with Anabaptism through Yoder
---Yoder on Bonhoeffer
---Bonhoeffer on Anabaptists
-Bonhoeffer on Peace
--Peace and Preservation
--Orders of Preservation
--The Sermon on the Mount as Concrete Commandment
-Peace in Bonhoeffer and Anabaptists
-Interpreting Bonhoeffer on Peace
-Ecumenical Lutheranism and Lutheran Ecumenism

6. Lutheran Resistance Resources
-Luther to Hitler
-Lutheran Subservience and Bonhoeffer’s Resistance
-Luther on Resistance to Authority
-The Interims, Flacius, and the Magdeburg Confession
-Formula of Concord X
-Bonhoeffer and Lutheran Resistance Resources

7. Struggle and Resistance
-Resistance through the Confession of the Ecumenical Church
---Status confessionis
---Threats to the Gospel from outside: The State that Disregards its Mandate
---Threats to the Gospel from Inside: Heretical Legalism
---Confession, ‘the Jews,’ and Race
-Resistance through the Suffering Obedience of the Discipleship Community
---The Second Battle of the Church Struggle
---Cheap and Costly Grace
---Justification
-Resistance through the Responsible Action of the Individual
---Between Compromise and Radicalism
---Active Resistance
-Conclusion: A Lutheran Theology in Accord with Reality

This article examines the reception of Alexander Comrie’s doctrine of justification by Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper’s oeuvre contains many positive references to and quotes from Comrie’s work and theology, and he even identified his own doctrine and that of the Gereformeerde Kerken with Comrie’s. He propagated Comrie’s version of the doctrine of justification to the Gerefomeerde Kerken not only in De Heraut and in his writings, but also as professor of theology at the Free University of Amsterdam. He even propagated it internationally in The Catholic Presbyterian.
Nevertheless, while Kuyper indeed uses certain aspects of Comrie’s theology of justification for his own doctrine, their views cannot simply be identified. Kuyper studied Comrie’s biography and theology for his own historical, ecclesiastical, and theological purposes. Kuyper’s church-political views ultimately resulted in the foundation of the Gereformeerde Kerken.
Kuyper published what he learned from Comrie’s life and theology, and also wrote about what Christians and the Church in his own days could learn from him: to defend the faith against rationalism and all kinds of heresies, always in close connection with the truth by with the Church stands or falls, namely our justification.
Comrie appears to be a sharp and clear thinker whose theology was so powerful that even in Kuyper’s days church-people could still rely firmly, unshakeably, and immovably on the truth as set out by Comrie, and shelter in this truth as a safe bulwark against rationalism. This is something for which Comrie deserves to be honoured.

FAITH "IN HOPE AGAINST HOPE". Exegesis of ROM 4 : 17-25
The fourth Chapter of St. Paul's epistle to the Romans is of great significance to understanding the nature of faith as the prerequisite for the justification. After discussing in the third Chapter the content of "the Gospel of God", namely, the "Justification by Faith" through Christ's salvific work, the Apostle Paul makes reference to the justification of Abraham as an Old Testament testimony to the conformity of his thesis with the Holy Scripture.
In Rom 4: 17-25 St. Paul emphasizes the steadfast faith of Abraham in God, that God will make true what He promised, however impossible it may seem to humans. St. Paul thus deduced an illustrated definition of what faith is. Then he ascertained that, precisely for his faith, Abraham was reckoned upright. St. Paul applies this to the faith and justification of Christians. Not only Abraham, but we Christians also will be justified by embracing such unshakable faith in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.
This study highlights in the mentioned verses the evidence that faith results from a steadfast confidence in God's word. The conclusions drawn throw useful light on a much-debated issue: whether justification by faith is a passive justification or whether it presupposes compliance from the side of man with the preached word.

This paper discusses the theme of "personal justice" in the Summa theologiae, a concept inherited from the Nicomachean Ethics wherein Aristotle says that a man is just toward himself only metaphorically, insofar as the parts of man are appropriately ordered with the higher ruling the lower and the body subjugated to the soul. This paper demonstrates how Aquinas extensively utilizes this concept of metaphorical justice across the tripartite division of the Summa in his accounts of original justice in the prima pars, the humanity of Christ in the tertia pars, and justification of the sinner in the secunda pars. As a response to critiques that Thomistic moral theology is not properly centered in the person of Christ, I will show that, for Aquinas, Christ's personal justice both fulfills the right ordering of humanity lost through sin and restores that integrity to mankind in the grace of justification—the root of the Christian's entire moral life.

چالش های معرفت شناسانه بسیاری حول توجیه باور به خداوند در سه قرن گذشته وجود داشته است بگونه ای که برخی همچون پلنتینجا صرف تضمین را بجای توجیهِ استدلالی در این زمینه مطرح کردند و باور به وجود خداوند را باوری پایه نشان دادند. اما میلیون ها انسان بدون توجه به این چالش ها، باور به وجود خداوند را بدون آن که ایمان گرا باشند برای خودشان موجه می دانند. این توجیه از کجا ناشی می شود؟ آیا توجیه آنها از لحاظ معرفت شناسی قابل تبیین است؟
در این مقاله در نظر است ضمن تبیین جریانهای جدید معرفت شناسی اجتماعی و «گواهی»، اهمیت معرفت شناسیِ مبتنی بر شنیده های اطمینان یافته نشان داده شود سپس استدلال گردد که شنیده های اطمینان یافتة ما درباره وجود خداوند و صفات او که به پیامبران منتهی می شود و آن نیز به اقرار خداوند و تبیین او از خودش مبتنی است می تواند بهترین توجیه برای باورهای ما باشد. و در نهایت به این سوال پاسخ داده شود که چگونه گواهی خداوند بر وجود و صفاتش که ازطریق پیامبران به ما رسیده است می تواند یکی از بهترین توجیه های معرفتی برای باور به وجود و صفات خداوند باشد؟ و این نوع معرفت شناسی دینی چه مزایایی نسبت به قرینه گرایی و یا صورتهای گوناگون برهان آوری بر وجود خداوند و صفات او می تواند داشته باشد؟

For more than two millennia believers have struggled with the antinomy of God’s absolute sovereignty over and man’s ultimate responsibility in justification and sanctification. Theologians have used some version of the terms “active justification” and “definitive sanctification” in an attempt to illuminate this mystery. However, in the past decade scholars have begun to criticize these concepts, saying that they are unsupported in Scripture, lead to theological confusion, and are of no practical benefit to believers.Through the work of theologians from the broader Dutch Reformed tradition, especially Herman Bavinck, Alexander Comrie, Herman Witsius, and Abraham Kuyper. Jae-Eun Park demonstrates that the terms “active justification” and “definitive sanctification” are derived from Scripture and serve to clarify, not obscure the doctrines of justification and sanctification. In addition, the book shows that neglect, misuse, or misunderstanding of the terms have resulted in contemporary criticisms that are unconvincing and unfounded.Writings of the aforementioned theologians define and expound four characteristics held in common between active justification and definitive sanctification, i.e., inseparability, objectivity and decisiveness, Christ-centeredness, and God’s absolute sovereignty – concepts of the mentioned theologians. All four characteristics of active justification and definitive sanctification emphasize the “God-driven” nature of salvation.Jae-Eun Park explains how – when properly defined and presented – the two terms are important theologically, bringing clarity to the issue of the perfect balance between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation. He also shows how active justification and definitive sanctification offers practical assurance of their perseverance unto glory to true believers, and provides pastors with an invaluable tool for exhorting parishioners who may have lapsed into either triumphalism or defeatism.

This study is a response to a colleague's paper comparing the published views on Justification by John Piper and Tom Wright.
It outlines the key feature of Paul's doctrine before treating briefly the views of the two writers concerned, especially on those points where they differ significantly from Paul.

Looking at both the historical and theatrical depictions of Angelica Schuyler, it is my opinion that we glimpse a woman who is a self-differentiated  person. However, her self-differentiation is directed back toward herself rather than outward toward her neighbor. In Christ (by the event of justification), though, we are self-differentiated and justified, self-differentiated with our neighbor, and thereby directed toward our neighbor in an intimate way; the essay examines Angelica Schuyler's self-differentiation, self-differentiation in the event of justification, and feminism. This essay is part of a larger work: "Never Satisfied Until Satisfied in Thee: Finding Grace in Hamilton."

a differenza dell'opinione comune, la lettera di Giacomo ha una sua propria struttura, molto ordinata e tripartita per argomenti, che vengono ripresi più volte. Giacomo passa da uno all'altro con lo stratagemma dell'associazione di idee o dell'assonanza, ma solo la comprensione profonda delle sue argomentazioni riesce a distinguere i filoni del discorso che sono:
• la prova della fede via della perfezione, attraverso il compimento dell’opera stessa della fede;
• la Sapienza vera, benefica e pacificante è la Parola, dono dall’alto, da richiedere nella preghiera, da accogliere nell’ascolto, da custodire e da seminare per portare frutti di giustizia;
• la ricchezza al mondo è povertà di fronte a Dio e fonte di ira: guai ai ricchi; l’umiltà e la povertà ottengono invece il suo favore.
Lo sviluppo dei temi procede ordinatamente per ciascuno a partire da una presentazione, con un primo ed un secondo sviluppo, per concludere con una esortazione di sapore escatologico

A primera vista parece que Santiago y Pablo se contradicen en sus respetivos discursos sobre la justificación, la fe y las obras. Pablo afirma que la justificación es sin obras (Ro. 3:21-26, 28; 4:5; Gá. 2:15-16; 3:11-12, etc.), mientras que Santiago insiste que las obras son también necesarias (Stg. 2:21-25). ¿Cómo podría explicarse esta diferencia entre los dos autores bíblicos?

Los intérpretes contestan esta pregunta de diferentes maneras, y este artículo lo vamos a comenzar con un breve resumen de las respuestas más comunes. Después examinaremos los usos que Pablo y Santiago hacen de tres palabras clave (fe, obras y justificar) para mostrar que sus textos pueden leerse de forma armónica cuando se aprecia la diversidad de significados y referentes de estas palabras según los contextos donde aparecen. De especial importancia es la sección sobre el valor léxico de la palabra justificar, que incluye una valoración de las dos principales interpretaciones evangélicas del lenguaje de Santiago 2:21-25. Y la conclusión que sigue contiene unas reflexiones sobre la armonía entre Pablo y Santiago y la contribución distinta de cada uno de ellos.

La spiritualité de Luther est une spiritualité kénotique. 
Elle a appelle à une conversion quotidienne, comme Luther l’affirme dans sa première thèse.
Qu’est-ce qui résiste à l’action de l’Esprit saint ? Qu’est ce qui dans notre culture et le « Zeitgeist » dans lequel nous vivons devient « ennemi de la croix du Christ » (Phil 3,18)
Ce sont les questions qu’on peut se poser par rapport à l’attitude de Luther avec les juifs. Il y avait sans doute en lui une zone d’ombre qu’il n’a pas exposé à la lumière du Christ.
La Croix avec son symbolisme de verticalité et d’horizontalité, nous délivre de notre repliement sur nous-mêmes. Comme le Christ a vécu tendu vers le Père, la vocation du chrétien est de vivre tendu vers le Christ. Il embrasse la croix. 
Comme le Christ s’est vidé de lui-même, le chrétien se vide de ses prétentions pour accueillir chacun et se mettre à son service.
Cette spiritualité a, je crois, beaucoup à nous dire aujourd’hui. Comment vivre les uns avec les autres, dans notre monde si divers, sinon en nous accueillant les uns les autres dans l’humilité du Christ, sinon en invoquant l'Esprit saint pour devenir, à sa suite, "rose et lys" au milieu des épines?

Karl Popper lamented the prevalence of dogmatic argument in philosophy and commended the kind of critical argument that is found in the sciences. David Miller criticises the uncritical nature of so-called critical thinking because of its attachment to dogmatic arguments. I expound and clarify Popper’s distinction between critical and dogmatic arguments and the background to it. I criticise some errors in Miller’s discussion. I reaffirm the need for philosophers to eschew dogmatic arguments in favour of critical ones.

A critical review of the book Justification and God's Kingdom by Seyoon Kim (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), covering three main areas: (1) his interpretation of justification in terms of restoration to a right relationship with God, (2) his claim that Paul teaches end-time justification according to works, and (3) his rejection of the distinction between justification and sanctification in the ordo salutis.

Chap. 6. The dawn of the Golden Age of the autonomous portrait historié started in the last quarter of the sixteenth century in Antwerp with the painting Moses and the Israelites of 1574 by Maerten de Vos, commissioned by Peeter Panhuys and Gillis Hooftman. The Panhuys panel serves as a case study for determining how the choice of a subject relates to the faith of the persons portrayed in a biblical portrait historié. Presented is a partly new identification of the sitters and a new assessment of their religious persuasions. Although the individuals portrayed have been connected to the ‘spiritualistic’ movement of the Family of Love in earlier studies, no attempt was made to interpret the painting in the light of this connection. The Family attracted both Protestants and Catholics. The iconography of this portrait historié, also points in the direction of Lutheran interpretation and seems to confirm the (otherwise established) Lutheran sympathies of Gillis Hooftman and Peeter Panhuys. Moreover, the specific formulation of the Ten Commandments indicates the consultation of a Lutheran Bible translation. This observation seems remarkable since the painting was considered distinctly Calvinist by others.

Biblical portraits historiés, such as the Panhuys panel, may be understood as visualisation of the communio sanctorum or saintly community. One could argue that portraits historiés, in which one projects oneself in the position of protagonists or acting characters of a biblical story, are meant to depict an act of godliness. In a biblical portrait historié the person portrayed is depicted as if he were experiencing an institutional moment of faith at first hand, which seems to be closely connected with the desire to be part of christian tradition. Unlike in the Catholic Church, in Calvinism religious tradition has less to do with the continuation of the ecclesiastical office than with the passing on of the divine gift and the internalised continuation of belief through the calling to the ministry, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. An example of this is Martin Faber’s Institution of the diaconate (1617) with calvinist reformers from Emden.

Jacob Willemsz. I Delff portrayed his family in The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau (1584) with two of his sons as the main figures. The reason for the choice of subject should not be sought in a personal predilections or narrative analogy, such of the settlement of a family quarrel. The choice of subject finds its explanation in the ongoing theological debate about the doctrine of predestination in relation to original sin and election, for which the story served as an example. The Delft minister Arent Croese was closely involved in this debate, that was also often waged in public places, for example in a Delft inn. The fact that Jacob and Esau each went their own way was predetermined before their birth, which John Calvin, in his Institution of 1539, regarded as illustrative of the nullity of their merits in God’s eyes. The story tells not so much about how people should relate to each other but how to situate their own behaviour within a divine context. The Old Testament story of election (as well as its Pauline reading), seems to focus primarily on the individual in spite of its theological interconnection to the corrupt masses and types of people (chosen and rejected). The story can be seen as a legitimation to be represented as a rigtheous believer who does not believe in sanctification through good works but renders himself to God’s judgment.

Karel van Mander’s Crossing of the Jordan (1605) shows the portraits of Duyffgen Roch and Isaack van Gherwen among the Israëlites. Both were Remonstrants, but Van Gherwen was originally a Mennonite, just like the painter. Van Gherwen’s family left their birthplace Den Bosch for religious persecution, which could explain the subject: like the Israelites who had to leave Egypt, many refugees reached “their” Promised Land; the Republic. The painting dates two years after the third unsuccessful siege of ’s-Hertogenbosch and the draining of the river seems to anticipate a tactic that conquered the city in 1629. One should also not play down the role of the painter in the choice of subject of the painting that was probably meant as wedding gift. The crossing of the Jordan had a specific mennonite meaning, since it was traditionally seen as a foreshadowing of Christian baptism. Van Mander wrote a poem on the painting, originally inscribed on the frame, in which he compared the passage through the Jordan with the path of life: the way of all flesh, a common topos in Mennonite literature. Several lines of poetry from Van Mander’s Gulde Harpe (1605) seem to be especially tailored to the history piece. In it he alludes to the “Levitical priesthood”, a reference to a passage by Philips Schabaelje, which in its turn should be connected to Van Mander’s self-portrait as one of the Levites carrying the Ark across the river.

6. Bijbelse familieportretten uit de dageraad van de Gouden Eeuw 269
6.1. Mozes en de Israëlieten door Maerten de Vos (1574) 272
“REFORMATIONSBILD” 274
PANHUYS EN HOOFTMAN: CALVINISTISCHE SPIONNEN? 275
EEN ANALYSE VAN DE TAFELEN DER WET 278
DE OVERIGE GEPORTRETTEERDEN 280
PAULUS IN EFEZE 284
DE OPDRACHTGEVERS EN HET HUYS DER LIEFDE 287
6.2. Het bijbelse portrait historié als beeld van de communio sanctorum 289
6.3. Een Emdens voorbeeld: Martin Fabers Instelling van het diaconaat (1617) 294
6.4. De Verzoening van Jakob en Ezau door Jacob Willemsz. I Delff (1584) 299
IDENTIFICATIE VAN DE GEPORTRETTEERDEN 300
DUIDING VAN DE VERZOENING VAN JAKOB EN EZAU 305
GERECHTVAARDIGDEN EN GEHEILIGDEN: ARENT CROESE OVER JAKOB EN EZAU EN DE PREDESTINATIELEER 309
VERHEFFING VAN HET INDIVIDU OF EIGENGERECHTIGHEID? 313
6.5. De doortocht door de Jordaan van Karel van Mander (1605) 315
DE GEPORTRETTEERDEN: ISAACK VAN GHERWEN EN DUYFFGEN ROCH 316
DE FAMILIE VAN GHERWEN 320
HET SCHILDERIJENBEZIT VAN ISAACK VAN GHERWEN EN DUYFFGEN ROCH 323
DE DOORTOCHT ALS LEVENSWEG 326
DOOP, BESNIJDENIS EN HUWELIJK 330

Few issues have been as divisive for the contemporary church as the doctrine of irre- sistible grace. In the debates surrounding this doctrine, there has been an overwhelm- ing tendency for theologies of grace to focus on the effects that grace has on particular human beings. Alongside this tendency, there has arisen a danger that we forget that God’s grace is God’s grace; that it is God’s free, personal, and beneficent disposition and action. In this article, I turn to Karl Barth to consider a way forward for interpreting the irresistible nature of grace that does not focus on its effectuality but on its theocentric, participative, and covenantal character.

Islam professes belief going back to Abraham and allegedly follows in Abraham's footsteps. Any scholar can test this claim by looking at how Abraham was justified according to the primary sources we have available.  In this paper I review the Islamic doctrine of justification from the Qur'an, Hadith and other Muslim scholars. I contrast this with the Biblical view of justification and how the Bible teaches a man is justified.  Is there any harmony between Islam and Christianity concerning this doctrine?  Read and find out.

Free sample! Sample and the book are also available from Baker Academic  (http://www.bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/salvation-by-allegiance-alone/380521). Or preview/purchase from Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801097975/)

We are saved by faith when we trust that Jesus died for our sins. This is the gospel, or so we are taught. But what is faith? And does this accurately summarize the gospel? Because faith is frequently misunderstood and the climax of the gospel misidentified, the gospel's full power remains untapped. While offering a fresh proposal for what faith means within a biblical theology of salvation, Matthew Bates presses the church toward a new precision: we are saved solely by allegiance to Jesus the king. Instead of faith alone, Christians must speak about salvation by allegiance alone. The book includes discussion questions for students, pastors, and church groups and a foreword by Scot McKnight.

This article shows how in its postmodern “development”, a major part of Christianity has shifted away from the biblical justification by faith and the theology of the cross. Justification is sought from experiences and works, and it is believed to happen inside human being. This has moved the Christian world to the unbiblical Roman Catholic teaching of infused righteousness and justification by sacrament/creation. For example, the joint declarations of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church, and theologies of Karl Barth and Ivan T. Blazen (a Seventh-day Adventist theologian), are studied.* This research paper argues that (1) the postmodern theology is based on communal focus, experiential focus, and deconstruction of the basis on Scripture; (2) justification and sanctification need to be demerged; (3) the Christian postmodern world has gone back to Roman Catholic teaching of infused righteousness; (4) the postmodern view believes in justification by human works; and (5) the postmodern theological thinking unbiblically merges justification and sanctification.

* The author of this paper is a Seventh-day Adventist, and he argues that Blazen's teaching about justification does not represent the whole view of Seventh-day Adventists. See for example: Richard Davidson, "Justification by Faith According to the Old Testament: In the Footsteps of the Reformers," Andrews University Faculty Publications 859 (2017), https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pubs/859/.

Union with Christ merupakan subjek penting dan inti dalam doktrin keselamatan. Konsep ini menjawab setiap isu-isu tentang bagaimana keselamatan itu dan bagaimana seharusnya orang percaya menanggapi konsep keselamatan yang sejati. Oleh sebab itu, penulis mengemukakan pandangan John Calvin yang merupakan paling komprehensif dalam pembahasan doktrin ini dan mengaitkannya dengan spiritualitas kristen yang harus dihidupi.

40 essays by Ronnie Hsia, Ulrich Leinsle, Marius Reiser, Thomas Marschler, Trent Pomplun, Jean-Louis Quantin, William O'Brien SJ, Stefania Tutino, Carl Trueman, Andreas Beck, Willem van Asselt, Eric Carlsson, Stephen Hampton, Benjamin Mayes, Robert Kolb, Risto Saarinnen, Ola Tjorholm, Sarah Mortimer, Jeff Bach, Keith Stanglin, Hartmut Lehmann, Jonathan Strom, Craig Atwood, Stephen Burnett, Emanuele Colombo, Aza Goudriaan, Carolina Armenteros, Eric Watkins, Maria Rosa Antognazza, Stephen Gaukroger, Jonathan Israel, John Henry.