At one point in the course, Gaffin even made the emphatic point that in Paul’s theology, the present flows out of the future, rather than vice versa.

As far as I know, the claim that there were two utterly different justifications that cannot be explained in terms of the already/not-yet dynamic of the Bible, is one that originates in the OPC report, not in Wright or anyone else. It would be easy to construct an accusation against Gaffin on this point if was to read him uncharitably. I’m asking for the same respect to be shown to others.

That seems to be exactly what Dr. Gaffin affirms, however I still, for the life of me, cannot see why we would want to call this “two justifications”.

Why not just say as you have:

“The justification Jesus received at his resurrection, the justification we receive when we are effectually called by the Spirit to be united to Christ by faith, and our open acquittal at the Last Day are all one.”?

Regardless of what Pictet says (which I am not familiar with), what you have said here seems to be a much better way of putting it and in line with the WCF.

Ben

I think I would put the issue of regeneration in the same category. Calvin obviously used regeneration to refer to much more than the initial work of the Holy Spirit causing a person to be spiritually enlightened, but given the systematic sense attached to the term in Reformed circles now, we should be very careful to affirm (if we follow Calvin) what the current sense of the word regeneration affirms as well.

I do agree with you that people should attempt to understand what you mean by two justifications, but it seems to me that it wouldn’t hurt to jetison that language (even if you mean it in a completely orthodox sense) simply because of the confusion it is causing.

I don’t see how you have to deny in any way what you are wanting to affirm about justification by also saying that there are not two distinct justifications.

It would probably help me if you could simply lay out what you mean, because I find myself (probably my own fault) confused by the language of two justifications. I don’t see how the “oneness” and organic solidarity of present and future aspects of justification can be affirmed when two justifications are affirmed.

I suspect that you mean the same thing that Gaffin means… although I am fairly sure that he is not comfortable using the language of two justifications.

Ben

Do we see any real argument in the report for this perjorative construction of Wright (to say nothing of the Presbyterians who appreciate Wright)? As far as I can tell, the report is worthless unless you trust a bunch of unargued assertions on matters of fact regarding the content of what the reports’ targets believe and teach.

And in any case, Benedict Pictet has long been affirmed as a stalwart of Reformed Orthodoxy, and he explicitly states that James is speaking of a “second justification.” This shibboleth test teaches us much about how social groups are able to affirm themselves by alienating others, but it tells us nothing about how one derives and confesses a consistent theology from Scripture or the Westminster Confession, or the Reformation heritage.

Above and beyond all this, there is still an amazing gap between the way Gaffin argues from the term “acquitted” in the Westminster Standards, and the way the Committee dismisses that same word (or between the Committee’s own use of English Bible translations and their dismssal of the Confessions use of the word). Here again there is no logic to follow. There are simply conclusions asserted in the face of obvious precedents. This is about group identity, not faithfulness to Scripture or love of the Reformed tradition.

Ben, does it not bother you at all that no one called me or Rich Lusk or Peter Leithart or anyone else and asked about “two justifications”?

Would it not be better to affirm with Dr. Gaffin the “oneness” of justification in its two aspects (present/future) so as to not even give a hint that you are arguing for a first justification by faith and a second justification at the judgment that is not a present and secure reality for the Christian?

Or is this precisely what you are affirming and I am misundertanding?

Ben

I think the key is the use of the word “second”. Gaffin has made plain in all his discussions on this matter that the “not yet” of our justification is not a “different/seperate/second” justification but the same justification that we now have by faith made visible (by sight) on the last day.