Galatians 2:20.
Question: does this verse deal more with justification, Jesus for me, or Sanctification, Jesus in me. Luther says for. Calvin says in. I say for with clear implications of in. R-kelly preached this one to the hilt last night at our Lord’s supper service, props and kudos. What a great reminder that the gospel, contra fed-vision or new perspec, is NOT based on our ‘hopeless meritoriousness.’ Yet I’m inclined, perhaps incorrectly, to see a large amount of correspondence between our being justified and the old ‘how shall we then live.’ Any thoughts on this guys…pipe in at will.
6 responses so far ↓
apologus // April 24, 2008 at 11:57 am |
Justin, it is a dangerous thing to compare the Federal Vision to “Hopeless Meritoriousness.” Someone could just as well turn that around and say that your version of the gospel is the same as the antinomian version of Zane Hodges. I am assuming that would be equally absurd.
apologus // April 24, 2008 at 12:06 pm |
Wait, is this Greg, my buddy Greg from West/Cal? Please say it ain’t so.
Justin Richter // April 24, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
Uri, yeah, this isn’t my post. There are a bunch of other people writing for this blog. But I agree with you, I am not sure that the NP and FV are necessarily works/salvation oriented. They may be or it just maybe that people have framed them that way.
Justin Richter // April 24, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
Oh yeah, Greg, your antinomian.
schneerawk // April 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
ha…uri, i love you, let me publicly recant, not all forms of the FV are at all equated with the Galatian heresy. However, i would be careful of any teaching with blends justification/sanctification at the possibility of unclarity. However, and I mean this, feel free to teach me some stuff man. My study in this area is limited and I don’t want to just throw around sound bites…perhaps I need to read the heidelblog a bit less
schneerawk // April 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
I’m a confused theonomist at heart…or, like J-Frame, a friendly one…tee hee.
You must be logged in to post a comment.