Who Said That?

"We can reconcile Paul and James by taking into account the factor of time (something systematic theology, with its abstract methodology, tends to leave out). Initial justification — the pole the Reformers focused on in their disputes with Rome — is by faith alone. Hence sola fide must stand unchallenged. Final justification, however, is according to works. This pole of justification takes into account the entirety of our lives — the obedience we’ve performed, the sins we’ve committed, the confession and repentance we’ve done.”

Please leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches or cheating.  Answer to follow next week.

Update on Friday, October 8, 2010 at 11:06AM by Kim Riddlebarger

This is from Rich Lusk's essay "Future Justification to Doers of the Law.”

Comments

[pb]

Well it's pretty clearly from the New Perspective folks or their ideological ancestors.

[Charles S]

Pope Benedict?

[John Yeazel]

It almost seems convincing and appeals to our intuitive natures that are "hard-wired' to the Law. The problem is that the Gospel is always counter-intuitive to the Law of God implanted in our consciousness. I think this is what the book of Galatians is all about. You can never start with the Gospel and end with the Law. We are justified by the Gospel alone- from repentance and faith all the way to our glorification. That is Good News indeed!!!!!

It could be any number of folks from the New Perspective of Paul, Federal Vision and even those among Non-Denominational Growth and Mega-Churches who have been influenced by the New Perspective types.

I doubt if Pope Benedict would make the reference to Rome; N.T. Wright, Doug Wilson or James Jordon seem to obvious. Maybe it is one of the Mega-Church superstars like Rich Warren or some other well known Church celebrity figure.

[Paul L.]

N.T. Wright

[bCs in KC]

Doug Wilson?

[hb]

I don't think Rick Warren's vocabulary could match this. I don't know who it is, but I certainly wouldn't want to get stuck with them on an airplane. The tone is such that the speaker believes his intellect is far superior to those he/she is addressing. Hmmmm. Obama?

["lee n. field"]

Hmmpf! Better <i>not</i> be what I hear this morning.

[Joseph]

How is this different from what Gaffin or Piper would say? Justification does have an eschatological component, cf Justification and Eschatology by Gaffin. Does the distinction rest in saying that there are two justifications vs. saying that there is one justification with an already/not yet tension?

Sincerely,

Joseph

[JN]

I'm positive this is from within the Federal Vision camp. "Final Justification" is a giveaway here. Thinking either Peter Leithart or Rich Lusk.

[Scott Roper]

Jim Jordan?

I think you skipped the answer to the September 18th "Who Said That?"

[John Sellman]

This person is talking like a Roman Catholic using terms like initial justification and final justification. I think it may be Pope Benedict or possibly John Paul II.

[Joseph]

Would someone please tell me how this is different from Gaffin or Piper's treatments? I sincerely would like to know. Obviously, y'all think the above statement is dangerous, but you would probably agree with Piper and Gaffin. I'm having a difficult time seeing the difference. Again, does the distinction rest in saying that there are two justifications vs. saying that there is one justification with an already/not yet tension? Thanks for any assistance. :)

[presbyterian_keith]

NT Wright

[Peter A.]

I have the same question as Joseph...

Would someone please tell me how this is different from Gaffin or Piper's treatments? I sincerely would like to know. Obviously, y'all think the above statement is dangerous, but you would probably agree with Piper and Gaffin. I'm having a difficult time seeing the difference. Again, does the distinction rest in saying that there are two justifications vs. saying that there is one justification with an already/not yet tension? Thanks for any assistance. :)

[Michael]

N. T. Wright

[acroamaticus]

Don't know, but whoever it is, he aint Lutheran!
Sounds a little bit like NT Wright, but pays too much lip service to JBFA to really be him, so I'll follow the lead from the previous commenters and opt for some mutant Presbyterian-FV guy.