The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Arminian Atonement of John Piper

Yes, but when I was there, David Engelsma wasn't teaching. My profs were Hanko, Decker and Hoeksema. My experience was less than amiable. I also studied at WTS (Philly), which was extremely challenging but very rewarding.

I would, of course, reject your #2 and posit that it belongs with #3. For #2 I believe that Christ's life, death and resurrection secured the basis for our justifiction, which is then realized when the regenerated sinner believes on Christ. Although Christ infallibly secured the justification of the elect, they are not actually justified until they believe (conversion) and the assurance (conscious enjoyment) of that justification comes at various times; immediately to some time later.

This is most assuredly at variance with the biblical testimony Cp. Rom 3:28,30; 4:3,5,9; 5:1; 10:4; Gal 3:6,24; Eph 2:8,9; Phil 3:9; Jam 2:23. As one can plainly see from these texts, the forensic nature of justification is in view and not simply a conscious acknowledgement/experience of it. When the sinner believes, a cosmic declaration is made and the sinner's "state" is changed from one who is under judgment and condemnation to one of reconciliation and eternal life. And, it is at variance with all the Reformed Confessions. Cp. Belgic: Article XXII, Canons of Dordt - "Articles of Faith": Article 7, The French Confession - Article XX, The Larger Catechism, Questions 70-71, The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XI - Articles 3-4, The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, Chapter XI - Articles 3-4, The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter XV, The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article XI, The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI.

Re: Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification." (ASV)

1. dia I believe, along with most all respected exegetes and commentators, that it should be rendered "for" = "causality". Notice that dia also preceeds "our trespasses" and must be taken into account to properly understand this "justification". Although Murray sees both phrases as pointing forward to their respective acts; receiving the punishment due for our sins and being raised to secure our justification, I believe Hendriksen has an equal alternative. He sees the first phrase as point back to the cross and the second as pointing forward to the elect's actual justification. In either case, the justification seen in this passage cannot be bifurcated from all that Paul has written concerning being justified by faith.
2. dikaiwsin = the state of justification vs. the act where it appears as dikaiwma in 5:18.
3. One of the best articles written in modern times on the relationship of faith to justification came from the pen of Dr. Joel Beeke, which can be found here: Justification by Faith Alone.

Unfortunately, I don't see the logic in it.

But thanks for the good exchange nonetheless.