In 1962 Thomas Kuhn shook the academic and science world with his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. One of Kuhn’s main thesis was that change in Science Theory doesn’t happen cumulatively or incrementally but by revolution in theory. Kuhn posited that a previously accepted scientific paradigm becomes questioned due to the non-fitting anomalies that exist in all scientific paradigms. Kuhn’s elaborated that what happens in Revolutionary paradigm shifts is that those heretofore unexplained anomalies are seen as more and more significant by certain scientific practitioners with the result that new paradigms are launched in order to better explain the previous anomalies in the old paradigms.
Now, implicit in Kuhn’s critique is the idea that Science is based on something that isn’t completely scientific. A careful reading of Kuhn allows one to see that what drives Scientific Revolutions is not Science but Theology, for it is a shift in Theology that explains why those who are seeking to craft a new paradigm do not accept certain assumptions that existed in the previous paradigm. Now, if this is so, then it is easy to suggest that Kuhn’s work could be re-titled to “The Structure of Theological Revolutions,” and it would be just as easy to apply Kuhn’s observations in the realm of Theology proper, and I think there are those who are trying to do just that. There are those today within the Reformed community that have isolated what they believe to be anomalies in the Reformed paradigm and are trying to launch a new Theological paradigm to replace the Reformed paradigm.
What typically happens in a paradigm shift is that those who inhabit the prevailing paradigm are forced to defend and explain what are often difficult anomalies within their paradigms. I think this is fitting and proper AS LONG AS the ‘newer’ paradigm that is offering itself as replacement is forced to defend and explain its own difficult anomalies. It only stands to reason that if we are going to abandon one paradigm because of its problems in not explaining all of reality well enough, that we should expect the new paradigm that is offering itself as replacement to show that the plausibility structure that it offers is one that can take in and account better for all of reality.
With this background in mind, I would like to examine newer Reformed Theological paradigms that are offering themselves as substitutes to what one advocate in their group has called, ‘the exhausted Reformed Worldview.’ In order to do this I am going to interact with a summary piece that was offered online by one of those who are numbered among those who believe that the Reformed faith needs a new paradigm and whose goal in writing was to give as accurate description of the various approaches to the doctrine of justification that exist within FV circles as he could.
Before we press on there are those who might be asking how a change in thinking concerning the doctrine of justification ends up being a Theological paradigm shift. The answer to that is by realizing that in many respects Justification is at the center of Reformed thinking. Now, when one changes the center everything around the center changes as well. So, a substantive change in the doctrine of justification is really a Theological paradigm change against the whole. It is hoped that as we move through this analysis this will be more clearly seen.
Finally, methodologically, I am going to enumerate the problems that the new paradigm proponents have with the old paradigm and then will follow by examining the problems with their proposed better way. By its insistence on faith alone the old paradigm relies, according to the newer paradigm, on inert or dead faith in order to save. Those thumping for the new paradigm insist that our obedience is necessary for justification though that necessary obedience isn’t the ground of our justification, which can only be Christ alone and His righteousness. The problems here are at least three,
A.) It seems with this arrangement that justification is pushed away from God’s declarative verdict of imputed righteousness for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement to a process that ends with justification due to an ongoing obedience on the part of the ‘being justified one.’ So, in the older paradigm Justification is front-loaded so the Church can say, ‘We are justified,’ while in the newer paradigm justification is at the end and so the Church can only say, at best, ‘We are being justified if our faith remains obedient.’ This would seem to play havoc with any notion of assurance, as the earnest disciple would be forever wondering if his offered obedience would ever be enough obedience.
B.) Though the insistence is that obedience is necessary though not the ground for justification one can’t help but note that in this arrangement it doesn’t seem possible to be justified without obedience. Now, if that is true it is difficult to see, protestations to the contrary, how personal obedience in some sense isn’t being made the ground of our standing before God.
C.) Scripture clearly teaches that,”To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to who God imputes righteousness apart from works.”
Here, works are clearly being contrasted with a faith that is apart from works. Evidently, justifying faith can be both obedient and yet without works and still not be inert or dead. The position of the newer paradigm then is that we are only justified by an obedient faith. Now, any right-minded Biblical Theologian would agree with this 100%. The question that arises though is what should obedient faith look like as it concerns justification. The premise among some of those advocating the newer paradigm (you can seldom speak in universals with the newer school as they are quick to tell you that all of this is just a conversation and not a set theology) seems to be that a ‘resting in Christ for all faith’ is by definition disobedient faith or non-working faith or inert faith. The newer paradigm seems to insist that in order for faith to be legitimate that it must work. Once again, we would agree, noting though that in justification faith that rests from working is doing its proper work. We would wonder if the resting faith of the Israelites at the foot of the Red Sea was a faith that wasn’t working all because it did nothing but trust God to part the Sea? In the same way we would ask if the faith that justifies is not doing its proper obedient work when it rests in Christ for all? So, in the end we agree with our newer paradigm brethren that dead faith can never justify. Our disagreement is over what constitutes dead faith. They seem to be teaching that the historic Reformed teaching that justifying faith which rests in Christ for all is dead faith. We would charitably but earnestly disagree continuing to contend that justifying faith is to be defined as an act that is no way contributory to justification but rather is purely receptive of the person of Christ in all of His righteousness.
Problem # 2 — The Old paradigm so focuses on justification as initiatory act that it neglects justification in its present and eschatological dynamic. Norman Shepherd, an advocate of the new paradigm, has an emphasis on justification that is eschatological. Shepherd writes, “The term ‘justification’ may be used with reference to the acquittal and acceptance of a believer at his effectual calling into union with Christ, or with reference to the state of forgiveness and acceptance with God into which the believer is ushered by his effectual calling, or with reference to God’s open acquittal and acceptance of the believer at the final judgment (Matt. 12:36, 37; Rom. 3:22,24; 5:1; 8:1; Gal. 5:5).” Now, I think Dr. Shepherd has done the Historic Reformed camp a favor by reminding us of the eschatological nature of Justification, and I think we can learn from this emphasis even if Dr. Shepherds conclusions are incorrect. We should keep in mind that Justification is and will be eschatological in the sense of God’s justified people will be vindicated. Further we should remind ourselves that justification as initiatory declaratory act is God’s decreed eschatological justification brought into the present reality of the believer because of the vindication of the Son by the Father and due to the Son’s obedience in that task of His redemptive work. Dr. Shepherd reminds us that we have yet to be justified and we agree as long as that is understood as “vindicated,” but we would go on to add that that is so in light of the fact that we have been justified. Further, we would insist that all those who are eschatologically justified (vindicated) in final judgment are exactly, person for person, those who were set apart for justification from eternity, were justified in Christ at the Redemption event and were justified upon faith alone as the Holy Spirit applied our accomplished redemption. There are zero people who are initially justified who are not also vindicated. Justification does not lapse.
Now, the newer paradigm insists that works are absolutely necessary for future justification. The older paradigm has no problem with this as long as it is admitted that the works that are absolutely necessary for future justification (vindication) are only present because initiatory justification is absolutely necessary for all future works. Second, we must always be careful of thinking overmuch regarding our own works, faithfulness, or obediential faith. R. L. Dabney reminds us that “all the defects in evangelical obedience are covered by the Saviors righteousness, so that, through Him the inadequate works receive a recompense.” So, yes, we agree that since works are the consequence to justification they are normatively required for salvation, but we still insist that our good works are only good because they themselves are imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. On this matter where we would differ with the new paradigm is where each respectively places repentance and new obedience. The new paradigm wants to place repentance and new obedience as preliminary to or concomitant with the anticipated pardon of justification that will only come in the final judgment. The older paradigm would insist that repentance and new obedience is required in salvation and so is consequent to the pardon of a justification that is promissory of repentance and new obedience precisely because in its initiatory declarative expression it is proleptic of the future eschatological justification (vindication). It is only in this way that faith and faithfulness can be kept distinct without divorcing them from one another thus resulting in a anti-nomian theology or confusing them with one another thus resulting in a Theology rife with either neo-nomianism or legalism.