Prosecution's Response to the Kinnaird Brief
Download the PDF version of this document. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat installed on your system please click here on Adobe Acrobat Reader to download. |
Response to the Brief,
“Are Mr. Kinnaird’s statements in the specifications
in accord with
the Standards of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?”
Submitted at the trial of Elder
John O. Kinnaird
by Arlyn A.
Wilkening
OBJECTION:
By
way of introduction, we would like to state that the question raised by Rev.
Tyson and Elder Kinnaird in the brief submitted to the court changes the
doctrinal focus of the trial proceedings.
Rather than Elder Kinnaird proving to the court that he teaches the same
doctrine of justification as the Standards, it is now acceptable only to prove
his statements are “in accord?” We ask
“in accord” to what in the
Standards? What is the doctrinal issue now being tried before his court?
The
change of focus from “contrary to” to “in accord with” might appear to be
merely the defense’s way of stating the opposite of the charge. It is not so.
It actually diverts attention away from the specific truths of
justification given in the Bible and our Standards in order to explore
something else, some other
words in the Standards which they suppose support Elder Kinnaird’s
view. We cannot break away from
the contrast imposed by the charge, between the truths given in the
Bible and our Standards, and Elder Kinnaird’s statements. The form of the charge and specifications
determine the order of the trial and require this contrast. The whole point of the trial cannot be
changed by an attempt to show that other words might be found which
might be supposed to support Elder Kinnaird’s specific statements.
We
know what the Bible and our Standards say about justification. Justification by faith alone, without works
of any kind on our part, and only through the righteousness of Christ imputed
to us; and this justification is a final and complete justification. We cannot redefine it. We know it, and we are all committed to it,
as the Biblical teaching, and it is the doctrine of our Church. This is the truth which stands in contrast to
Elder Kinnaird’s statements. Both cannot
be true. If one is true the other is
false.
It
is our position that the focus of the trial cannot be change by substituting
“in accord with” for “contrary to.”
RESPONSE:
We
certainly understand the reasons why the defense wishes to avoid the real
doctrinal issues before the court. First
of all, the subject of the defense’s alternative question wipes away all
reference to the specific charge brought against Elder Kinnaird, namely
teaching a justification by faith and works.
Additionally, Elder Kinnaird has refused to respond to the presentation
made to the court on November 23rd.
His reason is that we have made inferences from his statements that have
not been “proven”
to be arrived at by “good and necessary consequence.”[1] However,
this is only an assertion. If spurious
inferences have been made by us from Elder Kinnaird’s teaching, especially in
an area so crucial to the Gospel as justification, the
proper response should be to show what these were and so exonerate Elder
Kinnaird. This technique of ignoring
direct questions and redirecting them in order to evade answering is often used
in debate, but is not suitable for discourse in a court of the church.
Thirdly,
we note that in his arguments Elder Kinnaird does not defend the meaning his
statements have from within the context of his own writings or sermon. For instance, the sections on the second and
third specification are defended as isolated statements. In reference to the first citation in
specification one, taken from his Theological Statements, Elder Kinnaird defends himself from a straw
man position denying a venue we did not claim for that specific statement. In “A Proposal for the Session,” that
statement is written right after Elder Kinnaird has described the three
absolute impediments which bar entrance to the
Elder
Kinnaird’s “new evidence” in his brief does not show him to be in accord with
the Standards, but
rather continues to illustrate our charge.
The following three quotations illustrate Elder Kinnaird’s rejection of
the efficacy of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
“The answer to our question, ‘Why do the people of God need
to be sanctified and glorified? The answer is that when Adam sinned, he and
all descending from him (WCF VI.3) lost the righteousness wherein mankind was
created and, thereby, mankind also lost communion with God. If
communion with God is to be restored, righteousness of a real and personal
nature must be restored.”[4]
Elder
Kinnaird’s statement
is misleading. The Word of God and the
Standards do not teach
that the communion with God that Adam lost is restored through
sanctification and glorification. Christ
though His atonement has done this. John
Murray wrote, “... the work wrought by Christ was in itself intrinsically
adequate to meet all the exigencies created by our sin and all the demands of
God’s holiness and justice.”[5] Not only must one be perfectly righteous to stand before
God, but the penalty for sin - past, present and future- must be paid as
well. A sinner saved by grace is
justified by faith alone, and while he is in the state of justification, is
further sanctified (WCF XI.5) and will be finally glorified. In this manner is Christ’s redemption applied
to the elect. To single out
sanctification and glorification as the graces which are responsible for
restoring fellowship with God is not correct.
In his teaching, Elder Kinnaird does not recognize that justification
is both declarative and constitutive.[6] To avoid confusion, we realize this does not mean a transformation of character
(this is rightly the work of sanctification), but the Word of God and the
Standards do teach that the elect’s standing in heaven as righteous before God
has been settled. It is this aspect of
justification which we believe that Elder Kinnaird misapplies to the grace of
sanctification.
Another
variance with the Standards is on the same page as the first quote, he says:
“We
point to the fact that the final state of the redeemed is that of having a will
that is perfectly and immutably free to good alone. This final condition, sometimes called the
fourth estate of mankind, is to be compared to the state of redeemed mankind in
this life, the third estate. The third
state, although based on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is said
to be less than perfectly righteous, as seen in the following quote ... [WCF
IX.4] ... Clearly, the final perfected
state of man, the fourth estate described in WCF IX.5, while based on the
merits of Christ, comes through
sanctification and glorification, not
through imputation.”[7]
Chapter
IX of the Confession is about Free Will, and concerns man’s will in the four
states described in the sections two through five. It is not concerned at all about limiting or
denying the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Why does Elder Kinnaird continue to derogate
or limit imputation?
And
again:
“Thus
we again see from our Standards the
absolute necessity for our souls, our very basic nature, being made perfect in
holiness if we would see God face to
face. The Confession speaks to our
seeing God face to face only after we
are perfected in holiness through glorification at death, completing what
regeneration and sanctification began.
The imputation of the righteous active and passive obedience of Christ
did not accomplish this -
regeneration, sanctification, and glorification did this according to God’s
intent and plan that we be fully conformed to the image of Christ in perfect
righteousness.”[8]
Elder
Kinnaird’s statements are a further illustration of what he teaches in the
first citation of Specification one. He
insists, that “the imputation of the righteous active and passive obedience of Christ,” which is justification,“did
not accomplish this,” but “regeneration,
sanctification, and glorification did.”
We cannot see what truth there can be in Elder Kinnaird’s insistence
that the imputation of Christ’s obedience does not accomplish a justification
that is final and complete. As Calvin commented in his Institutes,
“It
is entirely by the intervention of Christ’s righteousness that we obtain
justification before God. This is
equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the
righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, which he is
strictly deserving of punishment. Thus vanishes the absurd dogma, that man is justified by faith
inasmuch as faith brings him under the influence of the Spirit of God, by whom
he is rendered righteous.”[9]
Please
study the quotations from John Murray in the appendix of this response, as
compiled by Rev. Arthur Kuschke.
The
final point of our response concerns the definition of being “in accord” with
the Word of God and the Westminster Standards.
To be “in accord with” is not proved by using similar phraseology, terms, or by quoting from
the texts. In order to be “in accord”
one must teach the same content of the
doctrine as the Standards. This is
not an arbitrary definition but one reflected in the Standards themselves. Chapter one, section nine, of the Confessions
states :
“The
infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and
therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any
Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by
other places that speak more clearly. Acts 15:15; John 5:46; see 2 Peter 1:20,21.”
There
is unity in the message of Scripture and one part of Scripture does not
contradict another. Additionally, if an
individual passage of Scripture is used to support a doctrinal position, that
passage must be the clearest one which speaks to that area of doctrine and its interpretation should
not confuse other doctrines as a result.
This principle is particularly crucial to the present charge relating to
the manner in which Elder Kinnaird interprets Romans 2:13,
“For
it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is
those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”
The question is, do the Scriptures and the Standards mean in Romans 2:13 that it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous on the Day of Judgment? John Murray writes,
“It
is quite unnecessary to find in this verse any doctrine of justification by
works in conflict with the teaching of this epistle in later chapters. Whether any will actually be actually
justified by works either in this life or at the final judgment is beside the
apostle’s interest and design at this juncture.
The burden of this verse is that not the hearers or mere possessors of
the law will be justified before God but that in terms of the law the criterion
is doing, not hearing. The apostle’s appeal to this principle serves
that purpose truly and effectively, and there is no need to import questions
that are not relevant to the universe of discourse.”[10]
Romans
“It
needs to be noted, however, that at this point [
What
is clearly at issue here is how Elder Kinnaird’s teaching of acceptance by God
based on real and personal righteousness confuses and co-mingles justification
and sanctification in a manner that Larger Catechism Q. 77 forbids. Both Dr. Lillback and Dr. Gaffin in their
expert testimony on Elder Kinnaird’s behalf stressed that these doctrines need
to be distinguished and not confused even while the benefits come to us
inseparably from each other.
In
closing I would like to place the following quotations from John Calvin in
contrast to the above quotation as well as quotations in the charge,
specifically in specification one.
“Osiander
objects that it would be insulting to God, and contrary to his nature, to
justify those who still remain wicked. But it ought to be remembered, as I
already observed, that the gift of justification is not separated from regeneration,
though the two things are distinct. But as it is too well known by experience,
that the remains of sin always exist in the righteous, it is necessary that
justification should be something very different from reformation to newness of
life. This latter God begins in his elect, and carries
on during the whole course of life, gradually and sometimes slowly, so that if
placed at his judgment-seat they would always deserve sentence of death. He
justifies not partially, but freely, so that they can appear in the heavens as
if clothed with the purity of Christ. No portion of righteousness could pacify
the conscience. It must be decided that we are pleasing to God, as being
without exception righteous in his sight”.[12]
“To
declare that we are deemed righteous, solely because the obedience of Christ is
imputed to us as if it where our own, is just to place our righteousness in the
obedience of Christ.” [13]
Elder
Kinnaird having denied the efficacy of imputed righteousness of Christ alone,
received by faith alone,
to reckon us as righteous in the sight of God has substantiated
the charge that he teaches a doctrine of justification by faith and works.
APPENDIX
“Elder Kinnaird's Reference to John Murray's
Redemption Accomplished and Applied”
Comments by Rev. Arthur Kuschke
In
Mr. Kinnaird's testimony on
It
appears that he is associating his teaching with that of John Murray. If so, it may be pertinent to quote just a
few passages from the chapter on Justification in "Redemption Accomplished
and Applied" (the whole chapter is relevant).
The
question is this: is Mr. Kinnaird's teaching on justification basically in
harmony with that of Mr. Murray, or in contrast?
Quotations
from Redemption Accomplished and Applied
(Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1959)
II. “In God’s
justification of sinners there is no deviation from the rule that what is
declared to be is presupposed to be.
God’s judgment is according to truth here as elsewhere. The peculiarity of God’s action consists in
this that he causes to be the righteous state or relation which is declared to
be….. Therefore what God does in this case is that he constitutes the new and
the righteous judicial relation as well as declares this new relation to
be. He constitutes the ungodly
righteous, and consequently can declare them to be righteous….
This
conclusion that justification is constitutive is…. expressly stated in
Scripture itself. It is with the subject
of justification that Paul is dealing when he says, "For as through the
disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners, even so through
the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous" (Rom.
5:19)…. It is clear that the justification which is unto eternal life Paul
regards as consisting in our being constituted righteous, in our receiving
righteousness as a free gift, and this righteousness is none other than the
righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ; it is the righteousness of his
obedience. Hence grace reigns through
righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom.
III. “Justification is not by the righteousness of
performance on our part; it is not of works (Rom. 3:20; 4:2; 10:3-4; Gal. 2:16;
3:11; 5:4; Phil. 3:9). The Scripture is
so insistent upon this that it is only by … distortion of the most aggravated
type that justification by works could ever be entertained or proposed in any
form or to any degree. The Romish
doctrine bears the patent hall-marks of such distortion.” - Page 156
IV. “It is by the
righteousness of God that we are justified (Rom.
V.
“The righteousness of justification is the righteousness and obedience of
Christ (Rom.
[1] Kinnaird,
John. “Are Mr. Kinnaird’s statements in the specifications in accord with the
Standards of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?,” page
2.
[2] Kinnaird, John. “A Proposal for the Session,” pp. 4-5.
[3] Ibid., p. 6-7
[4] Kinnaird,
John. “Are Mr. Kinnaird’s statements in
the specifications in accord with the Standards of the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church?,” p. 4. (Emphasis added.)
[5] Murray,
John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Chapter 3, “The Perfection of
the Atonement,” pp. 57-58.
[6] Ibid. Chapter 5, “Justification,” p.
123.
[7] Kinnaird, John "Are Mr. Kinnaird's..." p.4
[8] Kinnaird, John. “Are Mr. Kinnaird’s statements ...,” p. 6 (Emphasis added)
[9] Calvin,
John. Institutes. III.xi.23.
[10] Murray,
John. The Epistle to
the Romans. The New International
Commentary on the New Testament, (Eerdmans, 1968), p. 71.
[11] Ibid, p. 69.
[12]Institutes
III.11.11
[13]Institutes III.11.25 emphasis added