thoughts on the justification debate

Which is more scandalous? The multitudes of Christians who think they need to earn their salvation by being good? Or the throng of Christians who think that holy living doesn't matter so long as they have prayed the sinner's prayer? Pastors' answers will largely indicate how they feel about the justification debate, even if they haven't fully read the newest books from two of the debate's main players: John Piper's The Future of Justification and N. T. Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.

- Christianity Today

of course, in an ideal world, the gospel would be preached such that those who are saved have the assurance that they are saved, and those who are not saved do not have the assurance that they are saved have the assurance that they are not saved.

having said that, in a fallen world, which is more scandalous? preaching the gospel such that those who are saved do not have the assurance that they are saved, or preaching the gospel such that those who are not saved have the assurance that they are saved?

for what it's worth, i think the latter is more scandalous. i would rather not give someone who is saved the assurance that he is saved, than give someone who is not saved the assurance that he is saved.

*****

which is more scandalous - declaring the innocent guilty, or declaring the guilty innocent? more precisely, which is more scandalous - declaring both an innocent man and a guilty man guilty, or declaring both an innocent man and a guilty man innocent?

links: the justification debate (29 jun 09), justification and relationships (2 jul 09)