Category Archives: Justification

Why the Reformation Isn’t Over

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Michael Reeves

(1) Why the Reformation Isn’t Over

(original source here)

More Than History
People might think that the Reformation is irrelevant today—just a feature on the pages of history. And they may not like history so they might not find that at all interesting. People might think that the Reformation was mainly a reaction to a historical issue 500 years ago that we’ve moved on from and therefore that reaction is no longer relevant.

But the Reformation was not merely a reaction to some problem that was in the church 500 years ago. The Reformation was, at its heart, a project to move ever closer to the gospel—that we might be ever more purified and reformed as believers and the church by the word of God.

That was how it all began for Martin Luther—with him digging into Scripture and seeing how Scripture could confront and overturn the teachings of his day, and it went on as that.

Change in the Church
The whole Puritan movement started in the 1560s in England—a generation or so after Luther—and was a movement that was dedicated to what John Milton called the reforming of the Reformation, because the Puritans were people who saw we cannot settle with any level of change that God has brought about in our life or in our church.

Therefore, we need to be constantly searching in his Word to see how further reformation needs to work itself out and what it looks like in our lives. And so, the reformation movement was a movement of constant change, constant purification by the word of God. And if the Puritans were right in that, that’s what the Reformation is: a project of being ever more purified by the word of God. If that’s true, and I believe they are absolutely right in that, then the Reformation cannot be over.

Here are principles that we need to hold onto. Let’s be constantly purified by the word of God. The central principles of the Reformation still apply because they’re ever-relevant. The matter of justification hasn’t gone away and so the issues of the Reformation cannot have gone away.

(2) Justification: The Heart of the Reformation by Dr. Michael Reeves (original source here)

Internal vs. External Transformation
The issue at the heart of the Reformation was without a doubt the question of justification. When Luther was growing up, the understanding of justification that he was taught (and which really drove him to despair) was an understanding of justification inherited from Augustine who had thought that Romans 5:5 was the clearest single text to articulate justification. It says that “God has poured his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit he’s given us.”

So with that understanding, God pours his love, by the Holy Spirit, into my heart so that in my heart, I am transformed to become more and more loving, more and more holy, more and more justified. It is an internal transformative process and that’s simply not what Romans 5:5 is actually about. But that understanding of justification as the transformative process meant that you could not be sure that you’d been internally transformed enough to be worthy of heaven.

And the answer to that question should normally, according to the Catholic Church be no. They would have said that most of us, bar a few exceptions, will spend a good time in Purgatory having remaining sins purged from us. What Luther saw as he turned to Romans chapter 1 was that justification is not an internal transformative process, it’s a declaratory act of God.

Divine Declaration
God declares by his word that a sinner, not on the basis of any internal transformation but by his own promise, is righteous as he is clothed with the righteousness of Christ. That meant that the sinner can be still a sinner in themselves and yet clothed with the righteousness of Christ— therefore confident before God in the face of death.

That was really the dividing line between a transformative understanding of justification and a declarative understanding of justification—one which has works as a cause of justification that contribute to justification, and one which has works as a consequence or an overflow of the transformation that happens when we find ourselves united with Christ and so clothed with his righteousness.

(3) Why You Can’t Have Justification without Sanctification

John Piper and Gospel Confusion

Posted on by
6

Brothers I am troubled!

There’s no doubt that John Piper is one of the people God has used to impact my theological journey in a significant way. Much could be said about that. This blog is filled with many references to John Piper’s works.

However, in recent days I have become increasingly concerned about what Dr. Piper is teaching. He makes a distinction between initial justification and entering heaven, to the point that the gospel is confused, and some would even say, denied.

It is because I have greatly admired Dr. Piper that I have really tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. I really have. But the more I have read and the more I have re-read Piper’s material, the more troubled I have become. I would have expected the opposite to be true – that the more I read of his, the more clarity I would find to set my concerns aside. However, that is not the case in any way at all.

I am deeply troubled. John Piper is abundantly clear in what he is saying and that is what bothers me greatly.

Here’s a video by Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, Kingsport, Tennessee, responding to Piper in his own words.

Update: Since this video was made, Dr. Piper has posted the following article: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no-love-lost

I shared this article with Pastor Hines (the maker of the above video) and here is his reply:

Pastor Hines: The vast majority of what he says is, again, very biblical and sound. The problem is this: “There is no final salvation without the confirmation of justification in a life of holiness (2 Peter 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13).” & “In our conversations with Roman Catholics, it will always be wise to emphasize how seriously we regard the necessity of sanctification for final salvation. It will not be surprising if they are puzzled.

Many evangelicals stumble over the claim that justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28), and yet final salvation has the prerequisite of holiness (Hebrews 12:14). But this is centuries-long Reformed teaching.” What does “prerequisite of holiness” mean? What does “final salvation” mean? How does “final salvation” differ from “justification?” Clearly, in Piper’s thinking, it does differ. The Reformers and their successors all taught that our justification IS what “finally gets us to heaven.” Our justification is that eschatological verdict brought back in time and once and for all eternity made concerning our status before God’s law.

John Piper is not a stupid man. But surely he is well aware of the fact that the way he is stating this is going to upset the apple-cart. He needs to define what he means by “final salvation” and “prerequisite of holiness.” He doesn’t – and hence the danger of this ambiguous teaching. One Reformer, John Calvin, taught us: “Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics.”

Remember also that in his sermon, he said that “it is the surveyors who are confused because they asked ‘How do you get into heaven?'” John, I seriously have to wonder what Piper’s answer to that surveyor’s question would be now. Based on what Piper said, “You don’t get into heaven by faith alone,” Piper would have to say in response to that question: “By putting sin to death and pursuing holiness.” And that’s the problem with all of this.

John Samson: I believe the key question that STILL needs to be answered (regarding Dr. Piper’s teaching) is this one – “will there be people who were justified who do not enter heaven at the final judgment?” Because Dr. Piper makes a big distinction between the two things, I am not sure how he would answer, and that is especially concerning.

(Gal. 1; Jude:3)

Update: Patrick Hines’ interchange with someone on facebook:

Here are a couple of posts I’ve (Patrick) done in response to someone who is defending John Piper:

No one is reducing “salvation” to only justification. However, the usages of the term “salvation” have to be determined by each context in which they are used. Romans 5:9, Ephesians 2:8-10 – these passages are clearly using the term “saved” in the context of what is the legal grounds upon which we are saved from God’s wrath – i.e. the legal grounds upon which we are justified before God and thus are not subject to the avenging wrath of God. True faith in Christ is never alone in those justified – never. It is always accompanied by all other saving graces. But those other saving graces – the new birth, repentance unto life, and progressive sanctification are not and never could be the legal grounds of “final salvation” – i.e. the legal grounds upon which the wrath of God does not come against us. That’s what Piper is violating.

People can fuss all day long about “salvation” is broader than merely justification. That’s true. However, when you look at the specific usages of “salvation” and “saved” in Scripture, when Paul uses the terms he is usually speaking of the legal grounds upon which the sinner is saved from God’s avenging wrath. That legal grounds cannot ever, ever be our works, our sanctification. That’s why Paul is clear: Romans 5:9 “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” Ephes. 2:8-10 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, [9] not of works, lest anyone should boast. [10] For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

Your criticisms here, Michael Foster, are not against me, they are against the way in which Paul himself speaks of how sinners are saved. I get the impression you’d say to Paul himself when you look at those two key texts, Romans 5:9 and Ephesians 2:8-10, “Paul, I refuse to reduce salvation down to justification.” Your argument really isn’t with us, it’s with Paul. “Salvation” in theological discourse does refer to all of the other graces God brings about in the life of the redeemed and justified sinner, but when people speak of “final salvation” as being NOT by faith alone, but rather by our works – they are, in point of fact, talking about the very same thing Paul is in Ephesians 2:8-10 and Romans 5:9 – i.e. what it is that gets us past the judgment of God into heaven. And to say that we are saved from wrath NOT by Christ but by our works is a false gospel. That’s the problem here. And Piper needs to be denounced for it.

My opponent then asked: “Let me back away from the particulars of Piper’s statement for a moment to ask a clarifying question: Do you guys (Patrick & Rudy) believe that good works are necessary to salvation?”

To which I responded:

Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics. Necessary in what way? In the way Piper is teaching? As the legal grounds of our final salvation from God’s wrath? No. Do works necessarily accompany true faith? Yes. Because true faith is never alone in the person justified but is always and ever accompanied by all the other graces God brings about in the lives of His children: adoption, sanctification, the new birth, being conformed to the image of Christ. But those other saving graces are not the grounds upon which we are saved at the last judgment. You see, Piper is emphatic: “You don’t get into heaven by faith alone.” If he had said, “You don’t get into heaven having only been justified. You are also, if you have true faith, being renewed in the whole man after the image of God. God puts a beating heart of flesh in you in place of the heart of stone! God creates a hunger and thirst for righteousness. God starts a war in your against remaining indwelling sin! And that war will never end in this life. So, you don’t get into heaven having merely been justified. If you’ve been justified, that is the basis upon which you enter heaven – praise God. But God also conforms us to His image and makes us alive in Christ. And He does this without fail in every single person He justified by faith alone!” But, we both know, that’s not what the man said. He yelled, “You don’t get into heaven *by* faith alone,” which is to say, “You don’t get into heaven by the blood and righteousness of Christ alone.” And therein lies the problem.

Mastering the Doctrine of Justification

Posted on by
Reply

From the 2005 Shepherd’s Conference, Dr. R. C. Sproul on the subject “Mastering the Doctrine of Justification.”

I wish every preacher alive could hear and master the content here (me included) and in doing so, may each be awakened to preach the Gospel as if heaven and hell depended on it, because surely it does. And may God be pleased to bring a new Reformation in our day.

Mastering the Doctrine of Justification (1)

Mastering the Doctrine of Justification (2)

Justification According to Rome

Posted on by
Reply

This excerpt is adapted from Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism by R.C. Sproul.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is always at risk of distortion. It became distorted in the centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. It became distorted at innumerable other points of church history, and it is often distorted today. This is why Martin Luther said the gospel must be defended in every generation. It is the center point of attack by the forces of evil. They know that if they can get rid of the gospel, they can get rid of Christianity.

There are two sides to the gospel, the good news of the New Testament: an objective side and a subjective side. The objective content of the gospel is the person and work of Jesus—who He is and what He accomplished in His life. The subjective side is the question of how the benefits of Christ’s work are appropriated to the believer. There the doctrine of justification comes to the fore.

Many issues were involved in the Reformation, but the core matter, the material issue of the Reformation, was the gospel, especially the doctrine of justification. There was no great disagreement between the Roman Catholic Church authorities and the Protestant Reformers about the objective side. All the parties agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary, and that He lived a life of perfect obedience, died on the cross in an atoning death, and was raised from the grave. The battle was over the second part of the gospel, the subjective side, the question of how the benefits of Christ are applied to the believer.

The Reformers believed and taught that we are justified by faith alone. Faith, they said, is the sole instrumental cause for our justification. By this they meant that we receive all the benefits of Jesus’ work through putting our trust in Him alone.

The Roman communion also taught that faith is a necessary condition for salvation. At the seminal Council of Trent (1545–1563), which formulated Rome’s response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic authorities declared that faith affords three things: the initium, the fundamentum, and the radix. That is, faith is the beginning of justification, the foundation for justification, and the root of justification. But Rome held that a person can have true faith and still not be justified, because there was much more to the Roman system.

In reality, the Roman view of the gospel, as expressed at Trent, was that justification is accomplished through the sacraments. Initially, the recipient must accept and cooperate in baptism, by which he receives justifying grace. He retains that grace until he commits a mortal sin. Mortal sin is called “mortal” because it kills the grace of justification. The sinner then must be justified a second time. That happens through the sacrament of penance, which the Council of Trent defined as “a second plank” of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls.

The fundamental difference was this. Trent said that God does not justify anyone until real righteousness inheres within the person. In other words, God does not declare a person righteous unless he or she is righteous. So, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, justification depends on a person’s sanctification. By contrast, the Reformers said justification is based on the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus. The only ground by which a person can be saved is Jesus’ righteousness, which is reckoned to him when he believes.

There were radically different views of salvation. They could not be reconciled. One of them was the gospel. One of them was not. Thus, what was at stake in the Reformation was the gospel of Jesus Christ. Though the Council of Trent made many fine affirmations of traditional truths of the Christian faith, it declared justification by faith alone to be anathema, ignoring many plain teachings of Scripture, such as Romans 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

Calvin on Justification, Faith and Works

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Justification, Faith and Works: Calvin on Ezekiel 18:17
by R. B. Gaffin, Jr., Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Emeritus at Westminster Theological Seminary (original source here).

A passage from Calvin’s commentary on Ezekiel 18:14-17 has the distinction of being among the last, perhaps the last, of his comments on the relationship among justification, faith and works. Apparently written shortly before his death in 1564, it is perhaps as pointed as any of his comments on their interrelationship and so, highly instructive concerning his matured understanding. An excerpt of some length from his comments on verse 17 is provided here, because, seen in its immediate context, it needs to be read carefully and digested (bolding added). Note that when Calvin speaks here of “works” he clearly has in view, as the plural shows, the believer’s good works or obedience done over time, in other words, seen in terms of God’s work in the believer, sanctification as ongoing or progressive, what he regularly includes elsewhere with “regeneration,” a word he uses in a broader sense than later Reformed theology.

When therefore, we say that the faithful are esteemed just even in their deeds this is not stated as a cause of their salvation, and we must diligently notice that the cause of salvation is excluded from this doctrine; for, when we discuss the cause, we must look nowhere else but to the mercy of God, and there we must stop. But although works tend in no way to the cause of justification, yet, when the elect sons of God were justified freely by faith, at the same time their works are esteemed righteous by the same gratuitous liberality. Thus it still remains true, that faith without works justifies, although this needs prudence and a sound interpretation; for this proposition, that faith without works justifies is true and yet false, according to the different senses which it bears. The proposition, that faith without works justifies by itself, is false, because faith without works is void. But if the clause “without works” is joined with the word “justifies,” the proposition will be true. Therefore faith cannot justify when it is without works, because it is dead, and a mere fiction. He who is born of God is just, as John says (1 John v. 18). Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from his heat: yet faith justifies without works, because works form no reason for our justification; but faith alone reconciles us to God, and causes him to love us, not in ourselves, but in his only-begotten Son.

Taken by itself, Calvin considers the statement “faith without works justifies” to be ambiguous. It “needs prudence and sound interpretation”; it is “true yet false,” depending on the way it is read. Pinpointed grammatically, Calvin is saying:

When the prepositional phrase “without works” is taken adverbially, that is, as modifying the verb “justifies,” then the statement “faith without works justifies,” is true;
When “without works” is taken adjectivally, that is, with the noun “faith,” that is, “without-works faith,” then the same statement is false.

“Without-works” faith (alone-faith) Calvin asserts, does not justify, “because faith without works is void.” Again he says, “faith cannot justify when it is without works, because it is dead and a mere fiction.” He is saying in effect, to focus the balance of his remarks: “faith, with its works, justifies without works”; or also, “with-works faith (or “not-without-works faith”) justifies without works.” Alone-faith does not justify, but justification is by faith alone; faith is the alone instrument of justification.

In this passage Calvin is on the proverbial razor’s edge, where we occasionally find ourselves in sound theologizing faithful to Scripture. Certainly, he is not saying here what he emphatically and repeatedly denies elsewhere, that I must do a certain amount of good works or obey God for a certain amount of time before I can be justified or be sure that I am justified. Rather, his comments highlight that even in its initial exercise justifying faith is inherently disposed to obedience and good works, which are bound to come to expression, however imperfectly, over time. His point is what is expressed later in the Westminster Confession, namely that faith as “the alone instrument of justification” is “not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love”; or, more importantly, Paul’s characterization of justifying faith as “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6; alluded to and cited as Scriptural support by the Confession at this point).

Here, in a particularly striking and instructive way, Calvin accents how inseparable, yet distinct, good works are from faith as the alone instrument of justification. This is fully in keeping with what he emphasizes in many other places, perhaps most notably at the beginning of his magisterial treatment of justification in the Institutes. With the application of redemption as the large, overall concern of Book Three, he had previously discussed sanctification (“regeneration”) and in considerable length (3:3-10). Why did he order his material in this way, treating sanctification before justification? “The theme of justification was therefore more lightly touched upon because it was more to the point to understand first how little devoid of good works is the faith, through which alone we obtain free righteousness by the mercy of God; and what is the nature of the good works of the saints, with which part of this question [justification] is concerned” (3:11:1).

Such works–it is surely true to Calvin to add–are necessary as “the fruits and evidences of a true and lively [that is, justifying] faith” (WCF, 16:2).

Is Justification Forensic?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Turretinfan: Is Justification Forensic?

Some opponents of reformation theology attempt to deny that the term justification can be used in the context of declaration of righteousness, as opposed to infusion of righteousness. For those folks, the passages that contrast justification with condemnation should help. Surely none of these people will think that condemnation is the infusion of unrighteousness. Rather, they will recognize that condemnation is a judicial declaration of unrighteousness.

By contrast, therefore, it can be seen that justification is a declaration of righteousness. We see this several times in Scripture, both in the English of the KJV, as well as in the Clementine Latin Vulgate, so our Roman Catholic opponents have no room to complain:

1 Kings 8:32
(KJV) Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.
(CLV) tu exaudies in cælo : et facies, et judicabis servos tuos, condemnans impium, et reddens viam suam super caput ejus, justificansque justum, et retribuens ei secundum justitiam suam.
(LXX) καὶ σὺ εἰσακούσει ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ποιήσεις καὶ κρινεῖς τὸν λαόν σου Ισραηλ ἀνομηθῆναι ἄνομον δοῦναι τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον δοῦναι αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

Job 9:20
(KJV) If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
(CLV) Si justificare me voluero, os meum condemnabit me ; si innocentem ostendero, pravum me comprobabit.
(LXX) ἐὰν γὰρ ὦ δίκαιος, τὸ στόμα μου ἀσεβήσει· ἐάν τε ὦ ἄμεμπτος, σκολιὸς ἀποβήσομαι.

Proverbs 17:15
(KJV) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.
(CLV) Qui justificat impium, et qui condemnat justum, abominabilis est uterque apud Deum.
(LXX) ὃς δίκαιον κρίνει τὸν ἄδικον, ἄδικον δὲ τὸν δίκαιον, ἀκάθαρτος καὶ βδελυκτὸς παρὰ θεῷ.

Matthew 12:37
(KJV) For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
(CLV) Ex verbis enim tuis justificaberis et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis.
(NA28) ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου καταδικασθήσῃ.

Romans 5:16
(KJV) And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
(CLV) Et non sicut per unum peccatum, ita et donum. Nam judicium quidem ex uno in condemnationem : gratia autem ex multis delictis in justificationem.
(NA28) καὶ οὐχ ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος τὸ δώρημα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα.

Romans 5:18
(KJV) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
(CLV) Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem : sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vitæ.
(NA28) Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς·

Simul Justus Et Peccator

Posted on by
Reply

Joyce Meyer denies she is a sinner.

I’m with Dr. R. C. Sproul on this. Here he explains the essence of the Reformation view of justification and Martin Luther’s latin phrase, “Simul Justus et Peccator.”

Transcript

Perhaps the formula that Luther used that is most famous and most telling at this point is his formula simul justus et peccator. And if any formula summarizes and captures the essence of the Reformation view, it is this little formula. Simul is the word from which we get the English word simultaneously. Or, it means ‘at the same time.’ Justus is the Latin word for just or righteous. And you all know what et is. Et the past tense of the verb ‘to eat.’ Have you et your dinner? No, you know that’s not what that means. You remember in the death scene of Caesar after he’s been stabbed by Brutus he says, “Et tu, Brute?” Then fall Caesar. And you too Brutus? It simply means and. Peccator means sinner.

And so with this formula Luther was saying, in our justification we are one and the same time righteous or just, and sinners. Now if he would say that we are at the same time and in the same relationship just and sinners that would be a contradiction in terms. But that’s not what he was saying. He was saying from one perspective, in one sense, we are just. In another sense, from a different perspective, we are sinners; and how he defines that is simple. In and of ourselves, under the analysis of God’s scrutiny, we still have sin; we’re still sinners. But, by imputation and by faith in Jesus Christ, whose righteousness is now transferred to our account, then we are considered just or righteous. This is the very heart of the gospel.

Will I be judged in order to get into heaven by my righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ? If I had to trust in my righteousness to get into heaven, I would completely and utterly despair of any possibility of ever being redeemed. But when we see that the righteousness that is ours by faith is the perfect righteousness of Christ, then we see how glorious is the good news of the gospel. The good news is simply this, I can be reconciled to God, I can be justified by God not on the basis of what I did, but on the basis of what’s been accomplished for me by Christ.

But at the heart of the gospel is a double-imputation. My sin is imputed to Jesus. His righteousness is imputed to me. And in this two-fold transaction we see that God, Who does not negotiate sin, Who doesn’t compromise His own integrity with our salvation, but rather punishes sin fully and really after it has been imputed to Jesus, retains His own righteousness, and so He is both just and the justifier, as the apostle tells us here. So my sin goes to Jesus, His righteousness comes to me in the sight of God.

What Does "Simul Justus et Peccator" Mean? from Ligonier Ministries on Vimeo.

For more on this theme – here is Dr. John MacArthur: