Category Archives: Justification

Dr. James Montgomery Boice On Election and Justification (Repost)

Posted on by
2

Dr. James Montgomery Boice spoke at two sessions of the “Essential Truths of the Christian Faith: 1997 National Ligonier Conference.” I have heard his messages many times over and each time I have done so they have always blessed and refreshed my soul immensely. I am delighted to recommend them to you.

(1) With an introduction from Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, here is Dr. Boice on the theme of Divine election. Dr. R. C. Sproul referred to this session as the clearest teaching on Election he had ever heard – found here.

(2) Dr. James Montgomery Boice on “Justification by Faith Alone.” Found here. Outstanding!

Concerning Rome’s ‘Gospel’

Posted on by
1

On March 14, 2013, Dr. John Piper wrote this ‘clarification’ has only brought further confusion.

Dr. James White responded to Dr. Piper on the Dividing Line program today and I have transcribed part of his response below:

“I do not believe that the Bishop of Rome is a teacher of the Church. That’s not my Church. I do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as a valid Christian leader in any way, shape or form. I cannot recognize anyone who is called ‘Holy Father,’ ‘the Vicar of Christ,’ and an ‘alter Christus’ as a teacher in the Christian Church. So why is John Piper saying he is? That I don’t get.

But the real thing that bothers me here is that it seems that Dr. Piper, along with many others, don’t see the consistency of Roman Catholic teaching and think you can somehow separate out Rome’s doctrine of justification and put it on a plate over here, separate from all the rest of ‘that stuff’ and analyze it in that way and say ‘well, you know….” Now if all he is saying is ‘there are Christians within Roman Catholicism,” I’ve said that for years. But they are what they are not because of Rome but in spite of Rome – they’re the simple people who have put their faith fully in Jesus Christ and they don’t know the rest of this gobbledygook and they think they’re just following Him. I don’t think there are many of them but God’s grace is big. But they are what they are in spite of Rome’s gospel. Rome’s gospel cannot save; it cannot give peace; it is not the Gospel; it is under the anathema of Galatians Chapter 1, and I think a lot of folks just don’t recognize what Rome itself teaches on this. Rome itself teaches that the sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory, and that it is the central aspect of the Roman faith and the worship of God.

If you try to construct a doctrine of justification in Roman Catholicism without recognizing that it takes its form and shape first and foremost within the sacramental system of Rome and with the queen of the sacraments being the doctrine of the mass, the eucharistic sacrifice, then you do not understand Roman Catholic theology and you have not read enough of it. And I think a lot of my dear brothers in the Lord just haven’t listened to enough of what Roman Catholics say to Roman Catholics.

.. and so here’s the problem…

Dr. Piper writes an entire book against N. T. Wright – well N. T. Wright is a whole lot more closer than Rome is. He is not talking about a propitiatory sacrifice in the mass through the transubstantiation. The whole basis of Rome’s concept of justification is completely different – and they are all intertwined – they cannot be separated from one another.

So, the question is not ‘does any one of us have a comprehensive or perfect grasp of the Gospel?’ The question is not ‘can someone be saved with a partial knowledge or grasp of the gospel?’ The question is ‘can you be saved by a false gospel – that which was specifically designed, framed and promulgated as a response to and denial of the true gospel?’

Could you be saved by the Judaizer’s gospel? … and that’s why I read Galatians 5 first… because there would be a lot of people who would say, ‘well, yeah, sure…’

No, Paul said ‘Christ will be of no benefit to you,’ and I say to the Roman Catholic who understands what Rome teaches, understands the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice of the mass, ‘Christ will be of no benefit to you. You have fallen from grace. You have been severed from Christ.'”

Dr. James White: Transcript excerpt from the Dividing Line broadcast, 3/19/2013, found here.

Justification (Quote)

Posted on by
Reply

At the very heart of the controversy in the sixteenth century was the question of the ground by which God declares anyone righteous in His sight. The psalmist asked, “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Ps. 130:3). In other words, if we have to stand before God and face His perfect justice and perfect judgment of our performance, none of us would be able to pass review. We all would fall, because as Paul reiterates, all of us have fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). So, the pressing question of justification is how can an unjust person ever be justified in the presence of a righteous and holy God?

The Roman Catholic view is known as analytical justification. This means that God will declare a person just only when, under His perfect analysis, He finds that he is just, that righteousness is inherent in him. The person cannot have that righteousness without faith, without grace, and without the assistance of Christ. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, true righteousness must be present in the soul of a person before God will ever declare him just.

Whereas the Roman view is analytical, the Reformation view is that justification is synthetic. A synthetic statement is one in which something new is added in the predicate that is not contained in the subject. If I said to you, “The bachelor was a poor man,” I have told you something new in the second part of the sentence that was not already contained in the word bachelor. All bachelors are men by definition, but not all bachelors are poor men. There are many wealthy bachelors. Poverty and wealth are concepts that are not inherent in the idea of bachelorhood. So, when we say, “The bachelor was a poor man,” there is a synthesis, as it were.

When we say that the Reformation view of justification is synthetic, we mean that when God declares a person to be just in His sight, it is not because of what He finds in that person under His analysis. Rather, it is on the basis of something that is added to the person. That something that is added, of course, is the righteousness of Christ. This is why Luther said that the righteousness by which we are justified is extra nos, meaning “apart from us” or “outside of us.” He also called it an “alien righteousness,” not a righteousness that properly belongs to us, but a righteousness that is foreign to us, alien to us. It comes from outside the sphere of our own behavior. With both of these terms, Luther was speaking about the righteousness of Christ.

Excerpt adapted from R.C. Sproul’s latest book, Are We Together? Available now from ReformationTrust.com