This excerpt is taken from Are We Together? by R.C. Sproul and has its online source here.

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.

If any word was at the center of the firestorm of the Reformation controversy and remains central to the debate even in our day, it is imputation. Numerous meetings were held between Protestants and Roman Catholics to try to repair the schism that was taking place in the sixteenth century. Theologians from Rome met with the magisterial Reformers, trying to resolve the difficulties and preserve the unity of the church. There was a longing for such unity on both sides. But the one concept that was always a sticking point, the idea that was so precious to the Protestants and such a stumbling block for the Roman Catholics, was imputation. We cannot really understand what the Reformation was about without understanding the central importance of this concept. Continue reading →

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