First of all I want to thank all four guest writers for this past weeks blog content. Though there was not much by way of comments, blog traffic was over 5 times what it usually is. The one item that sticks out at me is that all views seemed to hold, to some degree an objective view of justification, though Connie's view did not place emphasis there.
Connie, and Dawn, both held a universal view of justification, and it appeared to me that Matt did as well. Connie's view was hopeful that justification which occurred for all was also applied to all, or that all would reap the benefits of it. Both Dawn and Matt, saw justification as purchased for all in Christ, but applied to those who by faith receive it. I imagine if Dawn and Matt continued to hash this out we would see quite a difference in how faith is received, nonetheless the nature of a universal unlimited justification based on an unlimited atonement seems to drive their view of justification. Dawn and Matt both seemed to attach this atonement firmly to Christ as second Adam for us. Connie seemed less intent on getting into the how justification occurred objectively, and more into what action that justification produces in the world.
Ralph's reformed baptist view was the only view of the four that had atonement as limited to the elect. Ralph's emphasis is on a monergistic work of Christ to redeem his people entirely independent of their efforts. Ralph, Matt, and Dawn all held to what I saw to be objective justification, in other words, we are justified by the life, death, resurrection of Christ for us as a historical fact. Connie may or may not believe that, but she affirmed that her focus was not at all on the 'how' but on the 'what this will produce'.
The greatest difference between the three classically orthodox views (Matt, Ralph, and Dawn) is how justification is applied. Ralph has it applied on the basis of election which guarantees faith, Dawn and Matt have it based on faith which applies the already given justification. Matt and Dawn's views would then differ on how faith is given or exercised.
Other thoughts? What did I miss?
Showing posts with label reformed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reformed. Show all posts
2.09.2011
2.04.2011
Justification (2 of 4) Reformed - Ralph P
This post is from Ralph P he can be found on twitter @ralphprovance
Read this before reading on, just to see what is going on here. Note: these posts are guest posts and may or may not reflect my views. -Jay
Also out of fairness to all, I am going to delay Matt L, and Connie W's post till monday and tuesday, simply because blog traffic is low on the weekend. So lucky Matt gets monday which happens to be the highest traffic day for this blog.
Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness. (Isaiah 45:24)
He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Martin Luther said that “Justification by faith alone is the article by which the Church stands or falls on.” John Calvin said that it is the “main hinge on which religion turns.” Leon Morris said “Understand justification and you understand everything that matters.”
The purpose of this brief study is to explain the glorious doctrine of justification from a Reformed perspective. There have been volumes written by many brilliant men of God over the years covering every aspect of this doctrine. It is a topic that demands a great deal of diligence in study so we may grasp an understanding. Again, this paper will be a “surface level” overview.
John Murray defined justification as “a constitutive act whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to our account and we are accordingly accepted as righteous in God’s sight. Justification is both a declarative and constitutive act of free grace.” (Redemption Accomplished & Applied p.124)
There are three areas where the doctrine of justification from a Reformed perspective differs from other traditions, i.e. Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic. They are in that 1. Justification is divinely monergistic; 2. Justification is a one-time event (not a process); 3. Justification is permanent.
Those of the Reformed tradition hold to the belief that justification is an instantaneous event, only occurring once. God, the just Judge (Psalm 96:13), legally declares the sinner righteous because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. It is a legal declaration, a “forensic justification.” It is not that the sinner is made righteous; but that he is seen as righteous because of Jesus. Martin Luther framed the idea well with the phrase “simul iustus et peccator,” “At the same time, just and sinner.” This is in stark contrast to the Romanist understanding. They hold that justification is not a one time declaration of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner but a process that is conditional upon the ongoing work of man. This is why Rome is confused about the doctrines of justification and sanctification. Rome holds that there are three main sacraments necessary for justification and ultimate salvation. The sacraments allegedly give grace to an individual and help to maintain him in a state of sanctifying grace. They are baptism, penance, and the Eucharist/mass. In fact, according to the Roman Catholic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, “If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation...and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification...let him be anathema.” This statement by the Roman Catholic Church denies the clear teaching of Scripture. The grounds for our justification can only be found in Christ alone. (Romans 3:24; 5:9,19; 8:1; 10:4; 1Cor 1:30; 6:11; 2Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9)
The final distinctive of the Reformed tradition, as relating to justification, is that our justification is permanent. This means that we can never lose our salvation. It is known as the “Perseverance of the Saints.” It stands in contrast to every other religious tradition which says that our salvation can be lost by either a mortal sin (Catholic) or a loss of faith (Arminian.) If our salvation is entirely of God, and not of any work of man, then how can we lose it? As a Reformed Baptist, I hold to the creedal statement of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. I believe that it summarizes the doctrine better than I ever could. It states “Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity. (John 10:28,29; Phil 1:6; 2Tim 2:19; 1John 2:19; Psalms 89:31,32; 1Cor 11:32; Malachi 3:6)
We are kept by the power of God, if we are in Christ!
We are kept by the power of God, if we are in Christ!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)