-----------------------
We're going to get into the weeds on this one, mostly because we need to chase the author into the weeds. The author could have explained justification in couple of paragraphs, but ends up wandering far and wide in search of a coherant thought.
We apologize for the insult, but he's supposed to be a teacher of the Bible. He seems to be unable to do that correctly, even when he quotes Bible verses that contradict him.
We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------------
I’ll never forget meeting up with a mentor of mine at Starbucks shortly after becoming a Christian. We regularly met there to read and study the Bible. One day, a person walked by and was elated to find Christians. But during our conversation, my mentor began asking some pretty forthright questions, and I couldn’t quite understand why. (Indeed, we wonder as well. The author will mention his confusion several times over the course of this article.)
“Do you believe that a person is justified by faith alone?” he said. The stranger hesitantly responded, “No, I believe that a person is justified by faith and works.” My mentor graciously but strongly insisted, “Then you don’t have a biblical view of justification.” A lot of back-and-forths followed, but because I was a recent convert, I found it immensely difficult to understand what was going on. I barely understood what the term justification meant! (Remember the scene. A person happily finds a couple of fellow Christians in a coffee shop, but the "mentor" commences to attack this poor person's doctrine.
What Is Justification?
So then, what is justification? This is a crucial starting point. How one defines justification will determine not only how one thinks and believes but also how one lives.
Roman Catholic dogma, for example, defines justification as synonymous with sanctification,1 (Sorry, we're not interested in Catholic dogma.)
Notice that justification is an act, not a work or process.4 It is not a hopeful destination. It is God’s gracious, once-for-all verdict — his declaration of a person to be righteous in Christ, ("Righteous in Christ." We hope the author explains and biblically documents this.)
Justification language belongs to the courtroom; it is forensic. (Undefined term. We will assist. It relates to the idea of the evidentiary processes in a court of law.
We quoted from the KJV because it uses the word "impute." This word, as well as the words "counted" and "reckoned," are the same Greek word (to take into account, to make account of), used throughout Romans chapter four. It really is the key word, the lynchpin upon which the entire doctrine of imputed righteousness is built.
The second passage:
What is this righteousness? His perfect obedience to God, rendered in his life and death, often referred to as the active and passive obedience of Christ. (No, our righteousness comes by faith in Jesus. His blood was spilled to wash us clean. Pure and spotless. This faith is how God bestows actual righteousness upon us.)
How Do We Receive It?
What is necessary to receive this righteous standing? Faith, works, or a combination of both? The answer is faith alone. (Waaait. The author has made a big show that we don't receive righteousness, that we only receive Jesus' righteousness. So which is it?)
More to the Gospel than Justification?
In loving and declaring the doctrine of justification by faith alone, some can begin to think that justification is the gospel. But that is not true. Simply saying, “Jesus died for my sins so that I can receive Christ’s righteousness” does not capture the entire gospel.8 (It does not capture the Gospel at all, since it's a false statement.)
Solely by Faith?
The Reformed tradition has consistently promoted a threefold definition of faith: (1) knowledge of the content of the gospel that we believe (Latin notitia), (2) intellectual assent to the gospel of Christ (assensus), and (3) trust in the person and work of Christ on our behalf (fiducia). (Oh man. It keeps getting worse. It's amazing to us that this parsing of doctrines and subdoctrines is regarded as crucial by the author.)
Recently some have taken aim at the third part of that definition (trust).13 They argue that faith is not primarily “interior” or “emotional” but “exterior” and “embodied.” In other words, faith is active rather than passive, and it should be seen rather than felt. So they prefer slogans such as “justification by allegiance alone,” since allegiance underscores the active nature of faith. (We don't care...)
Those who argue for this definition of faith make a major mistake. (Ooo, a major mistake. A big deal. Major...)
Is Christ’s Righteousness Imputed?
After the conversation with the stranger at Starbucks, I asked my mentor, “What does imputation mean?” The word was thrown around during our discussion but never really defined.
Imputation means that the righteousness of Christ — his active and passive obedience — is counted or reckoned to believers. Christ’s righteousness is imputed, counted, reckoned to you when you are united to Christ by faith (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9). (Sighhhh. Let's quote:
Jesus Receives Sinners
Listening to the conversation my mentor had with that fellow at Starbucks was intimidating and a bit over my head. (Imagine how that poor man felt.)
1 Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man” (1989); “The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the ‘inner man,’ justification entails the sanctification of his whole being” (1995). ↩
2 See the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning Justification,” §7. ↩
3 I have slightly updated the language to make the answer easier to read. ↩
4 The Westminster divines reserved that language for sanctification: “Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness” (Westminster Shorter Catechism 35). ↩
5 See the words dikaioō, “I justify”; dikaiōsunē, “righteousness”; dikaios, “just, right”; dikaiōsis, “justification, vindication, aquittal”; and dikaiōma, “righteous requirement.” ↩
6 As recently argued by James B. Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul, WUNT 2.461 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), though for a criticism of other statements he makes, see my forthcoming review of his book in the Westminster Theological Journal. ↩
7 Trinity Hymnal #206, “Low in the Grave He Lay — Christ Arose.” ↩
8 That is one reason, after all, why the church disciples new believers: to increase their understanding of the gospel of Christ. ↩
9 See also Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987). ↩
10 Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 225. ↩
11 Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019), 37. See also Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017). ↩
12 I am currently in the process of writing a review article of Matthew Bates’s work in the Westminster Theological Journal, which will contain more in-depth critical interaction with his arguments. ↩
12 See Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 92. He qualifies this in Gospel Allegiance, 64: “I’m not arguing that faith simply means allegiance without remainder. Nor am I denying that pistis primarily means ‘faith/faithfulness’ or ‘trust/trustworthiness.’” But then he adds a telling caveat: “Trust in or faithfulness toward a leader that endures through trials over the course of time is probably best termed ‘loyalty’ or ‘allegiance.’” ↩
13 John Calvin make this comparison in Institutes 3.11.6. ↩
14 I find it telling that Matthew Bates denies the categorical distinction between justification and sanctification because it cannot be found in Scripture (Allegiance, 185–86), and yet, after reading Scripture and laying out his view, he promotes a strikingly similar distinction (see 127, 191–92, 196, and 206). Both justification and sanctification occur in union with Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11). But at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other throughout Scripture “by good and necessary consequence” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6). See also the Westminster Larger Catechism 77 for a very helpful analysis of the inseparable yet distinct nature of justification and sanctification. ↩
15 Institutes 3.2.10; my italics. ↩
16 For helpful works on imputation and criticisms raised against it, see Brian Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006); John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002); Ben C. Dunson, “Do Bible Words Have Bible Meaning? Distinguishing between Imputation as Word and Doctrine,” WTJ 75 (2013): 239–60; Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015). ↩
17 James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church; and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867), 326. ↩
18 Trinity Hymnal #459, “My Hope is Built on Nothing Less.” ↩
19 Trinity Hymnal #394, “Jesus Sinners Doth Receive.” ↩
I’ll never forget meeting up with a mentor of mine at Starbucks shortly after becoming a Christian. We regularly met there to read and study the Bible. One day, a person walked by and was elated to find Christians. But during our conversation, my mentor began asking some pretty forthright questions, and I couldn’t quite understand why. (Indeed, we wonder as well. The author will mention his confusion several times over the course of this article.)
“Do you believe that a person is justified by faith alone?” he said. The stranger hesitantly responded, “No, I believe that a person is justified by faith and works.” My mentor graciously but strongly insisted, “Then you don’t have a biblical view of justification.” A lot of back-and-forths followed, but because I was a recent convert, I found it immensely difficult to understand what was going on. I barely understood what the term justification meant! (Remember the scene. A person happily finds a couple of fellow Christians in a coffee shop, but the "mentor" commences to attack this poor person's doctrine.
What sort of mentor would shred a stranger in front of an immature Christian? Why didn't the mentor simply welcome the man and perhaps offer to buy him a coffee? Or maybe, ask if he could pray for him?
This is what mature Christians do. They build up, not tear down. And the author, himself a mature man now, favorably uses the encounter as a teaching example. Astounding.)
Eventually, I discovered the importance of this vital doctrine. (It's "vital." We will see how this comes about.)
Eventually, I discovered the importance of this vital doctrine. (It's "vital." We will see how this comes about.)
Martin Luther and other Reformers ("Reformers?" What did they reform? The author presumes we know.)
considered the doctrine of justification by faith alone the article on which the church stands or falls. (True. But it's the baggage the author will hang on it that will be the problem.)
It is at the core of the gospel, and the church needs to embrace it as such.
What Is Justification?
So then, what is justification? This is a crucial starting point. How one defines justification will determine not only how one thinks and believes but also how one lives.
Roman Catholic dogma, for example, defines justification as synonymous with sanctification,1 (Sorry, we're not interested in Catholic dogma.)
and the result is detrimental. One’s standing on the final day is determined by the growth of Christ’s righteousness, which is imparted to a person through baptism and increases through participation in the sacraments.2 In a word, justification is essentially a clean slate that one needs to maintain to enjoy a favorable verdict at the final judgment.
Diametrically opposed stands the Reformed understanding (What is this thing, the "Reformed understanding?" Why is it important? Please explain.)
Diametrically opposed stands the Reformed understanding (What is this thing, the "Reformed understanding?" Why is it important? Please explain.)
of justification, which is carefully, succinctly, and biblically defined in the answer to question 33 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: (What's this?)
Justification is an act of God’s free grace, (What is grace? We know, but the author presumes his audience knows.)
wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.3
Notice that justification is an act, not a work or process.4 It is not a hopeful destination. It is God’s gracious, once-for-all verdict — his declaration of a person to be righteous in Christ, ("Righteous in Christ." We hope the author explains and biblically documents this.)
and therefore fully accepted by God.
The Greek words for justification and righteousness, along with their cognates,5 (Unexplained terminology. )
The Greek words for justification and righteousness, along with their cognates,5 (Unexplained terminology. )
belong to the legal sphere.6 (Most all "reformers" believe this, but we think it's mistaken. Though the word may be commonly used in a legal context, Jesus' death was typed by the OT sacrifices, not American or European legal processes.
The Blood is sacrificial, not legal.)
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies [Greek ho dikaiōn]. Who is to condemn?
Justification language belongs to the courtroom; it is forensic. (Undefined term. We will assist. It relates to the idea of the evidentiary processes in a court of law.
The author summarily proclaims the meaning of this passage as "forensic," yet the Greek word means
to show to be righteous, declare righteous...
There is no hint anywhere in Scripture that a trial was held and the accused was acquitted. This idea is completely foreign to Scripture.)
Accusations are met with God’s justifying verdict spoken over his elect (Indeed, we are justified by the holy proclamation of the living God. His declaration is a matter of kingly words proclaimed to all powers and principalities. It therefore cannot be a legal verdict.)
(see also Romans 5:16–19) — a spoken word that melts the hardened hearts of sinners. (Sigh... Let's quote a bit more of this passage. First, Paul tells us:
Ro. 5:12 ...sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men...
This is the beginning of Paul's train of thought. Adam sinned, and that brought death to all of us.
Ro. 5:15 ...many died by the trespass of the one...
So the death brought forth from Adam's sin was not human death, it's something else:
Ro. 5:16 The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
Judgment was rendered after Adam's one sin, and that judgment brought condemnation. Death and condemnation are the same thing. The status of mankind is death and condemnation, and this judgment has already rendered:
Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already...
Ro. 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...
Every human on the planet starts out as dead and condemned because ogmf the judgment God rendered to Adam's sin. There was no trial. There was no presumption of innocence, there was no prosecutor, no jury, and no evidence presented. Adam sinned and his condemnation was judged. We as his descendants are born into this judgment. We are born dead and condemned.
But when we are saved the condemnation is lifted:
Ro. 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
A king renders judgments in a way quite differently than does a courtroom. The author misunderstands this because he confuses "the law" with Western jurisprudence.)
Whose Righteousness?
God, the holy, just, and perfect Judge, finds sinners not guilty (No, God does not do this. He does not weigh the evidence and render a verdict. As we mentioned, all men were condemned when God judged Adam's sin.)
God, the holy, just, and perfect Judge, finds sinners not guilty (No, God does not do this. He does not weigh the evidence and render a verdict. As we mentioned, all men were condemned when God judged Adam's sin.)
and declares them righteous. (This is correct. A king makes a proclamation, and all are obliged to agree.)
How? On the basis of the person and work of Jesus Christ — by forgiving our sins on account of the substitutionary death of Christ in our place (Romans 3:21–26) (No, Jesus did not die in our place. Let's quote:
Ro. 3:21-26 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Does the reader see any mention of Jesus dying a substitutionary death in this passage? Of course not, because it's not there. Jesus did not die in our place. We must die with Him and be raised with him:
Ro. 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Jesus' death was a sacrifice, not a transaction.)
and imputing or reckoning Christ’s righteousness to us (Romans 4:1–9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). (Let's quote some of the verses. First, Romans:
Ro. 4:3-6 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works...
In this passage Paul was in the middle of his argument regarding Abraham's faith. According to Paul, Abraham's faith was accounted to him as righteousness [verse 3], as contrasted with a man who works and it is accounted that he is owed his wages [verse 4].
Therefore, the man who works is accounted with his wages, just as the man with faith is accounted with righteousness as a gift [verse 5]. Is the man who works imputed with his wages? No, his wage is accounted to him because he earned it. Is the man of faith imputed with righteousness? No, righteousness is accounted to him as a gift. The wage/righteousness belongs to the worker/person with faith.
And like any gift from God, it is given for free. This is important, because we would not say, for example, that God "imputed" the gift of faith [First Corinthians 12:9], or teaching [Romans 12:7] to us, or that eternal life [Romans 6:23] was imputed to us, would we? No, we actually possess these things as gifts.
The English word "imputed" does not correspond to the Greek word meaning, which leads us astray. We draw conclusions based on doctrinal suppositions and a bad translation of a word. The result is an errant conclusion that our essential status is unchanged apart from what is supposedly imputed to us.
We think it goes even deeper. Imputation comes from a false humility, the same mindset that incorrectly represents us as "sinners saved by grace." It also connects to the false idea that even in salvation our hearts remain deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9). All this seems to derive from something called "worm theology," that we are still lowly and stained, even after salvation. God held His nose and saved us, and even now can barely stand us except for Jesus' imputation.
False humility is pride because it diminishes what Jesus did for us on the cross. It denies we are new creations. It denies the righteousness Jesus procured for us. We somehow prefer to believe we are lowly creatures not worth God's grace. However, God lifted us up to be seated with Christ. Why would then we refuse this and grovel instead?
Imputation dishonors Jesus.
Righteousness is a matter where God has clearly set the terms: Through faith we are righteous, not simply regarded as righteous. The Bible is clear. Nothing stands in the way of the righteousness accounted to us. God doesn't impute anything. We are truly, actually, literally righteous by the blood and because of faith.
The second passage:
Ph. 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
This obviously doesn't not discuss imputation. We are righteous through faith.
The third passage:
2Co. 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
This an odd choice for a proof text, because it directly tells us we become the righteousness of God, we are not imputed with righteousness.)
What is this righteousness? His perfect obedience to God, rendered in his life and death, often referred to as the active and passive obedience of Christ. (No, our righteousness comes by faith in Jesus. His blood was spilled to wash us clean. Pure and spotless. This faith is how God bestows actual righteousness upon us.)
He perfectly fulfilled the law (Galatians 4:4–5; Romans 8:1–4) and also died under the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13), in love for his people (Galatians 2:20).
Nevertheless, death could not keep its prey, and so Christ tore the bars away and arose a victor from the dark domain.7 Jesus’s resurrection was not only proof that his sacrifice satisfied God’s wrath; (This is true. We are surprised to read it because Calvinists believe that the Father punished Jesus for our sins. But the author swerves into the truth, that Jesus's sacrificial death completely satisfied the Father, and no further action, including the punishment of Jesus was necessary.)
Nevertheless, death could not keep its prey, and so Christ tore the bars away and arose a victor from the dark domain.7 Jesus’s resurrection was not only proof that his sacrifice satisfied God’s wrath; (This is true. We are surprised to read it because Calvinists believe that the Father punished Jesus for our sins. But the author swerves into the truth, that Jesus's sacrificial death completely satisfied the Father, and no further action, including the punishment of Jesus was necessary.)
it was also his own justification or public vindication (1 Timothy 3:16; cf. Romans 4:25). (?? Let's quote:
1Ti. 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
Ro. 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Hmm. "Vindicated" is the Greek word dikaioó, the very same word the author discussed above. We remind the reader that it means, to show to be righteous, declare righteous. So Jesus didn't have to prove Himself. There was no doubt of His status. His true nature as the Righteous One was shown forth in His sacrificial death and victory over the grave. He had nothing to prove, because
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him. [Jn. 8:29].)
On Resurrection Sunday, God declared the verdict of righteous over his Son, and through union with him, we too receive that unchangeable righteous standing (2 Corinthians 5:21). (No, Jesus was not judged. He was revealed, He was proclaimed to the heavenlies, to be the Holy One. The author gravely misrepresents this.)
How Do We Receive It?
What is necessary to receive this righteous standing? Faith, works, or a combination of both? The answer is faith alone. (Waaait. The author has made a big show that we don't receive righteousness, that we only receive Jesus' righteousness. So which is it?)
Paul makes this clear in Galatians 2:16: “We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Justification is not a both-and matter. It’s either by faith or by works.
Paul fleshes this out in Romans 10:3–4. He speaks of his Jewish kinsmen as those who are “ignorant of the righteousness of God,” are “seeking to establish their own [righteousness],” and thereby do “not submit to God’s righteousness.” Then he provides this explanation: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Sigh... Why not just quote the entire two verses without the narrative? Here it is:
Paul fleshes this out in Romans 10:3–4. He speaks of his Jewish kinsmen as those who are “ignorant of the righteousness of God,” are “seeking to establish their own [righteousness],” and thereby do “not submit to God’s righteousness.” Then he provides this explanation: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Sigh... Why not just quote the entire two verses without the narrative? Here it is:
Ro. 10:3-4 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
The actual verses total 41 words, while the author's semi-paraphrase is is 43 words. This is nonsensical.
We also notice that the author is quoting verses that contradict his previous assertions. These verse are clear that we are actually righteous, and it comes by faith.)
We submit to Christ’s righteousness by faith. (!!! The verses do not say this! We now must consider the possibility that the author is not a competent Bible teacher.)
Just breaths later, in Romans 10:9–10, Paul writes, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” No wonder Paul, in the very next chapter, helpfully explains that “if it is by grace [that we are chosen, saved, and presumably justified (see Romans 10:10)], it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:6). (More verses to contradict the author. Does he even see it?)
A biblically Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone is indeed comforting to the sinner. “How can I be righteous before a holy God?” is an appropriate question to ask for those outside of Christ. The only acceptable answer is found in Christ. He is the basis of our justification, and he can be received only by the empty hands of faith. And this doctrine is at the core of the gospel.
Just breaths later, in Romans 10:9–10, Paul writes, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” No wonder Paul, in the very next chapter, helpfully explains that “if it is by grace [that we are chosen, saved, and presumably justified (see Romans 10:10)], it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:6). (More verses to contradict the author. Does he even see it?)
A biblically Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone is indeed comforting to the sinner. “How can I be righteous before a holy God?” is an appropriate question to ask for those outside of Christ. The only acceptable answer is found in Christ. He is the basis of our justification, and he can be received only by the empty hands of faith. And this doctrine is at the core of the gospel.
More to the Gospel than Justification?
In loving and declaring the doctrine of justification by faith alone, some can begin to think that justification is the gospel. But that is not true. Simply saying, “Jesus died for my sins so that I can receive Christ’s righteousness” does not capture the entire gospel.8 (It does not capture the Gospel at all, since it's a false statement.)
Paul doesn’t stop there when he lays out the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4. Jesus also was buried and rose from the dead. In fact, the resurrection of Christ plays a crucial role in our justification (as we’ve seen in Romans 4:25; see also Romans 1:3–4; 1 Corinthians 15:20–23, 42–49; 1 Timothy 3:16).9 The gospel also includes Jesus’s ascension, enthronement as Lord, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:3–4; Acts 1:11; 2:1–21; 2:32–33). We therefore should not say that justification is the gospel.
And yet, neither should we welcome the persistent emphasis of those who downplay justification, whether by minimizing it to a “subsidiary crater” in Paul’s theology10 or, even more drastically, by insisting that “our justification by faith is not part of the gospel.”11 In the end, justification is not the gospel, but it is undeniably at its center.12 If you exclude justification from the gospel, then the gospel ceases to be “good news.” (The author is getting more and more nit-picky. Remember, this started with a coffee shop encounter, and now we're into the minutiae of doctrine, and it's to no one's profit. None of this makes any difference to our obligations or privileges as Christians.)
And yet, neither should we welcome the persistent emphasis of those who downplay justification, whether by minimizing it to a “subsidiary crater” in Paul’s theology10 or, even more drastically, by insisting that “our justification by faith is not part of the gospel.”11 In the end, justification is not the gospel, but it is undeniably at its center.12 If you exclude justification from the gospel, then the gospel ceases to be “good news.” (The author is getting more and more nit-picky. Remember, this started with a coffee shop encounter, and now we're into the minutiae of doctrine, and it's to no one's profit. None of this makes any difference to our obligations or privileges as Christians.)
Solely by Faith?
The Reformed tradition has consistently promoted a threefold definition of faith: (1) knowledge of the content of the gospel that we believe (Latin notitia), (2) intellectual assent to the gospel of Christ (assensus), and (3) trust in the person and work of Christ on our behalf (fiducia). (Oh man. It keeps getting worse. It's amazing to us that this parsing of doctrines and subdoctrines is regarded as crucial by the author.)
Recently some have taken aim at the third part of that definition (trust).13 They argue that faith is not primarily “interior” or “emotional” but “exterior” and “embodied.” In other words, faith is active rather than passive, and it should be seen rather than felt. So they prefer slogans such as “justification by allegiance alone,” since allegiance underscores the active nature of faith. (We don't care...)
Those who argue for this definition of faith make a major mistake. (Ooo, a major mistake. A big deal. Major...)
Since they redefine faith as a more active response, they argue that Paul’s either-or of justification is actually a both-and — both faith and works. To be clear here, they do not think a person can be justified by works that stem from self-righteous efforts. They believe Romans 3:20, that “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.” However, they underline the phrase “works of the law” and say, “Paul was not against Spirit-wrought good works contributing to a person’s justification.”
At this point, you may be feeling the way I did in the conversation at Starbucks, not really understanding the fine distinctions. (No, we understand. We just don't care anymore. We have much in common with the man who wandered into the coffee shop thinking he had found brothers in the Lord, only to experience a theological dressing down.
At this point, you may be feeling the way I did in the conversation at Starbucks, not really understanding the fine distinctions. (No, we understand. We just don't care anymore. We have much in common with the man who wandered into the coffee shop thinking he had found brothers in the Lord, only to experience a theological dressing down.
What a mess.)
But this is significant. To say that Paul wasn’t against good works with respect to justification, you have to make a drastic move theologically. You have to reject the distinction between justification and sanctification. (New word, one the author will never define.)
What do I mean by that? Put simply, justification and sanctification are inseparable yet distinct, like the heat and light of a fire.14 You cannot have one without the other; at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other.15 Good works, as Paul commends them, are done in our sanctification, but they cannot contribute to our justification. If they do, justification is no longer by faith alone.
What do I mean by that? Put simply, justification and sanctification are inseparable yet distinct, like the heat and light of a fire.14 You cannot have one without the other; at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other.15 Good works, as Paul commends them, are done in our sanctification, but they cannot contribute to our justification. If they do, justification is no longer by faith alone.
Is Christ’s Righteousness Imputed?
After the conversation with the stranger at Starbucks, I asked my mentor, “What does imputation mean?” The word was thrown around during our discussion but never really defined.
Imputation means that the righteousness of Christ — his active and passive obedience — is counted or reckoned to believers. Christ’s righteousness is imputed, counted, reckoned to you when you are united to Christ by faith (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9). (Sighhhh. Let's quote:
1Co. 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
1Co. 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
2Co. 5:21 [This is now the third time the author has referenced it, but he has never quoted it.]God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.Ph. 3:9 [This also has been referenced before, but again he has never quoted it.]and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
The idea of imputation is not found anywhere here.)
As Calvin said, “We do not . . . contemplate [Christ] outside ourselves from afar in order that this righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body — in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.”16 When we talk about receiving righteousness, union with Christ is essential.
Imputed righteousness is distinct from infused righteousness. In the Roman Catholic view, (We don't care about the Catholic view.)
Imputed righteousness is distinct from infused righteousness. In the Roman Catholic view, (We don't care about the Catholic view.)
Christ merited righteousness for us, and that righteousness is then infused into believers at baptism. It’s as if Christ’s seed of righteousness should be planted into your heart. It becomes your own. And it is up to you, in dependence on the Spirit and the sacraments, to water it and grow in personal righteousness.
By contrast, the imputation view intentionally uses the words count or reckon, as Scripture does (Romans 4:1–8; 5:12–19; Galatians 3:6).17 In justification, Christ’s righteousness does not become ours as some sort of personal possession. It is counted or reckoned as ours. Why? Because we do not perform the acts of justifying righteousness. Christ, as our substitute, lived the perfect life we couldn’t and died the death we deserved. The righteousness of Christ must therefore primarily and exclusively belong to him.18 It is therefore an alien righteousness — it comes from outside of us. And it is graciously imputed, counted, or reckoned to those who have no inherent righteousness whatsoever (Romans 3:9, 23; Ephesians 2:1–3). We are indeed “dressed in his righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.”19 For nothing else avails before God.
By contrast, the imputation view intentionally uses the words count or reckon, as Scripture does (Romans 4:1–8; 5:12–19; Galatians 3:6).17 In justification, Christ’s righteousness does not become ours as some sort of personal possession. It is counted or reckoned as ours. Why? Because we do not perform the acts of justifying righteousness. Christ, as our substitute, lived the perfect life we couldn’t and died the death we deserved. The righteousness of Christ must therefore primarily and exclusively belong to him.18 It is therefore an alien righteousness — it comes from outside of us. And it is graciously imputed, counted, or reckoned to those who have no inherent righteousness whatsoever (Romans 3:9, 23; Ephesians 2:1–3). We are indeed “dressed in his righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.”19 For nothing else avails before God.
Jesus Receives Sinners
Listening to the conversation my mentor had with that fellow at Starbucks was intimidating and a bit over my head. (Imagine how that poor man felt.)
I heard many terms and distinctions that didn’t seem, at the time, to make much of a difference in the Christian life. But the more questions I asked, the more I learned that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not only theologically essential but thoroughly practical. (So he says. We see it as a vain intellectual exercise.)
Just think of Christians who question their salvation as they struggle with sin. In those times, they easily can turn inward. “Have I done enough to please God?” “Perhaps if I serve more at church, he will accept me.” “I need to stop sinning in order to be accepted by him.” They may never say these words out loud. After all, they wouldn’t want anyone to think they were weak in faith — or even worse, an unbeliever. But their knee-jerk reaction to turn inward reveals a deeper underlying issue. They need to turn outward toward the objective realities of the gospel. They need to trust in Christ Jesus, their righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30). They need to rest — not only in mind and mouth, but in heart and life — in the “word of surest consolation; word all sorrow to relieve, word of pardon, peace, salvation! . . . ‘Jesus sinners doth receive.’”20
Just think of Christians who question their salvation as they struggle with sin. In those times, they easily can turn inward. “Have I done enough to please God?” “Perhaps if I serve more at church, he will accept me.” “I need to stop sinning in order to be accepted by him.” They may never say these words out loud. After all, they wouldn’t want anyone to think they were weak in faith — or even worse, an unbeliever. But their knee-jerk reaction to turn inward reveals a deeper underlying issue. They need to turn outward toward the objective realities of the gospel. They need to trust in Christ Jesus, their righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30). They need to rest — not only in mind and mouth, but in heart and life — in the “word of surest consolation; word all sorrow to relieve, word of pardon, peace, salvation! . . . ‘Jesus sinners doth receive.’”20
1 Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man” (1989); “The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the ‘inner man,’ justification entails the sanctification of his whole being” (1995). ↩
2 See the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning Justification,” §7. ↩
3 I have slightly updated the language to make the answer easier to read. ↩
4 The Westminster divines reserved that language for sanctification: “Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness” (Westminster Shorter Catechism 35). ↩
5 See the words dikaioō, “I justify”; dikaiōsunē, “righteousness”; dikaios, “just, right”; dikaiōsis, “justification, vindication, aquittal”; and dikaiōma, “righteous requirement.” ↩
6 As recently argued by James B. Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul, WUNT 2.461 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), though for a criticism of other statements he makes, see my forthcoming review of his book in the Westminster Theological Journal. ↩
7 Trinity Hymnal #206, “Low in the Grave He Lay — Christ Arose.” ↩
8 That is one reason, after all, why the church disciples new believers: to increase their understanding of the gospel of Christ. ↩
9 See also Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987). ↩
10 Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 225. ↩
11 Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019), 37. See also Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017). ↩
12 I am currently in the process of writing a review article of Matthew Bates’s work in the Westminster Theological Journal, which will contain more in-depth critical interaction with his arguments. ↩
12 See Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 92. He qualifies this in Gospel Allegiance, 64: “I’m not arguing that faith simply means allegiance without remainder. Nor am I denying that pistis primarily means ‘faith/faithfulness’ or ‘trust/trustworthiness.’” But then he adds a telling caveat: “Trust in or faithfulness toward a leader that endures through trials over the course of time is probably best termed ‘loyalty’ or ‘allegiance.’” ↩
13 John Calvin make this comparison in Institutes 3.11.6. ↩
14 I find it telling that Matthew Bates denies the categorical distinction between justification and sanctification because it cannot be found in Scripture (Allegiance, 185–86), and yet, after reading Scripture and laying out his view, he promotes a strikingly similar distinction (see 127, 191–92, 196, and 206). Both justification and sanctification occur in union with Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11). But at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other throughout Scripture “by good and necessary consequence” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6). See also the Westminster Larger Catechism 77 for a very helpful analysis of the inseparable yet distinct nature of justification and sanctification. ↩
15 Institutes 3.2.10; my italics. ↩
16 For helpful works on imputation and criticisms raised against it, see Brian Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006); John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002); Ben C. Dunson, “Do Bible Words Have Bible Meaning? Distinguishing between Imputation as Word and Doctrine,” WTJ 75 (2013): 239–60; Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015). ↩
17 James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church; and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867), 326. ↩
18 Trinity Hymnal #459, “My Hope is Built on Nothing Less.” ↩
19 Trinity Hymnal #394, “Jesus Sinners Doth Receive.” ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment