iustitia aliena

Taken from Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry in Robert Godfrey’s chapter titled “Faith Formed by Love or Faith alone?

The true biblical doctrine of justification by faith has to be formulated with great precision and care to teach both the glorious free justification that we have in Christ and its fruit in holiness. True doctrine is like walking a tight rope. One can fall off the right rope of justification in two directions: the antinomian direction and the neonomian direction. Both the antinomian and the neonomian miss the biblical doctrine of justification.

As Paul vindicated himself from the charge of antinomianism, so he warned the Roman church against neonomianism. He refuted the teaching of his opponents, which seemed to be saying that Gentiles could be right with God only if they would become Jews and keep the law of Moses. Paul’s opponents taught that the gospel was the good news that Gentiles at long last could become Jews and enter into the inheritance of the preferred status of Jews, but Paul insisted that this was not the gospel.

Paul readily acknowledged that Jews enjoyed certain priorities and privileges in redemptive history (Rom 1:16; 3:1-2). He went on to argue, however, that in a fundamental sense Jews and Gentiles were in exactly the same situation before God. Paul stressed that point in part to refute his critics, who were constantly teaching superiority of Judaism and insisting that Gentiles needed to become Jews.

In contrast, Paul declared that Jews and Gentiles were in  the same situation. They both have law and they both were obligated to live by it. Obviously, the Jews had the law in the Torah, but Paul belabored the point in Romans to make clear that Gentiles also know at least something of the holy will of God. The Gentiles know the truth (1:18, 25), they possess knowledge of God (1:19, 28), and they have derived understanding from creation (1:20) or from nature (1:26). Gentiles know the righteous decree of God (1:32), and indeed they have the law written in their hearts (2:14-15).

…His [Paul's] basic point was simply this: the Jews have the law, the Gentiles have the law, and they are all obligated to live according to the law that they have. He went on to conclude that everyone would be judged according to the law that they had, in terms of how their lives measured up to the law.

In his discussion in Romans 2, Paul recognized that those who broke the law would be judged by it and that those who kept the law would be vindicated by it. Some interpreters get so lost in the forest looking for trees that they actually seem to think that Paul was arguing that some people could keep the law and be vindicated by it. Unless Paul lost his mind somewhere between Romans 1 and Romans 3 he could not be saying that. In Romans he repeatedly taught the universality of human sin and destituteness (1:18, 20, 28-29; 2:12). Paul summarized all that he had been teaching in Romans 1-3: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23 ESV). Paul did not add a footnote to this statement: “Except those who actually keep the law and therefore are vindicated by it.” It is a violation of logic, clear thinking, theology, and exegesis not to allow Paul’s conclusion in Romans 3 to determine what he is arguing in Romans 2. In Romans 2, Paul spoke hypothetically about being vindicated by the law. Certainly, anyone who kept the law would be vindicated by the law. Certainly, anyone who kept the law would be vindicated by it, but could anyone keep the law? The conclusion in Romans 3 was crystal clear–no one could: “None is righteous…no one seeks for God…no one does good” (3:10-12 ESV). All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Paul concluded: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (3:23 ESV).

Is the law good? Of course it is (7:12). By its very goodness, however, the law shows sinners their sin and inability to be righteous. By contrast, the gospel, as Paul taught in Romans 1-3, is this: sinners who do not and cannot have a righteousness of their own can find righteousness in another: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it” (3:21 ESV). The good news is t hat God has provided a righteousness of his own apart from the law and all of its demands.

Is the “righteousness of God” that is “apart from law” really apart from the whole law? Is the “law” (3:21) equivalent to the “works of the law” (3:20, 28)? Many clever interpreters, from the ancient church period until the twentieth century, argue that the “law” and “works of the law” here in Paul are just part of the law. These works of the law are the ceremonial requirements of the law, such as circumcision, dietary laws, or special holidays. These interpreters argue that no one can be justified by those ceremonial works of the law, but they say that one can be justified by the moral law. They deny that Paul was talking about the moral law when he rejected works of the law. They ignore in their interpretation the comprehensive character of 3:21 and the contrast Paul repeatedly drew between faith and law (3:27-4:6). For Paul, works of the la and the law are indeed synonymous in Romans 3, but the works of the law are the moral works of the law as well as every other kind. Calvin demonstrated this very effectively in Institutes 3.11.20. Jonathan Edwards also argues that case brilliantly and convincingly in his treatise “Justification by Faith Alone.” Paul has argued that God will judge our works by the law to determine whether they are good, acceptable, and deserving of reward (4:2). The contrast Paul made in 3:27-31 is between a righteousness that comes by the law and a righteousness that comes from Christ and is received by faith alone. Paul really could not be clearer. Paul indeed taught that faith stands alone in receiving justification from the work of Christ (3:24-26). Justification is not received or maintained by any kind of working, any kind of moral improvement, or any kind of sanctifying development.

Calvin believes that Paul used Abraham as an example to press justification by faith alone. For Paul, Abraham was the father of the faithful. Abraham believed both before he was circumcised and after he was circumcised, so the was the father of the uncircumcised and of the circumcised. He was the father of all Christians, whether Jews and Gentile. Therefore, what is true of Abraham is true of all Christians. The truth about Abraham is that he had nothing about which to boast. Abraham could not boast because he was justified by faith alone: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (4:3 ESV). Faith was foundational for Abraham.

Paul made clear at the beginning of Romans 4 that the justification of Abraham was the justification of the “ungodly” (4:5 ESV) or “wicked” (NIV). Calvin presses the question: Where do we read in Scripture that Abraham believed that it was reckoned to him as righteousness? Obviously Paul was citing Genesis 15, but, Calvin notes, Abraham had become a follower of God in Genesis 12. Abraham had long been a faithful believer before the statement in Genesis 15: “Even though the life of the patriarch [Abraham] was spiritual and well-nigh angelic, he did not have sufficient merit of works to acquire righteousness before God” (Institutes 3.11.14). It was Abraham the faithful, Abraham the obedient, Abraham the godly, whom Paul called wicked. No matter how much progress Abraham made in godliness he could not stand in the judgement. He needed to be a believer. His righteousness was to be found in the faith that rest in Christ’s righteousness. That was Paul’s argument.

Paul made this point even more clearly in quoting from Psalm 32. David there referred to God’s people as godly (32:6), righteous (32:11), and trusting (32:10). Who are the godly, the righteous, the trusting? They are the ones blessed by having their transgressions forgiven and their sins covered (32:1-2). This David, as God’s servant, as the man after God’s own heart, and as an Israelite who was called forgiven, godly, righteous, and trusting, still had to plead with God: “Enter not into judgement with your servant, /for no one living is righteous before you” (143:2 ESV). Abraham in the best of his service and David in the best of his service had to plead with God not to judge them for their continuing failure in sin and wickedness, and David and Abraham looked away from themselves to rest in the righteousness that comes from God in Jesus Christ. (280-284)

Taken from J.V. Fesko’s book titled Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, 32-34

One of the famous eighteenth-century debates that surrounded the doctrine of justification was the Marrow Controversy. The debate erupted in Scotland surrounding the republication of the a book entitled The Marrow of Modern Divinity. The book was likely written by Edward Fisher, a seventeenth-century theologian, and was published in two parts in 1645 and 1649. The book is a series of dialogues on the doctrine of atonement and the dangers of antinomianism and neonomianism. At the time of its publication, the book was recommended by two prominent Westminster divines, Joseph Caryl (1602-73) and Jeremiah Burroughs (1599-1646). Moreover, the author claimed to derive his work from the teachings of a number of prominent Reformed theologians including John Ball (1585-1640),  Theodore Beza, Heinrich Bullinger (1504-75), John Diodati (1576-1649), Thomas Goodwin (1600-80), Thomas Hooker (1586-1647), John Lightfoot (1602-75), Martin Luther, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), William Perkins, Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), Robert Rollock (1555-99), and Zacharia Ursinus, to name a few. When the book was originally published, there was no uproar. The same cannot be said when it was republished in Scotland.

In Scotland in 1718 the book was republished because an English Puritan soldier brought the book with him into Scotland, and it eventually fell into the hands of Thomas Boston (1676-1732). Boston was so pleased with the work that he and a colleague had the work republished. The book displeased a number of ministers who apparently held neonomian views and therefore condemned the book for its supposed advocacy of antinomianism. A careful reading of the book will reveal that it did not advocate antinomianism, but rather set forth sola fide. Like Calvin before, Fisher was careful to distinguish but not separate justification and sanctification and recognize that sinful man is justified by faith alone to the exclusion of works:

[Fekso quoting The Marrow of Modern Divinity] “Therefore, whensoever, or wheresoever, any doubt of question arises of salvation, or our justification before God, there the law and all good works must be utterly excluded and stand apart, that grace may appear free, and that the promise and faith may stand alone: which faith alone, without law or works, brings thee in particular to the justification and salvation, through the mere promise and free grace of God in Christ; so that I say, in through the mere promise and free grace of God in Christ; so that I say, in the action and office of justification, both law and works are to be utterly excluded and exempted as things which have nothing to do in that behalf. The reason is this: for seeing that all our redemption springs out from the body of the Son of God crucified, then is there nothing that can stand us in stead, but that only wherewith the body of Christ is apprehended. Now, forasmuch as neither the law nor works, but faith only, is the thing which apprehends the body and passion of Christ, therefore faith only is that matter which justifies a man before God, through the strength of that object Jesus Christ, which it apprehends.”

Despite the book’s careful delineation between justification and sanctification the Assembly of the Church of Scotland condemned it as antinomian. Nevertheless, there were a number of minister, including Thomas Boston, who cam to the book’s defense, noting that it simply contained doctrinal truths couched in scriptural language and in phrases taken from Reformed confessions and catechisms. The Assembly eventually rebuked those who defended the book, but no further action was taken and the controversy eventually dissipated.

Marrow men unite!

il

neophytus – a  Young Christian

evangelista - a Minister of the Gospel

—-

neophytus: Indeed sir, if I were holy and so righteous as some men are, and had such power over my sins and corruptions as some men have, then I could easily believe it; but alas! I am so sinful and so unworthy a wretch, that I dare not presume to believe that Christ will accept of me, so as to justify and save me.

evangelista: Alas! man, in this saying, you seem to contradict and gainsay both the apostle Paul, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself; and  that against your own soul: for whereas the apostle Paul says, ‘that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), and doth justify the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), why, you seem to hold, and do in effect say, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save the righteous, and to justify the godly. And whereas our Saviour says, the whole need not a physician but the sick; and that he came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:12); why you seem to hold, and do in effect say that the sick need not a physician, but the whole: and  that he came not to call sinners, but the righteous to repentance. And indeed, in so saying, you seem to conceive, that Christ’s spouse must be purified, washed, and cleansed from all her filthiness, and adorned with a rich robe of righteousness, before he will accept her; whereas he himself said unto her, ‘As for nativity, in the day that thou wast born, thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed with water to supple thee; thou wast not swaddled at all, nor salted at all. No eye pitied thee to do any of these things unto thee; but when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold thy time was a time of love. And I spread my skirt over thee, and covered they nakedness; yea, and I sware unto thee, and entered into covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine (Ezek. 16:4-8). ‘And I will marry thee unto me for ever; yea, I will marry thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgement, and in mercy, and compassion (Hos. 2:19).

Wherefore I beseech you, revoke this your erroneous opinion, and contradict the word of truth no longer; but conclude for a certainty, that it is not the righteous and godly man, but the sinful and ungodly man, that Christ came to call, justify, and save: so that if you were a righteous and godly man, you were neither capable of calling, justifying, or saving by Christ; but being a sinful and ungodly man, I will be bold to say unto you as the people said unto blind Bartimaeus, ‘Be of good comfort; arise, he calleth thee’ (Mark 10:49) and will justify and save thee. Go then unto him, I beseech you; and if he come and meet thee, (as his manner is) then do not you unadvisedly say, with Peter, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!’ (Luke 5:8); but say, in plain terms, O come unto me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord! Yea, go on further, and say, as Luther bids you, Most Gracious Jesus and sweet Christ, I am a miserable, poor sinner, and, therefore, do judge myself unworthy of thy grace; but yet I, having learned from thy word that thy salvation belongs unto such a one, therefore do I come unto thee, to claim that right which, through thy gracious promise, belong unto me.

Assure yourself man, that Jesus Christ requires no portion with his spouse; no verily, he requires nothing with her but mere poverty: ‘the rich he sends empty away’ (Luke 1:53); but the poor are by him enriched. And, indeed, says Luther, ‘the more miserable, sinful, and distressed a man doth feel himself, and judge himself to be, the more willing is Christ to receive him and relieve him.’ So that, says he, in judging thyself unworthy, thou dost thereby become truly worthy; and so indeed, hast gotten a greater occasion of coming to him. Wherefore, then, in the words of the apostle, I do exhort and beseech you to ‘come boldly to the throne of grace, that you may obtain mercy, and fin grace to help in time of need’ (Heb. 4:16).

neophytus: But truly, si, my heart, as it were, trembles within me, to think of coming to Christ, after such a bold manner; and surely sir, if I should so come unto him, it would argue much pride and presumption in me.

evangelista: Indeed, if you should be encouraged to come unto Christ and to speak thus unto him, because of any godliness, righteousness, or worthiness, that you conceive to be in you; that, I confess, were proud presumption in you. But to come to Christ, by believing that he will accept of you, justify, and save you freely by his grace, according to his gracious promise, this is neither pride nor presumption (see Thomas Boston’s note): for Christ having tendered and offered it to your freely, believe it, it is true humility of heart to take what Christ offers you. (148-150)

Thomas Boston’s note: It is to believe the offer of the gospel, with particular application; to embrace it, and therein to receive Christ. And no man can ever receive and rest on Christ for salvation, without believing, in greater, or lesser measure, that Christ will accept of him to justification and salvation. Remove that gospel truth, that Christ will accept him, and his faith has no ground left to stand upon. (150)

Let’s pray that the Lord may raise up many, many evangelistas.

Readers let me know if there are any typos.

Taken from Marrow of Modern Divinity, Edward Fisher with the notes of Thomas Boston.

Thomas Boston’s notes:

“So we are perfectly saved by the works which Christ did for us in his own person, and no ways by the good works which he works in us, with and after faith. [Marg. Here is the main point and ground of our disagreement with the Papists.]

Caps are not mine.

Those who believe they do not have any philosophical presuppositions when they approach Scripture are simply unconscious of them and more easily misled by them.

Those of us who were born in the West in the twentieth century have been raised in a culture whose very way of seeing the world has been shaped by numerous philosophical strands of thought (Of course, various philosophical strands of thought have also influenced those born in the East). We simply cannot change the fact that we live after Decartes and Hume, after Kant and Hegel, after Marx and Nietzsche, and after Rorty and Derrida. The intellectual world in which we live has been affected in various ways, not only by rationalism and empiricism, but also by pragmatism, naturalism, existentialism, and relativism. We live in an era in which the confident arrogance of modernism is gradually giving way to skeptical arrogance of postmodernism. These various philosophies affect the way we think about God, man, language, revelation, history, science, ethics, politics, and more. Although we cannot pretend that these various strands of thought have not been part of the very intellectual air we breathe, we can make every effort to become self-consciously aware of the ways in which they influence and affect us. Only then are we able to detect these influences in our own thinking and critically examine them. (6, 7)

Taken from Keith Mathison’s book “From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology”

“I might point out, too, with regard to all of the gospels, that there is a certain self-evidencing quality in their narrative.  Personal testimony is a very subtle thing; and when you face a witness on the witness stand, the credence which you will give to this testimony is dependent very often upon the subtle impression that you obtain of the person testifying.  That sort of evidence, which often attain a high degree of value, has a larger place in the production of Christian conviction than often is supposed.  If you are troubled with doubts about the truth of this extraordinary narrative which you have in the four gospels, I should commend  to you the exercise of reading one of the gospel through from the beginning to end with something like the rapidity which you apply every morning to the morning newspaper or to any book of the day.  At other times study the gospels, but for once just read the gospels.  I sometimes think that perhaps that is the reason why God has given us one gospel which is so short as the gospel according to Mark–that at one sitting we might easily read the whole book through.  In the gospel according to Mark you are not asked to sit quietly at the feet of Jesus and listen in an extended way to his teaching.  You are not taken into the intimacy of his circle as is the case in the gospel according to John.  BUt you are asked to look at him with something of the wonder which was in the minds of those first observers in the synagogue at Capernaum.  It is a gospel that makes a first impression of it be made upon your mind, there will come to you an overpowering impression that that witness is telling the truth” (46-47).

“Jesus proclaimed not only a gospel, but a gospel which had his own person in the center of it.  When you read the gospels a little closer, you will find everywhere Jesus presented himself as Savior, not merely as a teacher or an example.  If he did not present himself as Savior, than his teaching is the most gloomy teaching that there ever was in this world.  You may talk about the thunderings of Sinai.  But what are they compared with the terrifying law of the Sermon on the Mount?  How much higher, how much more terrible that is than the law that is set forth in the Old Testament!  How shall we stand if only such persons as those whom Jesus there describes can come into the kingdom of God?  When you read the  Sermon on the Mount, you are led straight to the foot of the cross; if such is the law of God, you need Christ not merely as a teacher but as a Savior” (55-56).

Taken from Concise Reformed Dogmatics (1992).

“3. It remains to discuss whether we should consider the law as the preeminent means whereby knowledge of sin is worked in man. We encounter this idea in Pietism and a number of representatives of the Second Reformation.

In opposition to this view we identify two clear perspectives.  In the first place we recall the fact that Paul declared the law to be “weak through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3).  We realize that he uses these words in a different context than we do here.  Yet there is a similarity.  The undoing through the law is part of true repentance.  It may be viewed as the dying of the old nature.  If the law on its own (preceeding and therefore separate from the gospel) would be able to break a man, it would be an effort on the part of the law.  However, the law is unable to change a sinful heart.  Works of the law do not please God.  It is rather sinful man tends to employ the law to justify himself.  It is impossible for the law by itself to humble man before God.

The law rather leads to hardening of sin.  Paul clearly identifies this tendency of the law to multiply sin (Rom. 3:20; 5:20).  He recognizes God’s judgment in this.  Sinful man employs the law to justify himself before God.  This is how he multiplies his sins.  He abuses the law to this effect. 

One should not treat the preaching of the law in isolation.  The entire Word of God comprises both the law and the Gospel.  No one can preach the Gospel while ignoring the accusation of the law.  Theologically, the accusation comes first.  How can the acquittal be announced before the accusation has been brought foward?

As accusation, the law always precedes the preaching of the gospel and resonates in it.  However, by limiting oneself to the accusation, one would fall short of the mandate to preach God’s Word.  By stopping after the word of the law, one cuts the gospel in half by eliminating its saving and purifying perspective.  It causes despair without indicating the way back to God” (433, bold mine).  

This is at the beginning of the chapter ten titled “Christ, the Mediator” from Concise Reformed Dogmatics.

29.1. Person and Work

Faith in Christ is the core of the creed of the church.  It is the heart of the Christian faith.  For this reason Christology is the centerpiece of dogmatics.

This chapter must be seen in the perspective of the preceding chapters.  We have in mind the doctrine of revelation because the revelation of salvation is God’s revelation in Christ, and the doctrine’s of man’s sin because of which the coming of Christ as Redeemer became necessary.  Subsequent chapters must be seen in the perspective of this chapter, namely the doctrine of the covenant of grace of which Christ is the Mediator; the doctrine of salvation, which he obtained; the doctrine of the church of whch he is the Head; the doctrine of the means of grace that the Spirit of Christ employs; and  the doctrine of consummation, an essential part of which is Christ’s return to judge. (437)

Taken from Michael Horton’s chapter “Obedience Is Better than Sacrifice” in the book The Law Is Not Of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant.  

“Under the law, in Adam, one is trapped in the cycle of sin and death, resentment and despair, self-righteousness and self-condemnation.  Yet under grace, in Christ, one is not only justified apart from the law but is able for the first time to respond to that law of love that calls from the deepest recesses of our being as covenantally constituted creatures.  It is not the law itself that changes, but our relation to it, and that makes all the difference.” (334)