iustitia aliena

This audio is gold, here.

Here. 

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)

There is perhaps no better definition of the doctrine of justification, concise yet comprehensive, than that which the OPC confesses in the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) 70:

“Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

In this definition, all the major elements of the biblical, Reformed doctrine are set forth. Justification is a forensic, judicial act of pardoning, accepting, and accounting, not a transformative work by which a sinner is made subjectively holy through an infusion of grace. According to this definition, justification is a blessing granted to sinners, those who have fallen short of God’s righteous requirements and stand condemned before him. In response to our sin, God, by his free grace, does two things for our justification: he pardons all our sins and accepts and accounts us righteous in his sight. God not only wipes away the guilt of sinners, but also credits righteousness to them. In justification, God declares that we are innocent of ever sinning against him and credits us with keeping his law perfectly. The ground for this great work, WLC 70 goes on to explain, is nothing that is wrought within us or done by us. Instead, its ground is the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, imputed to us. In other words, Christ’s perfect obedience to God’s law is credited to us, so that we stand before God as if we ourselves had kept that law perfectly. And Christ’s perfect sacrifice of atonement is imputed to us, so that we stand before God as if we had atoned for our lawbreaking. Finally, WLC 70 teaches that justification is received by faith alone. Not any work of obedience, but faith that receives and rests upon Christ, is the only instrument of justification.”

Taken from the OPC’s Report on Justification found here.

When the Good Becomes Bad – R. Scott Clark in Korean.

Here it is In English http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/when-the-good-news-becomes-bad

The article has also been translated into Chinese, click in translation to retrieve the copy.

Thanks to Chris Won in translating it!!!

For those that know the Korean and English if there are any errors in translation, post a comment and let me know, thanks.

Here it is in Korean

들어가는말
복음이란 말은 너무 자주 친숙하게 사용되어서 아마도 그 진짜 의미인 “ 좋은 소식”이라는 관점을 읽어버릴 가능성이 있다. 이 질문은 우리가 복음의 의미를 제정립하려고 추구하는 우리교회들 내에서 일어나는 여러 운동들을 직면할때 중요한 것이다. 각자의 상황에서 우리는 다른 복음에 받아 들여 온 것이다.(갈 1:6). 그리스도의 좋은 소식은 갈라디아 기독교인에 의해 처했던 위협의순서대로 위협을 직면하고 있다.
이 복음에 어떤 일이 있어났는가?
초대교회의 선조들은 복음을 말했지만, 그들의 관심은 변증법,삼위일체,그리스도론, 성경의 정경과 교회에 초점을 맞추는 경향이 있었다 초대교회 선조들 사이의 복음의 메시지는 그리스도가 이미왔고, 구원이 그리스도를 신뢰하고 그렇게 행동하는 모든 자에게 가능하다는 메시지가 종종 아니었다. 죄인들에게 좋은 소식이 아니었던 것이다.
19세기 은혜의 복음은 한 사람의 도덕적인 삶의 진보적인 변형으로 이해되었다. 복음이 성화와 동일시 되었던 것이다. 사람들은 도덕적으로 아픈 것으로 생각되어졌고 은혜라고 불리는 의학적인 물질의 주사가 필요한 것이었다. 이러한 계획안에서, 사람들은 그가 성화된 만큼 의인화 되었고, 성화는 성례안에서 이러한 약(은혜)을 받아 함께 협동함으로 이루어져왔다. 그들의 복음은 외쳤다. “구원은 은혜와 함께 일하는 자에 그리고 율법에 복종하는 자에게 가능하다” 이것은 죄인들에게 더욱 나쁜 소식이었다. 위를 위해 행하신 그리스도의 완전한 의 대신에 우리는 우리안에 있는 부분적인 의만 남겨졌다.
복음의 개혁
대조적으로, 마틴루터와 존 칼빈은 성경이 “두가지 단어-율법과 복음”를 포함하고 있다고 믿는다. 율법은 “이것을 하라 그러면 살리라“ 라고 성경에서 말하는 어떤 것을 묘사하는 반면에(누가복음 10:28),복음은 ”다 이루었다“(요한복음 19:30)라고 말하는 어떤것들을 말한다.
이것을 하면 살리라
율법은 하나님의 확고한 도덕적 의지이다. 이것이 왜 웨스터민스터 신앙고백 19.1에서 타락전후에 하나님의 율법은 “개인적이고 전체적이며 정확하고 영구적인 복종“을 요구하는지 우리에게 상기시켜주는 이유이다. 이것은 정확하게 모세의 교리 신명기27:26와 갈라디아서 3:10에서 바울의 교리”율법책에 기록된 모든 것을 지속적으로 행하지 않는 모든자는 저주를 받으리라“라는 것이다.
개혁자들은 하나님이 행위의 언약이라는 관점에서 아담에게 율법을 드러내셨다고 가르친다. “너가 정녕 그것을 먹는날에는 죽으리라(창세기2:!7)” 아담에게 주어진 영원한 축복의 내재적인 약속은 모든 인류의 대표로서 그가 복종하는 조건이었다.그의 죄에서, 아담은 행함의 언약을 깨고 모든 인류는 그와함께 타락한 것이다. 그 결과로, 의인화의 관련되서 율법은 죄인들에게 나쁜 소식인 것이다. “우리 모두는 하나님의 모든 명령에 대항하여 비통하게도 죄를 범했고, 그들중 어떤 것 하나도 절대 지킬수가 없으며, 여전히 우리 모두는 항상 악한 경향을 가지고 있다.“고 우리에게 고소한다.(하이델베르크 요리문답 60)
다 이루었다.
그러나, 복음은 다른 일이다. 그것은 둘째아담이신 그리스도가 그의 한번의 온전한 복종으로 율법을 지키시고 행위의 언약을 성취하시고 죄인들을 위한 그의 피로 새로운 언약을 맏드신것에 의한 선포이다. 약속된 구원자- 왕은 그의 왕국과 은혜의 언약과 함께 오신다. 율법은 이것들을 “행하라“ 말하는 반면 은혜의 언약은 말하길”안식하라“라 한다. 이것이 왜 복음이 ”좋은소식”인가 하는 이유이다.
왜냐하면 이것은 그리스도에 의해 우리에게 주어진 의인화에 대한것이며 우리에게 값없이 주시는것이기 때문이다.
하이델베르크 요리문답 21에 따르면, 진정한 믿음이란 “영원한 의와 구원은 오직 하나님의 은혜로 말미암아 자유롭게 주어진 것이며,오직 그리스도의 뛰어나신 가치만을 기르기 위한 목적을 위한 것이다. 율법이 나의 완벽한 순종을 요구하는 곳에 복음은 그리스도께서 나를 위해 율법을 다 성취하시고 나를 대항하는 무거운 빚의 통지를 해제하신 것을 선포하시고 약속하신다. 그리고 ” 마치 내가 어떠한 죄도 한번도 범하지 않은것처럼 그리스도의 완벽한 충족과 의와 성결을 나에게 돌리우신다. 만약 내가 믿는 마음으로 이러한 이익들을 받아들이기만 한다면 그리스도께서 날 위해 성취하신 모든 복종을 내가 성취한 것처럼 여겨주신다. (하이델베르크 요리문답60) 이것이 성경에서 말하는 복음이다. 여러곳에서 “복음”이란 명사는 나의 밖에서 이루어지고 있는 나에게 이익을 주는 무엇가를 언급한다. 다른곳에서 우리는 하나님의 구원의 복음의 소식을 날마다 선포해야 한다고 한다. .이러한 모든 것중에 가장 유명한 구약의 구절은 이사야52:7 이다. “ 좋은 소식을 가져오며 평화를 공포하며 복된 좋은 소식을 가져오며 구원을 공포하며 시온을 향하여 이르기를 네 하나님이 통치하신다 하는 자의 산을 넘는 발이 어찌 그리 아름다운고”(ESV)
성경의 히브리서에서 미리 암시됐던것은 신약성경에서 탁월한 명쾌함을 보여줌으로써 활짝 꽃을 피운다. 그 복음이란 우리 주 예수그리스도의 복종하신 삶과 죽음, 부활과 승천안에 나타난 하나님의 백성을 위한 구원의 성취이다. 고린도전서 15:1-5보다 더 쉽게 설명한곳은 없다. 복음은 “그리스도께서 우리의 죄를 위해서 성경대로 그는 죽으시고 성경에 이른대로 장사한지 3일만에 살아나셨느니라…” 이것은 이리석은 메시지는(고전 1;18) 믿는 모든자에게 하나님의 구원의 능력이 되시는 것이다.(로마서 1:16) 복음이란 우리가 착하다면 의롭다고 될수도 있다라는 것이 아니라 그리스도께서 선하시므로 우리가 의롭게 되는 것이다. 이것이 왜 죄인들에게 복음이 좋은 소식인가 하는 것이다 !
그 복음에게 어떤 일이 일어났는가?
바울 당시에 모든 사람들이 오늘날의 그리스도안에 있는 값없는 은혜의 복음에 만족했던 것은 아니다. 초대교회는 은혜의 언약에 조건을 첨가하려는 유혹을 받았다. 그들은 말하길 “그리스도를 신뢰하는 것은 물론, 하나님과 바른관계가 되려면 그리스도를 신뢰하는 것 이상이 필요하다”하였다. 이 복음의 대적자들은 “믿고 복종하기”로 믿음을 재정립하길 원했었다. 그래서 바울이 “사람이 의롭게 되는 것은 율법의 행위에서 난 것이 아니요 오직 예수 그리스도를 믿음으로 말미암는줄 아는고로 우리도 그리스도 예수를 믿나니 이는 우리가 율법의 행위에서 아니고 그리스도를 믿음으로서 의롭다함을 얻으려함이니라 율법의 해위로서는 의롭다 함을 얻을 육체가 없느니라”(갈라디아서 2:16) 라고 선포했다.
개혁자들은 이 구절을 로마교회와 그들의 논쟁에서 바르게 적용했다. 로마교회는 은혜와 함께 협력해서 일하는 복음을 가르쳤다. 그들의 복음의 정의는 우리의 행위를 하나님과 바르게 되는 부분으로 만듬으로써 그리스도께서 이미 끝내신 일의 품격을 떨어뜨렸다. 대조적으로, 사도바울은 복음은 믿는자들은 지금 의롭게 되고 “그러므로 우리 주 예수 그리스도안에 있는자 에게는 결코 정죄함이 없나니(로마서 8:1) 라고 논의했다.
공통의 잘못된 해석들
로마교회처럼 믿음과 복종을 통해 은혜로 의롭게 된다는 잘못된 복음을 받아온 사람들은 갈라디아서 5:6 “믿음은 사랑을 통해 일한다”가르치는 사람들은 진정한 믿음은 대부분 사랑(행위)이 존재함으로 오직을 이것을 통해서 사람이 그가 성화된것처럼 의롭게 될수 있다고 주장한다. 그들은 또한 야고보서 2:24을 통해 “이로 보건대 사람이 행함으로 의롭다 하심을 받고 믿음으로만 아니니라” 주장한다.
문맥을 일어보라. 초대16세기이후로 갈라디아서 5:6은 의인화에 대해서 이야기 하는 것이 아니라 그리스도인의 삶이나 성화에 대해서 이야기 하는 것이 개신교에게는 명백한 것이었다. 존 칼빈은 “저 구절은 의인화에 대한 질문으로 소개되기에는 부절적하다. 왜냐하면 바울은 어떠한 관점의 믿음이나 자선이 인간을 의롭게 할수 있는지를 고려한 것이 아니고 무엇이 기독교인의 완전인가를 보여준…” 이라고 썼다. 이 구절을 믿음과 복종(순종)을 통해 의인화를 가르치는 것으로 해석하는 것은 우리를 다시 율법 아래로 데려간다. 똑같은 방식으로,야고보서 2:24는 야고보서 2:24의 관점에서 읽어야만 한다. 야고보는 진정한 믿음의 증거나 열매에 대해서 쓴 것이다. 만약 누군가 진정한 믿음에 대해 이야기 한다고 하면서 그것에 대한 증거가 없다면 그러한 믿음은 진정한 것이 아닐 것이다. 야고보에게 이슈는 어떻게 우리가 하나님과 바르게 되는냐가 아니라 진정한 믿음의 증거였다. 야고보서 2:24의 “의롭게된“은 ”하나님과 바르게된 것을 선포하는”것을 의미하는 것이 아니라 그것은 진정한 믿음을 입증하는 증거를 의미하는 것이다.
교회 일원으로서 복음 혼동하는 것.
어떤 사람은 복음은 우리가 하나님앞에서 바르게 된 것을 선포하는 것이 아니라 교회의 일원이 된 것을 말하는것이라 주장한다. 그들은 의인화의 믿음의 역할은 단순히 그리스도를 받아들이고 그의 의안에서 안식하는 것이 아니라 세례안에서 우리에게 이미 주어진 것을 우리가 잘 지킬수 있도록 은혜와 함께 적극적으로 협력해서 일해야 한다고 주장한다. 그들은 성경이 우리가 율법을 지키지 못한다면 의인화를 잃어버릴 수도 있다고 가르친다고 주장한다.
개혁신학은 늘 계약적이어왔지만 이러한 접근은 복음과 율법을 혼동함으로써 은혜의 언약을 행위의 언약으로 바꾸어 버린다. 은혜의 언약에서 우리는 “율법의 행위로부터가 아닌 믿음”(로마서 3:28)으로 의롭게 되는 것이다. 만약 구원이 행위에 의해서 보존된다면 이것은 얼마나 은혜로운가? 어떻게 죄인들이 충분히 잘 협혁해서 일할수 있겠는가?
구원은 보이는 실로 교회의 문맥에서 일어나므로 전체와 개인을 나란히 비교할 필요는 없지만 성경 어디에서도 순수하게 전체적이란 용어로 의인화를 말하는곳은 없다. 교회의 일원이 의롭게 되는 것과 동일시 되는 것은 아니다. 보이는 교회의 모든 사람들이 필연적으로 선택된자중의 하나인 것은 아니다. 이스라엘 군중의 다수가 그들이 믿지 않았으므로 은혜의 언약으로부터 혜택을 받지 못했다. 비록 에서는 은혜의 언약의 외부적인 일원이었지만, 그는 선택받은 자가 아니었기 때문에 내부적인 일원이 아니었다. 보이는 회중의 모든 사람들이 실제적으로 그리스도를 그들이 말하는것처럼 “머리로 삼는 머리”로서 연합된 것은 아니다. 이러한 관점은 에서가 그것을 박탈당하기 전까지는 선택된 것으로 볼수 있다.
율법과 함께 복음을 혼동하는 것
마지막으로, 어떤 사람들은 율법이 약속과 복음이 죄인들로 순종하도록 요구하기 때문에 율법과 복음사이에는 진정한 차이가 없다고 주장한다.
율법과 복음 둘다 약속과 요구가 있다는점은 진실이다. 로마서 2:16은 바울의 복음에 따라 “하나님은 예수그리스도로 말미암아 사람의 은밀한 것을 심판하시고“또한 로마서 10:16에서 말하길 ”저희가 다 복음에 순종치 아니하는도다”라고 가르칱다. 그러나,후자의 경우, “복종한다“라는 동사는 ”믿는다“와 같은 행로 정의된다. 로마서 2:16에서 이것은 명백하고 다른곳에서 바울은 넓게 죄와 구원의 전체의 메시지로서 복음을 말하길 사용한다. 그것은 그리스도의 다시오심과 최종심판이 적절하게 포함되어 있다. 로마서 2:16에서 바울이 언급한 심판은 하나님의 율법에 대한 나의 완벽하고 영구적인 순종에 의해 조건지워지는 것 보다는 불신의 죄를 언급하는 것이다.
비록 율법과 복음은 둘다 명령과 약속을 지고 있지만 율법과 복음은 다른 조건들을 가지고 있다. 율법의 조건(행위의 언약)은 완벽하고 영구적인 순종을 의미한다. 복음의 조건은 (은혜의 언약)신뢰하는 믿음을 의미하는 것이다. 예를 들면, 그리스도께서 이미 이루신 것을 받아들이고 그 안에서 안식하는 것 이다.
“하나님의 일“은 ”그를 보내신 이를 믿는 것“이다. (요한복음 6:29)
닫는 글
복음은 그리스도가 율법에 복종하셨고 하나님의 의로운 노를 충족시키셨고 그의 의가 우리에게 자유롭게 전가되었고 오직 믿음을 통해서만 받는 것이다. 성경은 복음에 대해서 명백하고 그것을 부패시키는것에 대해서 매우 강력하게 경고하신다.그럼에도 불구하고, 기독교인의 역사중 많은 부분에서 복음에 대한 혼동이 있어왔다.
그것은 나쁜 소식으로 바뀌어져 왔으므로 관심을 가지고 그것을 지켜야만 할 것이다. 우리는 누구든지 우리를“철학과 헛된 속임수로 우리를 노략할까 주의하라 이것은 사람의 유전과 세상의 초등학문을 좇음이요 그리스도를 쫓음이 아니니라”(골로새서2:8)이러한 것으로 데려가는 것에 주의해야 한다.특히 죄인들을 위한 그리스도의 행하신 복음에 대해 건드릴 때 말이다.

We believe that the Holy Spirit imparts true faith indwelling within our hearts so that we arrive at a true knowledge of such a great mystery; a faith that embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits and claims Him as made our own. For it is necessary that either all the things that are required for our salvation are not in Christ, or, that if all things are in Him, then he who possesses Christ by faith also has perfect salvation at the same time. And therefore it is a wholly horrendous blasphemy against God to assert that Christ is less than sufficient, but also that other things likewise are needed. For it would follow from here, that Jesus Christ is only Savior in part. And therefore we deservedly say with blessed Paul, “We are justified by faith alone, or by faith apart from works of the Law.” Otherwise, properly speaking, we by no means understand faith itself, through itself, or from itself, to justify us; it is as if it were no more than an instrument by which we lay hold of Christ our righteousness. Therefore our righteousness is Christ Himself, Who imputes all His own merits to us. Truly faith is the instrument by which we are bound to Him in fellowship and the communion of all His good works, and also preserved in the same, to the point that all those, having been made ours, are more than enough for the absolution from our sins.

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.

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).