Justification means to be judged righteous

Since the last General Assembly approved a revisionist reading of the Westminster Standards that actually contradicts them, Peter Leithart has been pointing this out. Here are the posts in order:

  1. Judgment according to works
  2. Judgment according to works (again)
  3. Hodge on Judgment according to works
  4. Adam, Merit, & the Judgment
  5. The Gospel & Judgment
  6. Trinity & Judgment
  7. Jesus the Judge

I have three thoughts. First, I think Peter should include Revelation 2.19-23. Let me ask you this. Suppose you read a letter from Jesus addressed to you as the member of a church He wrote, which said,

I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.

What would you do? Would you think, “Thank God I’m elect and a receiver (by faith alone) of the imputed active and passive obedience of Christ, and don’t need to worry!”? Or would you wet your pants with fear? I sure hope the original members of the church didn’t let some abstract conception of the ordo keep them from the latter reaction. If they did, then the ordo would be a rationalization for unbelief. True faith trembles at the threatenings. True faith means rejoicing normally, but some time the loss of bladder control. (Did true faith keep the Apostle John from falling down like a dead man when this same Jesus met with him to have him write His letter? Most of the material claiming that the Old Covenant was exclusively about fear and trembling falls away in the light–the burning bright light–of Revelation 1).
Secondly, not only do Reformed Theologians (until the recent memory hole) plainly teach judgment according to works, but they use the term “justification” to explain the verdict.

In his capacity as Judge, too, Christ is saving His people to the uttermost: He completes their redemption, justifies them publicly, and removes the last consequences of sin. (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 732, “Doctrine of Last Things,” IV, D.)

THE JUSTIFICATION OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN

[A chapter in Benedict Pictet’s Christian Theology, which follows his chapter entitled “The justification of a sinner”; boldface added]

We have spoken of the justification of man as a sinner; we must now speak of his justification as a righteous man, i.e. that by which he proves that he is justified and that he possesses a true justifying faith. Now this justification is by works, even in the sight of God , as well as of men; and of this James speaks when he declares that “by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (Jam 2:24). To illustrate this, we must remark that there is a twofold accusation against man. First, he is accused before God’s tribunal of the guilt of sin, and this accusation is met and done away by the justification of which we have already treated. Secondly, the man who has been justified may be accused of hypocrisy, false profession and unregeneracy; now he clears himself from this accusation and justifies his faith by his works-this is the second justification; it differs from the first; for in the first a sinner is acquitted from guilt, in the second a godly man is distinguished from an ungodly. In the first God imputes the righteousness of Christ; in the second he pronounces judgment from the gift of holiness bestowed upon us ; both these justifications the believer obtains, and therefore it is true that “by works he is justified and not by faith only.”

From these remarks it is plain that James is easily reconciled with Paul, especially if we consider, that Paul had to do with judiciaries, who sought to be justified by the law, i.e. by their own works, but James had to deal with a sort of Epicureans, who, content with a mere profession, neglected good works; it is no wonder then, that Paul should insist upon faith, and James upon works. Moreover, Paul speaks of a lively and efficacious faith, but James of a faith without works. Paul also speaks of the justification of the ungodly or sinner, James of that justification, by which a man as it were justifies his faith and proves himself to be justified . For it is his design to show that it is not enough for a Christian man to glory in the remission of sins, which is unquestionably obtained only by a living faith in Christ, but that he must endeavor to make it manifest by his works that he is truly renewed, that he possesses real faith and righteousness, and lives as becomes a regenerate and justified person. Hence it is plain, that Abraham is properly said to have been justified, when he offered up Isaac, because by this he proved that he had real faith, and cleared himself from every charge of hypocrisy, of which he might have been accused. In this sense that passage is explained: “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still” (Rev 22), i.e. let him show by his works that he is justified…

Francis Turrettin:

16TH TOPIC

EIGHTH QUESTION
Does faith alone justify? We affirm against the Romanists.

III. But that the state of the question may be the more easily understood, we must remark that a twofold trial can be entered into by God with man: either by the law (inasmuch as he is viewed as guilty of violating the law by sin and thus comes under the accusation and condemnation of the law); or by the gospel (inasmuch as he is accused by Satan of having violated the gospel covenant and so is supposed to be an unbeliever and impenitent or a hypocrite, who has not testified by works the faith he has professed with his mouth). Now to this twofold trial a twofold justification ought to answer; not in the Romish sense, but in a very different sense. The first is that by which man is absolved from the guilt of sin on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and apprehended by faith; the other is that by which he is freed from the charge of unbelief and hypocrisy and declared to be a true believer and child of God; one who has fulfilled the gospel covenant (if not perfectly as to degree, still sincerely as to parts) and answered to the divine call by the exercise of faith and piety. The first is justifica- tion properly so called; the other is only a declaration of it. That is justification of cause a priori; this is justification of sign or of effect a posteriori, declaratively. In that, faith alone can have a place because it alone apprehends the righteousness of Christ, by whose merit we are freed from the condemnation of the law; in this, works also are requited as the effects and signs of faith, by which its truth and sincerity are declared against the accusation of unbelief and hypocrisy. For as faith justifies a person, so works justify faith.

IV. The question does not concern justification a posteriori and declaratively in the fatherly and gospel trial-whether faith alone without works concurs to it (for we confess that works come in here with faith; yea, that works only are properly regarded because it is concerned with the justification of faith, which can be gathered from no other source more certainly than by works as its effects and indubitable proofs). Rather the question concerns justification a priori, which frees us from the legal trial, which is concerned with the justification of the wicked and the perfect righteousness, which can be opposed to the curse of the law and acquire for us a tight to life-whether works come into consideration here with faith (as the Romanists hold) or whether faith alone (as we maintain).

Finally, justification is a regular law-court word. When Protestant scholars want to prove the forensic meaning of the word, “justify,” and its cognates in Romans 3, the point to the judgment setting in Romans 2. Claiming that there is a “judgment according to works” but not a “final justification” is like saying there is an acquittal but not a verdict, or that there is a declaration that one is found blameless but not found innocent of wrongdoing.

So what is the big deal? The Bible is clear. The Reformed heritage is clear. The Westminster Standards are clear. The grammar is self-evident. Why is this a controversy?

My guess is that it really has to do with a practical antinomianism (I am not accusing anyone of heresy here, I’m quite willing to live in PCAland with everyone else) that John Gerstner spoke of in his book on dispensationalism. We have inculcated, in comfortable conformity to various revivalistic/baptist practices, a view of saving faith that demands that it never “trembles at the threatenings” in the Word of God. That warnings are only for the evangelization of unbelivers, not for the admonition of professing believers. That the only pastoral way to deal with the possibility of apostasy is to encourage doubts as to whether one is “truly saved.” (And thus, practical antinomianism has a practical legalism edge to it, which is certainly the way Gerstner comes across to me).

As far as I can tell, it all comes down to whether it is Reformed to use the Apostle Paul as a model for pastoral exhortation.

2 thoughts on “Justification means to be judged righteous

  1. Pingback: Three more from Peter and my problem with “deliverdict” at Mark Horne

  2. Reformatus

    I was just reading Calvin’s Catechism on the Lord’s Prayer from 1541 (Geneva Catechism). Here’s the catechism on the phrase “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”.

    M. Do you say then that all who cannot from the heart forgive offenses are discarded by God and expunged from his list of children, so that they cannot hope for any place of pardon in heaven?

    S. So I think, in accordance with the words, “With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again.”

    I’ve always heard Calvin couldn’t be ordained in some presbyteries. I guess this is why!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *