Justification: The Article On Which The Church Stands Or Falls?

1.) Is the doctrine of justification the article on which the church stands or falls? In other words, do you believe that if there is any corruption of the doctrine of justification that the church's whole confession of faith is corrupted as well?

2.) How would you define the article of justification? Is it a process? A once for all event? A forensic declaration? An inner transformation? etc.

I personally believe that without the article of justification the church is no longer the church. If the justification of the sinner for the sake of Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection is not clearly and boldly proclaimed, then we cannot call such a place the church. The church is the place where Christians gather around the Word rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. Where the forgiveness of sins won on the cross of the crucified God is not given and received, there we cannot claim to be the church.

As I understand the doctrine of justification, it is simply this: the sinner's reception by faith of the free forgiveness of sins that has been won completely apart from the sinner's works, efforts and deeds in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. This justification is all: a past event at Calvary, a present and indwelling reality in Word and Sacrament and in the sinner who receives this reality by faith, and a future promise that has yet to be fully realized.

I would love to hear what you all have to say about we sinners being forgiven by the blood of the Lamb.

Yours in Christ,
Jerome

 

1) I really struggle to see how justification can't be one of the vital articles on which the Church stands or falls. It affects the heart of the gospel, that we can't pay our debt to God, so Christ has done it all for us! If he hasn't done it all then this changes the meaning of the gospel and it sounds not quite so good news

2) I view justification as imputation

 

Great topic!

1) I understand the mindset of those who say that the Church stands or falls on this issue. I think that such a stance can become overly simplistic, if one is not careful. Not that everyone who holds that position is simplistic, of course. Justification is of the utmost importance. Jesus Christ died to save sinners. If we get nothing else from the Bible, we must get that. However, the idea that any corruption of the doctrine wrecks or abolishes a Church is potentially hazardous. I saw this first-hand in my PCA days. It was far too common to declare any non-Westminster position as "Pelagian" and thus unbiblical (making it a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. Yes, people actually said this.).

I guess I believe that there is some room for different understandings of justification. I don't denounce those who combine or confuse it with sanctification, because the categories are not always as clearly defined as we might want them to be. When a group's theology of justification is actually Pelagian or otherwise man-centered, they've moved so far from the Gospel that they're clearly outside the Church's teachings. But if one church believes that we add nothing to our salvation and another believes that we cooperate with grace, both still look to Christ as the Author and Perfecter of their faith.

2) Most of my life, I was in the "imputation of righteousness/forensic declaration" camp. I later moved somewhat closer to the "infusion of grace" camp. Still sorting out where I am now, since I'm only recently removed from a disastrous RCIA run. I believe that justification was earned at the Cross, while also being worked out throughout my life. Rather than seeing it as a moment in my life, I see it as a process that is the result of the greatest moment in history - the death and resurrection of the Son.

 

Certainly our "justification" was accomplished on the Cross, once for all, through our Lord Jesus Christ. I agree that we cannot earn salvation through our works.

However, I can't say that I have completely reached a place of understanding regarding our response to the call of Christ. We have free will; but are we able, even in free will, to respond to the call of Christ without Grace? It would seem that we cannot.

Jesus said, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32); and "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44.)

So, I do not question the fact that Christ accomplished our justification on the cross. It is our willingness or ability to respond to the call of Christ that I don't quite understand--that is not for a lack of study. I think our response is a complicated issue and one that has been debate throughout Christian history.

I think it is difficult to discuss justification without also discussing our response.

Peace,
Anna

 

This was apt given this subject... It is from the Daily Office 16 May midmorning office:

READING See Romans 4:24-25
We believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, the Jesus who was handed over to death for our sins and raised up for our justification.

 

Thanks, Gordon. Very apt indeed.

What are your thoughts on our ability to respond to the call of Christ. See my post above.

Thanks,
Anna

 

My response to that would be...

Because we are created in Gods image we are simply being drawn back to our source, I think of it as evolution of the SELF....
As a Franciscan I aspire to live as Christ and his disciples did...

 

Gordon,
You are an inspiration. Would that we all aspire to be as Christ.
Anna

 

Live as Christ and Disciples is the aspiration not be like Christ... I don't think anyone but Christ could be like Christ. LOL

 

Jerome...

I really do appreciate this thread on the doctrine of justification. However, please forgive me if I do not jump in with both feet. I recently left another forum where doctrine and theology were discussed with vim and vigor--and way too many words. I am afraid I am still numb from the experience, but the Lord is clearing my head and returning my peace of mind.

...Scottish Monk

Edited 05/24/2012

 

Gordon...

Thank you for posting the above comment. Much can be said and received when we keep the two great commandments in mind and spend time in contemplation of God. Moreover, to live as Christ and his disciples did is a wonderful rule to live by.

...Scottish Monk

Edited 05/24/2012

 

No problem, Scottish Monk.

I am fully sympathetic with your aversion to theological hair-splitting (I share that same aversion myself). But it was not my intention to split theological hairs on this thread. My intention was to discuss what it means for the Church that Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinners. For me--and trying to use as few words as possible--I believe that Jesus' death on the cross actually forgave the entire world of sinners--past, present, and future. I believe that all sinners are born dead to the things of God, and cannot trust in Him apart from His grace. I also believe that the forgiveness won in Christ for the world is only received by us when the Word of God breaks into our lives through preaching and the sacraments--where God does the forgiving to us, so to speak.

I am sorry if you had a bad experience discussing Christian teaching in a previous forum, but I hope that we can draw a distinction between blowing theological smoke and discussing the life-giving doctrine of Christ's death and resurrection on our behalf with Christian charity and love. When discussing matters like this, I always try to keep in my mind and heart the following "maxim":

While it is true that love yields everything, it is equally true that faith yields nothing.

Yours in Christ,
Jerome

 

Jerome (of the many faces ) ...

I agree with your post that I quoted above, which I interpret to be "general." "unlimited," or "universal" atonement, rather than "particular" or "limited" atonement. Although I must admit I have been known to flip-flop on the atonement question. Maybe that is why I sometimes exhaust myself on theology forums. Atonement (unlimited versus limited) is one fence I seem to hop back and forth from one side to the other. :think: At this point, as I said above, I find myself on the unlimited side of the question. I appreciate any thoughts or references you or others can send my way on this important question.

And, since I am new here, would you be so kind as to provide a few comments about Article XI. Of the Justification of Man and Article XVII. Of Predestination and Election in the 39 Articles of Religion in both the 1662 BCP and 1928 BCP?

...Scottish Monk

Edited 05/25/2012

 

Sure thing. Here is article XI:

This article clearly teaches that the sinner is justified entirely on account of what Christ has done on his or her behalf, not what the sinner has done, is doing, or will ever do. The sinner is justified by faith alone. Period. No additions. No subtractions. No alterations. Just pure grace for the sake of Christ's blood and cross.

Article XVII reads:

This article clearly teaches that God's will to save us sinners does not depend on our "accepting" or "choosing" it. Rather, we are saved precisely because Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain for us before the world was made and before we were even born. All of the grace and mercy poured out on us sinners over the course of human history has flowed from the wounded side of Christ. We know of our being predestined, not by looking into the secret will of God hidden before all times, but in the cross of Jesus preached and given to us in Word and Sacrament. Notice also that predestination is to "Life", not "Death". Article XVII is silent on the matter of whether or not God predestines some to damnation. It instead limits itself to the words and teaching of Scripture which says plainly that damnation is the result of a sinful and rebellious will. Of course, it is a great mystery why some are saved and others are not, but we are fooling ourselves if we think we can arrive at a neat and tidy answer to such mysteries in this life.

What I am uncomfortable with in this article, however, is the teaching that the doctrine of election is of unspeakable comfort "to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ." While I agree that a feeling of Christ working in us is a part of our life in Christ, it seems that this article is teaching this to be the primary way of our knowing ourselves to be Christians. Granting my interpretation to be correct (which it may well not be) I think this is a mistake. We can deceive ourselves into thinking we are having feelings of Christ working in us in a particular way when He may be working in a way directly opposed to our feelings. We can also experience an absence of Christ's presence in our lives, maybe for long stretches of time. Are we then not Christians? Hardly. Our experience never determines the reality of God's promises. When God says, "You are forgiven" then you are. End of story. You may not feel forgiven. You don't need to. You only need to believe the promise of God that all who believe will be saved. Our only certainty lies in the promise of God in Jesus Christ--which article XVIII teaches very well.

Yours in Christ,
Jerome

 

Jerome...

Thank you for your comments on the XI and XVII Articles, particularly with your "uncomfortable" paragraph on Article XVII. Your comments added much to my understanding of these two articles.

In the uncomfortable paragraph, you made the following statement:

We can deceive ourselves into thinking we are having feelings of Christ working in us in a particular way when He may be working in a way directly opposed to our feelings.​

​

Can you speak further to this?

Thank you.

...Scottish Monk

 

By that I just meant that our feelings can never measure or determine whether or not Christ is working in us. For example, I might "feel" that Christ is working in me to do some good work, and I may be very proud of myself at that moment. But Christ is not working to make me "feel" His presence for the certainty of my godliness and salvation. Rather, He is working in me for the benefit of my neighbor, who needs my good works, as well as for my eventual recognition and repentance of my arrogance at thinking how great a saint I must be to be helping sinners in need.

In the end, the only assurance we have of our salvation is the promise of God in Christ that our sins are forgiven by His blood and cross.

Yours in Christ,
Jerome

 

Jerome...

Thank you very much for your reply. I look forward to future discussions with you.

...Scottish Monk

 

Thank you, Scottish Monk. I look forward to our future discussions as well.

Yours in Christ,
Jerome

 

Certainly not. If you believe this, and you also believe that Luther was right about justification, then there was no true Church before Luther (or, if you like, between about 100 and Luther--I myself don't see Luther's doctrine in the NT or the Apostolic Fathers, but that's a separate point). That would make nonsense of Anglicanism. Hooker got around it by saying that errors on justification were heresy "by consequence" and not directly (he also probably exaggerated the extent to which the Fathers agreed with the Protestant position on justification.) But I think that falls short of the "stands or falls" view.

I see little if any basis in Scripture for the "forensic declaration" view. It strikes me as an overly clever, unnecessary elaboration of the Scriptural/traditional teaching. If you must have a forensic declaration, and limit it to a declaration that our sins are forgiven, then I have no quarrel with that--what I object to is the idea that Jesus' righteousness is positively imputed, which strikes me as downright un-Scriptural and tending to distort soteriology in various ways. It goes along with the even more problematic view that God imputed our sins to Jesus on the Cross.

I do not think that one particular view of justification can be held up as canonical at this point in the history of the Church. If (which may God grant) there is a widespread level of reunification between the heirs of the Reformation, the churches in communion with Rome, and the Eastern churches, I think that an adequate doctrine of justification will emerge. In the meanwhile, the Lutheran/RC Joint Declaration is probably as good as we have.Theologically, I think the "Finnish interpretation of Luther" is highly promising (though it has some problems as a historical interpretation of Luther).

Any orthodox soteriology will stress internal transformation and mystical union with Christ, while stressing that this is the work of God's grace.

If you are saying that forensic imputation and/or the exclusion of inner transformation as a basis for our acceptance by God in any way (even at the final judgment) is central to the existence of the Church, then, again, you are left with no church before Luther. This is a destructively schismatic view which, to my mind, makes Christianity completely unbelievable.

Edwin

 

So what's the point of the gift of the Holy Spirit?

What's the point of being united to Christ as members to a head, if His life does not transform us into His likeness?

And what on earth do you make of the passages in Scripture speaking of "following Christ," being "conformed to his death," being "fashioned like his glorious body"?