The Doctrine of Justification by Faith

[dms1972]

My question would not likely have come up if only one form of the doctrine was known to me, but as it happens I read a lot, and have come across at least a couple of explications, which is making me compare them. One form of the doctrine (in Karl Barth's Dogmatics) leads me to question the understanding I had of the doctrine of Justification by Faith.

I also want to ask about the place of doctrine, or the role of doctrine in salvation. This I might need answered first, before talking about the form of the doctrine. Paul tells Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine closely:

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16

I have heard it said, and read it in articles online that doctrine doesn't save, we are not to put faith in doctrine. But as I understand it doctrines such as that of Justification by Faith should point us beyond the doctrine. So in a sense can we be saved without a correct form of the doctrine, one that points to Christ? The doctrine itself doesn't save, but it should point us to were salvation can be found. So we need the doctrine even though it doesn't in itself save. Does that make sense?

I come then to the form of the doctrine, or the explication of the doctrine. I'd like to quote from Barth, this is how he explains it in his Dogmatics:

"Justification by faith" cannot mean that instead of his customary evil works and in place of all kinds of supposed goods work man chooses and accomplishes the work of faith, in this way pardoning and therefore justifying himself. As his action, the action of sinful man, faith cannot do this. Nor does it make any odds whether a man means by faith a mere knowledge and intellectual understanding of the divine work and judgement and revelation and pardon (notitia), or an assent of the mind and will to it, the acceptance as true of that which is proclaimed as the truth of this work of God (assensus), or finally a heart's trust in the significance of this work for him (fiducia). It is not in and with all this that a man justifies himself, that he pardons himself, that he sets himself in that transition from wrong to right, from death to life, that he makes himself the subject of that history, the history of redemption. There is always something wrong and misleading when the faith of a man is referred to as his way of salvation in contrast to his way in the supposed good works of false faith and superstition. Faith is not an alternative to these other ways. It is not the way which - another Hercules at the crossroads - man can equally well choose and enter, which he can choose and enter by the same capacity by which he might go any other way. Even in the action of faith he is the sinful man who as such is not in a position to justify himself, who with every attempt to justify himself can only become the more deeply entangled in his sin. He is awakened and called to will and achieve this by the work of God (otherwise he certainly will not do it). But so far as it is his own - as it must be - even in his faith he confirms and repeats himself. Even as a believer he can represent himself to God only as the one he is in virtue of his past, only with the request "God be merciful to me, a sinner."

I'll end the quote there, though there is much more Barth writes on this subject.

In many ways I have been looking at it in the manner of ok - first I fill my mind with knowledge of the doctrine, then I assent to it as being true, then I trust with my heart - in other words: Notitia, Assensus, Fiducia.

Barth disagrees with trying to do this on one's own, trying to give oneself faith. But I think that is how it is at times explained to people seeking to become Christians? I am not sure how else to come to faith except by bringing propositions or scripture before my mind. So I'd begin with something like "There is a God, and He is Holy." I'd try and make that real to myself, and then go on from there. Am I trying to save myself?

 

[Jonaitis]

I am probably reading this wrong, but Barth sounds to me like he saying that faith itself is not the object that leads to justification. We certainly can properly understand the salvific content, assent by conviction of its truth, and then rest our trust upon it, but even then it is God who must impute the righteousness of Christ to us. He seems to end that quote you had with the idea that faith, after the supernatural work of God in us to believe, is then at the mercy of God to justify and pardon.

This then places notitia, assensus, fiducia as incomplete (although does not stay incomplete) until that transaction actually takes place, but of course, even all three of these aspects must be embraced together by the sole grace of God working in us. It all happens simultaneously.

 

[mark kennedy]

My question would not likely have come up if only one form of the doctrine was known to me, but as it happens I read a lot, and have come across at least a couple of explications, which is making me compare them. One form of the doctrine (in Karl Barth's Dogmatics) leads me to question the understanding I had of the doctrine of Justification by Faith.

I also want to ask about the place of doctrine, or the role of doctrine in salvation. This I might need answered first, before talking about the form of the doctrine. Paul tells Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine closely:

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16

I have heard it said, and read it in articles online that doctrine doesn't save, we are not to put faith in doctrine. But as I understand it doctrines such as that of Justification by Faith should point us beyond the doctrine. So in a sense can we be saved without a correct form of the doctrine, one that points to Christ? The doctrine itself doesn't save, but it should point us to were salvation can be found. So we need the doctrine even though it doesn't in itself save. Does that make sense?

I come then to the form of the doctrine, or the explication of the doctrine. I'd like to quote from Barth, this is how he explains it in his Dogmatics:

"Justification by faith" cannot mean that instead of his customary evil works and in place of all kinds of supposed goods work man chooses and accomplishes the work of faith, in this way pardoning and therefore justifying himself. As his action, the action of sinful man, faith cannot do this. Nor does it make any odds whether a man means by faith a mere knowledge and intellectual understanding of the divine work and judgement and revelation and pardon (notitia), or an assent of the mind and will to it, the acceptance as true of that which is proclaimed as the truth of this work of God (assensus), or finally a heart's trust in the significance of this work for him (fiducia). It is not in and with all this that a man justifies himself, that he pardons himself, that he sets himself in that transition from wrong to right, from death to life, that he makes himself the subject of that history, the history of redemption. There is always something wrong and misleading when the faith of a man is referred to as his way of salvation in contrast to his way in the supposed good works of false faith and superstition. Faith is not an alternative to these other ways. It is not the way which - another Hercules at the crossroads - man can equally well choose and enter, which he can choose and enter by the same capacity by which he might go any other way. Even in the action of faith he is the sinful man who as such is not in a position to justify himself, who with every attempt to justify himself can only become the more deeply entangled in his sin. He is awakened and called to will and achieve this by the work of God (otherwise he certainly will not do it). But so far as it is his own - as it must be - even in his faith he confirms and repeats himself. Even as a believer he can represent himself to God only as the one he is in virtue of his past, only with the request "God be merciful to me, a sinner."

I'll end the quote there, though there is much more Barth writes on this subject.

In many ways I have been looking at it in the manner of ok - first I fill my mind with knowledge of the doctrine, then I assent to it as being true, then I trust with my heart - in other words: Notitia, Assensus, Fiducia.

Barth disagrees with trying to do this on one's own, trying to give oneself faith. But I think that is how it is at times explained to people seeking to become Christians? I am not sure how else to come to faith except by bringing propositions or scripture before my mind. So I'd begin with something like "There is a God, and He is Holy." I'd try and make that real to myself, and then go on from there. Am I trying to save myself?

That's a pretty esoteric explanation of the complexities of saving faith, well articulated but pretty consistent with the Scriptures. I found these cursory definitions for the terms you like:

Notitia. Notitia refers to the content of faith, or those things that we believe. We place our faith in something, or more appropriately, someone. In order to believe, we must know something about that someone, who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Assensus. Assensus is our conviction that the content of our faith is true. You can know about the Christian faith and yet believe that it is not true. Genuine faith says that the content — the notitia taught by Holy Scripture — is true.

Fiducia. Fiducia refers to personal trust and reliance. Knowing and believing the content of the Christian faith is not enough, for even demons can do that (James 2:19). Faith is only effectual if, knowing about and assenting to the claims of Jesus, one personally trusts in Him alone for salvation. (Faith Defined. Ligonier.org)
​

Content, conviction and personal trust seems to sum it up nicely.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I am probably reading this wrong, but Barth sounds to me like he saying that faith itself is not the object that leads to justification. We certainly can properly understand the salvific content, assent by conviction of its truth, and then rest our trust upon it, but even then it is God who must impute it to us. He seems to end that quote you had with the idea that faith, after the supernatural work of God in us to believe, is then at the mercy of God to justify.

This then places notitia, assensus, fiducia as incomplete until that transaction actually takes place, but of course, even all three of these aspects must be embraced together by the sole grace of God working in us.

Help me out here?

Barth seems to be trying to avoid the normal trappings of faith being by a persons efforts, it's an easy hazard to fall into and a hard one to escape. You first of all have to understand the message, then embrace it as true, then there is the matter of taking it to heart. The formal name for the doctrine has always been justification by grace through faith, understood to be apart from works or any personal merit. Saving faith is a miracle in the heart of the believer, as much a gift of grace as any other part of salvation. Barth went to the trouble of identifying three parts of the same thing, theologians often do this. They also create an intellectual distinction between justification and sanctification when it's clear from Scripture that justification initiates the sanctification process, there is no real separation there. Some interesting semantics worthy of note.

 

[dms1972]

I am probably reading this wrong, but Barth sounds to me like he saying that faith itself is not the object that leads to justification. We certainly can properly understand the salvific content, assent by conviction of its truth, and then rest our trust upon it, but even then it is God who must impute the righteousness of Christ to us. He seems to end that quote you had with the idea that faith, after the supernatural work of God in us to believe, is then at the mercy of God to justify and pardon.

This then places notitia, assensus, fiducia as incomplete (although does not stay incomplete) until that transaction actually takes place, but of course, even all three of these aspects must be embraced together by the sole grace of God working in us. It all happens simultaneously.

No I think you are reading it right in that faith is not the object. I think there are other differences between Barth and Reformed Theology in his doctrine of election which might cast his understanding of faith into a different light, but I do think to some extent and at face value he overlaps with it. Maybe he would say the doctrine might be better titled Justification by God? 'Justification by Faith' is very shorthand. More fully it would be I think: Justification by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I am also trying to understand whether the criticism of Barth that his understanding of faith, is faith in faith is fair. Schaeffer, Van Til and co. charge the New Theology (in which they include Barth) with 'semantic mysticism' which means neo-orthodoxy just has the word God, and that the neo-orthodox are no different from secular existentialists (who believe there is no God there to speak) in their view of reality.

I still feel I am to some extent placing my faith in a doctrine or understanding, or looking for an explication of the doctrine I can place confidence in.

 

[dms1972]

Barth seems to be trying to avoid the normal trappings of faith being by a persons efforts, it's an easy hazard to fall into and a hard one to escape. You first of all have to understand the message, then embrace it as true, then there is the matter of taking it to heart. The formal name for the doctrine has always been justification by grace through faith, understood to be apart from works or any personal merit. Saving faith is a miracle in the heart of the believer, as much a gift of grace as any other part of salvation. Barth went to the trouble of identifying three parts of the same thing, theologians often do this. They also create an intellectual distinction between justification and sanctification when it's clear from Scripture that justification initiates the sanctification process, there is no real separation there. Some interesting semantics worthy of note.

Thanks for your comments. Some would say its Regeneration that begins the process of sanctification (or is the beginning of sanctification). But I do agree justification and sanctification are linked.

 

[Jonaitis]

No I think you are reading it right in that faith is not the object. I think there are other differences between Barth and Reformed Theology in his doctrine of election which might cast his understanding of faith into a different light, but I do think to some extent and at face value he overlaps with it. Maybe he would say the doctrine might be better titled Justification by God? 'Justification by Faith' is very shorthand. More fully it would be I think: Justification by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I still feel I am to some extent placing my faith in a doctrine, or looking for an explication of the doctrine I can place confidence in.

Historically and theologically speaking, justification by faith has always saw Christ as the object, while faith is the instrument. By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I wouldn't play down the name just because some have distorted the meaning of it (which Barth may be addressing). I've seriously met people who believe that faith, as a work, is what justified them. Since they don't see it as a work of the law, they conclude that it must be what justifies a person. This is faulty.

 

[Jonaitis]

Barth seems to be trying to avoid the normal trappings of faith being by a persons efforts, it's an easy hazard to fall into and a hard one to escape. You first of all have to understand the message, then embrace it as true, then there is the matter of taking it to heart. The formal name for the doctrine has always been justification by grace through faith, understood to be apart from works or any personal merit. Saving faith is a miracle in the heart of the believer, as much a gift of grace as any other part of salvation. Barth went to the trouble of identifying three parts of the same thing, theologians often do this. They also create an intellectual distinction between justification and sanctification when it's clear from Scripture that justification initiates the sanctification process, there is no real separation there. Some interesting semantics worthy of note.

Well, there is the danger of calling "faith" the object of justification. It turns faith into a work, instead of a gift, whereby a person is rewarded for that work. They distort the words of the apostle Paul when he speaks of faith justifies, and build a doctrine on it foreign to the text.

I do believe each part of faith described here which aren't all identical, in my personal opinion. They are helpful in explaining passages on apostasy. Augustine used this same language too somewhere.

 

[dms1972]

Historically and theologically speaking, justification by faith has always saw Christ as the object, while faith is the instrument. By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I wouldn't play down the name just because some have distorted the meaning of it (which Barth may be addressing). I've seriously met people who believe that faith, as a work, is what justified them. Since they don't see it as a work of the law, they conclude that it must be what justifies a person. This is faulty.

This whole issue of justification I have been unsure about since a kid, though at times I have forced myself to look right out of myself to Christ - but I am still not sure I am there - if I have really cast myself upon Christ.

I can recall when perhaps 7 or 8 years old being invited to the house of our minster, we were out in the garden, other kids were there playing carefree, meanwhile my focus was on myself and once again wondering was I justified?
On that occasion I thought I'd risk it and ask the minister right out. He was Calvinist/Presbyterian. So I asked him "am I justified?" I think he was taken aback by my asking, and he neither affirmed I was, or not denied I wasn't. Maybe its an impossible question for a minister to answer?

Some of my uncertainty must surely be to do with having a more existentialist take on Christianity?

 

[dms1972]

Here is more of what Barth says on it...

"Faith... is wholly and utterly humility. To put it negatively, it takes place in faith that man's affirmation and approval of his pride, his satisfaction with it, is completely destroyed. Not that he will finally amend himself in faith. It is the sinful man, the proud man, who believes. But in believing he has nothing more to do with his pride, with himself as the proud man he is. He has no further use for himself as such. And therefore he has no use - primarily and finally - for any kind of pride of faith... Faith is the abdication of vain-glorious man from his vain-glory. We do not say, his liberation from it, its defeat and destruction. It would be the supreme triumph of vain-glorious man if he could just control his vain-glory, exercising it one minute and then suddenly or gradually shaking it off like snow on his hat. That would be the new pride in which man would only show that he has not yet begun to believe. No, even in the believer we have to do with very vain-glorious man. The only thing is that - although he still exercises vain-glory - he has acquired a distaste, a radical and total distaste for it..."

 

[dms1972]

In spite of similiarities with reformed theology, I still think there is something going on in Barth's theology even when it appears to be orthodox. I don't quite understand what, but it just leaves a totally different impression on me, than other reformed theologies. Maybe its the dialectical method he uses?

 

[JM]

 

[dms1972]

So can I ask another question.

Good works cannot save, or please God, but God still require us to do them before we come to faith in Christ? Is that correct?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I also want to ask about the place of doctrine, or the role of doctrine in salvation. This I might need answered first, before talking about the form of the doctrine. Paul tells Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine closely:

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16

I have heard it said, and read it in articles online that doctrine doesn't save, we are not to put faith in doctrine. But as I understand it doctrines such as that of Justification by Faith should point us beyond the doctrine. So in a sense can we be saved without a correct form of the doctrine, one that points to Christ? The doctrine itself doesn't save, but it should point us to were salvation can be found. So we need the doctrine even though it doesn't in itself save. Does that make sense?

Hey brother, I thought this quote from Francis Turrentin to be an outstanding answer (especially the first paragraph the text emboldened by me) to your question. I do not want to hijack your thread, but would like to share from a number of sources on the topic, if it's okay with you?

SIXTEENTH TOPIC

JUSTIFICATION

FIRST QUESTION

Is the word “justification” always used in a forensic sense in this argument; or is it also used in a moral and physical sense? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Romanists
​

I. As in the chain of salvation justification follows calling (Rom. 8:30) and is everywhere set forth as the primary effect of faith, the topic concerning calling and faith begets the topic concerning justification. This must be handled with the greater care and accuracy as this saving doctrine is of the greatest importance in religion. It is called by Luther “the article of a standing and a falling church” (Articulus stantis, et cadentis Ecclesiae). By other Christians, it is termed the characteristic and basis of Christianity—not without reason—the principal rampart of the Christian religion. This being adulterated or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other places. Hence Satan in every way has endeavored to corrupt this doctrine in all ages, as has been done especially in the papacy. For this reason, it is deservedly placed among the primary causes of our secession from the Roman church and of the Reformation.

II. However, although some of the more candid Romanists (conquered by the force of the truth) have felt and expressed themselves more soundly than others concerning this article (nor are there wanting also some among other divines who, influenced by a desire to lessen controversies, think there is not so great matter for dispute about it and that there are here not a few logomachies), still it is certain that up to this time there are between us and the Romanists in this argument controversies not only verbal, but real and many which are of great importance (as will be made manifest in what follows).

III. From a false and preposterous explanation of the word, the truth of the thing itself has been wonderfully obscured. In the first place, its genuine sense (and in this question most especially) must be unfolded. This being settled, we will be able the more easily to reach the nature of the thing itself.

Homonyms of the verb justificare.

IV. The word htsdyq, to which the Greek dikaioun answers and the Latin justificare, is used in two ways in the Scriptures—properly and improperly. Properly the verb is forensic, put for “to absolve” anyone in a trial or “to hold” and to declare “just”; as opposed to the verb “to condemn” and “to accuse” (Ex. 23:7; Dt. 25:1; Prov. 17:15; Lk. 18:14; Rom. 3–5). Thus apart from a trial, it is used to acknowledge and to praise one as just and that too either deservedly (as when it is terminated on God, in which way men are said to justify God when they celebrate him as just [Ps. 51:4]; “wisdom” is said to be “justified of her children” [Mt. 11:19*; Lk. 7:35], i.e., acknowledged and celebrated as such); or presumptuously ([doxastōs] as the Pharisees are said to justify themselves, Lk. 16:15). Improperly it is used either ministerially, for to bring to righteousness (Dan. 12:3 where mtsdyqy seems to be exegetical of [exēgētikon tou] mskylym because while the preachers of the gospel instruct and teach believers, by this very thing they justify them ministerially [to wit, by teaching them the true way in which they can be justified] in the same sense in which they are said to save them, 1 Tim. 4:16). Or by way of synecdoche (the antecedent being put for the consequent) for “to free”; “he that is dead is justified from sin” (Rom. 6:7), i.e., freed. Or comparatively, where on account of a comparison between the sins of Israel and Samaria, Israel is said “to justify Samaria” (Ezk. 16:51, 52) and the sins of Judah increasing, Judah is said “to have justified Israel” (Jer. 3:11) because Israel was more just than Judah (i.e., her sins were fewer than the sins of Judah).

Statement of the question.

V. Hence arises the question with the Romanists concerning the acceptation of this word—whether it is to be taken precisely in a forensic sense in this affair; or whether it ought also to be taken in a physical and moral sense for the infusion of righteousness and justification, if it is allowable (so to speak) either by the acquisition or the increase of it. For they do not deny that the word jusfiticatio and the verb justificare are often taken in a forensic sense, even in this matter, as Bellarmine (“De Justificatione,” 1.1 Opera [1858], 4:461–62), Tirinus (Theologiae elenchticae … controversarium fidei, Cont. 15, number 1 [1648], pp. 217–21) and Toletus (Commentarii et annotationes in epistolam … ad Romanos, Annot. 13 [1602], pp. 117–22) and not a few others. Yet they do not wish this to be the constant meaning, but that it often signifies a true production, acquisition or increase of righteousness; this is especially the case when employed about the justification of man before God. Hence they distinguish justification into “first and second.” The first is that by which the man who is unjust is made just; the second is that by which a just man is made more just. Hence Bellarmine says: “Justification undoubtedly is a certain movement from sin to righteousness, and takes its name from the terminus to which it leads, as all other similar motions, illumination, calefaction; that is true justification, where some righteousness is aquired beyond the remission of sin.” Thomas Aquinas says, “Justification taken passively implies a motion to making righteous, just as calefaction a motion to heat” (ST, I–II, Q. 113, Art. 1, p. 1144). Now although we do not deny that this word has more than one signification and is taken in different ways in the Scriptures (now properly, then improperly, as we have already said), still we maintain that it is never taken for an infusion of righteousness, but as often as the Scriptures speak professedly about our justification, it always must be explained as a forensic term.

Proof that the word “justification” is forensic.

VI. The reasons are: (1) the passages which treat of justification admit no other than a forensic sense (cf. Job 9:3; Ps. 143:2; Rom. 3:28; 4:1–3; Acts 13:39 and elsewhere). A judicial process is set forth and mention is made of an accusing “law,” of “accused persons” who are guilty (hypodikoi, Rom. 3:19), of a “hand-writing” contrary to us (Col. 2:14), of divine “justice” demanding punishment (Rom. 3:24, 26), of an “advocate” pleading the cause (1 Jn. 2:1), of “satisfaction” and imputed righteousness (Rom. 4 and 5), of a “throne of grace” before which we are absolved (Heb. 4:16), of a “judge” pronouncing sentence (Rom. 3:20) and absolving sinners (Rom. 4:5).

VII. (2) Justification is opposed to condemnation: “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?” (Rom. 8:33, 34*). As therefore accusation and condemnation occur only in a trial, so also justification. Nor can it be conceived how God can be said to condemn or to justify, unless either by adjudging to punishment or absolving us from it judicially. Toletus is compelled to confess this on Rom. 8:33: “The word justification in this place is taken with that signification, which is opposed to its antithesis, namely, condemnation; so that it is the same in this place to justify as to pronounce just, as a judge by his sentence absolves and pronounces innocent” (Commentarii et annotationes in epistolam … ad Romanos [1602], p. 441 on Rom. 8:33). Cornelius a Lapide, who otherwise earnestly strives to obscure the truth, still overcome by the force of the truth, acknowledges that God justifies (i.e., absolves from the threatened action of sin and the Devil and pronounces just).

VIII. (3) The equivalent phrases by which our justification is described are judicial: such as “not to come into judgment” (Jn. 5:24), “not to be condemned” (Jn. 3:18), “to remit sins,” “to impute righteousness” (Rom. 4), “to be reconciled” (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19) and the like. (4) This word ought to be employed in the sense in which it was used by Paul in his disputation against the Jews. Yet it is certain that he did not speak there of an infusion of righteousness (viz., whether from faith or from the works of the law, the habit of righteousness should be infused into man), but how the sinner could stand before the judgment seat of God and obtain a right to life (whether by the works of the law, as the Jews imagined, or by faith in Christ). And since the thought concerning justification arose without doubt from a fear of divine judgment and of the wrath to come, it cannot be used in any other than a forensic sense (as it was used in the origin of those questions which were agitated in a former age upon the occasion of indulgences, satisfactions and remission of sins). (5) Finally, unless this word is taken in a forensic sense, it would be confounded with sanctification. But that these are distinct, both the nature of the thing and the voice of Scripture frequently prove.

Sources of explanation.

IX. Although the word “justification” in certain passages of Scripture should recede from its proper signification and be taken in another than a forensic sense, it would not follow that it is taken judicially by us falsely because the proper sense is to be looked to in those passages in which the foundation of this doctrine is formed. (2) Although perchance it should not be taken precisely in a forensic sense for “to pronounce just” and “to absolve in a trial,” still we maintain that it cannot be taken in a physical sense for the infusion of righteousness, as the Romanists hold (as is easily proved from the passages brought forward by Bellarmine himself).

X. In Is. 53:11, where it is said Christ “by his knowledge shall justify many,” it is manifest that reference is made to the meritorious and instrumental cause of our absolution with God (namely, Christ and the knowledge or belief of him). For the knowledge of Christ here ought not to be taken subjectively concerning the knowledge by which he knows what was agreed upon between himself and the Father (which has nothing to do with our justification); but objectively concerning that knowledge by which he is known by his people unto salvation (which is nothing else than faith, to which justification is everywhere ascribed). The following words show that no other sense is to be sought when it is added “for he shall bear their iniquities.” This denotes the satisfaction of Christ, which faith ought to embrace in order that we may be justified.

XI. Nor does the passage in Dan. 12:3 press us. As we have already said, justification is ascribed to the ministers of the gospel, as elsewhere the salvation of believers is ascribed to them (1 Tim. 4:16; 1 Cor. 9:22). Not assuredly by an infusion of habitual righteousness (which does not come within their power), but by the instruction of believers by which, as they open the way of life, so they teach the mode by which sinners can obtain justification in Christ by faith. Hence the Vulgate does not translate it justificantes, but erudientes ad justitiam.

XII. “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still” (Rev. 22:11) does not favor our opponents so as to denote an infusion or increase of righteousness. Thus it would be tautological (tautologia) with the following words, “He that is holy, let him be holy still,” because justification would not differ from sanctification. But it is best to refer it to the application and sense of justification; for although on the part of God justification does not take place successively, still on our part it is apprehended by us by varied and repeated actions, while by new acts of faith we apply to ourselves from time to time the merit of Christ as a remedy for the daily sins into which we fall. Nay, although it should be granted that the exercise of righteousness is here meant (as in a manuscript we have dikaiosynēn poiēsatō) that it may be opposed to the preceding words—“He that is unjust, let him be more unjust”—the opinion of the Romanists will not on that account be established.

XIII. “The justification of the wicked” of which Paul speaks (Rom. 4:5), ought not to be referred to an infusion or increase of habitual righteousness, but belongs to the remission of sins (as it is explained by the apostle from David). Nay, it would not be a justification of the wicked, if it were used in any other sense than for a judicial absolution at the throne of grace. I confess that God in declaring just ought also for that very reason to make just so that his judgment may be according to truth. But man can be made just in two ways: either in himself or in another; either from the law or from the gospel. God therefore makes him just whom he justifies; not in himself, as if from a sight of his inherent righteousness he declared him just, but from the view of the righteousness imputed—in Christ. It is indeed an abomination to Jehovah to justify the wicked without a due satisfaction, but God in this sense justifies no wicked one (Christ having been given to us as a surety who received upon himself the punishment we deserved).

XIV. Although certain words of the same order with justification denote an effecting in the subject, there is not the same reason for this, which otherwise barbarously has been received into Latinity to express the force of htsdyq and dikaioun (neither of which admit a physical sense). Thus we magnify and justify God, not by making him great from small or just from unjust, but only declaratively celebrating him as such.

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. (Vol. 2, pp. 633–636).​

This is the first of ten questions addressed by Turrentin, but for publisher reasons I cannot post them all here (hopefully this quote is considered short in contrast to the whole). I can post from other resources on the topic though. For example in Berkhof's Systematic he goes into a history of the doctrine of justification and so much more. Anyways Turrentin calls this doctrine a "saving doctrine" and "of the greatest importance" and it is indeed the foundation of the Reformation.

*Edited to add that I found a link to this same text I quoted on the Monergism site: Justification: Forensic or Moral?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So can I ask another question.

Good works cannot save, or please God, but God still require us to do them before we come to faith in Christ? Is that correct?

Well not really...while it's true our good works cannot save us...the good works of God do save us, the works of Christ, the works of God the Holy Spirit, those do save. In Scripture we read that without faith it is impossible to please God, which implies on the flip side with faith it is possible to please God. So works of faith can please God but are not the basis for salvation.

To the second part of the question, what do you mean by "but God still require us to do them before we come to faith"? I think explanation would be helpful here. I will try to be helpful though. Before we come to faith, that faith is dead to Christ and cannot please God, which means we do not come to faith, God the Father effectually draws us to faith. Nothing short of monergistic regeneration a supernatural rebirth can raise the dead faith to a living faith in Christ. Faith is a gracious and merciful gift and the transforming and renewing of it is a work of God alone. Good works may be thought of as the fruit of faith, the fruit of the Spirit. A good tree produces good fruit, a bad tree produces bad fruit. We were all bad trees before God transformed us into good trees to produce good fruit. Does this make sense? I hope so.

 

[JM]

Well not really...while it's true our good works cannot save us...the good works of God do save us, the works of Christ, the works of God the Holy Spirit, those do save. In Scripture we read that without faith it is impossible to please God, which implies on the flip side with faith it is possible to please God. So works of faith can please God but are not the basis for salvation.

To the second part of the question, what do you mean by "but God still require us to do them before we come to faith"? I think explanation would be helpful here. I will try to be helpful though. Before we come to faith, that faith is dead to Christ and cannot please God, which means we do not come to faith, God the Father effectually draws us to faith. Nothing short of monergistic regeneration a supernatural rebirth can raise the dead faith to a living faith in Christ. Faith is a gracious and merciful gift and the transforming and renewing of it is a work of God alone. Good works may be thought of as the fruit of faith, the fruit of the Spirit. A good tree produces good fruit, a bad tree produces bad fruit. We were all bad trees before God transformed us into good trees to produce good fruit. Does this make sense? I hope so.

That's right, Christ's active obedience is imputed to us through the instrumentality of faith, making Christ (literally) our righteousness. He paid the penalty for our sin but that's only half of it. Christ's perfect life is our righteousness.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That's right, Christ's active obedience is imputed to us through the instrumentality of faith, making Christ (literally) our righteousness. He paid the penalty for our sin but that's only half of it. Christ's perfect life is our righteousness.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

In spite of similiarities with reformed theology, I still think there is something going on in Barth's theology even when it appears to be orthodox. I don't quite understand what, but it just leaves a totally different impression on me, than other reformed theologies. Maybe its the dialectical method he uses?

You are correct, there is something going on, Barth is considered the "father" of Neo-Orthodoxy. Perhaps this is the something you sense?

For consideration, a few articles on my blog critiquing Barth.

1937. Karl Barth on Scripture.
1937. Karl Barth on Creation.
1937. Karl Barth and Historic Christianity.

This reminds me, I should put up more articles on Barth, but it depends on the source. The articles I have up are either available freely online from the source or I obtained permission. These three were originally published in The Presbyterian Guardian, the complete archives are freely available from 1935-1979 HERE.

 

[twin1954]

I am what Lynard Skynard’s mamma told him to be, a simple man.

A simple man’s understanding of justification through faith. I will start with Rom. 5:1, Therefore being justified, by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

You might notice that the comma is after justified rather than after faith as is usually translated. That is because there are no commas in Greek. I am convinced that the comma after justified is the proper place for it.

Now let’s consider how that changes our understanding of justification by faith.

First it us that faith does not justify but the object of our faith, Christ Jesus the Lord. It is Him and His work as both our substitute and as our Surety that pleases God and us in Him. Unless we are united to Christ by faith we cannot please God. That is why without faith it is impossible to please God. God is pleased with the Son. All who are in Him through faith, that is faith that rests in Him alone and causes us to walk by faith and not by sight, are pleasing to the Father. His righteousness is now my righteousness, His worksare now my works, His death is now my death, His holiness is now my holiness. All that God requires of the sinner is met in Christ alone. In Him by faith we have done all that He has done. The same law that condemned us in Adam now has no power to condemn. It must declare us righteous before the just and unbending Judge.

Not only are we not guilty but have never committed a single sin. Faith says that He is all I need and that He is all that God requires of me. He is enough.

Saving faith is a gift from God but He doesn’t believe for us. It it like a glass that is empty. It has absolutely nothing to do with being filled with water. It is completely passive in the filling. But faith is taking that glass filled with water and actively drinking from it.

God pours out upon us grace and by the foolishness of the preaching of the Gospel fills us as an empty glass with the blessing of regeneration and eyes that see ourselves as we truly are and God as He truly is. He conquers our old nature and sets up His throne in our heart. Christ in you is the hope of glory. Then after He does in us and for us what we could and would never do for ourselves we take that filled glass of grace and by faith make it a part of us.

That is what the Lords Supper is all about. It is a picture of faith in Christ. In it we see Him crucified and slain. We then take His broken body and His precious blood into ourselves and make them part of us.

The Gospel and justification through faith is as simple as that. Christ Jesus did what we could not and would not do. He graciously gives to us all that He accomplished. Faith simply says what else do I need.

 

[dms1972]

Hey brother, I thought this quote from Francis Turrentin to be an outstanding answer (especially the first paragraph the text emboldened by me) to your question. I do not want to hijack your thread, but would like to share from a number of sources on the topic, if it's okay with you?

Hi there, you are not hijacking the thread at all. I have only taken a brief glance at the Turretin article. I have wanted at times to get a copy of Enlentic theology. But a few weeks ago I bought a volume of Bavinck's Dogmatics - which I haven't yet studied. I need to stop reading so widely, at least till I become more grounded, because in my mind Luther, Barth and probably others are jostling with each other sometimes. I am going to read Real Presences by George Steiner however as hopefully an antidote to some of the postmodern thought I have been through. But I will take a better look at the full quote.

It's hard to remember but I think I may have been loaned a copy of Turretin many years ago for a short time.

Your mentioning him kind of ties in with my question about the role of doctrine. Didn't Turretin view doctrine as forming the cognitive structures of faith, or something like that?

To the second part of the question, what do you mean by "but God still require us to do them before we come to faith"? I think explanation would be helpful here. I will try to be helpful though. Before we come to faith, that faith is dead to Christ and cannot please God, which means we do not come to faith, God the Father effectually draws us to faith. Nothing short of monergistic regeneration a supernatural rebirth can raise the dead faith to a living faith in Christ. Faith is a gracious and merciful gift and the transforming and renewing of it is a work of God alone. Good works may be thought of as the fruit of faith, the fruit of the Spirit. A good tree produces good fruit, a bad tree produces bad fruit. We were all bad trees before God transformed us into good trees to produce good fruit. Does this make sense? I hope so.

Well what I mean is this - one is told you cannot save yourself, and we can pray and admit that as a child if we have been brought up christian, but until one really makes an attempt at practicing virtue we don't really know experientially how difficult it is. And as a child virtue is little more than saying please and thankyou. We need to learn / become convinced in experience of our inability rather than just repeating TULIP. So 'good works' done during this time are not meritorious but we need to attempt them so we can see we cannot perform them consistently or always from good motives, then we see our need of Christ. 'Good works' done before conversion are not meritorious or holy, but the world would be much worse if people only done evil works.

I am really wondering about regeneration, because I do think some theologies abstract these events considerable, also because it is so often described as something within us in evangelical churches. But is the new birth not also about coming into a new creation? In CS Lewis's That Hideous Strength, there is a scene in which one of the characters seems to have been born again.

"There was no form nor sound. The mould under the bushes, the moss on the path, and the little brick border, were not visibly changed. But they were changed. A boundary had been crossed, she had come into a world, or into a Person, or into the presence of a Person. Something expectant, patient, inexorable, met her with no veil or protection between....In this height and depth and breadth the little idea of herself which she had hitherto called me dropped down and vanished, unfluttering, into bottomless distance, like a bird in a space without air. The name me was the name of a being whose existence she had never suspected, a being that did not yet fully exist but which was demanded. It was a person (not the person she had thought), yet also a thing, a made thing, made to please Another and in Him to please all others, a thing being made at this very moment, without its choice, in a shape it had never dreamed of. And the making went on amidst a kind of splendour or sorrow or both, whereof she could not tell whether it was in the moulding hands or in the kneaded lump."



Please don't think I am knocking systematic theology, but I am not sure it always reflects christian experience.

Thanks for your comments. I hope we can talk more about these things.