#4 Justification by Faith

The doctrine of justification by faith is the teaching that God pronounces sinners, who are believers, not guilty, based on what Christ has done. God counts our faith as righteousness, based on Christ.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Phi 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

This doctrine clearly teaches that the blessings Christ are applied to no one apart from faith. Those that have faith are justified, those that don’t are not.

Calvinists contend that Christ’s death saves those for whom He died. John Owens goes so far as to say Christ’s death immediately justifies those for whom He died. (see the first post on H.3.a of my tags)

From the doctrine of justification by faith I have a problem with this view. Christ death is provisional. It doesn’t immediately save. Rather it provides for salvation, and the blessings Christ obtained are applied to believers. I wasn’t born justified just because Christ has died for me. I was justified when I came to faith, based on what Christ has done. So Christ has died for people who are not yet forgiven. So we say Christ’s death has a provisional component. Again, the benefits of Christ death are not unconditionally applied to anyone and one could have his salvation provided for by Christ and not be saved. Calvinists only see the final aspects of Christ's work, but there are two parts: His death and justification. His death provides for salvation, justification saves.

Comments

TheoJunkie said…
Dan,

I do not regard you as a strawman builder, but this post is a strawman. For Calvinists believe firmly and without exception that one is not justified except through faith.

I haven't read Owen, and I'm not here to defend him. However, I would be willing to bet cash money that you have misunderstood what Owen was getting at.

Here's the deal (Calvinist perspective):
When Christ died, he became sin for the elect, and suffered the wrath of God for it.

However, this does not make the believer justified. The believer is justified only when he comes to faith, and God reckons the believer with the righteousness of Christ... even as he previously had reckoned His Son with the sin of the future believer.

So, Christ did accomplish something immediately-- that is, he incurred the full wrath of the Father on our behalf.

But the story is not complete, and the believer is not justified, until he finally comes to faith. Indeed, the believer remains at enmity with God until he comes to faith.
November 18, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear TJ,

I didn’t mean for this to be a straw man and I certainly am not saying that Reformed Theology denies justification by faith, if that’s what concerned you about my comments. Rather, I think that Calvinists can be inconsistent on this point. On the other hand, I have come across a small number of folks who would call themselves Calvinist, who when pressed with the argument above appeal to “eternal justification” to the extent that they openly deny justification by faith. But they are rare, and I would suspect you might be tempted to say they deviate from RT on that point.

As for Owens, I just think he was inconsistent.

Here’s a typical conversation I have had with a number of Calvinists, so perhaps you can see where I am coming from:

Calvinist: Did Christ’s death make men savable or actually save them?
Me: Do you mean just Christ’s death or His entire work?
Calvinist: just His death
Me: make them savable
Calvinists: Ah, you contradict Mt 1:21 and similar passages
Me: those include other aspects of Christ’s work, including intercession. If Christ’s death instantly justified, I was born justified. But we are justified through faith.


…………………………

About ½ of the Calvinists I have talked to: Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, so from God’s point of view those for whom Christ died were already saved.
Me: What about justification by faith?
These Calvinists: That’s man’s point of view, God’s ways are not our ways.
Me: Great googa booga

…………………………

Other ½ of the Calvinists I have talked with: God’s unchangeable purpose binds Christ’s work together
Me: I thought we were talking about just Christ’s death, which makes men savable. I know that Christ’s whole work actually saves. Even if what you say is true, my answer to your question is still correct. Care to rephrase it?

I hope you can see where I am coming from.

God bless,
Dan
November 19, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more