# Justification v Vindication



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 22, 2007)

On the HB

rsc


----------



## turmeric (Jun 22, 2007)

Excellent explanation.


----------



## raderag (Jun 22, 2007)

Well done, and just in time!


----------



## turmeric (Jun 22, 2007)

I have a question for Dr. Clark;
How is the Reformed view of the visible/invisible church distinct from Federal Vision? I know it _is_ different, but when I try to explain the difference, it doesn't _sound_ very different, so I'm reduced to stating the fact of God's imputation of Christ's righteousness, but then someone says something about faith without works being dead, and when I agree it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. Guess I'm not a good debater, but I think I don't understand the differences enough to explain it well.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 22, 2007)

turmeric said:


> I have a question for Dr. Clark;
> How is the Reformed view of the visible/invisible church distinct from Federal Vision? I know it _is_ different, but when I try to explain the difference, it doesn't _sound_ very different, so I'm reduced to stating the fact of God's imputation of Christ's righteousness, but then someone says something about faith without works being dead, and when I agree it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. Guess I'm not a good debater, but I think I don't understand the differences enough to explain it well.



I know it was for Dr. Clark, but let me offer a brief word. The FV proponents view the church today as unified - that is, there is only one church, no visible/invisible distinction at all. Today those who are baptized members of the church are the elect of God. If they persevere, then they will be "finally justified". If they don't, then, despite the fact that they were, in their view, truly united to Christ, sharing in all his benefits with every other baptized member, they truly apostatize - go from a state of salvation to a state of damnation; from election to 'un-election'; from justified to unjustified. The FV see only one church - visible/invisible/Body of Christ, all in one - at any one time. 

Traditional Reformed doctrine holds that the visible expression of the church is not one-to-one with the invisible, or true church. There are people in the church today who are NOT united to Christ, though they be baptized, professing church-going members. They would be the tares of the well-known parable. In traditional Reformed doctrine, there is a CLEAR distinction between those who participate in all Christ's benefits, being truly united to Him, and those who are only outward participants in the covenant. 

Stark contrast, and one with HUGE implications as to how you deal with the church as a leader.

OK, Scott. Now you can answer your own question 
Todd


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 22, 2007)

good answer!


----------



## brymaes (Jun 22, 2007)

Now I am not even close to FV, being a Baptist and all, but this is not true of at least one FV guy, namely Doug Wilson. Just read his chapter on the subject in RINE, and tell me that there is no distinction there.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 22, 2007)

I agree with Todd.

It's helpful to recognize that the FV fellows speak in a variety of ways.

Here's an account.

There is also this:







available from the Reformed fellowship but they don't have it on the site yet.

Here's a short answer:

The only place we know that Christ works savingly is in the visible church. Not everyone in the visible church, however, is either a believer or elect (i.e., one who is elect but who has not yet come to faith). The way we have historically spoken about the difference is the distinction between the visible and invisible church. The invisible church describes all the believers in all times and in all places, but the invisible church is ordinarily within the visible church.

Another way that Reformed folk have historically spoken is to distinguish between those who are in the covenant of grace externally (i.e., all the baptized) and those who are in the covenant of grace also internally, i.e., those who, by true faith, have possession of the benefits of Christ.

The FV tends to deny or muddy or redefine these distinctions. The consequence of denying the distinction is to say, as they do repeatedly, that every baptized person is in possession of the benefits of Christ temporariliy and conditionally. This is how they understand apostasy. There are "real" Christians, they say, who become apostate. They deny being Arminians because they confess a theoretical, parallel "election" that is unconditional. The problem is that they often conflate those two. When we point that out, we're accused of not allowing folk to think or speak in biblical terms. 

Perhaps the two pieces linked above will help.

rsc


----------



## turmeric (Jun 22, 2007)

Thanks!


----------



## raderag (Jun 22, 2007)

Great stuff, Dr. Clark.




R. Scott Clark said:


> I agree with Todd.
> 
> It's helpful to recognize that the FV fellows speak in a variety of ways.
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 23, 2007)

Dr. Clark,

I am no FVist but I thought that justification defined as "a divine declaration of righteousness" occurs in a four-fold way:

*1.* In eternity in the covenant made with Christ as our head;

*2.* In time at the cross in Christ our head;

*3.* In time and in our own person when we receive faith; and,

*4.* At the final judgment when we are declared righteous openly to all by God.



My supporting evidence is Thomas Goodwin in his _Objects and Acts of Justifying Faith_:

"1. In the everlasting covenant. We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ, what is said of Christ Himself, that their ‘goings forth are from everlasting.’ Justified then we were when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head (Eph. 1:3). 2. There is a farther act of justifying us, which passed from God towards us in Christ, upon His payment and performance at His resurrection (Rom. 4:25, 1 Tim. 3:16). 3. But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God, and though they concern us and are towards us, yet not acts of God upon us, they being performed towards us not as actually existing in ourselves, but only as existing in our Head, who covenanted for us and represented us: so as though by those acts we are estated into a right and title to justification, yet the benefit and possession of that estate we have not without a farther act being passed upon us." 

Hence Pink writes "Before regeneration we are justified by existing in our Head only, as a _feoffee_ (one who is given a grant), held in trust for us, as children under age." He then quotes Goodwin who says that we "are to be in our own persons, though still through Christ, possessed of it, and to have all the deeds and evidences of it committed to the custody and apprehension of our faith. We are in our own persons made true owners and enjoyers of it, which is immediately done at that instant when we first believe; which act (of God) is the completion and accomplishment of the former two, and is that grand and famous justification by faith which the Scripture so much inculcates—note the ‘now’ in Romans 5:9, 11; 8:11... God doth judge and pronounce His elect ungodly and unjustified till they believe".


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 23, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Dr. Clark,
> 
> I am no FVist but I thought that justification defined as "a divine declaration of righteousness" occurs in a four-fold way:
> 
> ...



Nothing wrong with this list, in which I think there is much merit - as long as the four are seen as a single piece, never to be separated... and part of the muddy waters of the FV is that the 4th one may or may not occur despite the 
fact that in time, a person was part of the church, properly (in their view) said to have justification and be truly united to Christ.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 23, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Nothing wrong with this list, in which I think there is much merit - as long as the four are seen as a single piece, never to be separated... and part of the muddy waters of the FV is that the 4th one may or may not occur despite the
> fact that in time, a person was part of the church, properly (in their view) said to have justification and be truly united to Christ.



Gotcha


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 23, 2007)

Richard,

That's just the point. The word justification isn't being used the same way in each of those instances.

Most Reformed orthodox deny eternal justification. See Berkhof on this.

Clearly justification at the judgment cannot mean the same thing as justification accomplished in time. It means vindication.

It would be clearer to speak of justification

1. Decreed (the cause)

2. Accomplished (the ground)

4. Applied 

4. Vindicated

When is a sinner actually justified? When it is applied, sola gratia, sola fide.

rsc




AV1611 said:


> Dr. Clark,
> 
> I am no FVist but I thought that justification defined as "a divine declaration of righteousness" occurs in a four-fold way:
> 
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 23, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Richard,
> 
> That's just the point. The word justification isn't being used the same way in each of those instances.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

The Westminster Confession very clearly denies eternal justification, as well as a subsequent, final justification:



> WCF 11:4 WCF 11.4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect;(1) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification2) nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.(3)
> 
> (1) Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 1:2,19,20; Rom. 8:30.
> (2) Gal. 4:4; Rom. 4:25.
> (3) Col. 1:21,22; Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:4-7.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 23, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Richard,
> 
> That's just the point. The word justification isn't being used the same way in each of those instances.
> 
> ...



Richard -

If you've got a copy of Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied, this list gets flushed out well, particularly the necessity of acknowledgment of the fact that ACTUAL justification is a declarative act in time, and that, as I mentioned earlier, there is no separation of these list elements from one another. That is if anyone has had step 1 done for them, all the rest follow, in their time. Truly, as Dr. Clark has pointed out (and Fred, too), the doctrinal concept of justification is most narrowly concerned with step 3 - the application, and constitutive act of God to constitute the sinner just. 

Get Murray's book - it's REALLY quite good.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 23, 2007)

A more complete reply on the HB


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 23, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Most Reformed orthodox deny eternal justification.



Dr Clark,

Would you then disagree with the _Conclusions of Utrecht_ of 1905 on this issue?

In regard to the second point, eternal justification, Synod declares:

that the term itself does not occur in the Confessional Standards but that it is not for this reason to be disapproved, any more than we would be justified in disapproving the term Covenant of Works and similar terms which have been adopted through theological usage;

that it is incorrect to say that our Confessional Standards know only of a justification by and through faith, since both Gods' Word (Rom. 4:25) and our Confession (Article XX) speak explicitly of an objective justification sealed by the resurrection of Christ, which in point of time precedes the subjective justification;

that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith. 

Wherefore Synod earnestly warns against any view that would do violence either to Christ's eternal suretyship for his elect, or to the requirement of a sincere faith to be justified before God in the tribunal of conscience.​


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 23, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> A more complete reply on the HB



I will take a look, thanks


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 23, 2007)

Yes generally. I might put a few things differently, but I think the Conclusions were generally wise.

rsc



AV1611 said:


> Dr Clark,
> 
> Would you then disagree with the _Conclusions of Utrecht_ of 1905 on this issue?
> 
> ...


----------

