Differences on Justification

Status
Not open for further replies.

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Robert Traill, A vindication of the Protestant doctrine concerning justification, and of its preachers and professors, from the unjust charge of Antinomianism: in a letter from a minister in the city, to a minister in the country, 1692, pp. 7-8:

We seem to differ about the interest, and room, and place, that faith has in justification. That we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ is so plainly a New Testament truth that no man pretending however barely to the Christian name denies it. The Papists own it; and the Socinians, and Arminians, and all own it. But how different are their senses of it! And indeed you cannot more speedily and certainly judge of the spirit of a man than by his real inward sense of this phrase (if you could reach it), ‘A sinner is justified by faith in Jesus Christ.’ Some say that faith in Jesus Christ justifies as it is a work, by the act of believing; as if it came in the place of perfect obedience, required by the law. Some say that faith justifies as it is informed and animated by charity. This is the teaching of the Papists, who plainly confound justification and sanctification. Some say, that faith justifies as it is a fulfilling of the condition of the new covenant: If you believe you shall be saved. Nay, they will not stop there, but they will have this faith to justify as it has a principle and fitness in it to dispose to sincere obedience. The plain old Protestant doctrine is that the place of faith in justification is only that of a hand or instrument, receiving the righteousness of Christ, for the sake of which alone we are justified. So that, though great scholars do often confound themselves and others in their disputations about faith’s justifying a sinner, every poor plain believer has the marrow of this mystery feeding his heart; and he can readily tell you that to be justified by faith is to be justified by Christ’s righteousness, apprehended by faith.
 
The seeds of FV were even being dealt with 400 years ago, it seems.
"There is nothing new under the sun..." - Ecc.1:9

Blessings!
 
That quote succinctly summarizes why distinctions are necessary. Arminians (or various semi-Pelagians) will never admit that they are smuggling their own righteousness into the instrument of justification. Until I read Muller (and, more recently, Van Mastricth), I hadn't really wrestled with how many ways theological ideas are distorted by various theologies. One starts by thinking that it's minor differences where someone differs on a seemingly small point, but the error becomes more pronounced in other areas once fully examined. It's trite for many Christians to accuse Roman Catholics of a "works-based" salvation where Romae admits a need for grace that exceeds many erstwhile "Protestant" articulations that are unexamined. It's not to defend Rome per se but to note that many think that as long as I'm not doing ceremonies that look lie works, I'm not smuggling works into salvation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top