queenknitter
Puritan Board Freshman
This is a spin-off of KimG's saving-v-sanctifying grace thread. And I admit to creating a rather provocative title.
I was just reading Berkhof's section which surveys the views of justification. Here's what he says:
Okay. Maybe I'm over-simplifying this. But it seems to me, in general, all the non-Reformed positions are the same -- adding conditions or subjectivity or tentativeness to justification. Is that an accurate understanding of Berkhof?
So here's my real question. In the Arminian understanding of justification, it really just is your "ticket" into Heaven, right? If I'm understanding Berkhof, he's saying that this Arminian (and Neonomian) idea ignores/forgets Christ's active obedience, yes? Can you all explain that active/passive thing to me more?
See -- here's the deal. I think the theological misstep that BJU fundamentalists are making is not necessarily at the sanctification "step" but before that (so to speak). I think they are taking the guts out of justification too. They dismiss Galatians as applying to them because they think they can "check off" justification by faith alone on their orthodox list (and Paul was only talking about justification in Galatians, they claim), but they can't really do that either.
Maybe you all can see more clearly through all that than I am. Thots?
C
I was just reading Berkhof's section which surveys the views of justification. Here's what he says:
THE DOCTRINE AFTER THE REFORMATION. The doctrine of justification was the great material principle of the Reformation. With respect to the nature of justification the Reformers corrected the error of confounding justification with sanctification by stressing its legal character and representing it as an act of God's free grace, whereby He pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight, but does not change us inwardly. As far as the ground of justification is concerned, they rejected the idea of Rome that this lies, at least in part, in the inherent righteousness of the regenerate and in good works, and substituted for it the doctrine that it is found only in the imputed righteousness of the Redeemer. And in connection with the means of justification they emphasized the fact that man is justified freely by that faith which receives and rests in Christ only for salvation. Moreover, they rejected the doctrine of a progressive justification, and held that it was instantaneous and complete, and did not depend for its completion on some further satisfaction for sin. They were opposed by the Socinians, who held that sinners obtain pardon and acceptance with God, through His mercy, on the ground of their own repentance and reformation. The Arminians do not all agree on the subject, but in general it may be said that they limit the scope of justification, so as to include only the forgiveness of sins on the basis of the passive obedience of Christ, and to exclude the adoption of the sinner in favor by God or the basis of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. The sinner is accounted righteous only on the basis of his faith or his life of obedience. The Neonomians in England were in general agreement with them on this point. For Schleiermacher and Ritsehl justification meant little more than the sinner's becoming conscious of his mistake in thinking that God was angry with him. And in modern liberal theology we again meet with the idea that God justifies the sinner by the moral improvement of his life (512-513).
Okay. Maybe I'm over-simplifying this. But it seems to me, in general, all the non-Reformed positions are the same -- adding conditions or subjectivity or tentativeness to justification. Is that an accurate understanding of Berkhof?
So here's my real question. In the Arminian understanding of justification, it really just is your "ticket" into Heaven, right? If I'm understanding Berkhof, he's saying that this Arminian (and Neonomian) idea ignores/forgets Christ's active obedience, yes? Can you all explain that active/passive thing to me more?
See -- here's the deal. I think the theological misstep that BJU fundamentalists are making is not necessarily at the sanctification "step" but before that (so to speak). I think they are taking the guts out of justification too. They dismiss Galatians as applying to them because they think they can "check off" justification by faith alone on their orthodox list (and Paul was only talking about justification in Galatians, they claim), but they can't really do that either.
Maybe you all can see more clearly through all that than I am. Thots?
C