Vermigli and two justifications?

Status
Not open for further replies.

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
So I read somewhere in passing that Vermigli posites two justifications, one termed habitus and the other forensic? Is that true? This same author also says that evidently unlike the Lutherans, the Reformed had many justifications or stages of justification.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
As for Vermigli, I do not possess his volume on justification. The normal Reformed view, however, is that justification has four stages (only one of which marks the transition from wrath to grace in the life of a believer). Justification is 1. planned in the decree, 2. accomplished in principle at the cross, 3. accomplished in God's courtroom at the time point of faith, and 4. shown to be genuine at the final judgment. Only the third of those actually marks the transition from wrath to grace for the believer. None of the other stages are ever interpreted to imply any incompleteness of the judicial sentence pronounced in the third stage. There are no degrees of being declared innocent and righteous. The fourth stage has to be interpreted correctly. It is not a further stage of declared innocence or righteousness. Rather, it is God showing the world that stage 3 for a given Christian was a true declaration, by showing the world the works that inevitably proceed from stage 3.
 

Guido's Brother

Puritan Board Junior
As for Vermigli, I do not possess his volume on justification. The normal Reformed view, however, is that justification has four stages (only one of which marks the transition from wrath to grace in the life of a believer). Justification is 1. planned in the decree, 2. accomplished in principle at the cross, 3. accomplished in God's courtroom at the time point of faith, and 4. shown to be genuine at the final judgment. Only the third of those actually marks the transition from wrath to grace for the believer. None of the other stages are ever interpreted to imply any incompleteness of the judicial sentence pronounced in the third stage. There are no degrees of being declared innocent and righteous. The fourth stage has to be interpreted correctly. It is not a further stage of declared innocence or righteousness. Rather, it is God showing the world that stage 3 for a given Christian was a true declaration, by showing the world the works that inevitably proceed from stage 3.
Lane, that is so well-expressed. Could you point me to a source or two for that view in Reformed theology? It would be helpful for future reference.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
Westminster Divine Anthony Burgess list a number schemes of justification in his lectures on the matter, including Vermigli's. Vermigli's doctrine is orthodox, but I think it confuses the matter to call anything habitual justification, since we ordinarily call that sanctification. Vermigli was well studied in the fathers, some of whom take justification to mean the infusion of righteousness (e.g. Augustine), so his formulation gave him a way to both affirm the protestant doctrine of justification and avoid conflict with Augustine's formulation. As for what Lane says, I think that's more characteristic of the independents, like Owen, than the presbyterians, who did not fancy so-called eternal justification. But both positions are orthodox though as long as only actual justification is understood to reconcile one to God.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Charlie, I actually disagree with eternal justification, and my position was not stating a view of eternal justification. All I said was that justification is part of God's decree. Eternal justification states that in some way we are justified from all eternity. My claim is merely that God planned justification from all eternity. Justification proper only happens at the time point of faith. What I am trying to get across, though, is that there are other aspects of justification that happen at different times, or in eternity.

Wes, my view is sort of an amalgamation of Owen, Buchanan, Fesko, Pemble, Edwards, Vos, Calvin, and Turretin.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
Charlie, I actually disagree with eternal justification, and my position was not stating a view of eternal justification. All I said was that justification is part of God's decree. Eternal justification states that in some way we are justified from all eternity. My claim is merely that God planned justification from all eternity. Justification proper only happens at the time point of faith. What I am trying to get across, though, is that there are other aspects of justification that happen at different times, or in eternity.

Wes, my view is sort of an amalgamation of Owen, Buchanan, Fesko, Pemble, Edwards, Vos, Calvin, and Turretin.
Right. I didn't mean to imply anything other than this.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Right. I didn't mean to imply anything other than this.
Ok, fair enough. But this sentence from your first post, "As for what Lane says, I think that's more characteristic of the independents, like Owen, than the presbyterians, who did not fancy so-called eternal justification," seems to suggest that my position aligns with eternal justification as propounded by the independents. If that is not what you meant, then you unfortunately confused this poor ole' blighter! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top