Formal Cause of Justification
Owen was aware of diverse opinions, but he taught that the formal cause of justification was the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that includes “his whole obedience unto God.”63 Owen’s most famous theological opponent, Richard Baxter (1615–1691), in his Aphorisms of Justification, argued that the formal cause of justification was the faith of the believing individual, imputed or reputed as righteousness on account of the righteousness of Christ.64 Behind this doctrine, Baxter made a distinction between the old and new covenants. By this distinction he meant, essentially, the difference between the Old and New Testaments. This distinction is based upon Christ fulfilling the old covenant and therefore making it possible for a man to be justified on the basis of the more lenient terms of the “new law” of the gospel, hence the term “neonomianism.” In Baxter’s theology, the righteousness of Christ in fulfilling the old covenant becomes the meritorious cause of justification, which in turn allows the faith of the believer to be the formal cause of justification under the new covenant. Referring, it seems, to Baxter’s neonomianism, Owen dismisses the view that there can be a “relaxation of the law … for if there be, it respects the whole being of the law, and consists either in the suspension of its whole obligation, at least for a season, or the substitution of another person to answer its demands, who was not in the original obligation, in the room of them that were.”65
Imputation as the formal cause of justification is crucial to Owen’s argument as a whole. For a sinner to stand before God, two things are required: first, his iniquities must be forgiven; and second, he must possess a righteousness that will meet the requirements of God’s justice. Our own inherent righteousness at best is imperfect and cannot meet the demands of God’s law. In his doctrine of sanctification, Owen does speak of an “inherent righteousness.” However, this righteousness must not be confused with the righteousness that is from God, the righteousness that is imputed, received by faith alone, and peculiar to justification. Owen says, the “Scripture plainly affirms that there is such an inherent righteousness in all that believe.… [However], that it is the condition of our justification, and so antecedent unto it, is expressly contrary unto that of the apostle.… Nor is it the condition of the covenant itself.”66 The condition of justification is not our personal righteousness, and neither is our righteousness the condition of the covenant itself. Rather, the covenant is inseparable from righteousness in Christ because both justification and sanctification are by grace alone. The distinction, then, between our personal righteousness, which does not justify, and the righteousness of Christ, which does justify, is an all-important distinction made by Owen.
63 Owen, Justification, in Works, 5:209.
64 Richard Baxter, A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness in Two Books (London: for Nevil Simons and Jonathan Robinson, 1676), 29, 88, 129–30. On Baxter’s doctrine of justification, see Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003).
65 Owen, Justification, in Works, 5:248.
66 Owen, Justification, in Works, 5:232.
Owen was aware of diverse opinions, but he taught that the formal cause of justification was the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that includes “his whole obedience unto God.”63 Owen’s most famous theological opponent, Richard Baxter (1615–1691), in his Aphorisms of Justification, argued that the formal cause of justification was the faith of the believing individual, imputed or reputed as righteousness on account of the righteousness of Christ.64 Behind this doctrine, Baxter made a distinction between the old and new covenants. By this distinction he meant, essentially, the difference between the Old and New Testaments. This distinction is based upon Christ fulfilling the old covenant and therefore making it possible for a man to be justified on the basis of the more lenient terms of the “new law” of the gospel, hence the term “neonomianism.” In Baxter’s theology, the righteousness of Christ in fulfilling the old covenant becomes the meritorious cause of justification, which in turn allows the faith of the believer to be the formal cause of justification under the new covenant. Referring, it seems, to Baxter’s neonomianism, Owen dismisses the view that there can be a “relaxation of the law … for if there be, it respects the whole being of the law, and consists either in the suspension of its whole obligation, at least for a season, or the substitution of another person to answer its demands, who was not in the original obligation, in the room of them that were.”65
Imputation as the formal cause of justification is crucial to Owen’s argument as a whole. For a sinner to stand before God, two things are required: first, his iniquities must be forgiven; and second, he must possess a righteousness that will meet the requirements of God’s justice. Our own inherent righteousness at best is imperfect and cannot meet the demands of God’s law. In his doctrine of sanctification, Owen does speak of an “inherent righteousness.” However, this righteousness must not be confused with the righteousness that is from God, the righteousness that is imputed, received by faith alone, and peculiar to justification. Owen says, the “Scripture plainly affirms that there is such an inherent righteousness in all that believe.… [However], that it is the condition of our justification, and so antecedent unto it, is expressly contrary unto that of the apostle.… Nor is it the condition of the covenant itself.”66 The condition of justification is not our personal righteousness, and neither is our righteousness the condition of the covenant itself. Rather, the covenant is inseparable from righteousness in Christ because both justification and sanctification are by grace alone. The distinction, then, between our personal righteousness, which does not justify, and the righteousness of Christ, which does justify, is an all-important distinction made by Owen.
63 Owen, Justification, in Works, 5:209.
64 Richard Baxter, A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness in Two Books (London: for Nevil Simons and Jonathan Robinson, 1676), 29, 88, 129–30. On Baxter’s doctrine of justification, see Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003).
65 Owen, Justification, in Works, 5:248.
66 Owen, Justification, in Works, 5:232.
