I think if you’ll check out the Witsius link I provided above, you will see that he does have a different kind of justification, one which is based on inherent righteousness. It is of a different class and is not the ground of our acquittal in the face of God’s wrath, but it is the ground for rewards.

As to Calvin, your citation is pretty broad. My claim was never that temp. justification was a majority position, though. I simply said that it has been held by some Reformed doctors, as evidenced by the English @ Dort.

I’m undecided on the best way to understand Calvin. He does affirm a temporary special calling (3.14.8), but my guess is that he would also say that the reprobate who experience this enjoy the benefits in an equivocal way from true believers.

Rollock says something similar. He says that temp. faith has the same object as true faith, which is Christ and all his benefits, yet he calls true faith “Justifying faith,” and my guess is that he never gives this justification to temp. faith.

It would seem that “Christ and all his benefits” would include justification, but I suppose that justification properly includes eschatological vindication, so as to require perseverance in order to be acheived.

It’s kind of a tricky concept to think about, and I might wish to invoke some sort of objective/subjective distinction. The temp. faith can be ascribed justification through the communicatio idiomatum, since they are enjoying temp. union with Christ, which is the guiding principle for just., but since they don’t ever “truly” receive it, they lack the subjective just.

Words seem to fail at some point, but it isn’t fruitless semantics. There seem to be necessary concerns on all sides.

Pastorally, however, it is simple. Christ is the key. Look to him and never look back.

You wrote: “As to your point about temporary faith and apostasy, I think our problem might be that we are working in different eras. You seem to be citing modern writers, while I have tried to limit myself (in these historical posts) to 16th and 17th cent. divines.”

Steven, the WCF divines are a case in point of pre-modern Reformed theologians who thought like many “modern” Protestant theologians on this doctrine. I also find it interesting you mentioned Witsius on your list above. I have his ECBGC and regarding the final justification of believers he writes:

Nor will the righteousness of the judgment of that day be in the least diminished, though the works of believers, by which they shall be judged, are imperfect. For, they will not be mentioned as the causes of their right to claim the reward, to which perfection is a requisite; but as effects and signs of grace, and of union with Christ, and of a living faith, and of justification by faith, and of a right to life: for which their unfeigned sincerity is sufficient. We therefore conclude, that justification in the next world is not to be so very much distinguished from the justification in this world (3.8.LXXVII).

He also goes on: “As this doctrine of free justification, on account of the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith alone, is founded on clear testimonies of scripture; so it proves itself to every pious conscience, by its most excellent uses and fruits” (3.8.LXXVIII).

From what I gather from his comments there, I conclude:

1. Justification has a future aspect, and this justification is a result of the believer’s imperfect works.

2. These imperfect works are NOT the cause of God justifying the believer on the last day but are effects and signs of grace as a result of union with Christ and genuine faith.

3. The justification at the final judgment (”the next life” is not to be so very much distinguished from the justification in the present time (”in this world”).

4. Justification is on the account of Christ’s righteousness and apprehended by faith alone.

I agree that Witsius views justification as having an eschatological side, and that this eschatological justification is a result of our imperfect good works. However, there is nowhere that Witsius claims that there is a disjunction or separation between the “already” and “not yet” justification. Both are the same (except for the time gap) and those that are truly justified at the present will be justified at the end for sure.

Also, I know that Calvin (another pre-modern Reformed theologian) did not ever say that there will be a possibility or potential for loss of justification. In fact, he says the opposite: justification, in contrast to Osiander and the Schoolmen, is permanant and is distinct from sanctification. Cf. Institutes, 3.11-14.

It seems that most Reformed divines, whether in the pre-modern or modern periods, argued that those justified by faith in the present will be for certain justified at the last judgment.

This is also why we need a theology of martyrdom. Like Stephen, we imitate Christ, even to the death. We ask for mercy for our foes, like Christ did.

However, I think we do need to be careful not to confuse the discussion. Christ’s death at Calvary is the unique redemptive act, upon which all else is dependent. The Church isn’t extending Calvary or even re-enacting it, but rather bearing witness to it. Indeed, the Church’s role is to get everyone else back to that point.

Now as far as the sacramental stuff, I wouldn’t want to put those in distinction from the cross either. It isn’t as if we could deemphasize the sacraments by overemphasizing the cross (or vice versa). They are all bound together. Baptism is a picture of Christ’s death and cleansing blood. The Eucharist is a picture of his passion.

If you will, read Hans Boersma’s statement:

“The Church is the continuation of Christ’s presence in the world. Because of the work of the Spirit in believers, their sufferings for the sake of the kingdom are in a real sense the sufferings of Christ himself. This explains how St. Paul is able to say that it is Christ himself who still needs to undergo more sufferings. In the believer’s sufferings Christ himself is suffering.” (Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross, pp. 232, 233)

Do you think there is anything “redemptive” in the sufferings of the Church, the bride, the incarnate Spirit?

It has been my experience that Reformed folks (such as myself), in referring to Christ’s redemption of the elect in the pecuniary sense tend to downplay the “redemptive” aspect of the covenant community (i.e. baptism, eucharist, etc.) Thoughts?

Thanks,

Eric

BTW

I think that the point of “double justification” allows us to speak both of justification by faith as well as justification by works, especially if we go with the position of Diodati, Pictet, Witsius, and others that says the two justifications are different in kind.

The first is the foundational one, and is the ground for satisfying divine wrath. The second is built atop the first and it is the ground for heavenly reward.

As to your point about temporary faith and apostasy, I think our problem might be that we are working in different eras. You seem to be citing modern writers, while I have tried to limit myself (in these historical posts) to 16th and 17th cent. divines.

I am basing my understanding off the writings around the Synod of Dort: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/the-view-of-the-english-delegates-at-dort-regarding-apostasy-and-the-loss-of-justification/

I believe that we must be careful with the way we use words when discussions of justification come up. I don’t know any evangelical Protestant (Reformed or otherwise) who would ever say that our good works done in grace is the GROUNDS of our final justification before God. The grounds of our justification during the present and future is Christ’s work of obedience and sacrifice. The good works we do our the results of our union with Christ and the operations of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. As Douglas Moo writes in his commentary on James (Tyndale): “If a man’s initial relationship to God can be established only on the basis of faith (Paul), the ultimate recognition of that relationship takes into account the works that true faith must inevitably produce” (p. 115). Justification before God, and you’re right that many Protestants have neglected this aspect of justification, is ultimately eschatological. When a sinner comes to Christ alone in genuine faith that eschatological verdict is brought forward into present history. George Eldon Ladd makes this point really well in his popular NT theology book (pp. 478-491, which is one of the finest treatments of justification from a traditional Protestant perspective, in my opinion). That is why even sins committed after our regeneration, conversion, adoption, etc. does not forfeit one’s justified status because the eschatological verdict, which is firm and unbreakable, is brought to the present time. Even the WCF makes this clear when the divines declared: “God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God’s Fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance” (11.5). Also, you mentioned: “I think that there have been some Reformed doctors who allowed that a person might be justified in the present, but later lose that through apostasy and loss of faith. They would not put it so simply as ‘by disobedience,’ but rather they would stress that the reprobate had temporary faith” Yes, almost all Reformed theologians I know of assert that there is such a thing as “temporary faith” (a false faith that the reprobate have). Some, even like Louis Berkhof, would say that the reprobates are somehow and someway included in the new covenant temporarily. However, I don’t know any Reformed theologian (at least, well known ones) that would say that a reprobate was at one time genuinely justified before God which they later forfeited by loss of faith or sin before the last judgment. That is not a Reformed understanding of justification but something more akin to the way Roman Catholics and Arminians understand justification.

The problem with Owen and the pecuniary (monetary) understanding of the atonement is that once the debt is paid, its paid. When Jesus writes the check, the debt is canceled.

But that isn’t how salvation works at all. Jesus pays the debt at the cross, but each of us individually are still under God’s wrath until we come to faith in Christ and are united with him, having his blood wash away our sins.

That which causes the debt is sin, and as long as we remain outside of Christ, it is live and able to damn.

To try to simply posit an accomplished/applied formula on top of Owen’s system doesn’t accomplish much. All you’ve said is that the one who paid the debt stipulated a sort of incubation period until the certificate of deposit came to maturity. You might be waiting for it, but it is just a matter of time. The application is epiphenomenal to the accomplishment.

So essentially, the maneuver would be linguistic, but not really substantiative. The Elect who await the maturation of their deposit check are still not actually under divine wrath in such a system. It’s been dealt with and is merely on a timer.

So the justification is based on our good works, but those good works won’t be the ground for final justification?

That seems to be pretty confusing.

I do not believe that all evangelical Protestants believe in a future justification. I know a good many that reject the notion entirely.

The only problem I have is with those people who claim to be Reformed but say that a true believer can forfeit justification by disobedience or that a person who is justified in the present may not be justified at the end.

This would be a different topic altogether, that of apostasy. I think that there have been some Reformed doctors who allowed that a person might be justified in the present, but later lose that through apostasy and loss of faith. They would not put it so simply as “by disobedience,” but rather they would stress that the reprobate had temporary faith.

hey, low blow…

I am just getting more and more confused here.

Regarding ‘the point,’ I think its fair to say that there was Steven’s point, and then there was this other point that was raised in this thread, and that was: “Would you call your position Amyraldian?” Thats two separate points on any fair reading.

And it did appear to me that it was to that point that this comment was made: “If, however, you would like to discuss the merits of Steven’s (and others) views, I would thoroughly enjoy that” referred back to the unlimited expiation/Amyraldian point.

Sorry for my confusion.

Thanks
David