The Tetrapolitan Confession was written mostly by Bucer and Capito.  It is the oldest Reformed confession and served as the confessional statement for the four German Reformed cities of Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau.

This is what it has to say about justification by faith:

IV. On Justification by Faith

That our preachers attribute so much to faith is not at all their opinion, as if salvation and piety would stand in idle thoughts and in a faith which would be without love, which one calls an unformed faith, but this is held for the reason that we have to confess that nobody can become pious and saved unless he supremely love and most earnestly imitate God. For whom He did foreknow (writes St. Paul), He did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son; and that, without doubt, as in the glory of the blessed life, so also, in the diligent exercise of innocent and very pious lives. For we are each made by Him, created unto good works, Ephesians 2:10. Now it is not possible, however, that somebody loves God above all things and earnestly imitates His goodness unless he knows Him and turns to Him for all good. For that reason, we could never in any other way become righteous and pious as well as saved, since our salvation is true piety, than that above all, we are endued by God with the gift of faith through which we accept the Gospel; and then, assured out of the same that God has accepted us as His children and wants eternally to prove His fatherly goodness, we cling completely to His will. Such faith, St. Augustine calls an evangelical faith which then is active through love. And it is through this faith that we are born anew and the image of God is brought forth again in us. Through this faith, we become good, we who are born evil and from youth have turned all our thoughts toward evil. Then, by this faith we become completely filled with God, the eternal and everywhere overflowing well of goodness, and thus we become of a divine kind, which means that we show ourselves soon to other people as gods, that is [as] true children of God, in that we through love further the benefit of everybody and don’t ever withhold any possible effort. For as John has written, whoever loves his brother, walks in the light and is born of God; [he is] completely given to the new and old commandment of mutual love. This love is, then, the fulfillment of the law as St. Paul says: The whole law was fulfilled in one word, namely this one; Love your neighbor as yourself, Galatians 5:14. For all that is given in God’s law is directed towards and requires that we are finally, completely reformed and renewed to the image of God, so that we are wholly good, willing, ready and also capable to advance the benefit of men. [The above] may not be attained in us through a shorter way than if we are decorated with all sorts of virtues and consequently are in accordance everywhere with the law. For how can somebody achieve and accomplish all to the betterment and building up of the community of God, and thus, according to the law which therefore is the special task of a Christian man (1 Corinthians 10:23), who does not think, speak and act all to the best, and thus possesses now the treasure of all virtues?

Pretty neat stuff.

I have concluded my series on double justification in Reformed theology.  I decided not to include Baxter, since he is entirely too complicated.  I also do not know when this subject of double justification became a theological taboo.  Since it does seems to be one these days, I’ve tried to cover a broad spectrum.  I am sure there are more theologians that I could have included, but these will have to do for now.

There is diversity.  Some theologians assert two distinct types of justifications, others say that it is the same type of justification at the beginning of one’s spiritual life and at the end, and others shy away from allowing multiple justifications, preferring rather to say that there are multiple declarations of the one justification.

Here is the completed list:

Calvin

Bucer

Diodati

Turretin

Pictet

Witsius

Preston

Sibbes

Goodwin

Ussher

Gataker-Gouge-Downame

Polhill

Bucer’s entire theology of justification is that of double justification. Everywhere he speaks of imputed righteous, he always follows directly with inherent righteousness. I will quote a few examples.

Bucer penned the statement on justification at the Colloquy of Regensburg. I have pieced it together through two secondary sources. He writes:

The movement wrought by the Holy Spirit whereby, truly repenting of their old life, men are turned to God and truly apprehend his mercy promised in Christ, so that now they truly believe that they have received forgiveness of sins and reconciliation through the merit of Christ by the free gift of God’s goodness, and they cry out to God, ‘Abba, Father’: but this happens to no one unless there is also at the same time infused into him that love which heals the will… Therefore living faith is that which apprehends God’s mercy in Christ and believes that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to oneself, and at the same time receives the promise of the Holy Spirit and also love… But it remains true that we are justified, that is, accepted and reconciled to God by this faith in so far as it apprehends God’s mercy and the righteousness which is imputed to us on account of Christ and his merit, not on account of the worth or perfection of the righteousness which is imparted to us in Christ.

quoted in David F. Wright “Martin Bucer 1491-1551: Ecumenical Theologian,” in Common Places of Martin Bucer trans. and edited by D. F. Wright, 43

And also:

We think that in this begun righteousness is really a true and living righteousness, and a noble excellent gift of God; and that the new life in Christ consists in this righteousness, and that all the saints are also righteous by this righteousness, both before God and before men, ‘and that on account thereof the saints are also justified by a justification of works,’ that is, are approved, commended and rewarded by God.

quoted in Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man Book III. Chap. VIII. 26

In his Common Places, Bucer has this to say:

So in treating of our restoration, Paul intimates in close connection issuing from our very justification before God- provided conviction of it is ours- the immediate presence in believers of the Spirit, the fashioner of all the righteousness we are to display in our lives. Hence he never uses the word ‘justify’ in this way without appearing to speak no less of this imparting of true righteousness than of the round and head of our entire salvation, the forgiveness of sins. In chapter 3 (verse 25) after saying that righteousness is revealed in the era of the unveiling of the gospel, that is to say, is so clearly manifested in the lives of believers that the world now acknowledges these alone to be capable of true righteousness, and after saying secondly, that Christ came to introduce to the world an endeixis, a demonstration of divine righteousness unmistakable to all, he then added, ‘that God himself might be righteous, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus Christ’. Here without a doubt he includes at the same time in the word ‘justify’ that righteousness which God produces by his Spirit in those who believe in Christ, and which he intends to be his attestation to the effect that he has now forgiven their sins and counts them among those he resolved to justify, that is, to count among the righteous not only by pardoning their sin but also by conforming them to the image of his Son. The apostle always speaks about our justification in this fashion, never failing to comprehend the summit of our salvation, for which he prayed for the Philippians as follows: “It is my prayer that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and all aesthesis (that is, a quality of discernment) whereby you may be able to approve with certainty what is excellent, and to this end, that you may be pure and give offence to no one, thus being equipped for the day of Christ, and filled with the fruits of righteousness which are produced through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.’

Consequently, since Paul is accustomed to speaking in this way, denoting by the word ‘justification’ first of course the remission of sins, yet at the same time always indicating in addition that imparting of righteousness which God proceeds to work in us by the Spirit, the same Spirit by whom he grants us assurance of the pardon of our sins and of his goodwill towards us, and whom he has established the seal (sphragis) of that pardon- because, I say, Paul customarily speaks in these terms, the majority of the holy Fathers, bearing in mind no doubt the more visible aspect of justification, have taken dikaiousthai, to be justified, in the sense of ‘to be made righteous..

It goes without saying that however great a degree of righteousness the Spirit of Christ might effect in us when we believe, it will none the less be sufficient to merit our being regarded as righteous in God’s sight, for we remain unprofitable servants even when we have fulfilled all his bidding. It was with this in mind that Philip Melanchthon in his highly erudite and devout Commentary on this Epistle rightly condemns those who want to make “We are justified by faith’ mean, “Faith is the source or cause that produces other virtues for whose sake we are pronounced righteous’, or ‘Faith itself is in us a virtue, deserving of God’s approval.’ And he subjoins these godly words: ‘“We are justified by faith” should be transposed in this sentence: “We are reckoned rightoues by mercy” Similarly, “we are justified by faith alone” means, “We are pronounced righteous by trusting in mercy alone”’- so it is only for us to add, ‘as we are given the assurance that we are so pronounced, and thus know by experience this merciful favour of God’. Surely no godly soul can doubt for a moment that it is through God’s mercy alone and for the sake of Christ’s merit alone that we are justified, pronounced righteous before God, and not because of anything in us at all, however many works of holiness, however genuine our fruits of the Spirit. For who is ignorant of the Scripture, ‘Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for no man living will be justified before thee’? And in Isaiah, ‘In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and praised’.

pg. 162-164

Bucer notes that sanctification is sometimes included in Paul’s use of justification and this is how many of the Patristics used the term. Bucer does not reject this, but simply adds the concept of imputed righteousness as a foundation for sanctification to rest upon.

Edward Polhill had the advantage of writing late in the Puritan era. He is extremely well read and is able to cite a variety of previous doctors, as well as bring various positions together into harmony. He has much to say about double justification.

In his book A View of Some Divine Truths, he writes:

Thirdly, Obedience is necessary, though not to the first entrance into justification, yet to the continuance of it; not indeed as a cause, but as a condition. Thus Bishop Davenant, Bona opera sunt necessaria ad justificationis statum retinendum et conservandum; non ut causae, quae per se efficiant aut mereantur hanc conservationem; sed ut media seu conditiones, sine quibus Deus non vult justificationis gratiam in hominibus conservare. If a believer, who is instantly justified upon believing, would continue justified, he must sincerely obey God. Though his obedience in measure and degree reach not fully to the precept of the gospel; yet in truth and substance it comes up to the condition of it; else he cannot continue justified; this to me is very evident; we are at first justified by a living faith, such as virtually is obedience; and cannot continue justified by a dead one such as operates not at all. We are at first justified by a faith which accepts Christ as a Saviour and Lord; and cannot continue justified by such a faith as would divide Christ, taking his salvation from guilt, and by disobedience casting off his lordship; could we suppose that which never comes to pass, that a believer should not sincerely obey: How should he continue justified? if he continue justified, he must, as all justified persons have, needs have a right to life eternal; and if he have such a right, how can he be judged according to his works? no good works being found in him after his believing, how can he be adjudged to life? or how to death, if he continue justified? These things evince, that obedience is a condition necessary as to our continuance in a state of justification: nevertheless it is not necessary, that obedience should be perfect as to the evangelical precept; but that it should be such, that the truth of grace which the evangelical condition calls for, may not fail for want of it: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city,” (Rev. xxii.14.) The first fundamental right to heaven they have by the faith of Christ only: but sincere obedience is necessary that that right may be continued to them: in this sense we may fairly construe that conclusion of St James, “Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” (Jam. ii.24.) Faith brings a man into a justified estate; but may he rest here? No, his good works must be a proof of his faith, and give a kind of experiment of the life of it. Nay, they are the evangelical condition, upon which his blessed estate of justification is continued to him; in foro legis, Christ and his righteousness is all; neither our faith nor our works can supply the room of his satisfaction to justify against us against the law: but in foro gratiae, our obedience answers to the evangelical condition, and is a means to continue our justified estate: it is true, St. Paul asserts that we are justified by faith, not by works, (Rom iv.); which seems directly contrary to that of St. James, that a man is justified by works, not by faith only. But the difference is reconciled very fairly, if we do but consider what the works are in St. Paul, and what they are in St. James. In St. Paul, the works are pefect works, such as correspond to the law, such as make the reward to be of debt, (ver. 4.) Hence Calvin saith, “Operantem vocat, qui suis meritis aliqui promeretur, non operantem, cui nihil debetar operum merito.” In St. James, the works are sincere only, such as answer not to the law, but to the evangelical condition; such as merit not, but are rewarded out of grace. Works in St. Paul, are such as stand in competition or co-ordination with Christ and his righteousness, which satisfied the law for us. Works in St. James are such as stand in due subordination to Christ and his righteousness, and are required only as fruits of faith, and conditions upon which we are to continue in a justified state.

~A View of Some Divine Truths 1844 ed. in The Works of Edward Polhill soli deo Gloria. 1998 pg. 92-93

In another treatise called Precious Faith, Polhill says more:

There is a double justification; constitutive justification, whereby God maketh us just in this life; sentential justification, whereby God pronounces us just at death and judgment. Constitutive justification is the foundation of sentential, for the true God will not pronounce us just unless we are such; and sentential justification is the completure of constitutive: for here there is sentential judicis, crowning us as righteous; the query, then, being touching constitutive justification in this life, I conceive, with worthy Mr. Baxter, that “God justifies a believer by the moral agency of the gospel, by which, as b his grand charter and law of grace, he doth make over Christ and his righteousness to the believer:” neither need this seem strange, every human instrument doth, moraliter agere. A princes’ pardon conveys an impunity; a charter, an estate; a law, a title or right; a testament, a legacy; and shall not the gospel do as much to believers? God doth constitutive justify the believer by making him righteous, and makes him righteous by making over to him the righteousness of Christ, and that he makes over by the gospel, which is his pardon, charter, law, and testament of grace, conveying the same upon believing: no sooner doth a man believe, but the conditional promise becomes absolute. As the old covenant running, Do this and live, would have justified upon perfect obedience; so the new, running, Believe and be saved, doth justify upon believing; as man sinning is condemned by the law of works, so man believing is justified by the law of grace. Hence the gospel is called, The ministration of righteousness, as the law is of condemnation, (2 Cor. iii. 9); “The power of God to salvation to the believer,” (Rom. i. 16); quia nos per evangelium justificant Deus, because God justifies us by the gospel, as reverend Calvin hath it on the 17^th verse; virga virtutis, a rod of strength (Psalm cx. 2), that is, in the justification of men, saith the excellent Dr. Reynolds; and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, making us free form the law of sin and death; as many divines interpret that place (Rom viii.2.) Upon which Pareus doth observe, Liberatio a condemnatione legis, Deo, Christo, Evangelio tribuitur; De out authori, Christ out Mediatori, Evangelio ut organo: Freedom from the condemnation of the law, is attributed to God as the author, to Christ as the mediator, to the gospel as the instrument. God makes over Christ and his righteousness unto the believer by the gospel, as by his charter and law of grace. This is the transient act by which God doth justify us in this life.

~ Precious Faith Chapt. VII in The Works of Edward Polhill. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 199 264-265.

Later in the same treatise he addresses the final judgment:

Such reviving refrigerations believers have sometimes here; much more transcendant will their divine refreshments be at the last day. The top-stone of justification shall be then laid on to make it complete, as may appear by the ensuing considerations.

First, Here the believer is justified privately by the gospel, but then he shall be justified openly by the solemn sentence of God before all the world; here he hath the white-stone of absolution given in secret, but then it shall be brought forth to view, glittering in all the orient colours of free-grace. It was a great honour done to Mordecai, to be arrayed in royal apparel, and to have it proclaimed before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honour. But oh! What glory will be upon the believer at that day; when he shall stand in the glorious righteousness of Christ, and hear it proclaimed before men and angels, This is a righteous man; when Christ shall confess him before his Father and the holy angels, to be a piece of himself, of his flesh and of his bones? As it was with the sons of Jesse passing before Samuel; Eliah came and was refused, Abinadab came and was refused, and so others; at last David came, and the Lord said, “Arise, anoint him, for this is he,” (1 Sam. xvi.) So it will be with the sons of men, at the great day of judgment. The great potentate may come and be rejected as a vile person; the rich Dives may come and be put away as dross; the learned rabbi may come, and be turned off as a fool; only when the believer comes, God will say, This is he; this must reign in glory for ever. This is a justification before God after a most signal manner.

Secondly, Here the believer stands justified, but, in the midst of briers and thorns, remaining corruptions vex and tear his righteous soul from day to day. He is in the land of promise, but the Canaanite is not quite drive out; the relics of sin, inmates in the same heart with grace, like the liers in wait for Samson, are ready to make an assault upon him. Hence the Jewish doctors say, That God calls no man saint, or holy, till he be dead an in the grave; because the concupiscential frame is not quite out of him before death, but at that day there shall be nihil damnabile remaining in him. Sin shall be no more: no more tumours of pride; no more boiling up of concupiscence; no more spots or wrinkles, or dark shades of infirmity; nothing but pure spotless holiness: insomuch that divines say, that from henceforth our justification shall be in another way than by imputed righteousness; because, having perfect inherent righteousness in ourselves, we shall need no covering. If the apostle say of a believer, that dedikaiwtai, he is justified from his sins, in respect of sanctification begun, (Rom. vi. 7); how much more will it be true when sin shall be no more.

Thirdly, Here the believer is justified, but the dust of mortality hangs about him. It may be, there is a stone ready to drop into the bladder, or an imposthume ready to break in the head; Mors latet in mediis abdita visceribus, in one part of the body or other death is preparing his arrow upon the string, to shoot man down from the perch of this life into the grave. But at that day there shall be nihil corruptible, death shall be no more; diseases, which use to sound an alarm to it, shall be utterly removed; tears, which are nature’s pay to sorrows, shall be all wiped off; the corruptible shall put on incorruption; mortality shall be swallowed up of life. This is a day of redemption indeed!

Fourthly, Here the believer is justified, but his comfort is not always the same. Now the light of God’s countenance breaks out like a clear sun upon him, and anon there is a sad eclipse, leaving him in darkness; one day a banquet of heavenly comforts is let down into his heart; and another, all is drawn up into heaven again. His evidences may be blurred; Satan may hold up his pardoned sins, as it were in their old guilt; the arrows of God may stick fast in him, and bring qualms and sick-fits upon his conscience: but at that day his comforts shall be unvairable; a nightless day, and a cloudless horizon; an eternal feast upon God and all things in him; his evidences all clear, and, after but this once shewing forth, an everlasting possession o the expected happiness. The accuser, Satan, shall be struck dumb at the blessed sentence of pardon and acceptance pronounced by God before men and angels. God shall never frown, or wound him any more, but wrap him up in the arms of endless love and joy. This will be a day of refreshing indeed. (269)

Notice that Polhill cites Davenant, Baxter, Reynolds, and Pareus. He is attempting to give an overview of the breadth of Reformed orthodoxy in his writings.

Though not calling it specifically “justification,” Ussher represents the “gracious law” position that we’ve seen espoused by Diodati and Pictet. The believer’s works will be judged by the gospel. Ussher states:

Shall there be no difference in the examination of the Elect and the Reprobate?

Yes. For, 1. The Elect shall not have their sins, for which Christ satisfied, but only their good works, remembered. Ezek. 18.22. Rev. 14.17.

2. Being in Christ, they and their works shall not undergo the strict trial of the Law simply in it self; but as the obedience thereof does prove them to be true partakers of the grace of the Gospel.

Body of Divinity 52^nd Head

Richard Sibbes has a fairly unique position on final justification, as he is willing to discuss the various ways one is justified. He is justified individually by Christ’s sacrifice. Christ justifies the entire Church. The Spirit justifies Christ. We justify Christ. We justify ourselves. Sibbes discusses all of these realities. I will only quote a small portion of this.

Sibbes writes:

For our further instruction and comfort, let us consider, that in regard of God likewise, we shall be ‘justified’ from our sins in our consciences here and at the day of judgment, before angels and devils and men. As Christ was ‘justified’ from our sins himself, and he will justify every one of us by his Spirit, his Spirit shall witness to our souls that we are justified; and likewise his Spirit shall declare it at the day of judgment; it shall be openly declared that we are so indeed. There is a double degree of justification: one in our conscience now, another at the day of judgment. Then it shall appear that we have believed in Christ, and are cleansed from our sins. When we shall stand on the right hand of Christ, as all that cleave to Christ by faith [will do], then it shall appear that by him we are ‘justified’ from all our sins whatsoever.

~ The Fountain Opened in The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes vol. 5 pg. 492-493

Sibbes goes on to say that we will justify Christ on the last day. We do this in four ways. We justify that he is God by relying on him as our rock of salvation. We justify him as prophet by our enlightened understandings. We justify him as priest by relying on him alone for mediation and intercession. We justify him as king by holy living and the practice of lovely religion.

Goodwin asserts that we can affirm a justification by works on the last day, for to do so is not materially different than to say that the judgment is according to works or that it is noting the evidence of faith. Neither of these could serve as an excuse for the lack of works, however. He believes that faith was always meant to be perfected, and its perfection is good works. Goodwin’s position is a combination of earlier views, as he will speak of a living faith and a true justification made on one’s deeds. He writes:

And in relation to this outward judgment at the latter day, our sentence of salvation is termed expressly a justification; and this very thing is asserted by Christ himself: Mat. xii. 36,37, ‘I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment; for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.’ Neither is it anywhere said, that God will judge men according to their faith only; nor will it be a sufficient plea at the latter day to say, Lord, thou knowest I believed, and cast myself at thy grace. God will say, I am to judge thee so as to every one shall be able to judge my sentence righteous together with me: 1 Cor. iv. 5, ‘Therefore, shew me they faith by thy works;’ let me know by them thou fearest me; for as I did judge Abraham, and gave thereupon a testimony of him, so I must proceed towards thee. And this God will do, to the end that all the sons of Israel, yea, the whole world, may know that he justified one hat had true faith indeed.

So then, Paul’s judging according to works, and James his justification by works, are all one, and are alike consistent with Paul’s justification by faith only. For in the same epistle where he argues so strongly for justification by faith without works, as Rom. iii.iv., he in chap. ii. also declares, that ‘he will judge every man according to his works.’ He doth so to the good: ver. 7, ‘To them who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternal life.’ As well as to the bad he pronounceth a contrary judgment: vers. 8, 9, ‘But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile.’

~ Of Gospel Holiness in the Heart and Life Bk. 2 Chapt. 2.4 in The Works of Thomas Goodwin vol. 7 pg. 182-183

Goodwin goes on to explain James’ use of “faith perfected by works,” arguing that “perfection” is when something reaches its goal. Works are a fruit and an evidence of faith, but they are still nevertheless necessary and will be judged.

Francis Turretin does speak of varying senses of justification, though he is much less comfortable with affirming “double justification.” He indeed reconciles James and Paul, arguing that they are talking of different types of justification, but his interpretation is somewhat different from his fellow Genevans, Diodati and Pictet. The best way to describe Turretin’s approach to this question is hesistant.

He writes:

XXII. Since Paul and James were inspired by the same Spirit, they cannot be said to oppose each other on the doctrine of justification, so that one should ascribe justification to faith alone and the other to works also. The reconciliation is not difficult, if the design of each be considered and the natures of faith and of justification (concerning which both treat) be attended. Paul disputes against the Pharisees, who urged the merits of works; James disputes against the Libertines and Epicureans, who, content with a profession of faith alone, denied not only the merits of works, but also their necessity. Against the former, Paul rightly urges faith alone for justification. Against the latter, James properly commends the necessity of works for the confirmation of justification. Paul speaks of a living and efficacious faith; James of an idle and dead faith which cannot be demonstrated by works (2:18); Paul of justification a priori and constitutively; James of the same a posteriori and declaratively; Paul properly constitutes the former in faith alone; James rightly places the latter in works, by which the reality of our faith and justification is declared not only before men, but also before God. Therefore, when faith is said “to have wrought with works in Abraham, and by works to have been made perfect” (v. 22), this ought to be understood in relation to the efficacy of faith, which exerted itself by works and by which also it was consummated and made perfect. It ought not to be understood essentially, for this has by its own nature (but declaratively) because it is proven to be perfect and sincere; just as “the power of God” is said the be “made perfect in our weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9), i.e., known and declared to be perfect. See what else belongs to this point in our “Disputatio… De Concordia Pauli et Jacobi,” Opera (1848), 4:731-52.

~ Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 2 16th topic, Q. 8

Notice the many qualifying terms. Turretin does use the term “living faith,” but he also adds a priori justification and a posteriori justification, as well as constitutive and declarative justification. This later justification is an open manifestation of the original secret one, though it is before God as well as men. Turretin’s position is complicated and does not easily fit in the other two categories that I have been recording. I think it would be truer to say that he is in a third category which will become more prominent in later years. We can get a fuller understanding of his position by examining two more statements.

When addressing the justification on the last day, Turretin makes a distinction between the actual justification and the declaration of it. He writes:

VII. But as justification cannot be conceived to have taken place from eternity before the ages, so neither ought it to be thrown forward to the consummation of the world as others hold- as if God only then exercises properly the act of Judge, both in the pardon of believers and in the condemnation of the wicked. For thus the declaration of justification is falsely confounded with justification itself. For although we are told the heavenly Judge will then sit on his throne of glory to exercise the last solemn act of judgment (as much in grace as in justice, in the sight of heaven and earth), this does not prevent that judgment from commencing in the present life. Nay, this must necessarily be supposed, since that final judgment is nothing else than a public and solemn manifestation of preceding judgments. And as Scripture everywhere sets before us the examples of God’s judgments, public as well as private over the wicked and rebellious (such as the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the overthrow of the Egyptians and the like), to refer these to mere chastisements of God, tending towards the improvement and salvation of those upon whom they were sent, is to contradict the whole tenor of Scripture and rashly to confound the medicinal chastisements of believers (which are sent upon them for instruction [paideian] by God as a merciful Father) with the punishments of the wicked (which are inflicted by God as an angry Judge, to punish [timorian] and avenge himself of their sins)- which has thus far been unheard-of in theological schools. So that he is evidently a stranger to the Scriptures who does not know that God is often set forth as justifying believers in this life; as is evident from the examples of Abraham (Gen. 15:6), or David (Ps. 32:1, 2, 5; Rom. 4:6, 7), of the sinful woman (Lk. 7:48), of the publican (Lk. 18:14) and of all believers (Rom. 5:1). Not to say now that that opinion is hurtful to the consolation of believers, which springs from no other source more certainly than from a sense of the grace of God and his justification. For how else could they have the confidence in which they glory and exult on account of their justification and enjoy unspeakable (aneklaleto) peace and joy?

16th topic, Q. 9

He also adds:

…Or [justification] may be viewed in general as to the state of the believer when he is first called; or in particular as to the act when he obtains the pardon of particular sins; or as to the sense and certainty of it, arising in us from a reflex act of faith (called consolatory); or finally, as to its declaration, which should be made immediately after death (Heb. 9:27) and publicly on the last day (which is not so much justification, as a solemn declaration of the justification once made and an adjudication of the reward, in accordance with the preceding justification).

16 topic, Q. 9 XI.

So, even as we may be able to find the substance of other double justification views in Turretin’s thought, we see that his goal is to distinguish justification itself, which takes place upon initial union with Christ, and subsequent declarations of the already-made justification at all later dates. This is a view which is much more prone to remove a real justification from the last day, and I suspect it was an influential shift for later theologians.

I wrote a nutshell of what the Bible is all about back here.  I’d like to expand on the notion of Woman though.

Woman is eschatology.  The man comes first, and the women comes second.  The man is the priest, but the woman is the sanctuary.  Wisdom is described as a woman, and She is described as being from eternity.  Since it is the Holy Spirit who indwells the Bride of Christ, I think it makes the most sense to understand Wisdom as the Spirit. Man and Woman both have their archetypal image in God.

The Spirit is also the sign of the last days. The Spirit is eschatological.  In a way, Jesus is the Adam and the Spirit is the Eve.  Biblical history moves from man to woman in an important way.  Prior to Advent, all mankind awaited the Man.  Now we all wait for the Woman.

This is also why men give their lives for their women.  They are being as Christ to the Church, and this is written on their very hearts.  Rarely are they conscious of this.  Pagans even know about this stuff.  All of the pagan deities are sexual beings.  Their cosmologies are marked by this as well.  The great epic battles are  fought over women.  Women launch a thousand ships.  This was simply a reality of the cosmos.  Christianity doesn’t deny it at all.  It begins with man and wife, and it ends with man and wife.  Courtship is all over the liturgy, as well as the wisdom materials.  The vision of the future, the perfect reality, is a wedding feast.

So we fight on.

Gen. 32:28 And He said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

The narrative of Jacob wrestling with God is one of the most challenging in all of Scripture. We are initially puzzled by how such a thing is even possible. How can God manifest himself as a man? Why isn’t the passage clearer as to the identity of the wrestler? How could Jacob win?

Jacob had always been a fighter. He fought in the womb. He fought his brother. He fought his father. He fought his father-in-law. Finally, he fought God.

A lot of this is because of the Fall. That is true. Fighting God, however, seems to go beyond that. After all, God could have just squashed Jacob. If Jacob is fighting God because of sin, then it makes no sense for him to prevail.

Indeed, God wants Jacob to fight. God’s desire is for Jacob to wrestle and grow, and every Jew bore Jacob’s new name. All of Israel identified with this wrestling.

And this is true of us all in a way. We have to wrestle with God and man. Salvation itself is a death and resurrection. The life of sanctification is a struggle.

Jesus said that the violent men take the kingdom by force, and it seems that we take all things by force. Learning how to do this is the challenge.