Justification: What'S At Stake In The Current Debates

by Mark A Husbands

Justification is not just one word among many, but a central reality for which Christians are thankful to God. Consequently, a faithful understanding of justification is not merely a concern of academic theologians but of all Christians. Discussion of this crucial matter reached a watershed during the Reformation, but concerns raised then have not all been resolved throughout the whole church.
In fact, current debates, even controversy, about justification among Protestants and between Protestants and Roman Catholics have been chronicled for general readers in periodicals such as Christianity Today and Books and Culture. Can evangelicals and Catholics come together? Are legal and penal aspects foundational for all other understandings of our justification? Is Christ's righteousness infused in believers or only imputed? These and other questions about this vital fact of Christian salvation remain of central importance for the preaching, teaching, believing and unity of the church.
In this book notable evangelical scholars and teachers address from biblical, historical and theological perspectives key questions that now prevent complete unity between Roman Catholic and Protestant branches of the church and raise tensions even among Protestant denominations. Witnessing to certain signs of hope, these essays also acknowledge points of caution. But for every reader who is looking for guidance and orientation to this doctrine and current discussion, this book provides a wealth of charitable yet incisive insight.

278 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A COLLECTION OF PAPERS FROM A 2003 CONFERENCE

Editors Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, “In what sense is the word and action of God’s justification of the ungodly a genuinely concrete and present reality? The conference on ‘The Gospel, Freedom and Righteousness: The Doctrine of Justification,’ held in April 2003 at Wheaton College Graduate School, took up the question whether imputed righteousness is fictive, forensic, or transformative. The papers in this volume consider the doctrine of justification from four corresponding points of access: (1) biblical theology; (2) dogmatics in the present Protestant crisis; (3) historical theology, with a view to Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed and Wesleyan understandings, and (4) ecumenical considerations.”

Robert H. Gundry states in the opening essay, “justification is both negative and positive. Negatively, God does not count our sins against us. Jesus took them away. Positively, God counts our faith as righteousness. These complementary elements suffice to eliminate any exegetical need to import into Romans 4 an unmentioned righteousness of Christ---and also any pastoral need to do so for the healing of Christians’ hurting consciences.” (Pg. 25)

D.A. Carson observes, “Even if we agree that there is no Pauline passage that EXPLICITLY says in so many words, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his people, is there biblical evidence to substantiate the view that the substance of this thought is conveyed? And if such a case can be made, should the exegete be encouraged to look at the matter through a wider aperture than that provided by philosophy and formulae? And should we ask the theologians to be a tad more careful with texts called up to support the doctrine?” (Pg. 50)

Later, he adds, “True, there is [in 1 Cor 1:30] no explicit mention of imputation. But to argue that the language of imputation COULD NOT be used here because it would not fit other elements in the list (e.g., redemption) is to presuppose that Christ necessarily becomes our righteousness, sanctification and redemption---whether these constitute wisdom or must be added to wisdom as parallels---in exactly the same way. But that is precisely the ‘in Christ’ language, the language of union with Christ, [which] is more comprehensive than the categories tied more immediately to righteousness/justification.” (Pg. 76) Later, he adds, “why should a scholar who accepts that Paul teaches that our sins are imputed to Christ, even though no text explicitly says so, find it so strange that many Christians have held that Paul teaches Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, even though no text explicitly says so?” (Pg. 78)

Bruce L. McCormack asserts, “Let me put all my cards on the table. Where the doctrine of justification in particular is concerned, my own conviction is that the Reformers basically had it right with their emphasis upon a positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness. But, unfortunately, they were not in a position to explore the theological ontology that was implied in their understanding of justification. And this left their articulation of the doctrine vulnerable to criticism. In an age like our own, when men and women are crying for real change, for real transformation of the fundamental conditions of life, this can all too easily appear to be a decisive weakness. And it can also make the Protestant tradition appear weak and emaciated in comparison with traditions, like the Catholic and the Orthodox, who have always given explicit attention to matters ontological.” (Pg. 84)

Later, he suggests, “Nowadays, we are suffering from … the overly expansive use of terms which have their home in purely spiritual relations to describe relations between human beings who do not participate in a common ‘substance’ and who, therefore, remain distinct individuals even in the most intimate of their relations. This surely has to be true of the relation between the human believer to the human Jesus as well. What has prevented us from seeing this, I think, is the degree of residual Catholic content in the Reformation understanding of eucharistic feeding.” (Pg. 111)

Mark A. Seifrid argues, “Conservative theologians in particular, it seems to me, have an obligation to discern clearly, where the boundaries lie of that which must be defended, and where adaptation and diversity of opinion are to have free reign. For a variety of reasons, this exercise of discernment is especially important at the moment in relation to the doctrine of justification. In the first place, directly or indirectly, ecumenical discussions have prompted current debate. Biblical scholarship in the last generation has produced a fresh series of questions about Paul’s understanding of justification in its relation to Second Temple Judaism.” (Pg. 137)

Anthony N.S. Lane explains, I have argued elsewhere that to understand the doctrine of justification we need to be aware that there are two truths to be held in tension: 1. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Lk 18:9-14), the Pharisee thanked God for all his good works and that he was better than others. The tax collector by contrast beat his breast and said, ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner,’ It was the tax collector, not the Pharisee, who was accepted by God… The promise of acceptance to the worst sinner does not rule out the demand for total commitment from all believers. 2. Paul teaches justification by faith alone, that we are accepted by God not on the ground of our good works or merits but solely on the basis of Christ’s death for us on the cross…. But the same Paul also teaches, as do the other New Testament authors, that we are to be judged by our works… The message of free acceptance does not rule out the need for obedience.” (Pg. 218)

Geoffrey Wainwright says, “historic tensions between imputed and imparted righteousness, or between justification and sanctification, reflect the character of the church on pilgrimage between what Christ has achieved once and for all for our salvation and what we shall fully and finally enjoy in the kingdom of God. Holiness is both a gift and a task; as a gift, it is to be received thankfully and prayed for, and as a task it is to be striven after.” (Pg. 275)

Fairly ‘technical,’ this book will be of keen interest to Christians wanting to seriously study such doctrines.