What this all means is that justification is God’s final judgment. As Wilfried Joest writes, “there is no second decision after justification.” In the language of the Reformation, the “sole and sufficient basis” for our justification before God’s eschatological tribunal is Jesus . . . Continue reading →
Justification
Heidelcast 29: The Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience (pt 2)
Lane Keister joins the Heidelcast again for part 2 of our discussion of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Did Jesus obey only to qualify himself to be a Savior, did he obey for only himself and suffer only for . . . Continue reading →
Heidelcast 27: With Lane Keister on the Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience
HB reader Nick writes to ask about the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. Is it true that the Westminster divines, Twisse, Vines, and Gataker opposed the imputation of the active obedience of Christ and that the phrase, “the whole obedience of Christ” . . . Continue reading →
Synod Of Dort Day: Arminius Brought Out Of Hell
[We reject the errors of those] Who teach: That Christ by His satisfaction merited neither salvation itself for any one, nor faith, whereby this satisfaction of Christ unto salvation is effectually appropriated; but that He merited for the Father only the authority . . . Continue reading →
Why Do Some Say That Doubt Is Of The Essence Of Faith?
Curt writes to ask, I have a question. In “A Brief History of Covenant Theology” You write: For most of the Medieval period, the Western (Latin) church and the major theologians agreed that God says what he says about us, because we . . . Continue reading →
Heidelcast 17: Legalism and Antinomianism
An HB Classic
What’s the difference between legalism and antinomianism? The latter is the denial of the abiding validity of God’s moral law for the life of the believer. The church has been afflicted with antinomianism throughout its history. All the Gnostics of the 2nd . . . Continue reading →
What Is The Article Of The Standing or Falling Of The Church?
Articulus iustificationis dicitur articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae (the article of justification is said to be the article of the standing or falling of the church)” —J. H. Alsted (1588–1638), Theologia scholastica didactica (Hanover, 1618), 711. For the sense and origins of . . . Continue reading →
Guy Waters on the Federal Vision
Guy Waters is an outstanding scholar of the New Testament and he has been a stalwart on the doctrine of justification. He has been a vigorous opponent of the self-glossed “Federal Vision” movement. A few years ago, when Guy was on campus . . . Continue reading →
Faith-The Instrument By Which We Embrace Christ
We do not mean, however, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us — for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness. But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his . . . Continue reading →
Peter Martyr Vermigli on Law and Gospel
In the history of Christian theology there have been two ways of speaking about the relation between law and gospel: 1. historically and 2. theologically or hermeneutically. These two ways of relating law and gospel are complementary. The first way of relating . . . Continue reading →
Calvin on “Not Having a Righteousness of My Own”
He says, that believers have no righteousness of their own. Now, it cannot be denied, that if there were any righteousness of works, it might with propriety be said to be ours. Hence he leaves no room whatever for the righteousness of . . . Continue reading →
Calvin On A Mistaken Confidence In Works
We, too, when treating of the righteousness of faith, do not contend against the substance of works, but against that quality with which the sophists invest them,1 inasmuch as they contend that men are justified by them. Paul, therefore, divested himself—not of . . . Continue reading →
Who Are the True Catholics? (5a): Justification
Part 4: Who are the True Catholics (4): Assurance of Salvation In theological terms, there were two principles of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation: the formal principle and the material principle. The first, the formal principle, was the doctrine that Scripture is the . . . Continue reading →
Office Hours: Union with Christ
Office Hours talks with John Fesko, Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at WSC, about his new book: Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justfication in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517-1700). There is some confusion about the Reformed doctrine . . . Continue reading →
Why Complementarianism Can’t Be a “Gospel” Issue
For those who have not been following this discussion, here is a quick rundown as a preface to my point. On August 16, 2012 Denny Burk posted a Gospel Coalition video on his blog in which he noted that Tim Keller suggested . . . Continue reading →
When the Good News Becomes Bad-In Korean
It’s here. Thanks to Chris Won for the translation and to Inwoo Lee for posting it. Here’s the (English language) original.
Maybe They Really Don’t Get It
Over the years of battling the moralists (Federal Visionists, Norman Shepherd et al) I’ve not always been certain whether the moralists understand the orthodox doctrine of justification and reject it or if they think they are really teaching it. Here’s a post . . . Continue reading →
Resources on the Law/Gospel Distinction
The distinction between law and gospel is one of the most fundamental aspects of the Protestant Reformation. It was essential to the Reformation and it was a basic part of both early Reformed theology and Reformed orthodoxy. For a variety of reasons . . . Continue reading →
Get Justified!
Our friends at Modern Reformation have had a baby, as it were: Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on Justification. This is a collection of outstanding essays on the doctrine of justification by Mike Horton, R. C. Sproul, Simon Gathercole, David VanDrunen, John Fesko, . . . Continue reading →
Office Hours: But Through Faith Alone-Guy Waters on the NPP and the FV
The latest episode of Office Hours is up and it is a discussion with Prof. Guy Waters about the nature of the New Perspectives on Paul and the nature of the self-described “Federal Vision,” movement. We talk about what Paul really said . . . Continue reading →