A few weeks ago an editor from the Christian Science Monitor emailed to ask if I would consider writing an opinion piece on the doctrine of justification. This sounded unusual to say the least. First of all, why was he asking me? (Because a friend of mine passed along my name I found out). Second, why do they want an article on justification? I’m not sure exactly where they were coming from, but the editor I worked with was very knowledgeable about the Piper-Wright debate and very interested in helping CSM readers understand why the doctrine matters (he was also very kind and professional).
With the broohaha over the Manhattan Declaration it bears repeating what I hope is obvious from this article: I believe the doctrine of justification crucial for the church and, actually, for the world too. It is also worth pointing out that it is possible to write for a mainstream publication from an explicitly evangelical perspective. I imagine some magazines and papers might balk at an opinion piece that is too Christian, but in my experience when someone wants your opinion they want your opinion, no matter what it is, as long as you aren’t completely rude about it.
The piece is titled: “The Protestant debate over justification: Here I stand.” The subtitle pretty much sums up the gist: “Ignorance about how we get right with God has weakened the church. We must reassert that we’re saved by faith alone.”
Here’s my conclusion:
Much of the impotence of American churches is tied to a profound ignorance and apathy about justification. Our people live in a fog of guilt. Or just as bad, they think being a better person is all God requires. Even a cursory look at church history in the past few hundred years shows that the church is at its best and most vibrant when justification through faith alone is heard from her pulpits and clearly articulated by her most prominent spokesmen.
After so much time and so many controversies, there are still plenty of Protestants – be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, or Pentecostal – who still believe justification is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. I guess I’m one of them.
You can read the whole thing here.
November 30th, 2009 | 9:50 pm | #1
Excellent. Let’s add a mis-founded
(is that a word?) assurance of justification.
November 30th, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #2
I hate to bust the bubble here on justification, but it’s very clear that you are Reformed. The statement about a cursory look at Church History leaves out most of what happened. It certainly leaves out the entire holiness movement and much of Methodism. Truth be told, while the holiness folk make up a large percentage of Evangelicalism, their storyline is always conveniently forgotten by Reformed thinkers. From Wesley to Finney to Palmer and on, the emphasis has never really been on justification–and that goes for most Pentecostals of which I am one.
There was not even an agreed doctrine of justification among the first generation of Protestant Reformers. Just compare Zwingli, Bucer, Melanchthon, Luther and Oecolampadius and the differences will emerge.
December 1st, 2009 | 12:59 am | #3
Now that you’ve finished your attempt to justify your view on justification, I hope I am justified in adding my two-cents, which is simply:
Justification is God’s work. Obedience is ours.
For me, the teaching of Christ is that simple. And there’s not even a need to get into squabbles over free will and predestination, because whichever way you look at it, we still have a responsibility to obey, and we obey knowing that we are justified by God.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:09 am | #4
[...] by Chapter on Sarah Palin (193)karen marie: While an excellent chief executive in Alaska Have… Justification: Here I Stand (3)Anthony Mator: Now that you’ve finished your attempt to justify your view on… The Good [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 9:11 am | #5
Dale Coulter: “There was not even an agreed doctrine of justification among the first generation of Protestant Reformers.”
Yikes! I am comforted however by Anthony Mator’s comment: “Justification is God’s work. Obedience is ours.”
FWIW, here’s what I posted over at Rev. DeYoung’s blog:
“C. Michael Patton of the Parchment and Pen blog wrote this:
“I believe that faith alone saves a person, not an adherence to the belief in salvation by faith alone. Having said this, I believe that it is a primary part of the discharge of the Gospel to proclaim strongly and loudly that salvation is by faith alone. Those who deny such are in great danger in many ways. Paul exhorted the Galatians not to fall back into a worthless system of works. The means by which they were saved (faith) is also the means by which they are kept (faith). When man attempts to add anything to the faith, they have denied the Gospel by which they were saved. This is tragic.”
I.e., belief in Sola Fide is essential for (protestant) orthodoxy, but beliefe in Sola Fide is not essential for salvation.
In this post by Steve Scott titled “Protestantism’s False Gospel”:
“Protestantism’s false gospel: Justification by faith alone.
Okay, now I’ve got some splainin’ to do, as Ricky Ricardo would say. At the center of the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. But some Protestants make such a big deal out of the doctrine of justification by faith alone that they would substitute this doctrine and place it at the center of the gospel. The result? One is justified by their belief in the doctrine of justification by faith alone rather than by their faith in Christ, alone. See the difference? Belief in the doctrine is superior to belief in Christ.
I believe we are justified by faith in Christ. But this can be true without having a deep understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone as Protestant theologians have hashed it out. When we place upon others the burden of understanding something the same way we do, there is a tendency to discount their faith. The doctrine becomes our point of superiority. Our understanding of a doctrine becomes the object of our faith, rather than Christ as the object of our faith. I’m sure there will be many on Judgment Day who knew the doctrine of justification by faith inside and out, and believed it, but who really didn’t have faith in Christ. I hope that’s not true for you or me.”
December 1st, 2009 | 12:10 pm | #6
Read the article. Preach on!
If I can ask tangentially, I really don’t have a clue as to what N.T. Wright is about. His writing strikes me as the sort that you can’t really get a handle on without diving in and reading the whole thing. And I just don’t have the time. All summaries I have heard of him leave me clueless as to what he is saying. Would it be possible for someone brighter and more informed than I to put together a sort of “four spritual laws”-type summary of what he is saying about justification? Thanks.
December 1st, 2009 | 1:50 pm | #7
I agree with Bob that N.T. Wright is hard to follow. And I too have not felt particularly compelled to devote my time to reading all of his work to unravel his confusing pronouncements. Which is to say, I think I don’t like where Wright is going, but I’m not entirely sure where Wright thinks he is going. Cloudy communication often indicates a cloudy mind.
December 1st, 2009 | 4:31 pm | #8
I think what Wright is saying about justification is that it is God’s verdict delivered to us ahead of time. It is given in view of Jesus’ faithfulness at the cross, and all who are in Him by faith in Him receive it. In the end, at the judgment seat, this verdict will be proven to be true because of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in us.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact