November 2007 - Protestant Reformed Churches in America

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Book Reviews Lillback’s thesis is that Luther people, and declares them to be and Calvin differed in their understanding of justification. God’s work of making His righteous. Justification is not The difference was that Luther people holy and enabling them included regeneration and renewal in his doctrine of justifi- a work, but it is not justifica- to do good works. There is such cation, while Calvin excluded tion; it is sanctification. Justification is strictly legal; it is renewal from his doctrine. Supposedly, Calvin alone emphasized the forensic nature of jus- His people are righteous on the strictly God’s declaration that tification, while Luther tried to basis of Christ’s work. The term combine renewal and forensic “forensic” expresses that legal justification. “In particular, we act, and guards justification will consider how Luther and from being confused with sanctification. the early Lutherans included regeneration in their doctrine of The term “renewal” describes God’s work of regenera- justification, seeking to harmonize it with the forensic idea of tion and sanctification. It is His justification. But we shall also work of giving His people new see that Calvin’s teaching on life, nurturing that life, making forensic justification emphasizes that the sinner is declared live a life of good works. them holy, and enabling them to to be legally righteous before Therefore, if Lillback’s thesis is true that Luther included God as the Judge of sinners by faith…. We shall also see that renewal in his doctrine of justification, it means that Luther Calvin came to view the merging of forensic justification with confused justification and sanctification. In fact, this is renewal, as found in the early Lutheran theologians, as a generally non-biblical way of de- normally be considered justifi- Lillback’s charge. “What would scribing the doctrine” (p. 53). cation terminology, Luther also The term “forensic” describes justification as a strictly tification” (p. 75). In other employs in the domain of sanc- legal act of God. It is a term words, Luther allowed works to used for what goes on in a courtroom. God the righteous Judge while Calvin did not. have a place in justification, imputes, or credits, the righteousness of Christ to His It is fascinating because those This is a fascinating thesis! November 2007 119
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal who attack the doctrine of justification by faith alone usually teach exactly the reverse of this thesis. The normal charge is that it was Calvin who allowed for good works to play a part in justification, while Luther left no place for works in justification. In fact, Lillback himself has made that very charge in a previous book, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. But now Lillback would have us believe that it was Calvin who taught forensic justification, and Luther who mingled justification and renewal. Fascinating! But absurd! It is absurd to teach that either Calvin or Luther allowed for good works in their doctrine of justification. Luther and Calvin were united in their clear insistence that justification is by faith alone, and that the believer’s works play no part in his justification. Apparently, Lillback himself feels the weight of this. His attempt to make Luther mingle justification and renewal is forced. The quotes he cites are unconvincing. In fact, Lillback must admit that there is “no lack of forensic oriented terminology in Luther’s writings…. Thus Luther says, ‘But here the question is, by what means we are justified and attain eternal life. To this we answer with Paul, that by faith only in Christ we are pronounced righteous…’” (p. 72). The inescapable fact is that Luther taught forensic justification as vigorously as Calvin did. It becomes apparent that Lillback likes to find the mingling of justification and sanctification wherever he can. It does not matter for him whether it was Luther or Calvin who allowed good works to play a part in justification. This becomes evident when Lillback argues at length that not only Luther, but sometimes also Calvin, mingled justification and sanctification. Citing Calvin’s commentary on Titus 3:7, Lillback exults, “But astonishingly, Calvin himself at one point admits the possibility of regeneration being a part of justification!” (p. 62). And again, “But is not Calvin then guilty of potentially mingling together two distinct benefits of Christ’s redemptive work Calvin is conscious of this concern but believes that this is precisely what Paul himself is do- 120 Vol. 41, No. 1
Page 1 and 2:
Volume 41 • November 2007 • Num
Page 3 and 4:
Book Reviews 85 Barnes, Peter. Gala
Page 5 and 6:
Protestant Reformed Theological Jou
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72: Protestant Reformed Theological Jou
Page 121: Protestant Reformed Theological Jou
show all

November 2007 - Protestant Reformed Churches in America

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?