November 2007 - Protestant Reformed Churches in America

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