November 2007 - Protestant Reformed Churches in America

ing in this text” (p. 63).
Calvin’s statements admittedly
raise some questions, but there
is a way to understand them that
does not compromise the truth
of forensic justification. When
Calvin says that Paul mingles
free pardon and renewal, he
does not mean that Paul teaches
that works are sometimes involved
in our justification.
Rather, he means that Paul mentions
both justification and renewal
at the same time, even
though God’s act of freely pardoning
our sins on the one hand
and God’s act of renewing us to
obey Him on the other are distinct
acts. Calvin’s doctrine of
forensic justification is not
compromised by his explanation
of Titus 3:7, as Lillback
implies it is.
Both Luther and Calvin
taught forensic justification.
Neither Luther nor Calvin
mingled justification and renewal
in such a way that works
were allowed to play a part in
justification. Lillback’s determined
effort to find otherwise
in the Reformers is ominous.
Book Reviews
After all, if the Reformers could
allow for justification by faith
and works, then Reformed and
Presbyterian churches today
may allow for it as well.
The rest of the articles in the
book have similar weaknesses.
This is not to say that the men
never make soundly Reformed
statements; they make many.
This is not to say, either, that the
articles are not valuable studies
with helpful insights on interesting
topics; they are. There
are articles on the relationship
between justification and
eschatology, union with Christ
and justification, the pastoral
implications of justification,
and more. But it is to say that
at key points, allowance is made
for works to play a part in justification.
This guts the whole
project, and compromises the
truth of justification by faith
alone.
So, what is the status of the
doctrine of justification at
Westminster Theological Seminary
in Philadelphia The seminary
remains firmly rooted in its
history. ■
November 2007 121