Posted by
ValiantForTruth on Saturday, July 04, 2009 8:30:40 AM
Justification is the doctrine that separates Christians from all professing Christians. We conclude these articles on Murray’s review with a consideration of this doctrine. We will join the ranks of the dogmatic here and say that a man cannot be a Christian unless he is convinced in the heart of the truth that men are justified by faith alone. On this doctrine there can be no compromise. In order for salvation to be of grace then it must be through faith alone, otherwise men have something to boast before God rather than a plead for mercy. The doctrine of cooperative good works by the sinner added to the merits of Christ necessary for justification is what the Bible calls anathema.
It is affirmed and repeated by the upholders of Evangelicals and Catholics Together that the justification of sinners ‘is not earned by any good works or merits of our own’. But this is a specious use of words. The Roman Church has always claimed that ‘the good works’ necessary for justification are performed in cooperation with Christ
Thus Cannon XXXII of Trent teaches that good works performed through the grace of God and the merit of Christ ‘truly merit eternal life’. No matter what is credited to Christ, works remain a necessary part of justification, and because no one can know if his works are of sufficient quality Rome denies the possibility of assurance, and teaches the necessity of sacraments and of purgatory for most Christians.
‘The doctrine invented by the papists is that we can do nothing without Christ, but that aided by Him, we have something of ourselves in addition to His grace’ [Calvin]. Contrary to Rome, the Reformers held that justification is not a process but an act of God, accounting the work of Christ to the sinner who receives Him. It is a once-for-all event, of which good works are not a part but a consequence.
In the present fragmented state of Christianity and threatened by rampant secularism and materialism, why should evangelicals remain apart from the ‘greater unity’ which Rome professes to offer? If evangelicals have discovered that the differences do not concern the essentials of the gospel, and there is now agreement ‘on the basics’, why should there not be reunion?
It is by Scripture that the decision must be reached whether a Reformer such as John Hooper was mistaken in being ‘willing to give up his life rather than consent to the wicked papistical religion of the Bishop of Rome’. When urged to recant with the words, ‘Consider that life is sweet, and death is bitter’, the one-time Bishop of Gloucester replied: ‘The life to come is more sweet, and the death to come is more bitter.’
The Reformers were men mighty in the Scriptures. Their eyes were opened to the Church of Rome; what they once thought to be the bride of Christ, became to them the great harlot, and they came out of her. Unless there is a renewal of what made Protestantism, the uncertainties promoted by books like 'Is the Reformation Over?' can only continue to influence larger numbers.
Why is ecumenicalism defined in terms of Protestants coming home to Rome? Instead, why should it not be defined as all Christians being united around the doctrines of Jesus Christ? That is, local and independent churches governed by elders under the authority of Christ through His word given to us in the Holy Scriptures and opened to us by the Holy Spirit; a pure doctrine of justification by faith alone and a complete and sufficient atonement that atones once for all time; an unambiguous salvation that is in Christ alone by grace alone.
The apostate Roman Church is the one who needs to renounce its unbiblical traditions and return to the Bible alone for its authority. Lloyd-Jones was right: ‘the increase in Roman Catholicism is due to one thing only, and that is a weak and flabby Protestantism that does not know what it believes. There is only one thing that can counter it, and that is a biblical and doctrinal Christianity’.