Posted on 05/17/2002 4:46:57 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
John Wesley also embraced the doctrine of imputed righteousness, but pronounced a similar caution, "In the meantime what we are afraid of is this: lest any should use the phrase, "The righteousness of Christ," or, "The righteousness of Christ is 'imputed to me'," as a cover for his unrighteousness" ["The Lord our Righteousness," Sermon #20, II.19].
=====
Is this not a denial of forensic justification?
The reformation doctrine of forensic justification (the doctrine upon which Luther said the church stands or falls) is that we are legally declared righteous based on His work FOR [not IN] us. The term used was "alien righteousness" (i.e. the righteousness of another). We are therefore, as Luther declared, "simul justus et peccator." At the same time just and a sinner. Precisely the position Wesley and Arminius are seeking to avoid.
See Lowell C. Green, How Melancthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel. $7.95 on amazon.com
This confusion is amplified by Charles Grandison Finney who openly denies forensic justification, the penal theory of the atonement, etc. etc. Finney just is more blatant.
Luther was clearly correct. And his insight was clearly important!
As you pointed out, justification is forensic.
Also, I posted an article by Turrentin on forensic justification.
They are not arguing with the doctrine of imputed righteousness, they are arguing with what they think is a poorly chosen TERM. The bible says that no one will be declared righteous by virtue of keeping the law. Therefore, I see their problem with the term, "forensic righteousness."
If, by forensic righteousness, they really wish to discuss "imputed righteousness," they should use that term or find another that isn't confusing when directly translated.
While it is clear that "imputed righteousness" is a legitimate act by the eternal Judge, our God, and that this is the source of the term "forensic," I, nonetheless, consider it a poorly chosen term.
Wesley says, "But what is it to be justified? What is justification? It is evident from what has been already observed that it is NOT being made ACTUALLY just and righteous. This is sanctification; which is indeed, in some degree, the immediate fruit of justification, but, nevertheless, is a distinct gift of God, and of a totally different nature. The one {justificaton} implies what God does FOR US through his Son; the other {sanctification} implies what He works IN US by His Spirit..." (Sermon on Justification by Faith.)
[1] Read the Turretin article.
[2] Will you agree with the concept "simul justus et peccator" at the same time just and a sinner?
[3] I seem to remember an extensive discussion with winston, I think, arguing for a governmental theory (vs. penal substitute)of the atonement. Which view do you hold?
Why do you guys do this??
===
"penal substitute" is a theological term! :)) He was punished in my place.
THAT one I knew..I do not know that the governmental theory is
Grotius (1583–1645) taught the governmental theory as a reaction to the example theory of Socinius. The governmental theory served as a compromise between the example theory and the view of the Reformers. Grotius taught that God forgives sinners without requiring an equivalent payment. Grotius reasoned that Christ upheld the principle of government in God’s law by making a token payment for sin through His death. God accepted the token payment of Christ, set aside the requirement of the law, and was able to forgive sinners because the principle of His government had been upheld.
Among the problems with this view are the following. God is subject to change—He threatens but does not carry out (and in fact changes) the sentence. According to this view God forgives sin without payment for sin. Scripture, however, teaches the necessity of propitiating God (Rom. 3:24; 1 John 2:2)—the wrath of God must be assuaged. Also, substitutionary atonement must be made for sin (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24).
Enns, Paul, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press) 1996.
====
How's that for a fast response!
Not bail money but not the precise penalty required by the law. It was a general response to sin showing His displeasure at sin rather than payment for specific sins...
God accepted the token payment of Christ, set aside the requirement of the law, and was able to forgive sinners because the principle of His government had been upheld.
Vice President Quayle?
Don't tell me if you're too young for the reference. I'll ping some other "seniors" just in case...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.