The gentleman who penned the text "Not by Faith Alone" and this response to Mr. Sproul is antisemitic and a bit whacked re geocentrism, however, I think his response to sproul here is worth reading - as is his book...
Protestant R. C. Sproul:
At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation theology is the nature of justification itself. It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified, but about the very meaning of justification itself.
Reformed theology insists that the biblical doctrine of justification is forensic in nature. What does this mean? In the popular jargon of religion, the word forensic is used infrequently. The word is not foreign, however, to ordinary language. It appears daily in the news media, particularly with reference to criminal investigations and trials. We hear of "forensic evidence" and "forensic medicine" as we listen to the reports of criminologists, coroners, and pathologists. Here the term forensic refers to the judicial system and judicial proceedings.
The term forensic is also used to describe events connected with public speaking. Schools hold forensic contests or events that feature formal debates or the delivery of speeches.
The link between these ordinary usages of forensic and its theological use is that justification has to do with a legal or judicial matter involving some type of declaration. We can reduce its meaning to the concept of legal declaration.
The doctrine of justification involves a legal matter of the highest order. Indeed it is the legal issue on which the sinner stands or falls: his status before the supreme tribunal of God.
When we are summoned to appear before the bar of God's judgment, we face a judgment based on perfect justice. The presiding Judge is himself perfectly just. He is also omniscient, fully aware of our every deed, thought, inclination, and word. Measured by the standard of his canon of righteousness, we face the psalmist's rhetorical question that hints at despair: "If you, LORD, should mark iniquities, ...who could stand?" (Psalm 130:3 NKJV).
he obvious answer to this query is supplied by the Apostle Paul: "There is none righteous, no, not one...." (Romans 3:10).
God commands us to be holy. Our moral obligation coram Deo (before the face of God) is to live perfect lives. One sin mars that obligation and leaves us naked, exposed before divine justice. Once a person sins at all, a perfect record is impossible. Even if we could live perfectly after that one sin, we would still fail to achieve perfection. Our sin may be forgiven, but forgiveness does not undo the sin. The consequences of the sin may be removed or ameliorated, but the sin itself is not undone.
The Bible speaks figuratively about the sin being washed, cleansed, healed, and blotted out. The sin, which is scarlet, may become white as snow, the crimson may become like wool, in God's sight. The sin may be cast into the sea of forgetfulness or purged with hyssop. But these images describe an expiation for sin and divine forgiveness or remission of our sin. Our record does not change, but our guilt does. Hence Paul declares, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin" (Romans 4:8 NKJV).
In our redemptive forgiveness God does not charge us with what we owe. He does not count our sins against us. If he did, no one (except Jesus) would ever escape his just wrath. No one but Christ would be able to stand before God's judgment.
Again, God in his grace may regenerate us, sanctify us, and even glorify us. He might make us perfect in the future. He really does change the elect and will eventually make the justified totally and completely righteous. But even the perfected saint in heaven was once a sinner and has a track record that, apart from the grace of justification, would send him to hell.
Thus, where temporal creatures are concerned, everyone who is once imperfect is always imperfect with respect to the whole scope of the person's individual history. This is what Thomas Aquinas meant when he asserted that justification is always of the impious (iustificatio impii). Righteous people have no need of justification, even as the healthy have no need of a physician.
Both Roman Catholic and Reformation theology are concerned with the justification of sinners. Both sides recognize that the great human dilemma is how unjust sinners can ever hope to survive a judgment before the court of an absolutely holy and absolutely just God.
If we define forensic justification as a legal declaration by which God declares a person just and we leave it at that, we would have no dispute between Rome and Evangelicalism. Though Rome has an antipathy to the concept of forensic justification, this antipathy is directed against the Protestant view of it. In chapter 7 of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Rome declared: "...not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure...."
Here Rome is jealous to distinguish between being reputed just and actually being just, yet it is still true that God calls the baptismally regenerated just. That is, for Rome justification is forensic in that justification involves God's legal declaration. A person is justified when God declares that person just. The reason or the ground of that declaration differs radically between Roman Catholic and Reformed theology. But both agree that a legal declaration by God is made.
Nor is it sufficient merely to say that Rome teaches that justification means "to make just," while Protestants teach that justification means "to declare just." For Rome God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants God both makes just and declares just -- but not in the same way. For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner. For the Reformation the declaration of justice follows the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the regenerated sinner.
R. C. Sproul is an author, chairman of Ligonier Ministries, and professor at the Orlando campus of Reformed Theological Seminary.
Commentary by Robert Sungenis:
R. C. Sproul, although a kind and polite gentlemen, unfortunately, keeps asserting the same old "Reformed" apologetic but fails to acknowledge that the issues he outlines above have already been answered. In fact, when my book Not By Faith Alone came out in 1997, CAI asked Ligonier Ministries, twice, whether R.C. Sproul would be willing to debate these issues. R. C. Sproul himself wrote a letter back to me personally and said that he did not have the time to engage in such debate, and that he didn't think it would be productive. Above, of course, we see Dr. Sproul, without the benefit of debate, holding on to the same unchallenged beliefs. It is one thing to have firm convictions, but when you are a national spokesman for your denominations beliefs, and you are challenged to debate, you owe it to all your constituents to have your beliefs checked and challenged. The fact that we disagree means someone is wrong, and thus it behooves honest men to keep themselves open to the fact that the error rests on their side of the fence.
For anyone who would like to read detailed answers to R. C. Sproul's assertions, I have done so in a point-by-point fashion in my book Not By Faith Alone. In fact, there are 47 separate pages in Not By Faith Alone dealing with the arguments of Dr. Sproul. In those pages you will find such things as:
1) Contrary to Sproul's claim, the New Testament does not treat "justification" as a forensic event. In fact, the very word "declared" to which Sproul appeals is never used in the New Testament in the forensic sense. The Greek word in contention is logizomai. It is the word that Protestant translations invariably render as "declared," seeking to portray an act in which God legally declares someone as justified, although the person does not possess any justifying qualities within himself. It is as if God put a label on the individual's forehead that said "Justified," yet he remains the same sinful person he was before the label was given to him, even though he might better himself a little in the process of sanctification. The problem with Sproul's view is that the Greek word logizomai, which is used 41 times in the New Testament, refers preponderantly to the very opposite of what Sproul and the rest of Reformed theology is claiming. Let me quote from Not By Faith Alone, pages 324-325:
"And it Was Credited Unto Him as Righteouness"
We must now investigate one of the most popular Protestant arguments for the concept of imputed righteousness. This matter concerns the use of the Greek word logizomai translated as, "reckoned," "credited," "accepted," "counted," "considered." The lexical definition carries several meanings as well: reckon, calculate, take into account, put on someone's account, estimate, evaluate, look upon as, consider, think, dwell on, believe, be of the opinion of (Lexicons by Walter Bauer: pp. 475-476; and Liddell and Scott, p. 416). Protestant exegesis, especially that of Romans 4 where the Greek word logizomai appears twelve times, has consistently understood the word in the sense of "credited." As noted earlier, the analogy drawn to describe the righteousness credited to Abraham in Romans 4 is that of an accountant giving a "credit" to Abraham's ledger book, a credit that was secured completely by the work of Christ in the atonement. Abraham is understood as one who has "something to his credit" so that when God looks at his ledger book, as it were, he sees that, in accounting terms, Abraham is in the black. Evangelical Joel Beeke comments on this verb:
This very most often indicates 'what a person, considered by himself, is not, or does not have, but is reckoned, held or regarded to be, or to have. It is clear then that when Abraham was justified by his faith, the righteousness which was reckoned or 'charged to his account' was a righteousness not his own but that of another, namely, the righteousness of Christ. (Justification by Faith Alone, p. 56).
Unfortunately, Beeke presents a false premise which leads him to make a false conclusion. First, the Greek verb logizomai does not "most often indicate" what someone or something is merely "considered" to be but is not so in reality. The New Testament uses logizomai 41 times. Most of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing (cf., Lk 22:37; Rm 3:28; 6:11; 9:8; 1Co 4:1; 13:5, 11; Ph 3:13; 4:8; Hb 11:19, et al). Contrary to Beeke's proposition, in only a few instances is logizomai used a mental representation of something that does not exist in reality (cf., Rm 2:26; 2Co 12:6). Hence, the preponderant evidence shows that logizomai denotes more of what is recognized or understood intrinsically of a person or thing than a mere crediting to the person or thing something that is not intrinsic to it.
In the case of Abraham, for example, we can understand the phrase "his faith is reckoned as righteousness" in Romans 4:5 such that God is recognizing or viewing Abraham's faith as righteousness, or that God interpreted the faith Abraham demonstrated as righteousness, or both. This is very different from saying, as Beeke claims, that God "credited" Abraham with righteousness as if to say that Abraham was not really showing any righteous qualities when he demonstrated his faith but that God, because fo the alien righteousness of Christ, merely gave him the label of righteousness.
*Mr. Sungenis' work is an admixture of the very good and the very evil. And, he must certainly repent of his antisemitisms. However, his book is one y'all might take a look at as re imputed vs infused righteousness
I tried to find the references from Sungenis in regards to Sproul's interpretation of "justified" but was unable to do so. I suppose he wants me to PAY for a book. He shouldn't really get bent out of shape that Sproul doesn't want to debate him since Sproul is a rather busy man. But I personally find debates meaningless; just look at any Presidential debate and tell me if you are any smarter when you come away from them.
I would disagree with your author's view:
In my search I did come across a rather interesting article in Wikipedia on various views on Justification. I thought it was rather interesting.