A Supreme Consensus: Thoughts on Justification

Justification by faith alone. Sounds simple enough, and in some respects it is. In the PCA we admit people into membership who acknowledge they are sinners and trust in Christ alone for salvation. In a certain sense, we are requiring that they understand the doctrine of justification. But we are not requiring that they are able to understand all the debates surrounding the topic. And, from what I can tell from online discussions, few who discourse on such matters seem to really understand the precise nature of the questions that were considered in the Early Modern period by Reformed divines.

No one disputes that Christ obeyed the law for us or even that, in a certain sense, he obeyed in our stead. The real debate concerns whether there is an imputation of the active obedience of Christ to us so that we are accounted as having obeyed the law perfectly.

There were controversies between the Reformed and the Papists on the doctrine, especially in terms of the so-called formal cause of justification. Reformed divines differed on the expressions used. Some said the righteousness of Christ is imputed, which is not necessarily to affirm the IAOC. The righteousness of Christ imputed was, for some, the formal cause of justification but other Reformed theologians said there was no formal cause.

To make matters a little more complicated, the Remonstrants and the contra-Remonstrants were not in agreement on the doctrine of justification, either. In other words, justification, not predestination, was the main point where Arminius and his followers deviated from the Reformed.

The irenic Herman Witsius drew attention to this deviation by Arminius: “Arminius, by his subtlety, frames vain empty quibbles, when he contends that the righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to us for righteousness...” He adds: “It is well known that the reformed churches condemned Arminius and his followers, for saying that faith comes to be considered in the matter of justification as a work or act of ours.” 

Arminius believed that because of the gracious estimation of God, faith is our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is not imputed to believers in the way that the Reformed typically held.

Arminius made use of a concept, known as acceptilatio. Imperfect faith – as it necessarily must be – is accepted (by God’s gracious estimation) as righteousness. The human act of faith is by grace counted as evangelical righteousness, as if it were the complete fulfillment of the whole law. This human act comes forth from the ability to choose (liberum arbitrium). God has a “new law” in the evangelical covenant, whereby faith answers to the demands of the covenant. Arminius was a pioneer of a type of “Neonomianism.”

Because the act of faith constitutes righteousness, the way a sinner is justified is not because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through the instrument of faith, but because of the act of believing which answers to the demands of the evangelical covenant. 

If you read Petrus Bertius (an Arminian) you might conclude that the Reformed and the Remonstrants seemed to agree on the formal cause of justification, i.e., imputation. But they differed on the material cause. What is imputed to the believer, our act of faith or Christ’s righteousness apprehended by faith? The Reformed held to the latter, whereas, as noted above, the Arminians typically held to the former. But even on the so-called “formal cause” there was an important difference between the two camps.

The Reformed, however, view imputation as secundum veritatem: God considers Christ’s righteousness as our righteousness, precisely because it is, through union with Christ. The verdict that God passes on his Son is precisely the same verdict he passes on those who belong to Christ – but only through imputation.

Returning to the Reformed position, William Perkins highlights the importance of the Reformed view on imputation: “For as his righteousness is made ours, so are his merits depending thereon: but his righteousness is made ours by imputation ... Hence arises another point, namely, that as Christ’s righteousness is made ours really [secundum veritatem] by imputation to make us righteous: so we by the merit of his righteousness imputed to merit and deserve life everlasting. And this is our doctrine.”

Now, to be clear, this still does not settle the question whether we may speak of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Friedrich Spanheim speaks well to the issue among Reformed theologians and affirms a type of “supreme consensus.” He acknowledges there is a difference on the material cause:

“… even if some disagreement comes between us in explaining its material cause, with some insisting on an obedience that is both active and passive, and conjoining satisfaction through obedience and through punishment; and some others seeking the material cause of our justification in satisfaction alone through punishment. The foundation is safe among both. For both not only admit, but demand, Christ’s perfectly supplied obedience to the law for our justification, but they differ in the manner of explaining the matter. For some consider it a meritorious cause of our justification, and some consider it a personal condition, and a cause sine qua non of meriting justification…Concerning which, with no harm to the unity of the faith or charity, there is a difference of opinions, since both parties lay hold of the whole Christ and him alone, and seek righteousness and life in the whole Christ and him alone.”

There will be differences on certain points in the doctrine of justification. The key questions arose when those differences were explained. As noted above, very briefly, they could be enough to separate the Remonstrants from the Reformed or they could be minor enough to be a point of disagreement among the Reformed. At the very least, when discoursing on these matters, one should have a general awareness of the disputed points. But even if one does not fully or adequately understand the various “causes,” we should know enough to plead Christ alone, and his righteousness, as our only confidence for the right to eternal life.

For further reading:

John Owen, vol. 5 on Justification.

John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification (2 vols).

Mark Jones (Ph.D., Leiden) has been the minister at Faith Vancouver Presbyterian Church (PCA), Canada since 2007.