I here contend that opposition to a “final justification” by works is bad exegesis, bad theology, bad historical theology, and bad logic/reasoning—And, nearly 100% of the time, terrible reading comprehension that leads to antinomianism.
INTRODUCTION
Final justification is a biblical, reformed, and confessional doctrine. Does this sound like nonsense to you? Surely, nobody who’s ever read the Reformers could claim this, right? Am I spouting heresy from the Federal Vision designed to lead people into the dangerous teachings of Norman Shepherd? Surely, I must hate the Marrow of Modern Divinity and be totally ignorant as to what the Law/Gospel distinction is. If any of these thoughts or something like them are running through your mind right now, then this post is for you! Here I will contend that opposition to a “final justification” by works is not only bad exegesis, bad theology, bad historical theology, bad logic/reasoning, but also that it ends up hurting the Law/Gospel distinction and the cares that The Marrow of Modern Divinity sought to address by essentially giving way to antinomianism.
I have addressed this issue before on this site before https://brandoncorleyschoo.wixsite.com/brandoncorley/post/an-internet-debate-with-an-eo which was just a footnote but turned into a long excursus at the very bottom of the post. This was really a quick fly-over of the issue that can’t do justice to the entire thing. I also tweeted a thread about it not too long ago with a lot of helpful resources, some of which I’ll probably be referencing here. What has prompted me to write this entire thing is the constant misunderstandings of final justification that I keep seeing being put out and the horrible accusations made against men like Greg Beale that they deny justification sola fide. The biggest prompting for me, however, was recently seeing misreadings of Turretin and especially Owen’s work on justification which have been used to argue against final justification. I happen to know Owen’s defense of justification very well and I have little doubt that I’ll be able to show that he sides with Beale/Schreiner/Piper and not Escondido, which seems to be the main source of these misunderstandings which I believe have come about as a failed attempt to combat neonomianism that misidentifies the issues and ends up becoming antinomian in an otherwise good-willed attempt to combat legalism and works-righteousness.
To begin this post, I will do what I have never seen a single opponent of “final justification” be able to do: I will accurately represent my opponent’s position. If you cannot articulate an opposing position, you have no basis for critiquing it because you do not understand it. Ultimately, I believe this is what causes all of the errors of final justification opponents—they do not understand the position and thus keep equating it with neonomianism. So, succinctly, here is their position:
Biblical covenants operate on one of two principles: by works or by grace. In a covenant of works, the principle is “do this and live”. A man must work for his justification before God. However, in the covenant of grace, all that is required for justification before God has been done for you by Jesus Christ. This is the Law/Gospel distinction and was affirmed by the Reformers. A final justification by works ends up making the covenant of grace into a covenant of works whereby believers must do works in order to earn their justification before God. This ultimately becomes a “get in by grace, stay in by works” system like the FV teaches.
Now, the Law/Gospel distinction is certainly something I most whole-heartedly affirm and have spent a vast amount of time defending against many objectors, most of whom are Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. There has been in the history of reformed theology a legitimate concern against monocovenantalism in which the Covenant of Grace would appear to be mixed with a covenant of works. Somehow, the Mosaic covenant’s principle of “do this and live” is of the same substance as the covenant of grace, and this leads to obvious problems, which the FV grew out of (at least this is Brandon Adams' and others' narrative; There were many Reformers who held the analogous "do this and live" view https://www.reformation21.org/blog/do-this-and-live but they were always clear that this was only an analogy and hence different from the meritorious sense of causation that "do this and live" held otherwise (nor is this view limited to paedobaptists, as Sam Renihan is who I learned this view from). While one may disagree with their analogous view, though it might be warranted by Ezekiel 36-37 and other verses like Proverbs 4:4 and Luke 10:28, I think it extremely unfair and terrible historiography to blame those who have held this view like John Murray for the subsequent misuse of this verse by men like Norman Shepherd, which clearly failed to distinguish between different senses of causality as the analogous view had done. In short, my point is simply that, while not necessarily agreeing with Ramsey's article, and certainly I do not agree with it all: the propriety of the use of something cannot be determined by its misuse.). Opposing monocovenantalism was always a bi-covenantalism whereby the Mosaic covenant was seen as a subservient covenant opposed to the principle of the covenant of grace (cf. Kline and Owen). Most consistently, this was worked out into 1689 Federalism where the absolute opposition between works and grace in justification was seen as the opposition between the Old Covenant, wherein the principle of the Covenant of Works with Adam was republished, and the New Covenant. I won’t get into more here, but you can read about this on Brandon Adams’ blog:
So the thought here is that those who affirm final justification are thus implicitly denying the Law/Gospel distinction and bringing us back into a kind of monocovenantalism that will lead to the errors of the FV and Norman Shepherd. This is very clear if you read Adams’ posts on John Piper, given that Adams believes that this is what Piper is doing in affirming final justification (this is also Sam Waldron’s position which you will quickly find out through reading Adams’ blog. I absolutely love Waldron, but he's wrong here, as I'll show).
So, it would seem then, on this view, that those who affirm a “final justification” by works such as G. K. Beale, Thomas Schreiner, and John Piper ultimately compromise justification sola fide since they suggest that we will be justified by what we do—by our works—rather than by faith in Christ, receiving and resting upon His works for us. They add “works” to “sola fide” and thus contradict it, turning the Covenant of Grace into a new Covenant of Works.
So, it seems that these 3 men must be teaching a form of neonomianism, akin to the FV.
But what exactly is the problem with this? The problem, put quite simply, is that neither Beale, nor Schreiner, nor Piper believe or teach that our good works are the ***meritorious condition*** of our final justification, but rather that our good works are a ***necessary condition*** of our final justification. Or simply put a “meritorious cause” vs a “necessary condition” This is what distinguishes Beale/Schreiner/Piper (hereafter B/S/P) from the FV/Shepherd/Baxter, all who make our works or faith meritorious. The inability to make this one distinction is what underlies ALL of the arguments against B/S/P and final justification. The inability to make this distinction is what sets opponents of final justification against the Reformers who affirmed a final justification by works (as we will see) and sadly turns them into antinomians. No matter how many times I and others have pressed this distinction, opponents seem to keep on misreading and misreading. There is a simple elementary logical error here that I am surprised so many have fallen prey to.
G. K. BEALE AND FINAL JUSTIFICATION (“NECESSARY CAUSAL CONDITION” VS. “NECESSARY NON-CAUSAL CONDITION”)
One of the best overall treatments of this issue as a whole, which I will be referring to is found here: https://theaquilareport.com/g-k-beale-doctrine-justification-future-judgment/, which focuses on G.K. Beale’s articulation of final justification in particular. Reading the entire article is helpful and I would suggest you do it before continuing on to read the rest of this post, but I’ll just be drawing on a few sections here.
Let’s take a quick look at what G. K. Beale actually says and see if he has compromised sola fide. I don’t believe there is any need to reinvent the wheel here, so I will start by quoting a section of the above article at length:
[Justification] is definitive in the sense that saints are declared from God’s perspective not guilty because Christ suffered the penalty of their sin. And, just as definitively, they are also declared righteous because Christ achieved representative righteousness for them in his resurrected person and was completely vindicated from injustice (showing that he had been righteous all along), a vindication with which the saints are also identified. Consequently, they are declared to have the same righteousness (by imputation or attribution) that Christ possessed throughout his life and still possesses.
Nevertheless, there is a “not yet” aspect to justification, a sense in which justification/vindication is not completed because “the world does not recognize God’s vindication of his people.” Therefore, the final resurrection “will vindicate the truth of their faith and confirm that their obedience was a necessary outgrowth of this faith. That is, although they had been declared righteous in God’s sight when they believed, the world continued to declare them guilty. Their physical resurrection will be undeniable proof of the validity of their faith, which had already declared them righteous in their past life.” Beale distinguishes between an “invisible” (already) and “visible” (not yet) aspect of justification in which the forensic declaration of pardon and righteousness in the already, while definite, complete, and irrevocable, is not yet manifested or proved before the unbelieving world.
Beale speaks of good works as “part of this ‘final manifestive justification.’” Appealing to Rom. 2:13; 14:20, 12; 2 Cor. 5:10 and other texts, Beale shows that the New Testament writers speak of both judgments by works and justification by faith. How can the two be reconciled? Beale makes a distinction between a “necessary causal condition” of final justification/vindication which is Christ’s righteousness alone. Good works are, however, a “necessary” condition of this final justification/vindication in the sense that works provide the evidence that believers were justified in Christ all along. Beale uses an analogy which helpfully illustrates the nature of this end-times “manifestive” justification:
A mundane illustration may help to clarify. In the United States, some large discount food stores require people to pay an annual fee to have the privilege of buying food at their store. Once this fee is paid, the member must present a card as evidence of having paid the fee. The card gets the members into the store, but it is not the ultimate reason that the person is granted access. The paid fee is the ultimate reason, the card being the evidence that the fee has been paid. We may refer to the paid fee as the “necessary causal condition” of store entrance and to the evidential card more simply as a “necessary condition.” The card is the external manifestation or proof that the price has been paid, so that both the money paid and the card issued are necessary for admittance, but they do not have the same conditional force for gaining entrance. We may call the paid fee a “first order” or “ultimate” condition and the card a “second order” condition. Likewise, Christ’s justification penal death is the price paid ‘once for all’ (Heb. 9:12; cf. 9:26-28) and the good works done within the context of Christian faith become the inevitable evidence of such faith at the final judicial evaluation.
Beale appeals to a distinction made by Jonathan Edwards between Christ’s work as constituting the “causal” ground of justification and believers’ works as providing the “manifestive” evidence of the once for all reality of the former. This “manifestive evidence” is a key part of the judicial process and will serve to vindicate the imputed righteousness of believers on the Day of Judgment before an unbelieving world. This “manifestive” justification overturns the false judgment of the world and vindicates God’s people as righteous in Christ alone.
Commenting on 2 Cor. 4:6-5:10, Beale argues that the future justification/vindication of believers is reflective of the justification/vindication that has already been accomplished in the past. There aren’t “two justifications” but one justification with two dimensions: the already and the not yet. The “not yet” justification serves to infallibly confirm the reality of the “already.” Using the words of Richard B. Gaffin, Beale writes that “the last judgment of believers, which is according to works, ‘is reflective of and further attesting their justification that has been openly manifested in their bodily resurrection.’” Furthermore, “as they appear before the judgment seat in their resurrected body, they are also now in the perfect image of the last Adam and in union with him, which further includes a testimony to their righteous, obedient character. Such righteous obedience begins during the interadvent age, which is actually a part of what it means to begin to be in Christ’s image during that age.”
Hence, Beale argues that 2 Cor. 5:10 refers not to a future reward according to works but to a “manifestive justification or vindication” through judgment. The same idea is found in 1 Cor. 3:13: “Each man’s work will become manifest [phaneros]; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.” According to Beale, “this refers to some who are saved and others who will be judged at the eschaton.”
In the concluding section of his discussion of relationship between justification, resurrection, and good works, Beale surveys various interpretations of how justification relates to a final judgment by works.
The first view states that “justification by faith and justification (or judgment) of the believer by works is hypothetical, especially in a text such as Rom. 2:13. That is, there are two ways to be justified, by faith or by works, the latter of which can be accomplished only by being perfect, and therefore sinful humanity can receive justification only by faith.” This is the view taken by scholars such as Frank Thielman.
The second view is that “justification or judgment by works must be appreciated through understanding Paul’s rhetorical purposes, which differ depending on the circumstances and audiences to which he is responding.”
The third view, commonly espoused in the contemporary Reformed world, is that “judgment according to works for saints occurs as a distribution of differing rewards for differing degrees of faithful service at the very end of time and, therefore, subsequent to their having been justified by faith.” This is the view taken by New Testament scholars such as George Eldon Ladd in his A Theology of the New Testament.
The fourth view is that “final justification and acquittal is based only on works.” This view is commonly associated with figures such as N.T. Wright who frequently argues for a final justification “based on the whole life lived.”
The fifth view which is the view defended by Beale is that “justification and judgment are grounded in the believers’ union with Christ, the former coming by faith, the latter being an evaluation of works that necessarily arise from the truth faith-union with Christ and by means of the Spirit’s empowerment.” Good works are not the ground or the cause of justification either in the already or the not yet:
Justification and final judgment have their foundation in the believers’ union with Christ. Justification occurs by faith alone, and judgment happens on the basis of an examination of works, which are the fruit of the genuine faith-union with Christ and are empowered by the Spirit.
Beale concludes with a rigorous exegesis of various texts which speak of “judgment at the eschaton according to works for people already justified by faith alone
I do not see how the above can possibly be misconstrued as Beale teaching that we are justified by our works as the legal ground of our righteousness (i.e. the meritorious condition of our justification) at the final judgment, yet it has been by many. B/S/P are quite clear that our justification before God in this life, which is solemn and complete, is nothing else than the forensic declaration of God that we are counted “just” before Him on the basis of the imputation of the righteous obedience of Christ to us. Yet, they are equally clear that on the last day, one is judged according to their works. This simply means that if one does not possess good works on the final day, one will not be declared to be just before the entire cosmos because one has never received the imputed righteousness of Christ. If one has truly received the righteousness of Christ and been justified before God, one will necessarily produce good works. If they do not produce good works, this means that they never received Christ’s righteousness in the first place. Good works are a “necessary condition” of final justification, but not the “necessary causal condition” of final justification, to use Beale’s language. This is the same distinction that I make between a necessary condition and a meritorious condition and it is the same distinction that we will see has been made by Reformers such as Francis Turretin and John Owen.
Before examining Beale’s exegesis supporting his position, I want to make a few important comments regarding one of the paragraphs in this article:
Second, we learn from Beale’s treatment that Scripture distinguishes between two aspects or dimensions of justification and not two distinct or different justifications. This is an important point to keep in mind in the present debate over the issue. According to Beale there isn’t an “initial” justification by faith and a “final” justification grounded in good works. Rather, when the Father, by the Holy Spirit, effectually calls sinners unto himself and grants them the gift of justifying faith in union with Christ, they are as justified in Christ as they will ever be. The obedience of believers, while not serving as the ground of future vindication, nevertheless is necessary as the “manifestation” or “proof” of the definitive, irrevocable, and once for all justification which took place in the past.
Some may see a seeming contradiction here between when Mr. Harris states that, “According to Beale there isn’t an ‘initial’ justification by faith and a ‘final’ justification grounded in good works”, and elsewhere in the article where he states that, “Beale makes a distinction between a ‘necessary causal condition’ of final justification/vindication which is Christ’s righteousness alone”. So, does Beale teach there is a “final justification” or not?
This really boils down to semantics, but the distinction here is crucial to understanding the issue and will be important later. Mr. Harris denies that Beale teaches that there are “two distinct or different justifications” in the sense that we are not legally justified before God on two different occasions. Technically, all “justification” means is to declare someone to be just, however, it has taken on a theological meaning in the sense that it means that one is constituted to be legally in the right before God. This distinction between the theological meaning of a legal constituting of position before God and the technical meaning of simply declaring one’s status of “righteous” has caused much confusion among the less mature. Obviously, one cannot be justified for a second time in the theological sense. If one is legally placed into the category of “righteous” before God, it doesn’t make any sense to say that this can happen for a second time**. It is in this sense that Harris denies a separate “final justification” and it is in this same sense that many of the Reformers, as we will see, spoke against a “second justification”. However, of course, “justification” simply means, “the action of showing something to be right or reasonable”, which is equivalent to “vindication”, which is defined as, “the action of clearing someone of blame or suspicion”. I can rightly be said to be “justified” by someone if they, believing that I am saved, declare me to be just in Christ. Men are justified and vindicated on the final day when God declares them to be righteous from the good works that they produced as evidence of their faith in Christ. For that reason, it is pedantic and honestly quite stupid to try to do what some have done and insist on using “justification” for the declaration from God the Father that legally places one in the right before Him and save “vindication” for the announcement before the entire cosmos that we have been justified by God from our works as evidence, given that the words have exactly the same technical meaning.
An example of this insistence can be found here: https://heidelblog.net/2013/08/justification-and-vindication/, remarkably, despite Scott Clark acknowledging the reality of a final vindication of believers, he still continues to accuse B/S/P of compromising sola fide to this day. B/S/P affirm the substance of what Clark is describing here, yet because they refer to it as “final justification” rather than “final vindication”, this, in Clark’s mind apparently somehow gives him warrant for attacking these brothers and accusing them of the very serious charge of denying justification sola fide, even though the words mean the exact same thing.
**As Beale says, “On the one hand, this vindication [a believer’s justification in this life] is once for all and definitive. It is definitive in the sense that saints are declared from God’s perspective not guilty because Christ suffered the penalty of their sin. And, just as definitively, they are also declared righteous because Christ achieved representative righteousness for them in his resurrected person and was completely vindicated from injustice (showing that he had been righteous all along), a vindication with which the saints are also identified. Consequently, they are declared to have the same righteousness (by imputation or attribution) that Christ possessed throughout his life. . . On the either hand, there is a sense in which this vindication is not completed, especially in that the world does not recognize God’s vindication of his people. Just as happened to Jesus, the ungodly world has judged the saints’ faith and obedience to God to be in the wrong. . . their [believers’] final resurrection will vindicate the truth of their faith and confirm that their obedience was a necessary outgrowth of this faith. That is, although they had been declared righteous in God’s sight when they believed, the world continued to declare them guilty (A New Testament Biblical Theology [hereafter NTBT], 497-498).
Furthermore, we should use “justification” rather than “vindication” to refer to the final eschatological verdict because it is the term the Bible uses for it. There is a biblical-theological reason why the Bible uses the same term for both our present position of justification and the final verdict declared at the eschaton. The author of Scripture (The Holy Spirit) is trying to tell us that the eschatological verdict has been brought forth in time. We have been justified, not by our works which could never suffice because of sin, but by the works of Christ; and because we have now been justified, we are sure to persevere to the end in order to be justified at the eschaton. Just as surely as we have been justified, we shall be justified. Just as Christ’s resurrection has conferred on us the present status of justification, so our resurrection will announce our justification to the entire cosmos. To abandon the biblical-theological categories that the Bible itself gives us is to go against God Himself and is sin. To change the terminology that the Bible gives us because of a misguided fear of confusion (as though people cannot make the simple distinction between a meritorious cause/condition and a necessary condition. . . though I guess the fact I had to write this shows some truly cannot!) obscures true theology, it does not make it clearer; nor has orthodox theology ever benefited from this, but instead has sought to speak in the same categories that the Bible uses, even employing seemingly paradoxical or “confusing” terms such as “Trinity” or “Theandric”.
FINAL JUSTIFICATION AND THE BIBLE - BEALE’S EXEGESIS
Now, I want to move on to an overview of Beale’s exegesis that supports the notion of a final justification/vindication of believers by their works.
Going off the above quotation, Beale also says, “Good works’ are part of this final ‘manifestive justification’ [in addition to believers’ resurrection]. A few texts speak of a future end-time justification of Christians. For example, Rom. 2:13 says, ‘For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.’ Paul repeatedly speaks of believers appearing ‘before the judgement seat” of God or Christ (Rom. 14:10, 12; 2 Cor. 5:10). James 2:14-26 also speaks of the close link between justification and good works (e.g., v. 14: “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”). This text is also likely focusing on a final justification at the end of time [Beale then cites Doug Moo’s James Commentary pg. 134-36; 144 for those interested in proving the point] (NTBT 505-506).
Beale argues that the context of Romans 2:13, namely, 2:3-10 and 15-16 point to a future justification. These verses are as followed, with my own emphasis:
But do you presume this, O man—who passes judgment on those who practice such things and does the same—that you will escape the judgment of God?
4
Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
5
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6
who will repay to each according to his works:
7
to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8
but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and anger.
9
There will be affliction and turmoil for every soul of man who works out evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10
but glory and honor and peace to everyone who works good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
…
15
in that they demonstrate the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16
on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
I don’t believe there needs to be much said other than just that the context clearly points towards a future justification/vindication/verdict upon believers in accordance with/upon the basis of their works as evidence rather than setting forth the principle of the covenant of works. Therefore, when we read, “For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified”, we are to take the “doers of the Law”, not as those who do the law perfectly (which is only Christ), but those who do the Law truly (the regenerate). Good works will prove one to have been regenerated (and thus to have received Christ’s righteousness).
Tom Schreiner, commenting on the hypothetical view (i.e. that the passage is laying out the requirement of the covenant of works, which only Christ can accomplish) says:
The hypothetical argument is a good one but it fails to convince for three reasons. First, Paul gives no indication in the near context that he speaks hypothetically. He could have easily signaled to the reader that reward for doing good never becomes a reality. Second, we have seen elsewhere that Paul teaches that those who do good works will enter the kingdom. We are not surprised, then, to find Paul saying in Romans 2:13, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (ESV). Remarkably enough, Paul says that those who obey the law will be justified before God on the last day.
The third argument supporting the notion that Paul isn’t speaking hypothetically is the final paragraph in Romans 2:25-29. Context is king and the context indicates that Paul is[n’t] speaking hypothetically. Here Paul addresses Jews who put their trust in the covenant sign of circumcision. Circumcision, of course, was necessary to be a member of the Jewish people. Gentiles who desired to convert to Judaism showed they were proselytes by their circumcision. Paul, however, says that those who are circumcised but fail to keep the law belong to the uncircumcision. In other words, Jews who don’t believe in Jesus Christ are outside the covenant people of God.
Paul doesn’t stop there. He says in verse 26 that the uncircumcised person who keeps the law will be counted (λογισθήσεται) as circumcised. Any Jewish person would be mightily puzzled by the notion that one could keep the law and yet fail to be circumcised! But that is a subject for another day. What is remarkable is that the Gentile who keeps the law is reckoned by God (note the passive verb for λογίζομαι) as circumcised. In other words, the Gentile who observes the law is a covenant member. Paul goes on to say in verse 27 that Gentiles who fulfill the law will judge on the last day Jews who enjoy all the advantages of the law and circumcision. But isn’t Paul just speaking hypothetically here? The connection between verses 26-27 and verses 28-29 rules out the hypothetical view. Paul links the verses with the word “for” (γάρ). So, verses 28-29 function as the ground for verses 26-27. How is it that Gentiles can observe the law and be covenant members? We are told in verses 28-29. True Jewishness and true circumcision are not outward matters. Circumcision of the heart fulfills the new covenant promise that God’s people will be circumcised in their hearts so that they are enabled to observe God’s commands (cf. Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 31:31-34). Most importantly, Paul contrasts “the Spirit and the letter” here. Wherever we find that contrast Paul refers to the work of the Spirit in the age of fulfillment (cf. Rom 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6). Hence, the reference to the Spirit points to the eschatological work of the Spirit by which Gentiles are truly circumcised and truly Jews. In other words, they are members of the people of God. What Paul says about Gentile obedience and membership in the people of God can’t be hypothetical since he ascribes such to the Holy Spirit!
But why would Paul inject the theme of Gentile obedience into a section that emphasizes that all have sinned? Why confuse the readers? Paul anticipates a major theme in Romans: Gentile inclusion in the people of God is intended to provoke the Jews to jealousy. Often in Romans Paul brings up a subject briefly and then circles back to it in his argument. [https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2016/05/Justification-by-Works-and-Sola-Fide.pdf] see also his old paper on Romans 2 for more: http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/tschreiner/BBR_3.pdf
Beale (517-518): There are two dominant interpretations of this verse. Some understand the future tense (“will be justified”) not to refer to future time but rather to express the principle that if people are to be justified by keeping the law, it is by a perfect doing of the law: this is “the standard that must be met if a person is to be justified.”[120] Others believe that Rom. 2:13 refers to the final judgment when those who are believers in Christ have “good works,” though not perfect, and consequently “will be justified” on the basis of those works.[121] Those who reject this view and prefer the first do so on the basis that Paul typically uses the verb dikaioō to refer not to vindication at the final judgment but rather to the “verdict of acquittal pronounced by God,” which comes only through human faith (although, as we have seen, the verb is used in the future manner in 1 Cor. 4:4).
The first view certainly is viable from the vantage point of Pauline usage, but the immediate context, especially Rom. 2:3–10, appears to focus on the last judgment (accordingly, note the underlined phrases below) as the occasion for “the doers of the law” being “justified” in verse 13. Rom. 2:3–10 reads,
But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
These verses focus not only on the time of final judgment but also on the time of reward for those who “do good” (vv. 7, 10). Verse 6 (“who will render to each person according to his deeds”) seems best interpreted in this context to mean that there will be a judicial evaluation of the works of all people; some will be found wanting and be judged, others will be found to have good works and not be judged but will receive life. Accordingly, with this preceding context in mind, it seems best to understand Paul’s statement in verse 13, “the doers of the Law will be justified,” to refer to the final judgment when those who have faith in Christ and possess good works, though not perfect, will be “justified” or “vindicated” on the basis of those works. This idea of judgment by works, though without the language of “justification/vindication,” is also reflected later in Rom. 14:10, 12:
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. . . . So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
Again it must be understood what is being said here. Those who take the final judgement view of Romans 2:13 do not believe that “doers of the Law” means that one must do the Law perfectly, only truly. In an exchange with an outspoken critic of final justification, he argued that “it is an error to soften the requirement of Romans 2:13” because “Romans 2 requires the strictest adherence and therefore only one can meet the requirement and that is Jesus”. This is a simple failure in logical argumentation, because on the final justification view of Romans 2, to “do the Law” means only to truly do it, not to fully do it, as it does on the hypothetical view. “To do the Law” means to perfectly obey it only on the hypothetical view, not the opposing view, but this is the very point in question. Schreiner and Beale agree that the Law requires perfect obedience (see for example, Schreiner’s “40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law” pg. 53-57 or here), they just don’t believe that is what Romans 2:13 is talking about. They therefore cannot be accused of “reject[ing] the law/gospel distinction in principle” and not being a “reliable guide to the meaning of the epistle to the Romans” (https://heidelblog.net/2022/01/romans-213-as-an-acid-test/), since whether Romans 2:13 deals with the Law as the perfect requirement of the Covenant of Works or whether it refers to genuine and regenerate yet imperfect Christian obedience is the very point in question. Of course, if Scott Clark were consistent here he would also have to say that Augustine and Chrysostom are not reliable guides to the epistle to the Romans as well.
Going back to Beale’s exegesis, we will move on to 1 Corinthians 4:3-5. Before this, Beale has a note on final justification in the likes of John Owen and Francis Turretin, which I have found out that Fesko has responded to. This post will have an entire section on final justification in Owen and Turretin after we look at the rest of Beale’s exegesis and I trust that readers will find that Fesko has misread the reformers here.
1 Corinthians 4:3-5
But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court. In fact, I do not even examine myself.
For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted [justified]. But the one who examines me is the Lord.
Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and make manifest the motives of hearts. And then each one’s praise will come to him from God.
Beale, pg. 510-512: Part of the problem in the Corinthian church was that some were not evaluating Paul to be an authoritative apostle (1 Cor. 1:11–12; 3:3–4; 4:9–13; 9:3). Although some in the church and even a “human court” may conclude that Paul did not bear the true marks of a divine prophet (v. 3a), he would not attempt to defend himself from such negative evaluations in order to be seen as “justified/vindicated” (dikaioō) (vv. 3b–4a). Instead, Paul says, “The one who examines me [truly] is the Lord” (v. 4b), and definitive justification/ vindication comes only from him. But it is clear that Paul is referring to a justification/vindication that occurs when “the Lord comes” on the last day (v. 5). At this time, the Lord will “disclose the motives of men’s hearts” so that what formerly was not seen clearly will be. Then Christ will examine such motives and find them wanting or deserving “praise.” In the context, Paul has himself in mind (and secondarily the apostolic circle together with all genuine believers), so that the upshot of 1 Cor. 4:3–5 in context is that Paul’s motives will be vindicated as being truly suitable to those of a prophetic servant of God and true believer (as also in 1 Thess. 2:2–4), in contradiction to worldly forces that have rejected him as a true divine messenger, and “praise will come to him from God.” Others’ motives will be revealed as bad, and they will suffer final judgment (2 Cor. 11:13–15). This passage, then, focuses on the motives behind works, which again puts the spotlight on the character of a person being examined on the last day (i.e., the true believer is found to “belong to Christ” [1 Cor. 3:23]) and not merely the person’s outward works. This is virtually the same as what I concluded about 2 Cor. 5:10 in its context.
Again, final justification makes visible the justified character “in Christ” that was not visible to unbelieving eyes during the interadvent age.
I won’t focus on Beale’s exegesis here, I just want to focus on that last sentence. Does Beale here suggest that in the eschaton people will be legally put into a right standing with God due to their own works in a meritorious sense? Of course not, he says that believers have already been justified! The final justification/vindication is a declaration of what was there all along. How were they first declared righteous? By the imputation of the obedience of Christ received through faith alone. How will they be declared to be righteous (and to have been forensically righteous all along)? By their good works which will evidence the reality of their faith and therefore the reality of their justification because one cannot be justified without also living a life of good works as a necessary result. Faith without works is dead, and for that reason good works can serve as the basis for the visible evidence to all of creation of whether one has truly been justified by faith alone.
I have skipped Beale’s comments on 2 Corinthians 4:6-5:10 and most of Revelation, but will quickly quote the ending section of his comments on Revelation 20:11-15 (pg. 513-514), which will again show that Beale cannot be accused of compromising sola fide or the law/gospel distinction because he again maintains that the only meritorious cause (which is exactly what the law/gospel distinction is about. It is the law considered as a covenant of works for a right legal standing before God) of justification is the work of Christ alone:
What is it about the “book of life” that spares true saints? The fuller title for the book is “the book of life of the Lamb having been slain” (13:8 [cf. 21:27: “book of life of the Lamb”]). The added description is a genitive of either possession or source. The “life” granted them in association with the book comes from their identification with the Lamb’s righteous deeds (note how the Lamb is “worthy,” qualifying him “to open the book” in 5:4–9 [cf. 5:12]), especially identification with his death on their behalf, which means likewise that they are identified with his resurrection, which “overcame” death (cf. 5:5–13). They do not suffer judgment for their evil deeds because the Lamb has already suffered it for them: he was slain on their behalf (so esp. 1:5; 5:9; see further 13:8). The Lamb acknowledges before God all who are written in the book (3:5) and who are identified with his righteousness (i.e., worthiness), his death, and his resurrection life.
That believers’ identification with the Lamb’s resurrection life is also intended by their inclusion in the book is obvious from three facts: (1) the very name of the book, the “book of life” (on which, see 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 21:27); (2) the Dan. 12:1–2 allusion, “everyone who is found written in the book will be rescued” and “will awake to everlasting life”; (3) the Lamb who is worthy to “open the book,” also an allusion to Dan. 7:10; 12:1–2, has been “slain” but is able to possess “the book” because of his “standing” in resurrection existence (5:5–9).The inevitable conclusion is that the saints written in the book are identified with the Lamb’s resurrection life.
At the end, God recognizes those who have taken refuge in the Lamb and have been recorded in the book for an inheritance of eternal resurrection life. While we have seen that Paul can conceive of true believers going through a kind of judgment according to works, Revelation gives another perspective on this by saying that saints’ works and unbelievers’ works are not evaluated in the same way. Rather, true saints are evaluated according to their placement in the “book of life,” which identifies them with the Lamb’s perfect worthiness, his penal death and resurrection on their behalf. Thus, those who have “their faith in Jesus” and “who die in the Lord . . . may rest from their labors, for their works [erga] follow with them” (14:12–13). Consequently, any evaluation of their works on the last day can be done only as they are already viewed as identified with the risen Lamb and their works done “in the [risen] Lord.” I reached this same conclusion with respect to the Pauline “judgment according to works” passages. The Pauline texts focus more on evaluation of the believers’ works, and the Revelation texts more on identification with Christ’s worthiness, death, and resurrection.
Beale concludes by saying (pg. 514-515):
Initial justification and final justification (or twofold justification) are grounded in believers’ union with Christ, the former coming by faith and the latter through the threefold demonstration of (1) the bodily resurrection, (2) God’s public announcement to the cosmos, and (3) evaluation by works. So far in this chapter I have been able to develop only the first and third points, the aspect of resurrection and to some degree how good works relate to resurrection and, hence, justification. This, in part, is a classic example of “already and not yet” eschatology. In particular, we have seen throughout this book so far that Christ’s resurrection and believers’ identification with that resurrection are the beginning of the end-time new creation. In this chapter I have tried to demonstrate that Christ’s resurrection and believers’ identification with it are the justification/ vindication of both Jesus and his people. In this respect, justification is not just an eschatological notion but also a facet of the end-time new creation. What Douglas Moo has said about James 2 is also a good summary of what I have said so far in this section:
The believer, in himself, will always deserve God’s judgment: our conformity to the “royal law” is never perfect, as it must be (vv. 10–11). But our merciful attitude and actions [= good works] will count as evidence of the presence of Christ within us. And it is on the [ultimate] basis of this union with the [resurrected] One who perfectly fulfilled the law for us that we can have confidence for vindication at the judgment [Moo, James (1985), 99].
Moo’s exegesis of James is also in line with Thomas Goodwin’s (https://web.archive.org/web/20210420204900/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/06/thomas-goodwin-on-double-justification-james-and-paul-and-a-working-faith/) : ‘Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered up his son Isaac upon the altar?’ We must understand him here closely to prosecute those assertions he had begun, whereof one was, that it was not enough for a man that would be saved to say that he had faith, but he must make this good, and shew it forth in his works. And accordingly, as to this sense, the apostle must be understood to speak this of Abraham (for he speaks pertinently to his own conclusions laid), that if Abraham our father were now alive, or to appear at the day of judgment, and would say or plead that he had faith, upon which God had imputed righteousness unto him, that yet even he, as well as any other, must shew that he had such a faith by his works, or he had not approved himself to have been a true believer. And so to be justified by works is but to approve himself a true believer in difference to a false faith
I will skip the rest of the chapter and end my comments on Beale here to avoid nearly citing the entire chapter in this post, but it is well worth reading. We have finished the most foundational and most important part of doing theology—the exegesis. We have briefly commented on the theological issues involved and so from here, I want to move on to historical theology by looking at final justification in Francis Turretin and John Owen.
FRANCIS TURRETIN AND JOHN OWEN
In his NTBT, Beale cites Turretin and Owen among others as supporting a doctrine of final justification as Beale teaches. J. V. Fesko in his “Theology of the Westminster Standards” has responded to Beale’s use of these citations, as has been made known to me, believing that Beale has misused these citations. I will respond to Fesko’s comments soon, as I believe it will be made very clear that Fesko has misread Turretin and Beale. Before I respond to Fesko’s specific comments, I want to focus on some of Turretin’s other comments that are relevant to the issue.
I will begin with what I see as the most directly relevant citation:
Although in this judgment to each one ought to be repaid "according to his works", as to quality, so that it may be well with the good and evil and the wicked; still there will not be the same relation of good and bad works to the reward and punishment. For evil works indeed will be properly the meritorious cause of the punishment which will be inflicted on the wicked; but there is not the same relation of good works (which can have no relation of merit, as was seen in its place); rather they will be brought forward not as the causes, but only the consequences, testimonies and effects of faith and of grace which they obtained in Christ. Thus the causal particle gar (found here) is not causal (denoting the meritorious cause of life), but only ratiocinative (indicating the reason a posterior of the sentence pronounced by Christ) to denote not the merit of works. but the quality of the workers; not the why and on account of what, but to whom the kingdom is to be assigned. . . this pardoning sentence of believers will not be so much a justification of them a priori (which is made only from faith and is intimated to them in this life in the court of conscience by the Holy Spirit), as the declaration of it a posteriori from their works, as the judgements and proofs of faith (Institutes, Volume 3, Twentieth Topic, Sixth Question, XX).
Before addressing the rest of the citation, I just want to point out that last part in bold. I wanted so badly to quote this in the section on G. K. Beale and final justification as it is a very clear and exact explanation of what Beale is saying, but I had to save it for this section. The eschatological verdict will be rendered as an "a posteriori declaration from their works as the proofs of faith". This is precisely what Beale means when he defines "final justification" as a "public demonstration to the entire cosmos of believers' justification/vindication through their good works". When Turretin says that “this pardoning sentence of believers will not be so much a justification of them a priori” he makes the same distinction that Mr. Harris makes when he denies that Beale teaches that there are “two distinct or different justifications” in the sense that we are not legally justified before God on two different occasions (again look back to the section on G. K. Beale and Final Justification). Note that Turretin brings out an asymmetry between the good works of believers and the evil works of unbelievers as to merit in the final verdict. Turretin denies that good works are the meritorious cause of the final verdict, but only brought forward as “the consequences, testimonies and effects of faith and of grace which they obtained in Christ”. One might think this came directly from Beale’s pen. He makes here in essence the same distinction that Beale makes between a “causal necessity” and a “noncausal necessity” or the same distinction I make between a “meritorious cause/condition” and a “necessary condition”. One must have good works to receive the final verdict, but these are by no means the meritorious cause of the final verdict, which remains always the perfect imputed obedience of Christ.
After decrying eternal justification, Turretin says,
But as justification cannot be conceived to have taken place from eternity before the ages, so neither ought it to be thrown forward to the consummation of the world as others hold---as if God only then exercises properly the act of a Judge, both in the pardon of believers and in the condemnation of the wicked. For thus the declaration of justification is falsely confounded with justification itself. For although we are told the heavenly Judge will then sit on his throne (as much in grace as in justice, in sight of heaven and earth), this does not prevent that judgment from commencing in the present life. Nay, this must necessarily be supposed, since that final judgment is nothing else than a public and solemn manifestation of preceding judgments (Turretin Justification ed. James Dennison, pg. 101-102)
Again, Turretin makes the same distinction Harris and Beale make when he says that “the declaration of justification is falsely confounded with justification itself” when one affirms that one is legally placed in the right before God on the final day. Rather, as Turretin says, “that final judgment is nothing else than a public and solemn manifestation of preceding judgments”. The final verdict of “justified” is proof to the entire cosmos that one truly has already been placed legally in the right before God; not a new legal status conferred upon believers that they did not already possess. Again, “Justification and final judgment have their foundation in the believers’ union with Christ. Justification occurs by faith alone, and judgment happens on the basis of an examination of works, which are the fruit of the genuine faith-union with Christ and are empowered by the Spirit”; good works are evidence that one has already been justified.
Likewise (and my comments on this one are basically the same as above, so I decided to put it in here), Turretin also says,
Although our justification will be fully declared on the last day (our good works also being brought forward as the sign and proof of its truth, Matt. 25:34-40), still falsely would anyone maintain from this a twofold gospel justification---one from faith in this life (which is the first); the other (and second) from works on the day of judgment (as some hold, agreeing too much with the Romanists on this point). The sentence to be pronounced by the supreme Judge will not be so much a new justification, as the solemn and public declaration of a sentence once passed and its execution by the assignment of the life promised with respect to an innocent person from the preceding justification. Thus it is nothing else than an adjudicatory sentence of the possession of the kingdom of heaven from the right given before through justification. And if works are then brought forward, they are not adduced as the foundation of a new justification to be obtained then, but as signs, marks and effects of our true faith and of our justification solely by it" (Ibid. 109-110).
Turretin again,
Second, the same justification is one numerically in individuals. It is not promoted successively after the manner of sanctification by repeated acts, but is finished in one judicial act and brings the believer the remission of all sins. Hence the Romanists (from their fictitious hypothesis concerning physical justification by an infusion of righteousness) falsely make it twofold: the first, that by which a man from being unjust is made just by an infusion of righteousness; the second, that by which from being just he is made more just by the increase of righteousness (Ibid, pg. 108).
When Turretin affirms that “the same justification is one numerically in individuals. It is not promoted successively after the manner of sanctification by repeated acts, but is finished in one judicial act and brings the believer the remission of all sins”, he is again, to belabor the point, affirming the same distinction we have already seen from Mr. Harris when he says,
Second, we learn from Beale’s treatment that Scripture distinguishes between two aspects or dimensions of justification and not two distinct or different justifications. This is an important point to keep in mind in the present debate over the issue. According to Beale there isn’t an “initial” justification by faith and a “final” justification grounded in good works. Rather, when the Father, by the Holy Spirit, effectually calls sinners unto himself and grants them the gift of justifying faith in union with Christ, they are as justified in Christ as they will ever be. The obedience of believers, while not serving as the ground of future vindication, nevertheless is necessary as the “manifestation” or “proof” of the definitive, irrevocable, and once for all justification which took place in the past.
Furthermore, note what Turretin says about Rome’s teaching of “twofold justification”: “the Romanists (from their fictitious hypothesis concerning physical justification by an infusion of righteousness) falsely make it twofold: the first, that by which a man from being unjust is made just by an infusion of righteousness; the second, that by which from being just he is made more just by the increase of righteousness”. Rome teaches that “justification” means “to make righteous”. It is akin to what we know as regeneration, not the forensic verdict that we call “justification”. Thus “initial justification” is the infusion of grace whereupon a man is “made righteous” (regenerated), and the second justification (again, this means a “making of righteous” on Rome’s scheme) is as one grows in holiness (and therefore “justification”). Because “justification” on Rome’s view means “how righteous you intrinsically are”, you can grow in justification on Rome’s scheme, whereas because Protestantism rightly understands “justification” as a forensic verdict, it does not make sense to speak of “growing in your justification” on a Protestant view. It is quantitative on Rome’s view, being intrinsic to who you are, whereas it is qualitative on our view, being a forensic verdict. On this site, we have before caught Steve Fernandez using the Reformers’ polemic against a “twofold justification” to argue against a “final justification” as taught by B/S/P. As we pointed out, this is a textbook example of equivocation. One cannot use the Reformers’ argument against Rome’s “twofold justification” to argue against B/S/P’s “twofold justification” simply because the words sound the same. It is like conflating a tree’s “bark” with a dog’s “bark”. Rome and B/S/P quite literally do not mean the same thing (they do not even agree on what the word “justification” means!). I have been extremely shocked to see this argument used by multiple people within the Reformed camp. I am not quite sure what this evidences, whether it be bad reading comprehension, bad historical theology, a bad understanding of Rome’s position, a bad reading of B/S/P, or all of these together.
With that said, we will now look at J. V. Fesko’s comments on Beale’s citation of Turretin in his NTBT.
To begin with, here is Beale’s citation of Turretin:
And here are Turretin’s full comments in that section:
Now, here are Fesko’s comments:
Fesko claims that Beale’s citation of Turretin is “erroneous”, however, I contend it is Fesko who is incorrect here. I believe this is because he misunderstands Beale and this is evident by his comments on Heidegger, to which I shall return. For now, let us note that Fesko says of Beale’s quotation of Turretin that “Beale fails to quote the words immediately preceding the public ‘justification’ on the last day. Turretin states that justification is made ‘publically on the last day (which is not so much a justification as a solemn declaration of the justification one made, and an adjudication of the reward in accordance with the preceding justification”. He claims that Beale is imprecise in his citation here. But let’s read on. Note that the part of Turretin that Beale chooses to cite is when Turreitn says that final justification is “an adjudication of the reward, in accordance with the preceding justification”. We have already covered this, seeing that Turretin is saying the same thing Beale is saying, namely, that the final verdict is an announcement to the entire cosmos that one has previously been justified by faith; the announcement coming by way of works as evidence that one truly has believed unto justification. Fesko then says, “there is reason to question whether Beale has accurately summarized what Turretin has stated concerning these phases, especially when Beale claims precedence for a twofold justification, a first and a second, in the Reformed tradition”. Stop right there. One of the ways to disprove an argument is to show that a term is being used ambiguously. What we need to ask at this point is, does Beale in fact claim a “twofold justification, a first and a second”, and if so, in what sense? Well, there is no reason to repeat what I have spent much of this post belaboring (namely, the distinction that Harris and Beale have made between “justification” as an announcement in line with the literal meaning of the word and “justification” in the sense that one is legally given a right status before God. B/S/P, Harris, and as we have seen, Turretin, affirm the former but all deny the latter), but if there is still any question, one simply must re-read the section on “G. K. Beale and Final Justification” as well as the quotations from Turretin we covered above. Now we can move on. Fesko says, “Turretin specifically steers clear from this conclusion [of a “twofold justification”, but as we have seen, so do B/S/P in the same sense that Turretin steered clear of it, and yet affirmed it in the same sense that Turretin affirmed it]”. Beale fails to quote Turreitn’s key objection isolating the phrase ‘an adjudication of the reward, in accordance with the preceding justification’. In fact, in several places in the broader context Turretin states that ‘the declaration of justification is falsely confounded with justification itself’ and ‘the final jugement is nothing else than a public and solemn manifestation of the preceding judgements”. Yet this is really unfair to Beale on Fesko’s part. As we have already seen, Beale at other places, makes the same distinction that Turretin does, making it clear that a final “justification” is not “justification” in the sense that one is legally placed into the right before God. This is impossible. One has already been justified by faith. This is intrinsic to Beale’s position because the entire point of “final justification” is that it is, as Turretin said, “a public and solemn manifestation of the preceding judgements”. The final justification is proof that one has already been justified. Again, Beale, as much as Turretin rejects a “twofold justification” in the same sense that Turretin does. Both agree that good works at the final judgement are brought forth as “signs and proofs” in order to prove that one has already been justified. That is literally what B/S/P’s position is. Fesko goes on to cites Beeke’s Puritan Theology to show that “it is uncommon to talk of a twofold justification in early modern Reformed theology”. I do not have Beeke’s Puritan Theology (Edit: I just got it and I have absolutely no idea why he thought this would be a good source to cite for support. On pages 315-318, they basically do the work that I'm trying to do here for me in proving the Reformed pedigree of final justification. Fesko quite literally cited a source that destroys his own argument. I have never seen this before. The exact pages he cites support the exact view of double/final justification advocated here following Beale and Piper. By the way, check out page 311 and article 14 of "A New Confession" and compare whether Escondido or John Piper is closer to Reformed Orthodoxy on that point.), so I can’t check the citation, but I hope it doesn’t have anything to do with Rome’s “twofold justification”, in which case the equiovation would be extremely bad, as we have shown with Steve Fernandez, for example; and as we have already seen, when the Reformers deny a “second justification” they are doing no more and no less than Beale does in denying that the “final justification” puts us legally in the right before God. However, I still contest Fesko’s citation here are true as we already have the example of Turretin (which I will expand on below), and we also have the example of the great Thomas Goodwin (from Mark Jones, one of the authors of Puritan Theology!) found here: https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/06/judgment-according-to-works-reformed-style/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20210513235424/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/06/judgment-according-to-works-reformed-style/) The Calvinist International (and Mark Jones in particular) has many great articles that have pretty much come independently to the same conclusion as mine: that opposition to “final justification” is a modern pop-”Reformed” invention of Escondido. I am in absolute agreement with Mr. Mark Jones when he says “Strangely, I thought the Reformed orthodox gave answers to thorny questions that clarified, not confused. All of their distinctions helped me. I came to realize that the Bible said things that seemed to be flatly denied by people who were more scared of the FV than they were confident in dealing with the plain teachings of the Scriptures. We should not be content with this arrangement”. Distinctions help theology, they do not hinder it. Refer back to my comments at the end of “G. K. Beale and Final Justification”. As Mr. Jones says, “This is a chance to overcome lazy gatekeeping and theological guilt-by-association. It’s a chance to return to our own tradition on this topic, and to see how it helps us fully embrace all of God’s Word without fear”.
What's remarkable here is that the way Fesko tries to use this passage from Turretin makes no sense in context. Fesko is trying to use this passage to show that Turretin does not affirm a final (or “twofold”) justification in any sense (at least he would have to in order to be arguing against B/S/P). Yet the very sentence he cites to prove this ("which is not so much justification, as a solemn declaration of the justification…in accordance with the preceding justification") implies Turretin views this as a "justification" in some sense (the immediate context notwithstanding, which also clearly indicates Turretin is giving us different ways to view justification). Regardless of who's reading Turretin correctly, this has to be accounted for and Fesko's reading cannot account for it since his aim is to show Turretin is opposed to a final justification in any sense. Turretin would be speaking incoherently on Fesko's reading. In order to make Turretin cohere, Fesko would need to make clear what Turretin means when he says that the final verdict is "not so much justification, as a solemn declaration of the justification ". Yet if he rightly did so, showing Turretin was here denying this "final justification" was a justification in the sense that one is now legally placed in the right before God, he would be making the same distinction that Beale and Mr. Harris have made and therefore can no longer use this quote to argue against Beale. It is an amazing case of muddying the waters and equivocation on Fesko's part that I hope is due to misreading rather than malicious intent (and I don’t believe it is as I will show), but either way, it demonstrates stunningly bad scholarship.
Now, given his history I think it's safe to say this is simply a misreading as he has before misread the Westminster Confession on republication, Dr. James Anderson has cataloged multiple misreadings, I've caught him before misreading Bavinck on active justification, and (though I know nothing of Dooyeweerd personally), multiple sources have quite convincingly charged him with misreading Dooyeweerd and then, of course, there was this. (Another misreading of Fesko's is that he charges Michael Bird with holding to an arminian view of salvation where faith is seen as righteousness, see Death in Adam, Life in Christ pg. 207. This is clearly not the case, or else Bird could not have made this statement: "faith reckoned as righteousness means that Abraham’s faith was de se justifying or considered the grounds of his covenant-vindication. Thus the statement, “faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,” is equivalent to “Abraham was justified by faith") Not to mention this. See also Death in Adam Life in Christ pg. 126 where Fesko conflates the reatus culpae/poenae distinction with the distinction between imputed guilt and a corrupt nature, then implies that Turretin affirms this distinction yet Owen denies it. This is terribly confused. Both Turretin, Owen, and nearly every other Reformer denied the distinction between reatus culpae and poenae as a meaningful distinction (which is exactly what his citations of Turretin and Owen are talking about). These have to do with two different (alleged) aspects of guilt, not with the difference between imputed guilt and a corrupt nature.
I like Fesko, but he must be read very carefully and checked against the sources he cites as he has proven too often unable to accurately represent the views of others and accurately read primary sources.
But I believe there is a way to confirm this is a simple misreading, namely, by looking at his comments on Heidegger.
Fesko says, “Heidegger seems to be addressing the question of how to harmonize James and Paul [B.C. - Exactly as Beale and Moo do]. In the section prior to the passage cited by Heppe (and Beale), Heidegger states that justification is perfect and indivisible, which mitigates against Beale’s appeal to Heidegger”.
This is stunning. The only way that this would mitigate against Beale’s appeal to Heidegger would be if this was in contradiction to Beale’s position. Beale would have to disagree with Heidegger here. But he doesn’t. This is exactly Beale’s position. We know this from a section in the same chapter in which Beale appeals to Heidegger, entitled, *checks notes* “The Believer’s Vindication Is Definitive”. To quote from this section, once again, Beale says, “this vindication [a believer’s justification in this life] is once for all and definitive. It is definitive in the sense that saints are declared from God’s perspective not guilty because Christ suffered the penalty of their sin. And, just as definitively, they are also declared righteous because Christ achieved representative righteousness for them in his resurrected person and was completely vindicated from injustice (showing that he had been righteous all along), a vindication with which the saints are also identified. Consequently, they are declared to have the same righteousness (by imputation or attribution) that Christ possessed throughout his life”.
Quite honestly, I am at a loss for words here.
Moving on, Fesko then says, “Then, concerning the so-called ‘second justification,’ Heidegger states specifically that one may ascend from the effect to the cause. The justification of the sinner is first, and the justification of the righteous is the effect, sign, or manifestation of the first. In other words, the second is the evidence that the first is present and valid”.
This is, again, exactly what Beale says. Consider when he says, again within the same chapter, “Again, final justification makes visible the justified character ‘in Christ’ that was not visible to the unbelieving eyes during the interadvent age”. Or when he says, “believers in this age are declared not guilty because of Christ’s substitutionary punishment and fully righteous because of the transferral of his perfect righteousness to them, then at the end of the age, the good works of the saints (which are imperfect) justify/vindicate that they were truly justified by Christ in the past. Accordingly, this final form of justification is not on the same level as the justification by faith in Jesus”.
Once again I am absolutely stunned by Fesko’s atrocious scholarship and lack of reading comprehension here. It is as if I were to write an article arguing that American Pekin chicks (a type of duck) are yellow, and Fesko responded to me with intention to debunk me by saying something like, “actually, if you carefully read the sources that Brandon Corley cited, they clearly say that American Pekin chicks are the exact opposite of the color purple on the color wheel" (i.e., yellow).
Alright, I think at this point I have done enough in regards to Turretin and Fesko’s subsequent response to Beale’s citation of him, so now, we will move on to John Owen.
To do this, I will be going through citations from John Owen in his “The Doctrine of Justification by Faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, Examined, Confirmed, and Vindicated”. I happen to know this work quite well, and I believe it is best to go in approximately the same order that Owen does. We will find that Owen is in agreement with Turretin (and thus B/P/S as well) as regards final justification.
In chapter 4, Owen is arguing against the Roman Catholic view of justification. Recall that Rome views “justificiation” as a making righteous, not a forensic declaration of righteousness. Thus he says, “in the whole Roman school, justification is taken for justification or the making of a man to be inherently righteous, by the infusion of a principle or habit of grace, who was before inherently and habitually unjust and unrighteous”. In contrast, the Reformed, rightfully understanding the use of the word, understand “justification” to mean “to absolve, acquit, esteem, declare, pronounce righteous, or to imputed righteousness; which is the forensic sense of the word we plead for”. Thus, Owen says that “Whatever, therefore, an infusion of inherent grace may be, or however it may be called, justification it is not, it cannot be; the word nowhere signifying any such thing. Wherefore those of the church of Rome do not so much oppose justification by faith through the imputation of the righteousness of Chirst, as indeed, deny that there is any such thing as justification; for that which they call the first justification, consisting in the infusion of a principle of inherent grace, is no such thing as justification: and their second justification, which they place in the merit of works, wherein absolution or pardon of sin has neither place nor consideration, is inconsistent with evangelical justification; as we shall show afterwards”.
Owen is very clearly talking about the Roman view of an infusion of grace whereby someone is made righteous. He cannot, therefore, be taken to deny “first” and “second justification” in the sense that Beale/Schriener/Piper/Moo/Goodwin/Turretin affirm it (as for example is quite ignorantly alleged here). Indeed, he recognizes that the Reformed do not mean the same thing as Rome when they speak about the word “justification” itself! As he says, Rome is not so much opposing the imputed righteousness of Christ when they speak of a first and second justification because they “deny that there is any such thing as justification; for that which they call the first justification, consisting in the infusion of a principle of inherent grace, is no such thing as justification”! To use this as evidence that Owen opposes the Reformed doctrine of final justification is to commit the exact same error of equivocation we have already cataloged Steve Fernandez as committing.
When we come to chapter 5, we see that Owen continues this diatribe against Rome. He here states that “the evangelical justification, which alone we plead about, is but one, and is at once completed/ About any other justification before God but one, we will not contend with any”. Just like B/S/P, Owen here affirms that our justification before God is complete, definitive, and perfect. As Mr. Harris has before said, there are not “two distinct or different justifications” in the sense that we are not legally justified before God on two different occasions. But, “Those of the Roman church do ground their whole doctrine of justification upon a distinction of a double justification; which they call the first and the second. The first justification, they say, is the infusion or the communication unto us of an inherent principle or habit of grace or charity. Hereby, they say, original sin is extinguished, and all habits of sin are expelled. This justification they say is by faith; the obedience and satisfaction of Christ being the only meritorious cause thereof. Only, they dispute many things about preparations for it, and dispositions unto it”. Again, Owen is clearly opposing the “making just” of the Roman church. Rome teaches that man is “made just” by an infusion of grace, and semi-pelagianism is clearly seen in that there are preparations for this infusion of grace. Again, this is not at all the same thing that Beale/Piper/Schriener/Moo/Goodwin/Turretin teach, as they clearly hold justification to be forensic.
Owen then moves on to discuss Rome’s view of “second justification”, saying “For upon this believing, with those other duties of contrition and repentance which must accompany it, it is meet and congruous unto divine wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, to give us that grace whereby we are justified. And this, according unto them, is that justification whereof the apostle Paul treats in his epistles, from the procurement whereof he excludes all the works of the law. The second justification is an effect or consequent hereof, and the proper formal cause thereof is good works, proceeding from this principle of grace and love. Hence are they the righteousness wherewith believers are righteous before God, whereby they merit eternal life. The righteousness of works they call it; and suppose it taught by the apostle James. This they constantly affirm to make us “justos ex injustis;” wherein they are followed by others. For this is the way that most of them take to salve the seeming repugnancy between the apostles Paul and James. Paul, they say, treats of the first justification only, whence he excludes all works; for it is by faith, in the manner before described: but James treats of the second justification; which is by good works. So Bellar., lib. ii. cap. 16, and lib iv. cap. 18. And it is the express determination of those at Trent, sess. vi. cap. 10. This distinction was coined unto no other end but to bring in confusion into the whole doctrine of the gospel. Justification through the free grace of God, by faith in the blood of Christ, is evacuated by it. Sanctification is turned into a justification, and corrupted by making the fruits of it meritorious”.
Rome’s position is that upon being “made just” (their first justification), one’s “justification” (again, this is not a forensic, but inherent term for Rome) can be increased (which would obviously be nonsensical to speak of it it was forensic). Their increasing righteousness and their righteous works are therefore meritorious. These good works are made the meritorious cause of eternal life rather than simply being a necessary condition. This is clearly in contradiction to B/S/P, who have made it very clear that the righteousness of Christ alone is the sole meritorious cause of eternal life and justification.
That Owen is opposing an inherent “justification”, i.e. a “making of righteous” and an “increase of righteousness” as the meritorious cause of eternal life is made very clear when he moves on to speaking of the Socinians, “Howbeit others have embraced this distinction also, though not absolutely in their sense. So do the Socinians. Yea, it must be allowed, in some sense, by all that hold our inherent righteousness to be the cause of, or to have any influence into, our justification before God. For they do allow of a justification which in order of nature is antecedent unto works truly gracious and evangelical: but consequential unto such works there is a justification differing at least in degree, if not in nature and kind, upon the difference of its formal cause; which is our new obedience from the former. But they mostly say it is only the continuation of our justification, and the increase of it as to degrees, that they intend by it. And if they may be allowed to turn sanctification into justification, and to make a progress therein, or an increase thereof, either in the root or fruit, to be a new justification, they may make twenty justifications as well as two, for aught I know: for therein the “ inward man is renewed day by day,””.
Again, that Owen has the “infusion of justness” and “increasing justness through good works” scheme of “first” and “second” ‘justification” in mind is very clear when he says that the Socinians teach that justification can be increased as to “degrees”.
So we see that the “second justification” and the “continuation” of our justification that Owen refers to in chapter XIV, is clearly referring to back to chapter V, in which Owen addresses these distinctions and where Owen is clearly opposing the Roman and Socinian scheme of an infused and increasing inherent righteousness, not a forensic declaration of righteousness in Christ and then an eschatological announcement of this previously declared verdict.
Moving on the chapter VI, we will now find Owen speaking directly to the issue at hand, namely, the final forensic declaration of “just” at the eschaton, and we will see that he is, once again, in agreement with Beale, making the same distinctions as Beale does.
“A few words may suffice, with respect to what is called—Sentential Justification at the day of Judgment; for of whatever nature it be, the person concerning whom that sentence is pronounced was actually and completely justified before God in this world; and was made a partaker of all the benefits of that Justification, even to a blessed resurrection. Besides, the souls of the most will long before have enjoyed a blessed rest with God; absolutely acquitted from all their sins, and discharged from all their labours: nothing remaining but an actual admission of their whole persons into eternal glory. Wherefore this judgment need not be reduced to a new Justification, but considered as merely declaratory to the glory of God, and the everlasting refreshment of believers”.
Owen here has no problem referring to this final verdict as a justification (i.e. “sentential justification”), as long as it is not understood as “a new Justification” (again, following the comments of Beale and Mr. Jones). As Owen says, even before the final declaration, believers will have long enjoyed all the benefits of eternal rest in Heaven. Their justification is complete when they believe in this life. Yet, just as Beale says, this judgment is “declaratory to the glory of God, and the everlasting refreshment of believers”. God will vindicate the faith of His saints by declaring them just before the entire cosmos on the last day.
Then at the end of the chapter, Owen says,
“The end of God in our justification, is the glory of his grace; but in the last judgment, the glory of his remunerative righteousness. . .The representation of the final judgment, in Matt. vii. And xxv. Is only that of the visible church; in which the plea of faith, as to the profession of it, is common to all. Upon that plea, it is put to the trial, whether it were true faith, or only that which was dead and barren; and this trial is made solely by the fruits and effects of it; and otherwise in the public declaration of things to all, it cannot be made; In no other way does the faith whereby we are justified come into judgment as that day”.
The one who is justified will bear fruit. Therefore the one who is justified must bear fruit for the final judgement since this judgment will be made “solely by the fruits and effects of it”. God will publicly announce to the entire cosmos that one has been justified, and thus vindicate Himself and His people through their good works as evidence. This is precisely and exactly the teaching of B/S/P.
Finally, I wish to throw in a section from Thomas Goodwin for good measure:
In relation to this outward judgment at the latter day, our sentence of salvation is termed expressly a justification; and this very thing is asserted by Christ himself: Mat. xii. 36, 37, ‘I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment; for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.’ Neither is it anywhere said, that God will judge men according to their faith only; nor will it be a sufficient plea at the latter day to say, Lord, thou knowest I believed, and cast myself at thy grace. God will say, I am to judge thee so as every one shall be able to judge my sentence righteous together with me: 1 Cor. iv. 5, ‘Therefore, shew me thy faith by thy works;’ let me know by them thou fearedst me; for as I did judge Abraham, and gave thereupon a testimony of him, so I must proceed towards thee. And this God will do, to the end that all the sons of Israel, yea, the whole world, may know that he justified one that had true faith indeed.
So then, Paul s judging according to works, and James his justification by works, are all one, and are alike consistent with Paul’s justification by faith only. For in the same epistle where he argues so strongly for justification by faith without works, as Rom. iii. iv., he in chap. ii. also declares, that ‘he will judge every man according to his works.’ He doth so to the good: ver. 7, ‘To them who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternal life.’ As well as to the bad he pronounceth a contrary judgment: vers. 8, 9, ‘But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile.’
Goodwin's reading of James here is the same as Moo and Beale's, seeing James as referring to final justification at the last day.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
It has always been clear to me the opposition to final justification as taught by B/S/P is a modern phenomenon based on bad reading comprehension and logical reasoning largely coming out of Escondido. I decided to write up this post after seeing many on twitter from my own camp of 1689 Federalists joining this crowd. Sadly, I think there is a serious deficiency in reading comprehension and logical argumentation among my camp. Many have a fundamentalist attitude that makes it impossible for them to accurately understand and represent others’ positions and they end up doing history via “guilt by association”. My aim has been to correct this weakness, not only in this post, but in all that I do. I think deeply and rigorously, and I aim to think consistently about all things and I want others to do the same. I have always cared about truth above all else, and we cannot reach truth unless we think rightly and logically. Seeing how clearly ahistorical this position is, I started doing research to see if anyone has taken this group to task before me. Lo and behold, it turns out, Mark Jones has. I thus inserted much of his materials back into this post before completing it. By no means did I mean this to be a fully comprehensive post, although it grew as I went on, but it is purposely incomplete. I see no reason to spend my time and energy doing what others have done before me. For that reason, you are not done reading my post until you read the following posts as well. The last one is longer, but at least read the first 5 all the way through:
https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/06/judgment-according-to-works-reformed-style/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20210513235424/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/06/judgment-according-to-works-reformed-style/)
https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/07/john-piper-compromising-sola-fide/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20210725211304/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/07/john-piper-compromising-sola-fide/)
https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/25/piper-plagiarizing-thomas-goodwin/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20210419063613/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/25/piper-plagiarizing-thomas-goodwin/)
https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/15/many-good-works-necessary/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20210514010618/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/15/many-good-works-necessary/)
https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/13/assessing-pipers-critics-love-hopes-all-things/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20210420142336/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/13/assessing-pipers-critics-love-hopes-all-things/)
https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/06/thomas-goodwin-on-double-justification-james-and-paul-and-a-working-faith/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20210420204900/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/06/thomas-goodwin-on-double-justification-james-and-paul-and-a-working-faith/)
The Reformed accepted the doctrine of what we today call "final justification". Although they did not use the exact term, as the term "final justification" in their day related to the Catholic conception of an inherent and growing righteousness, they did often refer to the final judicial verdict based solely upon our works as "sentential justification". I have not in my readings found a single instance of a Reformed theologian denying this.
Good works are necessary for salvation. As Jones says,
Such questions (i.e., “How many?”) may actually reveal a legal spirit, not a gospel spirit, that needs mortifying. From those who should know better, to ask “How many good works?” is not evidence to me that they are trying to guard something special (i.e., justification), but rather that they are trying to ignore something glorious, namely, that God accepts the sincere obedience of his children because they are pure in heart (Matt. 5:8; Ps. 73:1; 24:4), live by faith (Gal. 2:20), and obey in the Spirit (Rom. 8:13-14). God warns, promises, and commands for our good.
When the fruits of sanctification (good works) are treated as the merits of justification, ironically, it becomes the one who opposes "final justification" on this ground who ends up committing a law-gospel conflation himself. As Jones said in another post, (https://web.archive.org/web/20210416175327/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/05/30/justification-or-sanctification-fesko-or-beale/) “We should also not let our proper concern about legalism turn sanctification into justification. The moment that occurs, you are dead (i.e., a gospel threat)”.
One can see then how antinomianism actually reveals a spirit of legalism, as the two errors are not practically different at all and one must necessarily lead to the other. A spirit that cannot help but see every imperative as implying merit, a spirit that would denounce a preacher were he to say "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell", were one not to already know these were the very words of the Savior Himself, a spirit that does not recognize that holiness is so requisite for entering heaven that without it, one will surely be cast into the infernal flames of Hell forever and ever is a far cry from the Biblical religion and what Christians throughout the ages have always confessed.
Before I expand more on the importance of emphasizing the necessity of good works for salvation (and thus final justification), I want to point out that Mark Jones has written two books that are relevant to the subject at hand.
The first is Hope, Faith, and Love. If you have been influenced (read: “brainwashed”) by Escondido, you probably think that nobody who affirms “final justification” can possibly write a good pastoral book on growth in the Christian life. I am certain that this book will show you that it is the direct opposite that is true.
The other book is Antinomianism. I believe antinomianism to be the main issue of both the church and society at large in our day. There is no greater threat that we face today than rampant antinomianism. Hatred of and disregard for the Law of God defines our generation. I like how one reviewer puts it:
Antinomianism mocks the very idea of the "imitation of Christ". It attempts to drive a strict wedge between promise and duty. There is a incipient discomfort with the thought that the gospel makes demands. . It focuses on justification to the extreme of neglecting the doctrine of sanctification. It recoils away from the Biblical truth that the law, accompanied by the Spirit, has a role to play in sanctification. It is not satisfied to maintain a law/gospel distinction in regard to justification, it must bring it into sanctification as well. It avoids or downplays the idea that in Christ, the law is a friend. Though it refuses to admit it is "against the law", it ultimately has a negative and diminished view of the role of the law in the believer's life. It is also highly uncomfortable with emphasizing the importance and necessity of good works.
I have said before and I will say it again, in order to defend the law/gospel distinction, we need to have a right understanding of what it is and what it means. To use it in the wrong contexts hurts the distinction and compromises it; it does not help it. We must avoid what Dr. Jordan Cooper calls Law-Gospel Reductionism.
The necessity of good works unto salvation has always been affirmed by the Christian religion. In the Second Volume of his Institutes, 17th Topic, Third Question, Francis Turretin asks, “Are good works necessary to salvation?”, his answer? “We affirm”. Turretin, like we have done, distinguishes between a causal or meritorious necessity of good works as held by the Romanists, which he denies, while at the same time denying that there is no necessity of good works unto salvation, as was held by the Epicureans, Libertines, and the Simonians. Good works are “required as the means and way for possessing salvation”. Again, this is what we have been affirming and what Van Mastricht has affirmed in the first Calvinist International article that we linked. Good works are an instrumental means to eternal life. As Turreitn says,
The very thing is no less expressly delivered concerning future glory. For since good works have the relation of the means to the end (Jn. 3:5, 16; Mt. 5:8); of the “way” to the goal (Eph. 2:10; Phil. 3:14); of the “sowing” to the harvest (Gal. 6:7, 8); of the “firstfruits” to the mass (Rom. 8:23); of the labor to the reward (Mt. 20:1); of the “contest” to the crown (2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8), everyone sees that there is the highest and an indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory. It is so great that it cannot be reached without them (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27).
Shortly after, Turretin says,
Works can be considered in three ways: either with reference to justification or sanctification or glorification. They are related to justification not antecedently, efficiently, and meritoriously, but consequently and declaratively. They are related to sanctification constitutively because they constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently and ordinatively because they are related to it as the means to the end; yea, as the beginning to the complement because grace is glory begun, as glory is grace consummated.
Again, we see the instrumental nature of good works unto glory. Exactly why Girolamo Zanchi said that “Good works are the instrumental cause of the possession of eternal life; by these indeed, just as by an obvious and legitimate way, God leads us into the possession of eternal life”.
Of course, this is also in the 1689 (and Westminster) Confession of Faith (16:2):
These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life.
And the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 32 says,
Q: How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A: …God enableth them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed to them salvation.
The early church emphasized the necessity of good works unto salvation. This is so plainly evident in the writings of the fathers, that I do not feel any need to give copious quotations of them. Following the apostles themselves, the early church recognized that no one can enter Heaven on the last day without good works. As the very first sentence of the Didache says,
“There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, your neighbour as yourself; and all things whatsoever you would should not occur to you, do not also do to another”.
The Marrow of Modern Divinity is one of my favorite books. The understanding of the Law/Gospel distinction that it lays out is crucial to grasp today. It is the way to do away with both legalism and antinomianism. However, it is a sad sign that many today have given into antinomianism when the book is equated solely with combatting antinomianism. This is evidence that Law-Gospel reductionism has infected many sectors of Christianity and, as I have already said, this ends up hurting the Law/Gospel distinction instead of nurturing and helping it. We must remember that the Marrow of Modern Divinity is not just a conversation between Evangelista and Nomist, but a conversation between Evangelista, Nomist, AND Antinomista.
At the end of my copy of Marrow, I have a section entitled “Queries Agreed Unto By the Commission of the General Assembly, and Put to Those Ministers Who Have in A Representation And Petition Against The 5th and 8th Acts of Assembly 1720, With the Answer Given by These Ministers to the Said Queries.
Query VI asks, “if personal holiness and progress in holy obedience, is not necessary to a justified person’s possession of glory, in case of his continuing in life after his justification?”
To which the answer comes, “To the second part of the query we answer, that personal holiness, and justification, being inseparable in the believer, we are unwilling, so much as the query does, to suppose their separation. Personal holiness we reckon so necessary to the possession of glory, or to a state of perfect holiness and happiness, as is the morning light to the noon - day warmth and brightness,---as is reasonable soul to a wise, healthy strong, and full grown man,---as an antecedent is to its consequent,---as a part is to the whole; for the difference betwixt a state of grace and of glory, we take to be gradual only, according to the usual saying, “Grace is glory begun, and glory is grace in perfection”. So necessary, again, as motion is to evidence life, or in order to walking, not only habitual and actual holiness and progress in holy obedience, one continuing in life, we are clear, are so necessary, that without the same none can see the Lord”.
Again, we see the necessity of holiness and obedience unto salvation. At the end, a causal necessity of good works for salvation is again denied. One can surely hear echoes of Turreitn here.
To be fair, perhaps our opponents can argue in the next query, it seems to deny that we should speak of good works as “necessary to salvation”, because it can be misleading, as if they were causal. The next query appears to put forth that we should say we are not saved “by/through good works, but saved to do good works”, but as Mark Jones has pointed out, this is inadequate as to its accuracy. Much as I appreciate the Marrow, it must be noted that Fisher and the marrow men were not greatly learned theologians and thus were not speaking with the same level of precision as the scholastics. We certainly cannot make them the standard of Reformed Orthodoxy. I side then with the Reformed and all Christians before them who believe it is necessary, following Scripture’s lead, to speak of good works as necessary unto salvation. To distinguish between causal and non-causal necessity is not that hard nor confusing, and we have made this distinction so many times throughout this post that it is getting tiring to have to keep bringing it up.
Beale has rightly recognized the connection between final justification and “lordship salvation”. One cannot be declared righteous before the entire cosmos if one does not have good works to stand as evidence for that declaration anymore than Abraham would have had evidence of his faith apart from his works. Lordship salvation, properly understood and applied, is no more than an acknowledgment that one must do good works in order to be finally saved. As Michael Horton himself has said,
The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in both, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor…Holiness, which is defined by love of God and neighbor…is the indispensable condition of our glorification: no one will be seated at the heavenly banquet who has not begun, however imperfectly, in new obedience (Introducing Covenant Theology. p. 182).
If one thinks this to be a conflation of the Law and Gospel, then may I humbly suggest that you do not understand what the Law/Gospel distinction actually is and does and that you have more than likely given into a form of Law-Gospel reductionistic antinomianism?
Appendix On the Use of the Term “Merit” in the Fathers and Scholastics:
Sometimes the fathers and medieval scholastics will speak of good works as “meriting” heaven. By this the fathers simply meant something that is instrumental to obtaining something else. Understood properly, this is no different from a “non-causal necessary condition” and is correct (cf. Turretin Vol. 2, 17th Topic, 5th Q.). If it is understood that good works are the meritorious cause/grounds of eternal life, this would be incorrect and akin to the teaching of the FV and Rome in which good works carry a form of ex pacto merit (thus, the scholastics held that good works grant a right to eternal life). The term “covenantal merit” if understood along the lines of a “non-causal necessary condition” is not necessarily incorrect, and would simply mean that within the New Covenant, God has ordained good works as the means unto which one instrumentally obtains eternal life (cf. Van Mastricht), however, it can easily be confused with being ex pacto merit in which good works obtain eternal life as the meritorious cause/grounds of it, and for that reason I do not at all recommend using the term “covenantal merit” for anything other than the ex pacto meritorious cause/grounds/legal right of the blessings of a given covenant, as "merit" properly belongs to legal right. This is the distinction between what Augustine means when he says that men cannot merit heaven (https://web.archive.org/web/20210511130433/https://calvinistinternational.com/2014/05/20/augustine-the-saints-do-not-merit-heaven/) and other times when he speaks of the saints “meriting Heaven”, by which he means that our works instrumentally obtain to Heaven (cf. Rev. 3:11); similarly, Calvin (especially the 15th paragraph beginning with “Observe”) and Turretin
(https://web.archive.org/web/20210625060645/https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/10/good-works-sins-3/)
I have criticized Turretin before in his Second Volume of the Institutes, Seventeenth Topic, Third Question, section VII for a separate but related confusion on this. Turretin, in proving that good works are necessary to salvation, states that part of the stipulation of any given covenant is obedience on the part of man and so it is with the New Covenant. This is imprecise, as the given stipulation in the New Covenant on man’s part is faith, not the resulting works. It is true, as Turreitn says that one cannot partake of the blessings of the New Covenant unless he obeys God with good works (i.e. one cannot enter Heaven unless he has good works), but good works are not themselves the required stipulation of the New Covenant. A stipulation of the covenant (which is either faith in the covenant of grace or good works in a covenant of works) should not be confused with necessary conditions within that covenant. [Edit: I was wrong. See Institutes 2:187, Turretin vindicated himself there]
Likewise, with my original comments on the use of the term “covenantal merit”, the meritorious cause/grounds of a covenant (which is either the work of Christ alone in the covenant of grace, or one’s own works in a covenant of works) should not be confused with merely necessary conditions within that covenant (i.e. the necessary condition of good works on the part of man within the New Covenant is not itself the meritorious cause/ground of the blessings of the Covenant, which is Christ’s obedience alone). “Covenantal merit” or “ex pacto merit” should, therefore, be reserved for the meritorious cause/grounds within a covenant. Put another way, the distinction is between necessary conditions within the covenant to its blessing (i.e. having faith or doing good works within the covenant of grace) and the legal right to the blessings of the covenant (which is the obedience of Christ alone within the covenant of grace). There is not a covenantalist agreement between God and man that if man has good works, he merits eternal life, but rather, God promises that man will have good works to inherit eternal life. The saints’ perseverance in good works is wholly due to grace and thus God is a debtor to Himself due to His promise and not to us since to our works in themselevs eternal life is not due. Because the apostle sets merit (“that which is due”) against grace and our perseverance in works is wholly of grace, the term “merit” should not be used of our works in so far as they have a relation to eternal life. In other words, they cannot be called “meritorious” because they are not properly a cause of eternal life (which is the grace of God), but only a condition of it. In the New Covenant, God crowns His gifts in us, not our merits. The relation of our works to our heavenly rewards (whether eternal life considered itself, or the various degrees of glory/reward) cannot properly be called one of merit, but is wholly of grace (as Turretin argues near the end of either his 1st or 2nd volume, I forget), just as a father rewarding his son for good behavior is of grace and cannot be called meritorious, as it has no relation of meritorious cause (contra the scholastics, though this is more difficult to prove). For more see Turretin, Vol 2, 17th Topic. Q 5. “Ex pacto” or “covenantal merit” should be reserved for that which earns a legal right to the blessings of a covenant, not for necessary conditions within the covenant to obtain said blessings (cf. Van Mastricht’s “right vs. possession” the very same as my meritorious cause vs necessary condition). For comparison, I have a legal right to the blessings of the New Covenant (eternal life) as soon as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to me, but a necessary condition of my possession of this blessing is that I have faith (thus the active/passive justification distinction). My faith is not the meritorious cause/grounds of eternal life, but it is a necessary condition for my obtaining of it. Thus, when fathers and scholastics speak of “merit”, those of them who make good works to be merely necessary conditions unto eternal life speak correctly, but if they make good works to be that which legally gives one the right to eternal life or to rewards they speak incorrectly. Proving the second part of the latter (that eternal rewards are not given for ex pacto merit) is more difficult and something I intend to take up in the future.
Appendix 2: Scholars for and against final justification in the Reformers
I thought it would be interesting to compose a list of different scholars who have weighed in on whether final justification is present in the Reformers. I will continue to grow this list as I get more information on who says what. I do this, in part, because I am very convinced that, quite frankly, the quality of scholarship very clearly falls down on one side (no offense to the other side, which is still comprised of men whom I respect).
For final justification in the Reformed:
Richard Muller
Mark Jones
Michael Lynch
David Sytsma
Joel Beeke
Mark Garcia
D. Patrick Ramsey
Steven Wedgeworth
Ian Clary
Ryan Hurd
Against final justification in the Reformed:
J. V. Fesko
Michael Horton
Harrison Perkins
R. Scott Clark
Sam Waldron
Tom Hicks
Richard Barcellos