Imperishable Inheritance

(I asked Nathan Pitchford, a fellow laborer for the Gospel, to write a response to an article from a Catholic site entitled: "Grace: What It Is and What It Does". This was prompted by a discussion on an old article I wrote on problematic Catholic theology.)

From the outset, I must candidly confess that a thoroughgoing, point-by-point rebuttal of the positions argued for in the article above is beyond the scope of my brief response. The positions espoused were hundreds of years in the making, and to unravel everything assumed or explicitly stated would take a rather lengthy volume. And besides, there are already many good, exegetically-sound explanations of the Reformed views on justification and sanctification, an excellent example of the former being Obadiah Grew's The Lord Our Righteousness; and of the latter, Walter Marshall's The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. If anyone is seriously wanting to understand the historic Protestant teaching on these important topics, I would point him to these works.

Instead, I only desire two things: first, to point out, in brief, how the article misrepresents the Protestant viewpoint, for the benefit of anyone wanting a more accurate description to consider. And second, to give a brief explanation of why this viewpoint is so vital and non-negotiable to us.

Clarifying the Protestant Understanding

The article in question contains such descriptions of the Protestant teaching on justification as the following:

"Sanctifying grace implies a real transformation of the soul. Recall that most of the Protestant Reformers denied that a real transformation takes place. They said God doesn't actually wipe away our sins. Our souls don't become spotless and holy in themselves. Instead, they remain corrupted, sinful, full of sin. God merely throws a cloak over them and treats them as if they were spotless, knowing all the while that they're not."

"But that isn't the Catholic view. We believe souls really are cleansed by an infusion of the supernatural life. Paul speaks of us as "a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17), "created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph. 4:24). Of course, we're still subject to temptations to sin; we still suffer the effects of Adam's Fall in that sense (what theologians call "concupiscence"); but God removes the guilt from our souls. We may still have a tendency to sin, but God has removed the sins we have, much like a mother might wash the dirt off of a child who has a tendency to get dirty again."

This description is simply not accurate: the fact is, all responsible Protestant theologians believe that, at the moment of regeneration, God cleanses a sinner's soul, removing all the guilt and stain of sin. He also transforms the sinner quite thoroughly, so that he may be called a new creation, someone created anew in the image of Christ, someone whose day-to-day life will begin to reflect this monumental change by degrees. The problem (from the Catholic point of view) is that these realities are not properly called 'justification' in the Protestant system (or in the scriptures, for that matter). They are referred to in such terms as 'washing,' 'regeneration,' and so on. To say that Protestants don't believe in a real transformation of the soul just because this transformation is not called 'justification' is similar to saying they don't believe in bananas simply because they do not call them 'oranges'. Transformation, cleansing, and so on take place in the life of every believer, but those processes are called 'transformation' and 'cleansing,' not 'justification,' which simply does not carry that range of meanings.

So the first problem of misrepresentation is simply caused by a confusion of terminology; but a further, more substantial misrepresentation is also implicit in the description under consideration. The charge is made that, in the Protestant understanding of justification, 'God merely throws a cloak over them and treats them as if they were spotless, knowing all the while that they're not.' This is a deceptive statement, because it combines elements of the truth with utter falsehood. The fact is, that justification is a legal term, used in the technical sense of passing a verdict in the courtroom. It is also a fact that the image of being covered with Christ's righteousness, as with a cloak, is a fond metaphor for the New Testament authors. But we must not forget that it is a metaphor, and we must not make the mistake of confusing two different word pictures, with disastrous results. The metaphor of being covered with Christ's righteousness does not mean that our own guilt is not taken away. It does not mean that we always stay just as dirty underneath. That is simply not the point of the metaphor. The fact is, that our guilt is really taken away, we are really washed and cleansed underneath – but that's not all that happens! Not only is our guilt removed, but a positive righteousness is given to us. The image of a cloak speaks to this second part of the twofold exchange that took place on the cross; and to use its narrow perspective to deny the first part, that our guilt is actually removed, is a big problem.

And then, it also brings up another problem when we get to the matter of justification. If we actually are guilty, then when God passes the verdict 'Not guilty,' it must just be a 'pretending'. This caricature of Protestant theology comes again from a misuse of nuanced terminology. That we have been covered with Christ's righteousness does not mean that we have not been cleansed. If it did, God's verdict would be unjust. As it is, he is both just and the justifier of the one who believes in Christ.

Justification is a courtroom verdict, indeed; but the all-just Judge is certainly passing the correct verdict! He has taken all the steps to ensure that, when a believer stands before him in the courtroom, the only right decision that could be made is 'not guilty!'. He has really taken away all guilt; and he has really provided all necessary righteousness. He has done both of these things through the cross of Christ. But to say that, because 'justification' does not refer to the process of cleansing, it therefore just gives a verdict which only pretends that the process was carried out, is completely unwarranted. It is as if a person asked if we believed we owned an entire car, and we said, 'Yes, I believe that.' 'But you say that the steering wheel does not contain four tires and a motor! A real car has four tires and a motor. You must not believe you own the entire car after all!' Yes, I own the entire car, but the simple fact is, the steering wheel only speaks to one particular part of that car. That I refuse to use the term 'steering wheel' to refer to four tires and a motor does not mean that I deny the existence of four tires and a motor. In the same way, because I refuse to use the forensic term justification to mean 'transformation,' 'cleansing,' etc., does not mean that I deny the existence of those things. I just prefer to call them by their correct names – because if I don't tremendous and potentially harmful confusion may result.

Proceeding on, the article makes the further statement:

"The Protestant misunderstanding of justification lies in its claim that justification is merely a forensic (i.e., purely declaratory) legal declaration by God that the sinner is now "justified." If you "accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior," he declares you justified, though he doesn't really make you justified or sanctified; your soul is in the same state as it was before; but you're eligible for heaven."

"A person is expected thereafter to undergo sanctification (don't make the mistake of thinking Protestants say sanctification is unimportant), but the degree of sanctification achieved is, ultimately, immaterial to the question of whether you'll get to heaven. You will, since you're justified; and justification as a purely legal declaration is what counts. Unfortunately, this scheme is a legal fiction. It amounts to God telling an untruth by saying the sinner has been justified, while all along he knows that the sinner is not really justified, but is only covered under the "cloak" of Christ's righteousness. But, what God declares, he does. "[S]o shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Is. 55:11). So, when God declares you justified, he makes you justified. Any justification that is not woven together with sanctification is no justification at all."

We've already discussed the problem with calling God's verdict a 'legal fiction' – God has made a reality, through Christ, what he then declares to be a reality. It is not a fiction, but a truthful verdict. But another problem that arises is the non sequitur this article makes, that since justification is a final and irrevocable verdict, therefore the degree of sanctification is irrelevant as to whether or not one 'makes it to heaven'. Again, the truth is to be found, not in denying one or the other truth, but in giving each one its proper place and relationship.

The fact is, that God always sanctifies those whom he justifies. Those who show no sanctification cannot claim justification. Habitual sinners will not inherit the Kingdom, no matter how many aisles they've walked down in their lives. The problem comes when one misunderstands the nature of the necessity. Sanctification is necessary not as a means to an end, but as part of the end itself. Heaven is heaven because there will be no sin there; and therefore, people will be able to fellowship with the God who is too holy to look upon sin. Perfect sanctification is the goal, and so it is necessary for salvation. But it is not the means of getting there. Suppose I wanted to go on vacation in Hawaii: a jet would be a necessary means of getting there; but Hawaii itself would be a necessary element for the completion of my goal. In the work of salvation, sinlessness is a part of 'Hawaii'. Heaven would not be heaven if sin were there.

Another (more biblical) illustration would be a vine. The goal is grapes; and so, by definition, the presence of grapes is necessary for the goal. But the means is the vital connection of the branches to the living vine. That is how the grapes come about. You could water a branch all day long, but it wouldn't give you grapes unless there were some necessary means involved – and those means include a connection with the vine.

Holiness is a necessary part of salvation. The production of the holiness is a necessary part of the journey to heaven. But there is also a necessity of means, and these means include regeneration, forgiveness, transformation, justification, and in brief, the way in which all of these necessary things come about – union with Christ. If I want to arrive in Hawaii, it's necessary that I go there. The going is necessary for my goal. And if I want to get to heaven, it's necessary that I go in the path of holiness. The farther I go toward Hawaii, the closer I get to it. The farther I go toward the land of holiness, the closer I get to being practically holy. But I can no more make myself holy without the manifold means that God has provided in Christ than I could fly to Hawaii without wings, jet engines, fuel, and so on.

Here is one more quotation:

"Most Fundamentalists go on to say that losing ground in the sanctification battle won't jeopardize your justification. You might sin worse than you did before "getting saved," but you'll enter heaven anyway, because you can't undo your justification, which has nothing to do with whether you have supernatural life in your soul"

Again, this is a misrepresentation along the lines of saying that, if one refuses to call a tire a steering wheel, he must not believe that tires exist. Justification is not the impartation of spiritual life, but it is a verdict which truthfully presupposes that spiritual life was in fact imparted. It is impossible for justification to exist apart from spiritual life or sanctification precisely because it is impossible for God to lie. If one has no sanctification, then he has not been justified.

The Importance of a Correct Understanding

The error of confusing justification with sanctification is an error that subverts the entire gospel. Justification speaks of an actual righteousness that is perfect and acceptable to God. Sanctification speaks of a practical righteousness that necessarily follows the imputation of an actual righteousness, and will one day display that actual righteousness fully (in heaven). Justification renders the verdict that Christ's righteousness has been given to us. Sanctification proves the reality of that verdict by working out this freely given righteousness in our own lives. So then, in a fundamental sense, the righteousness spoken of in justification is an external righteousness. It is something that is given to us. But the righteousness spoken of in sanctification is an internal righteousness. It is something that is worked in us.

To say that justification depends on the latter kind of righteousness (the kind that is worked in us) puts us in an impossible situation. Either God is not 100% just, and so he can take an imperfect righteousness and say, 'Ok, that's good enough – you weren't always fully righteous, but you showed righteousness a good bit of the time, so you're good enough to fellowship with me.' Or else, if God is 100% just, then our practical righteousness must be flawless and complete for him to accept us. If we've ever sinned, then we will never be able to stand in God's presence. So which is it? If we're trusting in the righteousness that God imparts to us, or works out in our daily lives, for our justification, that is for the verdict that we are acceptable to him, then are we hoping that God is willing to overlook our flaws because he's not that holy after all? Or are we really thinking that we have no flaws?

You see, our imparted, practical righteousness is necessary, because God is taking us back to a state of perfect holiness. That's how we were created, and that's where God is taking us again. That's what salvation is all about. But before we get there, we've all committed some terrible sins. And guess what – God is too holy just to overlook them! He is a righteous judge, and if the righteousness we hold up to him on judgment day is flawed, then we won't arrive at that destination of perfect holiness. We'll be cast into hell, where the flawed righteousness we hoped in receives its just reward. The only way to get to a place of perfect practical righteousness is to be given a perfect external righteousness on judgment day. And the only person that can give that perfect righteousness is Jesus – because he's the only person who has ever won a perfect righteousness. If our hope in the courtroom is any righteousness that God is working in our daily lives, we will be disappointed, because it isn't perfect. Our only hope is the righteousness of Christ.

The article under examination has the following tragic admission:

"Catholics see it differently. If you sin grievously, the supernatural life in your soul disappears, since it can't co-exist with serious sin. You then cease to be justified. If you were to die while unjustified, you'd go to hell. But you can become re-justified by having the supernatural life renewed in your soul, and you can do that by responding to the actual graces God sends you."

If your justification is indeed conditioned upon the holiness being worked out in your daily life, then of course it can disappear. In fact, it is an entirely impossible hope, if God is still completely righteous and our daily lives are not.

But what a certain hope we have when we trust in Jesus' righteousness alone for our justification! What a solid rock that can never be moved! We can know that we are acceptable in God's sight because his righteousness is now ours, and we can know that one day our practical holiness will reflect Jesus' perfect holiness completely. We can know that our final destination – perfect holiness in the presence of God – is certain, because we are not the ones getting us there – the One who has already accomplished a perfect righteousness has undertaken to get us there. Jesus said, 'Everyone who comes unto me, I will not cast out...this is the will of the One who sent me, that of everyone whom he has given to me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up in the last day' (John 6:37-40). If Jesus has promised to lose no one who has truly come to him in faith, who are we to call him a liar, or suggest that he is not able to do what he had said? If we are trusting in Jesus' power and righteousness alone, then we have an immovable hope, and a certain future. If we are trusting in any righteousness that God is working in our own souls for a final verdict, then not only is our condemnation possible, it is certain. A wholly righteous God demands a perfect righteousness in his court; and that kind of righteousness can only come as a free gift from Christ. Trust in anything less'do that dishonor to the Son of God who freely offers his own perfect righteousness'and your condemnation is certain.