By Faith Alone, part 6

February 16, 2007 at 10:29 am (Books (reviews and recommendations), Federal Vision, Heresy, New Perspective on Paul, Roman Catholicism)

The fourth article is by C. FitzSimons Allison, entitled “The Foundational Term for Christian Salvation,” subtitled “Imputation.” That says quite a bit just in the title, as I’m sure you’ll recognize. The quotation from Hooker is worth the price of admission:

The righteousness, wherewith we shall be clothed in the world to come, is both perfect and inherent. That whereby here we are justified is perfect, but not inherent. That whereby we are sanctified, inherent, but not perfect.

It doesn’t get much better or succinct in describing justification. We are all in Allison’s debt merely for resurrecting this quote. Allison goes on to note that herein lies the difference with Rome: “The Council of Trent is in explicit difference, holding that the righteousness by which we are justified is inherent, infused, perfect, and ours” (pg. 100). Hooker’s view, however, was by no means unique to Anglican thinkers: he mentions Cranmer, Herbert, Donne, Andrewes, Davenant, and all of Classical Anglicanism into the middle of the seventeenth century (presumably ending with the expulsion of the Puritans from their pulpits in 1642). Of course, Allison’s point in bringing up the Anglican view is to show how far N.T. Wright, and Anglican, has departed from the 39 Articles (pg. 101). Allison, therefore, also takes aim at the Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), which didn’t even mention justification, the point which Hooker called “the grand question.” It is premature, to say the least, to entitle such an ecumenical document “The Final Report,” as they have done.

What follows this is a very interesting discussion of the Roman Catholic psychology of Tridentine justification, as it plays out in pastoral ministry. For Roman Catholics, it is better to remain ignorant of one’s sins, since then it is possible to avoid mortal sin entirely. A premium is thus put on “keeping material guilt unconscious” (pg. 107). The cash value of imputation can be seen when compared to the alternative: “The replacement of ‘infusion’ for ‘imputation’ must lower the definition of sin to a manageable level or none would be in a state of grace.” This sentence deserves to be the subject of deep meditation. Dwell on it for awhile, folks. Let its truth seep into your soul. What follows further from this replacement is that pastors will encourage their parishioners to sweep sins under the rug of ignorance, so that they are not really major sins. They remain venial unless consciously done. This makes pastors complicit in their parishioners’ sins.

One further point of extreme importance can be gleaned from this excellent article, and that is a splendid one-sentence explanation of why imputation is falling into disfavor: “we live in an age bereft of the sense of God’s justice, transcendence, and awesomeness” (pg. 110). If we regained even a hint of God’s transcending holiness, we would fly with full speed to the doctrine of imputation (that is, we would trust in Christ and His merits), knowing that only Christ’s righteousness, active and passive, can possibly cover us from the wrath of Almighty God. Niebuhr said (Allison quotes him), “In the beginning God created us in his own image and ever since we have attempted to return the compliment” (pg. 111). We must beware of letting culture dictate the direction of our theology. Imputation must remain front and center in justification, or we are lost.