Green Baggins

As Wilson has clarified his position helpfully regarding chapter 3 of RINE, we will move on to chapter 4 (it always helps to know who Wilson’s targets are. His target is not folk who seek to ascertain the state of the heart by looking at the fruit, and who recognize the inherently a posteriori method so used; rather, his target consists of those folk who seek to read the heart by means of absolutely ridiculous criteria).

Chapter 4 has much to commend it. His thesis is actually stated at the end of the chapter:

In all this we are discussing, and reaffirming, the traditional Protestant doctrine of the righteousness of Christ imputed to those individuals who are elect. This, plus nothing, constitutes the ground of their final acceptance before God. (p. 4

Wilson affirms imputation here. Furthermore, he affirms that our final acceptance on Judgment Day (at least, that is what I presume he is talking about) is based on Christ’s righteousness, and not our own. I should add that this thesis regards the question of justification specifically in the context of faith. Faith is actually what takes up the majority of the chapter.

Wilson starts out with noting that the righteousness of God (referring to Romans 1:16-17) is manifested in two senses: the first has to do with how God can remain righteous while justifying sinners; secondly, the righteousness of God is manifested “in how we who are saved by faith actually live” (p. 42, emphasis his). Wilson desires to emphasize that the life of the Christian is by faith from first to last.

Wilson then proceeds to extricate the doctrine concerning faith from various errors into which some people fall. The first error he mentions is what might be deemed “propositionalism.” This is roughly equivalent to the “demon-faith” mentioned in James 2:19. It is the idea that I can believe that a person is justified by faith alone, with myself not actually believing it. In terms of the traditional three-fold definition of faith as knowledge, assent, and trust, we would be talking about a “faith” that did not actually trust.

Wilson also makes the point that we do not start by faith and end by something else. Galatians 3:3 is quite clear on this. He brings in the example of the Apostles Creed as indicative of people who are doing faith, not analyzing faith (p. 43). However, it is in this context that Wilson raises the question of law/gospel. I note that Wilson uses the word “division.” Is this directed against the law/gospel distinction, so clearly laid out for us in WCF 7.5 and 19? I would like clarification here: What is Wilson’s position on the three uses of the law, and what is Wilson’s position on the law/gospel distinction?

One further question has to do with “merit-mongering” (p. 43). Is Wilson claiming that the Reformation repudiated the idea of merit in every conceivable situation? Is the idea of merit solely a Roman Catholic idea, or are there several different ways to talk about merit? I would very much like to see Wilson interact with the quotations I provided here. I would also like to see Wilson interact with the three-fold distinction of merit into condign, congruent, and pactum merit, which has entered into the discussions on Wilson’s blog, especially the comments, and which is discussed by Thomas Boston, the quotations of which are available here. Is Wilson claiming that all categories and definitions of merit are Roman Catholic, and to be abhorred?

Wilson includes a rather detailed discussion of justification in this chapter. I like this part:

In other words, God justifies those He calls, but this justification must not be understood as an infusion of righteousness. Rather, justification is the pardon for sins and the legal reckoning of our persons as righteous. It is important that we do not stumble through a misunderstanding of the basis or foundation of this. We are justified for Christ’s sake only. God does not justify us for anything done by us, and, far more important, for anything done in us (even by Him). Nor does God justify us because of our faith- rather He justifies us because of Christ’s obedience and work, and this is appropriated by us through faith. Understanding these prepositions (in the gut) is a matter of life and death, heaven and hell.

This affirms most of what the Reformed doctrine of justification says. The only part that I wonder about is the acceptance of our persons into eternal life. The two aspects of justification are the forgiveness of sins and the acceptance of our persons as righteous. Would Wilson be willing to affirm that Christ’s perfect obedience and full satisfaction gives us pardon of sins and the accepting of our persons as righteous? (LC 70). How about HC 60: “as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me.”

Wilson makes the standard Reformed position that justification and sanctification are distinct but not separated (pp. 45-46). This is right. However, I might ask Wilson to elaborate a bit on this statement: “We can separate faith from other graces and virtues logically and conceptually, via abstraction, but not practically. We may distinguish, but never separate” (pp. 45-46). What does this mean? Is he saying that the only distinction that can be made between faith and virtue, for instance, is an abstract distinction? Is there not also a practical distinction between faith and virtue?

Wilson must forgive me for asking so many questions. The reason for this is that this chapter deals with many of the most central concerns surrouding the FV and NPP debates. Clarification is essential. So here is yet one more question: what is it about faith that makes it an instrument for justification? My position is that it is not its aliveness which makes it fit for justification, although justifying faith is always alive. Rather, it is in its receptivity of Christ and its recumbency on  Christ that makes it a fit instrument. What I think we need to avoid is a confusing statement such as this: “Since justifying faith is always alive, then it is because of its aliveness that it justifies.” Hear me correctly: justifying faith is always alive. However, it is not because it is alive that it is the instrument of justification, but because it receives and rests on Christ that it justifies. Someone might say, “Yes, but only an alive faith can do that.” I will answer that the aliveness is essential to a real faith, but that with regard to justification, the aliveness does not apply. My target here are those people who wish to subtlely introduce another ground for justification. By saying “because of aliveness” one has introduced a ground that is different from Christ’s righteousness. This is not sound. The ground is Christ’s righteousness, and the instrument is the faith which receives and rests on Christ. And the Bible tells us that such a faith is always alive.