When It’s Done It’s Done

Franco Maggiotto (1937-2006)

Franco Maggiotto was one of the most memorable men I’ve ever met.  At one point in his life, he’d been a Roman Catholic priest in Italy.  The papal hierarchy saw potential in Franco and he became involved with the Vatican.  One day, Father Franco was saying mass at a basilica.  In the process, he happened to read to the congregation from Hebrews 10:11-12:

“And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.  But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God…”

When Franco read this, the Holy Spirit suddenly opened his eyes to the reality of the gospel.  He told the congregation, “I’m fired!  You should go home now.  It’s all done.  I’m fired.  Jesus has done it all!” 

That was a message Franco loved to preach from that day forward.  He became a Reformed pastor, an exceptionally unusual figure in Italy.  In 2003, Franco visited with us in Fort Babine, the tiny British Columbia village where I was serving as a missionary.  As even Protestant pastors do in Italy, Franco was dressed in clerical garb, a black suit with a white tab collar.  For the nominal Roman Catholics in our village, it appeared a Roman Catholic priest had come for a rare visit.  That created some excitement and interest.  We successfully invited some 20 villagers to come and listen to “Father” Franco. 

With his charming Italian accent, Franco passionately preached the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  He used the illustration of a man who takes his friends to a restaurant.  Being a good friend, he pays for the meals of everyone.  Would it then be right for the owner of the restaurant to demand that each diner pay for the meal all over again?  Or even to ask the generous friend to pay again?  No, he said, it’s been paid once and for all.  The bill is no longer outstanding.  So it is with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the payment for our sins.  It was a fantastic gospel presentation for a largely Roman Catholic crowd.

Sadly, even some Protestants don’t seem to get this.  There are some who teach that justification is a life-long process, something which has to be renewed daily.  In this thinking, God’s declaration of righteousness (justification) is something which expires at the end of each day.  Each day again the individual has to go to God as Judge and again plead for the verdict of “righteous” in Christ.

That’s an unbiblical way to think about justification.  This is clear from several verses in Romans.  Take Romans 5:1, for example:  “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  Here justification is described as a completed action which has addressed all our sins, past, present and future.  The consequence is abiding peace with God through our Saviour.

Thus, a little further in the letter, Paul writes, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).  If you are in Christ Jesus, if you are united to him and therefore accounted righteous (justified), there is no condemnation.  The verdict has been rendered and it’s in your favour — permanently.  If the Judge has spoken once, the matter is finished.  There are no appeals and there’s no reopening of your case.

Christians can now relate every day to God as their Father.  Through our justification once accomplished, we’re in a relationship of fellowship with God and nothing can change that.  This isn’t to say that there’s no longer any place for repentance, confession, and seeking forgiveness from God.  But it is to say that these things now take place in the context of a living relationship where God is our Father and we’re his justified children through Christ.

Why would you want it to be otherwise?  Why would you want to have the insecurity and discomfort of a tenuous relationship with God, one which always depends on daily renewal of your justification?  Franco Maggiotto had it right.  When it comes to the work of our salvation, when it’s done it’s done.  That’s why we say the gospel is good news.                              

An Admiring Look at the Greatest Popularizer of Reformed Theology

R.C. Sproul: A Life, Stephen J. Nichols.  Wheaton: Crossway, 2021.  Hardcover, 371 pages.

Back in the early 90s, there was a fuss in the pages of our denominational magazine over what one of the pastors was doing with his catechism students.  This pastor was having his youth listen to tapes of an “outside” Reformed theologian.  That theologian was R.C. Sproul.  As I recall, that was my first introduction to his name.  A short time later I was browsing the theology stacks in the Rutherford Library at the University of Alberta.  For a public university, the U of A actually had a remarkable collection of Reformed theology works.  I spotted a book by R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God.  I borrowed the book and wolfed it down in short order.  I was impressed, not with Sproul, but with God’s holiness.  Especially the explanation of Isaiah 6 left me in awe of the Holy One.

Part of the legacy of R.C. Sproul was his profound gift to make Reformed theology accessible to everyone.  When he died in 2017, many spoke of the way God used him to convey biblical truths clearly and effectively.  This biography, the first, highlights the life and work of the man I’d call the greatest popularizer of Reformed theology. He had a knack for making complex things simple. Here’s a great sample of the man in action:

The author, Stephen J. Nichols, was a friend and admirer of Sproul.  Nichols’ affection is impossible to disguise.  As is often the case with this sort of less-than-arms-length biography, we get a good understanding of the main lines of Sproul’s life and influence, but we don’t really see the man “warts and all.”  This biography is edifying and informative, but the author’s relationship to his subject (and the Sproul family) brings in a measure of restraint to what he can and does tell.  I’m sure someone in the future will write a scholarly, critical biography telling us a fuller picture of the Sproul story.

Sproul was involved with several important stories during his lifetime.  One was the struggle for biblical inerrancy beginning in the 1970s.  Sproul was a pivotal figure in the establishment of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.  He wrote the first draft of the articles of affirmation and denial for the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  Nichols devotes a whole chapter to this topic. 

There’s also a whole chapter dedicated to Sproul’s defence of the biblical doctrine of justification.  A document was released in 1994 entitled, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT).  Some of the original signers of this statement were close friends of Sproul, especially Charles Colson and J.I. Packer.  ECT compromised on the doctrine of justification, how we’re declared righteous by God.  Sproul and others pointed out how ECT’s compromise formulations left out the crucial element of imputation – i.e. that Christ’s righteousness is credited to us by God.  Sadly, the controversy over ECT ended Sproul’s friendships with Colson and Packer.  The story, as told by Nichols, inspires readers to discern which hills are truly worth dying on.  If justification isn’t worth it, what is?

It’s hard not to love R.C. Sproul.  I loved him before reading this biography and I love him more after.  That doesn’t mean I’ve always agreed with everything he’s stood for.  Apologetics is one area where I have to respectfully disagree with him.  Nichols stresses Sproul’s contributions to the revival of what we call classical apologetics.  This approach stresses the use of rational arguments to argue towards God, and from there towards the God of the Bible, and from there towards the truth of Christianity.  Contrasted with classical apologetics is Reformed, presuppositional apologetics.  This approach argues for the truth of the Christian worldview taken as a whole by pointing out that unless Christianity is true, no reasoning is even possible.  This was the approach championed by Cornelius Van Til.

On the topic of apologetics, this biography leaves me with some questions.  According to Nichols, Sproul went to seminary “committed to presuppositional apologetics” (p.59), but had his mind changed by John Gerstner.  One of his most influential college professors had been a student of Van Til and, apparently, impacted the young Sproul.  Here’s the important thing to realize:  presuppositional apologetics is inextricably bonded to Reformed theology.  You can be an Arminian and hold to classical apologetics, but it should be impossible to be an Arminian and hold to Reformed apologetics.  That’s why I’m confused when Nichols writes the following:  “R.C. went to PTS [Pittsburgh Theological Seminary] a presuppositionalist and a non-Calvinist” (p.63). If he really was a presuppositionalist, he can’t have had a very good understanding of it if he still wasn’t Reformed.  It gets more interesting, because later in the book, we discover that Sproul spent time visiting with Cornelius Van Til at his home in Philadelphia.  Yet, when you read his (co-authored) book Classical Apologetics and its critique of Van Til, it seems Sproul didn’t really understand him.

That leads me to one last point of critique on the apologetics theme.  In 1977, there was a debate between R.C. Sproul and Greg Bahnsen on apologetical method – classical versus presuppositional apologetics.  You can find this debate online here.  Bahnsen was a formidable debater and, even though it was brotherly and cordial, by the end Sproul was conceding Bahnsen’s key points.  Sadly, Stephen Nichols doesn’t mention this debate at all.  I’m left wondering:  what did Sproul think about that debate in the following years?  If Sproul conceded those points during the debate in 1977, how does one explain the publication of Classical Apologetics in 1984, in which Sproul reasserts the claims he had to earlier walk back?  I’m perplexed.   

Sproul did have a change of mind on several matters through his lifetime.  One of those mentioned by Nichols is the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1-2.  Sproul came around to the conclusion that “day” there is essentially what we understand as a day today.  However, it would’ve been interesting if Nichols had shared how Sproul changed his thinking and how that was received by others.

I couldn’t put this biography down.  It’s engaging and well-written.  If you’ve ever read anything by Sproul or heard any of his talks, this volume will give you a greater appreciation for him and what God did through him.  And if you’ve never been blessed by Sproul’s lifetime of promoting Reformed theology, this will be a great introduction.                 

What is Justification?

Discern Justification

Justification is rightly said to be “the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.”  It’s a central facet of the biblical good news.  If you mess up on justification, you’re messing up on the gospel and that’s potentially fatal.

What do we mean by “justification”?  Historic Protestant theology teaches that justification is a judicial declaration by God that a sinner is righteous.  This declaration or verdict is made only on the basis of what Christ has done in his perfect life and his perfect sacrifice on the cross.  This blessing of being declared righteous by God is received only by faith — which is to say, by resting and trusting in Christ alone.

Now there are several ways in which Christians can get this vital doctrine wrong.  Today I’m going to focus on two common mistakes.

By Works or By Faith Alone?

The first mistake has to do with the role of good works.  You may notice that, in the description I gave above, there was absolutely no mention of good works.  This is because the Bible plainly says in Romans 3:28, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”  Good works don’t factor in to how we are justified.

Sadly, there’s a lot of confusion out there on this point.  In 2018, Ligonier Ministries did their “State of Theology” survey.  One of the statements respondents were asked to evaluate was this:  “God counts a person as righteous not because of one’s works but only because of one’s faith in Jesus Christ.”  Here are the results:

These results are for the general American population.  Things are better for respondents who identify as “evangelical,” with 83% either somewhat agreeing or strongly agreeing.

However, if you phrase the question differently, you can end up with quite different results.  At a pastors’ convention in 2006, Shane Rosenthal from the White Horse Inn radio program asked pastors in an open-ended way about the basis of justification, whether it was by faith, by faith and works, or by works alone.  About half responded that justification is by faith and works.  Those were ostensibly Protestant pastors!

Let me be absolutely clear:  good works do not factor in to how we are justified.  Any one who tells you otherwise is departing not only from historic Protestantism, but from the biblical doctrine.  (“But what about James?”  See here if you’re asking that question at this point).

Event or Process?

A second common mistake has to do with the nature of justification as a court-room declaration or verdict.  Specifically, is it a one-time event or a life-long process for the Christian?  This isn’t an academic question.  It has enormous practical, pastoral significance.  If it’s a one-time event, then I can wake up each morning with the confidence that I’m still righteous in Christ.  I’m still secure in God’s family.  But if it’s a life-long process, then each day time and again I have to start over in my relationship with God.  Each day I begin by facing him as my judge, and not my Father.

So what does the Bible say?  Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  That speaks of justification as a completed action with a consequence:  peace with God.  While it doesn’t use the word “justify,” Romans 8:1 drives home the same truth:  “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”  So why is there no condemnation?  Because of justification once and for all.  If you have believed in Jesus Christ with a true faith, you are justified once and for all.  A verdict made by the heavenly Judge is an event, not a process.

Now if you go back to that pastors’ convention in 2006, Shane Rosenthal asked pastors in an open-ended way:  is justification an event or a life-long process?  Some weren’t sure.  Some had to think about it.  A few clearly identified it as an event.  But 51% said that it’s a life-long process.

One would think that confessionally Reformed theologians would know better.  However, sadly, I’ve encountered this error in Reformed literature as well.  For example, Prof. Benne Holwerda (1909-1952) was a highly respected theologian in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands.  He has a four-volume set of books with his catechism sermons in them (De dingen die ons van God geschonken zijn).  Some of these sermons have been translated into English.  Some of them are really good and insightful.  But when it comes to Lord’s Day 23, Holwerda takes a drastic misstep in the doctrine of justification.  Towards the end of the sermon, he argues that God’s justification is not a one-time judicial declaration, but an ongoing process in the covenant.  At the very least, he’s ambiguous on this:

Does God speak one time, and then I believe one time, and then justification is completed?  Oh no!  We live in the covenant with God and that is a living inter-relation (verkeer); as I believe, then God comes again with his word of acquittal to the people, who now believe, and drives him so to works of thankfulness:  justification by faith.  And as he does this, then God appears again and declares him truly acquitted, he justifies him then also through works, says James.

There shouldn’t be ambiguity here.  There certainly isn’t any ambiguity in the Heidelberg Catechism or the Reformation from which it originated.  The Roman Catholic Church taught/still teaches that justification is a process.  Historic Protestant theology (as expressed in the Reformed confessional tradition) maintains that justification is a once-for-all judicial declaration.

The Apostle Paul teaches us how important it is to get justification right.  It’s not only in Romans, but also in Galatians.  In fact, I’d say the importance of rightly understanding justification is expressed even more powerfully in Galatians.  Paul says that those who preach it wrongly preach “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6).  Getting justification wrong means you’re preaching “man’s gospel” (Gal. 1:11).   Finally, it has hellacious consequences:  “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9).  It’s vital to discern truth from error in regards to this key doctrine.

Essential Latin for Reformed Christians: “Simul iustus et peccator”

Today’s bit of Latin lingo is often linked to Luther.  Martin Luther often gets the credit for noticing the biblical teaching that each Christian is “at the same time just and a sinner” (simul iustus et peccator).  Certainly he was not the last theologian to insist on this — countless others after him, both Lutheran and Reformed, have said the same.  It cannot be labelled one of Luther’s idiosyncrasies.

To understand the meaning of this seemingly contradictory statement, one has to grasp the doctrine of justification in general, and the meaning of imputation in particular.  Without those well in hand (or mind), human nature will invariably lead one to extreme views.  Typically, because we overestimate our own condition even as Christians, the view will almost always be imbalanced towards the iustus side of things.  So let’s review justification and imputation to avoid imbalances and extremes.

Justification is God’s declaration that a person is right with him on account of what Christ has done in his perfect life and death on the cross.  It is a judicial declaration — which means that the Judge issues it from his bench.  His declaration is more than acquittal and forgiveness, as wonderful as those are.  More, the declaration includes positive righteousness.  Because of Christ all our wrong-doing is pardoned, and also because of Christ, God’s requirement for perfect law-keeping in the present and future is fully met.  Justification is a one-time event, not a process to be repeated — once justified, always justified.  As a result of this one-time judicial declaration, the person justified is adopted into God’s family.  We go from the courtroom to the family room.  We no longer relate to God as a Judge, but as our heavenly Father.

So what is imputation and how does it fit into the doctrine of justification?  Imputation is often described as crediting or accounting.  Our English word “imputation” translates the Greek logizomai.  You find that word used in the original of Romans 4:3, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.”  While the word logizomai is not used, the idea of imputation is also found in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”   At the cross Jesus was made to be sin — though he was of himself innocent, he became the thing against which God has infinite wrath:  sin.  How did this happen?  Through imputation.  Our sin was imputed to him (credited) to such a degree that the Holy Spirit says he was “made to be sin.”  And remember:  all the while, in himself he was perfectly righteous.  Now notice that there is a double-imputation in 2 Corinthians 5:21.  All our sin was imputed to Christ, but his righteousness is imputed to us.  I like to call this “the sweet swap.”  God credited our sin to Jesus, and God credited Jesus’s righteousness to us.  The righteousness of the Redeemer is imputed to us (credited) to such a degree that the Holy Spirit says we become what God loves, “the righteousness of God.”  But just like the imputation of our sin didn’t change Jesus into a sinner in himself, so also the imputation of Christ’s righteousness doesn’t change us into perfectly righteous people in ourselves while we live on this earth.

Imputation is at the basis of our justification.  We are justified, declared righteous, because our sin was imputed to Christ and he bore it for us at the cross as our substitute.  We are declared righteous because all of his perfect obedience and righteousness is credited to us by God.  In his eyes, it is as if we had lived the perfect God-pleasing life ourselves.  The key words there are “as if.”  Just as it was as if Christ was a sinner (when he was not), so it is also as if we ourselves had fulfilled all the righteous requirements of God’s law (when we haven’t and don’t).

Consequently, each Christian is both righteous and a sinner.  Each Christian is righteous — this is our status before God.  We have been declared just in his eyes and are now his beloved children.  This status is precious and to be highly treasured.  Yet it is presently a status which comes to us via imputation.  As a result, the reality is that we continue to be sinners when it comes to our sanctification.  Even as that “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17 — right before the “sweet swap”!), we sin against our Father, and if you sin, you are a sinner.  This is what righteous Paul acknowledges in 1 Timothy 1:15 when he says Christ “came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”  Notice the present tense there.  At that moment, Paul was a justified sinner, not a condemned sinner, but a sinner just the same.  So it is with all Christians.

Let me put it as simply as I can: Christians are both saints and sinners.  We’re saints by virtue of the status declared in our justification (on the basis of imputation).  We’re sinners because of the struggle that still exists in our sanctification. The former encourages us, the latter humbles us.  Biblical, Reformed theology has always acknowledged this truth.

Ours is not an age renowned for thinking deeply about theology, or anything else for that matter.  This is surely part of the reason some Christians object to simul iustus et peccator.  While insisting that Christians are not “sinners” in any sense, they are (usually) inadvertently undermining imputation and the very basis of their justification.  Not only that, they are also contradicting the clear testimony of Scripture regarding the real struggle with sin that Christians experience in this age (Romans 7:21-25 & Galatians 5:17).  Do some research and you will discover that the origins of the denial of simul iustus et peccator in Protestantism are not with those orthodox in their theology.  For example, it was the Pelagian and rabidly anti-Reformed revivalist Charles Finney who opined that this formula was an error which had “slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world.”  Finney viciously repudiated biblical imputation and justification, and so had a reason to hold this opinion.

A few years ago, after encountering the denial of this teaching in our Reformed churches, I wrote a series of articles for Clarion entitled “Are Christians Sinners or Not?”  In that series, I looked at the biblical basis for simul iustus et peccator, how it’s expressed in our Reformed confessions, the importance of maintaining it, and the historical and theological background to denials of it.  You can find that series of articles here.