Tag Archives: simul iustus et peccator

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.

Luther and Justification by Faith Alone


I’m currently in Brazil lecturing on church history at the John Calvin Institute, the seminary of the Reformed Churches of Brazil.  The course is on the Reformation.  In view of Reformation Day tomorrow, let me share part of this morning’s lecture notes on Martin Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith alone.  We can be thankful and praise God for Luther’s recovery of this key gospel teaching!


We have already touched on justification a little bit.  I remind you that most medieval Catholic theology saw justification as a process.  It was a process in which it was necessary for man to cooperate with God’s grace.  The typical medieval view of justification was therefore synergistic; it was at best semi-Pelagian.  We saw that Staupitz started departing from this view.  He viewed justification as an event and he did put a more biblical emphasis on the grace of God.  However, it was Luther who really brought things all the way back to the Bible.

Luther’s doctrine of justification is quite similar to the Reformed doctrine of justification as we have it in the Three Forms of Unity.  This was a point largely held in common by both the Lutheran and Reformed wings of the Reformation.  Therefore, I don’t think there should be any surprises for us here.  It should be a good review of the biblical doctrine of justification.

Luther read Scripture and concluded that justification is a forensic term, it refers to a legal declaration that God makes about a sinner.  It is “God’s sure and certain declaration that we are righteous in his eyes…only because of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”  In his law, God demands that mankind be perfectly obedient.  Jesus Christ has done that for us in his perfect life and his righteousness is imputed to us.  In his justice, God demands that the sinner be punished for having transgressed the law.  Jesus Christ has done that for us on the cross and our sins have been placed upon him.  In its basis, Luther’s doctrine of justification includes what we call both the active and passive obedience of Christ.  Active refers to his life of obedience to God’s law in our place.  Passive refers to his suffering obedience to pay for our sins.  Both are included in Luther’s doctrine of justification as part of the basis.  The basis of justification is in God’s grace in Jesus Christ alone.

The means by which this justification is received is only through faith.  Faith is the instrument of justification.  Good works contribute nothing to justification in Luther’s theology.  In the Smalcald Articles, Luther wrote, “This [justification] cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law, or merit.  Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us.”  It is also important to note that Luther’s definition of faith excludes good works.  Faith is simply resting and trusting in Christ.  It does not include anything else.  Luther wrote “Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it.”  Faith is simply “unconditional trust of God in his Word.”  It’s important to note this because many of Luther’s opponents had a different view.  Many Catholic theologians had taught that in its essence faith must include good works.  Therefore, we can say that we are justified by faith, but then works get smuggled in along with faith.  The result is what could be described as justification by faithfulness, rather than by faith.  Luther rejected that view.

So then, what about good works?  In the Smalcald Articles, Luther wrote, “Such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins are followed by good works.”  Good works are the inevitable fruit of justification.  Luther again:  “We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, the faith is false and not true.”  A justified Christian will always bear fruit in good works.

Let me briefly mention two other points in connection with this doctrine.  First of all, what did Luther do with James and his teaching on justification?  You may remember that James appears to contradict Paul.  Paul says that justification is by faith apart from works.  James says that justification is “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).  How did Luther deal with this apparent difference?  He struggled with it.  He could not explain it.  Because of his difficulty with it, you may hear of Luther’s describing the book of James as an epistle of straw.  However, this needs to be understood in context.  For one thing, Luther included James as a canonical book in his German Bible translation.  If he thought it was not really part of the Bible, he would have left it out.  Nevertheless, this does leave Luther with something like a canon within the canon.  For another thing, when Luther said it he was making a comparison with Romans and other books of Paul.  For one more thing, Luther preached on James as the Word of God.  So he never threw James out of the canon or rejected this book as the Word of God.  Later on, as I’m sure you know, Protestant Bible interpreters did arrive at a solution to the apparent difficulty between Paul and James, but for Luther it remained a paradox.

Luther is credited with being among the first to clearly recognize the biblical teaching that justified Christians are both sinners and saints.  He used the Latin expression, “simul iustus et peccator.”  This is an essential part of the doctrine of justification because it relates to imputation.  In imputation, Christ’s righteousness is credited to our accounts with God.  In God’s sight, we become what we are not.  We are sinners, but through Christ, we are accounted righteous.  But even after justification, we still sin and we are still sinners.  Not as far as our status with God goes, but as we live out our daily experience on this earth.  This is important to note because later on in church history, the doctrine of justification comes under attack in Protestantism and it is revised heavily in an unbiblical direction.  As a result, simul iustus et peccator also comes under attack.  However, Luther saw that this was a crucial part of the biblical doctrine of justification.  By God’s grace he recovered it for us.

Sometimes you will read that it was Luther who said that justification is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.  Luther certainly spoke along those lines.  However, that actual wording did not come from Luther.  Instead, it came from a Reformed theologian living some time later, J. H. Alsted.  Alsted was a German Reformed theologian from the post-Reformation period.  Regardless of its original source, it is important to note that both Lutheran and Reformed theologians have recognized the central significance of this doctrine.  If the church gets this doctrine wrong, it has consequences in so many ways.  However, when the church closely follows what the Bible teaches, as Luther did, there are many blessings to be enjoyed.

KEY POINTS:  Luther’s doctrine of justification is basically what we find in the Three Forms of Unity.  It is a legal declaration on the basis of what Christ has done for the sinner.  It is received by faith alone, and faith excludes any works.  Justification inevitably does produce good works in the life of the believer.  Luther could not explain the apparent difference between Paul and James on works in justification.  Finally, he emphasized that the Christian believer is simul iustus et peccator.



Book Review: The Theology of B. B. Warfield

The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary, Fred G. Zaspel, Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.  Hardcover, 624 pages, $44.00.

Ninety years after his death, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield continues to be a respected voice in Reformed theology.  Along with Jonathan Edwards, the Hodges, and a few others, Warfield is one of the pre-eminent Reformed theologians in North American church history.  Yet for all his renown, few have given him a careful reading.  Popular ideas persist about what Warfield believed about this or that.  Part of the problem is Warfield himself never systematically laid out his theology in one place.

Fred Zaspel has therefore done us a favour by carefully collating Warfield’s theology into one helpful volume.  After an introduction surveying Warfield’s life and work, Zaspel follows the standard topics of systematic theology and distils Warfield’s thought on each one.  Here and there he also interacts with interpreters, particularly the ones whom Zaspel feels have not done justice to Warfield.

Zaspel himself is a sympathetic interpreter.  A Reformed Baptist pastor in Pennsylvania, he is broadly in agreement with Warfield’s theological bent.  Where he personally might depart from Warfield (regarding infant baptism, for instance), Zaspel remains respectfully silent, just simply laying out the Princeton theologian’s views without comment.  At the end of the volume he does offer some critique, but for the most part he allows Warfield to speak for himself.  That’s not to say the book consists mostly of quotations – most of the time Zaspel summarizes and paraphrases.

The Theology of B. B. Warfield will appeal most to pastors, scholars, seminary students and informed “lay people.”  Like Warfield himself, it is not light and fluffy.  Technical language is used and readers are expected to have an intermediate level of theological knowledge.

There are four areas in the book especially worthy of further comment.  Early on, Zaspel deals with Warfield’s views on apologetics.  He argues that Warfield has been unfairly portrayed by later Reformed apologists such as Cornelius Van Til.  Van Til argued that Warfield did not give adequate expression to the effects of sin upon the unregenerate mind.  Zaspel attempts to defend Warfield against this accusation.  He notes that Warfield did not attribute “right reason” to the unbeliever and spoke repeatedly of the pervasiveness of sin (77-78).  However, Zaspel also states that Warfield maintained that unregenerate man “is able to see the compelling force of ‘right reason.’”  Unfortunately, Zaspel is unable to see that this justifies Van Til’s complaint.  While he adds some useful nuance to Warfield’s views, Zaspel does not succeed in exculpating Warfield on his inconsistencies in apologetics.

Warfield is known as the great defender of biblical inspiration and inerrancy.  Therefore, one would expect a book of this nature to deal with those subjects at length.  Zaspel does not disappoint.  He outlines how contemporaries of Warfield and latter-day interpreters have accused the Princetonian of “rationalistic scholasticism” in his doctrine of the Bible.  He helpfully illustrates how these charges fall well short of the mark.

A third area of interest is Warfield’s thought on evolution.  The claim is often made that Warfield had an appreciation for evolution.  The argument is advanced that if Warfield can be regarded as a great Reformed theologian and he held to evolution, then how can contemporary advocates of evolution be excluded from Reformed churches?  Those making such claims ought to read Zaspel’s careful summary of Warfield’s views and how they developed.  He concludes Warfield could at best be said to have been noncommittal or to be critically agnostic (386-387).  However, Warfield also developed a “strengthening conviction against evolution” (385).

Finally, one of Warfield’s greatest concerns was the influence of perfectionism or Keswick “higher life” spirituality.  In his day there were popular preachers and writers claiming it was possible for Christians to no longer sin in this age.  There were also those who claimed that Christians should not regard themselves as sinners, since they are a “new creation in Christ.”  They denied the biblical teaching that, in this age, we are both justified and sinners (simul iustus et peccator).  These false teachings are still around today.  Today we still need Warfield’s biblical defense against these errors.  Zaspel provides a helpful door.  Warfield approvingly quoted Thomas Adam, “The moment we think we have no sin, we shall desert Christ” (465).

The Theology of B. B. Warfield is a comprehensive guide to the thought of “the Lion of Princeton.”  There’s no question it will be a standard reference for decades to come.  Anyone interested in the development of Reformed theology on our continent needs to have it and read it.