Do my brothers and sisters in the Faith. Here's a free must read book by James Buchanan, entitled The Doctrine of Justification.
by James Buchananin ePub, .mobi & .pdf formatsAN OUTLINE OF ITS HISTORY IN THE CHURCH; AND OF ITS EXPOSITION FROM SCRIPTURETHE History of the Doctrine, as it
www.monergism.com
I do not mean to sound critical, especially not unduly so, but given the immense diversity with which theologians and Christian leaders define justification, why should anyone agree with Buchannon's definition?
"BY Justification we mean — man's acceptance with God, or his being regarded and treated as righteous in His sight—as the object of His favour, and not of His wrath; of His blessing, and not of His curse. This is the formal definition, or generic description of it, whether it be considered as an act on the part of God, or as a privilege on the part of man."
He proceeds to say the following...
"Many have taken a partial and defective view of it, as if it consisted merely in the pardon of sin; but in the case of a moral and responsible agent, placed in a state of probation, with a view to reward or punishment, there might, and there would, have been justification, had there been no sin to be forgiven, as is evident from that of the angels who 'kept their first estate.' When Justification is thus defined or described, it may seem to be possible only in the case of innocent and unfallen beings, and to be utterly beyond the reach of such as are guilty and depraved. And so it is on the footing of mere law, and on the ground of personal obedience to it. For that law is the rule of God's righteous judgment; and, His judgment being ever according to truth, He cannot justify the wicked, any more than He can condemn the righteous, when respect is had solely to their personal character and conduct. The law which proclaims the punishment of sin can contain no provision forthe pardon of it; and if it be the sole rule by which we are to be justified or condemned, our justification is impossible; for 'our own hearts condemn us, and God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things.' Had we been left, therefore, to the mere light of nature, and without a supernatural revelation of 'the will of God for our salvation,' we could never have answered the question—'How shall a man be just with God?"
But what if his definition of justification is incorrect? Logically speaking, would not then everything he's built on that definition also be incorrect? I share Buchanon's monergistic point of view, but not his definition of justification. This is an important matter. If anyone go to the monergismdotcom's
page of articles on justification and I sample the articles, it will soon be discovered that there are a lot of different definitions of justification (and many articles do not define the term succinctly). Simply search (CNTRL F) for the word "
defined" or "
justification is" and that fact will become apparent. Murray is varied and nonspecific with his definition. Kuyper's article doesn't define the term at all. Richards' article appeals to the WCF. The Preus article claims to define the term but does not actually do so, and it conflates justification with the gospel. A few of the articles I sampled limit justification relevant to the law (Law of Moses?
).
How can anyone group of people discuss justification without a shared, mutually agreed upon definition of the word (or the concept to which the term refers)?
That being said, Buchanon's book is worth the read, but everyone should have on their critical-thinking cap when they do so.
Do my brothers and sisters in the Faith. Here's a free must read book by James Buchanan, entitled The Doctrine of Justification.
by James Buchananin ePub, .mobi & .pdf formatsAN OUTLINE OF ITS HISTORY IN THE CHURCH; AND OF ITS EXPOSITION FROM SCRIPTURETHE History of the Doctrine, as it
www.monergism.com
Is there something specific you especially appreciate about Buchanon's viewpoint that we should be discussing?
