Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of Justification, Part 4

[A fundraising break-through: We have surged to about 40% of our goal! Thanks be to the Most High God!

We still have some ground to cover. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

THESIS VIII:  The Form is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ applied through faith, and the remission of sins, or deliverance from the curse of the law.

EXPLANATION:  I.  Theologians observe, that the remission of sins or deliverance from the curse, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, are not two constituent parts of justification, or acts distinct in number and really; but that there is only one act having regard to two bounds, from which and to which:  as in one and the same act darkness is driven from the air, and light is introduced into the air, so in one and the same act of justification the sinner is absolved of guilt and pronounced righteous.  Whence we gather that they express the whole nature of justification, who say that it consists in the imputation of righteousness:  because, when God remits our sins, He pronounces us righteous through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ:  and, when He pronounces us righteous through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, He remits our sins.

II.  Now, that we are justified before God, that is, are freed from the curse of the law, not through righteousness inherent in us, but through the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, we prove:

(1.)  There is no other matter of our justification before God, except the righteousness of Christ, or His obedience rendered to the law for us.

Therefore, we are not justified, that is, we are not freed from the curse of the law, except through and because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.

We have already previously proven the antecedent.

(2.)  We are not freed from the curse because of inherent righteousness.

Therefore, because of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

The antecedent is proven:  (1.)  because we are justified without works, Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16.  (2.)  Because the righteousness inherent in us is imperfect and conjoined with various sins, which is not able to stand in the judgment of God.

(3.)  Paul denies that he is justified by his own inherent righteousness, which is of the law, or according to the law, Philippians 3:9.

Therefore, he acknowledges he is righteous with the imputed righteousness of another, that is, of Christ, which he calls the righteousness of God by faith.

The rationale of the consequence:  Because all inherent righteousness is legal and according to the law:  therefore, with this denied, no other remains, except the imputed righteousness which is Christ’s.

(4.)  If to believers God imputes righteousness without works, certainly we are reckoned righteous before God with the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ.

But the former is true:  therefore also the latter.

The minor belongs to Paul.  Romans 4:6, God imputeth righteousness without works.  The rationale of the hypothetical:  because all righteousness inherent in us is legal and the righteousness of works, which Scripture nowhere says, even expressly denies, is imputed to us, as often as it says that we are justified without works.

(5.)  By what righteousness we are justified, that is imputed to us, Romans 4:5, 6.

But we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, Romans 5:18, 19.  Therefore, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and, consequently, we are righteous, or we are justified, with the imputed righteousness of Christ:  for, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us only for righteousness.

(6.)  Because of what our sins are remitted, because of that we are also justified.

But because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us our sins are remitted.

Therefore, because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us we are justified.

The major is proven:  because to remit sins or to free from the curse and to justify are synonymous in Scripture, Romans 4:6, 7.  Not even the Papists deny the minor:  Bellarmine, book 2 de justification, chapter 7; Becanus, Theologiæ Scholasticæ, part 2, chapter 2, note 16.

(7.)  In what manner God subjected Christ to the curse of the law because of us, in that manner also He freed us from the curse of the law because of Christ.

But God subjected Christ to the curse of the law because of us, with our sins imputed to Him, without regard to inhesion, 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Therefore, He also freed us from the curse of the law, with the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us.

The rationale of the major:  because God in the same manner exercises His righteousness in the condemnation of the innocent and the absolution of the guilty:  and, just as, with justice remaining intact, an innocent person is not able to be condemned, unless the guilt of another, and indeed of a guilty person, has been imputed to the innocent:  so neither is a guilty person able to be absolved, unless the punishment or satisfaction of another, and indeed of an innocent person, has been imputed to the guilty.

(8.)  The justification of the impious is through imputed righteousness.

But the justification of the Christian is a justification of an impious man.

Therefore, the justification of the Christian is through imputed righteousness.

The major is proven:  Because the justification of the impious is his deliverance from punishment, which in a certain manner appears to be incompatible with the law.  But this deliverance, since in the divine judgment it comes only from grace, and indeed from a grace of the sort that in a certain manner also satisfies the law [for in the deliverance of the sinner there is a remarkable tempering of mercy and righteousness], certainly and necessarily requires imputed righteousness.  For, if it had regard to inherent righteousness, it would be the deliverance, not of the impious and unjust, but of the pious and the just, which is according to the law.

The minor is proven:  Romans 4:5, who believeth upon Him, who justifieth the ungodly.

(9.)  The sinner, who remains a sinner, is not able otherwise to be justified, than through imputation.

But believing men, as long as they live in this world, remain sinners.

Therefore, they are not able otherwise to be justified, than through imputation.

The major is proven:  Because he that is justified through inherent righteousness is no longer a sinner.  We proved the minor in the locus concerning sanctification, and in the disputation de observatione legis, and in part 2, chapter 4, thesis 24.

(10.)  If justification were through anything inherent, certainly the believer, who is conscious of nothing against himself, would be justified through this.  But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:  1 Corinthians 4:4, Of nothing, says Paul, am I conscious against myself, but am I not hereby justified.

The hypothetical is proven:  Because to be conscious of nothing against oneself is inherent human righteousness.

III.  The Papists deny that we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ:  And so they shrink from the imputation of it, and forge for themselves the idol of one’s own inherent righteousness, whereby they boast themselves to be freed from the curse, and by the merit of which to be admitted to eternal life.

(1.)  In Scripture no testimony is found concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us.

Therefore, the doctrine concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is false.

Response:  That the antecedent is false, we have just now proven by many arguments.  For, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is able to be evinced from Scripture both by legitimate consequence, as our arguments show; and expressly, Romans 4:6.

(2.)  If the righteousness of Christ is truly imputed to us, in such a way that we are regarded as righteous through it, no otherwise than if it were inherent in us:  it would follow that we are no less righteous than Christ.

But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:  If we were as righteous as Christ:  it would follow that we are redeemers and saviors.

But the consequent is absurd.  Therefore also the antecedent.

Response:  I deny the minor:  The proof is inconsequent, for we are able to be as righteous as Christ, that is, just as free from the curse of the law as Christ is, even if we are not redeemers and saviors, but rather redeemed and saved by grace.  For, in redemption far more things are required than immunity to the curse of the law.  Indeed, it is required that the redeemer be both God and man; that the man be perfectly holy from birth; that he be not liable by nature to the curses of the law; that he be able to impute his meritorious righteousness to another; that he have the power of adopting men into the Family of God:  These things do not at all fall to us.  Whence by equality of righteousness we are not redeemers, but rather redeemed.

(3.)  The saints are also righteous with their own inherent righteousness through the observation of the divine commandments.

Therefore, we are justified before God also by our own inherent righteousness.

Response:  I deny the consequence:  Because to be justified before God is to be freed from the curse of the law, because of the satisfaction of the right of the law, that is, because of the payment of the penalty of eternal death.  But this penalty we do not pay with Him, but Christ pays in our place; neither are we by any means able to be absolved through our own righteousness, but through that of another, that is, of Christ, imputed to us.  For the sins contracted in Adam, and which we have afterwards added to that, our consequent holiness is not able to satisfy divine justice, since in the present it is owed/due and imperfect in many ways.

(4.)  In Adam we did not lose imputed righteousness, but inherent.

Therefore, neither by Christ was imputed reighteousness acquired for us.

The rationale of the consequence:  because by Christ that only is recovered for us, which we lost in Adam.

Response:  I deny the consequence:  the proof is inconsequent; because the antecedent is not exclusively true.  For in Adam we lost, not only inherent righteousness (which Christ also recovered for us by His death, and through sanctification has restored, in this life inchoately, and in the next perfectly), but also eternal life and blessedness, and were made subject to the curse of the law.  But eternal life is not able to be restored to us, unless we be delivered from the curse of the law:  but we are not able to be delivered from this, except through a full satisfaction and payment of the penalty; which, since it is not able to be rendered by us, but is rendered by Christ alone in our place, it necessarily follows that we are delivered from the curse of the law because of the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us.  Whence the Apostle commends to us imputed righteousness, Romans 4:6.

(5.)  Just as, through the disobedience of one, even Adam, many were constituted sinners:  so through the obedience of one, even Christ, many are constituted righteous, Romans 5:19.  But by the disobedience of Adam sin is not imputed to us, but is verily imprinted.

Therefore, also through the obedience of Christ righteousness is not imputed to us, but is verily imprinted, in such a way that it might be inherent.

Response:  The minor is not true in any simple way.  For the disobedience of Adam not only impresses sin upon us, which is called inherent original sin; but also that one and the same disobedience of Adam is imputed to us, or imputatively involves the nature in guilt:  which is called imputed original sin.  Concerning which Paul speaks in Romans 5:12.  Thus Christ not only removes original sin inherent in us, through regeneration and sanctification, whereby He restores the lost inherent righteousness, but He also bears the guilt or curse, and pronounces us free from that, through justification, whereby He imputes His satisfaction and righteousness to us.

(6.)  If the righteousness, whereby we are delivered from the curse, is only imputed, it follows that we are not justified in reality, but only putatively.

But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

Response:  I deny the hypothetical:  For it is one thing to be justified by imputed righteousness; it is another thing to be justified putatively, that is, only imaginatively and according to opinion:  as imputative righteousness differs from putative and imaginary:  for by the former one is verily able to be righteous and to be absolved of guilt, even in a human court, as when one makes satisfaction on behalf of a debtor:  by the latter no one is absolved, unless perhaps he deceives the judge.

(7.)  Justification is washing and sanctification.

Therefore, it is not just the remission of sins; neither is it accomplished only through the imputation of the righteousness of another.

The antecedent is proven:  1 Corinthians 6:11, And such were some of you:  but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified.

The rationale of the consequence:  because washing and sanctification are inherent in us.

Response:  The antecedent is denied, neither is it proven from the passages alleged out of Paul:  Paul does indeed conjoin sanctification with justification:  which gifts of God we also teach are always to be conjoined in us:  nevertheless, he does not confound them, nor does he say that sanctification is justification.

(8.)  The whole proportion of man to the highest good is inherent righteousness.

But the righteousness, whereby we are justified, is the proportion to the highest good.

Therefore, the righteousness, whereby we are justified, is inherent righteousness.

Response:  The major is not universally true:  For the proportion of man to the highest good is twofold, one according to the precept of the law:  the other according to the indulgence of grace.  The former flows from inherent righteousness:  the latter, from imputed righteousness.  Therefore, the proportion to the highest good is also able to be understood as a conforming with the highest good, which is accomplished through the renewal of corrupt man and regeneration, which does indeed inhere in us, and is inherent righteousness:  but it is not that righteousness whereby we are justified, even if it is the condition without which no one enjoys the highest good.

(9.)  In the same sense Christ is our righteousness, wisdom, and redemption, 1 Corinthians 1:30.

But Christ is not our wisdom and redemption through imputation.

Therefore, neither is He our righteousness through imputation.

Response:  The major is denied concerning the particular sense, neither is it proven out of Paul, who does not even set forth one little word concerning the identity of the sense, but only enumerates the distinct benefits of Christ to us.

Next, neither is the minor true in any simple way:  For Christ is also our redemption in some manner through imputation:  because that wherewith He redeems us, namely, His suffering and death, which He endured in our place, He imputes to us:  for the sake of which in the judgment of God we are absolved, no differently than if we had made satisfaction to divine righteousness by our own suffering and death.  Finally, it is to be observed, that Christ is our righteousness in two ways, effectively and materially:  Effectively indeed, because He produces new righteousness in us through regeneration or sanctification:  but materially, because He imputes His own obedience to us, so that we might be freed from the curse of the law through justification.

(10.)  If the imputed righteousness of Christ were necessary for us, certainly then it would be necessary, because our inherent righteousness is not so perfect that it simply and absolutely justifies.

But the consequent is false.

Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:  Because inherent righteousness consists in faith, hope, and love, which are perfected in this life.

The perfection of faith is proven:  (1.)  If in this life it were not perfected, it would never be perfected.

But the latter is false.

Therefore also the former.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  Because after this life it will not be greater.

(2.)  Some have believed with the whole heart.

Therefore, they had perfect faith.

The antecedent is proven:  Acts 8:37.

The perfection of hope is proven:  because in Hebrews 6:19 it is said to be the anchor of the soul, sure and steadfast.

The perfection of love is proven:  1 John 2:5, Whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected.

Response:  We deny the minor:  the proof is partly false, partly inconsequent.  False, because neither faith, nor hope, nor love, is perfected in this life.

The minor of the first argument for the perfection of faith is denied:  for, since in this life we are not in a state of perfection, and justifying faith is going to cease in the next life and state of perfection, it follows that perfection of faith in us is not to be expected.

The consequence of the second argument is denied:  For, to believe with the whole heart does not signify the absolute perfection of faith, but rather sincerity, as opposed to hypocrisy.

The argument for the perfection of hope is not effectual:  For hope is able to be a sure and steadfast anchor, even if it is not perfect:  for it is steadfast, not in our strength, but in the power of God, which is great in infirmity.[1]

The argument for the perfection of love is also itself ineffectual:  For, the Apostle does not say absolutely, that the love of God is perfected in us, but conditionally:  if we keep the word of Christ, understanding perfectly.  But we do not keep it perfectly.

Hitherto, therefore, the proof of the minor is false.

The same is also inconsequent.  For, if faith, hope, and love were very much perfected, yet it would not follow that they were brought to such perfection that we through and because of them might be justified, or freed from the curse.  For we ought to render to God in the present perfect faith, hope, and love, whereby we are able to merit nothing in the present:  much less to satisfy for past guilt:  For he is not able to make satisfaction to the law once violated, except through punishment, either one’s own or that of another.

(11.)  Through imputed righteousness we are not able to be formally righteous.

Therefore, we are not justified through it.

The rationale of the antecedent:  because to be formally righteous is to be inherently righteous.

Response:  We deny the consequence:  Because justification is not an infusion of righteousness, but the deliverance of the sinner from the curse.

(12.)  If by the imputed righteousness of Christ we are able truly to be called righteous, even if we are still unrighteous in ourselves:  certainly by our unrighteousness and sin imputed to Christ He was able truly to be called unrighteous and a sinner, even if He was righteous in Himself.

But the consequent is absurd.

Therefore also the antecedent.

Response:  We deny the minor:  If one is understood to be unrighteous and a sinner, who is liable to the curse, because of the imputation of the sin of another.  For in this sense Christ is said to have been made a curse for us, Galatians 3:13.  Just as, on the other hand, we are said to be righteous, because we have been freed and delivered from the curse of the law.

(13.)  Through justification the heart is cleansed and prepared for the vision of God.

Therefore, justification is accomplished through inherent righteousness.

The antecedent is proven:  Matthew 5:8, Blessed are the pure in heart:  for they shall see God.  Acts 15:9, By faith are heart purified.

The rationale of the consequence:  Because the heart is not able to be said to be clean without inherent cleanness, even if it is reputed clean:  thus neither is the eye able to be said to be clean.

Response:  1.  The antecedent is not exclusively true:  For not through justification alone is the heart cleansed and prepared for the vision of God; but also through sanctification:  nor is the contrary proven from the passages alleged.

2.  The consequence is denied:  For the heart is cleansed in two ways, first from guilt, through justification and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ:  then from blemish, through sanctification or regeneration:  which benefits are always conjoined.

(14.)  If the obedience and righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, then His divinity shall also be imputed.

But the consequent is false.

Therefore also the antecedent.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  because His obedience and righteousness are not separated from His divinity.

The minor is proven:  For thus it would follow, that we are the natural sons of God.

Response:  I deny the hypothetical:  The proof is inconsequent:  For, even if His righteousness is not separated from His divinity, it does differ, as an effect differs from its cause.  But without real separation of different things one is able to be imputed, while the other is not imputed; just as one is able to be considered, while the other is not considered.

(15.)  If the death and resurrection of Christ is imputed to us for righteousness, there will be no need for us to die and to rise.

But the consequent is false.

Therefore also the antecedent.

The consequent of the hypothetical is not solid, except with this limitation added:  there will be no need for us to die and to rise to merit deliverance from the curse:  But thus the minor shall be denied:  for we do not die and rise to merit deliverance from the curse; but so that we might arrive at the fruition of the goods acquired and merited by Christ.

(16.)  The essence of our righteousness is evident from faith, Romans 3:28, where we are said to be justified by faith.

But the Righteousness of Christ was not by faith.

Therefore, the righteousness of Christ is not our righteousness.

The minor is proven:  because Christ did not have a faith that is said to be justifying.

Response:  The major is denied:  The proof is inconsequent.  For, when Scripture says that we are justified by faith, it does not mean this, that the essence of our righteousness is evident from faith; but that faith is the instrument of our justification, whereby we apprehend the righteousness of Christ.

(17.)  The righteousness of faith is increased in the elect, as long as they live in this world.

But the righteousness of Christ is not able to be increased.

Therefore, the righteousness of Christ is not the righteousness of faith.

The major is proven:  Revelation 22:11, he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.

Response:  The major, if not taken according to the intention of Scripture, is denied:  neither is it proven out of the passage of Revelation alleged.  For that, let him be righteous still, does not signify increase, but the continuation of righteousness.  The apprehension of righteousness by faith is to be continued for one’s whole life.

(18.)  In what manner we are sanctified, in the same manner we are also justified.

But we are sanctified through the impression or infusion of holiness.

Therefore, we are also justified through the infusion of righteousness.

The major is proven:  because a similar composition of terms also implies similar signification.  Therefore, as to sanctify is to make holy, through infused holiness:  so also to justify is to make just.

Response:  The major is denied:  the proof from the similitude of composition is ineffectual.  For words are to be assessed, not so much from their grammatical composition, as their signification and received usage, and the nature of the things, for the signifying of which they are employed.  But already by well-worn usage, it is principally received in Scripture, that sanctification actively signifies the change of an unholy man:  but justification does not signify alteration, but, in a forensic manner, the gracious absolution of the unjust.

(19.)  If justification is accomplished only through the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, it follows that we are able to be righteous in the sight of God, even if we are full of inherent unrighteousness, in such a way that we have absolutely no inherent righteousness.

But the consequent is absurd:  Therefore also the antecedent.

Response:  I deny the hypothetical.  The rationale of the denial:  because with justification is always conjoined sanctification, which the Papists confound with justification:  but we distinguish them.  Therefore, even if justification does not remove unrighteousness with respect to ἀταξίαν/disorder, but only bears away guilt:  yet in those justified that very ἀταξίαν/disorder and ἀνομία/ lawlessness is taken away through sanctification, here indeed inchoately, but after death through consummation.

It is to be observed, therefore, that in the justified we do press inherent righteousness as much as the Papists do, but to a different end than the Papists:  For we require it, (1.)  as a testimony of justification; (2.)  as gratitude owed to God; (3.)  as a condition, without which eternal life and the vision of God come to no man; (4.)  as the renewal of the lost divine image.

But the Papists require the same, as the meritorious cause of deliverance from the curse and of eternal life:  in which manner they make an idol of it and repudiate the righteousness of Christ.

THESIS IX:  The End is the revelation of the divine glory in the tempering of His admirable righteousness and mercy, and the conferring of eternal life on all those justified.

EXPLANATION:  Scripture testifies to this, Ephesians 1:5, 6:  who predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace.  Romans 8:30:  whom He justified, them He also glorified.

THESIS X:  Hitherto the causes of justification; its effect is the peace of our consciences.

EXPLANATION:  Romans 5:1, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

[1] See 2 Corinthians 12:9.