Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of Justification, Part 5

[A fundraising update: We have almost reached 50% of the fundraising goal! Thanks be to 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 XI:  Its adjuncts are:  (1.)  its perfection:  (2.)  its certainty in us:  (3.)  its immutability:  (4.)  its equality in all:  (5.)  the study of new obedience.

EXPLANATION:  I.  The perfection of justification is that whereby all sins are perfectly remitted to all believers, in such a way that proper satisfaction is required from none.

But at this point there is yet another controversy between us and the Papists:  Whether the remission of sins is so full and perfect, that, with guilt remitted, all punishment is remitted also, and no personal satisfaction of his own is required to be rendered to God by the justified man.

Response:  The Orthodox and Evangelical uphold the affirmative with the following arguments:

(1.)  Where no condemnation is, there no punishment is.

But in the case of the justified there is no condemnation.

Therefore, in their case there is no punishment, or they are bound to no penal satisfaction.

The major is proven:  Because condemnation is the adjudging to punishment.

The minor is from Paul, Romans 8:1, there is no condemnation in those that are in Christ Jesus.

But all the justified are in Christ Jesus.

(2.)  Perfect remission of sins is found in Christ.

Therefore, that removes all punishment, and leaves or requires no satisfaction by one’s self.

The antecedent is proven, because redemption is perfect:  Hebrews 10:14, by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

(3.)  Christ has satisfied for all our punishments.

Therefore, satisfaction from us is not required, and hence all punishment has been remitted.

The antecedent is proven, Isaiah 53:4-7.  In the same sense he is said to have been made a curse for us, to redeem us from the curse of the law, Galatians 3:13.

The rationale of the consequence:  because double satisfaction for the same fault is not required by justice.

(4.)  God no longer calls to mind our blotted-out sins, Isaiah 43:25; Jeremiah 31:34.

Therefore, He requires no punishment from us.

(5.)  Because of Christ God completely pardons the guilt, as the Papists themselves admit:  Therefore also the punishment.

The rationale of the consequence:  because there is no punishment, where there is no guilt:  neither is guilt able to be said to be forgiven, except to whom the punishment is remitted.  Thus, therefore, with one thrust all the Pontifical satisfactions and the whole machine of purgatory topple.  For purgatory depends on punishments not remitted and fully expiated in this life, but to be paid and expiated after this life by one’s own satisfaction.

II.  The Papists assert the negative; before we assail their arguments, we preface three things as foundations for solutions:

(1.)  Punishment is taken either strictly, properly, and formally, as in this place, when we say that all punishment is remitted, for penal satisfaction, or satisfactory punishment justly compensating for injury:  or broadly, improperly, and materially, for whatever affliction of the sinner, yet not unto that end, that it might satisfy for guilt.

(2.)  Even upon those, to whom guilt has been remitted by God, punishment, taken broadly and materially, is inflicted, even indeed because of sin or upon occasion of sin.  For those that are free from all sin, absolutely no affliction touches, as it is evident from the example of the holy Angels and blessed spirits, Revelation 14:13; Wisdom of Solomon 3:1.[1]

(3.)  Punishment taken broadly, inflicted upon sinners that have obtained remission of sins, is called by the more particular name chastisement, the ends of which are these:  1.  That the pious might know how detestable their sins are to God.  2.  That they might learn to flee from them.  3.  That they might have an incentive for, and exercise of, patience.  4.  That they might be conformed to Christ their head.  Let the beautiful sayings of the Fathers be here observed.

Augustine on Psalm 138:  Suffering is medicinal, not a penal sentence.  The same in de peccatorum meritis et remissione, book 2, chapter 34:  The toils of man before remission are punishments of their sins; but after remission, the exercises and training of the just.  Chrysostom:  God imposes punishment, not as if He were demanding the penalty due to sins again, but so that He might correct us.

With these things observed, it will be easy to respond to the contrary arguments of the Papists.

They object, therefore,

(1.)  David, after the remission of the guilt of his adultery and murder, is punished with the death of his son, 2 Samuel 12:14.  On account of the numbering of the people, on the same is imposed the option of war, famine, or pestilence, 2 Samuel 24:12, 13.  Moses and Aaron, because they did not believe Jehovah, to sanctify Him in the eyes of Israel at the rock, die in the wilderness, and enter not into the promised land, Numbers 20:12.  And many similar examples of punishments inflicted upon the pious are given.

Therefore, with guilt remitted, punishment is not always remitted, but is reserved even to the penitent for expiation by their own satisfaction.

Response:  The consequence is denied:  For the antecedent speaks of punishment taken broadly and materially:  The consequence, of punishment taken narrowly and formally.

(2.)  After the remission of sins, believers nevertheless suffer temporal punishments, illnesses, sorrows, and innumerable other afflictions.

Therefore, with guilt remitted, temporal punishment is not thereupon remitted, but is to be expiated by their own satisfaction.

Response:  The consequence is denied upon the same foundation:  The antecedent speaks of punishment materially; the consequence, of the same taken formally.

(3.)  If, with guilt remitted, punishment were also remitted, certainly punishment would not be transmitted from parents to children.

But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:  Lamentations 5:7; Numbers 14:33.

Response:  I introduce a distinction into the hypothetical:  If, with guilt remitted, punishment were also remitted, certainly the remitted punishments would not be transmitted from parents to children [with the children neither approving nor imitating the sins of their parents.

But thus the consequence would be false:  neither is it proven from the passages of Scripture alleged:  which speak of the punishment of ancestors not remitted, or certainly of the posterity approving and imitating the sins of their ancestors.

(4.)  Those whose sins were forgiven also die.

Therefore, even after the forgiveness of sins a satisfactory punishment is to be paid.

The rationale of the consequence:  That death is a satisfactory punishment for sin.

Response:  I deny the consequence:  The proof is not universally true.  For the death of the pious is not satisfaction for sin, or the expiation of sin, but at least a means and the path to life, and it is also the mortification of sin.  Contrariwise, the death of the impious is part of the penal satisfaction that begins here, and continues after this life.

(5.)  If, with guilt remitted, punishment is thereupon also remitted, it follows that adulterers and murderers, by divine law, are not to be afflicted with punishments, after their earnest repentance.

But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  because they, whose punishment has been remitted, are unjustly punished.

Response:  The consequent of the hypothetical is denied:  The proof is not true in any simple way.  They are unjustly punished, namely, with satisfactory and expiatory punishment, the guilt of which has been forgiven because of the satisfaction of another:  but those that earnestly repent are not punished in this way.  Therefore, they are afflicted with punishment taken broadly, even indeed, in accordance with the law of God, by the magistrate drawing the sword at the direction of the word, and inflicting the punishment prescribed by God, not to this end, that they might render a satisfaction for sin to God; but that they themselves might more accurately perceive the heinousness of their sin, and repent all the more earnestly:  that by the fear of the same punishment others be kept from similar sins, and thus kept in their duty.  That punishments of this sort are able to be called satisfactory with respect to men, Orthodox Theologians concede.  Punishments of this sort are yet also able to be called satisfactions, namely, in a general way, wherein one that does or endures what another appoints, even indeed does or endures to the extent that is appointed, is said to satisfy; but this satisfaction differs much from satisfaction so called specifically, which is expiation or just compensation for injury inflicted:  concerning which it is treated in this place.

III.  Hitherto one’s own satisfactions have been overturned; but the Papists also have those of others, and those human accomplished by the Saints, who, they are able to persuade themselves, are able to furnish more than they owe and was commanded in the law of God.  Therefore, lest those abundant satisfactions be in vain, the Roman Pontiffs store into the treasury of the Roman Church [for thus they speak], and thence they fetch and apply them to whomever they choose, so that by the application of the satisfactions of others care might be taken of those without their own satisfactions.  Here, the satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Martyrs are especially extolled.

From this foundation, the Roman Pontiffs claim for themselves the power to remit temporal, satisfactory punishments, even to those sinners that showed little zeal for repentance:  and this act of remission they call indulgence, which is defined as relaxation of temporal punishment, due by divine judgment to actual sins, after the remission of guilt, accomplished by the authority of the Roman Pope.

From this treasury of the satisfactions of others, the Roman Church collects immense treasuries of money:  for indulgence is not given to most, but is sold at great price, with these market-days proclaimed by Jubilee years:  of which sort were those famous ones, promulgated by Leo X[2] in the year 1517 in Germany, and administered as simoniacally as possible by the Dominican Monk Tetzel.[3]  Whence occasion for undertaking reformation was furnished to Luther, whose first disputation[4] held at Wittenberg was against indulgences.

To recite this monstrous opinion concerning the satisfactions and indulgences of others is to refute it.  The Church knew no treasury of the satisfaction of others, except that which is hidden in the one Christ.  This treasury is applied by the Holy Spirit, exciting faith in us:  it is offered in the written word.  Here, no merit of ours intervenes, no satisfaction, whether ours or other men’s, is exacted for us:  in Christ all things are given to us, Romans 8:32.

It is to be observed, what Doctor Sylvester Prieras wrote concerning Pontifical indulgences:[5]  Indulgences, says he, did not become known by the authority of Scripture; but by the authority of the Roman Church, which is greater.

IV.  The certainty of justification in us is that whereby we are certain of our justification before God and remission of sins.  Concerning this certainty three things are briefly to be demonstrated, namely, that this is, (1.)  possible; (2.)  necessary; (3.)  advantageous.

That certainty of justification and remission of sins is possible, we prove:

(1.)  We know that we are truly believing upon Christ.

Therefore, we also know, or are able to know, that we are justified.

The rationale of the consequence:  Because whoever are truly believing upon Christ are justified:  whence justification is so many times ascribed to faith in Christ.

The antecedent is manifest:  for, as those that do not believe know that they are not believing, so also those that believe know that they are believing, from our internal sight of mind, whereby we know our thoughts.  Whence Paul, 2 Timothy 1:12, I know whom I have believed.  And Augustine in book 13 On the Trinity, chapter 1, Each sees in himself his own faith.  Likewise:  Each holds his faith with most certain knowledge, and with conscience bearing witness.

(2.)  The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the Children of God, Romans 8:16.

Therefore, He also makes us certain of our justification.

The rationale of the consequence:  Because without justification no one is a Child of God.

(3.)  If there were not certainty of justification, neither would there be any tranquility in our conscience.

But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:  Romans 5:1, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.

(4.)  If there could be no certainty of justification, we would make use of the sacraments in vain.

But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The rationale of the hypothetical.  Because we make use of the sacraments for this reason, that they might confirm our faith concerning the grace of God.  The Monk Catharinus formerly defended the orthodox opinion at the Council of Trent[6] out of 2 Corinthians 13:5, 6, etc.; 1 Corinthians 2:12; Romans 8:16.

V.  The Papists deny that we are able to have certainty of justification or remission of sins.  Their arguments, among others, are the following:

(1.)  No one is able to say, that he is clean and pure from sin, Proverbs 20:9.

Therefore, no one is able to be certain concerning the remission of sins.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale:  because Solomon does not speak of the remission of sin, or justification; but of perfect inherent righteousness and cleanness, which no one is able to attribute to himself, because no one is ἀναμάρτητος, that is, without sin.  For there is no man that sinneth not, 1 Kings 8:46.  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

(2.)  Man knoweth not whether he is worthy of love or hatred, Ecclesiastes 9:1.

Therefore, no one is able to be certain of the grace of God and remission of sins.

Response:  1.  The antecedent is not found in the Hebrew text:  Even love, even hatred, doth man not know.[7]  Men absolutely know themselves to be worthy of hatred, as often as they sin.

2.  I deny the consequence:  for Ecclesiastes does not in any simple way deprive man of the knowledge of love and of hatred, but only with respect to external events of good and ill, which are common to the good with the evil, which are not certain indicators of love or hatred.  However, from elsewhere do believers know God’s love, and unbelievers His hatred:  the former by faith, from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and peace of conscience:  the latter by goads of an ill conscience, and from the word of God, which denounces the hatred of God against all unbelievers.

(3.)  Neither Job, David, nor Paul had certainty of their justification and divine grace.

Therefore, it is not possible for the saints.

The antecedent is proven concerning Job, Job 9:20, If I wish to justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me.  Concerning David, Psalm 19:12, Who understandeth his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults, Lord.  Concerning Paul, 1 Corinthians 4:4, I know nothing of myself; yet I am not justified in this.

Response:  The antecedent concerning the certainty of remission of sins and justifying grace is false:  neither is it proven from the passages of Scripture alleged, in which those Holy men do not doubt the grace of God or reconciliation with God, but they deny that they are perfectly righteous before God by inherent righteousness, both because they are conscious of their own sins, and because not even from secret faults do they venture to claim themselves free.

(4.)  What is not expressly found in the word of God, nor is able to be evinced by evident consequence from it, is not able to be certain with the certainty of faith.

But it is not expressly found in the word of God that sins have been remitted to me, to thee, to this man or to that, in particular; nor is it able to be evinced by evident consequence.

Therefore, it is not possible to be certain with the certainty of faith, that sins have been remitted to me, to thee, to this man or to that.

The minor is proven:  Because Scripture makes no mention of me, of thee, of this one or that.

Response:  I deny the minor:  that sins are remitted to me, to thee, to this or to that, believing, is in part found expressly in Scripture, and is able in part to be evinced from Scripture by legitimate consequence.

It is expressly found in these and similar passages, in which the Holy Spirit addresses particularly individual believers, and so also me, thee, this one and that:  Psalm 103:3, who remitteth to thee all thine iniquities; Isaiah 43:25, I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.  These things pertain to individual believers.

By legitimate consequence it is evinced in this way:  What is promised by God to all believers in general, that is also promised to the individuals, and consequently, individual believers are also able to be certain of it.

But justification or remission of sins is promised to all believers in general.

Therefore, it is also promised to the individuals, and consequently, the individuals, I, thou, this one and that, are also able to be certain of it.

The major is beyond controversy:  neither is any evident reason able to be given, why it ought to be denied.

The minor is found most expressly:  Acts 10:43, to Him give all the Prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth upon Him shall receive remission of sins.

VI.  Therefore, thus it is proven, that we are able to be certain concerning justification, or the remission of sins.  Another conclusion follows:  that we also ought to be certain concerning the same:  or that certainty concerning the remission of sins is necessary for us, which we prove in this way:

What Scripture, or God in Scripture, has revealed concerning the gracious remission of sins, and commands us to believe, that is necessarily believed.

But God in Scripture has revealed that remission of sins is granted to individual believers, and commands individuals to believe the same.

Therefore, it is necessarily believed.

The major is beyond controversy:  the minor we just now proved in the response to the fourth argument.

The Papists contradict; but, since their principal reason is, that in Scripture the remission of sins for this one or that in particular has not been revealed, there is no cause for us to be moved, because this false foundation has already been destroyed.

VII.  Finally, a third conclusion follows:  that certainty concerning the remission of sins is useful:  which we prove in this way:

What furnishes for us solid consolation in life and death, this is altogether useful for us.

But certainty of remission of sins furnishes for us solid consolation in life and death.

Therefore, it is altogether useful for us.

The minor is manifest:  because Scripture proclaims them blessed, whose iniquities have been remitted, Psalm 32:1.  There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, Romans 8:1.

VIII.  The Papists take exception:

Certainty of the remission of sins begets in man pride, security, and the neglect of prayers.

Therefore, it is not useful, but harmful.

Response:  The antecedent is altogether false.  Seeing that there is no occasion for pride to him that believes that he has the remission of sins, not by his own merit, but by the grace of God alone.  Neither does it render him secure, who knows from the word of God that sins are remitted only to those earnestly repenting, and detesting and fleeing sin:  even though these are not meritorious causes of remission, but only conditions for it required by God.  Finally, prayer is not neglected by one that learns from the word of God that sins are not remitted without the invocation of the divine name and supplication.  Therefore, these clearly contradict , that one certain of the remission of sins is also proud, secure, and negligent of prayer:  Because no certainty of remission is possible, without humility, the fear of offending God, and earnestness of prayer.  1 John 3:3, every man that hath this hope purifieth himself, even as He is pure.

IX.  Hitherto the certainty of justification.  Its immutability follows, whereby those that were once justified never lose their justification.

Which opinion is proven by all these arguments, wherewith we proved above, that justifying faith is never lost.  For, if justifying faith is not lost, neither is justification lost.

X.  The equality of justification is that whereby one and same righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, is equally imputed to all by God, even if the faith of some is stronger, of others is weaker.

The rationale of the assertion is:  If not all believers are equally absolved from the curse of the law, through the imputed righteousness of Christ, some part of the curse would remain to some, to be removed from their own resources, through their own satisfaction and expiation of sin.

But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:  Because the λύτρον/ransom of Christ perfectly expiates all sins, neither do our sufferings have any power of expiation.

The Papists oppose equality of justification from a false hypothesis:  because they confound justification with sanctification, and derive justification from inherent righteousness.

XI.  The study of new obedience is that whereby those that are justified, or absolved from the curse of the law, testify of their gratitude toward God, by conforming their life to the precept of the divine law:  for justification is never without sanctification and new obedience:  which in the Church of God is beyond all controversy; even if the Papists commonly calumniate, that a justification is preached by Evangelicals, which has no inherent holiness conjoined.

* XII.  That between the Reformed and the Lutherans there was a consensus on the article of Justification, the Lutheran orders formerly confessed, with the Theologians adding their support at the Naumburg convention in 1561,[8] and at the diet of Augsburg in 1566.[9]  Meanwhile, from that time new Prophets arose, who impudently and falsely charged, that the sound doctrine of justification, for which we had hitherto fought most constantly against the Papists, was overturned entirely by us.  Hutter[10] is easily the chief of them.

XIII.  To justification some Theologians subjoin adoption, as its nearest consequent, which comes between justification and sanctification:  and it is described as that gracious sentence of God, whereby because of Christ He receives and exalts believers to the dignity of sons, John 1:12, as many as received Him, to them He gave this right, that they might be made the Sons of God, even to them that believe upon His name.  Of this adoption Scripture makes repeated mention, Ephesians 1:5; Galatians 4:4, 5; 1 John 3:1.

Therefore, by adoption we are not constituted righteous, but we are adopted as already righteous.  For God has as His sons, only those that He has already received unto grace:  since this excellence is unique to the just.

The meritorious cause of this adoption is the same as that of justification, namely, Christ the Redeemer, Galatians 4:5.

The testimony and sealing of it are by the Holy Spirit; whence He is called the Spirit of adoption:  Romans 8:15, 16; Galatians 4:5-7.

The hypothetical in the condition of heirs, Romans 8:17, if children, then we are also heirs:  This inheritance is eternal blessedness.

* XIV.  So that we might obtain the Spirit of adoption:

(1.)  The preaching of the Gospel is to be diligently attended upon, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 8.  For by this means God communicates His Spirit, Galatians 3:2; Ephesians 1:13.

(2.)  This Spirit is to be sought from God, Luke 11:13.

(3.)  The doors of the heart are to be opened, so that He might be able to enter through them, Psalm 24:7; Revelation 3:20.  That is, the spirit is to be called away from earthly things, is to be driven upward, and the impulses of the Spirit are to be admitted.

XV.  That we have the Spirit of adoption, we gather from definite signs, which are, (1.)  the Spirit of prayer, whereby God is invoked as Father, Zechariah 12:10; Romans 8:15, 16.  (2.)  A high estimation of the dignity that is in adoption, John 1:12; 1 John 3:1.  (3.)  The reverence and honor of God, 1 Peter 1:17; Malachi 1:6.  (4.)  Filial obedience, 1 Peter 1:14.  (5.)  Conformity to the image of God the Father and Christ, the firstborn of the brethren, Matthew 5:48; Romans 8:29; 1 John 3:2.  (6.)  A confident hope of eternal inheritance, Romans 8:17.

* XVI.  This testimony of the Spirit, that we are the children of God, is preserved:

(1.)  If grace be not quenched by contempt and neglect of the means, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, 20.

(2.)  If the Holy Spirit be not grieved by the filthiness of sin, Ephesians 4:30.

(3.)  If it be stirred up through pious efforts, 2 Timothy 1:6.

[1] Wisdom of Solomon 3:1:  “But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them.”

[2] Leo X (Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici) was Pope from 1513 to 1521.

[3] Johann Tetzel (c. 1465-1519) was a German Dominican friar and indulgence preacher.  In 1517, Albrecht of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, made him commissioner of Leo X’s plenary indulgence.  Tetzel was recalled for excesses in the preaching of indulgences.

[4] Also known as the Ninety-five Theses.

[5] Sylvester Prierias (c. 1456-1523) was an Italian Dominican theologian, and he served as Leo X’s Master of the Sacred Palace, the pope’s household theologian and censor.  He was the first to answer Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, and engage Luther in debate.

[6] Lancelot Politi, also known as Ambrosius Catharinus (1483-1553) was an Italian Dominican scholar, who played a prominent role at the Council of Trent in defense of the Papacy against the Reformation. In spite of theological eccentricities, he was considered to be an orthodox Romanist.

[7] A woodenly literalistic rendering of ‎ גַּֽם־אַהֲבָ֣ה גַם־שִׂנְאָ֗ה אֵ֤ין יוֹדֵ֙עַ֙ הָֽאָדָ֔ם.

[8] The Naumburg Assembly of 1561 was a gathering of German Protestant princes and their representatives, to renew their common subscription to the Augsburg Confession of 1530, and to address Melanchthon’s Variata.  It was determined that Melanchthon’s Variata remained in essential harmony with the common Confession, leaving the door open for closer cooperation with the Reformed, which opportunity was improved by the Electoral Palatinate under Frederick III.

[9] The Imperial Diet of Augsburg met in 1566 under Emperor Maximilian II.  For the most part, its business was not religion, but the practical affairs of the Empire (the Ottoman threat, coinage, the imperial chamber court, etc.).   The one religious issue taken up was the status of the Electoral Palatinate, which under Frederick III had moved toward a distinctly Reformed church order.  The question was, whether this took the Palatinate outside the protection of the Peace of Augsburg, which covered only those who adhered to the Augsburg Confession.  The diet determined that the Palatinate was still covered under the Variata form of the Confession.

[10] Leonhard Hutter (1563-1616) was a German Lutheran theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Wittenberg (1596-1616).  His Compendium locorum theologicorum (1610) became a standard summary of Lutheran orthodoxy after the Formula of Concord.