Heinrich Bullinger, the 16th century Swiss Reformer, wrote a book with a typically long title:
“The grace of God that justifies us for the sake of Christ through faith alone, without good works, while faith meanwhile abounds in good works.”
Would you agree or disagree with this definition of Justification?
That’s a pretty standard definition of justification as far as I know. I heartily endorse it.
I see a problem with it. We have too many biblical examples of God’s people not abounding in good works after faith. Contemporary one’s as well in my own life.
I think he added that on as a sop to the continuing charge Paul experienced that preaching God’s free gift of salvation via the merit of Christ and our merit less faith gives us an excuse to sin.
Maybe, but justification by faith alone should never be preached apart from the biblical teaching of regeneration. Paul’s answer to the question of whether sola fide leads to license to sin is that those who believe have died to sin and been made alive to righteousness. Sadly, the reformation often limited regeneration to the initial faith event and ignored the implications of the new nature in sanctification. An excellent book on this subject is “Justification and Regeneration” by Charles Leiter. I recommend it.
http://www.grantedministries.org/justification-regeneration-charles-leiter/
Christian,
I agree with you. While you’re right , the truth remains, we people of God often do not abound in good works. We SHOULD. I just think the wording there needs reconsideration for reality is all.
I think we are in agreement. Thanks for the interaction.
What caught me here Luke was “for the sake of Christ” .
I think that seems to be the whole axis of his statement on justification as apposed to justification for the sake of justification or justification for the sake of me. But I could be reading what I want him to be saying into the quote.:)