In many ways we are at the heart of biblical and Reformed theology in the word “by” of justification by faith alone. As we saw in the last post, there is a massive amount of theology that this little word reflects. This also shows how deceptive it is for people to unite over the phrase “justification by faith alone” and say that all who believe it believe the Gospel. When the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) pact came out in the mid-90’s, a few trumpeted how terrible that was because the real issue of justification was essentially ignored. Let us beware of doing the same thing in our day in a different way. Cunningham’s work as quoted in the previous post should make us acutely conscious that a massive amount of theological differences can be hidden in an agreement of a phrase. There are people today who agree that there is no essential difference between Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism. They are terribly deceived and monstrously wrong. What many of us must be awakened to, however, are the massive differences between what goes under the guise of Arminianism and then of Reformed people.
In Arminian Theology, the author Roger Olson wrote about the myths and realities of Arminianism. He believes that historical Arminianism is not understood that well and at least implies that much of what is thought of and about Arminianism is not truly Arminian. That is something that must be dealt with in our day. If what goes under the guise of Arminianism is not truly Arminian but is really Pelagianism, then unity with Arminianism in some quarters is really uniting with Pelagianism, which has been condemned by council after council and creed after creed. We have to know what people really mean before we can unite with them in any real way. It may be politically correct to gloss over true differences and be gracious to those who use orthodox words to hide true heresies, but it is not being faithful to the living God to do so.
In volume five of his works (pp. 107-108) John Owen sets out five ways that people approach or think of faith in terms of justification. He then goes on at length (15 pages or so) to discuss these differences. This has been a massively important focus in history. In the modern day we hear of a person that believes in justification by faith alone and we think that they must agree with the Gospel as taught in history. Indeed they agree with something taught in history, but it may not be the biblical Gospel. The quote that follows is from John Owen:
“When men have fixed their apprehensions about the principal matters in controversy, they express what concerneth the use of faith in an accommodation thereunto. Supposing such to be the nature of justification as they assert, it must be granted that the use of faith therein must be what they plead for. And if what is peculiar unto any in the substance of the doctrine be disproved, they cannot deny but that their notions about the use of faith do fall unto the ground. Thus is it with all who affirm faith to be either the instrument, or the condition, or the “causa sine qua non,” or the preparation and disposition of the subject, or a meritorious cause, by way of condecency or congruity, in and of our justification. For all these notions of the use of faith are suited and accommodated unto the opinions of men concerning the nature and principal causes of justification…I shall briefly speak unto these various conceptions about the use of faith in our justification, rather to find out and give an understanding of what is intended by them, than to argue about their truth and propriety, which depend on that wherein the substance if the controversy doth consist.”
Here we see what the Prince of Theologians from the Puritan era thought of how important it is to determine what people mean in their use of faith. What he says about the “use of faith” is precisely what the little word “by” in justification by faith alone is getting at. We are trying to look at how vital it is to see how faith is used in justification. Owen listed five headings (I say headings as people look at these five things differently) or ways that people use faith in justification. 1. It is used an instrument. 2. It is a condition. 3. It is a causa sine qua non. 4. It prepares and disposes men to receive justification. 5. It merits justification in a congruous way. Number 3, causa sine qua non, might require just a bit of a definition right off. The term sine qua non means “without which, not” and is something that is absolutely essential. The causa refers to a cause and so faith is seen as a cause that is utterly essential. How are we to determine which is the correct and biblical position? Owen takes many pages in an effort to be brief on the subject. We will look at these five uses of faith in future posts. For the moment, however, we can simply ask which one expresses the glory of God, the glory of God in Christ, and the glory of God in Christ by grace alone? That use of faith will be the biblical one.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment