I suppose little by little I will be reviewing the New Horizon’s issue alleged to be about the Federal Vision. But I don’t have time now. Still I want to quote some excellent material in the lead article by Venema:

In the Protestant view, justification is a judicial declaration by God. It is the pronouncement of the believer’s innocence in God’s court. That is, God declares the justified person righteous. The opposite of justification, then, is condemnation or being declared guilty (Rom. 8:33-34). By contrast, the Roman Catholic view is that justification includes a process of moral transformation equivalent to what, in evangelical terms, is known as the work of sanctification.

To the Reformers, the importance of justification can hardly be exaggerated. To be brought before a human court and judged innocent is a matter of some importance. But to be brought before God and receive his verdict of innocence is a matter of supreme importance. Accordingly, justification is a principal benefit of Christ’s saving work, which reveals God’s grace toward undeserving sinners whom he saves from condemnation and death (Rom. 5:12-21). In this perspective, justification is a thoroughly theological and soteriological theme, which demonstrates God’s righteousness in delivering sinners from their awful plight (Rom. 3:21-26).

In their protest against the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, the Reformers insisted that justification is an entirely free gift of God’s grace. So far as their acceptance with God is concerned, believers rest their confidence, not in anything they might do in obedience to God, but in God’s gracious favor demonstrated in the free provision of redemption through Jesus Christ. Consequently, the Reformers emphasized that the righteousness by which believers are justified is not a personal or inherent righteousness, but an “alien” and “imputed” righteousness (iustitia aliena et imputata). The believer’s justification rests upon the righteousness of someone else, namely, Jesus Christ. By means of his obedient life, suffering, death, and resurrection, Christ met all the obligations of the law and secured the justification of his people (Rom. 4:25).

If justification is free and unmerited, and based upon a righteousness graciously imputed to believers, then people can receive it only by believing, not by doing good works. “Grace alone,” “Christ alone,” and “faith alone” are corollary expressions. If we are saved by grace alone, then our works cannot be a necessary precondition for our being accepted by God. According to the Reformers, this is precisely what “faith alone” asserts. Faith, which accepts Christ and trusts in his saving righteousness, is the only instrument by which to receive the free gift of justification before God (Rom. 3:27; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30-31; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9).

This is excellent. Is there anything to quibble about? Not really. I guess we need to remember that Ephesians is a document that thoroughly covers soteriology without using the term “justification” or even “righteousness” as an imputed legal standing. I only say that because, while I agree with Venema and the Reformers on the importance of justification, I think we need to be careful how we use this principle in judging the writings of others. I would also point out that if one is perfectly assure of one’s standing before God on the ground of the person and work of Christ, that other issues might be more “important” to him in terms of being foremost on his mind. I don’t think there would be anything wrong with this, nor would it count as a falling away from the Reformers.

In fact, I’m embarrassed to be so trivial. It is hard not to be over-scrupulous when one is in the middle of a church war. Please excuse me for doing this.

The other thing to point out is that the logical connection is missing in this sentence: ” If justification is free and unmerited, and based upon a righteousness graciously imputed to believers, then people can receive it only by believing, not by doing good works.” There is a (quite correct) exegetical premise that is hidden here. Something like, “The Bible teaches that not everyone is justified, and the gospel demands a response.” Otherwise, one could just as easily claim that the free and unmerited nature of justification indicates that everyone is justified by God or that one is justified regardless of whether or not one believes the Gospel. After all, when a judge imposes a sentence on an individual, whether condemnation or vindication, we normally don’t say that the person must ‘by faith receive” the verdict.

Of course, I can’t and don’t fault Venema for not including premisses with which his audience agrees. As I said, our current controversy is making me super-scrupulous.