In volume 2 of his collected writings Murray has a short article on justification. How does he define this saving benefit? He writes:

“Justification is that aspect of the application of redemption whereby God delivers us from condemnation, and accepting us as righteous in his sight receives us into His favor and fellowship. It is a blessing of which Isaiah speaks ‘And in that day shalt thou say, O LORD I will praise Thee; for though Thou wast angry with me thine anger is turned away and Thou comfortedst me. Behold God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.’
Justification IS NOT the eternal decree of God with respect to us, nor is it the finished work of Christ for us, when once-for-all He reconciled us to God by His death; NOR is it the regenerative work of God in us, NOR is it any activity on our part in response to and embrace of the Gospel, but IT IS an act of God, accomplished in time wherein God passes judgment with respect to us as individuals.
It may be safe to say that the greatest event for Christendom in the last 1500 years was the Protestant Reformation. What was the spark that lit the flame of evangelical passion? It was, by the grace of God, the discovery on the part of Luther, stricken with a sense of his estrangement from God and feeling in his inmost soul the sting of His wrath and the remorse of a terrified conscience, of the true and only way whereby a man can be just with God. To him, the truth of justification by free grace through faith lifted him from the depths of the forebodings of hell to the ecstasy of peace with God and the hope of glory.” (Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, pp. 202-203)

In the context of Romans 6:3-5, with regard to definitive sanctification’s relation to justification, Murray writes:

“No fact is of more basic importance in connection with the death to sin and commitment to holiness than that of identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. And this relation of Jesus’ death and resurrection to the believer is introduced at this point in the development of Paul’s Gospel, be it noted, NOT WITH REFERENCE TO JUSTIFICATION, but in connection with deliverance from the power and defilement of sin. So IT IS THE RELATION TO SANCTIFICATION that is in the focus of thought.” (Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, p. 286)

I would really like to know where Murray says “justification and definitive sanctification are not only simultaneous but are the same act?” I can’t seem to find that in his writings. I keep looking and looking but can’t find it. Maybe you could help me out on this one.

I too agree with Gaffin, and I’m sympathetic with your trajectory here.

I wouldn’t want definitive sanctification (yes, I agree with Murray) to diminish final justification. I agree that Rom. 6:7 connotes definitive sanctificaion, but I want to preserve the redemptive-historical distinction in 5:9 — “saved from eschatological wrath.”

The real question, it seems me, is the relation between definitive sanctification and final justification, not between justification and sanctification as such. It seems to me that the verdict of deliverance in time and history that you have thoughtfully noted in some way secures the final verdict (Rom. 2:13), but it must do this in such a way as to not diminish the awareness of the necessity of good works, without which none will be justified in the final day (2:6-7).

The verdict of deliverance in history is definitive, not just potential (as act, not a process); but the final justification will take into account good works.

1) Regarding idolatry, I was saying that we should take comfort in God, not in our theological formulations. The God in whom we take comfort says, Trust me, I’ve made you righteous in my Son. So, we do trust in the words that our God speaks because for the trustworthiness of the One who speaks. But that’s different from taking comfort in a Confession, which I what I heard Darryl doing. I may have misunderstood what he was getting at.

2) Romans 6:7 is one of the key texts for saying that “justify” includes “liberation.” Also Romans 4:25 and 1 Timothy 3:16, where Jesus is said to be “justified” by the resurrection (I’m accepting Gaffin’s exegesis here). The Father’s justification/vindication of Jesus takes the form of raising Him from the dead.

3) I agree with Calvin in that justification and sanctification are both benefits of union with the one Christ. But I am saying more: I’m saying that the NT sometimes uses the terminology of “justification” to describe what our systematics calls “definitive sanctification.”

I believe this priority of justification was what Calvin was getting at in the following questions and answers from his 1536 Catechism:

Master. - But after we have once been embraced by God, are not the works which we do under the direction of his Holy Spirit accepted by him?

Scholar. - They please him, not however in virtue of their own worthiness, but as he liberally honours them with his favour.

Master. - But seeing they proceed from the Holy Spirit, do they not merit favour?

Scholar. - They are always mixed up with some defilement from the weakness of the flesh, and thereby vitiated.

Master. - Whence then or how can it be that they please God?

Scholar. - It is faith alone which procures favour for them, as we rest with assured confidence on this-that God wills not to try them by his strict rule, but covering their defects and impurities as buried in the purity of Christ, he regards them in the same light as if they were absolutely perfect.

Master. - But can we infer from this that a Christian man is justified by works after he has been called by God, or that by the merit of works he makes himself loved by God, whose love is eternal life to us?

Scholar. - By no means. We rather hold what is written-that no man can be justified in his sight, and we therefore pray, Enter not into judgment with us.” (Ps. cxliii. 2.)

It can be no surprise then that the foundational justification is by faith alone, and yet there is a future justification in which God says that He likes us, likes what we’ve become, approves of us, and says “well done.” All the good stuff we do (WCF 16) is in union with Jesus and by the Spirit, but it is still we who do it. The Judge approves of US and justifies US, not merely sees Jesus through us as if we don’t exist.

The first justification is by faith alone, and we return to that at the beginning of the liturgy each Day of the Lord. The final justification is God’s approval of who we have become in union with Christ and through faith.

There is no justification of “works” or “merits” because there is no merit theology in the Bible anywhere at all. God approves or disapproves of persons, not of merits.

Calvin:
We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.

John Calvin - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 1

Are you saying that Christ, who the Bible says is “The LORD our Righteousness” is an idol, or are you saying that by believing and taking comfort in the fact that justification is by “faith alone” we have worshiped a false god? I’m a little confused. Jesus said, “You shall know that truth and the truth shall make you free? Are we not then to take comfort in Gospel truths such as justification by faith alone?

In regard to your comment above:

“I’m saying that in declaring us just in Christ, God also delivers us from the power of sin. To put it in Murray’s terms, justification and definitive sanctification are not only simultaneous (which Murray said) but the same act. NB: I said DEFINITIVE sanctification.”

Where is the biblical proof that justification and definitive sanctification are the same thing? I’m willing to go as far as saying that regeneration and definitive sanctification are the same thing but you seem to be redefining justification to have an aspect of renewal. This is not the historical Reformed view on justification. Could you explain this further?

As for the rest, a few scattered responses:

I never claimed to be judge and jury, as my post made plenty clear. I’m happy to be shown that the Reformed tradition has fully accounted for the passages I’ve pointed to in its formulation of the doctrine of justification. Maybe you can show me where Romans 4:25 and 6:7 have been worked into Reformed soteriology; it’s a sincere question. I’m also happy to be told that I got Paul wrong. But if I’m going to be convinced, it’s going to have to come from Scripture.

As for Paul and red-letter: Where do you think the Reformed doctrine came from in the first place? James? 2 Chronicles? The debate, for better or worse, has always centered on Paul. Besides, my argument - which you haven’t addressed at all - rests on passages from the Psalms and prophets as well as Paul.

As I said before, I haven’t said that the Reformed tradition gets the Bible wrong. I’m saying that the Bible says more than the Reformed formulations capture.

As for people taking comfort in “faith alone being an instrument by which we receive Christ’s alien righteousness,” I submit that such people are taking comfort in an idol. Our comfort is in the God of comfort, not in our theological formulations. Surely I’ve misunderstood you.

As to the question of expressing the Bible’s teaching more fully, that’s an impressive claim. Someone with a high ecclesiology might let the church decide whether that claim is accurate. The one claiming to make the improvement may not be the best judge and jury.

And the problem of standing on God’s holy hill comes when you suggest that the Reformed doctrine of justification is inadequate, as if the way it formulates Christ’s righteousness gets the Bible wrong. Lots of people take comfort in faith alone being the instrument by which we receive Christ’s alien righteousness. Now the BTer’s are saying that that is not exactly what Paul meant. They like N. T. Wright and Norman Sheperd’s formulations. (I seem to recall that you have some interest in Wright; I’m not sure where you came down on Sheperd.) Yet, for some reason those people think they can have Wright, Sheperd, and Paul, and oh the Divines and Calvin and Ursinus are back there somewhere making some kind of contribution.

The problem is that the different intepreters of Paul are in disagreement about what Paul and the rest of the Bible teaches on justification(since when did Paul’s writings receive red-letter treatment, anyway?). And yet because Ursinus, and Calvin and the Divines are man-made interpretations, they seem to be less reliable than the Bible. What seems to go unnoticed is that Vos, Ridderbos, and even Leithart are man-made interpretations also.

So who sorts out this mess? Doesn’t FV affirm that the church should? And hasn’t the church rendered its judgment on the FV on justification?