New Reformation

I have thoroughly enjoyed your emphasis on justification by grace through faith alone. We surely need to recapture this central emphasis of the Reformation if we hope to see a new revival and reformation in our day. In every revival of major consequence we see this doctrine as the focal point of all preaching, teaching and writing. We saw it in the Reformers, the Puritans, the "Marrow-men" in Scotland, the Wesleys and Whitefield. All the great men of God saw this as the heartthrob of true religion. Without it, all was lost; with it, they changed the world. The gates of hell cannot stand against God's church when this great truth is preached, but must open up before our attacks and release their captives to our King. Let us pray that the church of God, the catholic (i.e., universal) church of our Lord, will once again be set on fire by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true evangelical gospel.

But may I also request that you deal with some topics more in depth. For instance, I would love to see an issue devoted to the priesthood of all believers. This would show how all-pervasive and practical sola fide is.

Willard Onellion, Seminary Student
Pennsylvania

An issue on the priesthood of all believers will be published soon—Ed.

Erroneous

May I point out what appears to be an erroneous interpretation on page 7 of your December issue, where you state: "This makes it clear that the believer's holiness of life (sanctification) is not included in 'the righteousness of God.'" You base this conclusion on Paul's declaration in Romans 3:21 that "the righteousness of God" is "apart from the law." Apparently, then, you equate the keeping of the law with holiness of life (sanctification). Certainly you don't believe this! What is Romans all about if it isn't the Christian way in contrast to merely keeping the law?

The mistakes of such erroneous conclusions do much, I believe, to damage your scholarship. Good scholarship might permit such mistakes, but good teaching won't.

James Devries
California

Please read Romans 8:4, and perhaps you could look at the comments of any competent Lutheran or Reformed scholar on the same. —Ed.

Obedience of Faith

I have read the issue of Present Truth on "Righteousness by Faith" (Part 3). I am especially interested in the nature of faith in justification and its similarity, or difference, in sanctification. The distinction by Bishop J. C. Ryle is mentioned. To quote from page 12 of your magazine: "That justification is by faith alone he affirms; that sanctification is by faith alone he denies. ' . . . not once, he says, 'are we told that we are "sanctified by faith without the deeds of the law."'

It seems to me that the "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) in justification is the same kind of response to the work of the Holy Spirit as the "obedience of faith" in sanctification. Justification is the declaration of God in response to the repentant rebel, who is freely pardoned on the basis of sacrifice. The "obedience of faith" in sanctification is of the same kind as in justification. Both are accomplished in response to faith in what God has said; one being based on sacrifice, the other on the law. One is justified "by grace through faith" and sanctified "by grace through faith." Grace is God's provision in Christ (death and life; sacrifice and law) for justification and sanctification. Grace is not received by a passive faith for justification or sanctification, but one is imputed and the other imparted in response to the active obedience of faith. God does not justify the rebel who continues in rebellion any more than He sanctifies the believer who continues in sin. If faith is understood as a responsive act of obedience to what God has spoken, then justification is God's declaration of pardon to the repentant rebel's initial act of faith, and sanctification is the continuing process of "perfecting holiness" in response to successive acts of faith. At least in this sense, "the righteousness of God" is neither imputed nor imparted on the basis of "a legal fiction" but on the basis of a real change. Not that faith has "merited" God's pardoning grace, "but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone."

Thank you for a very illuminating and stimulating magazine—except the fiasco on "Election" in your September issue.

Mark Youndt, Reformed Presbyterian Pastor
Virginia

For further clarification on sanctification, see the concluding article in our series on "Righteousness by Faith," which appears in this issue of Present Truth. You'll be happy to know that another issue on election is on the drawing board. —Ed.

Monstrous Miscreant

In regard to the "Letters" section in your December issue, I was particularly upset by your flippant subtitle, "Blackmail?" assigned to a letter from John Robbins, District of Columbia. How many letters of protest against the September issue on "Election" do you require to warrant your long-overdue repudiation of Karl Barth? That "scholar" on your staff who endorses the blasphemous cavil of Karl Barth is unfortunately confused himself. A careful reading of Dr. Gordon H. Clark's Karl Barth's Theological Method (Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1963) will sufficiently erase any confidence in that monstrous miscreant. Of course, a little more loyalty and obedience to God's Word should have alone stimulated your procrastinated response on this issue.

Garrett P. Johnson
Virginia

We suggest, sir, that you stick to judging Barth's theology and not his person. —Ed.

Factual

The article, "Ecumenical Developments between Roman Catholicism and Non-Christian Religions," was most factual. As a veteran missionary in Southeast Asia, with service in India, Sri Lanka and Singapore, I can attest to its verity.

I am indeed grateful for your stand against the ecumenical and charismatic deceptions of our day. May God grant that through Present Truth many may be alerted to these grave errors and spared from the deception of the evil one.

Cliff Hunnicuff, III, Baptist Missionary
Georgia