Why William Webster's Justification Aritlcle is not Scriptural.

Reformed Apologist William Webster has an articled titled, "The Biblical Teaching of Justification," in which he seeks to prove his Calvinist views on justification are correct, while refuting and exposing Catholic claims to the contrary. Since Webster has a lot of respect in Reformed apologetics, I thought it necessary and important to confront his errors. Since his article is so long, I will only focus on the portions I believe are most relevant and most erroneous.

Did Calvin believe in Christ's Active Obedience?

I've been encountering more and more Calvinists who claim John Calvin taught the concept of Christ's "Active Obedience," and quoting Calvin's Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 16, Section 5.

One such proponent of this claim was a Reformed apologist and professor, Dr R. Scott Clark, on his blog (Here). Though Clark puts special emphasis on Calvin's use of the phrase "whole course of his obedience," and "whole life of Christ," and "obedience that he manifested in his life," I think Clark is unwittingly putting words into Calvin's mouth and committing a word-concept fallacy. In short, Clark mistakenly thinks that just because Calvin uses the term "obedience," including modifiers such as "whole" and "life," that Calvin must be speaking of Christ's "active obedience" (so called).

To further buttress his argument, Clark plainly admits (in the comments section) that:

What is essential here is that Christ did not come to qualify himself to be a Savior. Note how Calvin treated Christ’s obedience as if it were for us (that’s a crucial Protestant theme) not for himself. Those who denied IAO typically (following Anselm) assume that Christ owed obedience for himself, in order to qualify himself to be a Savior on the cross. This wasn’t the framework within which Calvin interpreted Christ’s life and death.

Basically, Clark denies this "obedience" prior to Good Friday was dealing with Christ having to "qualify" as a worthy and spotless Sacrificial Lamb, and Clark even claims Calvin denied this as well.

Given this, I think it's important to look at the Calvin quote ourselves, but since it is so long I will only quote portions of it (with my own emphasis and highlights).

When it is asked then how Christ, by abolishing sin, removed the enmity between God and us, and purchased a righteousness which made him favourable and kind to us, it may be answered generally, that he accomplished this by the whole course of his obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul, “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” (Rom. 5:19). And indeed he elsewhere extends the ground of pardon which exempts from the curse of the law to the whole life of Christ, “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,” (Gal. 4:4, 5). Thus even at his baptism he declared that a part of righteousness was fulfilled [Mt 3:15] by his yielding obedience to the command of the Father. In short, from the moment when he assumed the form of a servant, he began, in order to redeem us, to pay the price of deliverance. Scripture, however, the more certainly to define the mode of salvation, ascribes it peculiarly and specially to the death of Christ. ... [Calvin then quotes various passages of Scripture,  Mt. 20:28; Rom. 4:25; John 1:29; Rom. 3:25; Rom. 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:21] ... In the Confession of Faith, called the Apostles’ Creed, the transition is admirably made from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in which the completion of a perfect salvation consists. Still there is no exclusion of the other part of obedience which he performed in life. Thus Paul comprehends, from the beginning even to the end, his having assumed the form of a servant, humbled himself, and become obedient to death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2:7). And, indeed, the first step in obedience was his voluntary subjection; for the sacrifice would have been unavailing to justification if not offered spontaneously. Hence our Lord, after testifying, “I lay down my life for the sheep,” distinctly adds, “No man taketh it from me,” (John 10:15, 18). ...  We must bear in minds that Christ could not duly propitiate God without renouncing his own feelings and subjecting himself entirely to his Father’s will. To this effect the Apostle appositely quotes a passage from the Psalms, “Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God,” (Heb. 10:5; Ps. 40:7, 8). Thus, as trembling consciences find no rest without sacrifice and ablution by which sins are expiated, we are properly directed thither, the source of our life being placed in the death of Christ. ...  He therefore suffered under Pontius Pilate, being thus, by the formal sentence of the judge, ranked among criminals, and yet he is declared innocent by the same judge, when he affirms that he finds no cause of death in him. Our acquittal is in this that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God (Is. 53:12). We must specially remember this substitution in order that we may not be all our lives in trepidation and anxiety, as if the just vengeance which the Son of God transferred to himself, were still impending over us.

When examining this quote, the first thing to keep in mind is that throughout all this, Calvin is commenting, line by line, on the Apostles' Creed. In the section Clark quoted, Calvin was focused upon the part of the Creed relating to Christ's birth, suffering under Pilate, and death. Notice how nothing in the Creed comes anywhere close to advocating "active obedience."

With that in mind, you'll notice how Calvin is exclusively focused on Christ's suffering in all this, nothing about "keeping the Law in our place," consigning his use of "obedience" entirely to Christ's suffering. All Calvin is saying is that Christ's suffering for us began at His birth.

The next thing to realize is that Calvin quoted many famous alleged "active obedience" proof texts from Scripture (which I highlighted in bold), notably Rom 5:19, Gal 4:4-5, Mat 3:15, and 2 Cor 5:21, yet Calvin clearly isn't interpreting them in terms of "active obedience"!

The final thing to take note of is that Calvin explicitly says, "the first step in obedience was his voluntary subjection; for the sacrifice would have been unavailing to justification if not offered spontaneously" and a bit later, "We must bear in minds that Christ could not duly propitiate God without renouncing his own feelings and subjecting himself entirely to his Father’s will." What Calvin explicitly affirms here is precisely what Clark explicitly denied Calvin (and Reformed) as teaching: that Christ's obedience prior to the Cross was precisely to qualify Him as a worthy Sacrifice.

I'd say the lesson to take away from this is twofold. First, that Dr Clark didn't accurately represent Calvin's view and words on Christ's obedience (which Calvin limited to passive obedience only), at least not in this quote. Second, that if Calvin truly believed in "active obedience," which is so critical to Reformed theology, then surely he'd have spoken clearly about this ultra critical concept elsewhere in his Institutes (which folks like Clark could then readily quote from).

BLOG ALERT - Spam problem - READ

Something disturbing happened today, about an hour ago. There is a major spam problem out there as many know, and Google/Blogger have done what they can to get rid of it. Unfortunately, Google/Blogger's system sometimes targets innocent Blogs/Accounts. This happened to me.  When I went to my blog, the page said the blog was locked/removed, without any links or process for me to get it back.

As you can guess, I was in a panic, and quickly sought a solution. It turns out, the "best" solutions were very confusing and circular, only compounding my worry. Luckily, when I logged into Gmail about 15 min later, a Gmail alert told me suspicious activity was detected and I needed to confirm my identity by entering my cellphone number. This worked and unlocked everything. Thank God.

I urge you to be aware of this, don't panic as I did, and back up your work elsewhere.
Also, as the Bible says: "Don't put your faith in men," which would be extended to include not trusting technology to "save" what is important to you. I learned today I trust technology too much, which is something I should strive to correct.

List of teachings Protestants cannot agree upon due to Sola Scriptura.

The following is a 'open' list of teachings (subject to further expansion) which Protestants cannot agree upon due to the doctrinal relativism caused by Sola Scriptura. Though many Protestants today would "solve" this problem by tossing a lot of these into the "non-essential" category, I believe the doctrinal issues I've mentioned have been clearly seen to cause division among Protestants:

1. Once Saved Always Saved
2. Universal versus Limited Atonement
3. Infant Baptism
4. Form of Baptism (e.g. full immersion vs pouring)
5. Whether Baptism is necessary in ordinary circumstances
6. Whether the Lord's Supper is purely symbolic or some sort of 'real' presence
7. Divorce and Remarriage
8. Whether icons/pictures of Christ are allowed
9. Which doctrines are perspicuous/essential
10. Whether Charismatic Gifts of the Spirit have ceased
11. Whether instruments are allowed in church
12. Female ordination
13. The "biblical" form of church government
14. Sunday versus any day worship / Whether the Sabbath is still in force in some sense.
15. House churches versus dedicated congregational churches
16. Dispensationalism
17. Rapture/Tribulation
18. Imputed Active Obedience
19. Whether traditional categories like Person/Nature are true/valid
20. Mary being "Mother of God"
21. Mary's Perpetual Virginity
22. Whether Inspiration of Scripture is plenary or limited to faith and morals
23. Whether one can/should pray to the Holy Spirit
24. Whether Sola Scriptura applied during the time of Christ and the Apostles
25. How to define/understand Sola Scriptura, especially as it relates to Creeds and Councils
26. Should Christians engage in politics, civil service, etc. 
27. Whether Christians should pray the Our Father
28. Whether prayer should be only spontaneous
29. Whether keeping the Commandments is necessary for salvation
30. Whether illness, suffering, poverty, etc, are due to sin or lack of faith
31. Whether Free Will and Double Predestination are true or not
32. Whether Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, etc, are actually part of Scripture
33. Which translation of Scripture should be normative (e.g. KJV)
34. Which Protestant denominations are to be considered "Christian"

Feel free to mention some other examples in the comment box!

An array of Reformed tetimony of the ahistorical nature of Sola Scriptura

The following are quotes from well known Protestant Apologists teaching publicly on the subject of Sola Scriptura and admitting the ahistorical nature of it:

• James White: The main element of [Catholic apologist] Mr. Ray’s misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just this: the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, “There has never been a time when God’s Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally.” You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did? (Source) 

•  William Webster: The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. (Source)

 

• Joe Mizzi: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age. (Source)

 

• R.C. Spoul Junior: The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. ... ... Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. (Source)

 

• John Piper: Beware of imputing advantage to antiquity. Seventy years after the death of Jesus the churches had neither the collected New Testament nor a living apostle. It was a precarious and embattled time. Neither the experiences nor the teachers of the first 300 years of the church are as reliable as the finished New Testament. The church did not rescue the New Testament from neglect and abuse. The New Testament rescued the early church from instability and error. We are in a better position today to know Jesus Christ than anyone who lived from AD 100 to 300. They had only parts of the New Testament rather than the collected whole. That’s how valuable the fullness of revelation is in the finished Bible. Beware of idealizing the early church. She did not have your advantages! (Source) 

 

• John MacArthur: Jude 3 is a crucial passage on the completeness of our Bibles. This statement, penned by Jude before the New Testament was complete, nevertheless looked forward to the completion of the entire canon: Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ... ... Also important in Jude 3 is the word "delivered." In the Greek it is an aorist passive participle, which in this context indicates an act completed in the past with no continuing element. In this instance the passive voice means the faith was not discovered by men, but given to men by God. How did He do that? Through His Word--the Bible. And so through the Scriptures God has given us a body of teaching that is final and complete. (Source) 

 

• John H. Armstrong: Further, no true advocate of the supreme and final authority of Scripture would assert that the immediate hearers of the preaching of Jesus, or the apostles, were free to pick and choose what they would submit to since they did not receive it in written form. What is asserted in believing that Scripture alone has final and full authority is this: God revealed His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently through the inscripturated text. Oral communication, in this post-apostolic era, is powerful precisely because it relies so faithfully on the "more certain" word of Scripture itself. Thus we conclude, with the Apostle, himself a faithful preacher, "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). (Source)

 

• Robert Godfrey: [Catholics] will try to say that the phrase “the Word of God” can mean more than just the Bible. I have already granted that. The question before us is whether today anything other than the Scriptures is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation. The Scripture texts I have cited show that nothing else is needed. Our opponents need to show not that Paul referred to his preaching as well as his writing as the Word of God — I grant that; they need to show that Paul taught that the oral teaching of the apostles would be needed to supplement the Scriptures for the Church through the ages. They cannot show that because Paul did not teach that, and the Scriptures as a whole do not teach that! (Source)

 

• Greg Bahnsen: The Word of God, which was originally delivered orally, needed to be reduced to writing in order for the rest of God’s people to know about it and for it to function as an objective standard for faith and obedience. Where God had spoken by personal address orally, if that was going to be a standard for the Church at large (for all of God’s people), that oral instruction (as authoritative as it was in itself) needed to be reduced to writing so that it would be an objective standard that governed all of God’s people... God’s Word needed to be inscripturated to govern His people through all generations. (Source)

 

Why are these admissions so significant? Because in each case the Protestant is admitting that Sola Scriptura was not practiced in the Apostolic age of the Church; the Apostles didn't go around teaching Christians to engage in Sola Scriptura in word or epistle. Why? Because, as the above quotes show, the full canon of Scripture didn't exist at the time, making the practice of Sola Scriptura functionally impossible. It would be like saying we can write a dictionary (a 'word bible' so to speak) without first having and knowing all 26 letters of the alphabet. To read "Sola Scriptura" into any passage of Scripture would be anachonistic by definition. Thus, whether these well respected Protestant preachers truly realize it or not, by their own logic Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, ahistorical, and unapostolic.