"First of all, Dr. Gaffin is clear that works are not the ground or basis of a believer's justification. He also says that works are not, with faith, (co-) instrumental, in the appropriation of justification. He appears to be upholding the traditional Protestant understanding of the role of works in justification as being evidential when he quotes the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 16:2, which describes works as 'fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith.' These affirmations all appear to be in alignment with traditional Protestant teaching. So what is the problem?
Once again, Dr. Gaffin nullifies his orthodox denials and affirmations, by placing the word 'integral' before the phrase 'fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith.' The WCF 16:2 does not describe works as 'THE INTEGRAL fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith' [Emphasis added]. The word 'integral' modifies the language appropriated from the WCF 16:2. Also, it is important to keep in mind that Dr. Gaffin describes works as 'THE INTEGRAL fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith' within the context of a discussion about justification.
The primary definition of the word 'integral' is 'essential to completeness: constituent' or 'constituent, necessary to completeness of a whole.' In light of this definition, the meaning is that faith itself, apart from works produced through faith, is insufficient for justification. Works must be added to faith to complete a faith/works complex that is requisite for justification. Faith is only able to justify when it is part of this faith/works complex." - Stephen M. Cunha, The Emperor Has No Clothes: Dr. Richard B. Gaffin Jr.'s Doctrine of Justification, Pg. 28-29
No comments:
Post a Comment