Francis Turretin on Justification

Here are some excellent quotations from Turretin’s section on justification [Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume II (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed)]:

Two covenants, two types of righteousness: 

However, we must premise here that God, the just Judge (dikaiokritên), cannot pronounce anyone just and give him a right to life except on the ground of some perfect righteousness which has a necessary connection with life; but that righteousness is not of one kind. For as there are two covenants which God willed to make with men–the one legal and the other of grace–so also there is a twofold righteousness–legal and evangelical. Accordingly there is also a double justification or a double method of standing before God in judgment–legal and evangelical. The former consists in one’s own obedience or a perfect conformity with the law, which is in him who is to be justified; the latter in Christ. Concerning the first, Paul says, “Not the hearers, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom. 2:13); and “Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law. That the man which doeth those things shall live by them” (Rom. 10:5). Concerning the other, he says, “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:16, 17); and “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). Concerning both, he says, “That I may be found in Christ, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ” (Phil. 3:9; cf. also Rom. 9:30, 31). Hence a twofold justification flows: one in the legal covenant by one’s own righteousness according to the clause, “Do this and live”; and the other in the covenant of grace, by another’s righteousness (Christ’s) imputed to us and apprehended by faith according to the clause, “Believe and thou shalt be saved.” Each demands a perfect righteousness. The former requires it in the man to be justified, but the latter admits the vicarious righteousness of a surety. The former could have a place in a state of innocence, if Adam had remained in innocence. But because after sin it became impossible to man, we must fly to the other (i.e., the gospel), which is founded upon the righteousness of Christ. (637)

On the duplex beneficium:

… proved from the writings of our divines whether public or private, in which everywhere and with common consent they teach that the benefits of justification and sanctification are so indissolubly connected with each other that God justifies no one without equally sanctifying him and giving inherent righteousness by the creating of a new man in true righteousness and holiness. But the question is whether that inherent righteousness (such as exists in believers on earth) enters into our justification, either as its cause or as a part, so that it constitutes some part of our justification and is the meritorious cause and foundation of our absolving sentence in the judgment of God. Romanists, as they pretend that justification consists of two parts–remission of sin and internal renovation of mind–so they assert that the cause on account of which God justifies us is the righteousness of God, which (infused into us) constitutes us internally righteous. For although they do not appear to exclude entirely the righteousness of Christ, inasmuch as they hold that by it he merited that God should communicate to us by the Holy Spirit internal righteousness and thus it is a condition of the formal cause (i.e., of inherent righteousness that it may be given to man), still they maintain that the right to seek life depends upon inherent righteousness and that on account of it God justifies us. (638)

Concerning controversies over the doctrine:

…the controversy is not carried on coldly and unfeelingly in scholastic cloud and dust (as if from a distance), but in wrestling and agony–when the conscience is placed before God and terrified by a sense of sin and of the divine justice, it seeks a way to stand in the judgment and to flee from the wrath to come. It is indeed easy in the shades of the schools to prattle much concerning the worth of inherent righteousness and of works to the justification of men; but when we come into the sight of God, it is necessary to leave such trifles because there the matter is conducted seriously and no ludicrous disputes about words (logomachia) are indulged. Hither our eyes must be altogether raised if we wish to inquire profitably concerning true righteousness; in what way we may answer the heavenly Judge, when he shall have called us to account. Truly while among men the comparison holds good; each one supposes he has what is of some worth and value. But when we rise to the heavenly tribunal and place before our eyes that supreme Judge (not such as our intellects of their own accord imagine, but as he is described to us in Scripture [namely, by whose brightness the stars are darkened; at whose strength the mountains melt; by whose anger the earth is shaken; whose justice not even the angels are equal to bear; who does not make the guilty innocent; whose vengeance when once kindled penetrates even to the lowest depths of hell]), then in an instant the vain confidence of men perishes and falls and conscience is compelled (whatever it may have proudly boasted of before men concerning it own righteousness) to deprecate the judgment and to confess that it has nothing upon which it can rely before God. And so it cries out with David, “Lord, if thou marked iniquity, who can stand?”; and elsewhere, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant, because no flesh will be justified in thy sight.” (639-40)

Concerning Romans 6:

… And yet that inference would be founded upon no foundation at all, if Paul had wished to exclude only works done before faith. For who otherwise would gather that sin must not be indulged in after faith on this account because works antecedent to faith do not justify in the least? Now both kinds of works being excluded, it was easy to object this very thing, which the Romanists of the present day object to us (to wit, that it is useless to do good works if there is no merit in works; nay, we should rather sin that grace may abound). This objection of the profane, the apostle did not refute by a distinction between antecedent and subsequent works (which assuredly he ought to have done according to the hypothesis of our opponents); but by an explanation of sanctification and its indissoluble connection with justification. (642)

Concerning the distinction of law and gospel:

… if justification were by inherent righteousness, justification will be of the law, not of the gospel, and the two covenants will be confounded which are nevertheless constantly opposed as diametrically opposite each other. Legal justification takes place in no other way than by inherent righteousness, whether actual or habitual; gospel justification is to be sought not in us, but in another. This the apostle clearly teaches when he wishes to be “found in Christ” (to wit, in the judgment of God) “not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ” (Phil. 3:9) (i.e., not an inherent righteousness, arising from an observance of the law and which is called ours because it is in us and is perfected by our actions, but the righteousness of God and Christ, imputed to us and apprehended by faith). (643)

Regeneration and its relationship to justification:

 Paul does not say that we are justified by regeneration (Tit. 3:5-7); nay, since he ascribes justification to the grace of God and takes it away from works, he shows that he is unwilling to ascribe it to righteousness inhering by regeneration, which is rather the fruit than the cause of justification. But his intention is to point out how God will have us saved by two benefits which he bestows upon us–regeneration, of which the Holy Spirit is the author in us; and justification, which we obtain by Christ, by which we are made heirs of eternal life. That denotes the way of salvation, this its cause. (645)

Filed under: Law and Gospel, Quotes, Reformed Theology , Duplex Beneficium, Francis Turretin, Justification, Law and Gospel, Romans 6