Justification?
A thought:
Is the real issue between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism not an absolute sola fide (since at least some Reformed thinkers affirmed a final judgment of some kind according to works) or an imputation of Christ’s active obedience (since many Protestants, even Calvinists, did not and do not affirm such a doctrine), but rather that justification is (a) forensic rather than dynamic, (b) by grace (i.e., incorporating forgiveness) rather than according to strict merit, and (c) can be known as a present status that will carry on into eternity (though not necessarily with infallible certainty, since most Protestants have historically not affirmed that is possible)?
I can’t see why any of the concerns that “TR’s” have (or, Martin Luther might have had) with a presentation of justification like the “FV” or NT Wright give would not be met if they affirmed those three conditions, which both of the latter parties do. And I think it is taken for granted by the vast majority of Paul scholars that on those counts, Luther was right in his reading of Paul. So what is all the fuss about?
A really spontaneous group of thoughts on the matter:
1) The means by which someone is justified is important to Christianity.
2) The Bible is pretty clear about the cause (grace through faith) and that it will often carry signs – i.e.: symptoms (works) though the reliability of symptoms is not 100% in all strains of Christianity (think some forms of Calvinism). This is obviously greatly simplified and there are myriad ways to understand the causes and symptoms of justification.
3) Since there are variants of 2) and since per 1) this is an important topic, it is easy for theological opponents – especially if there is already friction between them – to say that the other side has conflated the causes and symptoms of justification in some important manner or another. Of course per 1) this is a very dangerous mistake to make.
4) Depending on the situation this may be something that is very disconcerting to an honest believer or it may be a cudgel with which to beat up theological opponents just because, well, they are your opponents. I don’t want to pronounce on the motives in each case.
5) This is probably going to be an ongoing issue especially in reformed circles for the reasons given above.
Anyway, that’s what I *think* the fuss is about.