Pastorally speaking, the problem with a future justification is much more serious than a theoretical discussion of theology.  These are not peripheral issues. It cuts really deep.  It goes down to the marrow of the bone. I don’t know if some people realize this or not.  Maybe the emotionalism of two women should have no place in this debate.  Some would say, let’s just keep it exegetical. Well, in my opinion when such views lead ladies like these two Christian women to tears, maybe there is something wrong with our exegesis.

On two separate occasions while I was in the pastoral ministry, different women asked me about the controversies in the Reformed Church, one in regard to Federal Vision, and the other in regard to eschatological justification.  Neither of them used these terms.  They had just heard about the disruption among ministers in Reformed circles.

These women were not particularly theologians, but they were reformed in the sense that they understood the doctrines of grace and the ordo salutis (order of salvation).  They were godly women.  I had taught them over the years that their only hope was in the cross and the imputed righteousness of Christ. They understood that sanctification necessarily followed justification, but their hope for salvation was not based on their sanctification.  The imputed righteousness of Christ was the only thing that gave them solace and peace in their Christian walk.

With some hesitancy, at their inquiry, I tried to describe a view of justification on the Day of Judgment according to works, even though those works were impure and were by the grace of God. I told them that in the view of some, these works whereby men would be justified in the future were the fruit of sanctification.

Alas!  Almost immediately, both of them came to the edge of tears.  I noticed, too, how irritable and angry they had become.  Even though they were not theologians, they instantly understood the implication of what I was saying.  These views were stealing from them the only hope that had for being right with God.  If we take away or add to the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as our only hope both now and on the judgment day, then ultimately, we are left with no hope but our own works.  They understood this clearly.  For a moment, it led them to despair.

It was a mess. As a pastor, I had seen women cry before (and men, too), but this was different.  We were not dealing with particular sins, bad marriages, or even problems with children.  We were dealing with the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  We were dealing with the only thing that had brought peace to their minds.

So, what did I do?  I quickly distanced myself from these new views, and assured them that such views were unorthodox.  Suddenly, they were relieved.  I had been their pastor for a very long time and they trusted me.  They were still a little angry but no longer on the edge of tears. They left the conversation satisfied with my explanation, and quickly returned to their normal daily duties.

Pastorally speaking, the problem with a future justification is much more serious than a theoretical discussion of theology.  These are not peripheral issues. It cuts really deep.  It goes down to the marrow of the bone. I don’t know if some people realize this or not.

Maybe the emotionalism of two women should have no place in this debate.  Some would say, let’s just keep it exegetical. Well, in my opinion when such views lead ladies like these two Christian women to tears, maybe there is something wrong with our exegesis.

Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tennessee.