Hi
If you are like me you have run across many Christians that are ignorant of many of the essential doctrines of the Church. In fact in some cases, I have found that many believe the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics are trivial at best and only seek to divide Christians.
I must admit that this perplexes me, so much so that I have written something I am thinking of giving to the next person who espouses such a view to me. However, before I do so, I have a feeling that if I do, I am going to get an earful. Although I don’t like it whenever people are mad at me, I never the less feel worse by remaining silent in cases like that.
However, I thought before I give this article I thought in order to avoid unnecessary criticism, I would first ask the Highway participants to critique it for me.


(Rough Draft)Our Justification


In this day and age in the Protestant Church, many who claim to be Protestant are ignorant of one of the core doctrines of which the Protestant Reformation was fought on.
What I am referring to is the issue of Justification, in particular the biblical doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’. At this point I thought I would include a brief explanation from the London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF), to explain what ‘imputed righteousness’ is.
LBCF:
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
In order to appreciate the significance of this part of the LBCF, I thought I would also provide something written on it by Samuel Waldron.
Paragraph 1 of the Confession enunciates the classic Protestant distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ. This distinction has been popularly understood to entail a division of Christ's work into two divisions or parts. The perfect life of obedience to the law of God up to, but not including the cross, has been viewed as Christ's active obedience. Such an understanding, however, has no biblical support. The active and passive obedience of Christ are not two separate parts of Christ's work, but his one work looked at in two ways. Philippians 2:8, for instance, describes Christ as "becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross'. In many places the cross is viewed as the culminating activity in Christ's obedience to the Father's will (John 14:31; 15:10; Rom. 5:17-19; Heb. 5:8-9; 10:5-10).
If there is no division of Christ's obedience into two separate parts in the Bible, why is this distinction necessary? The answer is that we had a twofold need if we were to inherit eternal life. We needed, firstly, the forgiveness of the guilt of our sins. This is provided by Christ's passive obedience, his suffering the penalty of the law. Secondly, we needed the gift of a positive righteousness. This is provided by Christ's active obedience, his obedience to the precepts of God's law and all the other dimensions of the preceptive will of the Father for him.

Why is this doctrine so important and what in particular am I so concerned about?
What I am so concerned about is the fact that today, many Christians talk as though they believe that the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants are trivial at best. What they believe to be more important is whether or not people believe in Jesus Christ. I have also heard it said by some that they believe what is important to them is not whether or not someone understands doctrine itself, but whether or not they actually live out their faith or not.
On the surface there is some good logic in this, for it I indeed true that unless one lives out what they believe, their doctrine is useless. However, what people who trivialize the doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’ fail to realize, is the fact that incorrect doctrine brings incorrect belief no matter how sincere the person is. This of course means that they can’t live out what the Bible actually teaches.
One of the reasons I attribute the ignorance of people is the fact that in many cases the doctrines of the Church (such as imputed righteousness) are not/ or not adequately taught in the Church.
Another aspect that I believe is important to mention is the fact that the doctrines of the Church are not just meant for the educated (such as pastors and teachers) in the Church. They are meant for every single member of the body of Christ. That doesn’t mean that every person is going to understand these doctrines to the same degree, but they should seek to understand at least the basics of the doctrines of the Church.
It also doesn’t necessary mean that all people are going to know all the theological terms that are used for biblical doctrines, but they should at least understand the truth that these biblical doctrines convey. A side note to this is the fact that as I talk to some Christians they are intimidated by words such as “doctrine” (teaching) and “theology” (the study of God). In fact so much so that when they are used, they don’t even want to discuss it any more. Some that do this have said that people that use these terms do so because they want to show how superior their knowledge is over others.
While I believe that in some cases this may be true, I also believe by and large it is just a cop out for those who are just too lazy to learn the truths behind what these words convey. If they were genuinely interested in knowing, they would either ask what these terms mean, or find out for themselves. Something by the way, that for anyone interested, is not hard to find out. I fear also that it may also be a symptom of a far greater problem. That problem is that they may not even be saved.
I thought I would end this article with a Latin saying that was common among the Protestant Reformers.
“The doctrine of justification is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. “ This means: the article on which the Church stands or falls.
If the Reformers were correct about this, can we afford to trivialize the issue?