Growing up, this is roughly the picture of justification that I had. I first went to a baptist church, then a presbyterian one, and virtually everyone I knew held to something like this (though we wouldn't have used fancy terms such as 'imputation', and we almost never talked about 'justification' but tended to use locutions such as "being saved", "being born again", "accepting Jesus into your heart", etc.).
Let's see. I accept that there is me (not as skinny) with a frowny face (because of my sin I suppose) and that there is Christ, I suppose signified by the cross (though Romans 4:25 seems to suggest that the crucifixion is only a part of the total justificatory event). I accept the black cloud of guilt (which, by the way, is an awesome name for a metal band), and I accept the yellow cloud of righteousness.
I also am okay with the blue double-arrow 'transfer', but what I hesitate to endorse is the notion of transfer by imputation.
What I think that means is that despite my current sin, God (I suppose some mean here the Father) no longer regards me as guilty, and so I am completely forgiven of my sins since all that is being acknowledged by God is the righteousness of Christ which has been "imputed" but not "infused" (that is, it is merely an extrinsic change). So I'm not really righteous, but God will "let me into heaven" since all that he takes into account is Christ's righteousness. This is so even if there is no literal, intrinsic change in me.
I take this to be the fundamental dividing point between the early reformers and RC. Here's what Calvin says:
"What is justification? They deny that it is merely the forgiveness of sins, and insist that it includes both renovation and sanctification... There is no room for the vulgar quibble that Paul is speaking of the beginning of justification [in 2 Corinthians 5:19, Romans 4:6]; for in both places he is showing, not how men who had hitherto been unbelievers begin to be righteous, but how they retain the righteousness which they have once procured during the whole course of life" (Calvin Antidote to the Council of Trent).
Of course, Calvin (like Luther) still thinks there is a place for sanctification and regeneration, which takes place by the Spirit due to one's union with Christ:
"We acknowledge, then, that as soon as any one is justified, renewal also necessarily follows: and there is no dispute as to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom he justifies" (ibid.).
However, he stresses that justification is, nevertheless, an external matter:
"The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration... I maintain that it is one, and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine" (ibid.) [my emphasis].
This will, I believe, be the main division between the Reformers and me. First of all, I think the best evidence of Scripture does not support a theory of justificatory-imputation (good luck finding 'imputation' in the Bible). Second, I think that a proper account of justification will include much more than mere forgiveness of sins (I'll say a lot more on this later, but my thinking on this matter has been heavily influenced by Protestant folk such as N.T. Wright and Dallas Willard).
I suppose that one can disagree with the Reformers and remain protestant (just as Wright and Willard, and a whole host of Christians who take justification to be more than forgiveness of sins--I think most contemporary evangelicals that don't have a Calvinistic or Reformed bent would hold to a theory of justification similar to mine, since I was, after all, influenced mostly by contemporary evangelicals). But my question then would be, "What is the reason for remaining separated?". If, like me, one thinks that unity is a necessary condition for the Church unless there is some overriding reason (such as a major disagreement over justification), then if there are many whose understanding of justification is compatible with RC, then why not join? *
One could respond and say, "Well, you're clearly not a reformed believer, but you might be something else, perhaps Wesleyan, perhaps Anglican, perhaps emergent, perhaps non-denominational, perhaps fundamentalist evangelical, perhaps health-and-wealth-Joel-Osteen-shiny-white-teeth-er, etc.. There are a whole host of other options for protestants besides being Reformed or Lutheran".
I will eventually examine protestants of different varieties, not just the magisterial reformers. But these guys were the big-daddies, so I don't mind spending extra time here.
*(I'm not that naive. Of course many protestants will say, "Because we don't accept the Pope", or "Look at all the corruption in the Roman church", or "They worship Mary and other saints", or "They believe in all this extra-biblical stuff like purgatory", or "they think you get saved by works", or.... I will in time address all these issues, God willing. But I still think the main divide is over justification; and if there is no reason to accept the Luther/Calvin account and if one has an account compatible with RC, then I wonder if it is incumbent on us to join the church despite disagreements on other issues that I take to be marginal).
