Payton's Getting the Reformation Wrong: differences on justification?

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Professor
Occasionally I'll read Bird and he's an interesting character but that aside he quotes James Payton's Getting the Reformation Wrong:
The various Reformers reflected on how the great transaction promised in the gospel 'worked,' and they came to somewhat different insights. These sometimes reinforced each other, but at times they were in conflict. Luther emphasized the 'sweet exchange' between the sinner and 'Christ and that sinners are united to Christ by that faith impelled in them by the Holy Spirit. Melanchthon's regular stress on divine mercy fits closely with this, although bringing a different accent. Zwingli tied justification to the divine decree of election, with fail the temporal manifestation of what God intended from eternity past from his chosen. Bucer stressed that justification includes the reception of the Holy Spirit, who leads believers to live for God: 'Hence he [St. Paul] never uses the word "justify" in this way without appearing to speak no less of this imparting of true righteousness than of the found and head of our entire salvation, the forgiveness of sins.' Calvin stepped back from Bucer's declaration when he asserted that justification by faith precludes 'the sense ... that we receive within any righteousness,' but Calvin brought another emphasis when he asserted, 'Christ, therefore, makes us thus participants in himself in order that we, who are in ourselves sinners, may be, through Christ's righteousness, considered just before the throne of God.' But these differences were variant modulations within the Reforms' concerto. The Protestant Reformers agreed in emphasizing justification sola fide.
It seems these aren't exactly at odds but I'm not a huge Reformation scholar. Does anyone know about his work?
The post then goes onto say that Bucer doesn't buy into imputation and references the Tetrapolitan Confession but looking at it, the idea seems to be there since "merit of Christ" was mentioned.
Thoughts?
 
He appears to have held to a twofold justification. It is addressed by R. Scott Clark here:

 
Back
Top