A Question for Protestants about Justification

Dear Protestants:

You say (or at least those of you who hold to the historic Reformed doctrine of justification say) that our acceptance with God as righteous in his sight is based solely and completely on the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ to us, and not at all on anything God does within us in our sanctification.  I want to ask for further clarification as to exactly what you mean by this.

Do you mean by this that imputation alone makes us actually fully right with God, considered completely apart from anything sanctification might contribute?  Or would you rather say that imputation gives us all we need to be right with God, but that the full actualization of that state requires also that imputation bear its fruit in us in our sanctification?

Perhaps an analogy will help.  At the creation, God said, "Let there be light!", and there was light.  There was God's command or decree, and then there was the actualization of that decree.  In principle, God's decree contained everything needed, for that decree in itself brought into existence the light.  And yet the decree was not fulfilled or actualized until the light actually came into existence.

Is this comparable to how justification works?  The imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ gives us everything we need to be right with God and his moral law, but the full fulfillment and actualization of that new relationship requires that imputation bear its fruit in us in our sanctification, as we are regenerated and then further sanctified by God's grace.  If (which is impossible) we were to have imputation without sanctification, we would have the promise of a right relationship with God but not the full actualization of that relationship, because we would remain enemies to God in our actual attitude and behavior, and God would continue to be morally displeased with our moral condition.  Just like if God said "Let there be light!", but no light actually came into existence.  In such a case, the decree and the imputation would be nothing more than a legal fiction, declaring a reality that never actually fully comes to fruition.

Or would you instead say that imputation, by itself, not only contains all we need in principle but also carries with it without consideration of sanctification the full actualization of a right relationship with God and full acceptance before him and his moral law as perfectly righteous?  In this case, if (which is impossible) we could imagine having imputation without regeneration or sanctification, we would still be fully morally acceptable to God and his moral law.  The absence of sanctification would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to our complete acceptance with God as fully righteous.

Your answer to this question is crucial, for the two different answers here constitute two very different doctrines of justification.  This is a very serious matter in itself, since justification is a central doctrine to the Christian faith.  It is also a serious matter with regard to Catholic-Protestant dialogue, since Catholics would agree with the first answer to the question but would strongly object to the second answer (on the grounds that it destroys the moral importance of sanctification and restricts righteousness to being a purely legal and not also an experiential reality).  The question between Catholics and Protestants is not over whether we are justified by Christ's righteousness or our own righteousness.  We all agree we are justified by Christ's righteousness.  The question is not whether the imputation of Christ's righteousness gives us everything we need to be right with God.  We all agree that it does.  The question is rather over whether our moral acceptance with and moral relationship with God is a purely legal matter or whether it also has an essential experiential component, so that it is not fully actualized without being realized in God's work inside of us as well as God's legal work outside of us.

So what is your answer?

To explore this issue more fully, see this fictional dialogue between a Catholic and a Reformed Protestant.  Also, see here for a sermon I wrote up as a Reformed Protestant where I laid out my own view of the relationship between justification and sanctification.  My view was the same as the view I label as the reasonable view above.  I hold the same view today as a Catholic.

Published on the feast of St. Patrick