Justification is by Christ Alone not Faith alone !

anthony55 said:

This boils down to saying, that Christ was mistaken when He said it is finished

Click to expand...

Anthony, I hope you're objective enough to at least entertain the possibility that it also may mean that you are mistaken in your understanding of what Christ meant by "it is finished." The rest of this argument others have covered very well.

It has become that a merging of personal obedience [ believing]

Click to expand...

This is a straw man that some have created to try to stereotype anyone who believes (obeys) differently than them. Notice how it didn't fit when I tried to put the word "obedience" with "believe" when describing your approach? This is a straw man, created by those who have this perspective, and then they proceed to tear down that straw man.

Paul didn't confuse obedience - to standards, principles, the law, works - with faith. He contrasted them. Galatians. No one, and I mean no one, that I've ever met has ever regarded the faith by which they were saved as works that made them commendable to God. If you believe that, then I think that's sad. If you won't back up a little in order to re-evaluate and be objective about that concept, I think that's even more sad. But, I've had this debate before; and the pastor had no desire to entertain anything different. He made his straw man, called it H., and tore it down; and felt good about it. After all, isnt that what this is all about? Making the "good flesh" feel good because we are RIGHT?

anthony55 said:

hupo:Thats what it means,( regarding Abraham believing , then reckoned as righteous)

Click to expand...

You missed the point. That's not what it says. Why didn't God say what He meant?

anthony55 said:

hupo: Thats what it means.

Click to expand...

Then why didn't God say what He meant?

anthony55 said:

Next I will show where this grace originated.

Click to expand...

I already know, but knock yourself out. I always welcome teaching.

Can I consider Anthony's as the best defense of the "salvation is by grace and not through faith" position? If so, this will settle a long meditated-on issue for me. I just need to know.

Let us try another approach.

Several years ago, after many a debate over just this very topic, I researched this topic and wrote a papaer on it.

And here it is:




“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” –Eccl. 1:9 (KJV)

A Christian in their walk, will soon discover that the doctrines they have been raised upon, cherish, led to believe, embrace, will soon come under some scrutiny, or attack. Or, you may find preachers teaching contrary to what you know. This should come as no surprise as the battles we fight today, are the same ones fought for nearly 2000 years.

Just as Paul fought “legalizers” in the first century, many a “legalist” exist today. All one has to do is read Paul’s epistles to the Romans and the Galatians. And today, we have in our churches groups of people who preach and teach variations of “legalism.”

That is the reason this writer undertook the task of restudying the doctrine of justification. Even as there was confusion in the first century, today there is much confusion on the same issue. It is clouded in debate and doctrines. So it was thought that a re-examination of this doctrine was needed.

The Meaning of “dikiaow”

Our Greek word has its root in the Greek word “dikh”. This word means “right”, “justice”; in the NT, judicial punishment, vengeance; 2 Thes. 1:9; Jude 7; sentence of punishment, judgment, Acts 25:15; personified, the goddess of justice or vengeance, Nemesis, Paena, Acts 28:4.


This word draws directly from the Hebrew word “tsadag” (tsaw-dak). Which is rendered in the OT as “justify”, “righteous”, “just”, “justice”, “cleansed”, “cleanse ourselves”, “righteousness”.


Plato links “dikaiow” with “dikh” saying it denotes obligations to men and to God, and therefore indicates “one who fulfills obligations towards men,” fulfillment of religious duties often attributed to this by such terms as : osioV, eusebhV, qeopilhV, qeosebhV. [1]


Looking at the word in the LXX, it is a “forensic” term. Yet in the LXX, the predominate usage does not carry a negative meaning as some Greek usage: (w QemistokleeV, en toisi agwsi oi proexanistamenoi rapizontai. o de apoluomenoV efh oi de ge egkataleipomenoi ou stefanountai.[2]) but is constantly used in the most positive sense of “to pronounce righteous,” “to justify”, “to vindicate”. The forensic element is even stronger in the Masoretic text in that the Masoretic Isa. 42:25 is rendered as they find righteousness with Yahweh, and in the LXX it is rendered that they are declared righteous by him (apo kuriou dikaiw qhsoutai).


The LXX uses dikaioun in these ways which should be noted:

1. (a). Active (hiphil)- “to declare someone as righteous,” “to acquit someone,” “to secure justice for him.” According to the legal custom of Israel, this “dikaioun” may not apply for the “asebhV” (wicked) cf. Ex. 23:7; Isa. 5:23. Only the “just” (dikaioV) may be declared righteous (cf. Deut. 25:1), materially: “oV dikaion krinei ton adikon de ton dikaion” (Prov. 17:15); and from the religious standpoint: “kurioV krinei laouV krinon me kurie kata thn dikaioswnhn mou kai kata thn akakian mou ep emoi” (cf. Psa. 7:9).

(b). Tar (pi)- “to prove to be innocent or righteous” Jer. 3:11: “edikaiwsen thn fuchn autou israhl apo thV asunqetou Iouda,” “it has shown itself more righteous than” Ezek. 16:51: “edikaiiwaV taV adelfaV sou” “thou hast justified thy sisters”.

2. Passive a. Of the vindication or right conduct of man (especially the chosen people) in relation to Yahweh: Isa. 43:9: “dikaiwqhtwsan; ina dikaiwqhV” (vs. 26). Related is the usage in Psa. 142:2: “oti ou dikaiwqhsetai enwpion sou pas zwn,” the LXX renders “no one can be pronounced righteous (justified) before God’s judgment,” this clearly makes the Masoretic sharper (nothing living is righteous in thy sight), here it is asserted not only universal sinfulness but the impossibility of justification. In Gal. 2:16, and in Rom. 3:20, Paul adds: “ex ergwn nomou” which shows that the Psa. 142:2 passage had an impact on Paul’s understanding of justification.

3. Passive in the intransitive sense: “dikaiwqhnai” as a translation of the Hebrew word in Gen. 44:16 where Judah asks: “ti dikaiwqwmen” “how shall we (justify) clean ourselves?”

Plato also links “dikaiaoV” with ethics for whom righteousness is a distinctly political virtue, it is firmly anchored in the soul of men, who inwardly comes to what is proper to himself, to inner order and the harmony of spiritual virtues. (Resp. IV, 443c ff)

Looking into the Greek and Hellenistic Writings

Plato says: “nomoV o pantwnbasileuV/ageidikaiwn to biaiotaton/upertata ceipi”: “the law makes a “dikaion” and declares to be right what otherwise would be supremely arbitrary.” U.v. Wilamauiety in “Platon”, II, (1920) p. 93,99 argues instead: “biaiwn to dikaiotaton” (doing violence to absolute righteousness) (cf. J. Geffchen, Studier zu Plat., Geor., Herm., 65, (1930) p. 19.) But A. Busse, Herm., 66 (1931) 126 ff, argues for the older reading.


According to Plato’s exposition[3], there is thus carried through: “to thV fusewV dikaion”. In accordance with nature, the law gives the character of right to even the most arbitrary act. It is keeping with the nuance in Plindar that that the term is often used for divine rule and order in the law: cf. Philo, Spec. Leg., I, 67,109,140; II, 72, 113; III, 172, 180; etc; and once in Josephus, Ant., 4, 278.

It was during the Greek/Hellenistic period that the word begins to be defined from the legal sphere and takes a general usage in the sense of “fair or right”, i.e.; to formulate for oneself as “dikaion”. (cf.: “axioun, dikimoun”) This is the most common usage: Soph. Oed., Tyr., 6, 575, 640; Oed. Col., 1350, 1642; Hdt., I, 89; Thuc., IV, 122, 5; this is true of both Josephus and Philo. (cf. Josh., Ant. 9, 187; 12, 1224; 19, 305; Philo, Abr., 142, 171; Migr., Abr., 73, Vit. Mos., I, 44; etc) Josephus who also uses this word ten times, never deviates from Greek usage.

When the word is applied personally, a widespread usage springs up to mean: “to establish”: “to dikaion” for someone,” “to treat rightly,” “to secure justice for someone.” This can take a negative connotation; i.e.; “to judge”, “to punish”, (cf. “kakoun”, “to do wrong” “doloun”, “to outwit,” “zhloun”, etc.)


Turning our attention to another area, particular notice should be given to the usage in the Mystical. In the Corpus Hermeticum, written by unknown authors in Egypt around the end of the third century A.D., once considered substantial literature attributed to the mystical figure of Hermes Trismegistus, this literature came out of the same religious and philosophical ferment that produced Neo-Platonism, it is recorded:

“cwriV gar krisewV ide twV thn adikian exhlasen. edikaiwqhmen, w teknon, adikaiaV apowshV”[4] (See how [the measure of] the Good is full, my son, upon truths coming. For envy is gone from us: and unto truth is joined the Good as well, with Life and Light.)[5]

The formula here perhaps consciously is given a Christian reference, and means: “we have become sinless.” “dikaiosinh” is made over to the mystic as “adikia” is driven out by the destruction of all evil desires deriving from the body. (cf. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. II, “dikaiosumh”, p. 193) But the idea of being declared righteous in judgment is rejected, and there is perhaps a polemic against the Judaeo-Christian concept of “dikaiwqhnai”. It may even be that the Egyptian idea of justification by the judgment of the dead is here given a mystical application. According to this conception, the dead are set by Osiris on the scales, weighed, and then pronounced righteous because their good works are predominate (though knowledge also counts). Stains are removed by rites of expiation and magic.

dikaiow in the N.T.


The concept of vindication/justification is found twice. Once it is used in the sense of “to justify God”. A similar usage is to be found in the “edikaiwqh en pneumati” of the hymn to Christ in 1 Tim. 3:16, for which “redeemed” is hardly adequate. The idea that Christ was justified in the sphere of the spirit, i.e.: that his claim to be Christ was demonstrated and validated by the resurrection (in contrast to the “edikaiwqn en sarki”).[6]

Then we have the concept of “to justify oneself,” “to represent oneself as righteous.” A weaker sense, which yet still betrays its legal origin, the lawyer (nomikoV) in Lk. 10:29: “dikaiwsai eautou” seeks to vindicate himself in the debate. The character of the Pharisees is testified to in this manner: “ymeis este oi dikaiounteV eautouV twn anqrwpwn” (you are those justifying yourselves before men) “to declare or to represent oneself as righteous” is much closer to the main N.T. usage. The attribute of the “dikaioV” anticipates what God alone can establish by His pronouncement.


We also have “dikaiwqhnai” in the sense of saving righteousness in the Synopitists. Paul is not only one to use the term in strict legal sense. Luke’s statement concerning the publican in 18:14: “katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eis ton oikon autou h ekeinon” can only mean “acquitted” “declared righteous.” The saying assumes a present righteousness, [7] though in distinction from Paul, there is no reference to the saving act of the cross.[8] The reference in Mt. 12:37: “ek gar twn logwn sou dikaiwqhsh” (for the words of you, you will be justified)[9] is exclusively to the last judgment.

Justification from the Reformed and Baptist Perspective

What we have looked at thus far has been a development of the word from O.T. times, through the Greek and Hellenistic periods and briefly looked at some usages in the Gospels. Most of the errors which have been prevalent on this subject arose from the lack of a clear view of the thing itself, and until we understand what justification is, we are in no position to affirm or deny anything concerning it.

The great Reformer John Calvin said:

“We simply explain justification to be an acceptance by which God receives us into His favor and esteems us as righteous persons; and we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ…Justification, therefore, is no other than an acquittal from guilt of him who was accused, as though his innocence has been proved. Since God, therefore, justifies us through the mediation of Christ, He acquits us, not by an admission of our personal innocence, but by an imputation of the righteousness, so that who are unrighteous in ourselves, are considered as righteous in Christ.”

In the Westminster Catechism of 1643, it says:

“Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.”


The New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1833 says:


“Of Justification We believe that the great gospel blessing which Christ secures to such as believe in him is Justification; that Justification includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer's blood; by virtue of which faith his perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God; that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity.”


We say that justification is used in the “forensic” sense. The word “justify” is the language of the law, from the courts. It is a legal term. It is the sentence of a judge upon a person who has been brought before him for judgment. Let us illustrate; Colorado has the most liberal gun laws in the U.S. And they say that if a person feels threatened by an intruder in the process of breaking and entering into a person’s home, the homeowner has the right to use deadly force to secure his and/or his families safety.


A man is released from jail. That night he decides to break into a home and rob it. While breaking into the home, the homeowner is awakened and gets up. He goes to investigate he sees the intruder and startles him. The intruder turns to attack the homeowner. The homeowner produces a gun and shoots the intruder dead. If the homeowner is brought before a judge, he could not be charged with any crime because the requirements of the law had been fulfilled. Because the requirements of the law had been met, fulfilled, the homeowner was “justified” in using deadly force to secure his and his families safety. Therefore, the condemnation of the law could not be brought to bear against the homeowner. He was not guilty, the law could not condemn him.


And that is the language of the Bible. When on that great day when we believers come to stand before the judgment seat, the condemnation of God’s Law cannot condemn us, because all the requirements of the Law; i.e.; perfect obedience, has already been fulfilled by our substitute, Jesus Christ, He has fulfilled those requirements for us. “Therefore there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus”. We will stand justified in the sight of God.


Justification has to do with the “legal” side of salvation. And because it is a legal term, a judicial declaration, the scriptures make it perfectly clear who this is, and who its author is. The Apostle Paul says:


“It is God that justifieth.” –Rom. 8:33 (KJV)


This very same principle was laid down by God in the “Law”:


“If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.” –Deut. 25:1 (KJV)


Here we see from the “Law” how the word “justify” shows its “legal” origin, and how it is used in the forensic sense. God has laid down a rule to govern the judges in Israel: they must not justify or pass sentence in favor of the wicked.
Because justification is forensic in nature and a legal term, therefore justification deals with the believers standing in relation to the “Law”. So we state that justification refers not to a change in moral character, but solely to a change in legal status. Whereas we once stood condemned by the “Law” in our sinful state, the believer has now passed from a state of condemnation to one of acceptance through the obedience and fulfillment of the requirements that are received by faith alone, thus changing us to righteous and justified by imputation by an act of God.

The Roman Catholic Church stands opposed to this in that they believe there is an “infusion” of grace. We do not say this harshly, for many of the great doctrines of the Bible were preserved by them. However, their doctrine concerning justification betrays its “man-centered” theology. An overview of their doctrine shows that they readily admit that there is no good in fallen man; that he can merit nothing and claim nothing on the ground of anything he is, or can do himself. He is by nature, dead in sin, and until he is made a partaker of a new life by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit, he can do nothing but sin. For Christ’s sake, and only through His merits, as a matter of grace, this new life is “imparted” to the soul in regeneration (as they define regeneration through baptism). As life expels death; as light dispels darkness; so the entrance of this new divine life into the soul expels sin (sinful habits), and brings forth the fruits of righteousness.


Works done after regeneration have “real” merit. “Meritum condigmi”, and are the ground for a second justification; the first justification consisting in making the soul inherently just by the infusion of righteousness. Now, according to this view, we are not justified by works done before regeneration, but we are justified for gracious works, i.e.: for works which spring from the principle of divine life infused into the heart. Thus the whole ground of our acceptance with God is made to be what we are, and what we can do.


Infusion stands opposed to imputation. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “infuse” as:


1. To cause to be permeated with something (as a principle or quality that alters usually for the better).
2. Inspire, animate.
3. To steep in liquid (as water) without baiting so as to extract soluble constituents or principles.
4. To administer or inject by infusion.


Standing opposed to this is the Greek word “ellogew”:


“From en logw, this means “to lay to account”, and id this a so-called “hypostasis” like “egceirein” from en ceiri”[10]

Properly, “imputation” is an accounting term. An example of this is the statement made by the Apostle Paul in the book of Philemon. Paul says to Onesemus that if he has suffered any loss because of the runaway slave Philemon, that he should lay that “to his account”. (cf. Phlm. 18) Any debt that Onesemus accrued from the loss, that he should “charge” that to his account.

The idea being expressed here is that there is a great accounting book. In it, are all the liabilities (specifically our sins) of men on one side, and on the debit (credit) side is the righteousness of Christ. In the saving act of the cross, Christ had mans liabilities charged, laid to His account, imputed to Him. And when the repentant comes to Christ in repentance, believing by faith that He is the Son of God, crucified for their sins, risen from the dead on the third day, our liabilities, our sins, are imputed to Christ, and forgiven, then by imputation, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.

Salvation is by grace through faith, (cf. Eph. 2:8) of this, nearly nobody disagrees. The scriptures clearly teach that our righteousness, our justification, comes by imputation and not by infusion.

In Romans 8:1, Paul says:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,”

What Paul is expressing here is that believers are absolved from guilt, the penalty of the “Law” cannot be inflicted upon the. Against the elect in Christ, no ground of condemnation can be presented. God has pronounced them just, and no one can pronounce them guilty. “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” (cf. Rom. 8:33) Condemnation stands opposed to justification. And this passage and the following one (v. 34) opposes the doctrine of subjective justification in any form. Job says:

“If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me:” –Job 9:20 (KJV)

“wilt thou condemn him that is most just?” –Job 34:17 (KJV)

To condemn does not mean to make wicked, to justify does not mean to make good. So if condemnation is a judicial act, so is justification. Let’s illustrate this point: wax cannot become hard by the imputation of “hardness” from a rock, a brute cannot become rational by the imputation of “intellect” of a man, and likewise, a man cannot become good by the imputation of the “goodness” of another man. As we have said previously, “dikaioV” is opposed to “upodikoV.” The man whom justice is not satisfied is “upodikoV”, “guilty”. And standing opposed to this the man with whom justice has been satisfied, his is “dikaioV,” “righteous.” But to declare one as righteous is not to declare him holy. Therefore, to impute righteousness does not impute goodness. It simply means to regard those who have received the gift of Christ’s righteousness, free from the condemnation of the Law, and entitled to eternal life for his sake.

Another misconception on the “infusion” idea is that at Christ’s baptism, He received an “infusion” of the Holy Spirit. Three things come to mind against this idea:

1. In any human being, their DNA contains traces of both parents. The Bible teaches that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
2. Christ, being God, negates the very teaching that Christ needed an “infusion” of the Holy Spirit to perform His miracles.
3. Being God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, the scriptures teach that even at an early age Christ “waxed strong in the spirit”. (cf. Lk. 2:40)

So, Christ was not “infused”, the Holy Spirit did not come upon him at His baptism.

Therefore, if condemnation is judicial, as opposed to an executive act, so is justification. In condemnation it is a judge who pronounces guilty. In justification, it is a judge who pronounces or declares the person free from guilt and therefore entitled to be treated as righteous.

One final item before we move on. In Rom. 5:16, we read:

“And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.”

Here in this verse is a key phrase. We see:

“krima ex enoV eiV katakrima,”

This shows us that it was a judicial judgment “krima”, “a judicial sentence” that has passed unto all men by the disobedience of one. If it was a judicial sentence passed, then justification also has to be a judicial sentence passed. Next we see:

“for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” –Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul teaches us that the “Law” is “holy,” “just,” and “good.” (cf. Rom. 7:12) And it is, but the “Law” has a flaw, a fault:

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” –Heb. 8:7 (KJV)

The Law had promises for everything. If you sinned, the Law made provision for atonement. If you committed a crime, the Law had a provision for punishment. If you contracted Leprosy, the Law had a provision for that. If you wanted to convert to Judaism, the Law had a provision for that. But the one thing the Law absolutely could not do was to pronounce the sinner “righteous.” “For if righteousness came by the Law, then Christ died in vain.”

In the Old Testament, the name which the Messiah was foretold was: “The Lord our Righteousness” (cf. Jer. 23:6). Daniel said that he should come here to:

“make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” –Dan. 9:24 (KJV)

The prophet Isaiah said:


“Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” –Isa. 45:24-25 (KJV)


And speaking of the redeemed, he says:


“I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness,” –Isa. 61:10 (KJV)


Being as since Christ is called “The Lord our Righteousness”, this indicates our righteousness must lie in something besides ourselves. The other point of the Law is that it demands a perfect obedience. Thus James states:


“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” –Jas. 2:10 (KJV)


Strongly opposed to the doctrine that after salvation, works have real merit, is this verse:


“whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” –Gal. 5:4 (KJV)


In Romans 4:6-8, we read:


“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”


Here we see two things; God imputing righteousness, and God not imputing sins. These two things are never separate. Unto whom God imputes not sin, He imputes righteousness; likewise, unto whom He imputes righteousness, He imputes not sin. Now we may ask this question: Whose righteousness is it that God imputes, reckons, places to the account of the one who believes?


The answer quite simply is, that righteousness which was wrought out by our Surety, that obedience to the Law which was rendered by our Savior: “the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Pet. 1:1). This righteousness was not only unto all, but “unto all that believe”. (cf. Rom. 3:22)

It is called “the righteousness of God” because it was the righteousness of the God-man Mediator, just as in Acts 20:28 his blood is called the blood of God.


The “righteousness of God” is referenced frequently in Romans refers not to the essential righteousness of His divine character, for that cannot be possibly imputed or transferred to any man. When in Rom. 10:3 we are told that the Jews were “ignorant of God’s righteousness” most certainly does not mean they were in the dark concerning divine righteousness or that they knew nothing about God’s justice, rather, it signified that they were unenlightened as to the righteousness which Jesus had wrought out for His people. We know this from the other half of the verse which states: “and going about to establish their own righteousness” –not their own rectitude or justice, but performing works by which they hoped to merit acceptance with God. So engraved in their minds with the “works” based system, they “submitted not themselves unto the righteousness of God”; that is, they refused to turn from their self-righteousness and put their trust in the obedience and sufferings of the Son of God. Now let us turn our attention to…

Continued...

[1] Plato, Gorgias, 507b; Polybius: dikaia with dsia. Histories, XXII, 10, 8

[2] “Themistocles, at the games those who start before the signal are beaten with rods.” Themistocles said in justification. “Those left behind win no crown.” Herodotus, Histories, Book VIII, Chapter 59, A.D. Godfey, Cambridge, Howard University Press, 1920.

[3] Cf. Leg., III, 690c, IV, 715a.

[4] Reilzenstion Paim, 343; Scott, I, 244. Cf. Reitzenstion Hell., Myst., 258 ff., C.F.G. Heinrice, Die Hermes-Mystic v.d. N.T. (1918), p. 37

[5] The Secret Sermon on the Mountain

[6] They knew morally as opposed to spiritually.

[7] Str.-B. II, 247 f.

[8] The "par ekeinon" B L Or, better than "mulla par" D and h gar ekeinoV. is to be taken in an absolutelt exclusively sense, cf. 4 Esr. 12:6: prae multis (p. 213). Hence it has nothing whatever to do with the comp. or superl. use of "dikaioV", nor with an expression like 1 Bas. 24:18: "dikaioV su uper eme" "thou art more righteous than I"

[9] Rabb. par. in Schl. Mt., 412

[10] Herbert Preisher, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Translator, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, Vol. II, ellogew, p. 516

The Ground of our Justification

The ground on which we as Christians stand justified in the sight of God is Jesus Christ. On this, nearly all would agree. However, there is confusion on other matters relating to this doctrine. And we will attempt to examine some of these. How can a man be just with God? Paul stated:

“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,” –Rom. 4:6 (KJV)

If our moral excellences are not the ground on which God pronounces us just, what is that ground? Depending on which denomination you belong to, the answer varies.

Roman Catholic Doctrine


Before anything is said on this subject, the writer wishes to point out that many doctrines Christianity as a whole hold dear to come to us through the Catholic Church. They have retained the supernatural element of Christianity throughout. Indeed, we owe a gratitude of thankfulness to God that underneath numerous errors, great Gospel truths are preserved. The doctrine of the Trinity, the true Divinity of Christ, the true doctrine regarding His person as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever, salvation through His blood, regeneration and sanctification through the almighty power of the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life are all the doctrines in which the people of God in communion live.

However, on the matter of justification, the Catholic Church has marred the truth as they have almost all other doctrines pertaining to the merits of Christ are made available to our salvation. Catholics share the same view of mankind before salvation as do Protestants. Up to the point of regeneration we can agree, it is from the moment in regeneration (as the Catholic Church teaches, i.e.: baptism) we begin to separate. According to the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 7, we read:

“…the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ…the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise,..the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation. For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ”

So according to the Catholic scheme, we can sum it up as:

1. God is the efficient cause of our justification, as it is by his power or supernatural grace that the soul is made just.
2. Christ is the meritorious cause, as it is for his sake God grants this saving grace, or influence of the Spirit to the children of men.
3. Inherent righteousness is the formal cause, since thereby the soul is made really just or holy.
4. Faith is the occasional and predisposing cause, as it leads the sinner to seek justification (regeneration) and disposes God to grant the blessing. In this respect it has the merit of congruity only, not that of congruity.
5. Baptism is the essential instrumental cause, as it is only through or by baptism that inherent righteousness is infused or justification, which makes the sinner holy.
6. Good works, all the fruits and exercises of the new life, have real merit and constitute the ground of the Christians title to eternal life.

Remonstrant (Arminian) Doctrine

The Remonstrant or Arminian position on justification is hard to pin down. Early on John Wesley denied it, but when his position was attacked by James Harvey, Wesley seems to have reaffirmed it. Though some suspect he fell back into his earlier position. [1] Wesley’s response to James Harvey’s “Theron and Aspasio” argues that Harvey’s doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness will produce antinomianism.

Many people remember Adam Clark for his commentaries. However, many may not recall that Adam Clark was a Methodist who brought controversy in teaching, rather, maintaining his position against the eternal sonship of Jesus. He in fact, did not biblically believe it enough to affirm this doctrine, instead, he maintained that prior to the incarnation Jesus was “unoriginated.” Otherwise, according to Clark, he would be subordinate to God and therefore not fully divine. He further states:
“To say that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to every believer is not scriptural: To say that he has fulfilled all righteousness for us, in our stead, if by this is meant his fulfillment of all moral duties, is neither scriptural nor true. In no part of the book of God is Christ’s righteousness ever said to be imputed to us for our justification.”[2]

As Calvinism has its five pints, so does Arminianism. At first, Arminians held to similar views as Reformed churches. They did not hesitate to say that Christ made full satisfaction for the sins of men; that he was a ransom, a sacrifice, a propitiation; that He expiation for sin; that His righteousness or obedience is the ground of our acceptance with God; that the faith which saves us is not mere assent to truth, or pious confidence in God, but specifically faith in Christ as the Savior of men; and that justification is an act of God pronouncing the sinner just, or in which He pardons sin and accepts the sinner as righteous. Now, all this sounds great, and is pleasing to the ear. However, upon closer scrutiny of two key words; “justification” and “righteousness,” we see that they meant something very different than what most Reformed churches meant.

There are, however, several points one can see that are very different than most Reformed positions. Samuel Wakefield agreed with Clarke in denying “imputation.” The key points on which they disagree with the Reformed view is on “imputation” and “satisfaction.” Regarding satisfaction, noted Arminian theologians Episcopius Curcelloeus and Limareh readily adhere to the scriptures mode of regarding Him as a ransom and a sacrifice. However,, theirs is more in form than reality. They admit Christ redeems us by giving Himself as a ransom for many. But a ransom, as Curcelloeus says, is not the equivalent; it is anything the holder of the captive sees fit to accept. It is admitted, also, that Christ gave Himself as a sacrifice for our salvation; but a sacrifice is said not to be a satisfaction to justice, but simply the condition on which pardon is granted.

The second point now is a strict denial of imputation:

“…there can be no such thing as a transfer, or imputation, either of guilt or of righteousness.”[3]

And another:

“There is no imputation of our sins to Christ, nor his righteousness to us.”[4]

Adam Clarke explains why there is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness:

“The truth is, the moral law was broken, and did not now require obedience; it required this before it was broken; but after it was broken, it required death.”[5]

Christ’s obedience pertained only to Himself (as a private person):

“His active obedience has nothing to do in the work of redemption than his supreme Divinity. Both were essential to His character as the world’s Redeemer; but neither of them can in truth be imparted to us.”[6]

And:

His capacity as Redeemer only came into play at His death. Christ’s righteousness, therefore, is not our righteousness. Even Adam’s sin is not imparted to us because imputation has been precluded.”[7]

The doctrine which Arminians hold to in regards to justification is not a simple matter. It seems most likely that Arminians hold to the doctrine of pardon. As mentioned previously, there is some talk of “imputation.” But for them, it hinges on faith, faith is imputed for righteousness. J. Miley states:

“…faith itself, and not its object, that is thus imputed. Hence any attempt at a metonymical interpretation of faith, so that shall mean, not itself but its object, that is Christ, and hence mean the imputation of his personal righteousness is utterly vain.”[8]

Their doctrine regarding justification is more than clouded, it’s downright confusing. They don’t want to completely sever some sort of righteousness imputed to us. But rather, the nature of that righteousness is vague and undefined.

Calvin’s Position

John Calvin taught:

“…a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ”[9]

That is pretty clear cut. Not much can be added.

Continued...

[1] See the article by T. Nettles, “John Wesley’s Contention with Calvinism: Interactions Then and Now,” in the Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will, II, 297 ff. Similarly, Robert Oliver, “The Arminian Controversy of Eighteenth Century Methodism” Divisions and Dissensions: Papers Read at the 1987 Westminster Conference (England: The Westminster Conference, 1987) 78-93.

[2] Adam Clark, Christian Theology, London, Thomas and Son Publishers, 1835, p. 156; 158

[3] A.M. Mills, Fundamental Christian Theology: A Systematic Theology, Schmul Publishing Company, Salem, OH., 1980, II, p. 184

[4] William Pope, A Higher Catechism of Theology, p. 228

[5] Adam Clarke, Christian Theology, p. 155

[6] Samuel Wakefield, Christian Theology, p. 414

[7] "The personal guilt of Adam's transgression was never imputed to his descendents, nor that of the elect to Christ; though Adam's descendents do suffer certain consequences of his sin, and Christ's sufferings were in consequence of sin not his own" (W. F. Tillett, Personal Salvation: Studies in Christian Doctrine pertaining to the Spiritual Life [Nashville, TN: Publishing House of the M. E. Church, 1902] p. 219).

[8] J. Miley, Systematic Theology, II:319.

[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Of Justification by Faith, Chapter 11, Section 2. Article on-line, accessed 5/27/09, found on the World Wide Web at: Institutes of the Christian Religion | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The Grounds of our Justification

A lot has been said thus far. Groundwork must be laid to know where one has come from. The ground on which the believer in Christ is justified, is still today, a constantly debated subject. Depending on one’s personal conviction in denominational beliefs, the doctrine changes. For one, it is an infusion. For another, it is imputation by faith, for another, it is by works. It is for this reason, we need to examine this topic.

The question is: How can a man be just with God? If the word “just” means “good”, i.e.: taken in its moral and not in its judicial sense, then it is absurd to say that a man can be good with the goodness of another, or to say that God can pronounce a man just who is unjust. Robert Bellarmin says: “an Ethiopian clothed in white is not white.” Stephanus Curcellaeus said: “a man can no more be just with the justice of another, than he can be white with the whiteness of another.” Johann Moehler is credited as saying: “It is impossible that anything should appear to God other than it really is; that an unjust man should appear to him, or be pronounced by him just.”

By the righteousness of Christ, it is meant all that He became, all He did, all He suffered to satisfy the demands of divine justice, and merit for His people, the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life. Numerous theologians have spoken of two types of obedience that our Lord rendered: active and passive obedience. As far as “active” obedience is concerned, the Bible does teach that Christ obeyed the Law and all its precepts, and, that He endured its penalty as well. And that this was done in such a sense as to say that His people have done so. They died with Him. They were crucified with Him. They were delivered from the curse of the Law by His being made a curse for us. He was made under the Law, so that He could redeem those who were under the Law. We are freed from the Law by the body of Christ. He was made sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. He is the end of the Law for righteousness to all them that believe. It was by His obedience that many were made righteous.

Passive obedience: is meant His sufferings and death, which in scripture, are expressed by His blood. (John Gill) That works must be excluded as a ground for justification is often misunderstood and wrongly used. That justification does not spring from any works we could do is shown but Paul in the example of Abraham. For if justification proceeded from works, then Abraham would have something to boast of, and so would we. We would have every right to stroll around heaven and brag about the works we have done which merited our entrance to a title in heaven.

But, scriptures teach us negatively that it is not due to our own good works. They deny that justification can be by works of the Law. (cf. Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:11; Eph. 2:9) They also teach that could this be attained, Christ died in vain. (cf. Gal. 2:21; 5:4) They teach that all mankind are tainted by sin, therefore any works done by us would likewise be tainted. (cf. Rom. 3:10) The scriptures also teach that a perfect obedience at all times is required by the Law. (cf. Jas. 2:10) The scriptures likewise teach that if the Law could make alive, then righteousness would have been by the Law. (cf. Gal. 3:21)

These statements show that not only are men not saved by works alone, but not by works mixed with grace. Justification cannot arise, therefore, from the good works of men. (James P. Boyce) Something entirely outside of man must be our ground for justification.

Is it Pardon?

While pardon is a part of justification, it is not the ground of our justification. God is said to be “justified” (Rom. 3:4) but it would be wrong to speak of Him as being “pardoned.” Jesus was said to be “justified in the spirit” (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16). A criminal may be pardoned, but only a righteous person can truly be justified. Pardon does not proceed on the ground of satisfaction. A prisoner delivered by a ransom is not pardoned. A debtor whose obligations have been canceled by a friend, becomes entitled to freedom from the claims of his creditor. Forgiveness only deals with a man’s acts, justification with the man himself. Forgiveness respects the claims of mercy, justification with those of justice. Pardon only remits the curse due to sin, in addition, justification confers a title to heaven. Justification applies to the believer with respect to the claims of the law, pardon with respect to the author of the law. The law does not pardon, for it knows no relaxation; but God pardons the transgressions of the law in His people by producing satisfaction to the law adequate to their transgressions. The Blood of Christ was sufficient to procure pardon (cf. Eph. 1:7), but His righteousness is needed for justification. (cf. Rom. 5:19) Pardon takes away the filthy garments, but justification provides a change of raiment (cf. Zech. 3:4).

John Gill puts it this way:

“It is called, the best robe, or, as in the Greek text, the first robe; (cf. Lk. 15:22)”[1]

Pardon frees from death (cf. 2 Sam. 12:13), but righteousness imputed is called “justification of life.” (cf. Rom. 5:18) Pardon is the remission of punishment, justification is the declaration that no ground for the infliction of punishment exists. Forgiveness may be repeated unto seventy times seven, justification is once for all.

Justification does include pardon, but pardon does not include justification as seen in the effects produced by justification. Paul tells us: “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God” (cf. Rom. 5:1). Pardon does not produce peace. A pardoned criminal is still just a criminal, but his sense of guilt and remorse are not lessened. Pardon may remove the outward and arbitrary penalty, but the sting of sin still remains. The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin (cf. 1 Jn. 1:7) by removing guilt and thus producing a peace which passes all understanding. (cf. Phil. 4:7)

We are also told by the apostle: “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” (cf. Rom. 5:10) Pardon does not produce reconciliation. A pardoned criminal can have his civil rights restored as the penalty is remitted involved their forfeiture, but he is not reconciled to society. He is not restored to its favor. Justification, however, does secure a restoration to the favor and fellowship of God.

Here again, the law requires perfect obedience. (cf. Jas. 2:10) A pardoned criminal has no such obedience. Justification includes or conveys a title to eternal life. Eternal life, however, is contingent on the positive condition of perfect obedience. The pardoned criminal is destitute of what immutable principles of the divine government, is the indispensible condition of eternal life. He has no title to the inheritance promised to the righteous. This, however, is not the condition of the believer. The merit of Christ is entitled to the reward. And the believer, being a partaker of that merit, shares in that title. And the scriptures state it that way. By faith, we have become sons of God. And that sonship involves heirship, and heirship involves a title to an inheritance. (cf. Rom. 5:12-21)

To sum this section up, we reiterate what was said previously. Works must be excluded from justification. This is clearly seen in the Apostle Paul’s argument as to the righteousness Gentiles attained, have attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith. But the same is not said of Israel. Why? Because they sought it not by faith but by works of the Law.

Paul himself, a Pharisee, born and circumcised on the eighth day, regarding the righteousness of the Law, blameless; (cf. Phil. 3:6) yet “things were gain to me; those things I counted loss for Christ.” (cf. Phil. 3:7) not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, that “which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” (cf. Phil. 3:9)

Now here, we see contrasted two separate righteousness’s, one consisted in Paul’s own works which was “by the Law” and the latter which was “by faith.” Paul himself rejected his own, counted it as loss, nothing but dung, inadequate and unacceptable. The other is of God, it is received by faith; this is what Paul accepts, relishes, and glories in as all-sufficient. This is the righteousness which the Apostle says God imparts without works.

The Relation of Faith to Justification

Here we approach a section much anticipated, and another which even today, stirs debate, controversy, misunderstanding even among mature “Christians.” Either too much emphasis is placed, or not enough. Charles Hodge says: “All who profess to be Christians admit the doctrine of justification by faith.” Well, that may have been true in the 1870’s it may have been admitted in the 1930’s during Arthur W. Pink’s time. But here in the twenty-first century, it is no longer admitted.

Pelagians and rationalists reduce the subject to one of “moral excellence.” They teach that God, as in the case of Abraham, and in the case of other men, accepts the pious state of mind involved in the exercise of faith or confidence in God, in lieu of perfect righteousness.

Catholics make faith mere “intellectual assent.” They do teach that one needs faith, but it is “faith plus works” as in the case of the teaching in Jas. 2:24. The Catholic position is stated in the Council of Trent, Session 6. And they also say that anyone who disagrees their teaching, “Let him be cursed.” And Catholics are not the only ones who have downplayed the role of faith in justification. It is also misunderstood by John Wesley, John Nelson Darby, and the Plymouth Brethren.

John Wesley taught:

“God’s work in us consisted of Prevalent Grace, which undoes the effects of sin sufficiently that we may then freely choose to believe. An individual’s act of faith then results in becoming part of the body of Christ which allows one to appropriate Christ’s atonement for oneself, erasing the guilt of sin.”[2]

John Nelson Darby said:

“This was Abraham’s faith. He believed the promise that he should be the father of many nations, because God had spoken, counting on the power of God, thus glorifying Him, without calling into question anything that God said by looking at circumstances; therefore this also was counted to him for righteousness. He glorified God according to what God was. Now this was not written for his sake alone; the same faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness.”[3]

Perhaps one of the best statements on faith and justification is found in the Westminster Larger Catechism:

“Question 73: How does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.”

Even though this was written over 360 years ago, it is still just as correct as it was the day it was originally penned. There is a key word in this statement which we wish to place emphasis upon. It is the word “instrument.” Arthur W. Pink says:
“It is more accurate to speak of faith as the "instrument" rather than as the condition, for a "condition" is generally used to signify that for the sake whereof a benefit is conferred. Faith is neither the ground nor the substance of our justification, but simply the hand which receives the divine gift proffered to us in the Gospel.”[4]

Well, exactly what is the proper place and influence that faith has in the doctrine concerning justification? Catholicism teaches that it justifies us formally, not relatively; rather, it is upon the account of its intrinsic value. (cf. Council of Trent, Cannon 12, Session VI) They are also quick to point out that faith is never alone, it “worketh by love” (cf. Gal. 5:16), and therefore, its own excellency merits God’s acceptance. But we might point out that the faith of even the best of us is weak and deficient (Lk. 17:5), and so could never satisfy the Law, which requires a flawless perfection. If righteousness were given as a reward for faith, then the believer would have cause to boast. But even then, the Apostle Paul says that is not the case. (cf. Rom. 3:26-27) Such a method of justification frustrates the life and death of Christ, making His great sacrifice unnecessary. It is not faith as a spiritual grace which justifies us, but the instrument with which lays hold of Christ.

What is the relation of faith to justification? The Arminian answer is refined by the Plymouth Brethren; the act of believing is imputed to us for righteousness. As in science, you start with an assumption, and you work for evidence in support of it. If your base assumption is two plus two equals five, you work to prove your assumption is true. However, if your base assumption is in error, then the rest of your results would be in error also. One error leads to another. As in the case of J. N. Darby, he believed the Gentiles were never under the Law, but he also denied Christ obeyed the Law in His peoples place. Therefore, Christ’s obedience was not reckoned to their account, thusly leaving them to seek righteousness elsewhere. This he insisted to find in the Christians own faith, he insists that the act of believing (faith) is imparted for righteousness.[5]

A seminary teacher used the old proverb: “Even a stopped clock is right two times a day.” To teach a lesson that even those we disagree with, you can sometimes find a “nugget” of truth. While Darby was wrong in some things, he was right in others. However, in this instance, Darby is wrong because the Greek will not support his view.

Three times in Romans 4, the preposition “eiV” (ice) is used. In verse 5: “his faith is counted “eiV = for” righteousness.” In verse 9: “faith was reckoned to him “eiV = for” righteousness. In verse 22: “it was imputed to him “eiV = for” righteousness.” In each of these verses, the preposition “eiV” never means “in the stead of”, but signifies “towards, in order to, with a view to”, and in rare circumstances, it can mean “because of.” It has a uniform usage as “into” or “unto.” The clearest meaning in this passage of scriptures is found in verse 10: “with the heart man believeth unto “eiV” righteousness”: that the believing heart reaches out towards and lays hold of Christ Himself. This passage (cf. Rom. 10:10) may help us to understand what justification by faith is, for it shows that righteousness there comes to us when we embrace God’s goodness offered to us in the Gospel. We are then, for this reason, made just: because we believe that God’s propitious to us through Christ. (Calvin)

The Holy Spirit meant what He related to the Apostles as they wrote the New Testament. And some words were chosen with precision. Another preposition that merits note is “anti.” “Anti” as used in the Greek means: “over against; hence, in correspondence to, answering to, in place of, in retribution or return for, in consideration of, on account of.” This is important as it helps us make our point. It is important in that righteousness is never imputed to us “on account of” faith. Righteousness is never imputed to us “because of” faith. Righteousness is never imputed to us “in consideration of” faith. Righteousness is never imputed to us “in correspondence to” faith. Righteousness is never imputed to us “in answering to” faith. And most importantly, righteousness is never imputed to us “in place of” faith or perfect obedience.

Some may argue that the texts agree with Darby’s position. Does it say that Abraham’s faith was account for righteousness? To answer that, we point to what King David said: “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.” Are we to believe that hyssop, a worthless shrub, has the kind of fitness to stand in the place of the sacrificial blood, and make an atonement for? It has no more fitness as faith to stand in the place of Christ’s perfect obedience, to act as our justifying righteousness, or to procure our acceptance with God.

In Genesis 15:6 we read: “And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Now, was it Abraham’s faith itself which was in God’s account taken for righteousness (Darby’s assumption). Or, was it the righteousness of God in Christ which Abraham’s faith laid hold of? Abraham’s faith was nothing more and nothing less than the renunciation of all virtue and strength in himself, and placing a child-like trust upon God for what He was willing and able to do. This is very far from his faith being a mere substitute for a righteousness which he lacked. Even further was God’s accepting Abraham’s faith “in place of” a perfect obedience to His Law. Rather was Abraham’s faith the acting of a soul which found its life, its hope, its all in the Lord Himself. And that is what “justifying” faith is, it is “simply the instrument by which Christ and His righteousness are received in order to justification.” It is emptiness filled with Christ’s fullness; impotency lying down upon Christ’s strength.” (J.L. Girardeau)

What is the relation of faith in justification? Antinomians and hyper-Calvinists answer that it is merely comfort or assurance. Since the elect were justified by God before the foundation of the world, all that faith does now is to make this manifest in their conscious. This theory has been advocated by the likes of William Godsby, J. Irons, James Wells, and J.C. Philpat. To be sure, it did not originate with them and can be seen in the fact that the Puritans also refuted it: “By faith alone we obtain and receive the forgiveness of sins; for notwithstanding any antecedent act of God concerning us in and for Christ, we do not actually receive a complete soul-freeing discharge until we believe.” (John Owen) Also we might add: “It is vain to say I am justified only in respect to the court of mine own conscious. The faith that Paul and the other Apostles were justified by, was their believing on Christ that they might be justified (cf. Gal. 2:15-16), and not a believing they were justified already; and therefore it was not an act of assurance.” (Thomas Goodwin)
How are we justified by faith? According to the Roman Catholic viewpoint, it is faith in a joint cause with works. According to the Arminian viewpoint, it is by faith as an act of grace in us. And according to the Antinomians, faith receives the Spirit’s witness. We now speak on the positive aspects of faith. Faith justifies only as an instrument which God has appointed to the apprehension and application of Christ’s righteousness. When we say faith is the instrument of our justification, understand that it is not meant that faith is the instrument whereby God justifies us, by no means, rather, we mean that faith is the instrument whereby we receive Jesus Christ. Christ has merited righteousness for us, and faith in Christ is what renders it right in God’s sight that the purchased blessing is assigned. Faith unites us to Christ. Having been made one with Christ in spirit, God now considers us as one with Him in the Law.

We are justified by faith, not for faith, not for what faith is, rather, because of what faith receives.

“It has no efficacy of itself, but as it is the bond of our union with Christ. The whole virtue of cleansing proceeds from Christ the object. We receive the water with our hands, but the cleansing virtue is not in our hands, but in the water, yet the water cannot cleanse us without our receiving it; our receiving it unites the water to us, and is the means whereby we are cleansed. And therefore, it is observed that our justification by faith is always expressed in the passive, not the active; we are justified by faith, not that faith justifies us. The efficacy is in Christ’s blood, the reception of it is our faith.” (Stephen Charnock)

You cannot find anywhere in the scriptures a “justified unbeliever.” There is nothing meritorious about believing, yet it is necessary in order for justification. It is not only the righteousness of Christ as imputed which justifies, but also as received. (cf. Rom. 5:11, 17) The righteousness of Christ is not mine until I accept it as God’s gift. The believing sinner is “justified by faith” only instrumentally, as thus “lives by eating” only instrumentally. Eating is the particular act by which he receives and appropriates food. Strictly speaking, he lives by bread alone, not by eating, or the act of masticating. And, strictly speaking, the sinner is justified by Christ’s sacrifice alone, not by his act of believing in it. (William G.T. Shedd) In the application of justification faith is not a builder, but a beholder; not an agent, but an instrument; it has nothing to do, but all to believe; nothing to give, but all to receive.

We said previously that Abraham’s faith was nothing more and nothing else than a renunciation of all virtue and strength in himself, and hinging a child-like trust upon God for what He was willing and able to do. Justifying faith is a backing away from self, a renouncing of my own righteousness, laying a hold of Christ. Justifying faith consists first of a knowledge and belief of the truth revealed in scripture thereon; second, in an abandonment of all pretence, claim or confidence in our own righteousness; third, in a trust in and reliance upon the righteousness of Christ, laying hold of the blessing which He purchased for us. It is the heart’s approval and approbation of the method of justification proposed in the Gospel; by Christ alone, proceeding from the pure grace of God, and excluding all human merits. Thus, the prophet is correct when he said: “In the Lord have I righteousness and strength.” (cf. Isa. 45:24)

None will appreciate the righteousness of Christ until they have been stripped by the Spirit. Not until the Lord puts us in the fire and burns off our filthy rags, and we stand naked before Him, trembling as His sword hangs over our head, will we truly appreciate “the best robe.” (Gill) When the Law has been applied to us by the Holy Spirit, and we recognize that it has condemned us, can we say “Lost, lost.” (cf. Rom. 7:9-10) Not until there is personal apprehension of the requirements of God’s Law, a feeling sense of our total inability to perform its righteous demands, and an honest realization that God would be just in banishing us forever, is the necessity for a precious Christ perceived by the soul.

Dr. John Gerstner, in his article “The Nature of Justifying Faith” says:

“Justification is ultimately by works, the works of Christ! They are received by the justified sinner as his own works. Christ justified His people by His works as their works; works done by Him as their substitute.”

Jesus being God, left all that was His, left heaven, came to the earth and was made flesh. In the form of a man, voluntarily made himself subject to the Law, to fulfill what we ourselves could not render to God; perfect obedience to the Law. Now this is important in that we now can claim that perfect obedience for ourselves, as ours. His obedience, is my obedience. In that we mean, now that we are “in Christ” we can say we too have obeyed the Law perfectly.

Now in today’s society, this is very close to heresy. Let’s illustrate the point: A wife becomes a co-heir of all that belongs to her husband by simply being married to him. By her union to him in marriage, she is now entitled to everything that is his. She now possesses what belongs to her by that relationship. Marriage is not a virtue that deserves a reward, but a relationship that brings the husbands possessions along with him. And it is faith, as Theodore Beza says: “the sole instrument by which we take hold of Jesus Christ.” When Christ is offered to us, faith is “the sole vessel to receive him.” Jesus Christ is the object of faith, faith embraces Him, and appropriates all that is in Him – therefore, the righteousness that is Christ’s, is ours. His justification is our justification.

A powerful illustration of faith is given by August Hopkins Strong: “All the power to move the cars is in the locomotive. None of the power is in the couplings. Yet the locomotive with all its power cannot move one car without the couplings.” Theodore Beza suns the whole matter up in that yes, we are justified by faith:

“We say that by faith we are justified, insomuch as it embraces Him who justifies us, Jesus Christ, to whom it unites and joins us. We are then made partakers of Him and all the benefits which He possesses. These, being imparted and gifted to us, are more than sufficient to make us acquitted and accounted righteous before God.”[6]

Having said that, let’s mention one last thing…

Faith without works is dead. –Jas. 2:20

Today, this is another one of the most hotly debated topics between Catholics and Protestants. Some teach that works do indeed justify us. Some teach a mixture of various works in combination with faith in order to be justified. And then there are some faiths that teach works flow from faith but do not contribute to justification.

Earlier on, we stated the various positions of groups in relation to justification. In many ways, the Roman Catholic and the Arminian position share the view that they must play some part not only in their salvation, but in their justification also.
Now this discussion has been from the side of the Baptist perspective, but even among Baptists, it is startling just how many reject the doctrine of Justification. In many instances, some even advocate the same position as Catholicism. And most come from a misunderstanding of the book of James.

The standpoint which divides most is one single verse from James:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone.” –Jas. 2:24 (KJV)

Martin Luther wrote in his preface to James and Jude: “James does nothing more than drive a man to the Law and its works.” And this is apparent in some faiths teachings. However, Luther also admits that James wanted to guard against those who relied on faith exclusively but wasn’t quite up to the task.

During the first century, it is commonly held that James was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem. And Paul was a missionary. History dictates that during the early church, two viewpoints developed early on. Paul is well known for his battles with “legalists.” They were the type who said faith in God was correct, but what was also required was a submission to the “Law.”

Luther also was quick to point out that James called the “Law” a “perfect law of liberty.” (cf. Jas. 1:25) Paul viewed it as a Law that brings slavery, (Gal. 5:3) wrath, (Rom. 4:15) sin, (Rom. 7:7) and death (Rom. 7:10).

When men are turned away from their own self-efforts, the next step is to run in the complete opposite direction. If they cannot trust in their own self-righteousness, if they cannot be justified by their own works, then it is just a minor shift to reject works of any kind, and there is no such thing as ungodly living or ungodly practice. This is the door which leads down the path to antinomianism. They turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. (Jude 1:4) And this is very apparent in what it was spreading during the early church.

It has been argued that Paul and James are not contradictory, but rather, complimentary. This can be seen by the statements by these men in that Paul says you are justified by faith, verse James’ teaching that you are justified by works and not by faith alone. Arthur W. Pink wrote:

“Unless the subject and scope of James’ Epistle be clearly seen, the apprehension of many of its statements can only issue in God-dishonoring, grace-repudiating, soul-destroying error. To this portion of the Word of God, more than any other, have legalists appealed in their opposition to the grand truth of justification by grace, through faith, without works. To the declarations of this Epistle have they turned to find support for their Christ-insulting, man-exalting, Gospel-repudiating error of justification by human works. Merit-mongers of all descriptions cite James 2 for the purpose of setting aside all that is taught elsewhere in Scripture on the subject of justification. Romanists, and their half-brothers the Arminians, quote "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (v. 24), and suppose that ends all argument.”[7]

What is maintained is, that Paul addresses the fact of how a man can be justified before God, and James addresses how a man can be justified before man. Paul addresses our justification of persons, while James addresses our justification of profession. The one is by faith alone, while the other worketh by love and produces obedience. (Pink)

Both men use Abraham as an example. And the supposition that James addresses the empty profession rests on the fact that when James says:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” –Jas. 2:21 (KJV)

Whereas Paul says:

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” –Rom. 4:3 (KJV)

A fact that most seen to overlook at are the differences between what Paul is quoting from, and what James quotes, rather, bases their statements on. Paul uses Gen. 15:6 as his basis in Romans 4, and James uses Gen. 22:1-19 for his basis. Abraham was seventy-five years old when he believed God in Genesis 15. However, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. (cf. Gen. 22:6) Tradition has it that Isaac was around twenty-five when Abraham took him to the mountain for the sacrifice. If the Catholics and Arminians are correct, then it logically means that Abraham had to wait fifty years in order to actually be justified! No! We merely point out that the offering of his son, gave evidence to Abraham’s faith in God.

Professing to be a Christian when one is not may secure a standing before men, it may improve his moral and social prestige, he may be able to join a church, and help promote his commercial interests, but can it save him? What is the use to fein to be charitable when works of charity are withheld? What good does it bring to calling oneself a Christian when empty stomachs are met with good words? How can a person claim to be a Christian and clothe the naked by good wishes? What does it profit to profess to be a believer when there is no true piety?

Neither can a person be saved by a mere empty hollow confession of the Gospel. To say that I am a Christian and am unable to appeal to any good works and spiritual fruits as proof of it, profits neither the person nor those who listen. Without the essential element of “faith worketh by love” (cf. Gal. 5:6), no matter how much reading or studying, no amount of head knowledge, no amount of preaching and teaching one can do, they are no more than “sounding brass and tinkling symbol.” Without love, those professors will be the ones pleading their works but will be told: “Depart, I never knew ye.”

So…we conclude that “works,” as far as justification is concerned, plays no part. We are indeed justified by faith alone, in Christ alone.

[1] John Gill, The Doctrine of Justification, Section III, Part 6, article on-line, accessed 5/28/09, found on the World Wide Web at: 37. The Doctrine of Justification

[2] John Wesley, Sermon 5, Justification by Faith.

[3] J.N. Darby, Synopsis, Romans 4, Book on-line, accessed 5/28/09, found on the World Wide Web at: Bible Commentary

[4] Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, Chapter 8, Its Instrument, book on-line, accessed 5/28/09, found on the World Wide Web at: 8. Its Instruments

[5] “The same faith shall be imparted to us also for righteousness-faith in God as having raised up Jesus from the dead. It is not mere faith in Jesus…” J.N. Darby, Darby’s Synopsis, Romans 4, Commentary on-line, accessed 4/19/09, found on the World-Wide-Web at: Romans 4 - John Darby’s Synopsis - Bible Commentary

[6] Theodore Beza, Faith and Justification, The Christian Faith, p. 18

[7] Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, Chapter 9, Its Evidence, book on-line, accessed 5/31/09, found on the World-Wide-web at: 9. Its Evidence

Like it or not, we (the elect of God) are not justified by the grace of God in eternity past (before the foundation of the world) as somebody suggests.

It is only when we come to Christ in repentance, pleading forgiveness for our sins, and asking Him to be the Lord and Savior of our life that we are declared righteous, justified, and sanctified in the eyes of the Lord God.

God Bless

Till all are one.

anthony55 said:

deacon:



Thats a terrible thing to say about Gods Grace given to the elect in Christ before the world began.

2 tim 1:

9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Click to expand...

I guess I have no option other than to conceed that my statement here:

You cannot find anywhere in the scriptures a “justified unbeliever.”

Click to expand...

Is incorrect.

When the Psalmest said:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." -Psa. 51:5 (KJV)

That this is not true of the elect.

The elect are not born in sin, or concieved in sin. No, they are born in:

grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

Click to expand...

The bible tells us that we are to do something to people who will not hear the truth:

"And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." -Mk. 6:11 (KJV)

Since you persist in this, and you will not hear the truth, I am doing exactly what the scriptures say here.

Congratulations, you have made my ignore list.

God Bless

Till all are one.

anthony55 said:

There is never a time from everlasting to everlasting, that the elect of God were not Justified,and not Loved by God.

Click to expand...

Loved yes, justified no.

Eph 2:1,3 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

Eph 4:17-18 This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;

Eph 5:8 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord;

DeaconDean said:

That this is not true of the elect.
The elect are not born in sin, or concieved in sin. No, they are born in:
grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

Click to expand...

Eph 2:1,3 ... by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Eph 4:17-18 ... excluded from the life of God,

Eph 5:8 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord;

Congratulations, you have made my ignore list.

Click to expand...

Anthony, you have been ignoring him (and anyone who didn't espouse your particular slant on this) from the time you came here. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

DeaconDean said:

Like it or not, we (the elect of God) are not justified by the grace of God in eternity past (before the foundation of the world) as somebody suggests.

It is only when we come to Christ in repentance, pleading forgiveness for our sins, and asking Him to be the Lord and Savior of our life that we are declared righteous, justified, and sanctified in the eyes of the Lord God.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

Fish don't plead to be caught.

It is God who grabs onto us and shows us the cross where our sins were forgiven.

Your wording puts it upon man to be forgiven...and that is not so. God is the one at work in man, turning him (repentance is a gift, remember) and showing us how we are sinful and in need of a savior...and then, thankfully, shows us the Christ who is our savior. It is God's work 100%...nothing upon man, who in your eyes, needs to beg and plead before anything is given. That's not how God works. He's done the work. He opens our eyes. Thanks be to God.