Category Archives: Loci Communes

Larger Catechism, #74, pt. 2

The Larger Catechism

Question 74

74.       Q. What is adoption?

A. Adoption is an act of the free grace of God,[307] in and for his only Son Jesus Christ,[308] whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children,[309] have his name put upon them,[310] the Spirit of his Son given to them,[311] are under his fatherly care and dispensations,[312] admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.[313]

PART 2

His Name and Spirit

To be received into the number means that the children of God “have his name put upon them, the Spirit of his Son given to them…” We are legally His children; we have His name. “And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2Cor. 6:18) As He calls us His sons and daughters, we are also promised that He “will write upon [us] the name of my God” (Rev. 3:12). But we His people are already called by His name as God refers to His people as “my people who are called by my name” (2Chron. 7:14). What does this mean? God is legally our Father and we are members of His glorious household. “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…” (Eph. 2:19) In this verse, Paul mentions two privileges, we are citizens in God’s kingdom and family members in His household. “In Christ Gentiles are not only fellow-citizens with Jewish believers under God’s rule; they are also children together in God’s own family.”[1] A believer may not feel himself to be a child of God yet the translation from being a child of Satan to being a child of God is binding and permanent. The name is on him. Fisher offers a helpful illustration: “as the wife’s name is sunk unto her husband’s, so the former name of the adopted is sunk unto Christ’s new name, Rev. iii. 12, ‘I will write upon him my new name.’”[2] God is our Father and we His children; His name is upon us forever!

The latter phrase “the Spirit of his Son given to them” adds a very necessary dimension to the nature of our adoption. The new name, the new family status, is legal, external, and permanent. But God did not stop there. The Spirit of God’s Son is given to us who enables us to cry Abba, Father. Because we are indeed God’s children by adoption, God gives us the Spirit (“And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” Gal. 4:6). The logic here is unmistakable. Because we are indeed God’s sons, Paul says, God therefore sends the Spirit into our hearts. The German liberal commentator actually explains this verse very well. “God bestows on us not only the status of sons [through the sending of his Son] but also the character and knowledge of sons [through the sending of the Spirit]. And he bestows on us the character and knowledge of sons because we are already in the status of sons.”[3] That is, the Holy Spirit who comes to us through the mediation of Christ enables us to respond as genuine sons. Notice how the verse states that the Spirit is sent into our hearts (εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν).

It is not uncommon to meet adopted children who don’t feel like they are part of the family or that their adoptive parents are really their own. The new parents may bend over backwards to reach out to their adopted son but they cannot put a filial spirit into him. That he feels himself to be a part of their family or that at his gut level he is indeed their beloved son are dispositions the parents cannot impart. Yet this sad dilemma will not occur for genuine believers. The Holy Spirit actually enables us to instinctively (and therefore ‘naturally’) cry out to God as our heavenly father. That instinct, that filial disposition, that family feeling, etc. come out of us because of the Holy Spirit. We have received “the Spirit of adoption as sons” (Rom. 8:15). Therefore the legal status of adoption with God’s name upon us includes the Holy Spirit who enables us to look to our heavenly father. A child of God is not “trained” by man to call upon God; he is enabled by the Holy Spirit to cry out to His heavenly father.

Under the Father’s Care

The privileges of being adopted include God’s fatherly care: “are under his fatherly care and dispensations.” The verses used to support this phrase are interesting. Our heavenly Father’s pity or compassion from Ps. 103:13 is mentioned (“As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him.”) along with the privilege of being able to take refuge in Him in Prov. 14:26 (“In the fear of the LORD one has strong confidence, and his children will have a refuge.”). The great promise of Mt. 6:32 that our heavenly Father is well aware of our needs is also mentioned (“For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.”).

All these privileges are wonderful as well as comforting. God cares for us; He is concerned and is compassionate towards us. Good fathers feel the pain of their sons and daughters; their compassion or pity go out towards their children. If they can wisely relieve their children in their distress, they would. Yet, their compassion is not matched by their power. They may weep on account of their son’s struggle but is powerless to do anything about it. Our heavenly fatherly is not so limited. If he does not relieve, it is not because he does not care or that he is unable to take care of the problem. Our father has wisely chosen not to intervene though his bowels of compassion are moved. Furthermore, we are reminded that because He cares for us, we can take refuge in Him (Prov. 14:26). We can be safe in Him because of He is a strong tower. Like an earthly father, he cares for us. Yet, he cares for us far better than we deserve.

Most of the writers who explain the Catechisms and Confession mention God’s fatherly discipline (Ridgeley, Beattie, Fisher, Green, etc.). The LC states that we are under God’s dispensations. This means we are under our heavenly father’s government, his order, control, oversight, etc. It would include chastening as our Confession states. The WCF states that we are “pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him, as by a father…” (12.1). Though the verses cited for the LC do not list Heb. 12:6 like the WCF, yet the truth of the point can easily be seen. We are under our father’s care and government; we are under his special dealings with us as our father which would at times include discipline. Whatever we need, we will receive from our Father, even discipline because He loves us: “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:6). We are illegitimate children and not sons if we are not disciplined by Him (Heb. 12:8). What the divines seem to be teaching is that we are under the father’s care and that includes whatever we might need (both positive and negative [though they are ultimately all positive]) as his children. Ridgeley summarized it this way:

As God’s children are prone to backslide from him, and so have need of restoring grace, he will recover and humble them, and thereby prevent their total apostasy. This he sometimes does by afflictions, which the apostle calls fatherly chastisements, and which he reckons not only consistent with his love, but evidences of it. ‘Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth;’ and ‘if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.’ The apostle speaks here, of afflictions, not as considered absolutely in themselves, but as proceeding from the love of God, as designed to do them good, and as adapted to the present state, in which they are training up for the glorious inheritance reserved for them in heaven, and need some trying dispensations which may put them in mind of that state of perfect blessedness which is laid up for them. These afflictions are rendered subservient to their present and future advantage. In the present life, they ‘bring forth the peaceful fruits of righteousness’ to them; and when they are in the end perfectly freed from them, they will tend to enhance their joy and praise.[4]

The difficulties in life come to us “under his fatherly…dispensations.” They are not to crush us but to correct us; they are not given to destroy us but to demonstrate his love to us as His children. “Thus, many of the ills of this life may turn out to be blessings in disguise, while the chastisement itself is a proof of the love of God, and of their adoption into his family.”[5] Because we are His children, our heavenly Father brings difficulties into our lives: “It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons.” (Heb. 12:7)

Liberties and Privileges

The last thing listed in the answer is that we are “admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.” Rather than listing everything that could pertain to our adoption, the divines simply summarize the point as being admitted to all the liberties and privileges.  Part of that liberty of course is that as children, we are free from the law (as a means of salvation and from its condemning power). Paul says, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Gal. 5:1) The privileges include access to the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16), we have “access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph. 2:18). Paul’s statement reveals so much. It is not just that we have access to God per se (that we have in Christ) but we have access to the Father — that is the language of sonship, adoption, and God’s fatherhood.

The privilege underscored in the LC is our inheritance. We are exhorted to persevere “through faith and patience” to “inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:12). The great privilege of sonship is that we will inherit all that God has promised to us in Christ. We cited this before but it is a helpful reminder: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Rom. 8:17) The divines used this verse to come up with “and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.”

Conclusion

1. Calvin said, “For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him— they will never yield him willing service.” (Institutes, 1.1.1, p. 41) This is the essence of piety. Are you convinced of God’s fatherly care? Do you believe you are actually nourished by his fatherly care? If not, you will never yield him willing service.

2. One of the implications of adoption is as our Confession teaches that when we are chastised, we are “never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.” God will never disown his children. May we find encouragement in this!

3. Earthly fathers can and will fail us but our heavenly Father will not. To know the love of the Father is to look at the cross, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8, NASB)


[1] Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 211-212.

[2] James Fisher, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer. In Two Parts. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, nd), 168.

[3] H. Schlier, Galater, 197 cited in F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 198.

[4] Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, Volume 2 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 136.

[5] Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards, 215-6.

Larger Catechism, #74, pt. 1

The Larger Catechism

Question 74

74.       Q. What is adoption?

A. Adoption is an act of the free grace of God,[307] in and for his only Son Jesus Christ,[308] whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children,[309] have his name put upon them,[310] the Spirit of his Son given to them,[311] are under his fatherly care and dispensations,[312] admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.[313]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[307] 1 John 3:1. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. [308] Ephesians 1:5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. Galatians 4:4-5. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. [309] John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. [310] 2 Corinthians 6:18. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Revelation 3:12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. [311] Galatians 4:6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. [312] Psalm 103:13. Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. Proverbs 14:26. In the fear of the LORD is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge. Matthew 6:32. (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. [313] Hebrews 6:12. That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Romans 8:17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Introduction

1. Adoption in Reformed Theology[1]

Many theologians have written on the doctrine of adoption in the last fifty years. The most popular and influential is J. I. Packer who argued that adoption “has been little regarded in Christian history.” He noted that R. S. Candlish (The Fatherhood of God) and R. A. Webb (The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption) gave attention to this doctrine in the nineteenth century but apart from them, he concluded that nothing else has been written since the Reformation.[2] He suggested that the Puritans were deficient in this area. Against this, Joel Beeke shows convincingly that the Puritans wrote extensively on this.[3] Many have noted that our Confession and Catechisms were the first to include a separate chapter and questions on this doctrine (WCF XII; LC #74; SC #34). Francis Beattie was surprised that so few Presbyterian theologians treated this doctrine separately: “In view of this fact it seems a little strange that some of our leading theologians should give no distinct place to adoption in their systems, and many of them devote but little attention to it.”[4] R. A. Webb complained that Charles Hodge was silent on this topic and that Breckenridge and Shedd also said nothing on this.[5]

Theologians now recognize that this doctrine must be given a separate treatment. It used to be viewed as a second element of justification. For example, John Dick, though giving a whole lecture on the doctrine, stated that the doctrine of adoption “appears to me to be virtually the same with justification, and to differ from it merely in the new view which it gives of the relation of believers to God…”[6] Dabney says the same (following Turretin and Owen), “Adoption cannot be said to be a different act or grace from justification.”[7] This way of treating adoption has pretty much vanished in the latter twentieth century.[8] This doctrine is distinct from justification and regeneration. As Ferguson says, “Undoubtedly the New Testament never separates justification and adoption, but neither does it confuse them.”[9] It does not confuse the two but it also assumes it. In fact, Beattie says that adoption assumes “election, effectual calling, regeneration, faith, and justification.”[10]

2. Adoption and Sonship[11]

Contemporary believers have probed this doctrine and attempted to draw out some of its practical benefits. Though many have sung its praises, this movement has garnered criticisms as well. I am talking about Jack Miller’s Sonship courses (which are very popular in our present geographical surroundings). Without going into this too deeply, I want to make one observation. Though the emphasis is on Sonship is wonderful, we must realize that the doctrine of adoption is one of the several benefits that flow from our union with Christ (LC #69). One is always in danger of imbalance when he or she clings to only one doctrine. Perhaps the revised courses have improved on some of the things raised by their critics but it is far better to embrace the whole counsel of God instead of using one doctrine as a prism to the whole Christian life.

3. Its Necessity

Frame states, “Adoption is God’s remedy for our second great need. Justification meets our need for a new legal status. Adoption meets our need for a new family.”[12] This may be a fair and accurate statement but we need to consider this carefully. Our need does not determine the remedy but rather the remedy from God reveals our need. Adoption corresponds to that but we must be careful at this point. Adoption is necessary not because we deserve it or have an inherent right to it — in that sense, it is not a need. However, given our spiritually bankrupt condition, to be in God’s family would be a gift of amazing grace.

Some assume we are all children of God. Adoption is not really needed because God cannot adopt his own children.[13] — we simply need to recognize we have a heavenly father who loves us and we merely need to turn to him. John Bickford Heard said that “all men are originally, and by their very birth into the world, and as beings breathing thoughtful breath, entitled to look and address God as Abba, Father… Every day we meet with men living below their privileges, heirs but outcasts, and we only pity them the more when we contrast what they are with what they ought to be.”[14] This is a grievous and sad error. Without some divine act, we are alienated from God and are not his children. We can only become His children through His free act of grace.

A more popular contemporary expression exists in the 21st century. Oprah Winfrey’s magazine encourages people to see children “as children of God, as Christs, or Buddhas.”[15] Mormons believe that we are all children of God.[16] All these things may “feel” good but it is not the biblical truth. We either have God as our heavenly Father by His sovereign grace (of regeneration and adoption) or have the devil as our father (cf. Jn. 8:44; Eph. 2:1ff.).

Adoption is an Act of God’s Free Grace for Christ’s Sake

What then is adoption? The answer states that “adoption is an act of the free grace of God, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ.” Adoption is nothing we could have expected. The verb “act” is important in this answer. “You will observe that adoption is called an act, because it is perfected at once. As soon as a believer is vitally united by faith to Christ, the head of God’s family, and the elder brother of every saint, he is from that moment, an adopted child of God.”[17] It is not a process but the immediate act of God’s grace. This transition from family (of Satan) to family (of God) is instantaneous. It is a supernatural work of God’s free grace and in a moment the sinner believes, he becomes a child of God!

Though adoption is connected with justification, it is distinct from it (as we already noted). God could have pardoned us and simply left us as justified creatures. Joel Beeke carefully delineates the difference: “Justification involves a legal relationship; adoption, a personal relationship.”[18] Similarly, Thomas Watson said, “[I]t is a mercy to redeem a slave, but is more to adopt them.”[19] So the distinct act of adoption is a superb additional blessing flowing to us on account of our union with Christ.  The apostle John exclaims, “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are” (1Jn. 3:1). Notice John’s statement. It is a wonder that we should be called the children of God; that is in fact a wonderful blessing but lest we conclude they are only words, John says “and so we are” (καὶ ἐσμέν). John’s astonishment indicates the wonder of this blessing. It is indeed an act of the free grace of God — He didn’t have to do it. Thomas Watson summarizes this point quite well: “Adoption is a mercy spun out of the bowels of free grace; all by nature are strangers, therefore have no right to sonship, only God is pleased to adopt one, and not another, to make one a vessel of glory, another a vessel of wrath. The adopted heir may cry out, ‘Lord, how is it, that thou wilt show thyself to me, and not unto the world.”[20]

This free grace of God flows to us in and for his only Son Jesus Christ.” We have already touched on this point in LC #39 but a few other points should be added. We read in Eph. 1:5 that God predestined us “for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” (εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). That was God’s purpose in Christ, to adopt us. Redemption enabled adoption (Gal. 4:4-5). [21] Paul mentions “adoption” in Eph. 1:5 (a Graeco-Roman term that enabled the childless patron or a patron endeared with someone not his child to inherit the privileges of his new father). We are redeemed to inherit (Eph. 1:7) and adoption enables us to inherit all things in Christ. Notice how Paul argues this point in Rom. 8:17, “if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ…” Calvin explains this well in his commentary, “It is for children that inheritance is appointed: since God then has adopted us as his children, he has at the same time ordained an inheritance for us.”

Now coming back to the point, our adoption comes to us “in and for his only Son Jesus Christ.” The inheritance we jointly receive with the Lord comes to us because we are united to Him. There is no adoption without Christ; it is a redemptive mercy conferred upon us. No one is a child of God except in his union with Christ (“in”) and he is God’s child on account of Christ (“for”— “Behold, I and the children God has given me.” Heb. 2:13; cf. Is. 8:18). That is why John 1:12, 13 states it this way, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right (ἐξουσίαν) to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Faith in Christ, relationship with Him through faith automatically translates us into the status of sonship — they have a right or authority to their sonship in Christ. Leon Morris says, “John does not say that they achieve or attain or merit membership in God’s family, as though they make their own way in. He says that they are given the right. The right is God’s gift. Receiving this gift, they ‘become’ members of the family. They were outside the family; they did not belong. Now they have been given the right to become members; they do belong.”[22]

Before moving on to the next clause in the LC, we must consider the significance of what we just noted. There is no sonship, no adoption without Christ. A person must receive Christ, consciously and surely. He may not remember when he did (as a covenant child) but he personally believes and receives Christ offered to him in the gospel. How do you know whether you are a child of God? Have you believed in Christ? What does it mean to believe in Him? It is to place your personal faith in Him and to follow Him. Faith assumes a responsive life. One’s sense of belonging to God as His child is directly and intimately related to one’s own faith in Christ. The “right” to be a child of God, this privilege and gift, comes to you as you believe in Christ. It is not from natural birth because “flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (Jn. 3:6). When the Bible says “not of blood” it means not of natural descent (heritage, race, etc.); “nor of the will of the flesh” means not of human decision; “nor of the will of man (ἀνδρὸς)” means that it is not dependent upon the husband’s decision. To be a child of God is a gift. It comes through faith in Christ — “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Gal. 3:26). And this birth comes from God (“but of God”). Are you “born of God” (Jn. 1:13 TNIV) or “born of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:8)?

Received into the Number

Only the justified are adopted. Notice how this is phrased, “whereby all those that are justified…  As we noted above, adoption comes through Christ and Christ is ours through faith. In believing in him, we are justified. In the order of our salvation (logically considered), adoption springs from justification. The two are related but are also distinct. Ferguson said, “In human terms it is quite possible to imagine a man being justified without the remotest thought of his being adopted.”[23] Yet in Christianity, that is not the case. Believing in Christ entitles [gives the right to] the sinner to become a child of God. Pardoned justified sinners become pardoned justified sons of God.

The first element of adoption needs some explanation: “whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children…” The idea of being received into the number of his children is not commonly used. The WCF says something similar when it says “taken into the number” (12.1) while the SC #34 has, “whereby we are received into the number.” This phrase simply means each believer becomes one of the many children of God. The number of God’s elect is finite (“their number are certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished” [WCF 3.4]) and consequently, the number of God’s children is also certain and definite. God, as it were, is the ultimate family planner. He planned the “number of his children” and he knows exactly how many He will have and who they are. To be received into this number means we fit into His eternal family plan. Remember, God “predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ…” (Eph. 1:5) and “The Lord knows those who are his” (2Tim. 2:19).



[1] The title seems a bit pretentious since we will only highlight a few historical points. It is at best a super mini micro small overview and abridged!

[2] J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 207. He should have mentioned Crawford, Lidgett, and Girardeau.

[3] Joel R. Beeke, Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 1ff., esp. pp. 10-14.

[4] Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standard (1894; reprint, Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1997), 212.

[5] R. A. Webb, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 17. Webb is actually incorrect about Breckenridge. Breckenridge gives a full chapter to this doctrine, see his The Knowledge of God, Subjectively Considered: Being the Second Part of Theology Considered as a Science of Positive Truth, Both Inductive and Deductive (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1859), 178ff. (Ch. X: Adoption: Its Grounds, Nature, and Fruits). Surprisingly, the earlier twentieth-century Baptist theologian gives a chapter to this doctrine as well. See Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia; Boston; St. Louis; Los Angeles; Chicago; New York; Toronto: Roger Williams Press, 1917), 401ff.

[6] John Dick, Lectures on Theology (New York: M. W. Dodd, 1850), 2:224.

[7] Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (1871; repr., Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), 627. Regarding Turretin and Peter Martyr, Bavinck says, “Sometimes the adoption as children was mentioned as the second part of Justification [e.g. Turretin] but others, such as Peter Martyr, preferred to consider this a fruit of Justification.” See Herman Bavinck, John Bolt and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 224.

[8] The little book by Beeke (Heirs with Christ) gives a very helpful and up to date bibliography on this doctrine.

[9] Sinclair Ferguson, Know Your Christian Life (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 82.

[10] Beattie, The Presbyterian Standard, 214.

[11] On this, see Chad Van Dixhoorn’s “The Sonship Program for Revival: A Summary and Critique,” WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999): 227ff.

[12] John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006), 205-206.

[13] Cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 515. Albrecht Ritschl did not teach universal fatherhood of God though he is often viewed as one who taught it, see James Orr, The Ritschlian Theology and the Evangelical Faith (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897), 221 fn; 226. I’m having some difficulty pinning down proponents who taught this. One author who maintained it called it “New Theology” and he happily dispensed with Candlish’s view of God’s Fatherhood (Old Theology), see John Bickford Heard, Old and New Theology: A Constructive Critique (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885), 82ff. This book assumes the existence of this new teaching but is not its source.

[14] Heard, Old and New Theology, 84.

[15] http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Show-Empathy-Emotional-Intimacy

[16] http://mormonwoman.org/2011/05/15/mormons-believe-we-are-all-children-of-god/

[17] Ashbel Green, Lectures on the Shorter Catechism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath School Work, 1841), 1:404.

[18] Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 31.

[19] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 162.

[20] Watson, A Body of Divinity, 161.

[21] We dealt with the historical biblical theological flow of this doctrine from Gal. 4:5 in our study of the LC #39.

[22] Leon Morris, Expository Reflections on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 12. Sometimes the word is translated as “power.” The word dunamis (power) is not used (cf. C. K. Barrett) in John; one is not enabled to become a child of God by some invested power within him (Calvin addresses the RC view that seems to appeal to Jn. 1:12 to prove human merit and power).

[23] Cited in Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 32.

Larger Catechism, #73

The Larger Catechism

Question 73

73.       Q. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?

A. 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,[304] nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;[305] but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.[306]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[304] Galatians 3:11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Romans 3:28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. [305] Romans 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 10:10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [306] John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Galatians 1:16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.

Introduction

If the believer is not careful in stating his understanding of justification by faith, he can easily imply that his faith itself justifies. That is, the strength (or virtue) of our faith justifies us. It is similar to saying, “My act of believing is the cause and ground of my justification.” William Pope, a very competent Arminian, argued that for a believer “his faith is counted for righteousness.”[1] John Miley says that “faith itself, and not its object, that is thus imputed” as the righteousness.[2] Justification by faith was somehow related to righteousness. In explaining this, these Arminians did not want it to be Christ’s imputed righteousness.[3] Many of them simply ended up arguing that faith itself was the righteousness. At some points, it is difficult to understand how they explained this but what becomes crystal clear is the denial of Christ’s imputation of righteousness. Faith was not the means of justification but the ground for these Arminians.

For this reason, we must be give this particular question careful consideration. The Westminster divines clearly saw (or foresaw) how all this could be misunderstood — this question carefully answers what later would become a problem. [I have not done enough research to see if certain individuals advanced what the Arminians later taught (though Arminian thinking was already soundly refuted in 1618-19). The Confession was finalized in 1646. Question 73 seems to have in mind a specific error but I have not verified as of yet.]

Accompanying Graces do not Justify

The answer states, “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…” This part of the answer carefully lists the two ways faith does not justify. The other graces which accompany faith, like hope, charity, etc. do not justify. The various “other graces” would be the “fruits of the Spirit” in Gal. 5:22, 23. Peter speaks of adding to faith in 1Peter 1:5-7. Nowhere does it ever say that love itself justifies, or that our joy, peace, patience, etc. justifies. Our repentance, which flows from faith, also does not justify.

Gal. 5:6 says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” This has been the locus classicus for Roman Catholics to refute sola fide. It seems clear that we are not justified by faith alone but instead are justified by “faith working through love” (πίστις διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη). Therefore, the Westminster divines err by saying “not because of those other graces which do always accompany” faith. Are they correct?

In interpreting passages, we must always consider the context. This verse is in the context of refuting those who boast in circumcision. Paul is saying being or not being circumcised is nothing. What matters is “faith working through love.” Is he speaking of justification? The context seems to suggest that.  One commentator says, “The faith which operates through love is clearly the same as the faith which justifies.”[4] At the same time, this author says, Paul “is saying simply that the faith which justifies is of such a nature that it will express itself through love.” That is, though faith alone justifies, it also expresses itself in love. By faith alone are we justified but this faith does more. as one author tersely summarized the verse with this maxim, “faith as root and love as fruit.”[5] So the New Living Translation pretty much got it right by translating it as “faith expressing itself in love.” Love is always the fruit, the fruit of the Spirit (v. 22) for those justified by faith.[6]

An illustration may help here. Electricity alone powers my router; nothing else can. Yet, electricity does far more than power my router — it warms my electric blanket, heats my electric heater, spins my blender, etc. Similarly, faith alone is the means of justification, yet faith does many other things. Thomas Schreiner says, “The participle ‘working’ (ἐνεργουμένη) should be construed as a middle here, so that faith is the root and love is the fruit.” That is, love is the fruit of faith which is precisely what Paul teaches in Ga. 5:22, “where love is the fruit of the Spirit, and therefore those who trust in Christ and embrace him as Lord show that faith in love.”[7]

We must not overlook the immense practical matters related to this theological observation. This is much more helpful than we can imagine. If we are justified by God’s grace through faith alone and these accompanying graces do not in the least justify, then we may be justified without joy, peace, etc. Though these graces are essentially connected to faith, we may not sense them. Some believers have thought their sense of being accepted, their experience of God’s peace, their felt sense of joy, etc. are the grounds of their justification. How can I be right with God if I don’t “feel” peace, joy, patience, etc.? These graces accompany faith but they do not justify. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; God justifies me as I humbly believe in His Son for my salvation, etc. To be declared forgiven, righteous on account of Christ’s imputed righteousness, are forensic acts and not necessarily felt experiences (though these do most often accompany it).

Good Works that are the Fruits of Faith do not Justify

Furthermore, “good works that are the fruits” of faith do not justify. Good works are always “fruits” and not the grounds of our justification. If we are truly justified, we will bear fruit and good works are themselves evidences, the fruits of our justification. As Paul said, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Rom. 3:28) Paul’s statement is pitted against specific obedience to the law of God revealed in the OT (in particular, the Torah). That is what “deeds of the law” means. When it comes to justification, works of the law do not play any role. The “good works” that accompany those who are justified do not contribute to justification.

Major detractors to this interpretation have gained a hearing. N. T. Wright says that Paul is concerned with ecclesiology and not soteriology. So “Paul’s point in the present passage is quite simply that what now marks out the covenant people of God, in the light of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Jesus, is not the works of Torah that demarcate ethnic Israel, but ‘the law of faith,’ that faith that, however paradoxically, is in fact the true fulfilling of Torah.” He states that Paul is stressing “the badge of membership in God’s people, the badge that enables all alike to stand on the same, flat ground at the foot of the cross, is faith.”[8] This seems convoluted because it imports what is not present in the context. Remember, Jews have sought to establish their own righteousness (Rom. 10:3). Christ is “the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). Many scholars have risen up to refute N. T. Wright. His innovative (and heretical) interpretation does not only destroy the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone but it will also kill the life and soul of the church because his focus on ecclesiology is nothing more than externalism. Much more could be said but that cannot engage our present attention. It will not do you any good to read N.T. Wright.[9]

The Act of Faith is not Justification

The divines also state, “nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification.” As mentioned in the beginning, the divines shut the door in attributing the act of faith as the ground of our justification. Vos summarizes the mistake in this way, “Abraham did not have a perfect righteousness, such as God originally required of men, but he did have faith, and so God graciously accepted faith as a substitute for righteousness.” (Vos, 163) Additionally, the phrase “any act thereof” would probably include repentance, sorrow, etc. (those things mentioned above). Faith itself or any kinds of acts we might perform (whatever that might be), etc. are not substituted for our righteousness. God does not say, “You don’t have good deeds but do something, like believe, and I’ll accept you as righteous.”

Imputing faith for one’s justification is plausible given Rom. 4:3: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” This verse sounds like God is accepting the act of believing as a substitute for what Abraham couldn’t do and thus counting it as done. But as Douglas Moo says,

But if we compare other verses in which the same grammatical construction as is used in Gen. 15:6 occurs, we arrive at a different conclusion. These parallels suggest that the “reckoning” of Abraham’s faith as righteousness means “to account to him a righteousness that does not inherently belong to him.” Abraham’s response to God’s promise leads God to “reckon” to him a “status” of righteousness.[10]

Paul makes it clear in v. 4 that this gift of righteousness is not what is earned or what is due on account of works (“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.”). So the interpretation of v. 3 (i.e., making the act of believing the merit, basis, and the ground of one’s righteousness) would contradict the teaching of v. 4. NT scholars have noted that many of the Jews believed Abraham faith was Abraham’s obedience to God and regarded as a work for which God owed him a reward.[11] Paul would have been very aware of that and vv. 3, 4 contradict the received Jewish opinion. To locate merit in the believer (his act of believing) would destroy Paul’s argument. Bavinck puts it well:

If faith justified on account of itself, the object of that faith (that is, Christ) would totally lose its value. But the faith that justifies is precisely the faith that has Christ as its object and content. Therefore, if righteousness came through the law, and if faith were a work that had merit and value as such and made a person acceptable to God, then Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21). In Justification faith is so far from being regarded as a ground that Paul can say that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).[12]

The Westminster divines obviously wanted to close the door on any and all kinds of imagined human activities that could be used to claim merit. Any act, whatever that might be, cannot imputed for one’s justification. The faith that justifies has not merit in itself. This is a wonderful blessing. Faith must always look outside itself and never to itself. Too often people look in to see if they have “enough” faith, piety, repentance, sorrow, passion, zeal, etc. No act, even faith (if we trust in it), can justify.

Faith is an Instrument

This last clause explains the function of faith. Faith is not itself a meritorious work but it is only an instrument by which we receive Christ: “but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.” How does faith justify a sinner? Faith is only an instrument — it looks beyond itself to Christ to receive Him. We have already noted that justifying faith is a saving grace (LC #72) — it is produced by the work of the Spirit. When He works that faith in us, we look to Christ by faith and receive Him and all of His benefits. Thomas Watson summarizes it well: “The dignity is not in faith as a grace, but relatively, as it lays hold on Christ’s merits.”[13]


[1] William Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology (New York: Hunt & Eaton, nd), 2:408.

[2] John Miley, Systematic Theology, 2:319.

[3] Cf. Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (London: Printed for Thomas Tegg & Sons, 1835), 154ff.; Henry C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine (Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham, 1903), 445ff.

[4] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 229.

[5] Loosely following F. F. Bruce in Gerald L. Borchert, in Galatians, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, vol. 14 (Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2007), 316, loosely follows or cites F. F. Bruce. Bruce says, “faith is viewed as the root, love as the fruit.”

[6] Cf. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publications Company, 1982), 233.

[7] Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 317. “Middle” voice indicates that the subject is the one acting and in this instance, it is “working itself” (almost like a reflexive verb).

[8] N. T. Wright, Romans, The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 482.

[9] Some mature believers are gifted enough to work through Wright’s writings without being infected by his thinking. He is not a safe guide though at times he can be insightful and helpful. He has fundamentally reshaped Pauline theology and in turn historic theology. I grow more and more impatient with his writings as he pushes his agenda throughout his publications.

[10] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 262.

[11] See Moo cited above.

[12] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 4:211.

[13] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, nd),158.

Larger Catechism, #72

The Larger Catechism

Question 72

72.       Q. What is justifying faith?

A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[297] Hebrews 10:39. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. [298] 2 Corinthians 4:13. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak. Ephesians 1:17-19. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power. [299] Romans 10:14-17. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [300] Acts 2:37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 16:30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? John 16:8-9. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me. Romans 6:6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Ephesians 2:1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. [301] Ephesians 1:13. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. [302] John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Acts 16:31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. [303] Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Acts 15:11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Introduction

The question assumes something we all recognize. There is a kind of faith that justifies and a kind that does not. Not all faith justifies though genuine faith alone justifies. Many people who go to church believe many orthodox truths but mere mental assent does not justify. I may believe that eating pork is bad for me or drinking wine is good for me but such belief does nothing for my health if I don’t act on that belief.

So the first thing to consider is that there is a faith that does not justify. James 2 speaks cogently of that matter. Believing orthodox truths may put us on an equal footing with demons — “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder.” (James 2:19) James says you do well to believe such things but also points out that that demons believe the same things. “The point James is now driving home is that a Christian creed without corresponding Christian conduct will save neither devil nor man.”[1]  Some have called this “dead orthodoxy” but it is in fact licentious orthodoxy. It is not only inert; it is carnal. Faith without works is dead! Jesus says that this kind of faith in the end “proves unfruitful” (Mt. 13:22, ἄκαρπος γίνεται, or “becomes unfruitful”).

Another example of a faith that does not justify is what we call a temporary faith. Temporary faith represents the ones who “believe for a while” (Lk. 8:13, πρὸς καιρὸν πιστεύουσιν, or “they believe for a time or a season”). Whatever the reason (worldliness, temptation, seduction, persecution, etc.), they end up believing for a season, for a time. The length of belief may be many years or for a short time but eventually time reveals the nature of their belief.

It is not wrong to examine ourselves regarding the nature of our faith. Protestants have rightly taught that we are justified by faith alone. Unfortunately, any and all faiths have been accepted. The mere profession of faith somehow protects the person from any scrutiny — forming any discerning judgment about the genuineness the person’s profession is considered uncharitable. Because a person says he has faith, it is tantamount to asserting that the person has justifying faith.

Furthermore, a growing trend in the Reformed circle has rightly stressed justification by faith. Yet, a strange (and disconcerting) aberration has developed from this. Any emphasis on obedience, sanctification, adherence to God’s law, etc. has been roundly criticized for being legalistic. Justification by faith alone has displaced sanctification and obedience in many. Men like Tullian Tchividjian have been criticized for this.[2] For this reason, we need to be clear about justifying faith.

Saving Grace

The first thing the LC states is that justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God…” Justifying faith is first and foremost a saving grace. This means that those who have this faith have received a work of grace in their hearts that is saving. It will truly justify and in turn truly save. The classic text is Eph. 2:8-10. The saving faith “is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” The text used to support the LC statement is Heb. 10:39: “But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.” The phrase reads “but of faith unto the preserving of the soul” (ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς). The writer of Hebrews is arguing that his readers are those who have a faith that truly saves unto the end. The ones who “shrink back” are not saved but “are destroyed.” They believed for a while but such a faith did not justify.

This justifying faith is a gift wrought in us: “wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit.”   2Cor. 4:13 supports that point: “Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak…” The phrase “same spirit of faith” is very important.[3] It teaches that Paul and the NT believers have the same faith the same Holy Spirit created in the Psalmist. He is the one who enables us to believe.

Furthermore, this faith is wrought “by the Spirit and Word of God.” Vos has this to say, “The Word, or gospel, message alone, without the Holy Spirit, may result in a kind of faith, but not justifying faith. Where the Word is not known, as among the heathen who have never heard the name of Christ, the Holy Spirit does not do any saving work (except perhaps in the case of infants dying in infancy, etc.).” (159-160) The Spirit doesn’t create faith without a context. The person believes the truth preached. He has faith in something and justifying faith believes in the gospel and all that it teaches. When God created faith in Lydia, we see that it is coupled with the message preached to her: “and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14, NASB). She responded or paid attention to the message preached; God did not merely create faith in her without a corresponding gospel for her to believe. As Paul has taught, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

Justifying Faith and Conviction

There is an element added here that could easily be misunderstood. Justifying faith includes the following, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition…” The person with real justifying faith is also convinced of his sin and misery. We read in Acts 2:37 that the people who heard Peter’s preaching were “pricked in their heart.” That is, they were convicted by what they heard, convicted of their guilt and sin. The Spirit will “reprove the world of sin” (Jn. 16:8) and everyone who has genuine justifying faith will be convinced he is a sinner. What is not spelled out (and it cannot be spelled out) is how much conviction of sin and a sense of misery they must experience. Some measure, however little, accompanies genuine justifying faith — whatever it takes to get them to Christ.

In Acts 16:30, the Philippian jailer was compelled to ask what he must do to be saved, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Here, the jailer recognized his need for salvation and realized there was no one who could help him. He had a sense of the “disability in himself” — he does not seek the remedy from somewhere else except in Christ Jesus. The truth of Acts 4:12 (“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”) also means that the convinced sinner realizes that Christ is the answer to his misery and lost condition.

Some, like Zane Hodges (a dispensationalist), have argued that faith is simply “believe.” It is no different than asking someone if he believed that the President will do what he promised. Faith is just like that, he argues.[4] There is no “mental assent” for him; there is only belief and unbelief. Faith is the “inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true.”[5] He (along with Ryrie) is convinced that the Bible doesn’t teach intellectual faith, historic faith, etc. It is belief or unbelief. Ryrie says, “When a person gives credence to the historical facts that Christ died and rose from the dead and the doctrinal fact that this was for his sins, he is trust his eternal destiny to the reliability of those truths.”[6] They fail to recognize a simple point. It is true that faith means all those things but what they failed to consider is that Scripture teaches much more than that. Those who say they believe do not necessarily savingly believe on account of their lifestyle, affections, etc. So faith includes much more than mere credence to some historical facts. Are there not many who have left the church who would never say they don’t believe those verities in the Bible? Justifying faith is more than mere mental assent.

Faith and Assent

Here is where the divines saw right through this issue: “not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin…” First of all, assenting to the truth of the promise of the gospel is necessary. Salvation is not just an experience. Something happens to the sinner (regeneration) but that work in him comes with the reception of the truth by the sinner. To be more precise, the work of regeneration enables the person to assent to the truth. The sinner trusts in Christ as he first believes in the truth: “when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him…” (Eph. 1:13). Hearing the word of truth and believing in Him go together; that is, the sinner assents to the “word of truth” when he hears it and with it he believes in him. Before unpacking that point, we need to consider a very important aspect of assenting to the truth. Vos asks, “When a person denies the truthfulness of God’s Word, in whole or in part, what does this show concerning the state of that person’s heart?

Such unbelief ordinarily indicates that the person does not have saving faith, and is not a child of God. The only exception to this statement would be the case of a person in whose heart justifying faith has been wrought by the Holy Spirit, who yet because of weakness of intellect denies the truthfulness or authority of some portion of the Bible without realizing that this is inconsistent with justifying faith and that it dishonors God. (Vos, 160)

Assenting to the truth of the gospel means that the person believes what the Bible says. We have no gospel except the one presented in the Bible. Assenting to the truth of the promise of the gospel go hand in hand with the truth of the Bible. The Spirit who gave the Word is Himself the one who enables a sinner to believe in His Word. He would not regenerate someone to not accept His own Word.

As we’ve already stated, it is more than assent because the truth brings with it the Person to whom the truth points. Jn. 1:12 speaks of receiving Christ (“But as man as received him…”) while Acts 16:31 writes of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 10:43). These verses clearly teach that in assenting to the truth, we are also receiving and resting on Christ. Propositions do not save us; Christ does. In justifying faith, the sinner receives Christ— the whole soul rests on Christ: “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt. 11:28). The Puritans spoke of the sinner “recumbing and relying on the Lord Jesus Christ as offered in the promise of free grace for his righteousness.”[7] Recumbing means to repose, recline, etc. These various verbs all connote the simple idea of “resting” or leaning on Christ.

In this believing we set our seal that God is true; and God will, in due time, if He has not done so already, set His seal to work assurance in you, to second your reliance. ‘But if you believe not, thus you make God a liar’ (1 John 5:10).

Though you assent to the truth of the promises of Christ, yet if you draw back your affiance and relying, as if the promises were not to you, you give God the lie. Oh, then, in the sense of your own nakedness, come out of yourselves and cast yourself on Christ for righteousness—and this is the faith that saves you.

How many men deceive themselves in this saving act of faith! If they know the promise of Christ as our righteousness and assent to it, they think that is enough. But, alas, it is not; for there must be a stripping of a man’s self naked of his own righteousness and a resting on this righteousness of Christ’s alone. David stripped himself of his armor, and so went out against Goliath in the name of the Lord. Adam was naked and saw it before God made the promise of Christ.[8]

To lean or rely on something means that if the said object upon which we rely or lean is removed, we would fall. The sinner does not merely assent to the truth, he also leans on Christ. If the “prop” is not there or if the prop fails, then the one leaning on it falls. The sinner leans on Christ and His righteousness so much that if Christ fails him, he is undone.

The divines rightly recognize that justifying faith means that the sinner looks to Christ and His righteousness — he sees that righteousness and the forgiveness of sins are offered in Christ and he rests in Christ for them. In the Bible we read that God enables us to be “in Christ Jesus, who became to us … righteousness” (1 Cor. 1:30). Paul says he wants to be found in Christ not having a righteousness of his own “but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9). Justifying faith looks to Christ for that righteousness and the forgiveness of sins — “that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43).

So, justifying faith assumes a body of biblical knowledge, a belief in those truths, a relying and resting on Christ and a looking to Him for righteousness and the forgiveness of sins.  That is to say, justifying faith means something more than a vague religious experience! It possesses rich biblical content that focuses on forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness! If those things are not preached then there can be no justifying faith — however sincere the profession may be!

Faith and Being Account Righteous

Lastly, justifying faith of course assumes the effect of faith: “and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.” Phil. 3:9 (quoted above) clearly teaches the point made in the LC. The sinner who truly believes recognizes that his believing in Christ means that he will be accounted righteous in the sight of God. God does not merely tolerate us by forgiving us — He actually accounts us as righteous in his sight. It is not as if we never sinned but rather as if we had perfectly obeyed the law — not we in ourselves but Christ and His righteousness!


[1] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 127.

[2] See http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/08/sanctification-and-the-nature.php.

[3] “Gk. τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως, a probable reference to the Holy Spirit, through whom faith comes (see, e.g., 1 Cor 12:3). Despite his emphasis on the eschatological coming of the Spirit in the new covenant, Paul nonetheless acknowledges the work of the Spirit in the life of the psalmist” (Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 240).

[4] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Rendención Viva, 1989), 27-28.

[5] Hodges, Absolutely Free, 31.

[6] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What it Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), 30.

[7] Obadiah Grew, The Lord our Righteousness: The Old Perspective (reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 69.

[8] Obadiah Grew, The Lord our Righteousness, 70.

Larger Catechism, #71

The Larger Catechism

Question 71

71.       Q. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?

A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified;[291] yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son,[292] imputing his righteousness to them,[293] and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith,[294] which also is his gift,[295] their justification is to them of free grace.[296]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[291] Romans 5:8-10, 19. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life…. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. [292] 1 Timothy 2:5-6. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Hebrews 10:10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Matthew 20:28. Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Daniel 9:24, 26. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy…. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. Isaiah 53:4-6, 10-12. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all…. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Hebrews 7:22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. Romans 8:32. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 1 Peter 1:18-19. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. [293] 2 Corinthians 5:21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. [294] Romans 3:24-25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. [295] Ephesians 2:8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. [296] Ephesians 1:17. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.

Introduction

The previous question emphatically stated that justification is an act of God’s free grace and this question explains exactly how it can be. This question may appear to be unnecessary. But this important question is more perceptive than one might imagine. The Protestant doctrine of justification by faith underwent great scrutiny due to its strong legal (and biblical) definition. That is, since justification means a person is declared innocent and righteous, then wherein lies the grace? If the payment has been paid, then justification is an act of justice and not one of grace. That is, if satisfaction was required, then justification cannot be a gracious act but one that is legally required. In order for justification to be gracious, some of have maintained, atonement cannot satisfy divine justice. (see my paper “Arminianism Exposed”) Vos framed the question in this helpful way: “Why does it seem contradictory to say that justification is an act of God’s free grace?” He answers, “It seems contradictory to make this statement, because our justification was purchased by the payment of a price; if purchased and paid for, then how can t be at the same time a free gift? This is the problem that this question of the catechism explains.”[1]

Grace and Justice

The LC offers the following subordinate clause, “Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified…” The following verses support the point: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life…. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Romans 5:8-10, 19)

Paul clearly teaches that we are “justified by his blood” (5:9, e˙n twˆ◊ aiºmati aujtouv) which is Paul’s short hand for what he said in 3:24, 25, “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood (e˙n twˆ◊ aujtouv aiºmati).”[2] Justification assumes the blood shedding that propitiated God. As the LC states, Christ “did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified.” Those who are justified are justified on the basis of Christ’s shed blood. His death satisfied divine justice.[3]

The point behind this subordinate clause is to underscore the fact that free grace in justification does not mean God’s divine justice had been overlooked. Grace and justice are not mutually exclusive in God’s dealings with us through His Son. The gracious act of justification is founded on Christ’s real and full satisfaction. Note the words — “proper, real, and full satisfaction.” It was “proper” or the appropriate and necessary satisfaction. The satisfaction was not contrived or remotely sufficient— it was the proper satisfaction. The adjective “real” denotes its genuine nature. The satisfaction was neither a façade nor a fairy tale. The satisfaction was not a meaningful “narrative” but a real divine satisfaction. In was also full, not partial, incomplete, provisional, etc. His death fully satisfied divine justice. This clause serves as the basis for answering how justification is gracious. Vos says that the “sinner cannot be justified unless God’s justice has first been satisfied” (155).

Grace and Surety

We are do not ordinarily use the word “surety” in our day. It means guarantor, a sponsor, a pledge, a bond, etc. So the LC states: “yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son.” The answer states that God accepts the satisfaction from a “surety” — from someone else, from a sponsor who guarantees the debt owed. In this case, Jesus guarantees that the debt will be paid; he satisfies that debt through His death. Various verses are offered to support this point (1Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 10:10; Mt. 20:28; Dan. 9:24-26; Is. 53:4-6, 10-12; Heb. 7:22; Rom. 8:32; 1Pet. 1:18-19, see above for the actual verses).

The grace comes in the fact that God both sends the Son (Jn. 3:16) and accepts His ransom as the basis for satisfying His divine justice — “the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his stripes we are healed” (Is. 53:5).[4] Who brought this come about? Who made this happen? The Messiah was “smitten of God [My™IhølTa]” (Is. 53:4); it pleased the Lord to bruise him (Is. 53:10) because “the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand” (Is. 53:10). God’s will was to smite and bruise His Son so that His [God the Father, h™Dwh◊y] purpose would prosper.

The catechism notes that God “might have demanded of them,” that is, God could have required that we personally satisfy divine justice. God could have demanded that we pay for our own sins. In His love, wisdom, and holiness, He provided someone who would be our guarantor. Vos says, “Salvation is free to sinners, but it cost the precious blood of Christ to make it free for us.” (155)

Couldn’t God have simply overlooked our sins and forgive? Could He not by fiat declare that we are just? Who could argue against Him? God cannot deny Himself — He cannot clear the guilty (Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18; Nah. 1:3). Wisdom has contrived a way to meet His just demands — He would have it paid by the death of His Son; Jesus would pay the ransom for our sins (1Tim. 2:5-6). The surety was God’s idea. He can be just and the justifier (Rom. 3:26). Because God provided the surety, it is His act of grace.

Grace and Righteousness

The catechism further states the following regarding God’s Son whom the Father sent: “imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.” All these elements are further demonstrations of God’s grace. The first one is imputation. In providing the surety, God in turn also imputed His Son’s righteousness to our account (see our study of LC #70 for what imputation means). This imputation is God’s free gift to us! Remember, Rom. 3:24-25 states that we are justified by his grace; justification by definition means imputation. Another element of grace in justification is that it comes to us by faith. We do not earn this righteousness, it is received by faith (more on this in the next LC question). This faith is itself a gift (Eph. 2:8). God enables us to believe. All of these element point to God’s grace.

The Gift of Justification

At its heart, justification is the gracious act of God. The Bible speaks of it in several ways,  “Justification is by grace (3:24), by faith (3:28), and connected with the resurrection (4:25); it is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:11), in the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11), in Christ (Gal. 2:17), and here it is by his blood. 30 These are all facets of God’s great saving act, and the various ways of expressing it center impressively on the truth that it is all of God (8:33).”[5] Justification is something God does and His act of declaring that we are innocent, forgiven, righteous, no longer under condemnation, etc. is an act of His free grace!


[1] Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, 155.

[2] In both texts (Rom. 5:9 & 3:324, 25), the phrase “by his blood” is almost exact; only the possessive pronoun (aujtouv) has been rearranged.

[3] As mentioned before, see our study of LC #38 & 39. In those studies, we expound the biblical teaching of Christ’s vicarious atonement and the role of active and passive obedience.

[4] The LXX has paidei÷a ei˙rh/nhß hJmw◊n e˙p∆ aujto/n which means “the discipline/chastisement of our peace [was] upon him.” It is “our peace” (‹…wn‹EmwølVv).

[5] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 224-225.

 

Larger Catechism, #70 [Excursus: Paul vs. James?]

Excursus[1]

Having dealt with the Reformed view of justification by faith alone, we also need to address the matter of Paul and James. I believe there is a solution to the following —

A. Paul’s statement: “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28, lit. translation—  λογιζόμεθα ⸀γὰρ ⸂δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει⸃ ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου)

B. James’s statement: “justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (2:24, ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον)

Johnson says, “It is obvious to every reader that James is saying something different from what Paul said. The question is, How different?”[2] We believe the two are very different. The solution lies in clarifying four different and significant issues surrounding this debate.[3] Once we recognize them, the “problem” disappears, not because of some slight of hand or some sneaky word play but because the issues that James and Paul were pursuing were entirely different. Even the highly liberal scholar Kummel sees a way through this difficulty by recognizing the different circumstances in James and Paul: he says, “If the distinctions in the terminology and the divergent polemical aims of Paul and James are taken into account appropriately, and if accordingly, between the two forms of theological statement a considerably larger area of commonality can be established…”[4] If we let the two respective inspired writers speak on their own terms and in their own contexts, then I believe we will find that a formal harmonization will not be necessary.

I believe the four areas in which James and Paul differed are the following:

1. Different historical situations

2. Different use of the word “faith”

3. Different use of the word “works”

4. Different use of the word “justification”

Of the four, the last item has been the traditional solution. In a sense, if the first three areas are proved, then the last point need not apply. One could argue that the word justification is used in the same way for Paul and James providing we understand the first three points. But I believe it can be shown that James was driving at a different point in his epistle (we’ll call it an “epistle” though there is debate as to its actual genre).

Different historical situations

It is obvious to many NT scholars that James and Paul are dealing with different sets of problems. They are not addressing the same circumstance and different questions were being answered. Paul was dealing with works righteousness while James was dealing with no righteousness. Paul was countering legalism while James was contending with antinomianism. Paul was destroying the notion of merit-righteousness while James was establishing the necessity of holiness. But this is no longer an accepted view. E.P. Sanders and James Dunn have argued that Paul was not writing a polemic against legalism. These two men have influenced new NT scholars. Dunn actually argues that Paul’s major concern was over the issue of Jewish nationalism and exclusivism.

In Rom. 10:3, Paul makes it clear that the Jews were “seeking to establish their own” righteousness and would not submit to the righteousness that comes from God. Romans 4:4-5 demonstrates that Paul was writing against those who trusted in their own works.[5] Paul did not want anyone to imagine that God justified on the basis of one’s works. Paul’s polemic in Romans (as well as in Galatians) was against those who believed that some performance of the law merited God’s approval. So Paul said that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

James, on the other hand, is dealing with something entirely different. Chapter two addresses those who show favoritism and he encourages adherence to the “royal law” (v. 8).  In verses 8-13, James encourages adherence to the moral law (notice, no reference to any ceremonial or ritual laws). He is encouraging obedience. When we come to vv. 14-26, James continues the same theme. “What good is it, my brothers…” is his question for this section. What benefit is it not to have “works” (obedience, evidential works)? The example he uses is critical to understanding his concern. He has already condemned favoritism and now he denounces the professing believer who neglects a brother in need. He is not arguing against works righteousness; he is condemning the absence of righteousness. Paul’s concern is soteriological while James is ethical. Paul is concerned with the way of salvation through faith in Christ while James is concerned with the way of life in salvation. Paul wrote against “works righteousness” while James combated a “lack of righteousness.”

Paul and James therefore wrestled with two different church settings. This observation means that we should expect different emphases. Their circumstances were not related at all and therefore their bold statements may appear to be contradictory. A family that lives in a dry climate may say, “Always save the waste water and put it in the backyard.” This same family, if they moved into a very humid and wet environment may say, “Never worry about saving water and make sure our waste water is removed as far as possible from our premises.” On the face of it, the statements are contradictory but the contexts clarify the statement. So, Paul and James made their statements in two different situations. Paul would have said the same thing as James were he in the same circumstance as James’s. Once we recognize this, then we will begin to see that different solutions had to be offered. Unfortunately, they utilized the same vocabulary within different circumstances.  That is why the subsequent discussions have to show how they differed from each other.

Different use of the word “faith”

James is fighting against a certain type of faith. Paul is pitting faith against works as a means of justification. Let us consider James’s view. In 2:17, James states that “faith, by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (NIV) — (NASB has, Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself; οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ ⸂ἔχῃ ἔργα⸃, νεκρά ἐστιν καθʼ ἑαυτήν). He reiterates this point in different words in 2:20 —“faith without deeds is useless” (ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ⸀ἀργή ἐστιν); and in 2:26, “faith without deeds is dead” (ἡ πίστις ⸀χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν). James is combatting dead useless faith.

Let us unpack this a little bit. We must recognize that “faith” itself is insignificant. If I have faith in Buddha, then I can be certain that such faith cannot justify. All would concur. Then naked faith can do nothing; it is not the power of faith that justifies. James is teaching that this “said” faith (“someone says he has faith but does not have works” v. 14,  ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ) is not saving faith. In v. 18, a similar pronouncement is made, “But some will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”  Lest we be led into some esoteric view, James particularizes it in verses 15 & 16. A professed faith that neglects our brethren is simply a clear demonstration that the faith that they profess is useless and dead. “James is disturbed at a faith that has no works to demonstrate its reality in the life of a believer.”[6]

Paul, on the other hand, is saying that when it comes to justification, faith is the sole instrument — works do not play any justifying role. God’s righteousness is manifested “apart from the law” (Rom 3:21) and that man is justified by faith “apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). When Paul is dealing with justification by faith, he is pitting this gospel truth against those who “rely on the works of the law” (Gal. 3:10). So, in a sense, he pits faith against works of the law when it comes to justification. He is not arguing that this justifying faith is like the faith James was condemning. Certainly, if we would just step back and consider James’s situation, we would have no problem seeing Paul stating the same things as James given the context and given the “kind” of faith James was combating.

Paul is contemplating a faith that serves as a point of entry into life while James has in mind a faith that professes to have life.  Paul views faith as a means of justification. James views faith as a living faith and not a useless one. They are not opposed to each other because they do not have the same concept of faith.

It is interesting to note that men like Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich would be the first to declare “faith alone” but their views are entirely different from Paul’s and James’s. Tillich believed that faith is “the state of being ultimately concerned” and drew from that all manner of foolishness.[7] Both James and Paul would say “Tillich’s faith” cannot justify because it is useless and dead as to its content and consequent fruit. Peter Davids suggests that someone must have been saying something like, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity.”[8] That may well have been the slogan James was refuting; it certainly fits the context.

Different use of the word “works”

We look at the words “works” and assume that certainly Paul and James are dealing with the same concept.[9] This is probably the easiest thing to overlook.  First of all,[10] the exact vocabulary of James 2:24 is not found in any of Paul’s writings. In Rom. 3:20, Paul uses “by/from works of the law” while James uses “by works.” In Rom. 3:28, it is “without works of the law” and in 4:16, it is “not only to the adherent of the law.” In the original Greek, it becomes clear that the exact phrases are never used. Secondly, the vocabulary differs at critical points. James never uses nomos or law in this section. Paul says, ‘without works of the law” — the works are always “works of the law.” James, on the other hand, never uses the word LAW in this section.

Paul’s phrase “works of the law” is a reference to positive acts of obedience. These acts of obedience to God’s law can never justify us. Again, he is dealing with one’s entry into salvation. James, on the other hand, uses “works” in the life of a believer. A professing believer should show works of holiness in his life or else it is empty. It may be better to translate everything in this section as “deeds.” The English word “deeds” connotes a demonstrative faith while the theologically technical word “works” denotes acts of obedience unto justification (which Paul refutes).

In summary, we may say that Paul is wrestling with works of the law that are a means of justification while James is confronting “works” or deeds that are entirely absent in the ones who profess to be justified. Paul is dealing with the role of works, once again, as it pertains to entering into life while James is dealing with deeds that give evidence of the one who professes to have life. In summary, Adamson’s words may be helpful here, “Faith is the inspiration of works, and works are the proof of faith.”[11] Another commentator put it this way, “Where ‘Paul denies the need for ‘pre-conversion works,’ James emphasizes the absolute necessity of post-conversion works.”[12] Works of the Law are entirely absent for Paul when it comes to justification. Works are always present in James when it comes to one’s expression of faith.

Different use of the word “justification”

The same form of the word “justify” is not in Paul and James. Paul (Rom. 3:20 [δικαιωθήσεται]; Rom. 3:28 [δικαιοῦσθαι]; James 2:21 [ἐδικαιώθη]; James in 2:24 [δικαιοῦται]). The exact word is never used which suggests that James perhaps was not arguing against Paul.[13] Though all four passages may have the passive voice, none of them have the exact same form.

Does that necessarily mean that James and Paul have defined the words differently? Not necessarily.  But the context adds something to this. In verse 18, James is saying “I will show you my faith by my works.” His concern is to demonstrate the reality of the faith before men.[14] This seems to be clearly the case in v. 21. Abraham was justified by works or vindicated by his deeds.[15] The justifying means of faith was not denied by James as he cites Gen. 15:6 in verse 23. So, the justifying in verse 24 could well be translated as “vindication.” Or, it is as Trapp says, “It is faith that justifies the man; but they are works that justify faith to be right and real, saving and justifying.” (Trapp on v. 21).

However, if we take it to mean the same thing (namely, that justification means the same thing in both James and Paul), then we can still see that the “faith alone” that James refutes is the useless dead faith he already demolished.[16] Genuine humble faith always works though one’s deeds do not earn salvation or merit justification. Remember, faith is full of works but the works in faith do not justify because we are justified by faith alone.


[1] This is taken from my lecture notes on the General Epistles.

[2] Luke T. Johnson, “Letter of James,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. et al. Leander E. Keck, 12 (Nashville: Abington Press, 1998), 197.

[3] Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, ZECNT, vol. 16 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 139 argue that ‘faith,’ ‘works,’ and ‘justify’ are used differently between Paul and James.

[4] W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., translated by H. C. Lee (Nashville: Abington Press, 1973), 415.

[5] See T. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 93-121 for an excellent defense of this position against Sanders, Dunn, et al.

[6] R. Martin, James, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 48 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 96. Adolf Schlatter seems to believe that James was focusing on the demonstrative aspect of faith in his A. Schlatter, The Theology of the Apostles, translated by A. J. Kostenberger (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 88-89. “Mere confession cannot be considered to be a sufficient demonstration of faith but only works, since words do not yet reveal the essential characteristic of faith” (89). Works “lend visible expression to our faith.”

[7] See his infamous P. Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957).

[8] P. H. Davids, The Epistle of James, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 132.

[9] Of course, we are not arguing that the words “works” are different— they are exactly the same but the two writers use them differently.

[10] The basic structure of this argument is taken from P. H. Davids, The Epistle of James, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 130-131.

[11] J. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 38.

[12] Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, 132.

[13] Most liberal and critical scholars assume that James was refuting either Pauline theology or most likely an aberrant form of Pauline teaching. L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, translated by J. E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 2:208-209 argues that James was refuting a “slogan” used by some disciples of Paul. Apart from that, much of what he says is quite helpful, pp. 209-211. Martin entertains a similar thesis, R. P. Martin, New Testament Foundations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 2:362.

[14] The divines would say  in foro humano, in the human forum or court.

[15] The word justify (dikaioo) usually means to declare righteous but there are a few times where it means something like “demonstrate to be right” or “vindicate” as in Mt. 11:19. “Wisdom is proved right by her actions.” (cf. Lk. 7:35; 10:19; 16:15) This probably is the best way to explain what is going on in the passage.

[16] Most NT scholars believe any attempt to deny that both James and Paul are using the same concept of justification is doomed to fail. See B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 3rd revised ed., translated by J. E. Duguid (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, [1879]), 1:257 n.4.

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 3]

70.       Q. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]

PART 3

Without Works

This glorious blessing comes to believers “not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them.” Paul says that we are “justified by his grace” (Titus 3:7) and that God saved us “not by works of righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:5). None of these blessings come to us on the basis of the change that we undergo or on the basis of the works that we perform. The two phrases are critical. When the divines say that it is “not for any thing wrought in them,” they are saying that we not declared righteous because of something done in us (wrought in them). Our growth in holiness, devotion to Christ, deepening love to Christ, etc. are not the reasons for God to accept us righteous in His sight. Furthermore, it also is not dependent on the obedience we offer to God (whatever that may be).

This is entirely opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine as set forth in their  Council of Trent. Ch. VII[1] says that the cause of justification is that God “maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and cooperation.”

Notice, God “maketh” us just. We are not “only reputed” to be just before God “but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us…” Justification therefore is in fact based upon what is wrought in us and done by us. In the end, justification is not truly an act of grace and mercy but one of justice, as something that God must do. The divines also curiously cite Eph. 1:7. At first glance, it is not immediately apparent how this verse applies: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace…” Yet, the general point of the verse is critical, our full redemption is “according to the riches of his grace” and not according to the riches of our own inherent righteousness. Justification is an act of grace purchased by the redemption of Jesus Christ.

Imputation

We have already developed some of these points in our exposition above. Yet a few more points can be gleaned from the following: “but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them.” If it isn’t our own works and on the basis of something wrought in us, then on what basis can God declare us righteous in His sight? It is that question this phrase answers. The LC explains whose righteousness is imputed to us. This phrase in the LC is often labeled as active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ’s perfect obedience refers to His obedience unto the Father in everything. In particular, it is His obedience to the Law of God. The passive obedience refers to the sufferings he willingly underwent. Of these things, we have dealt with in LC #38 & 39. He fully fulfilled all the laws requirements and satisfied God in His suffering (to satisfy divine justice). This point is summarily stated in Rom. 5:19 —“through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

That full righteousness is imputed to us. It is His righteousness in our account, we are declared righteous. Wesleyans deny this.  They say, “Christ’s death is a substitute for our punishment but not for our holiness.”[2]  That is, they take the passive obedience of Christ and dispense with the active obedience. This takes us no further than Roman Catholicism. The papists all knew our sins were washed away (again and again, etc.) but could not account for the righteousness (except for what we do). Interestingly, they says our righteousness is our faith, that is, our act of faith is considered to be the righteousness which in turn makes the act of man the basis of our standing before God.[3] Paul says, “in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (thn e˙k qeouv dikaiosu/nhn e˙pi« thØv pi÷stei)” (Phil. 3:8, 9). It is a righteousness that comes from God that comes to us (not our own) —one is from God and the other from the law — “e˙k qeouv indicates that the sourceof this righteousness is God himself. It stands in sharp contrast to e˙k no/mou: Paul viewed the two as mutually exclusive.”[4]

Sola Fide

The last and most important phrase deals with the means of justification: “and received by faith alone.” All that has been said is received by faith alone. It is not faith in addition to something else (baptism, penance, immersion, etc.). The sola is critical here.

Catholics insist that it is not by faith alone. The title of the book is Not By Faith Alone.[5] It is argued that the Bible says explicitly the opposite in James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” They have a point; the Bible does not say explicitly that a man is justified by faith alone! How do we deal with this?

First of all, a word about Paul and James. I have written the following before: James “is not arguing against works righteousness; he is condemning the absence of righteousness. Paul’s concern is soteriological while James is ethical. Paul is concerned with the way of salvation through faith in Christ while James is concerned with the way of life in salvation. Paul wrote against “works righteousness” while James combated a “lack of righteousness.””[6]

Secondly, though the explicit phrase “faith alone” is not used in reference to justification, we must not assume therefore it is a wrong phrase. The phrase conveys the substance of Biblical teaching. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith without works, what are we to make of it? Rom. 3:28 says, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Again, in Rom. 4:5 Paul says, “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…” In Gal. 2:16 Paul says—  “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” In all these verses, Paul is pitting a singular act of faith against works of the law. Yes, he did not say “faith alone” but did he need to say it in view of the contrast? Was he saying, “We are justified by faith plus a few other things we do and yet it is apart from the works of the law?” That point just doesn’t need to be stated.

We have to state it because the point of the verse is undermined by sinful innovations. In those who oppose sola fide, they always make it faith plus something else (plus what God does in us, plus what acts we perform, plus this or that ritual act, etc.).

Catholics — Trent On Justification

Here are just a few extracts to give you a taste of the RC teaching on this matter. The up to date edition of J. Neuner and J. Dupuis’s work does not change any of this. Lastly, most modern Catholics (laity) are unaware of their own doctrinal foundations and views. Their personal affirmations and denials do not often represent their “church’s” teaching.[7]

CANON I. — If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. [N.B. — Papists do not deny that God’s grace is necessary; they are not Pelagians. They are semi-Pelagians and therefore God’s grace is not the sole efficient cause of our salvation.]

CANON XI. — If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. [N. B. — Papists deny that Christ’s righteousness imputed to us is the sole basis of our justification. They require inherent grace working in us; grace coupled with human effort (cooperation) are both needed in order to be justified. Grace begins it (for the papists) and human effort adds to it (works inspired by grace our labors still play a cooperative role in justification).]

CANON XII. — If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. [N. B. — Man is not justified by faith alone for the papist. Here, the papists are very clear in denouncing the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. The evangelical believer is condemned in relying solely on Christ, for believing that he is justified by faith alone.]


[1] Decree on Justification, Sixth Session (Denzinger, §799).

[2]Wynkoop, Foundation of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology, 110.

[3] I develop this in my essay “Arminianism Exposed.”

[4] Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 397.

[5] Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997).

[6] See my essay “James vs. Paul?” (below)

[7] J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith (New York: Alba House, 2001), 793ff.

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 2]

The Larger Catechism

Questions 70

70.       Q. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]

PART 2

Forgiveness of Sins

The LC further states that justification includes forgiveness of sin: “in which he pardoneth all their sins.” In Rom. 4:6, Paul cites David’s statement in Ps. 32:1, 2 as the “blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works (ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων).” The verses he cites to support his statement on justification deal with the forgiveness of sins: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Justification includes forgiveness of sins. God is able to forgive because of the propitiatory work of Christ (Rom 3:15, “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”). Jesus covered our sins because He paid the penalty for them. For that reason, God may forgive justly and mercifully.

Justification is more than forgiveness. Yet, Wesleyans principally focus on this as the sum and substance of justification. Forgiveness is the “vital fact of justification.”[1] We must distinguish forgiveness of sin from justification but we cannot separate or equate them.

That a man is forgiven of all his sins is indeed wonderful but positive holiness is also required of man. A pauper may be forgiven of his debt; he is still penniless. Forgiveness is important but justification is more than forgiveness. With the forgiveness of sins, the believer is also accounted righteous!

Accepts as Righteous

            So the LC further states that in justification, God “accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight.” In the verse cited above, Paul says that the man is blessed whom God “counts righteousness” apart from the works of the law. The critical verb in Ps. 32 is “counts” (λογίζεται) — God does not make the person righteous but counts, reckons, declares them righteous. Paul cites Ps. 32 (Rom. 5:7,8) and in v. 6, he summarizes the point he will prove with the citation. Paul says that God does not count the sins against his people (v.8) and this has the net effect of counting the person righteous (v. 6). “To be counted as righteous apart from works is to have one’s lawless deeds forgiven, one’s sins covered, and one’s sin not taken into account.”[2] John Murray says this about the Romans passage:

We may not say that Paul intended to define the whole nature of justification as consisting in remission of sin. Where justification is, remission must be and vice versa. That is why he makes virtual equation in these verses. But as Paul has shown already (cf. 1:17; 3:21–26) and as he will show later (cf. 5:17–21; 10:3–6), remission does not define justification, though justification must embrace remission.[3]

The two verses from 2 Corinthians used to support the doctrine (5:19, 21) are also worth citing: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them… For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ).” Our trespasses are not counted against us because he became sin for us (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν) that we might become the righteousness of God — that is, just as God did not count sin against us, so God counts us as righteous all on account of Christ. Though two different verbs are used (reckoned and become), the parallel is assumed because in Christ God reconciled us, and in Him we become the righteousness of God. One commentator demonstrates this very point:

“To become the righteousness of God” is to gain a right standing before God that God himself bestows (cf. Rom. 5:17; Phil. 3:9). It is to be “constituted righteous” in the divine court, so that gene÷sqai dikaiosu/nh qeouv = κατασταθήσονται δίκαιοι (Rom. 5:19).[4] Although the term logi÷zomai is not used in v. 21 (but cf. v. 19), it is not inappropriate to perceive in this verse a double imputation: sin was reckoned to Christ’s account (v. 21a), so that righteousness is reckoned to our account (v. 21b).[5]

Another commentator puts it this way, “We do not simply have righteousness from God, we are the righteousness of God as a result of being in Christ (see 1 Cor 1:30; 6:11). We are given his righteousness only as we are in him, and will be raised like him only if we live in him.”[6] These are ours in Christ, in Him.

The LC states that God “accounteth their persons righteous in his sight” — it is in God’s sight and not per se in man’s sight that we are accepted and accounted righteous. His judicial verdict is what matters and this forensic alien righteousness accounted to us is our standing before God.


[1]Miley, Systematic Theology, 2:310-11.

[2] Thomas Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 219.

[3] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), 1:134-5.

[4] Rom. 5:19, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί).”

[5] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 455.

[6] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (NAC 29; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 302.

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 1]

The Larger Catechism

Questions 70

70.       Q. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]

 

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[286] Romans 3:22, 24-25. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference…. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Romans 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [287] 2 Corinthians 5:19, 21. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation…. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Romans 3:22, 24-25, 27-28. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference…. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God…. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. [288] Titus 3:5, 7. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost…. That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Ephesians 1:7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. [289] Romans 5:17-19. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Romans 4:6-8. 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. [290] Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Galatians 2:16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

 

Introduction

            As all Protestants know, the doctrine of justification is the article on which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae).[1] Protestants have historically understood this doctrine quite well but our generation has not embraced this doctrine with the necessary zeal it requires. As a result, ecumenical attempts have emerged to blur the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on this doctrine (e.g., ECT). Within Protestantism, the New Perspective on Paul has further eroded our understanding of this great doctrine. All of these forces are seducing a generation that is less theological and less concerned about historic biblical doctrines.

Ridgeley’s begins his exposition of this question by highlighting the importance of this doctrine. As he notes, in the LC, justification follows calling like Rom. 8:30, “Whom he called, them he also justified.” His explanation of how these questions relate to each other is very helpful.

Hitherto we have been led to consider that change of heart and life which is begun in effectual calling; whereby a dead sinner is made alive, and one who was wholly indisposed for good works, and averse to the performance of them, is enabled to perform them by the power of divine grace. Now we are to speak concerning that change of state which accompanies change of heart; whereby one who, being guilty before God, was liable to the condemning sentence of the law, and expected no other than an eternal banishment form his presence, is pardoned, received into favour, and has a right to all the blessing which Christ has, by his obedience and sufferings, purchased for him. (Ridgeley, 2:81)

Before expositing this question, we need to define what justification is. Modern evangelicals tend to use the word “saved” far more than “justified.” Furthermore, salvation is often simply defined as forgiveness of sins (it is that and much more).  Though debates about justification abound in the theological world, yet ordinary believers do not readily and frequently use the word. Consequently, absent are the weighty concepts related to the doctrine of justification. As a result, subtle but critical distinctions are lost. The differences, to many, seem inconsequential. In turn, differences between Evangelicals and Papists appear to be minimal. For that reason, we need to carefully explain this doctrine because eternal matters are at stake.

 

Definition of “Justify”[2]

1. The Latin Vulgate translated the word “justify”  with iustificare (to make righteous). Eventually, it took on the idea of spiritual transformation or a renovation of nature. This transformation presumably took place through the sacraments.[3]  Luther and the Reformers, after studying Scripture, questioned this understanding. Practically speaking, how would you know if you were justified enough, renovated enough? The Roman Catholic answer could never answer that.

2. The idea of justification deals with how a person is related to God and His law.  A court will declare Hitler guilty for infractions and crimes against humanity.  In a more profound sense, man has been declared guilty by God. Man is declared guilty for breaking God’s law.  To declare someone guilty is not to make them sinful but merely states a fact in relation to the law. In its relationship to regeneration (to which we have given some attention), Murray says, “Regeneration is an act of God in us; justification is a judgment of God with respect to us.”[4] Regeneration dealt with what happens in us. Justification is that which happens outside of us (“alien righteousness”).

3. Justification declares us righteous before God and His law.  The key word is declare. “In Scripture to justify does not mean to make righteous in the sense of changing a person’s character. It means to constitute righteous, and to do so by declaration.”[5]  But it is not a legal fiction (i.e. declaring something that is not the case).

The sentence of a human judge is merely declarative; it does not constitute a man either innocent or guilty, it only pronounces him to be so in the eyes of the law: it may even be erroneous, and may pronounce one to be innocent who is really guilty, and another to be guilty who is really innocent; whereas in justifying a sinner, God does what no human judge can do,…He first constitutes him righteous, who was not righteous before, and then declares him to be righteous, in His infallible judgment, which is ever according to truth.[6]

In other words, “The peculiarity of God’s action consists in this that he causes to be the righteous state or relation which is declared to be.”[7]  More simply put, God’s declaration is a truth, it really is the case. He declares to be the case as it really is. We may not feel it is the case or do we recognize it to be the case but that is the wonder of it.  God declares as He sees us to be in relation to Him—that is the most important “perspective.”

4. Scriptural reflections on justification.

a. Justification is declarative and is the opposite of condemnation. That is the way these verses use the term. Deut. 25:1, “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,…” Prov. 17:15, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.”

b. “The expressions used as synonyms or substitute for justify do not have the sense of ‘making righteous’, but carry this declarative, constitutive sense (cf. Gen. 15:6; Ps. 32:1-2, and Paul’s use of both texts in Rom. 4:3, 6-8).”[8]

c. “The ultimate proof that justification involves a status changed by public declaration lies in the biblical view that through the resurrection Jesus himself was ‘justified’ (1 Tim. 3:16). It would be quite impossible to understand this in the sense of an alteration in our Lord’s character.  It must refer to the vindication of him by God through the triumph and victory of the resurrection.  By the resurrection he was declared to be in a right relationship with God (cf. Rom. 1:4).”[9]

d. So, Scripture teaches justification to be a declarative act and not a statement about someone’s subjective/inherent state.  In other words, it is a declaration of a legal kind (forensic) and not a declaration of one’s inherent righteousness — declared right, not made right.

 

Act of God’s Free Grace

            The answer begins by affirming the most important point: “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners…” This is so important, that the next question explains it more fully by asking, “How is justification an act of God’s free grace?” The divines carefully use the word “act” in relation to justification (SC #33, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace…”) while sanctification is the “work” of God’s free grace (SC #35). Perhaps it is to highlight the fact that “act” is a thing done (actus) while a “work” is a thing ongoing? We may not able to make such a fine distinction in English but the point needs to be registered. What God does in justification is different from what He does in sanctification. I suspect the different verbs merely highlight that very point.

That God justifies is not something God is required to do. It is not a necessity. That He justifies sinners is an act of His “free grace.” God voluntarily does this out of His sheer grace and mercy to sinners. No person can require or presume to expect this from God; it is not an act of justice. No sinner can require God to justify him — the only required act is one of judgment. Unfortunately, a common belief that God exists to pardon and accept sinners permeates many hearts. For them, that is God’s function and responsibility. That God justifies sinners is good news because it is entirely an act of His grace.

God justifies sinners. This has been the source of consternation and confusion among Catholics.[10] Christ died for sinners; God justifies them.  He declares them righteous when they look in faith to Jesus Christ. Whereas Catholics also believe in the justification of the impious, they mean that the person is really made just or righteous. The phrase “justifies the ungodly” comes from Rom 4:5 (Vulgate, justificat impium) — the difference comes from the way it is interpreted. Leon Morris says this about the verse:

God’s saving activity does not operate solely on the most promising material. He justifies the impious, even those actively opposed to him. This is all the more striking in that the Old Testament says that God does not justify the wicked (Exod. 23:7; LXX has “Thou shalt not justify the ungodly”, making it a command); it forbids people from doing it (Prov. 17:15; 24:24; Isa. 5:23). Paul is not enunciating a religious commonplace, but giving expression to a resounding paradox.[11]

Indeed, it is resounding paradox. This paradox is pronounced when we read the first part of the verse: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly…” — God justifies the ungodly person who does not work but only believes in him. This is an astounding statement.

Paul’s designation of God as one who ‘justifies the wicked’ would come as a shock to his Jewish readers. In Exod 23:7 God says, “I will not acquit the guilty,” and in Prov 17:15 we learn that he “detests” the practice of acquitting the guilty when carried out by others (cf. Prov 24:24; Isa 5:23). The paradoxical phrase, however, is in keeping with the remarkable fact that a holy God accepts as righteous unholy people on the basis of absolutely nothing but faith. F. F. Bruce comments that God, who alone does great wonders, created the universe from nothing (1:19-20), calls the dead to life (4:17), and justifies the ungodly, “the greatest of all his wonders.”[12]

Lutherans rightly have emphasized the simil iustus et peccator. Those whom God justifies are at the same time sinners. Justification does not make a person righteous, it is declares Him so in God’s court. “It is God who justifies? Who is to condemn?” (Rom. 8:33, 34) Catholics believe that God can justify the impious because He actually makes them just or righteous, “justification entails the sanctification of the whole being” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1995). Justification “conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.” (§1992) We will now look at the statements in the LC that counters such a formulation.


[1] The exact words cannot be found in Luther, cf. Donald Macleod, A Faith to Live By: Understanding the Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2010), 149. Karl Barth noted this earlier in his Church Dogmatics. However, the general point is maintained by Luther.

[2] The first point is taken from Macleod, A Faith to Live By, 149-151.

[3] This “means” of justification (via sacraments) is maintained by the “Official Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration issued in June 1998” (Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue). See Dulles, Church and Society, 310-311.

[4]Redemption—Accomplished and Applied (1955), 121.

[5]Ferguson, The Christian Life, 81.

[6]J. Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, 248 (cited by Ferguson).

[7]Murray, Redemption—Accomplished…, 153.

[8]Ferguson, The Christian Life, 82.

[9]Ferguson, The Christian Life, 82.

[10] Trent on Justification, CANON IX. — If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

[11] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 199-200.

[12] Robert H. Mounce, Romans (NAC 27; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 123.

Chapter 10, When will we stop eating the Lord’s Supper?

We will now cover the last part of our little study.  The question before you is a very simple one. When will we stop eating the Lord’s Supper? Well, this, of all the questions, is the easiest.

We are told in 1 Cor. 11:26, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” As we celebrate the Supper, we are proclaiming His death until He comes.

So we will continue to have the Supper until either we die or until our Lord comes back. This is a practice which we will celebrate for the rest of our lives or until history as we know it ends (which ends when Christ comes back). Most people will have little problem with any of this. They will say, “Of course we do it until He comes back or until we die.” Yet, is there any significance to this?

Having the future in mind

The Lord’s Supper is closely tied to the past event (the Supper represents what Christ did), to the present (the present fellowship we have with Him at the Supper), and also to the future. It is something we easily overlook. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26)

We sometimes focus so much on the present benefits of the Supper that we fail to consider how they relate to the future. We are to remember that He is coming back. Each time we celebrate the Supper, we are reminded that what we experience now will not continue indefinitely. The joy, sorrows, pain, pleasure, etc. will all come to an end. Christ is coming back.

We are not communing with Christ at the Supper only to just get along in this life. The present fellowship at the Supper is also a reminder that one day, we shall see Him face to face. The sacrament will give way to reality; the sign to the person to whom it pointed.

I will not drink again… until that day (Mt. 26:29)

When our Lord commanded that the Supper be celebrated (that is, when He instituted the Supper), He said, “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Mt. 26:29) This was Jesus’ way of saying farewell to them (though they didn’t fully realize it at the time) since He was about to die. But He was also promising them something. He will have table fellowship with them in the future. Their present fellowship will be renewed in our Father’s kingdom.

So, at the Supper, we have the promise that one day, we shall fellowship with our Lord face to face in our Father’s kingdom. Each time we celebrate, we are not only recognizing that He will return but that Supper is also an emblem of the future fellowship we will have with our Lord. Of course we have present sweet fellowship with Him at the Supper but we must also remember that this present fellowship is only a taste of the great table fellowship to come.

This promise is made several other times. The Bible speaks of the “marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9), reclining at the table with Abraham (Mt. 8:11), and reclining at the table of the kingdom of God (Lk. 13:29). Table fellowship is the picture of the great intimacy we have with our Lord.

We should yearn for the great Supper to come. As we enjoy the sweet fellowship with our Lord at the Supper, we should also remember that this is just a small taste (albeit satisfying) of the great Supper to come.

In the mean time…The Cross

With the future in mind and with the promise of the future fellowship in our hearts, we are to “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” What characterizes the Supper and our lives is the importance of the death of Christ for our present lives.

The death of Christ is our food, our nourishment. It sustains us as we wait for the coming of our Lord. It is the subject of our preaching. From it come the benefits of the Lord’s Supper. Because of Christ’s death, we live and because of its rich worth (its sufficiency), we have peace with God.

One of the important things about the Supper is that it makes Christ’s death central to our lives. Our Lord wants us to continually look at the past event for our present benefit. He has done it all. At the Supper, we come empty because His death has paid everything for us. Our hunger is satisfied by the benefits of His death.

Because the death of Christ has fully accomplished our redemption, we are reminded of it over and over again each time we have communion. As we proclaim His death until He comes, we are at the same time reminded that the one who loved us not only died for us but that He will come back to us because He loves us.

Not in Heaven

Needless to say, there will be no need for the Lord’s Supper in heaven because everything that the Lord’s Supper points to and gives (signifies and exhibits), we receive in the person of Christ in heaven. The Lord’s Supper is temporary but necessary. It is like a lifesaver one wears when shipwrecked. Once we reach the shore, we no longer need it.

What this means is that the Lord’s Supper is the next best thing to heaven. Here in the Supper, we fellowship with Christ truly and spiritually. In heaven, we fellowship with Him personally, really, and perpetually. The same Christ is received but we get Him that much better in heaven.

Conclusion

In the Supper, the Lord gives Himself to us. What more can we ask? Let us prepare well, receive well, and afterwards, by faith reflect well. This will fill our course of life until we die or until Christ comes back.

If we cannot enjoy Christ at the Supper, then what are we looking for? If He is our chief delight and we enjoy genuine fellowship with Him at the Supper, then we are assured that this Supper will turn into the final Supper. What we have received by faith shall fill our souls by sight. Come Lord Jesus!

Questions

1. How long will believers partake of the Lord’s Supper?

2. What does the future have to do with the Lord’s Supper?

3. What did the Lord promise about the future when he instituted the Lord’s Supper?

4. What does it mean to “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes”?