Justification By Faith Alone (Part 2)

JUSTIFICTION BY FAITH ALONE AND WITHOUT VIRTUE AND GOODNESS OF OUR OWN

The idea that we are justified only by faith, without regard for any manner of our own virtue and goodness might seem to some to be problematic for two reasons. How can we be justified by faith alone, without any virtue or goodness of our own, when faith itself is both a virtue and one part of our goodness? To make the question more challenging, faith alone is not only some manner of our goodness, but is a very excellent qualification, and one chief part of the inherent holiness of a Christian And moreover, if faith alone is part of our Christian holiness, qualifies us in the sight of God for this benefit from Christ, and renders justification a worthy benefit in His sight, that we should have it, why not other parts of holiness and conformity to God? They are also very excellent, have as much of the image of Christ in them, and are no less lovely in God’s eyes. Should they not qualify us as much, and have as much influence to render us worthy in God’s sight for such a benefit as this? Therefore I answer,

When it is said that we are not justified by any righteousness or goodness of our own, it means that justification is not rendered out of respect to the excellence or goodness of any qualification or acts in us whatsoever. God judges whether or not we are worthy that this benefit of Christ should be ours. It is in no way a result of any excellence or value that there is in faith, or not because it appears in the sight of God a worthy thing. He who believes should have this benefit of Christ assigned to him based purely on the relationship of faith to the person in whom this benefit is to be rendered, or as it unites him to that Mediator, in and by whom we are justified. Here, for the greater clarity, I would particularly explain myself under several propositions,

1. It is certain that there is some union or relationship that the people of Christ stand in to Him. This relationship is expressed in Scripture from time to time as being in Christ, and is represented frequently by metaphors: being members of Christ, or being united to HIm as members of the Head and branches to the stock. It is compared to a marriage union between husband and wife. I do not now pretend to determine what sort of union this is. Nor is it necessary to my present purpose to enter into any manner of dispute over it. If any are disgusted at the word “union,” thinking it to be obscure and unintelligible, the word “relationship” equally serves my purpose. I do not now desire to determine any more about it than all, of all sorts, will readily allow. There is a particular, significant relationship between Christ and true Christians. This relationship is not shared between Him and others. It is signified by those metaphorical expressions in Scripture: being in Christ, being members of Christ, etc.
2. This relationship or union to Christ, whereby Christians are said to be in Christ (whatever it be), is the basis of their right to His benefits. This needs no proof. The reason of the thing, at first blush, demonstrates it. It is clearly evident also in Scripture. 1 John 5:12 says, “He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son, hath not life.” 1 Corinthians 1:30 tells us, “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us — righteousness.” First we must be in Him, and then He will be made righteousness or justification to us. Ephesians 1:6, “Who hath made us accepted in the beloved.” Our being in Him is the basis of our being accepted. So it is in those unions to which the Holy Ghost has thought fit to compare this. The union of the members of the body with the Head, Christ, is the basis of their partaking of the life of the Head. The union of the branches to the stock is the basis of their partaking of the sap and life of the stock. The relationship of the wife to the husband is the basis of her joint interest in his estate. Husband and wife are viewed, in several respects, as one in law. So there is a legal union between Christ and true Christians.

THE ORIGINAL LAW THAT CONDEMNS A SINNER

A divine constitution prior to justification by the Savior (and indeed to any need of the Savior) stands in the way of it. In other words, there is an original constitution or law under which man was put and by which the sinner is condemned when he violates that law. The sinner stands condemned until he actually has an interest in the Savior, through whom he is absolved and set free. But to suppose that God gives a man an interest in Christ in reward for his righteousness or virtue is inconsistent with a sinner’s remaining under condemnation until he has an interest in Christ. The flaw in that logic is in assuming that the sinner and his virtue are accepted before he has an interest in Christ, and that an interest in Christ is given as a reward of his virtue. But the virtue must first be accepted before it is rewarded, and the man must first be accepted for his virtue before he is rewarded for it with so great and glorious a reward.

The very notion of a reward implies that some good is bestowed in testament to, respect to, and acceptance of virtue in the person rewarded. But the honor of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth precludes accepting anything from a condemned evildoer who has been condemned by the justice of His own holy law until that condemnation is lifted. Such acceptance is contradictory. It totally discounts the existing condemnation. Under the law, God rejects and casts off anyone who violates it. So, how can a condemned man and his righteousness or virtue be accepted and glorious rewarded with an interest in Christ, an act of bestowal that would surely stand as a testament to God’s acceptance?

The truth is that the law condemns a man until he is actually interested in the Savior who has satisifed and answered the law. This standing condemnation effectually prevents God from accepting his virtue. It will remain so unless the law or constitution itself is abolished.

CONDEMNED YET ACCEPTED

To reconcile these contrary principles — condemned and yet accepted, it is necessary to assume that we are no longer subject to the laws under which God first put mankind. We must assume that God, in mercy to mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution, and put us under a new, more lenient law. We must suspend the notion that condemnation no longer stands in the way of God’s pleasure and acceptance of our virtues. Indee, there is no other way to avoid this conundrum. But this elaborate scheme, developed by modern religious clergy, is absure and contradictory. They hold that the old law, given to Adam and requiring perfect obedience, is entirely repealed; and that instead of it, we are under a new law which requires no more than imperfect, but sincere obedience.

We now must overcome our poor, infirm, impotent circumstances since the fall. At a disadvantage, we are unable to perform that perfect obedience that was required by the first law. The religious clergy strenuously maintain that it would be unjust for God to require anything of us that is beyond our presnt power and ability to perform. And yet they acknowledge our present power and ability to perform. And yet they acknowledge that Christ died to compensate for the imperfections of our obedience, so that God will no longer require our perfect obedience and will accept imperfect obedience instead.

Now, how can these contradictions stand together? I would ask what law these imperfections of our obedience breach. If they breach no law, then they are not sins; and if they are not sins, why did Christ need to die to satisfy for them? But if they are sins that breach some law, what law is it? They cannot be a breach of their new law, because that requires nothing more than imperfect obedience. They cannot be a breach of the old law, because the clerics say that it was entirely abolished. We were never under it, and we cannot break a law that we never were under. They say it would not be just of God to exact of us perfect obedience, because it would not be just of God to require more of us than we can perform in our present state. He would not punish us for failing. Therefore, by their own scheme, the imperfections of our obedience do not warrant punishment.

Ask opponents to the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

• Why did Christ need to die to satisfy for them?
• Why did Christ need to suffer to satisfy for something that is not fault, and therefore deserves no suffering?
• Why did Christ need to die to purchase acceptance of our imperfect obedience?
• According to the religious clergy’s own scheme, would it be unjust that anything more than imperfect obedience should be required?
• Why did Christ need to die to make way for God’s accepting imperfect obedience, when it would be unjust for Him to not to accept it?
• Was there any need for Christ to die to persuade God to refrain from unjust judgement?
• If it is true that Christ died to satisfy that law for us, deliver us from it, and replace it with a more mild law, still I would inquire of their scheme, why did Christ need to die to release us from an unjust law that in our present state, we are not able to keep?
• Why did Christ need to die to release us from a law that would be unjust whether Christ died or not?

(To be continued …)