062. CHAPTER 28 - JUSTIFICATION - ITS NATURE CONSIDERED
CHAPTER 28 - JUSTIFICATION - ITS NATURE CONSIDERED THE inquiry upon which we are now about to enter is of the deepest interest to all mankind. How may a fallen sinner recover from the miseries of his lapsed state? This was substantially the question propounded with so much feeling by the convicted, jailer to the imprisoned apostles: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And from the earliest ages there may be seen, in the history of all nations, evidences of the general concern of the wisest and most serious of mankind for a satisfactory knowledge of a certain and adequate remedy for the evils of the present state. The best informed among the heathen have generally exhibited some correct notions in reference to the connection between natural and moral evil. In their zealous pursuit of some mode of escape from the miseries and calamities “that flesh is heir to,” they have generally adopted the principle, that natural evil is the effect of moral evil. Hence their systems of philosophy and morals, their rigorous discipline and painful austerities, adopted and pursued with the vain hope that by these means they could eradicate from the soul the principle of evil, destroy the dominion of vice, and, by a restoration of the disordered moral faculties of man, prepare him for the enjoyment of pure and uninterrupted felicity. But every effort of human reason and philosophy to discover a mode of deliverance from the thraldom of sin, however flattering it may have appeared for a season, has terminated in disappointment or despair. The light of nature may exhibit in its huge deformity the disease of sin; but an adequate remedy it has never been able to descry. It can lead man to the contemplation of what he is; it can show him his sinful and miserable condition, and teach him to sigh over his misfortunes; but it can never unfold the scheme of redemption, and teach him to smile at the prospect of a blissful immortality. To supply this grand desideratum, revelation comes to our aid. God alone was able to devise, and he has condescended to make known, the plan by which “he can be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” In the present chapter, we propose a consideration of the Bible doctrine of JUSTIFICATION. In discussing this subject, there are two leading inquiries naturally presenting themselves to view. First, What is implied in justification?
Secondly, How may it be obtained? We will consider these questions in their order. In this chapter, we will consider what is implied in justification. The Greek word rendered justification in the New Testament, is dikaiwsiv, which means a judicial decision, or sentence of acquittal. The verb is dikazw, which means to judge, to render sentence, pronounce just, etc. According to the etymology of the word, to justify, in the Bible acceptation, is to acquit it by a judicial sentence or decision.
I. The term is evidently FORENSIC, having reference to law and judicial proceedings. There are, however, several different senses in which it may be taken. Referring to justification in a forensic sense, we would observe, that it may take place in three different ways.
1. A person may be arraigned at the bar of justice to answer to a specific accusation; but, upon the examination of the testimony, it may appear that he has not been guilty of the thing alleged: against him: here he is justified by the force of testimony, and a correct administration will announce the decision accordingly.
2. After the arraignment of a person before the bar of justice, to answer to a certain accusation, it may appear, in the investigation of the case, that, although the special charge alleged against him may be established by the evidence, it nevertheless is not contrary to the law: here he is justified by the force of law, and a correct administration will pronounce the sentence accordingly.
3. A person may be arraigned at the bar of justice, tried and condemned for a crime; yet the executive power of the government may remit the penalty: here he is justified on the principle of pardon.
According to any of these three plans, a person may be justified in a civil sense. But in the scriptural acceptation of the subject, agreeably to what has already been established in reference to the fallen and guilty condition of all mankind, it is impossible that any can be justified on either the first or second hypothesis; for all men stand justly charged with, and condemned for, the violation of God’s holy law. “All are concluded under sin;” and the Bible declares that “all have sinned;” and that “all the world are guilty before God.” Therefore, if justification ever be obtained by any, it must be on the ground of PARDON. Here is the only door of hope to a guilty world.
II. But we must inquire more particularly concerning the nature of that justification, on the ground of pardon, which the Scriptures develop.
“Justification, in common language, signifies a vindication from any charge which affects the moral character; but in theology it is used for the acceptance of one by God who is, and confesses himself to be, guilty. ‘To justify a sinner,’ says Mr. Bunting, in an able sermon on this important subject, ‘is to account and consider him relatively righteous; and to deal with him as such, notwithstanding his past unrighteousness, by clearing, absolving, discharging, and releasing him from various penal evils, and especially from the wrath of God, and the liability to eternal death, which by that past unrighteousness he had deserved; and by accepting him as if just, and admitting him to the state, the privileges, and the rewards of righteousness.’
Hence it appears that justification, and the remission, or forgiveness of sin, are substantially the same thing.” (Watson’s Bib. Dic.)
We here insert the definition of justification as given in the Ninth Article of Religion in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church: “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings; wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” With the above general definition of justification before us, we now proceed to a more minute examination of its most important particulars.
1. We will show from the Scriptures that justification means pardon, or the remission of sin. This will appear from the following scriptures: - Acts 13:38-39 : “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Romans 3:25-26 : “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; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Romans 4:5-8 : “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness; even as David 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.” In these quotations, “justification,” “the forgiveness of sins,” “the remission of sins,” and the “non-imputation of sin,” are all used as convertible terms - exegetical of each other; hence, in Scripture language, they are generally synonymous. This leading position here established, will be found to extend throughout the New Testament, wherever the subject of justification is presented, and bearing it in mind will tend greatly to facilitate the investigation.
2. We proceed to remark, that justification is not an abrogation of law, by the exercise of prerogative. The covenant of redemption given to man after the Fall, though different from, is not contradictory, to, the covenant of works, under which he was primarily placed. The language of the covenant of works was, “Do this and live;” its condition was, perfect and perpetual obedience. The language of the covenant of redemption is, “Believe, and be saved;” its condition is, “Faith which worketh by love.” The propounding of the covenant of redemption does not imply the abrogation of the law of God as originally delivered to man; but only a suspension of its rigor, in perfect consistency with the honor of God, so as to admit a substitute instead of the actual culprits. But the fact that a substitute was at all required, is sufficient evidence that the law is not abrogated, but rather established - it is “magnified, and made honorable.” Although the law be suspended in relation to the full and immediate execution of the penalty denounced against man, yet it is not suspended in reference to Christ. He met the claims of justice, and made satisfaction. Therefore it is clear that justification implies no abrogation of law. It is not an arbitrary process, by which the guilty are pardoned and released at the expense of justice; but a wise and gracious arrangement, by Which “God can be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
3.Justification is personal in its character.
It is a sentence of acquittal, having respect to particular individuals; and in this respect is distinct from the general arrangement of mercy, by which all mankind are so far redeemed from the curse of the broken law as to be graciously placed under the covenant of redemption, so as to have the offer of eternal life, according to gospel terms. The placing of all men in a salvable state, under the covenant of grace, is a merciful legislative arrangement of God, in which a general promise is made and a general condition required. Justification is a judicial decision of God, under that gracious legislation in reference to particular individuals, in view of the prescribed conditions having been complied with. “Justification presupposeth a particular person, a particular cause, a condition performed, and the performance, as already past, pleaded: and the decision proceeds accordingly.”
4.Justification is a work really performed - a sentence or decision that actually is passed upon individuals. The Antinomian notion, therefore, of “eternal justification,” is manifestly absurd. If it be a decision or sentence at all, it must take place in time. A mere purpose in the mind of a judge, is no sentence. “A sentence is pronounced; and a sentence pronounced and declared from eternity, before man was created, when no sin had been committed, no law published, no Saviour promised, no faith exercised - when, in a word, no being existed but God himself - is not only absurd, but impossible; for it would have been a decision declared to none, and therefore not declared at all; and if as they say, the ‘sentence was passed in eternity, but manifested in time,’ it might from thence be as rightly argued that the world was created from eternity, and that the work of creation in the beginning of time was only a manifestation of that which was from everlasting. It is the guilty who are pardoned - ’He justifieth the ungodly;’ guilt, therefore, precedes pardon; while that remains, so far are any from being justified, that they are ‘under wrath,’ in a state of ‘condemnation,’ with which a state of justification cannot consist; for the contradiction is palpable; so that the advocates of this wild notion must either give up justification in eternity, or a state of condemnation in time. If they hold the former, they contradict common sense; if they deny the latter, they deny the Scriptures.” (Watson’s Institutes.) 5. Justification being the pardon of sin, it is not a work by which we are made actually just or righteous.
Justification changes our relation to law - it removes condemnation, but does not change our nature, or make us holy.
“This is sanctification, (or, in its incipient state, regeneration,) which is, indeed, the immediate fruit of justification; but, nevertheless, is a distinct gift of God, and of a totally different nature. The one implies what God does for us through his Son; the other, what God works in us by his Spirit. So that, although some rare instances may be found wherein the terms justified and justification are used in so wide a sense as to include sanctification also, yet in general use they are sufficiently distinguished from each other both by St. Paul and the other inspired writers.” (Wesley’s Sermons.)
6. Keeping in view the definition given - that justification means the pardon of sin - it will be easy to distinguish between this blessing and regeneration, which is properly sanctification begun. The one removes the guilt of past sin by pardon, the other “creates us anew in Christ Jesus,” that we “may go in peace, and sin no more.” But we are not to understand from the fact of our pardon, that God views our past sins in a more favorable light than he did previously to our justification. Pardon cannot change their real nature. Still they are sins; and as such, are an abomination to the Lord. Nor can his immaculate nature view them in any other than their true character. The crime of a culprit is none the less from the fact that he has been pardoned.
Pardon releases from punishment, but does not change either the character of the crime or of the criminal. A pardoned sinner is still viewed as having sinned, though saved by grace. His sins, considered in themselves, still deserve the wrath of God; but for Christ’s sake that punishment is remitted. Hence, when we use the word acquittal in connection with justification, we understand thereby, merely release or exemption from punishment, without changing in the least the nature of past sin, or the light in which it is contemplated in the abstract by the Divine Mind. By no fiction of law can we suppose that God ever looks upon sin as not being sin, or the sinner as never having sinned, because pardon has been vouchsafed. Indeed, the very nature of pardon requires that there be something rendering that pardon necessary. Were it otherwise, we might suppose the pardon to be forfeited by the sinner with impunity; for if the nature of his sins and his own character have been so changed that God can no longer view the sinner as having sinned, or his sins as being offensive in their nature, the sinner can derive no benefit from the pardon; nor could it be possible, under this view, for such a thing as pardon to exist.