151. Chapter 5: Justification.
Chapter 5
Justification.
Justification by faith is a vital part of Christian soteriology. This is the meaning of its prominence in the Scriptures, particularly in some of the epistles of St. Paul. As he maintains a universal sinfulness, and an atonement in Christ as the necessary ground of salvation, so does he set forth and maintain a justification by faith as the only mode of an actual salvation. This doctrine has always had prominence in the effectual preaching of the Gospel. It was the central truth in the Lutheran reformation. Luther himself, even with the clearest conviction of the many errors of Romanism, still groped in the dark until his mind grasped this great truth. As he found therein his own salvation, so through the power of the same truth the reformation which he led became effectual in the salvation of many. So was it in the great Wesleyan evangelism. Again the doctrine of justification by faith was the central truth in a preaching marvelously effective in salvation. As it has been, so must it be. If in the future the preaching of the Gospel shall be effectual in the salvation of men, so must it be the preaching of justification by faith in Christ. On the truth of the facts just stated a clear and truthful view of the doctrine of justification must be profoundly important. Only in an evangelical system can there be a true doctrine. As systems depart from an evangelical basis, so must this doctrine be obscured or perverted, while in the extreme departures it must be entirely lost. Evangelical systems may differ respecting some facts, while each holds the vital truth of the doctrine. Between the Arminian and Calvinistic systems there are differences on this question, which arise mainly from a difference of views respecting the nature of the atonement; but both systems hold the atonement as the true and only ground of justification, and faith in Christ as the one condition of its attainment; and in these facts both hold the vital truth of the doctrine. In the discussion of justification it will be proper to consider its nature, ground, and condition. The treatment of these three questions is necessary to the clearer view of the doctrine.
I. The Nature Of Justification.
While it is proper to treat the nature of justification separately from its ground, yet the two are so closely related that the former can receive its lull exposition only in connection with the latter. Particularly is it true that the points of difference between the Arminian and Calvinistic views cannot otherwise he clearly set forth. The impossibility arises from the fact that in each system the view of justification is determined by the view of the atonement as its ground.
1. Terminology of the Subject.—The nature of justification must be studied in view of the terms wherein it is expressed, or which are used in such relation to it as to concern its proper interpretation. There are terms which relate to God as justifier, and to his act of justification; and terms which relate to the subjects justified, to the condition of the justification, and to the righteousness which is the result of the divine act of justification. However, the fuller exposition of these terms belongs properly to the more direct treatment of the nature of justification; so that we here need no formal statement of their meaning. It is mainly their use in relation to justification that we think it needful here to point out.
One term is
2. Forensic View of Justification.—Justification is a court term, and in its purely forensic sense means a judgment of innocence or righteousness. If so applied to God’s act of justification it must mean simply his judgment of the legal status of the justified, and not his act which determines that status; that is, that God’s act of justification is rather his judicial utterance that the person justified is right with the law than a gracious act of forgiveness which sets him right with the law. Underlying this view is the principle, which is often asserted, that those whom the divine judgment declares righteous must be righteous in fact. The principle is valid in itself, and would be necessary to the place here assigned it if justification were of the nature here maintained. But as it is not such, the necessity for that principle is only theoretical, not real. Such a view of justification must assume a prior divine act of forgiveness, which constitutes no part of the justification itself. Further, it must assume a prior imputation of the righteousness of Christ, for only thus could sinners be viewed as even theoretically qualified for a strictly forensic justification. It is in this manner that Calvinism provides for such a justification.
Justification, particularly in that form of it with which we are now concerned, cannot be strictly forensic. The possibility is excluded by the very nature of such a justification. A person is arraigned and tried for some offense or crime against the law, but in the process of the trial proves his innocence. The court so decides, and formally pronounces him right with the law: this is a forensic justification. But the subjects of the divine justification are sinners. This fact is so explicitly scriptural that it cannot be questioned. Such they are in the divine judgment and condemnation; and as such they cannot be the subjects of a forensic justification. The theory really requires a twofold justification: one in the literal sense of making righteous; the other in the judicial sense of declaring righteous. An imputation of the righteousness of Christ which makes righteous must be a distinct fact from the forensic justification, and must precede it as its necessary ground. The true doctrine of justification is not to be found in this complex view.
3. The Vital Fact of Forgiveness.—Forgiveness really has no place in a strictly forensic justification. It cannot have any, since such a justification is simply an authoritative judgment of actual righteousness. Hence forgiveness and forensic justification can neither be the same thing nor constituent parts of the same thing. There must be error in any theory which omits forgiveness as the vital fact of justification. That justification means forgiveness is manifest in the fact that sinners or the ungodly are justified. This is clearly the doctrine of St. Paul: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 3:23-24; Romans 4:5). The words of David (Psalms 32:1-2), as St. Paul fits them into his own doctrine, can have no proper interpretation without the fact of forgiveness in justification (Romans 4:6-8). The interchanging use of justification and forgiveness gives to the former the meaning of the latter. Such use is too clear and sure to admit of any doubt. “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” (Acts 13:38-39). In this text the word Justified is in meaning the very same as that of forgiveness, which it follows in the same sentence.
“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 3:25-26). First of all, the propitiation in the blood of Christ has respect to both the reality and the remission of sins. Next, it is related to God as the ground of his righteousness in such remission. The declaration of his righteousness thereon is twice made in the same sentence. But when, in the second instance, it is followed by the terms of justification instead of the term remission, as in the first, the Justification must be the same as the remission. There is the same propitiation, the same declaration of the divine righteousness, the same condition of faith in Christ, in connection with the one term as with the other. There is no new form of thought in the transition from the one to the other.
4. The Use of Forensic Terms.—We have already given the meaning of a strictly forensic Justification, and shown that such could not be the divine Justification of a sinner. There can be no strictly forensic Justification of a sinner except by a mistaken or a corrupt Judgment, neither of which is possible with God. Yet this forensic term is appropriated for the expression of his act in the forgiveness of sin. Of course it is so used in a qualified sense, and yet not in a sense which is alien to its primary meaning.
There is one fact of the divine forgiveness which is closely kindred to a forensic justification: the result of forgiveness is a justified state. With respect to the guilt of all past sins, the forgiveness sets the sinner right with the law and with God. That is, by the divine act of forgiveness he is made as completely free from guilt and condemnation, or from amenability to punishment for past sins, as he could be by the most formal judgment of innocence. With this result of forgiveness it may properly be called a justification. The justification of a sinner is an act of God in the exercise of his rightful sovereignty. It is not, however, the act of an arbitrary sovereignty, as we shall directly point out, but an act of God as supreme moral ruler. Calvinism must insist that justification is definitely and only a judicial act of God. This accords with the view of justification as strictly forensic. But as that view is not the correct one, as we have shown, there is no reason for the position that the act of God in justification or the forgiveness of sin is purely a judicial one. It suffices that it is the act of God as moral ruler. As such it is complete in its authority, and from it there is no appeal: “It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth” (Romans 8:33-34)? It is as moral ruler, and in possession of the supreme powers of moral government, that he condemns us for our sins; and so in the exercise of the same powers he forgives our sins. In the result we are, as before pointed out, as completely right with the law as we could be from a purely forensic justification. So far the idea of such a justification is present in the divine remission of sins.
Finally, God forgives sin, not in the exercise of an absolute sovereignty, but only on the ground of the atonement, which renders the forgiveness consistent with his justice and the interests of his moral government. Thus through the propitiation in the blood of Christ, God is righteous in the remission of sin; at once just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Romans 3:24-26). These facts warrant the use of justification for the expression of the divine forgiveness.
5. A Change of Legal Status.—Justification effects no change in the interior moral state. All change therein is definitely the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration or sanctification. It is not in the nature of justification that it should effect any such change. It has respect to man simply as a sinner and amenable to punishment, and its whole work is to free him from such amenability. It is in this case just as in that of the pardon of a criminal by the governor of a State, which effects no purification of his inner nature. If in some texts justification seems to mean more than we here ascribe to it, in such texts it must be used in a sense broader than its own proper meaning. The justification is complete in its own proper work. It cannot annihilate the deeds of sin out of which guilt arises. They are eternal and unchangeable realities, and must forever be the deeds of their authors. Forgiveness abates nothing of their intrinsic demerit, but is a complete discharge from their guilt as an amenability to punishment. In such a sense of guilt, and with respect to all past sins, the forgiveness is complete. So far justification sets the sinner right with God; as completely right as if he had never sinned. It is not a small blessing. With all the limitations that we pointed out it is still a great blessing, great in itself and great in the privileges to which it opens the way.
II. The Ground Of Justification.
We previously stated the very close connection between the nature and the ground of justification, and that it was only in the treatment of the latter that we could attain the clearer view of the former. We are not here concerned with minor differences respecting this ground, but may properly consider it as held in some of the leading systems of theology.
1. In Socinianism.—We here use the term Socinianism as representative of all schools which are Pelagian in anthropology and Socinian in Christology and soteriology. However, in these schools there are all shades of opinion, even down to the line of an open infidelity.
Socinus himself held to a form of justification, and made large account of faith in Christ as concerned therein; not, however, as the condition of forgiveness, but as an act of the highest form of obedience, and therefore as a fact of personal righteousness. It means a justification simply by works. It hardly need be observed that the view is in the widest dissent from the Pauline doctrine. In such a view Christ is not in any proper sense the ground of forgiveness, nor faith its condition. There is no justification in forgiveness; but a sinner is justified as he comes to render a righteous obedience to the will of God. In affiliated schools, such as the Unitarian and Universalist, some admit a proper forgiveness of sin, but hold that repentance is its true and sufficient ground. Neither Christ nor faith in Christ has any necessary relation to either the repentance or the forgiveness. Others deny the possibility of forgiveness. All sin must suffer its deserved penalty, either in this life or in the next. Still others deny all proper demerit of sin, and hence deny all forgiveness. Sin and suffering are related purely as cause and effect, and the suffering as naturally consequent to sin is inevitable. These views utterly exclude every element of a true doctrine of justification.
2. In Romanism.—Romanism holds strongly the doctrine of vicarious atonement. The sacrifice of Christ is the satisfaction of justice for human sin. This satisfaction is the ground of forgiveness. Yet there is a limitation with respect to both the satisfaction and the forgiveness which perverts the doctrine of justification and departs from its only true and sufficient ground. The sacrifice of Christ made satisfaction for sin as it respects the desert of eternal punishment, and forgiveness entirely frees us from amenability thereto; but there are certain deserts of temporal punishment for which satisfaction is not made, and which therefore are not canceled in forgiveness. Such punishments must be suffered either in this life or in purgatory. The only possible release is through voluntary penance or the surplus merits of the saints. Here is serious error as it respects both the ground and condition of justification.[786] [786]
There are other serious errors. Sanctification is included in justification: or, rather, we are justified only as we are sanctified. The sanctification is by a divine infusion of grace. The specific office of faith as the one condition of justification is really denied. We are justified by faith only as faith itself becomes the source of a new spiritual life.[787] [787]
3. In Calvinism.—In this system the atonement in Christ is in the deepest sense the ground of justification, but in a mode peculiar to itself. Justification is held to be strictly forensic, as previously shown. It thus means simply a divine judgment or declaration of righteousness. But those whom God declares righteous must be righteous in fact. Therefore, as all are sinners, there must be a justification in the sense of making righteous prior to such forensic justification. Hence, to provide for the prior justification, Christ must so take the place of sinners as to suffer the punishment due to their sins and fulfill the righteousness required of them, and the substitution in both instances must be accounted to them by imputation. It is in this sense and in this mode that the atonement is held to be the ground of justification.[788]
[788]
There is here an exact accordance between the nature of the justification maintained and the alleged ground of it; but there is error respecting both. The atonement is not of the nature here assumed, as we have shown in the treatment of that subject. Therefore there must be error in the justification here maintained—must be, because it requires that mistaken view of the substitution of Christ. The doctrine is right in finding in the atonement the only ground of justification, but mistakes its nature, and therefore mistakes the true nature of justification itself. The question of imputed righteousness in justification requires further treatment. Christ is assumed to be the substitute of elect sinners in two respects: in the one as suffering the punishment which they deserve; in the other fulfilling the personal righteousness due from them. The former question was sufficiently discussed in our treatment of the atonement, but the latter is still on hand.
If Christ was really the substitute of elect sinners in personal righteousness, then the same might be imputed to them as the ground of their justification; but such a substitution is an assumption of theology, not a truth of the Scriptures. Or, if justification were strictly forensic, it might be assumed to imply the substitution of Christ and the imputation of his righteousness as its necessary ground; but as it is not such, but is in fact the forgiveness of sin, as we have clearly shown, it neither requires nor implies such a substitution, but is conclusive against it. The Scriptures deeply emphasize the personal righteousness or sinlessness of Christ, but specially and definitely as the requirement of his priestly offices.[789] The texts here given by reference most fully justify our position; and they are the leading texts which directly concern this question. Their explicit sense is that the personal righteousness of Christ goes into his saving work, not as a vicarious and imputable righteousness, but as an element of value in his atoning death and intercession.
[789]2 Corinthians 5:1
How then? Clearly, by some agency whereby we are brought into a state of righteousness. We are brought into such a state through the forgiveness of our sins, and the purification of our nature, with the resulting new spiritual life—all being the fruit of our Lord’s redemptive mediation. This view is thoroughly scriptural, and fully answers for the meaning of this text, without the unexpressed, and indeed unimplied, imputation of his personal righteousness.
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). This is a text of special reliance. The relations of the race respectively to Adam and Christ are here the great subject. In the one the race fell; by the other it is redeemed. The fall was through the disobedience of Adam. St. Paul having so expressed this fact, it was very natural, and almost of course, that he should ascribe our redemption to the obedience of Christ. But we must include therein his passive obedience, because we cannot be justified without his blood. Therefore only such a form of obedience may be meant. Such a meaning simply places this text in complete harmony with others wherein our redemption through the suffering and death of Christ is expressed as the work of his obedience (Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; John 10:17-18; Php 2:8; Hebrews 10:5-10). We certainly do not need for its interpretation the idea of an immediate imputation of his personal righteousness; therefore it does not prove such an imputation. There is another decisive fact: we were not made sinners by the imputation of Adam’s sin, in the sense of this doctrine—as was shown in our anthropology; therefore we are not made righteous by an immediate imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ.
“But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30): wisdom, as he is the manifestation of the wisdom of God, specially in the plan of human salvation; sanctification, in the purification of our nature through his grace; redemption, as he redeems us with his own blood and accomplishes the work of our salvation. There is no place for imputation in any of these instances. Nor is any needed in the instance of righteousness. As through faith in the blood of Christ we are justified in the remission of sin, so is he made righteousness unto us. There is here no proof of the imputation of his personal righteousness. “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” (2 Corinthians 5:21). To be made the righteousness of God in Christ must mean to be made partakers of the righteousness provided in him. How is this righteousness provided? The answer is obvious: By his sacrificial death. This is the meaning of his being made sin for us; that is, a sin-offering. The word rendered sin—
There is one fact which is in itself conclusive against this doctrine of imputation. It is the fact that the salvation in Christ, both as a present attainment and a future blessedness, has its complete ground in his vicarious sacrifice. A brief statement of facts will show this. Herein we have reconciliation with God (Romans 5:10; Ephesians 2:13; Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 1:20-22); the forgiveness of sin (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14); justification (Romans 3:24-25; Romans 5:9); righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21); regeneration and a new spiritual life (Hebrews 9:14; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5); adoption and heirship (Galatians 4:4-7.); meetness for heaven and the possession of future blessedness (Revelation 7:14-17).Thus it is that all the blessings of a complete salvation are grounded in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. Hence there is no place for the imputation of his personal righteousness, and no need of it. Indeed, it is excluded. It is possible, as we before pointed out, to express the vicarious sacrifice of Christ in the terms of obedience, but we cannot express that form of his personal righteousness which is held to be imputed to us, in the terms of such sacrifice. The fundamental distinction of the two, as maintained in the doctrine of imputation, renders this impossible. The imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ in our justification, and as the ground of our title to a heavenly inheritance, is thus thoroughly disproved.
4. In Arminianism.—In Arminianism the atonement is the true and only ground of justification, but in a sense consistent with the system. In this system the vicarious sufferings of Christ were not the actual punishment of sin in the satisfaction of retributive justice, but a provisory substitute for penalty, so that sin might be actually forgiven. This accords with the nature of justification as being such a forgiveness. In this sense the atonement is the real and only ground of justification. This sense agrees with vitally related facts: with the actual guilt of redeemed sinners until actually forgiven in justification; with such forgiveness as the essential fact of justification; with the real conditionality of forgiveness or justification. Were the atonement absolute, as it must be if in the mode of penal substitution, there could be neither guilt nor forgiveness in the case of any redeemed by Christ, nor any conditionality of justification. The reality of these facts is conclusive of a merely provisional ground of justification in the atonement. It is none the less real, or necessary, or sufficient because only provisional in its nature.
5. Justification Purely of Grace.—This is the doctrine of St. Paul, repeatedly expressed (Romans 3:24; Romans 4:16; Titus 3:5-7). It is eminently such on our own doctrine of atonement. The pre-eminence which the doctrine of satisfaction here assumes is utterly groundless. This was clearly shown in our discussion of the atonement. According to the doctrine of satisfaction God remits no penalty; and where there is no forgiveness of sin there can be no grace of forgiveness. On the doctrine which we maintain, the atonement fully provides for the forgiveness of sin, but in itself simply abates nothing of our guilt. Our justification or the forgiveness of our sin must therefore be purely an act of grace. The thought of this grace is intensified in view of the fact that the ground of its exercise is a provision of the infinite love of God.
III. The Condition Of Justification.
1. Faith the One Condition.—By the condition of justification we mean the personal action required for its attainment. That requirement is faith, and faith only. But this faith is specific as it respects both its object and nature, and these facts must be set forth in order to complete the idea of faith itself as the condition of justification. The Scriptures leave us no reason to doubt that faith is the real and only condition of justification. This is so openly true that a mere reference to a few texts will here suffice (Romans 3:21-26; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:23-25; Galatians 3:24). The same truth is emphasized in many texts which discriminate faith from works, and affirm that we are justified by faith and not by works, or by faith without works (Acts 13:38-39; Romans 3:20-22; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:2-5; Romans 9:31-32; Galatians 2:16). This fact makes doubly sure the sense of Scripture, that faith is the one condition of justification.
It is utterly groundless to say that it is only the works of the ceremonial law that are excluded from all part in the justification of sinners. Works of the moral law are equally excluded. This is manifest in the great argument of St.
Paul through which he reaches the impossibility of justification by works. The impossibility lies in the universality of sin: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The deeds of sin with which he deals are specially violations of the moral law, either as manifest in the light of nature or as given by revelation. There is this further decisive fact : The impossibility of justification by deeds of law is affirmed of the Gentile whose only law is the moral law. In this case there could be no reference to the ceremonial law. Hence there is the same condition of justification for the Gentile as for the Jew (Romans 3:29-30; Galatians 3:8; Galatians 3:22).
2. The Imputation of Faith for Righteousness.—With the word impute we have also the words count and reckon. Faith is imputed for righteousness, counted for righteousness, reckoned for righteousness (Romans 4:3; Romans 4:5; Romans 4:9; Romans 4:22; Romans 4:24). There is no difference of meaning in these words, as here used, that requires any notice. They are all the rendering of the same word,
Two facts should be specially noted. One is, that it is faith itself, and not its object, that is thus imputed. This is certain even where a pronoun is the immediate antecedent to the verb. Here is an instance: “For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3). Here only the faith of Abraham can be the antecedent to the pronoun it; and hence only his faith could be the subject of the imputation. Further, faith itself, as so named, is repeatedly the immediate nominative to the imputation. Here are instances: “His faith is counted for righteousness;” “faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (Romans 4:5; Romans 4:9). Hence any attempt at a metonymical interpretation of faith, so that it shall mean, not itself but its object, that is Christ, and hence mean the imputation of his personal righteousness, is utterly vain. The other fact is, that the faith is counted, reckoned, imputed to him whose personal act it is. This is what is imputed to Abraham, to the Jew, to the Gentile. In neither case is there the slightest intimation of an imputation of any personal act of another. For what is faith imputed? For righteousness. This is the only answer, because such is the uniform statement of the Scriptures. But what is the meaning of righteousness, as the term is here used? Only two views are worthy of any consideration: one, that faith itself constitutes a proper and real personal righteousness; the other, that righteousness means the legal state consequent upon the remission of sin on the condition of faith.
Faith itself cannot constitute a true personal righteousness, such as consists in a complete fulfillment of personal duties. Considered as a duty, faith could fulfill only its own obligation, and therefore could not answer for any other duty. It never can constitute the sum of Christian obedience. Such a view would infinitely exalt it even above the high place which the Scriptures assign it in the economy of the Christian life. Besides, the relation of faith to righteousness is entirely overlooked. In the view of St. Paul faith is simply the condition of righteousness, whereas in this view it constitutes the righteousness. Also, it takes us entirely away from the atonement in Christ as the only ground of justification, and from the remission of sin as the vital fact thereof. The truth of the question lies in the other view, that the righteousness for which faith is imputed means the legal state consequent upon the remission of sm. In an earlier part of this discussion it was shown that Justification and remission of sins mean the same thing. We further find that the imputation of righteousness has the same meaning as the other two facts. The proof of this oneness of meaning in the three forms of expression lies in a single passage, wherein are set forth, in one sentence and without any real distinction, the righteousness of God, justification, and remission of sins, as conferred on the same condition of faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-26).The imputation of faith for righteousness is thus easily understood. It means simply that faith is accepted as the condition of justification or the remission of sin, whereby the believing sinner is set right with God.
3. Faith in Christ the Condition.—The fact here stated has already appeared, but should be more fully presented. In a general view faith in Christ is the condition of justification. “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, . . . even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe” (Romans 3:21-22). The righteousness of God, as here presented, means the righteousness which he confers in our justification; and it is conferred on the condition of faith in Christ.[790] [790]
4. Nature of the Faith.—As justification is a blessing distinct and definite in kind, so the faith on which it is attained must be specific in its form. We shall the more readily reach its true nature by carefully noting the leading distinctions of faith. Preparatory to this, however, it is important to observe what is common to faith in all its forms.
There can be no faith without something objective to the mind in the form of reality or truth. There must be such reality or truth in the mental apprehension, however that apprehension may be mistaken. All faith that is properly such must have respect to evidence—such evidence as verifies to the mind the reality or truth of what is believed. So far faith is one in kind, whatever the differences of its objects. That which is believed may be purely secular, something in the plane of geography, or history, or science ; or it may be some profound truth of religion respecting God or Christianity ; but whatever the object, faith in its truth must have a ground in evidence. Such is a law of faith in all its spheres.
There is another view of faith in which profound distinctions arise from differences in its objective truths. Thus arise the distinctions of faith as intellectual, practical, and fiducial.
Many truths have for us no practical concern in any matter of either duty or welfare. Such are many facts of history, of geography, of botany, of zoology, of astronomy; and, because they are such, faith in them, however sure, can never rise above an intellectual form. Our faith in such facts or truths never can become practical, because they possess nothing which should influence our conduct; never can become fiducial, because they proffer no relief of any need. Here then is a limitation of faith to a merely intellectual form, which is determined by the character of its objective truths.
There are other truths which deeply concern us in respect to both our duty and our well-being. Faith in such truths may be strongly practical, because they embody weighty reasons or motives of practical concern. In such a characterization of faith as practical, it is surely not meant that it is any less intellectual than that form which we have so characterized. The real distinction is from a difference in the objects of faith, which in the one case limit it to an intellectual form, and in the other lift it into a practical form. There are many illustrations of such a faith in both sacred and secular history. Out of the former we may instance the faith of Noah. God made known to him the coming destruction of the world by the flood; and, further, that by the building of an ark he should save himself and family (Genesis 6:13-22). Noah believed these divine communications, and the practical results followed: “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house” (Hebrews 11:7). His faith found in the truths which it embraced the sufficient reasons or motives for his work. This instance can hardly fail to suggest others. Indeed, it is this practical element of faith which, more than any thing else, finds its illustration in this remarkable chapter. Such is the practical power of faith. Such motives as may strongly influence conduct lie in the truths believed, and through faith they become practical forces in the life. The very nature of these forces explains the transcendent practical power of Christian faith. This power is so great because the practical motives embodied in the truths- of Christianity infinitely transcend all other motives which may influence human conduct.
Then in the objective truth which the faith embraces there may be deeply needed help, and also the most assuring trustworthiness; in which case faith may take the form of confidence or trust. We thus reach what is distinctive of the faith which is unto justification. In the approach to its exercise there is a profound sense of need. There is the sense of sin and peril; and with it the sense of an utter self-helplessness. In the stress of such an exigency the soul looks to Christ and believingly apprehends in him the salvation which it so much needs. It apprehends, not only the fullness of his grace, but also its freeness; not only that he is mighty to save, but also that he graciously waits to save. Here, then, is the most assuring trustworthiness. The act of trust is still wanting, but the soul is ready for it. Now in the apprehension of Christ in his atonement, and in the fullness and freeness of his grace, the soul trustingly rests in him for the needed salvation, and thereon receives the forgiveness of sin. This is justification by faith. And such is the distinctive character of the faith which is unto justification.
While faith is the one and only condition of justification, yet a true repentance is always presupposed, because only in such a mental state can the proper faith be exercised. An impenitent soul cannot properly trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sin. In such a state there can be no real sense of its need, and therefore no possibility of the act of trust. Nor can it be consistent with either the holiness of God or the requirements of his moral government that he should forgive an impenitent soul. The spirit of impenitence is at once the spirit of self-justification with respect to past sins and the very essence of rebellion against God. The forgiveness of such a soul would be, in effect, a free license to future sinning. Before the gracious act of pardon there must be a true contrition for past sins, a godly sorrow which worketh repentance unto salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10).
Justification by faith is a provision of the divine economy of salvation which admirably meets the pressing need of a sinful race. It is the only provision which can meet such need. There is no real redemption from sin, nor entrance into a true spiritual life, without a prior consciousness of sin. At the very beginning, therefore, the sinner must come to the sense of a sinful and lost condition. What now can meet the exigencies of his case? You may tell him to mend his life for the future; but in the depths of his soul is the sense of an utter helplessness for such amendment, and also the sense of demerit on account of past sins, for which such amendment, even if it were possible, could make no atonement. Nothing that you can advise him to do, nothing that you can offer him, save Christ, can meet his necessity. He is consciously a perishing, helpless sinner, and from the depths of his soul there is a cry for help. Now offer him Christ in his atonement, and an instant forgiveness and salvation through faith in his grace, and you thoroughly meet his necessities. The fact has been verified by innumerable happy experiences.
It is only very shallow thinking that can object to such an economy as opposed to the interests of morality. The deep sense of sin, the genuine repentance, the spirit of consecration to a good life in the service of God as the prerequisite of forgiveness, the known necessity of a good life in order to the retention of the justified state, the grateful love for the great salvation so graciously provided and conferred—all combine in the enforcement of the highest form of Christian morality. The question of practical results is confidently appealed to the history of the evangelical Churches, wherein great prominence is given to the doctrine of justification by faith. No system of ethics apart from Christianity, nor any unevangelical form of Christianity, lifts up so many into a truly good life.
5. Harmony of Paul and James.—On the question of justification they are in seeming opposition. We cite a single text from each: from Paul: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28); from James: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). In each instance the text gives the conclusion of the author after a discussion of the question, and therefore stands as a formal statement of his doctrine. There is a further noticeable fact, that each finds the illustration and proof of his doctrine in the life of Abraham. But this fact, instead of perplexing the question of consistency between them, opens the way to an easy reconciliation. The complete reconciliation lies in the fact that they are treating distinct forms of justification: Paul, that in the forgiveness of sins; James, that in actual and approved obedience. The former is by faith without works; the latter by works of obedience, which spring from a living faith as their practical source. These statements are fully verified by the references to Abraham. That of Paul is to his faith in the great promise of God respecting the birth of Isaac, which faith was counted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:3-6). No doubt the promise of Isaac infolded a promise of the Messiah. This is the instance which Paul adduces as at once an illustration and a proof of his doctrine of justification without works; but a justification in the sense of forgiveness (Romans 4:2-5; Galatians 3:6-8). The reference of James is to the offering up of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-12). But this event occurred some twenty-five or thirty years after that referred to by Paul, and is so thoroughly different that it well might be adduced for the illustration and proof of a very different kind of justification. James does so adduce it: “Was not Abraham our Father Justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar” (James 2:21)? Now between two kinds of justification so thoroughly different there can be no doctrinal contradiction. For every such contradiction there must be opposing affirmations respecting the same thing ; but when Paul declares that we are justified by faith, without the deeds of the law, and James, that we are justified by works, and not by faith only, they are not speaking of the same thing, and therefore there cannot be any contradiction between them. Such is the usual mode of reconciling them. The mode is valid, and the reconciliation complete.
However, the interpretation of James often falls short of his true doctrine. Such is the case when the interpretation is that we are justified by works, as works are the evidence of a true and living faith. This must mean that we are justified by faith, while works are allowed no direct part therein. The instance of Abraham is often so interpreted. But more was required of him than faith, and more was rendered, even the offering up of his own son; and this act of obedience was of direct account in his justification, and not simply as an evidence of the genuineness of his faith. Obedience answers to duty as really as faith, and is even more definitely a fact of personal righteousness. The justification of Abraham, as maintained by James, was really forensic in its character; that is, it was God’s judicial approval of his personal character. This is the meaning of the Scriptures: “For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me” (Genesis 22:12). That “thou fearest God” means a personal character which God’s judgment approved. He so approved this special instance of Abraham’s obedience (Genesis 22:16-18). The obedience was itself righteous. This is the doctrine of James and the sense of Scripture.
Faber: The Primitive Doctrine of Justification; Ritschl: History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation; Calvin: Institutes, book iii, chaps. xi-xviii; Owen: The Doctrine of Justification, Works (Goold’s), vol. v; Buchanan: The Doctrine of Justification; Alexander: Faith, v, vi; Shedd: Dogmatic Theology, Soteriology, chap. v; Hodge: Systematic Theology, vol. iii, chap. xvii; Moehler: Symbolism, book i, part i, chap. iii; Burnet: The XXXIX Articles, Article XI; McIlvaine: Justification by Faith; Newman:The Doctrine of Justification; Heurtly: Justification, Bampton Lectures, 1845; Schmid: Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, § 42; Harkey: Justification by Faith; Wardlaw: Systematic Theology, vol. ii, pp. 678-727; Wesley: Sermons, V, VI, XX; Works, vol. vi, pp. 100-124; Watson:Theological Institutes, Part Second, chap. xxiii; Hare: Scriptural Doctrine of Justification; Bunting:Sermons, vol. ii, pp. 60-84; Davies: Treatise on Justification; Curry: Fragments, viii, ix; Merrill: Aspects of Christian Experience, chaps, iv-vii.