6.05. Justification
Justification Preliminary Considerations
Justification is one of the most important doctrines in the Christian system. It supposes faith, and faith supposes regeneration: “Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1); “I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts; for I will forgive their iniquity and will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:33-34). This order is given in Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 67: The “mind being enlightened” and “the will being renewed,” the person is “enabled to accept Christ as offered in the gospel.” Faith unites with Christ, and union with Christ results in justification. This is defined in Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 33 to be “an act of God’s free grace wherein he pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith”; “through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him, all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); “all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23-24); “to him that works not but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (4:5, 6-8; 5:17-19; 8:30); “of God are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:8; Php 3:9; Jeremiah 23:6); “the just [justified] shall live by his faith” (Hebrews 2:4). The justification of a sinner is different from that of a righteous person. The former is unmerited; the latter is merited. The former is without good works; the latter is because of good works. The former is pardon of sin and accepting one as righteous when he is not; the latter is pronouncing one righteous because he is so. The former is complex; the latter is simple. The justification of the “ungodly” (Romans 4:5; Romans 5:6) includes both pardon and acceptance. Either alone would be an incomplete justification of the ungodly. In the case of a sinner, the law requires satisfaction for past disobedience and also perfect obedience. When a criminal has suffered the penalty affixed to his crime, he has done a part, but not all that the law requires of him. He still owes a perfect obedience to the law in addition to the endurance of the penalty. The law does not say to the transgressor: “If you will suffer the penalty, you need not render the obedience.” But it says: “You must both suffer the penalty and render the obedience.” Sin is under a double obligation; holiness is under only a single one. A guilty man owes both penalty and obedience; a holy angel owes only obedience.
Consequently, the justification of a sinner must not only deliver him from the penalty due to disobedience, but provide for him an equivalent to personal obedience. Whoever justifies the ungodly must lay a ground both for his delivery from hell and his entrance into heaven. In order to place a transgressor in a situation in which he is dikaios1[Note: 1. δίκαιος = righteous] or right in every respect before the law, it is necessary to fulfill the law for him, both as penalty and precept. Hence the justification of a sinner comprises not only pardon, but a title to the reward of the righteous. The former is specially related to Christ’s passive righteousness, the latter to his active. Christ’s expiatory suffering delivers the believing sinner from the punishment which the law threatens, and Christ’s perfect obedience establishes for him a right to the reward which the law promises. The right and title in both cases rest upon Christ’s vicarious agency. Because his divine substitute has suffered for him, the believer obtains release from a punishment which he merits; and because his divine substitute has obeyed for him, the believer obtains a reward which he does not merit. The meaning of the term justify must be determined by its Scripture use and connection, and not by the etymology merely. It may have two meanings, like “glorify” and “sanctify.” To “glorify God” and to “glorify the body” are different significations of the word. The one signifies to declare to be glorious, the other to make glorious. The clause sanctify the Lord God in your hearts employs the term sanctify differently from the clause you are sanctified. Similarly justify might mean “make just” (justum facere) as well as “pronounce just.” But in Scripture, it never means sanctify or make inwardly holy. In the New Testament, the verb dikaioō2[Note: 2. δικαιόω] signifies (a) to pronounce or declare to be just: “And the publicans justified God” (Luke 7:29); “that you might be justified in your sayings” (Romans 3:4); and (b) to acquit from condemnation: “Justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39; Romans 4:5-7; Romans 5:1; Romans 5:9; Romans 8:30-33; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:11). That dikaioō3[Note: 3. δικαιόω] does not mean sanctifying or making just is proved by its antithesis to “condemning” (Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:23; 2 Chronicles 18:6-7) and by its equivalents “imputing righteousness” and “covering sin” (Romans 4:3; Romans 4:6-8; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21).4[Note: 4. WS: Möhler (Symbolics §13) contends that justificare means “to acquit” only when applied to the innocent and holy and is inapplicable to a transgressor. “The forgiveness of sin,” he says, “is undoubtedly a remission of the guilt and the punishment which Christ has borne upon himself; but it is likewise the transfusion of his Spirit into us.” But St. Paul expressly says that “God justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). So far as a person has infused righteousness, he is not ungodly.]
In order to be justified or pronounced righteous, a person must possess a righteousness (dikaiosynē)5[Note: 5. δικαιοσύνη] upon the ground of which the verdict is pronounced. There are two kinds of righteousness upon the ground of which a person might be justified before divine law:
1. Legal righteousness or that of the covenant of works. This is perfect personal conformity to the law: “Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which [perfectly] does those things shall live by them” (Romans 10:5). A holy being is justified by this kind of righteousness. A sinner cannot be pronounced righteous upon the ground of legal righteousness or perfect obedience because he has not rendered it: “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified” (3:20); “there is none righteous, no, not one” (3:10, 23; Acts 13:39; Galatians 2:16). The impossibility of man’s being justified by legal righteousness is relative, not absolute. If he had rendered perfect obedience, he would be pronounced just upon this ground: “The doers of the law shall be justified” (Romans 2:13).
2. Gratuitous or evangelical righteousness or that of the covenant of grace. This is technically denominated “the righteousness of God” (Matthew 6:33; Romans 1:17; Romans 3:5; Romans 3:21-22; Romans 3:25-26; Romans 10:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Php 3:9; 2 Peter 1:1). The Old Testament teaches it: Lord our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6; Jeremiah 33:16). It is so denominated to distinguish it from the ordinary ethical or legal righteousness which is the righteousness of man. In Romans 10:3 this latter is called idian dikaiosynēn6[Note: 6. ἰδίαν δικαιοσύνην = one’s own righteousness] and in Php 3:9emēn dikaiosynēn.7[Note: 7. ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην = my righteousness] If man should perfectly obey the law, the righteousness would be the result of his own agency. It would be “his own righteousness.” But the “righteousness of God” is the result of God’s agency solely. Hence it is described (Romans 4:6) as chōris ergōn (i.e., anthrōpou).8[Note: 8. χωρὶς ἔργων (ἀνθρώπου) = without works (of man)] Man is not the author of it, in any sense whatever. The “righteousness of God” is the active and passive obedience of incarnate God. It is Christ’s vicarious suffering of the penalty and vicarious obedience of the precept of the law which man has transgressed. It is Christ’s atoning for man’s sin and acquiring a title for him to eternal life. It is “gratuitous” righteousness, because it is something given to man outright, without any compensation or equivalent being required from him in return: “Ho, everyone that thirsts, come to the waters, and he that has no money; come, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1); “being justified gratuitously (dōrean)9[Note: 9. δωρεάν] by his grace” (Romans 3:24). Since this evangelical “righteousness of God” is not inherent and personal to man, like the legal or ethical “righteousness of the law,” it has to be imputed to him: “David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness” (Romans 4:6; Romans 4:9-10). Christ’s atoning death for sin is not the sinner’s atoning death for sin, but God imputes it to him, that is, he calls or reckons it his. Christ’s perfect obedience which merits eternal life is not the sinner’s perfect obedience, but God imputes it to him; he calls or reckons it his: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted (elogiothē)10[Note: 0 10. ἐλογίοθη] to him for righteousness. Now to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:5); “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness” (James 2:23).
We have observed that in order that a person may be pronounced just, there must be a reason or ground for the verdict. Justification cannot be groundless and without a reason. The “righteousness of God” is the ground or basis upon which a believing sinner is pronounced to be righteous. Because Christ has suffered the penalty for him, he is pronounced righteous before the law in respect to its penalty and is entitled to release from punishment. Because Christ has perfectly obeyed the law for him, he is pronounced righteous before the law in respect to its precept and is entitled to the reward promised to perfect obedience. To pardon a believer and accept him as if he had rendered the sinless obedience which entitles to eternal reward is to impute “the righteousness of God” to him.
Justification: Its Characteristics and Results The following particulars in connection with the justification of a sinner are to be noted. First, faith is the instrumental, not the procuring or meritorious cause of his justification: “God justifies, not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ” (Westminster Confession 11.1). The reasons are …
1. Because faith is an internal act or work of man. If the sinner’s act of faith merited the pardon of his sin and earned for him a title to life, he would be pronounced righteous because of his own righteousness and not because of God’s righteousness. Faith is denominated a work: “This is the work of God, that you believe” (John 6:29). It is the activity of the man, like hope and charity, and can no more be meritorious of reward or atoning for disobedience than these acts can be: “In a right conception, fides est opus;11[Note: 1 11. faith is (a) work] if I believe a thing because I am commanded, this is opus”12[Note: 2 12. WS: For the Tridentine view of justification adopted partially by a Protestant, see Jeremy Taylor’s sermon “Faith Working by Love.” Coleridge (Works 5.195) refers to this defect in Jeremy Taylor. Yet in an earlier period in his life, he fell into the same error himself; see “The Friend” in Works 2.288 (ed. Harper).] (Selden, Table Talk).
2. Because, as an inward act of the believer, faith is the gift of God, being wrought within him by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:8; Php 1:29). But a divine gift cannot be used as if it were a human product and made the ground of pardon and eternal reward. A debt to God cannot be paid by man out of God’s purse, though it can be so paid by God himself.
3. Because the believer’s faith is an imperfect act. As such, it cannot be either atoning or meritorious.
4. Because faith is not of the nature of suffering and consequently cannot be of the nature of an atonement. The believing sinner is “justified by faith” only instrumentally, as he “lives by eating” only instrumentally. Eating is the particular act by which he receives and appropriates food. Strictly speaking, he lives by bread alone, not by eating or the act of masticating. And, strictly speaking, the sinner is justified by Christ’s sacrifice alone, not by his act of believing in it.
Second, the justification of a sinner is solely by Christ’s satisfaction: “No man may look at his own graces as a part of his legal righteousness, in conjunction with Christ’s righteousness as the other part. We must go wholly out of ourselves and deny and disclaim all such righteousness of our own” (Baxter, Spiritual Peace and Comfort 1.273 [ed. Bacon]). Justification does not depend partly upon the merit of Christ’s work and partly upon that of the believer. The Tridentine theory is heretical at this point because it makes the believer’s justification to rest upon Christ’s satisfaction in combination with inward sanctification and outward works. Scripture explicitly teaches that justification is by faith alone-not by faith and works combined: “A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28). Paul’s “faith alone” in this passage must not be confounded with James’s “faith that is alone” (James 2:17). The latter is spurious faith that produces no works, or “dead” faith.13[Note: 3 13. WS: Cf. Calvin 3.14.11; Shedd, History of Doctrine 2.318-32; Sermons to the SpiritualMan 1:1; Man 1:293-98.]
Third, the justification of a sinner is instantaneous and complete. It is a single act of God which sets the believer in a justified state or condition: “There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1); “who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? who is he that condemns?” (8:33-34); “he that hears my word and believes on him that sent me has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation” (John 5:24).
Fourth, the justification of a sinner is an all comprehending act of God. All the sins of a believer-past, present, and future-are pardoned when he is justified. The sum total of his sin, all of which is before the divine eye at the instant when God pronounces him a justified person, is blotted out or covered over by one act of God. Consequently, there is no repetition in the divine mind of the act of justification, as there is no repetition of the atoning death of Christ upon which it rests: “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, that he should offer himself often; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world has he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; and as he was once offered to bear the sins of many, unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin unto salvation. For by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified” (Hebrews 9:24-28; Hebrews 10:14). (See supplement 6.5.1.)
While, however, there is no repetition of the divine act of justification, yet the consequences of it in the soul of the believer are consecutive. In the believer’s experience, God is continually forgiving his sins. Divine mercy “is constantly absolving us by a perpetual remission of our sins” (Calvin 3.14.10). The one eternal act of justification is executed successively in time, as the divine decree is: “God does from all eternity decree to justify all the elect; nevertheless, they are not [consciously] justified, until the Holy Spirit does in due time actually apply Christ unto them” (Westminster Confession 11.4). When a justified man commits sin, though his sin deserves eternal death, yet he is not exposed to eternal death as an unbeliever is and as he himself was prior to justification. But he experiences the withdrawal of divine favor and God’s paternal chastisement. This may be very severe and painful and perhaps, sometimes, in the believer’s experience may be almost equal to the distress of the unpardoned. David’s experience during his backsliding was fearful in the extreme: “The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell got hold of me” (Psalms 116:3); “day and night your hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer” (32:4); “all your waves and your billows are gone over me” (42:7). Here in this life, the believer oftentimes suffers more than the unbeliever does. God deals with the former as with a son and causes him great mental distress for his soul’s good; he deals with the latter as with a bastard and not a son (Hebrews 12:8). Lazarus in this life suffered more than Dives did. At the same time, the true believer, under all this experience, is really and in the eye of God a justified and forgiven man. The believer himself may be in great doubt upon this point and sometimes may be on the brink of despair; but he is not cast off by God. David himself, after those dreadful passages in his experience, is enabled to hope in divine pity. He never falls into the absolute despair of the lost: “You have given commandment to save me” (Psalms 71:3); “why are you cast down, O my soul? hope in God; for I shall yet praise him for the help of his countenance” (42:5).
Some writers, in this reference, distinguish between “actual” and “declarative” justification. Cunningham and Buchanan make this distinction. Actual justification is the act in the divine mind; declarative justification is the announcement of the divine act in the consciousness of the believer. The believer’s experience has its fluctuations and varieties; but the act of God is one and immutable. A person may be actually justified, with little or even no confident and joyful sense of it, in some chapters of his experience. Yet a justified man will not absolutely lose the hope of justification and have the experience of blaspheming despair.
Fifth, the justification of a sinner includes a title to eternal life, as well as deliverance from condemnation. This is denoted by the clause accepting as righteous in the Westminster definition. Eternal life, as a reward, rests upon perfect obedience of the law. Had man rendered this obedience, he could claim the reward. He has not rendered it and hence cannot claim it. Yet he must get a title to it, or he can never enjoy it. The rewards of eternity must rest upon some good basis and reason. They cannot be bestowed groundlessly. Christ the God-man has perfectly obeyed the law; God gratuitously (dōrean,14[Note: 4 14. δωρέαν]chōris ergōn)15[Note: 5 15. χωρὶς ἔργων = apart from works] imputes this obedience to the believer; and the believer now has a right and title to the eternal life and blessedness founded upon Christ’s theanthropic obedience. This is the second part of justification, the first part being the right and title to exemption from the penalty of the law, founded upon Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Justification thus includes the imputation of Christ’s obedience as well as of his suffering, of both his active and his passive righteousness.
Piscator, Tillotson, Wesley, and Emmons denied the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, contending that justification is “pardon” alone, without “acceptance,” or a title to life. They maintain that after the pardon of the believer’s sin, on the ground of Christ’s passive obedience, sanctification by the Holy Spirit ensues, and this earns the title to eternal life. The objections to this theory are the following: (a) The obedience of the believer is imperfect, but eternal life is the recompense of perfect obedience. The believer cannot claim such an immense reward for such an inferior service. (b) Even if after his regeneration the believer’s obedience were perfect and sinless, he has been disobedient previously; but eternal life is promised only to a perfect obedience from the beginning of man’s existence to the end of it. For these two reasons, the believer cannot establish a valid title to an infinite and eternal reward upon the ground of his imperfect and halting service of God here in this life. He must therefore found it upon the perfect obedience of his Redeemer and expect entrance into heaven because his substitute has obeyed for him, even as he expects to escape retribution because his substitute has suffered for him. The reason why the believer must press forward after perfect sanctification is that he may be fit for heaven, not that he may merit heaven. Sinless perfection in the next life is not the ground and reason of the believer’s future reward, but the necessary condition of his future blessedness. If there be remaining sin, there must be, so far, unhappiness.
Passages of Scripture that prove the imputation of Christ’s active obedience are the following: “Through the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19); “Christ is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification” (1 Corinthians 1:30); “he made him to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This “righteousness” is complete and therefore includes a title to the reward of righteousness: “You are complete in him” (Colossians 2:10); “he has made us accepted in the beloved” (Ephesians 1:6); “in whom we have boldness, and access with confidence” (3:12). The boldness and confidence imply that there is no deficiency in the justification effected for the believer by Christ. But if he were resting his title to eternal life upon his own character and works, he could be neither bold nor confident in the day of judgment (1 John 4:17): “Whosoever believes shall not perish [this is pardon], but shall have eternal life [this is acceptance as righteous]” (John 3:16).
It is objected that the believer is represented as being rewarded for his works and in proportion to his works in the last day. The reply is, first, the reward of the last day is gracious, resulting from a covenant and promise on the part of God. It is the recompense of a parent to a child, not the payment of a debtor to a creditor. God is not under an absolute indebtedness to the believer founded on an independent agency of the believer, but only a relative obligation established by himself and depending upon his assistance and support in the performance of the service. This is proved by the fact that the reward of a Christian is called an “inheritance” (Matthew 55:34; Acts 20:32; Galatians 3:18; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 1:12). The believer’s reward is like a child’s portion under his father’s will. This is not wages and recompense in the strict sense; and yet it is relatively a reward for filial obedience. If an angel under the legal covenant fails to keep the law in a single instance, he gets no reward; a redeemed man under the evangelical covenant, though he often fails, yet gets his reward. God graciously compensates the believer in Christ, because he is fatherly and compassionate toward his child and not because the reward has been completely earned and is strictly due upon the principle of abstract justice. Says Calvin (3.17.8-9): Where remission of sins has been previously received, the good works which follow are estimated by God far beyond their intrinsic merit; for all their imperfections are covered by the perfection of Christ, and all their blemishes are removed by his purity. Now if anyone urge as an objection to the righteousness of faith that there is a righteousness of works, I will ask him whether a man is to be reputed righteous on account of one or two holy actions, while in all the other actions of his life he is a transgressor of the law. This would be too absurd to be pretended. I will then ask him if a man is to be reputed righteous on account of many good works, while he is found guilty of any instance of transgression. This, likewise, my opponent will not presume to maintain in opposition to the law which pronounces a curse upon those who do not fulfill every one of its precepts. I will then further inquire if there is any work of man which does not deserve the charge of impurity or imperfection. Thus he will be compelled to concede that there is not an absolutely good work to be found in man that deserves the name of righteousness in the strict sense.
Eternal life is called a “gift” in Romans 6:23, while eternal death is called “wages.” Again, the address of the judge in the last day to those who receive the reward of obedience is “come you blessed.” The reward is also a blessing. This would not be the language of a debtor who is discharging strict indebtedness to his creditors. The redeemed, also, when receiving their reward disclaim absolute merit: “When saw we you hungry and fed you? Or thirsty and gave you drink?”
Second, the object in considering the works of men in the final judgment is to evince the genuineness of faith in Christ and discriminate true from false believers, not to show that man’s works merit pardon and eternal life. Those who have done good works are described as humble and surprised that they receive such an immense recompense for their poor service; while those who have not done good works are described as self-righteous and proud and surprised that they are punished and not rewarded: “Many shall say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you” (Matthew 7:22); “then those on the left hand shall answer him, saying, Lord when saw we you hungry or athirst or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister unto you?” (25:44). The parable of the laborers, all of whom receive the same wages though hired at different hours, proves that the rewards of the last day are not regulated by the exact value of the obedience rendered. Since the reward is the consequence of a promise and not of an original obligation on the part of God, God may do as he will with his own. He never pays less than he has promised, thereby becoming himself a debtor. The lord in the parable did not. But he may pay more than is due. (See supplement 6.5.2.) An error of the perfectionist, at this point, is to be noticed. It is confounding imputed sanctification with inherent sanctification. Imputed sanctification is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:30 : “Christ was, of God, made unto us sanctification.” Inherent sanctification is inward holiness, as in 6:11: “You are sanctified.” In the former sense, a believer’s “sanctification” is instantaneous and perfect; but not in the latter. When God imputes Christ’s active obedience to the believer, Christ is “made sanctification” to him. It is a complete sanctification that is imputed, and his title to life founded upon it is perfect; but his inward sanctification or cleansing from indwelling sin is still imperfect. Sanctification as imputed is a part of justification; but sanctification as infused and inherent is the antithesis to justification. The perfectionist overlooks this distinction.
Sixth, justification is a means to an end. Men are justified in order that they may be sanctified; not sanctified in order that they may be justified. Redemption does not stop with justification: “Whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Romans 8:30); do I condemn you [i.e., I pardon you]; go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Pardon is in order to future resistance and victory over sin. The sense of forgiveness is accompanied with a hatred of sin and hunger after righteousness. If the latter be wanting, the former is spurious. An unpardoned man could not be sanctified because remorse and fear of retribution would prevent struggle with sin. David prays first for forgiveness in order that he may obey in future: “Purge [atone] me with hyssop; hide your face from my sins; then will I teach transgressors your ways” (Psalms 51:7; Psalms 51:13).
S U P P L E M E N T S
6.5.1 (see p. 797). Edwards (Justification by Faith in Works 4.104) thus explains the comprehensive nature of justification and its connection with perseverance of faith: “Although the sinner is actually and finally justified on the first act of faith, yet the perseverance of faith even then comes into consideration as one thing upon which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. God, in the act of justification which is passed on a sinner’s first believing, has respect to perseverance as being virtually contained in that first act of faith; and it is looked upon and taken by him that justifies as being as it were a property in that faith that then is. God has respect to the believer’s continuance in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow; and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith as much as if it were a property in it, it is then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended; but were it not for this it would be needful that it should be suspended till the sinner had actually persevered in faith.
“And that it is so, that God in that act of final justification that he passes at the sinner’s conversion has respect to perseverance in faith and future acts of faith as being virtually implied in that first act is further manifest by this, namely, that in a sinner’s justification at his conversion there is virtually contained a forgiveness as to eternal and deserved punishment not only of all past sins but also of all future infirmities and acts of sin that they shall be guilty of; because that first justification is decisive and final. And yet pardon, in the order of nature, properly follows the crime and also follows those acts of repentance and faith that respect the crime pardoned, as is manifest both from reason and Scripture. David, in the beginning of Psalms 32:1-11, speaks of the forgiveness of sins that were doubtless committed long after he was first godly as being consequent on those sins and on his repentance and faith with respect to them; and yet this forgiveness is spoken of by the apostle in Romans 4:1-25 as an instance of justification by faith. Probably the sin David there speaks of is the same that he committed in the matter of Uriah, and so the pardon the same with that release from death or eternal punishment which the prophet Nathan speaks of in 2 Samuel 12:13 : ‘The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.’ Not only does the manifestation of this pardon follow the sin in order of time, but the pardon itself in the order of nature follows David’s repentance and faith with respect to this sin; for it is spoken of in the 32d psalm as depending on it.
“But inasmuch as a sinner in his first justification is forever justified and freed from all obligation to eternal punishment, it hence of necessity follows that future faith and repentance are beheld in that justification as virtually contained in that first faith and repentance; because repentance of those future sins and faith in a Redeemer with respect to them or, at least the continuance of that habit and principle in the heart that has such an actual repentance and faith in its nature and tendency, is now made sure by God’s promise. If remission of sins committed after conversion, in the order of nature, follows that faith and repentance that is after them, then it follows that future sins are respected in the first justification no otherwise than as future faith and repentance are respected in it. And future faith and repentance are looked upon by him that justifies as virtually implied in the first repentance and faith in the same manner as justification from future sins is virtually implied in the first justification, which is the thing that was to be proved.”
6.5.2 (see p. 800). Concerning the reward promised to works in the instance of the believer, Calvin (3.18.3), remarks that this rests upon the evangelical promise of the gospel, not the legal promise of the law: “The grand promise ‘keep my statutes and judgments; which if a man do he shall live in them’ (Leviticus 18:5) the apostle maintains to be of no value to us if we rest upon it and that it will be no more beneficial to us than if it had never been given, because it is inapplicable to the holiest of God’s servants, who are all far from fulfilling the law and are encompassed with a multitude of transgressions. But when these are superseded by the evangelical promises which proclaim the gratuitous remission of sins, the consequence is that not only our persons, but also our works, are accepted by God; and not accepted only, but followed by those blessings which were due by the covenant [of works] to the observance of the law. I grant, therefore, that the works of believers are rewarded by those things which the Lord has promised in his law to the followers of righteousness and holiness; but in this recompense it is always necessary to consider the cause which conciliates such favor to those works. This we perceive to be threefold: The first is that God averting his eyes from the actions of his servants, which are invariably more deserving of censure than of praise, receives and embraces them in Christ and by the intervention of faith alone reconciles them to himself without the assistance of works. The second is that in his paternal benignity and indulgence he overlooks the intrinsic unworthiness of these works and exalts them to such honor that he esteems them of some degree of value. The third cause is that he pardons these works as he receives them, not imputing the imperfection with which they are all so defiled that they might otherwise be accounted rather sins than virtues.”
Again, in 3.18.1 he explains the relation of the believer’s good works to his justification as follows: “The declaration that God will render to everyone according it his works is easily explained. For that phrase indicates the order of events rather than the cause of them. It is beyond all doubt that the Lord proceeds to the consummation of our salvation by these gradations of mercy: ‘Whom he has predestinated them he calls; whom he has called he justifies; and whom he has justified he finally glorifies’ (Romans 8:30). Though he receives his children into eternal life of his mere mercy, yet since he conducts them to the possession of it through a course of good works that he may fulfill his work in them in the order he has appointed, we need not wonder if they are said to be rewarded according to their works, by which they are prepared to receive the crown of immortality. And for this reason they are properly said to ‘work out their own salvation,’ while, devoting themselves to good works, they aspire to eternal life. Whence it appears that the word work is not opposed to grace, but refers to human endeavors; and therefore it does not follow either that believers are the authors of their own salvation or that salvation proceeds from their works. By their good works they prove themselves to be the genuine children of God, by their resemblance to their heavenly Father in righteousness and holiness.”
Augustine’s (Grace and Free Will 19-20) explanation is the following: “How is eternal life both a reward for service and a free gift of grace? This is no small question which must be solved by the Lord’s gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares, ‘Then he shall reward every man according to his works,’ how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously as the apostle himself tells us, ‘To him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt’? This question is not possible of solution unless we understand that even those good works of ours which are recompensed with eternal life are a part of the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus, ‘Without me you can do nothing’ (John 15:5); and by the Apostle Paul, ‘By grace are you saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works lest any man should boast.’ ‘Not of works’ is spoken here of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has molded you. For of these the apostle says, ‘We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.’ We are framed, therefore, that is formed and created, ‘in the good works which’ we have not ourselves prepared, but which ‘God has before ordained that we should walk in them.’ It follows, then, dearly beloved, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is also the grace of God; moreover, the eternal life is given gratuitously, even as the good life is given gratuitously to which the eternal life is given. But that good life to which eternal life is given is solely and simply grace [not reward]; while this eternal life which is given to it is its [gracious] reward; grace is for grace, as a [relative] remuneration for righteousness, in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God ‘shall reward every man according to his works.’ ”
Ursinus (Christian Religion Q. 52) thus explains Christ’s reference to the works of the believer in the day of judgment: “It is objected that unto every man shall be given according to his works: therefore judgment shall be given to all, not according to the gospel, but according to the doctrine of the law. Answer: In this sense it shall be given unto the elect according to their works; not that their works are merits, but in that they are the effects of faith. Wherefore, then, unto the elect shall be given according to their works; that is, they shall be judged according to the effects of faith; and to be judged according to faith is to be judged according to the gospel. Now Christ shall rather judge according to works as the effects of faith than according to faith as their cause (1) because he will have it known to others why he so judges, lest the ungodly and condemned persons might object that he gives us eternal life unjustly. He will prove by our works the fruits of our faith, that our faith was sincere and true and therefore we are such as those to whom life is due according to the promise. Wherefore he will show them our works and will bring them forth as testimonies to refute them that we have in this life applied unto us Christ’s merit. (2) That we may have comfort in this life, that we shall hereafter, according to our works, stand at his right hand.”