Justification by Faith and Justification by Works

[stan the man]

Boasting (Christian)

While a discussion of Jewish boasting in front of unbelievers occupied Paul in Romans 2-4, in Romans 5 he takes up the parallel subject of Christian boasting in front of unbelievers.

Thus in Romans 5:1-2 he states: "Therefore, since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with God (Some tend to mistranslate vv 1-2 by having Paul state "since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with God," which they use to claim that peace with God is an automatic consequence of justification which can never be lost. However, in most manuscripts what Paul says is "Therefore, since we are justified by faith let us have peace with God." Justification provides the basis of our relationship with God, and does make our initial peace with God, but we must continue to live at peace with God and at war with sin, rather than sliding back into our sinful pre-Christian lifestyle. Some have chosen a minority manuscript tradition, contrary to the manuscript evidence, for dogmatic reasons, to advance a confessional agenda.) through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and let us boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God."

Earlier Paul discussed improper Jewish boasting in God, which was improper because it was based on Torah (2:23). Now he discusses Christian boasting in God, which is proper because it is based on Christ (5:11). The goal of Christian boasting in God is to win people to the Christian faith (cf. 11:13). Paul tells us to boast in three things: our hope (v 2), our sufferings (v 3), and God himself through Christ (v 11).

 

[stan the man]

Boasting (Christian)

The term in 5:2 translated "boast" is translated as "rejoice" by most Bibles, but it should be "boast." It is the same word that already has been consistently translated as "boast" previously in Romans. Not only is it the established rendering of the term in this book, but it makes explicit the contrast between the Jewish boasting that Paul has previously discussed and the Christian boasting he now discusses.

The first thing Paul says we should boast about as Christians is our hope of sharing the glory of God. This is a statement to which much contemporary preaching needs to pay attention. As part of evangelism, we should boast in our Christian hope as a way of making Christianity attractive to others, who do not have this hope.

In 5:3 Paul goes beyond this and says, "More than that, let us boast in our sufferings . . . " Human nature does not normally boast in sufferings, so we need to be encouraged to do so. Paul explains why in 3b-5: suffering triggers a chain of events that will end up fulfilling our hope (of sharing in the glory of God; v 2b). We will not be disappointed in this hope because God's love has been poured (infused) into our heats through the Holy Spirit (v 5).

To illustrate how deep this love of God for us is, Paul points out that Christ was willing to die for us when we were still sinners (i.e., before we became Christians; vv 6, 8). This outstrips what one person will naturally do for another (v 7), showing the supernatural character of God's love. Because of Christ's blood and death we have been justified (v 9) and reconciled (v 10), so how much more will we be saved through Christ's risen life from God's wrath on the last day! Thus we should also not be afraid to boast of our sufferings as Christians.

 

[stan the man]

Boasting (Christian)

However, we should especially boast in our relationship with God through Christ. In 5:11, Paul tells us: "[W]e also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation." This is the apex of Christian boasting.

Jewish boasting in God was misplaced because it thought one was justified through the Torah, but Christian boasting in God is appropriate because it recognizes that it is through Christ that we received reconciliation. Both Jewish boasting in front of unbelievers and Christian boasting in front of unbelievers are boasts in God rather than in our own righteousness, but Jewish boasting wrongly claims we are put right with God through the Torah, Christian boasting rightly claims we are put right with God through Christ.

Needless to say, we must never be egotistic when we do this boasting, but we should make the faith attractive to others by humbly showing how great is the grace God has given us.

 

[stan the man]

Boasting (Jewish verses Christian)

The final reference to Christian boasting in Romans is in 15:17, where Paul says: "In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to boast of my work for God." The context makes clear what he is talking about:

"But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of preaching the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to boast of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ" (Rom. 15:15-19).

Paul again is not boasting of his own accomplishments. He is explicit about it: "I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me." So his only boasting of his work is boasting "in Christ Jesus." Rather than boasting of his righteousness in front of God, he is boasting of Christ's accomplishments through him.

As he tells us earlier in Romans, he does this kind of boasting quite a lot: "Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them" (Romans 11:13b-14).

In front of his Jewish brothers, therefore, Paul thus boasts of how many converts he has won to Christ and to God in an attempt to make them desirous (jealous) of having what Paul has—the Christian faith—so that they may be saved.

The issue of the conversion of the Gentiles was especially important to Jews of the first century. The conversion of the Gentiles to God had been repeatedly prophesied in the Old Testament, and first century Jews were striving to fulfill this prophecy by preaching about (boasting in) God in front of Gentiles. Jesus himself notes their zeal in doing this, saying: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are" (Matt. 23:15).

Yet despite the great Jewish effort ("travel[ing] over sea and land . . . ") expended in winning Gentile converts, it never bore much fruit (" . . . to make a single convert"). Jewish evangelism never took off the way Christian evangelism did, as indicated by the fact that the Roman Empire became Christian, not Jewish. It was thus through Jesus that the Old Testament prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles to the God of the Jews was fulfilled (as some Jewish scholars today will admit, such as the orthodox Jewish rabbi Pinchas Lapide).

 

[stan the man]

Boasting (Jewish verses Christian)

The reason that Jewish evangelism never took off the way Christian evangelism did was based in the kind of boasting in God the two groups were doing. Jews were boasting in God through the Torah—making one's adherence to the Mosaic Law the condition for conversion to God—while Christians were boasting in God through Christ—making one's adherence to Christ the condition for conversion to God.

In fact, there was a large group of people in the first century known as "God-fearers" who were intellectually convinced of the folly of paganism and the truth of the Jewish religion, yet who could not bring themselves to convert by accepting circumcision and the regulations of the Torah. Thus the very thing which Jews held out as the basis for uniting with God itself became the barrier to effective evangelism.

So when the Christians came along proclaiming the sufficiency of Christ as the basis for union with God, they made converts by the dozens, and in three hundred years the Roman Empire, the archenemy of Jews and Christians alike, had formally embraced the worship of Yahweh and rejected the worship of other gods.

While this was still off in the future, Paul could (and did) go to his Jewish brethren and boast of how Christ had won many converts to God through him, and thus Christ, not Torah, was the real thing that drew people to the God of the Jews, and thus the real thing through which the long-prophecied conversion of the Gentiles was happening. Paul's Jewish brothers had better get on board, he would reason, if they wanted to be part of God's program of the ages rather than being left behind, clinging to the Torah as a way of union with God when it was never intended as that (Rom. 4).

Paul's boasting thus reveals the problem with of the first-century Jewish boasting in God through Torah, and it also reveals a final confirmation of the fact that the boasting Paul discusses in Romans, whether Jewish or Christian, is not boasting in one's own righteousness—contrary to the assertions of some people. Every single passage in which Paul discusses boasting reveals it to be boasting in the greatness of God and how every human being who will can have union with him. As St. John puts it: "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

 

[Faith alone]

Stan,

Nice exposition on "boasting," but I prefer to just go by what the Lexicons say. Also, let's look at what the Bible Knowledge Commentary says on the Ephesians 2 context for boasting...

Verse 9 reinforces this by showing that the means is not by works since its basis is grace (Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:1-5; 11:6; Gal. 2:16; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5), and its means is faith (Rom. 4:5). Therefore since no person can bring salvation to himself by his own efforts, no one can boast (cf. Rom. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:29). Their boasting can only be in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31).
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

Let's look at the lexical definition of KAUCHAOMAI - Liddell & Scott...

kaucavomai, 2 sing. kauca'sai in late Gr.: f. hvsomai aor. i ejkauchsavmhn: pf. kekauvchmai: (akin to aujcevw, eu[comai):—to speak loud, be loud-tongued, Pind.: to boast or vaunt oneself, c. inf., to boast that, Hdt.:—c. acc. to boast of a thing, c. acc., N.T. From kauvch
Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992.

Boasting here in the koine Greek is essentially the same as boasting in English. It simply means to brag or speak loudly about something you've done.

Paul's point is clearly understood to be that if one needs to fulfill the law or, as in Ephesians 2, which was written to Gentiles, not Jews, any works in an effort to bring yourself into right standing with God, if successful you would have something to boast about. Paul's point in Romans and in Ephesians is that we cannot earn our way to heaven.

And justification is not being made righteous. It is being declared righteous. It is something that someone else proclaims.

Justification is not a process.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

I think a theme in Romans that deserves special mention is boasting of one's relationship to God. Many people seize on passages in Romans which speak of Jews boasting and use them to argue that this describes a Jewish self-righteousness and an attempt to earn one's place before God by one's own efforts, claiming that the Jews were boasting in their own righteous deeds. As I will show, this is a first-class misrepresentation of the text.

While the idea of boasting normally connotes arrogance in English, this is not always the case in Paul's thought. (1Co 9:15, 15:31, 2Co 2:12, 14, 7:4, 14, 8:24, 9:2-4, 10:8, 13-16, 11:10, 2Th 1:4; cf. 2Co 10:16-17, Ro 15:17, 1Co 1:31, 3:21, 2Co 5:12.) This raises the possibility that the Jew may not be here boasting in his own-self accomplishment—indeed, he is boasting "in God" or in his relationship with God, which in the Jewish mind is a relationship of grace. Thus the Jew may be "glorying in the Lord" (Jr 9:24), but his boasting is misplaced since he believes his relationship with the Lord is from Torah. The Jew may indeed be arrogant over the Gentile in believing that he has a grace-filled relationship with God through Torah, but it is not a boast of self-accomplishment, but a boast "in God," based on one's relationship with God (through Torah), as many contemporary commentators have noted (e.g., Sanders, Dunn, Zeisler).

stan,

If one were to boast in what God had done through them, that is not really an issue regarding our justification. Paul spoke of boasting in what hehad accomplished regarding proclaiming Christ, but that is not at all what Paul is referring to in Romans 3 and 4.

Romans 15:17-21 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Therefore I have reason to boast in Christ Jesus regarding what pertains to God. For I would not dare say anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed, by the power of miraculous signs and wonders, and by the power of God's Spirit. As a result, I have fully proclaimed the good news about the Messiah from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum. So my aim is to evangelize where Christ has not been named, in order that I will not be building on someone else's foundation, but, as it is written: Those who had no report of Him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.

This clearly has nothing to do with being justified in His sight. And here's the context for 1 Corinthians 1:31...

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Brothers, consider your calling: not many are wise from a human perspective, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. Instead, God has chosen the world's foolish things to shame the wise, and God has chosen the world's weak things to shame the strong. God has chosen the world's insignificant and despised things--the things viewed as nothing--so He might bring to nothing the things that are viewed as something, so that no one can boast in His presence. But from Him you are in Christ Jesus, who for us became wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, in order that, as it is written: The one who boasts must boast in the Lord.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
Here Paul says that we have nothing to boast about in being chosen (elected) to be saved. This does relate to justification. God designed His plan so that no one could take glory from Himself. If works were required IOT be justified, and let's face it: if we are justified in a process method, then works are required IOT be declared to be righteous in His sight. According to Romans 11:6, that is salvation by works - grace has no part in it at all.

The following text reveals some interesting thoughts on this...

2 Corinthians 10:12-18 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For we don't dare classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. But in measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves to themselves, they lack understanding. We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but according to the measure of the area of ministry that God has assigned to us, which reaches even to you. For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we had not reached you, since we have come to you with the gospel of Christ. We are not bragging beyond measure about other people's labors. But we have the hope that as your faith increases, our area of ministry will be greatly enlarged, so that we may preach the gospel to the regions beyond you, not boasting about what has already been done in someone else's area of ministry. So the one who boasts must boast in the Lord. For it is not the one commending himself who is approved, but the one the Lord commends.[/FONT]

Here again the boasting has nothing to do with justification, but ministry. Here Paul says that he will not boast in what someone else has done. (He felt the need to defend his apostleship. Others had come into what he had established and built upon it, taking credit as if they had done it all. The green text above is what you referenced. Out of context this could appear to be referring to our justification, but in context it clearly has nothing to do with that. The underlined text following that is revealing: Here the commending is referring to the upcoming BEMA seat of Christ, not justification. That is the only thing that makes any sense in the context. It also makes it clear that, as the lexicons tell us, justification is not about making righteous but declaring to be righteous.

So there is a sense of God commending us for our faithfulness. Such is not what justifies us in the sense of forgiveness of our sins. That is clearly not the context ofthe texts above. In Romans early, it is. But this "justification" is again at a point-in-time - as shown in Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10, as well as 1 Corinthians 3:10ff and other texts. The Bible refers to this commendation as glorification, not justification. And if one wanted to refer to this reckoning as justification, though that is not how the NT does so, I could accept it as long as it is recognized that it has nothing to do with becoming a child of God or our assurance of eternal life salvation.

Let me end with Philippians 2:14-16...

Philippians 2:14-16 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Do everything without grumbling and arguing, so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God who are faultless in a crooked and perverted generation, among whom you shine like stars in the world. Hold firmly the message of life. Then I can boast in the day of Christ that I didn't run in vain or labor for nothing. But even if I am poured out as a drink offering on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you.[/FONT]

Here paul says that his boasting in that Day would be in the perseverance of the Philippian believers. He could boast because his works had been effective forthe cause of Christ. But again, this has nothing to do with gaining eternal life, with justification.

I think this is a good spot to end. Justification is a declaration of righteousness. That happens at a point intime, based on our faith. That's why Jesus said that those who heard the message of the gospel and believed it HAVE eternal life. (Present possession) They will not come into judgment, but have already crossed over out of death into life.

That could not be true if justification were a process. It is a declaration based upon a momen t of belief. In my next post I'll list just a few texts on justification as used in the NT.

Take care,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

justification

Here are a few texts on justification...

Romans 3:20 For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.
(The purpose of the Law was to reveal our sinfulness to ourselves. Works were never intended to justify.)

Romans 3:24 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]T[/FONT]hey are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
(If justification is free, then works have absolutely nothing to do with it - ever.)

Romans 3:24 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
(Justification before God is by faith - apart from works.)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Romans 4:2 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]If Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to brag about--but not before God.
(Notice that Paul is making it clear that works might have something to do with justification before man, but never before God.)

[/FONT]Galatians 2:15, 16 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]We are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners"; yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.

Galatians 3:10-12 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law. Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith. But the law is not based on faith; instead, the one who does these things will live by them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom. Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.[/FONT]
(Of course, this is referring to inheriting the kingdom, not entering it. But only those who have been justified by God will enter. Paul points out the lifestyles some of these Corinthian believers had lived. But then he says that they were [past tense] washed, sanctified, justified. Here we also see the sanctification I spoke about earlier which occurs at the time of our belief. At that time Christ set us apart for Hisglory and to become holy vessels for His use. But we become sanctified in a progressive manner as we grow in Christ. Works definitely have a part in that, but never in justification before God.)

Titus 3:5-8 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]He saved us--not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that having been justified by His grace, we may become heirs with the hope of eternal life. This saying is trustworthy. I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed God might be careful to devote themselves to good works. These are good and profitable for everyone.
(Hope in the NT is a sure thing. It is something anticipated. But we are justified by His grace. If we needed to progress in our justification in some way, then it would not be by grace. But works do have a part in growing in Christ - in our progressive sanctification.)
[/FONT]
Justification is God's declaration that we are righteous. It is not a process. Sanctification is both an event and a process. The same cannot be said for our justification.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Justification and Sanctification compared

I think we need to make some distinctions between justification and sanctification, because in the past few days the meanings of these terms have been blurred and caused to overlap. I know we will not all agree with my description of these terms, but at least you'll understand where I stand and why I do not see progressive justification even hinted at in scripture. That is confusing it with what the Bible refers to as sanctification...

1 - To sanctify means to "set apart." Sanctification has two or three aspects: positional (or initial - unchangeable), experiential (progressive), and ultimate (complete: being in God’s presence). IOW, we were sanctified at our new birth, we are in the process of being sanctified, and it will be finished, completed, at the return of Christ. Some prefer to just view it as 2 ways - the 1st two. (I do.) Those who also include ultimate sanctification are essentially referring to what I (and I believe the NT does as well) call "glorification."

2 - Positional (or initial) sanctification is described in Rom. 6:1-11, and is the basis for progressive (some prefer experiential) sanctification (Rom. 6:12ff).

3 - Progressive sanctification is the process whereby God makes the believer more and more like Jesus Christ through our union with Christ and the work of the indwelling Spirit. Note: Just as in justification, sanctification is the work of God that must also be appropriated by faith. IOW, we grow by faith, just as we were re-born by faith. But works are also involved in our progressive sanctification.

4 - Sanctification (progressive) may change from day to day. (IOW, I may be cooperating with God's work of sanctifying me today, but tomorrow I may resist His work.) Justification never changes. When the sinner trusts in Christ as his Savior, God declares him to be righteous at that instant - received as a free gift - not earned. That declaration will never be repealed nor need to be repeated. There is no sense of progressive or experiential justification - it makes no sense if we understand God's death in our place.

5 - Justification looks at our eternal position in Christ (very similar to positional or initial sanctification) whereas progressive sanctification, depending on the context, looks at our experiential condition from day to day.

6 - Justification exempts us from the Great White Throne judgment - John 5:24.

7 - Progressive sanctification prepares us for the Bema seat (or judgment seat) of Christ, and rewards for faithfulness - works done as a saved individual.

8 - Justification removes the guilt and penalty of sin for us. It is salvation from the penalty of sin.

9 - Progressive sanctification removes the growth and power of sin in our lives. It is salvation from the power ofs in.

10 - Glorification removes forever the presence ofsin in our lives. It is salvation from the presence of sin. (Had to throw this in to be more thorough.)

11 - In justification Christ died for sin’s penalty, where as in sanctification He died to gain victory over sin’s power. That's why there is the initial (posiitonal) sanctification - to enable us to live victoriously (progressive sancification.) We had absolutely nothing to do with our justification or our initial sanctification. We do cooperate with the Spirit in our progressive sanctification.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Tieing it back in to James 2

In a post a few days ago I pointed out that MONON ("alone", "only") is an adverb andhence cannot be modifying "faith." Darby translated 2:24 to make it clear...

James 2:24 (Darby) Ye see that a man is justified on the principle of works, and not only on the principle of faith.

Two justifications are seen here, not two types of faith. As I see it, if someone assumes James is comparing real, saving faith to dead, non-saving faith, then it makes perfect theological sense to try to give MONON adjectival force - though that it simply not possible grammatically. t is never done in the NT. I know of not a single exception - at least in the case of MONOS/MONON. But for one who is viewing "only" as modifying "faith" James is then saying faith plus works results in justification.

However, if James accepts his readers as those already justified before God, and his purpose in writing is to strengthen them in their faith and to motivate them to live for Him such that they will stand in times of testing and trial, then it makes perfectly good sense, theologically, though not grammatically, to understand James to be writing mainly about how they can be justified before their fellow man. In that case, faith leads to justification, and works leads to a different kind of justification... before people.

IOW, there is a justification by works that is a justification before man; there is another justification by faith that is a justification before God. OK, here's a text in Romans in which Paul refers to a justification before men:

Romans 4:1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned [credited to his account]
to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Paul acknowledges a justification before men in Rom. 4.2 - italics above, which is a first class condition, and he also declares the second type starting in the next verse. A frst class condition can often be translated "since..." rather than "if."

Romans 4:2 [justification by works before man] For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God.
(Notice that Paul admits that there is a justification by works before men... but that the justification before God is NOT by works. That is his focus.)

He goes on...
Romans 4:3 [justification by faith for eternal life before God] For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned [credited to his account] to him as righteousness.”
(When Abraham believed God, God credited righteousness to his account... to his ledger. And as was pointed out, this was done long before Abraham ever "sacrificed" his son in obedience. The work which Abraham did there was before men - it showed that he was truly a "friend of God." It also demonstrated to God that he trusted in Him. But Abraham had already been declared to be righteous by God many years earlier - based on his faith alone.)

Here are some more instances of justification being used in the NT in a different manner - but never in a progressive manner:

1 Corinthians 4:4 - But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted [justified]; but the one who examines me is the Lord.

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
(Here we see God being justified by men!)

Luke 7:34, 35 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and you say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.
(Since we are speaking of John the Baptist and Jesus being justified, we should not assume that this justification is before God. And incidently, it is a justification by works, is it not? There is a justification by works before men... but we are justified before God by faith, apart from any works.)

Romans 3:4 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified...
(I included this verse because Paul makes it clear that he is speaking of being justified before God. By that we should assume that it needed to be clarified. From then on, in this portion of Romans, it would be right for us to assume that Paul is still speaking of a justification before God. But later, in Romans 4:2, he briefly alludes to a justification before men.)

1 Corinthians 4:3-5 It is of little importance that I should be evaluated by you or by a human court. In fact, I don't even evaluate myself. For I am not conscious of anything against myself, but I am not justified by this. The One who evaluates me is the Lord. Therefore don't judge anything prematurely, before the Lord comes, who will both bring to light what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the hearts. And then praise will come to each one from God.
(I included this passage because somesay it refers to a justification before God - but regarding works - at the BEMA seat of Christ. It has nothing to do with our imputed righteousness received by faith alone.)

1 Timothy 3:16 And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
(IMO this "justification" may just as easily be seen as before men, not God. But regardless, it is clear that this is using "justified" in a different sense here. It is referring to Christ being justified, not us.)

Galatians 3:11, 24 But one no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. ... Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(Here we see that in Romans 1:17, when Paul referred to "the just shall life by faith" he was saying that no person is justified by the law - by works - before God. We are justified before God by faith alone. See the contrast between faith and works. OK, this is talking about a justification before God... but it is so neat that I had to include it.)

Hope this helps clarify.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

justification in Romans

Romans 5:1,2 8-11 - Therefore, since we have been declared righteous ["justified"] by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ ("reconciliation"), through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory.

But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous ("justified") by his blood, we will be saved through him from God’s wrath. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life? Not only this, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation.

Notice how Paul distinguishes between being justified, being reconciled and being saved? Now Paul never uses the term "salvation" (SOTERIA) to refer to justification in Romans - not once. The above tells us that we were "justified" ("declared righteous") by His blood. Paul goes on to say that having been "reconciled" to God (our sins have been dealt with so that we can have a relationship with God - they are what prevented that possibility) we are now being "saved" by His life. Vss. 1 and 2 echo the fact that we have received this reconciliation through faith, as does vs. 11 tells us that this reconciliation was received - it's a gift - it wasn't worked for.

We can be "saved" through the life of Jesus. But saved from what? From hell? No. Given eternal life? No. Vs. 9 tells us that we "will be" saved through Christ "from God's wrath." That is "glorification" truth. You see, God hates sin. We all sin as Christians - all of us - and if we are honest, we do it a lot more often then we wish to acknowledge. We deserve to experience God's wrath, his anger at our sinful lives. But Romans 5:9 tells us that we will be saved from His wrath, by the life of Christ. And this is not justification, nor is it sanctification... it is actually glorification. That is actually what salvation refers to in Romans. I am not sure if Paul only refers to glorification when he used SOZO ("to save") in Romans, but he does it a lot. I think that part of the time he is referring to sanctification truth, but never justification - he uses DIKAIOW (verb) or DIKAIOS (noun) instead.

Paul talks about "gaining-eternal-life" salvation a lot in Romans... but he always refers to it as being "justified" ("declared righteous - DIKAIOW).

Now, that said let me add that the degree to which we are able to do what He said will determine to what degree we experience real life here, and the rewards He will give us at the BEMA seat of Christ.

Now we do not need to obey Him - to do what He said - IOT gain eternal life - to be justified, and Paul said the same thing right in the immediate context of Romans 5:10. It is notpossible. I expect my children to do what I say. But that's not how they became my children. They were born into my family. The same applies spiritually. You must distinguish between how you became a child of God and how you grow as His children.

Now, if we make doing what He said - obeying Him - a requirement for gaining eternal life - being justified before Him, then no one will be saved - not one. God doesn't accept just some sin - He hates it with a passion. That's why He dealt with the sin issue Himself. He covered over that sin "once-for-all."

He paid the penalty. Once we are part of His family, by faith in Him, we need to obey Him. But none of us can do that fully... we can't even come close while we're still in these bodies of death. Through His Spirit, we can experience some great enabling to live for Him. But when we require that we do what He said as part of becoming a child of God, or part of remaining a child of God, we've just made it something that none of us can do.

So we have to distinguish between becoming a Christian and living for Christ. Between justification and sanctification, and also glorification. That's what the RCC fails to do IMO, and what the reformation was all about - justification. To make justification by works, even partly, puts you back in the place we were in before the reformation. Luther said that - clearly. So did Calvin. Read his "Institutes."

Let's see how clearly Paul declares our eternal life salvation ("justification") to be a free gift in Romans 3. We so often quote 3:23 out of context. In context, it's absolutely beautiful ->

Romans 3:22-28 that is, God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe, since there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a propitiation ("appeased His anger at our sinful lives") through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. He presented Him to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By one of works? No, on the contrary, by a law of faith. For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

The Greek word translated "apart from" in vs. 28 is CWRIS - "without, apart from, without relation to, besides" We are justified by faith, and faith alone. Works have no relationship to that. None.

After that Romans 3 passage, what's left to say? Can it be more clear? If you still question my position on justification, please read it again. BTW, I emphasize "justification" ("being declared righteous") regarding eternal life, because that is precisely what Paul did. WE cannot understand what Paul is so clearly saying about our eternal life unless we use his terminology. Read Romans - it leaps out at you and grabs you.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Article by John Armstrong on justification - Part I - exc

I think this will take about 5 posts to get itall in, but it is excellent, and I was notable to find it online...

Justification by Faith Alone - (The Sufficiency of Faith for Justification)

Dr. John H. Armstrong

The late Paul Tillich, one of America’s leading liberal theologians several decades ago, wrote, "Protestantism was born out of struggle for the doctrine of justification by faith." If Protestantism was born out of this struggle, then it stands that the greatness of evangelical Protestant religion will only be recovered when struggle for the truth of justification by faith alone is recovered. The problem we currently face should be obvious—evangelicals are moving increasingly toward Roman Catholic teaching and away from the doctrine of their spiritual forefathers. This is never more apparent than when we consider the present confusion regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Had Martin Luther and his fellow evangelicals been willing to move away from the little word alone in their understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith, much of the struggle they were engaged in would have happily ceased. But in the process of such a move, the gospel movement which was underway at the time would have died a tortuous death and the fruit of the great revival, then ongoing, would have been tragically lost.

Just what did the Reformers mean by faith alone? Why did they steadfastly insist on this one word, sola, thus making the divide between Rome and the Reformation movement irreparable in the sixteenth century?

The Protestant Doctrine Stated
When Martin Luther produced a German New Testament in 1521 he translated Romans 3:28 as follows: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law."

Here was the dividing point, the theological line in the sand. It may be said that this one word, alone, lit a doctrinal blaze that never went out. Luther, who was progressively coming to fuller understanding of the gospel as he carefully studied the Scripture, now stated the matter plainly. Great abuse was piled upon both Luther and his doctrine because of this one word, alone. He was accused of falsifying the Scriptures, of adding to the Bible, and of destroying the historic faith of the Catholic church. For Rome and its authoritative magisterium this settled it—Martin Luther was a heretic! He plainly added to the gospel of Christ!

It is helpful to recall that in 1521 Luther reportedly made his famous declaration, "Here I Stand," at the Diet of Worms. The gauntlet was thrown down. The reforming movement began to take on entirely new political and social tones as the German princes sided with Luther against the Roman Pontiff. Debates, councils and growing intrigue followed in ensuing years. This resulted in emperor Charles V calling a meeting known as the Diet of Augsburg. Here evangelicals were allowed to present a formal confession of faith. This confession, written principally by Luther’s good friend Melancthon, was to have a most significant place in the development of the Reformation. This was particularly true in regard to what is called the material principle of the Reformation—justification by faith alone.

Melancthon, in distinction from Luther, wrote in very moderate and inoffensive terms. Contrary to Luther’s fiery zeal, his spirit was naturally conciliatory. In spite of this approach two Catholic theologians at this Diet, Faber and Eckius, reacted very strongly against the evangelical articles, and especially against the doctrine of sola fide. They saw this teaching as a novelty that Luther and his followers held in serious variance with the long-held doctrines of Roman Catholicism. This event, and this particular doctrinal dispute, was so great that Roland Bainton wrote:

One might take the date June 25, 1530, the day when the Augsburg Confession was publicly read, as the death day of the Holy Roman Empire. From this day forward the two confessions stood over against each other, poised for conflict.1

Efforts at conciliation and reunion would follow in the next decade or so. In 1541, at Ratisbon, an agreement was tentatively reached on important articles of faith, including justification. But in 1543 the open door for Rome to embrace the gospel was tragically closed by the Council of Trent. Here Catholic theologians, with some opposition from within their own ranks, pronounced their now famous anathemas against the evangelical teaching of Luther and Melancthon.

The Reformers never tired of emphasizing that justification is a legal or forensic concept. They insisted, properly, that this was the term of the law court. It is a word which described a change in status. As in Romans 5, guilty sinners are in Adam but pardoned and righteous believers are in Christ. Those who are in Christ are declared righteous because of Him and because of what He did for them. This understanding, they believed, was central to a proper view of Romans 4:5 where we read that God justifies the ungodly. The righteousness which justly declares the sinner to be right with God is properly understood to be imputed to him on the sole basis of faith. As the hymn says, "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling." Surely, they agreed, this is the correct understanding of Paul’s teaching. Faith is clinging to Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone. This faith brings the sinner into the grace which truly saves. Nothing less, and certainly nothing more!

Luther puts all of this very succinctly in scores of places. He writes, for example, ".. .actual justifying (formalis iustificatio) is left to faith alone, since without faith neither God nor Christ nor anything else is profitable for righteousness"2

In writing to Cochlaeus, Luther states that on the basis of Romans 4:2-3, Paul is a greater champion of sola fide than he (i.e. Luther) is:

Note, then, whether Paul does not assert more vehemently that faith alone justifies than I do, although he does not use the word "alone" (sola) , which I have used. For he who says: Works do not justify, but faith justifies, certainly affirms more strongly that faith justifies than does he who says: Faith alone justifies... it is ridiculous enough to argue in this sophistical manner: Faith alone justifies; therefore the Holy Spirit does not justify. Or: The Spirit justifies; therefore not faith alone. For this is not what the dispute is about at this place. Rather the question is only about the relation of faith and works, whether anything is to be ascribed to works in justification. Since the apostle does not ascribe anything to them, he without a doubt ascribes all to faith alone.3

In characteristic fashion, Luther expressed confidence in 1531 that the doctrine of sola fide in the Augsburg Confession would stand against contradiction and opposition on precisely this point. He wrote:

Of this article (sola fide) nothing may be yielded or conceded, though heaven and earth and whatever will not abide, fall to ruin, for "there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved," says St. Peter (Acts 4:12); "and with His stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). And on this article all that we teach and practice is based against the pope, the devil, and the world. That is why we must be very certain of this doctrine and not doubt; otherwise all is lost, and the pope and the devil and all things gain the victory over us and are adjudged right.4

John Calvin, the great theologian of the second generation Protestant movement, has perhaps the clearest statements of any theologian of the evangelical view of sola fide when he writes in his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion:

Now the reader sees how fairly the Sophists today cavil against our doctrine when we say that man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 3:28). They dare not deny that man is justified by faith because it recurs so often in Scripture. But since the word "alone" is nowhere expressed, they do not allow this addition to be made. Is it so? But what will they reply to these words of Paul where he contends that righteousness cannot be of faith unless it be free (Rom. 4:2ff.)? How will a free gift agree with works? With what chicaneries will they elude what he says in another passage, that God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17)? If righteousness is revealed in the gospel, surely no mutilated or half righteousness but a full and perfect righteousness is contained there. The law therefore has no place in it. Not only by a false but by an obviously ridiculous shift they insist upon excluding this adjective. Does not he who takes everything from works firmly enough ascribe everything to faith alone? What I pray do these expressions mean: "His righteousness has been manifested apart from the law" (Rom. 3:2 1); and, "Man is freely justified" (Rom. 3: 24); and, "Apart from the works of the law" (Rom. 3:28)?5

Later Protestant confessions reflect this same understanding of faith as the sole instrument through which God gives the gift of eternal life. The French Confession of 1559 says:

We therefore reject all other means of justification before God, and without claiming any virtue or merits, we rest simply in the obedience of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us as much to blot out all our sins as to make us find grace and favor in the sight of God.

The Belgic Confession of 1561 agrees:

Humbling ourselves before him, and acknowledging ourselves to be such as we really are, without presuming to trust in anything in ourselves, or in any merit of ours, relying and resting upon the obedience of Christ crucified alone, which becomes ours when we believe in him.

 

[Faith alone]

Part II - I'm curious what you guys think of this

Continued...
The Second Helvetic of 1566 is very explicit in affirming the same truth:

But because we receive this justification, not through works, but through faith in the mercy of God and in Christ, we therefore teach and believe with the apostle that sinful man is justified by faith alone in Christ, not by the law or any works.

And the XXXIX Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church concurs in Article XI that:

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.

It is important that we understand the Reformers’ doctrine of sola fide clearly. Much misunderstanding did, and does, surround this affirmation. Two important conclusions must be seen to follow from the above confessions. First, the ground of justification is not faith. The "by" of the doctrinal statements is an instrumental "by." The ground of justification is Christ, and the Reformers would always be sure to add, Christ alone! Calvin is alert to this danger when he responds to opponents in his era by writing:

For if faith justified of itself or through some intrinsic power, so to speak, as it is always weak and imperfect it would effect this only in part; thus the righteousness that conferred a fragment of salvation upon us would be defective. Now we imagine no such thing, but we say that, properly speaking, God alone justifies; then we transfer this same function to Christ because he was given to us for righteousness. We compare faith to a kind of vessel; for unless we come empty and with the mouth of our soul open to seek Christ’s grace, we are not capable of receiving Christ. From this it is to be inferred that, in teaching that before his righteousness is received Christ is received in faith, we do not take the power of justifying away from Christ.6

I would submit that this kind of thinking is theologically sound, Faith, which is trust and reliance upon another, is the only appropriate instrumentality for being justified since Christ is the only one we trust and Christ is the one we rely upon entirely to save us. How can reliance or trust be meritorious or virtuous in any sense? Such is obviously an impossibility; thus the grace which saves the sinner is completely preserved by this theological affirmation.

The second important conclusion to note in these Protestant statements of faith is less obvious but equally important to their argument regarding sola fide. It is an argument which is much needed in our time when the relationship of faith to justification is discussed in a confused context. Though justification is concerned with legal change in one’s standing before a holy God, and though faith itself does not justify but rather receives Christ who alone justifies on the basis of His person and work, the faith which receives Christ is itself the grace of God given to a sanctified person. Professor Paul Helm notes this point very plainly by saying:

. . .faith is the act of a sanctified person. One might say it is the most basic act of such a person. Although faith does not justify, a person must, in order to have the faith that appropriates justification, already be in a regenerated state, since the faith that secures justification is not a natural capacity or disposition but a divine gift. It is itself the fruit of Christ’s redemption.... Perhaps the Reformers have been mistakenly taken to argue that because faith alone justifies, the faith that justifies must be alone.7

Faith brings the sinner into a status that can never be altered, namely that of an adopted child of God. It is a once-for-all status. This is why the legal aspect of justification is stressed as it is by the Reformers. To confuse sanctification with justification would be to make internal renewal of the heart a prerequisite of right relationship with God. But to leave out sanctification, as if it were an optional extra, is to treat the faith that saves as something other than true faith. True faith always leads the believing one into the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s work in our hearts always produces fruit, which is the evidence of the faith which truly exists.

The Case for Sola Fide in Scripture
The modern detractor objects—sola fide is just an argument which came from Luther’s psychological experience and the medieval scholastic debates of the time. It is simply not the straightforward teaching of the New Testament. But, with Luther and Calvin, I am persuaded that if one understands the teaching of Paul in Romans and Galatians then sola fide really is the clear teaching of the New Testament. Luther’s contribution was this—he brought to the light of day the clear and significant teaching of Paul’s doctrine of sola fide. He did not invent it, nor did he rediscover it, at least in the sense that it had been so plainly asserted previously.

When Luther was attacked for adding the additional word alone to his German translation of Romans 3:28, he replied that "...the extra word was necessary in German to bring out the force of the original." Is he right in his assertion?8

We should note several very important things that Paul specifically teaches with regard to faith and its relationship to our justification if we would answer this question. First, the apostle, referring to the faith of the patriarch Abraham in Genesis 15:6, writes:

For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness (Romans 4:3-5).

It would be fatal for the gospel and Paul’s entire argument to turn the faith referenced here into "work." Abraham’s faith was not a substitute for obedience (cf. Hebrews 11:8). It was, to be very precise, a faith to (eis) righteousness, not instead of (anti) righteousness.

In Romans 4:3-5 there is a clear antithesis in view. The antithesis is not between the worker and the non-worker, but rather between the worker and the person who does not work but believes. This believing has a specific quality and direction, namely "(believing) in Him who justifies the ungodly..."

Second, Paul just as plainly teaches that believers are justified "through faith" (dia pisteos, Romans 3:25). And, later, in 3:28, it is that which is "by faith" (pistei). And, again, in 3:30 is "out of faith," (ek pisteos). J. I. Packer properly notes,

The dative with the preposition dia (through) represents faith as the instrumental means whereby Christ and his righteousness are appropriated; the preposition ek (out of) shows that faith occasions, and logically precedes, our personal justification. That believers are justified dia pistin, on account of faith, Paul never says and would deny.9

If faith were the actual ground of justification, faith would then be a meritorious work. If faith were a meritorious work, in any sense whatsoever, then Paul is saying something that he elsewhere plainly opposes in no uncertain terms. In Romans 11:6, we hear the same apostle saying, "...if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Faith is not righteousness, or even a substitute for it. Faith is, rather, the empty hands of a believing soul reaching out to the One who justifies the ungodly on the basis of mercy alone.

Third, to make faith the only channel of justification is consistent with the emphasis in Paul’s doctrine that works are entirely excluded from God’s declaration that the believing sinner is justified. Romans 3:28 states, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (emphasis added). And Galatians 2:16 adds, "Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified" (emphasis added). The classic text for this is often quoted but infrequently appreciated. Ephesians 2:8-9 says: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and not that of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast."

It must be noted at this point that if works contribute to justification before God either before or after we come to faith in Christ, then our salvation is not by grace alone either. This leads to a denial of sola gratia as surely as sola fide. But what about the teaching of James? This epistle does not teach that justification is attained through meritorious works, or even faith that works internally by love, but rather that works give evidence of faith. James condemns that kind of faith which is non-effectual, i.e., a faith that is not genuinely trusting. Paul condemns works in terms of their adding anything of merit (or value) to the faith of the believing sinner. The conflict sometimes imagined between these two epistles is not to be found when they are properly understood. For contemporary Catholic apologist Scott Hahn to say repeatedly that Luther teaches faith alone while James teaches faith that works is misrepresentative of both Luther and James.

Fourth, and finally, Paul reveals in his reliance on Habbakuk 2:4 (cited in Romans 1:17), that he believes the godly man ("the just man") enjoys God’s favor and life because of his trustful response to God. Paul says: "For in it (i.e. the gospel of grace) the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith’" (Romans 1:17).

 

[Faith alone]

Part III - I'm curious what you guys think of this

continued...
It is grammatically possible that verse 17 is saying either "by faith" a man is "righteous" or "by faith" he "shall live." Luther opted for the first. Contemporary commentators such as Cranfield agree. Others opt for the second possibility. The first sense seems to make better use of the context of the epistle, but either way Paul is saying righteousness is absolutely necessary for salvation. But what is this "righteousness which is by faith?" How does man come to this righteousness? How does God give this to the sinner? Philippians 3:9 refers to this as "the righteousness which is of God by faith." It is the righteousness of God precisely because God provided it. The New International Version translates this Pauline expression correctly when it calls this "a righteousness from God" (dikaiosune Theou).

This "righteousness of God" may be taken as the act of God or it might be the provision of God. Either way Paul is talking about something entirely objective, i.e. outside of man. This is the obvious meaning of Romans 3:21 where Paul further says, "now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested..." No law fulfillment by the believing person can add one iota to the salvation which is all of grace.

Further, Romans 4:6 says "God reckons righteousness apart from works" (emphasis added). The whole point here, as in verse 5, is this—God reckons righteousness, i.e., He imputes it to those who believe solely on the basis of their whole-hearted trustful reliance upon the gracious and kind promises of God (cf. 4:18). The concept of imputation, which is understood in the word "reckon" (v. 6), is synonymous with justification in this phrase. If this is not true then Paul’s whole argument breaks down. His thesis is plain—justification is by faith and not by works, therefore it is alone, and must be alone, or something would, by necessity, be added to it.

And when Paul says this righteousness of Christ is "from faith to faith," he means that it is by faith from start to finish. It is a way of saying that grace is received by faith and by nothing but faith—i.e., sola fide. He backs this summary statement up at several points, such as in 4:6 where he says, "...the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works."

True saving faith, by biblical definition, must be alone—anything added to it would make it something other than faith. This idea is present in explicit statements, as we’ve seen previously, but it can also be seen in both the contrasts and the denials that we see in several of these same texts. "Alone" is part and parcel of the Pauline meaning of faith itself. If the grace of God is not given to man through faith alone, then what we call biblical faith is no faith at all. Either I bring something to the acceptance of God by grace or I do not. If I bring nothing then I am saved by, or through, faith alone. If I bring anything to God’s acceptance of me as a guilty sinner, then I have some room for boasting. If I bring nothing then all I can do is rely entirely upon Christ and His righteousness. As stated in an old hymn:

Upon a life I did not live,
Upon a death I did not die,
Another’s life, Another’s death,
I rest my whole eternity.
Further, if justification is not by faith alone, as Paul reasons, then it can’t be by Christ alone, or "by the righteousness of Christ." Why? Because faith means, simply, that Christ saves me, not the church, not my works, not another savior, but Christ alone! I can do nothing. I need do nothing but trust, and even this trust is graciously given to me by God Himself. Truly, there can be no room for human boasting in such a great divine work.

Rome Replies
Both in the time of the evangelical reformation, and in our own day, Rome has opposed the above understanding of sola fide. At the Council of Trent she closed the door on this biblical doctrine and today it remains both officially and practically closed. Discussions with Rome regarding our mission and the nature of Christian unity always break down when sola fide is properly advanced. There is a very good reason why this happens.

Three great issues were central in the sixteenth century debate. First, the nature of justification, or what is meant by this term in Scripture itself. Here, very simply put, the debate centered around the Roman confusion of justification and sanctification. For Rome these two truths are virtual synonyms. Second, there was the issue of the ground of justification. Here Rome’s error was to substitute the inherent righteousness of the regenerate person for the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. The tendency of Rome at the time of the Reformation, when justification and sanctification were properly distinguished by the Reformers, was to make infused righteousness (i.e. sanctification) that which ultimately makes a person acceptable to God.

James Buchanan puts this quite well in his classic treatment of justification:

It is true, they spoke of the merits of Christ, and ascribed some influence to His sufferings and death in connection with our justification; but they denied that His righteousness is imputed to us, so as to become the immediate ground of our acceptance with God, or the sole reason on account of which He pardons our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight. The merits of Christ were rather, according to their doctrine, the procuring cause of that regenerating grace by which we are made righteous; while the inherent personal righteousness, which is produced, is the real proximate ground of our justification.10

The third central issue in the sixteenth century, and an issue still as far as the modern disagreement goes, is the means of justification. Most contemporary Roman Catholic theologians, as well as the recent catechisms and confessional statements of the Catholic magisterium, still deny this Pauline doctrine propounded by the Reformers.

The error of Rome then, and now, is to deny that we are justified by the kind of faith which, to quote Reformation sources, "receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation, as He is freely offered to us in the gospel." Rome taught that man the sinner was justified by faith in Christ, but it was a faith which was informed by love, the germ of a new obedience. This faith, according to Rome’s understanding, is first infused into the heart at one’s baptism, so as to delete all past sin (for infants original sin, for adults both original and past acts of sin). It is restored and renewed regularly via confession and absolution, which deliver the sinner from punishment for his sin.

The Canons of the Council of Trent, in 1547, give us Romanism’s long standing definition of justification. In Canon 1 the Council declares:

If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Canon 3 also appears to have the same evangelical ring to it when it adds:

If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as He ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon Him, let him be anathema.

How can we argue with these statements? What we must say is this—we agree with Rome that salvation is an act of God’s grace alone. We agree, further, that contrary to much popular misunderstanding Rome does teach salvation by grace. Justification for Rome really is God’s gracious act on behalf of the sinner. This is repeatedly asserted in Catholic affirmations.

The editors of the Roman Catholic Douay Version, however, make the following revealing comments in a footnote on Romans 3 and 4:

The justification of which St. Paul here speaks is the infusion of sanctifying grace which alone renders a person supernaturally pleasing in the sight of God. But justification, that is, an infusion of sanctifying grace, cannot be merited by us; it is an entirely gratuitous gift of God.

Catholic theologians have consistently argued that justification is "a divine act by which the sinner is internally transformed and becomes a new reality before God." Trent says "justification is not only the remission of sins, but sanctification and renovation of the interior man through the voluntary reception of grace and the gifts, whereby man becomes just instead of unjust... .it is brought about by God through the merits of our Redeemer, and communicated to men in faith and baptism" (emphasis mine).’’

 

[Faith alone]

Part IV - I'm curious what you guys think of this

continued...

It would be useful to summarize, as accurately as possible, the Roman Catholic position regarding faith and its relationship to justification. Rome’s view was, and essentially still is, as follows:

The merits of Christ’s death are reckoned to the believing sinner not as the immediate and all-sufficient grounds of the sinner’s justification, but only as a remote "procuring" cause of that "infused sanctifying grace" [given at baptism as we saw above] by which the believer would be perfected more and more, not only in this life, but fully in purgatory through the endurance of "temporal punishment." Only when the believer had been thus purged from all taint of sin could he be "made righteous" and thereby be justified in God’s eyes and granted the ‘‘beatific vision.

Rome teaches is that only after a person believes, obeys, loves, produces good works according to the requirements of the church, and gives satisfaction to God by way of purgatorial sufferings, can he ever hope to be justified fully so as to be able to stand in God’s presence and be fully acceptable. This is, by virtue of the New Testament doctrine of grace that we previously saw, a complete denial of the sufficiency of Christ alone to be the savior of guilty believing sinners.

Because of this kind of teaching, which Rome still purports to be a theology of grace, the Council of Trent declared, "If anyone says that a sinful man is justified by faith alone, meaning that no other co-operation is required to obtain the grace of justification.. .let him be anathema." And further, "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence that divine Mercy remits sins for Christ’s sake.. .let him be anathema."12

But haven’t modern Catholic theologians seen this differently? Can’t we afford to drop this insistence on sola fide because now we are so very close in our understanding of grace and faith? Not at all. Let me illustrate.

John Henry Newman, the famous Anglican clergyman who converted to Rome in the last century, was considered to be a mediating theological voice in regard to the debate over sola fide. It was Newman who wrote: "Faith is the sole instrument." But what does Newman really mean by this statement? Observe the context of his statement carefully. "Faith is the sole instrument as preceded and made an instrument by the secret virtue of Baptism. St. Paul, too, when he speaks of justification through faith, speaks of faith as subordinate to Baptism." And Newman adds, "An assent to the doctrine that faith alone justifies does not at all preclude the doctrine of works justifying also, though obviously not in the same sense!" (emphasis added) Because of this approach Newman can ultimately say what Rome has always said, "Faith justifies, because Baptism has justified." And, further, "Baptism is expressly said to effect the first justification."13

Hans Kung, the modern controversial Catholic theologian, has expressed some of this same confusion, even though he proposes an understanding that appears much closer to that of the Reformers. Kung writes, "The sinner is justified through faith alone." But for Kung, as for Newman, faith generally means simple assent (a major error of both Rome and some modern evangelicalism), thus works and observance of the sacraments are added as also necessary for salvation. Kung adds, "What is all important is that faith and baptism belong together." And he concludes, further, "The sinner is justified through faith alone, but not through a faith which stands opposed to works."14

This confusion of justification with sanctification and the attendant problems we previously noted can be seen in the new and much heralded Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), which says: "The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ and through Baptism." What follows this is Romans 6:8-11. Listen to several other statements taken from this same catechism, which is considered by the Roman Pontiff and the official teaching authorities of the church to be the definitive teaching tool of the church since Vatican II.

Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being.
Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us (emphasis added).

In none of the above statements is the biblical and Protestant doctrine of sola fide to be found. We must conclude that this is not simply a sixteenth century quarrel that is now finished with regard to the modern era. If the debate is over it is because evangelicals have abandoned their understanding of and confidence in sola fide, not because Rome has changed. If Rome were to change on this point the entire system of grace, merit and faith known as Roman Catholicism would be dealt a mortal blow.

Here is the Great Divide. Rome has taught, and still teaches, that justification is on the grounds of both Christ’s merit and that of the sinner who, using the Holy Spirit’s infused righteousness granted in baptism, performs the works of love and mercy that expiate sin and help in making him just before a holy God.

"By faith alone" (sola fide) became a slogan of the Reformation. But it was, and still is, much more than a slogan for theologians. It is a descriptive call to arms. It is, in short, the definitive issue in understanding how God makes a sinner just before Him. What the Reformers meant is that absolutely nothing else is needed, save faith in Christ and His work, to make a person righteous before God. And nothing can make him more righteous than he is at the first moment he believes. He is not becoming righteous, he is righteous! Thus, Luther spoke of being simul justus et pecatore ("simultaneously sinful while at the same time justified").

The Roman Catholic theologians of the sixteenth century were willing to concede that a man was justified by faith if that faith were clothed with love infused into the believing heart by the Holy Spirit. Since love is the fulfilling of the law, the Reformers saw this doctrine for what it really was, and still is—an attempt to support righteousness by the fulfillment of the law inside of us. Hence, the Reformers opposed this doctrine precisely because it was a subtle and deadly attack upon the free grace of God and the sufficiency of the alien righteousness of Christ to save us.

Attacks Upon Sola Fide in the Present Day
The church in every age is in constant need of reforming. The followers of Martin Luther in the sixteenth century recognized this need, speaking of semper reformanda (always reforming). Calvin and the theologians of Geneva also recognized this need. These theologians did not seek to "reinvent the wheel." They were not radicals, at least in the sense that this term has commonly been used. They were determined to express the gospel properly, believing that justification by faith alone was the articulus cadentis et stantis ecclesiae ("the article by which the church stands or falls"). For them the whole reforming movement hung upon this recovery. Here was the material of the gospel. Here evangelical religion was truly defined. Let him who denies or ignores the doctrine of justification by faith alone realize that he is no longer an heir of the evangelical movement begun in the sixteenth century. He may still use the term "evangelical" but he uses it merely as an adjective to describe his conservative beliefs. He must understand that he is not evangelical in the truest, historical sense of the term.

In our time sola fide is once again being considered by both serious theologians and interested laity. Increasingly careful readers of Scripture are coming to understand that justification by faith alone is central to healthy, biblical Christianity. It is vital that the church be shown the significance of this truth. A recovery of sola fide will clarify the gospel that we believe and communicate. It will strengthen our confidence in God to do His work through the proclamation of that gospel and it will enable us to build up holy worship which is supremely addressed to God alone. For these reasons alone we need to note several modern errors regarding sola fide:

 

[Faith alone]

Part V - sola fide - "faith alone"

I do not agree with all of his analysis, but it is well thought through...

Contrary to much modern evangelistic terminology "inviting Jesus into my heart" is not the invitation of the gospel. This oft-used phrase, based mistakenly upon John 1:12, Revelation 3:20, etc., is not what the Scripture tells the sinner to do. The gospel tells the condemned man that he must "look to Christ" (in faith) as His substitute. He must "believe" and "trust." As long as we persist in thinking of faith as a mystical transaction wherein Christ comes from one place, outside of me, into another place, inside of me, we will have the tendency to fall into some of the same errors inherent in Roman Catholic confusion.

The gospel is the good news of what God has done outside of me in the actual person and historic work of Jesus Christ. This gospel is a message of historic, objective reality. It is not an experience, at least not my experience. It is the good news of Christ’s experience—He suffered, He died, He arose and He ascended to the right hand on high. This is the message preached by the apostles.

The message of righteousness through Christ alone, imputed to me on the basis of faith alone, is a message grounded in something entirely external. I am "reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Romans 5:10), not by my religious experience.

There are two aspects of God’s work in salvation—His work for us and His work in us. In asserting justification by faith alone we do not confuse these as the church has been prone frequently to do. Faith, true faith, must be grounded in His work for us, not in my response or experience. A hundred ecstatic experiences and a moving testimony of how I felt when I invited Christ into my heart will not make me right with God. The essence of God’s work within me is to teach me to rely wholly on His work outside of me as the sole basis of my salvation. Sola fide protects this important point, and the church today needs this protection desperately.

2. Sola fide sees ultimate personal fulfillment in the next life.

This doctrine preserves me from looking for some kind of internal fulfillment in the present life that will fully satisfy. If I receive the salvation of God by faith alone then nothing I can or will do can make me more His child. Our fascination with perfectionism is patently observable in the modern evangelical church. What we need is a big dose of the realism of Martin Luther who, writing against a man named Latomus from his cell in Wartburg, said, "Every good work of the saints while pilgrims in this world is sin." Because of sin none of us will ever experience, in this life, the fulfillment of God’s salvation. The Holy Spirit, who lives within the believer, is a down payment on what is to come. He is not the fulfillment. That follows in the age to come. Justification by faith alone, properly understood, will preserve believers from much disillusionment in the area of expectations that are false and destructive of genuine faith.

Christ is our ideal Man, the only human person in whom God’s purpose for man is perfectly fulfilled. In Him all aspiration is fulfilled, all hope is realized. Human nature is perfected here. This is the importance of faith alone, for through faith we are brought into union with this Man. He is the Man at God’s right hand. His humanity is my humanity. His righteousness is my righteousness. As Paul writes, "In Him you have been made complete" (Colossians 2:10). I like J. B. Phillips’ paraphrase of this: "Your own completeness is only realized in Him.

3. Sola fide keeps us from both antinomianism and legalism.

Justification by faith alone preserves the church from both antinomianism and legalism, both of which are rampant in the modern church. Romans 8:33-34 says, in part, "God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns?" Here we observe that the opposite of justification is condemnation.

It is faith that receives God’s gift. God’s gift is the righteousness of Christ. The justice of God, revealed in the Law, requires exact and perfect obedience. Man cannot be saved unless the law is fulfilled — every jot and every tittle. God does not look the other way when He saves the believing sinner. His holiness demands perfection. This is why faith alone is so important. The law must be honored and kept. If we are to be saved it must be justly and perfectly in accord with the demands of the law of God. Sola fide establishes the law. It protects against "cheap grace," or antinomianism, because it truly upholds the law. Christ’s righteousness, which is ours in Him by faith, consists in perfect obedience to His Father’s law in our stead, on our behalf.

This guards, furthermore, against legalism. Why? Because we cannot earn or maintain God’s grace. We can only accept it with the hands of faith which look outside ourselves to Another. His sacrifice is vicarious. It is mine by faith, and it alone can satisfy God. John Bunyan said it well when he taught that Christ wove a perfect garment of righteousness for thirty-three years only to give it away to those who trust Him alone to save them.

The Holy Spirit’s role in the preaching of the gospel is to bring men and women to the place where they put their faith in "the righteousness of...Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). This righteousness of faith is not a quality seen within our hearts, or felt by us experientially. It must not be confused with the work of regeneration or sanctification, which is Rome’s error. This righteousness remains in and with Christ alone. John Bunyan, writing in Justification By an Imputed Righteousness, illustrates this well by saying: ". . . the righteousness is still ‘in Him’; not ‘in us,’ even when we are made partakers of the benefit of it, even as the wing and feathers still abide in the hen when the chickens are covered, kept, and warmed thereby." Sola fide keeps the believer from falling into the legal ditch of associating anything done in us or with our cooperation contributing anything at all to our righteous standing before God.

4. Sola fide promotes genuine reformation and revival.

This doctrine of sola fide prompts genuine interest in true revival. The First Great Awakening in America most likely began in Northampton, Massachusetts, where Jonathan Edwards was preaching a series of sermons on this doctrine of justification by faith alone. As he set forth Christ and His righteousness one woman came under deep conviction and the spark of a great movement of God was lit.

In our time much talk regarding revival centers exclusively around experience. We desperately need the perspective of the gospel if we would pray for revival that will honor God and bring showers of true blessing upon the church. Revivalism, of the type seen in the past 150 years or so, has much more in common with Roman Catholic doctrine than sola fide. Until men and women cry out, "How can I be made just in the sight of a holy God?" rather than, "How can I find peace, save my marriage or remove the financial pressures of the moment?" I do not think we shall see another Great Awakening. As Puritan Thomas Taylor wrote, "The reason so few are willing to ask ‘What must I do?’ is because so few will ask, ‘What have I done?’

Modern evangelicals, with their emphasis upon the infusion of power, security and peace are much closer to Rome at this point than most of them could possibly imagine.

5. Sola fide must not be ignored by modern evangelicals.

Finally, we need to guard against the modern tendency to ignore sola fide altogether. This particular tendency, due either to ignorance, willful distortion, or a lack of concern for this great biblical truth of the Protestant Reformation, is observable in many quarters. A recent example can be seen in the much discussed document Evangelicals and Catholics Together (1994).

Here we have a total absence of the truth of sola fide. One wonders what kind of evangelicalism lists doctrines that remain as differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics and ignores sola fide. This is precisely what was done in this document. I find it a sad day when evangelicals consider what unites and divides us with Roman Catholics, and this important evangelical truth is completely passed over in silence. Has Rome come to embrace the Protestant understanding of sola fide? Not at all, as we have seen. Has evangelicalism, on the whole, lost its grip on this truth? I fear this is so. All efforts to recover this truth are a welcome sign that the blessing of God may fall once again upon Christ’s church. Let us pray and labor to that end!

 

[Faith alone]

Part VI - justification by faith alone and James 2

Justification by Faith Alone and James 2
Those who hold to a Tridentine view of justification, denying that faith alone is sufficient, appeal to James 2:14-26 as their proof text. They state that the Bible never uses the phrase "justification by faith alone," which we grant, but that it does state clearly and emphatically that Abraham was not saved by faith alone. In fact, we are told there that Abraham was "justified by his works." James 2:14-26 reads:

(14) What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, (16) and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? (17) Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (18) But someone may well say, "You have faith, and 1 have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (19) You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. (20) But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? (22) You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; (23) and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. (24) You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. (25) And in the same way was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works, when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? (26) For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

On the surface, it would appear that Paul and James are at odds with one another. Paul teaches that Abraham was justified by faith alone and James appears to be teaching just the opposite, that Abraham was justified by his works. These are two differing views, it seems, and both are appealing to Abraham to prove their point.

It is not as difficult as it might seem at first glance to sort this out. The book of James is the New Testament equivalent of Old Testament "wisdom" literature. In the Hebrew mind, wisdom is how one lives. It is practice not theory, or, perhaps, it is practice based upon theory. James is answering the question, "What is a living, vital faith?", or what Luther called "a fides viva."

Sometimes, theological terminology hinders our understanding of the New Testament. For example, in 1 Timothy 2:15 Paul says that women will be saved through child-bearing. Now we know that women are not justified by getting pregnant. Words have different meanings based upon their context. And the Greek word for justification or justified is capable of at least seven different meanings.

In Romans, Paul is writing doctrine, and is addressing the issue of how a man is brought to peace with God. James is not writing doctrine but, rather, examining what is the essence of authentic faith, or the evidence of justifying faith. In Matthew 11:19, Jesus states that "Wisdom is justified by her children." Does that mean that wisdom is brought into a right relationship with God? No, Jesus simply means that wisdom is proved to be wisdom by the fruits of wisdom!

Strictly speaking, Paul and James are not talking about the same thing. Paul appeals to Genesis 15:6, "Abram believed God and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness." By faith, Abram (Abraham) was justified before God. On the other hand, James appeals to Genesis 22:9-18, a difference of seven chapters! In Genesis 22, God put Abraham to the test, and the authenticity of his faith was manifested (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5). In Genesis 15, Abraham is justified by his faith. In Genesis 22, Abraham’s faith is justified by his obedience.

James is not answering the question "How can I be saved?", but rather, "How can I know my faith is authentic?" We can see this from the statement in verse 18, "You SAY you have faith" (emphasis added here and below). The validation of the claim is given in that same verse, "Show me your faith BY your works." The faith exists already, but is evidenced by the necessary works that follow. My faith doesn’t prove my faith to God. He knows my heart; you don’t. You can see my works but you can’t see my heart. The works are a testimony to me and to you.

The noble Puritan Thomas Manton said, "By the righteousness of faith we are acquitted from sin, and by the righteousness of works we are acquitted from hypocrisy." The works of obedience add nothing to your justification; they are visible proof of it.

This is what Paul means in Romans 1:5 and 16:27 by the term "the obedience of faith." Faith is, in its essence, covenantal faithfulness or obedience. It is not that works are on one side and faith on the other, standing as opposites, but rather that saving faith, in its essence, is an obedient faith. The indispensable or intrinsic property that characterizes or identifies biblical faith is obedience. Saving faith will, in the nature of the case, produce works because of what it is.

There is no refutation of justification by faith alone to be found in James 2, or anywhere else in Scripture, for that matter. That doctrine is settled and safe in both James and Paul. May we preach it with confidence and boldness!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1950), p.375.
. Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), P. 707.
Ibid., 707-8.
lbid.,717.
John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill, Editor. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), Book Three, chapter ii, pp. 748-49.
Ibid., 733.
Paul Helm, "Reformation and Mediaeval Views on Justification." Banner of Truth, November, 1990, pp. 13-14.
Roland Bainton, Here 1 Stand, p. 261.
James I. Packer, "God’s Justification of Sinners." Christianity Today, March 16, 1959.
James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, l977),p. 116.
P. Gregory Stevens, The Life of Grace. Noted in Present Truth, 1974, p.8.
Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, 9, 12.
John H. Newman, Lectures on Justification, (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900) pp. 260-63.
Hans Kung, The Doctrine of Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection, (New York. Thomas Nelson, 1964), pp. 243-45.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author

Dr. John H. Armstrong is the Director of Reformation & Revival Ministries, and editor of Reformation & Revival Journal, a theological quarterly for church leadership. He received his B.A. degree from Wheaton College, an M.A. degree from Wheaton College Graduate School of Theology, and his D. Min. degree from Luther Rice Seminary, Atlanta, Georgia. He is the general editor of Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Unites and Divides Us (Moody Press, 1994), author of Can Fallen Pastors Be Restored (Moody Press, 1995), general editor of The Coming Evangelical Crisis (Moody Press, 1996), and his latest book The Compromised Church (CrossWay Books,1998).


Comments? (Sorry about the length, but it fits in here beautifully, and is excellent.)

 

[Faith alone]

Justification "by faith alone"

Several days ago it was pointed out that the expression "faith alone" is not really found in the NT. The assumption is that salvation (Actually "justification") is not by faith alone. But Paul expresses things such that it is so clear, IMO.

How do you interpret Paul's statements that

SALVATION IS NOT BY WORKS (II Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:9)
WE ARE NOT SAVED BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE (TITUS 3:5)
JUSTIFICATION IS APART FROM WORKS (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16)
ABRAHAM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS BUT BY FAITH (Romans 4:1-3)
THE ONE WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT SIMPLY BELIEVES WILL BE JUSTIFIED (Romans 4:4-5)

Paul does not merely say that we are saved BY FAITH (because you would be sure to add "faith plus works" in one way or another). He very clearly says and says repeatedly that we are saved BY FAITH APART FROM WORKS. These passages are crystal clear to me and repeated in various ways, so it is a little difficult not to know what Paul is saying here.

Abraham was credited righteousness before he did any work. Before circumcision, before patiently waiting for Isaac, before offering Isaac on the alter. God justified him BEFORE any of these acts and by application before any acts we do we are also justified in the same manner. That is the whole point of this part of Paul's letter to the Romans. - that God justified Abraham, before circumcision and outside of any works on Abraham's part, based simply on the Abraham's belief.

The acts of obedience that were in Abraham's life flowed out of an already justified position. They did not effect what was FREELY given. If his acts or lack of could effect that justification then it would be a wage not a free gift.

BTW, here's an excellent link to a very thorough article on the doctrine of soteriology - salvation:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=180

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Consequences of justification not being by faith alone

In this post I will attempt to show that at the moment a person places their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, that at that moment in time, God forgives ALL of their sin. They are forgiven all past, present and future sins at that point in time.

Our main texts for this part of the argument will revolve around Hebrews 10 and Romans 4.


1 - A One-Time Sacrifice for All Sin

First, let's see texts that show that Christ paid for all sin "once for all" and that there is no other sacrifice needed to forgive sin. It has been paid in FULL.

Hebrews 10:1-4 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

This is a comparison/contrast between the Old Covenant sacrifice and the New Covenant sacrifice of Christ.

The writer indicates that the Old Covenant sacrifice never purified the worshippers because the sacrifice had to be done each year. He states that if it had been able to purify them then they would NO LONGER need a sacrifice each year and their conscience would BE CLEAN.

The indication for us who are in Christ is the contrast. For those who trust in Christ there is NO MORE sacrifice for sin and our conscience IS clean.
Will we trust in that fact, that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to take away our sin eternally and satisfy the justice of God?

Hebrews 10:10-14 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by ONE offering He has perfected FOREVER those who are being sanctified.

He sat down because "it [was] finished." Here the writer contrasts Christ's sacrifice to the Old Covenant and declares that Christ offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOREVER. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SIN! He has perfected FOREVER (made free from sin's guilt and penalty) all who are in Him by faith.


Hebrews 10:16-18 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

In the New Covenant God makes this declaration (it is a PROMISE!), "I will remember your sins NO MORE". Are we going to believe God's word concerning this promise or not? Will we make God a liar or will we trust in the truth He has declared?

There is no LONGER AN OFFERING FOR SIN, IT IS FINISHED!

The question before us is whether we will we rest in Christ’s finished work and not cast away our confidence in Him or will we continue to place trust in our own faulty performance to try to add something to His sufficient offering?


Hebrews 10:19-23 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful

The writer encourages his readers to hold fast their confession (their belief in the finality of Christ's sacrifice on the cross). We need to also heed the words and hold fast to the finality of the cross of Jesus Christ that, once and for all, took care of the penalty of sin.

Let's not cast away our confidence in Christ and place confidence in yourself, though some may seduce us to do so through beguiling words!

We have need of endurance in believing the sufficiency of His sacrifice so that we will walk in the promise of His peace. Otherwise we will be tossed back and forth like a person on unsolid ground. We need that rock solid foundation and that Rock is Christ and His finished work.


2 - The One Time Sacrifice Applied at the Point of Faith

Next, we need to establish when this sacrifice of Christ is applied to us. At what point is our sin forgiven?

Romans 4:5-8 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are FORGIVEN,
And whose SINS are COVERED; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord SHALL NOT IMPUTE SIN.


The scripture above explains regarding the person WHO DOES NOT WORK but BELIEVES on God, that person's FAITH is accounted (credited) for righteousness.

Then David is quoted explaining what this crediting means to sin, how it affects our sin. He declares that lawless deeds are forgiven and sins are covered.(This is what happens when a person is justified before God, their sins and lawless deeds are forgiven!

So when was righteousness credited to Abraham, before or after he did good works?

Romans 4:9-12 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Paul makes the same point above I've been making - that Abraham was justified before any works.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we HAVE BEEN justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

As we can see, before Abraham had done ANY good deeds, before circumcision, before patiently waiting for the promise of Isaac, before offering Isaac on the alter, God credited Abraham with being righteous (covered his sin, imputed righteousness to him and forgave his lawless acts) simply based on his Faith in God ALONE.

Now note carefully, Paul proclaims in Chapter 5 verse 1 that WE have ALREADY been justified (sins forgiven) through faith in Christ.

Do you see that if you have trusted Christ then your sins ARE forgiven, including your sins of tomorrow. Remember that Christ’s sacrifice was a one time sacrifice for ALL sin.

That is indeed "good news." Because we are forgiven, we now have PEACE with God!

We do not need to offer a sacrifice of any kind anymore, Christ has already done ALL the work. His sacrifice is sufficient to cleanse ALL your sin, now and eternally. All glory to God and His Christ!


3 - Christ centered Gospel

The Gospel centers upon Christ and His work and not upon the faulty obedience and actions of the believer.

Is your conscience clean before God today? A correct understanding of thejustification before God given freely and received by faith alone frees usto really live for Him! It enables us to focus our eyes upon Christ and His all-sufficient sacrifice and not upon ourself and our limited abilities.

If justification is progressive, then we are justified before God and our sins forgiven by our faithful action.

Foatunately our sins are forgiven by God based on the faithful action of Jesus Christ ALONE and by our trust in Him and His work and not upon any faithful actions on our part.

Is your faith in Christ a gift given to you by God or is it something that came from within yourself? That's what this thread is all about, isn't it?

FA

 

[Faith alone]

justification defined

OK, I have the following file saved in my records, but I don't think that all of it was original with me. Unfortunately, iI cannot give credit to whomever "contributed" to it. Much of this is mine, but not all of it... FWIW

Justification can be defined as that act of God whereby He declares absolutely righteous any and all who take shelter in the blood of Christ as their only hope for salvation. Justification is a legal term which changes the believing sinner’s standing before God, declaring him acquitted and accepted by God, with the guilt and penalty of his sins put away forever. Justification is the sentence of the Judge in favor of the condemned man, clearing him of all blame and freeing him of every charge. Justification does not make the sinner righteous, but when God sees him “in Christ,” He declares that he is righteous, thereby pronouncing the verdict of “not guilty.” In modern jurisprudence a sentence in any court must be in keeping with the facts presented. A judge has no right to condemn the innocent or to clear the guilty. Only God can clear the guilty.

But due to its very meaning (DIKAIOW) in Greek, justification cannot be a process. Now some may want to argue that our justification when He returns is based on all that we do while here on earth. I don't agree. But such justification cannot be progressive by its very nature - its lexical meaning. Now if we are saved by works as well as our faith in Christ, then the determination of our standing must wait until this life is over - we cannot KNOW that we are saved or that we stand before Him fully forgiven of all our sins.

Fortunately, the NT has many promises to the effect that we have already crossed over from death into life and have eternal life as a present possession.

We should also keep in mind the fact that there is a close connection between the act of justifying and the imputed righteousness of the one who has been justified. Though the words just, justify, justification, right, righteous, and righteousness are all translations from related roots, their individual meanings differ. It is important to keep this in mind. However, a general meaning is common to all. The meaning of these words is always objective, not subjective.

If we looked to men for a definition of the words justification and righteousness, their meaning might change with time and differ according to geographical location. Men change in their thinking. What might be considered just and right in one generation, or in one part of the world, might not be so considered in another generation, or in a different part of the world. Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest said, “God is the objective standard which determines the content and meaning, and at the same time keeps that content of meaning constant and unchanging, since He only is the unchanging One.”

But that is not the case. Our justification is not based on what people think, andGod has madeit clear that a just person is simply one who has been declared righteous by God. God is the Author of Justification. “It is God that justifies” (Romans 8:33). Man has nothing to do with it except to receive it through faith, and that as the Holy Spirit enables him.

Forgiveness cannot be effected, nor can righteousness be declared, until guilt has been established. If a man is not guilty, no act or declaration of justification is needed. The man who contends that he does not need to be justified by God must first establish the evidence that there is no accusation against him. But he who believes the Scriptures, and examines his own heart honestly, must admit that he is an accused and guilty sinner before God. We know that there is something wrong with the human race. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

FA