"Orthodox" Eternal Justification?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are the following statements orthodox or heterodox?

In God’s view of Christ hanging in agony on the cross God forensically accounted Christ as sinful and He forensically accounted the elect as righteous. There was a judicial exchange in God’s mind of the righteous for the unrighteous and from His perspective all of salvation was accomplished. We must conclude that this is as true for Old Testament saints as it is for those in the New Testament because God’s view of this was from eternity. This is exactly what I mean when I use the terminology of a vital union. God was not merely an observer of this judicial exchange, but He purposed it and determined it all from eternity and as everything else has always been accomplished from His perspective.

There can be no such thing as multiple imputations as has been suggested by those who oppose justification from eternity because imputation is something that is timeless and occurs exclusively in the mind of God.

I personally believe much misunderstanding has taken place because of a failure to understand imputation as an immanent act. Misunderstanding also exists because of an erroneous understanding of eternity and time. For example, I heard David Simpson preach that justification is not something that happens in eternity and then happens at the cross and then later happens at the time of faith.

The act of justification which is to be understood as the act of Christ dying for His people did not take place in eternity. It took place in time. Please do not misunderstand me on this very important point. Surely we can all agree on this! There are not multiple imputations just as there are not multiple justifications. There is only one justification! There was no more work that needed to be done for salvation by Christ or even the Holy Spirit after the cross because it was completed in Christ. All of the work was finished. Done - Complete – Finito! I don’t think Scott Price or any of the parties involved with this important discussion would disagree with me on this. At least I hope not! We should all be able to say that it was in view of Christ’s finished work that God’s people were accounted as righteous (past tense), and this work of Christ was a timely event.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe Crisp is saying anything different and others who speak of Justified in our conscious upon the gift of faith worked in us.

So justification in time, an action that comes about through faith,
is merely a subjective feeling on our part?

In the rest of the post below, you are clearly advocating for a
position of actual justification being the true possession of the
elect prior to their birth. That is, they are born truly justified.
For you, it seems, justification by faith is merely a subjective gloss
on one's life. The action of faith is objectively meaningless. Am
I reading you correctly? I mean no offense, so I hope you do not
take any. Your direction with regard to this, though, seems quite
clear. If we are justified at the Cross - then we are justified before
we are born, and all faith can do is give us eyes to see that. It
has no instrumentality at all otherwise. Again, correct me if I'm
wrong, but that's what I hear you to be saying.

Well I would not say objectively meaningless. The gift of faith gives us eyes to see and ears to hear what the Lord did for us by His life, death, and resurrection. We walk in blindness and deaf prior to rebirth. But these are the fruits of Justification as far as I can see in the writ.

I would be more apt to say that we are justified judicially upon being born, in Christ. Becasue of what He had done for us. The subjective aspect HAS to follow Todd. God would not leave His children blind. The darkness we walk in is to show the elect what they deserve, eternal death. That according to our natural disposition becasue of Adam, we are dead. But raised with Christ as our representative. So this in no way belittles the gift of Godward faith. Without it, we would be blind and hate God. But in His love and mercy, he opens our eyes and says "Look what I have done for you through my Son." Repent of your sins and commune with me.. And we cry Abba Father.

My wife explains it like this. I went away on a business trip for a week. 2 rooms were in depserate need of being painted. I kept procrastinating, then I said, well I have this week to do it.(Ticked her off, I was deserving of her anger) Then I HAD to go on this trip. The day I left, she painted the rooms.(paid my debt) I was totally unaware of this.(unregenerate) When I got home, I turned the light on and my eyes were opened to see what she HAD done for me. (Regeneration, faith) So now in my conscious their was guilt, recognition of grace, then full gratitude.

I know human examples are weak at best, but that is how she attemtped to explain Justification at the cross to her womans group.

Todd, the instrumentality of faith is very very important in the plan of God for His children. Without it, it is impossible to please Him. Everything that is not of it (faith) is sin. But like you said earlier, of which I could not say it any better: because whether I had the deed in my hands or not, I'd own the house from the moment you paid it

So the elect are justified when our debt was paid, and that was at the Cross. They just do not realize it until their eyes are opened and the Spirit tells us...(when they receive the deed paid in full by faith) Without this gift, their would be no gratitude, no bowing down to Christ. And God will not have His children living in darkness their whole life long.
 
I do not believe Crisp is saying anything different and others who speak of Justified in our conscious upon the gift of faith worked in us.

So justification in time, an action that comes about through faith,
is merely a subjective feeling on our part?

In the rest of the post below, you are clearly advocating for a
position of actual justification being the true possession of the
elect prior to their birth. That is, they are born truly justified.
For you, it seems, justification by faith is merely a subjective gloss
on one's life. The action of faith is objectively meaningless. Am
I reading you correctly? I mean no offense, so I hope you do not
take any. Your direction with regard to this, though, seems quite
clear. If we are justified at the Cross - then we are justified before
we are born, and all faith can do is give us eyes to see that. It
has no instrumentality at all otherwise. Again, correct me if I'm
wrong, but that's what I hear you to be saying.

Well I would not say objectively meaningless. The gift of faith gives us eyes to see and ears to hear what the Lord did for us by His life, death, and resurrection. We walk in blindness and deaf prior to rebirth. But these are the fruits of Justification as far as I can see in the writ.

Am I hearing you to be saying that faith is a fruit of justification?

I would be more apt to say that we are justified judicially upon being born, in Christ. Becasue of what He had done for us. The subjective aspect HAS to follow Todd.

Do you mean by the above that the subjective must follow the objective? I
just want to clarify your words.


God would not leave His children blind. The darkness we walk in is to show the elect what they deserve, eternal death. That according to our natural disposition becasue of Adam, we are dead. But raised with Christ as our representative. So this in no way belittles the gift of Godward faith. Without it, we would be blind and hate God. But in His love and mercy, he opens our eyes and says "Look what I have done for you through my Son." Repent of your sins and commune with me.. And we cry Abba Father.


Todd, the instrumentality of faith is very very important in the plan of God for His children. Without it, it is impossible to please Him.

Is God pleased with us because our faith has some righteousness attached to
it or attributable to it? Or is he pleased with us because of Christ? When
you speak about the instrumentality of faith, do you mean to say it satisfies
this role - as some kind of evangelical righteousness? This isn't what
the Reformers meant when they spoke of the instrumentality of faith... it is
an actual instrument by which the righteousness of Christ is apprehended - and
not something itself to be rewarded for its own worth.

Everything that is not of it (faith) is sin. But like you said earlier, of which I could not say it any better: because whether I had the deed in my hands or not, I'd own the house from the moment you paid it

I hope you don't think that my explanation of your analogy makes
your case more sound. The analogy is problematic, regardless of
how well I might have explained what you are thinking. In your
analogy, I would be full owner and have all the rights thereof with
regard to the house, regardless of whether I ever had the title deed
in my hands or not. I would have every right to dispose of the
house however I saw fit, it is completely and utterly mine with or
without the deed.

This analogy fails miserably because the same is not true of the
house of God. Do I have the right to consider myself a partner
in the house of God whether or not I exercise faith, whether or
not I have professed Christ?

So the elect are justified when our debt was paid, and that was at the Cross. They just do not realize it

So you really are saying that what the Reformers called absolute
and proper justification, and what the BIble teaches about justification
by faith is only subjective... it's just us realizing who we are?
 
Am I hearing you to be saying that faith is a fruit of justification?
Depends on what you mean by fruit. I am more comfortable saying that in a sense the gift of faith that opens the eyes and lays hold of Christ follows the elects judicial justification at the cross.


Do you mean by the above that the subjective must follow the objective? I
just want to clarify your words.

I do not know if I like using these words Todd. Ones subjective thoughts can be as objective as the objective ones.






Is God pleased with us because our faith has some righteousness attached to
it or attributable to it? Or is he pleased with us because of Christ? When
you speak about the instrumentality of faith, do you mean to say it satisfies
this role - as some kind of evangelical righteousness? This isn't what
the Reformers meant when they spoke of the instrumentality of faith... it is
an actual instrument by which the righteousness of Christ is apprehended - and
not something itself to be rewarded for its own worth.

The above is confusing to me, so i will just agree with the last part. Depending on what you mean by apprehend. Justification is not dangling in front of the elect, then grabbed upon the time of Faith thereby judicially aquiting the individual at that time. To apprehend Christ by faith means to lay hold of the benefits His life death and resurrection procured for us. A manifestation to conscious as I explained earlier. One that is most definately needed for our relationalship standing with God.



This analogy fails miserably because the same is not true of the
house of God. Do I have the right to consider myself a partner
in the house of God whether or not I exercise faith, whether or
not I have professed Christ?

No, you will not want to Todd. Remember HC Q#5. You hate God and your neighbor. Nothign you do is pleasing to Him.

So you really are saying that what the Reformers called absolute
and proper justification, and what the BIble teaches about justification
by faith is only subjective... it's just us realizing who we are?

Again, I am not familiar with the terms. There are 4 aspects of Jusitification, yet one justification.

1) Virtual in the decree of God
2) Actual Judicial at the cross Ratifying the Covenant with the elect
3) Manifestation to Conscious By faith which the Holy Spirit point the elect to the cross
4) A vindication aspect of Justification at the judgment


Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

Remember God was in no need of reconciling Himself to man, but reconciling man to Him.

Romans 5:1, Therefore being justified, by faith we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus.

Notice the above. Being justified first, now by faith we have peace with God. A peace of conscious in our inward being Godward. Not peace for fear of eternal wrath.

God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8)

Does he reconcile, love those whom He chose n Christ and not yet justify them? I cannot fathom this

OK Todd. Thank you. I will love to continue this. You are a gracious man. Now I must venture off for a while to endure a dinner with the inlaws...
 
So the elect are justified when our debt was paid, and that was at the Cross. They just do not realize it until their eyes are opened and the Spirit tells us...(when they receive the deed paid in full by faith) Without this gift, their would be no gratitude, no bowing down to Christ. And God will not have His children living in darkness their whole life long.

This practically sounds like Barth but with a twist. This is NOT the Confessional understanding. FULL STOP. Go back and read your Confessions.

Just so everyone remembers. This is a Confessional board.

It means, in contrast, that we don't string together individual theological notions that someone might have said in history and construct a theology that approximates the Confessions.

It is faith that is the instrument that unites us to Christ and procures to us the benefits of His death and resurrection. Yes, God loves His elect in eternity and there is a component of our justification therein but it is not found fully in eternity and it is not nakedly objective. God's decree includes the means and ends and includes that we come to real faith and it is our real faith the unites us and procures for me the satisfaction of Christ's work at the Cross.

This is not up for debate.
 
Again, I am not familiar with the terms. There are 4 aspects of Jusitification, yet one justification.

You have said this same notion in another thread. I'm not sure how you can be familiar with the Confessions and be unfamiliar with things that are being said. Given your relative ignorance of Confessional data I believe you ought to be learning much more here and trying to teach much less. You're consistently finding yourself in hot water here because of that.

I have no doubt you've studied much but I'm not convinced that the stuff you've studied has been, in many cases, orthodox material. Either that or you've been confused by some of that material. Somewhere along the way, however, it seems you've missed some basic Confessional building blocks to give you a good foundation. You can learn that here but you will not teach the contrary.
 
So the elect are justified when our debt was paid, and that was at the Cross. They just do not realize it until their eyes are opened and the Spirit tells us...(when they receive the deed paid in full by faith) Without this gift, their would be no gratitude, no bowing down to Christ. And God will not have His children living in darkness their whole life long.

This practically sounds like Barth but with a twist. This is NOT the Confessional understanding. FULL STOP. Go back and read your Confessions.

Just so everyone remembers. This is a Confessional board.

It means, in contrast, that we don't string together individual theological notions that someone might have said in history and construct a theology that approximates the Confessions.

It is faith that is the instrument that unites us to Christ and procures to us the benefits of His death and resurrection. Yes, God loves His elect in eternity and there is a component of our justification therein but it is not found fully in eternity and it is not nakedly objective. God's decree includes the means and ends and includes that we come to real faith and it is our real faith the unites us and procures for me the satisfaction of Christ's work at the Cross.

This is not up for debate.



I am not attempting to string various theological thoughts into a new confession Richard. I ask for a little latitude on this disussion. I never said anything about eternal justification equaling actual judicial justification. As Matthew said I view it as virtual. Therefore I am not debating but dialoguing. Your last paragraph is pretty much exactly as I have spoken, yet you are falsely rebuking me. To apprehend Christ by faith means to lay hold of the benefits His life death and resurrection procured for us. A manifestation to conscious as I explained earlier. One that is most definately needed for our relationalship standing with God.

You have said this same notion in another thread. I'm not sure how you can be familiar with the Confessions and be unfamiliar with things that are being said. Given your relative ignorance of Confessional data I believe you ought to be learning much more here and trying to teach much less. You're consistently finding yourself in hot water here because of that.

Which confessions are you referring to? I am familiar with the 3FU and this is not just a whim for me. I humbly submit myself to Scripture alone and if found wanting will repent of any false notion I have carried. The confessions I have read do not use the terms absolute and proper. And actually the water has been kind of cool, not hot at all to me. Perhaps that is becasue I have found no animosity towards myself and thoughts, and have tried to be humble and fair in my words always seasoned with salt.

I have no doubt you've studied much but I'm not convinced that the stuff you've studied has been, in many cases, orthodox material. Either that or you've been confused by some of that material. Somewhere along the way, however, it seems you've missed some basic Confessional building blocks to give you a good foundation. You can learn that here but you will not teach the contrary.

I have studied little compared to others Richard. And probably have been confused. Yet in my feeble attempt to grasp the truth of Justification, I have not taken this lightly. Justification at the Cross has brought me much joy and comfort and I am well within the bounds of scripture, as I believe I have shown.

One thing that I must ask is what is a confessional board vs a scriptural board? I do not intend to open up a can of worms here, but your mouth has repeatedly stated "Confessional" and no mention of scripture. Now again, as you have stated early, perhaps it is my 'ignorance' 'lack of confessional understanding' 'lack of reading the confessions' which when you speak as such, you are actually meaning scripture.

As far as your comment about Barth, I have limped through rading him, but not very familiar at all.

I will leave on this note, and then get back to the dialogue I was so much enjoying. This is obviously not a new innovation on my part Richard. Many before me, way more learned than I have spoken as such and even spoke of eternal justification. So before you or any other bring out the confessional cunsure axe, engage in a dialogue. First off, this is nothing heretical I speak of.

You say this is a confessional board, and praise God for that, i also hope it also follows the war cry of the reformers of ;

Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda:


In His name
 
Which confessions are you referring to?
Hmmm....that would be the Confession that you stated you subscribe to when you joined the board.
One thing that I must ask is what is a confessional board vs a scriptural board? I do not intend to open up a can of worms here, but your mouth has repeatedly stated "Confessional" and no mention of scripture. Now again, as you have stated early, perhaps it is my 'ignorance' 'lack of confessional understanding' 'lack of reading the confessions' which when you speak as such, you are actually meaning scripture.
Well, when you figure that out then PM me and we'll interact on the board again. For now, it appears you won't really like it here too much.
 
Just so everyone remembers. This is a Confessional board.

It means, in contrast, that we don't string together individual theological notions that someone might have said in history and construct a theology that approximates the Confessions.

It is faith that is the instrument that unites us to Christ and procures to us the benefits of His death and resurrection. Yes, God loves His elect in eternity and there is a component of our justification therein but it is not found fully in eternity and it is not nakedly objective. God's decree includes the means and ends and includes that we come to real faith and it is our real faith the unites us and procures for me the satisfaction of Christ's work at the Cross.

This is not up for debate.

I, for one, would not disagree but I would suggest you read Goodwin in the second post of this thread.

He points out:

Now, for a direction concerning God justifying as the object of your faith, you are to consider all the acts and ways of God justifying, and to direct you to a right conceiving of God as justifying, you must know that there are tria momenta, or three stages of motion in this way. I do not say that there are three parts of justification itself, which, as it is applied to us, is actus individuus, an individual act; but three several steps, three paces and progresses of God, as I may call them; though, in respect of the materials which justification consisteth of, it is actus totalis, an entire act, a complete discharge from all sin, and a perfect investiture with the whole righteousness of Christ. God pardons not the debt by halves, nor bestows Christ s righteousness by parcels, but entitles us to the whole in every of those moments of justification: yet, in regard of our investiture into this, there are several pauses, or several iterations of this act; as in passing over an estate in land, when the deeds are drawn, written, and sealed, there is a title or interest given into the whole estate; and then again, when possession is further given, it is not an interest into any new parcel, but both convey the whole estate; yet they may be called several acts of conveyance, and of title and admission into it: and such several acts of investiture of us into this whole grace of justification were performed towards us by God, which go to the accomplishment of it.​

These "three stages" are explained by Goodwin as being:

1. The first progress or step was at the first covenant-making and striking of the bargain from all eternity. We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ what is said of Christ, that their goings forth are from everlasting. Justified then we were when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head, as he had our persons then given him, and we came to have a being and interest in him. You are in Christ, saith the apostle, and so we had the promise made of all spiritual blessings in him, and he took all the deeds of all in our name; so that in Christ we were blessed with all spiritual blessings, Eph. i. 3; as we are blessed with all other, so with this also, that we were justified then in Christ.​

And;

2. There is a farther act of justifying us, which passeth from God towards us in Christ, upon the payment and performance by Christ at his resurrection : for Jesus Christ (who as he was one with us by stipulation before, so then by representation), at the time, the fulness of the time of payment appointed (which the apostle therefore calls the due time, Rom. v. 6), came into the world as our surety, and as representing our persons, as Adam once did; and at several payments, for three and thirty years and upwards, at last finished all at his death, and laid down the last payment when he laid down his life and his body in the grave, sin and the curse all the while holding him in bands as a debtor: but at that instant when he arose, God then performed a farther act of justification towards him, and us in him, admitting him as our advocate, into the actual possession of justification of life, acquitting him from all those sins which he had charged upon him. Therefore we read, that as Christ was made sin in his life and death, so that he was justified also, 1 Tim. iii. 16.​

Finally;

3. But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God; and though they concern us, and are towards us, yet are not acts of God upon its, they being performed towards us, not as actually existing in ourselves, but only as existing in our Head, who covenanted for us, and represented us: so as though by these acts we are estated into a right title to justification, yet the benefit and the possession of that estate we have not without a farther act to be passed upon us, whereby we have not as existing in our head only, as a feoffee in trust for us, as children under age, this excellent grace given us, but are to be in our own persons, though still through Christ, possessed of it, and to have all the deeds and evidences committed to the custody and apprehension of our faith. We are in our own persons made true owners and enjoyers of it, which is then done at that instant when we first believe; which act is the completion and accomplishment of the former, and is that great and famous justification by faith which the Scripture so much inculcates, and almost only mentioneth; yea, and so speaks of it, as if we were not justified at all till then...​

This is in full agreement with the Westminster Standards (and indeed the LBC of 1689) upon which the Savoy Declaration was based and to which both Thomas Goodwin and John Owen assented:

Westminster Confession:
God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

Savoy Declaration:
"God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fulness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them."

For the eagle eyed there is one change of any significance but in my opinion affords greater clarity. This is also taught in the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

"God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them."

Rich, the view of justification from eternity as explained by Thomas Goodwin and to which I adhere is both Scriptural and Confessional. You may disagree, that is your "right", but I have quoted from Confessional documents and two giants of the Reformed faith. Not only that, Jason has quoted C. H. Spurgeon and Rev. Winzer has quoted John Colquhoun.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and what you just quoted from me agrees with what Rev. Winzer stated. The red portion is what some here have fundamentally denied.

Resolved: Men are not justified personally until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

That is a non-negotiable here. Full stop.
 
Thomas Goodwin...did not hold to eternal justification. Goodwin specifically says that actual justification takes place upon believing.

He held to eternal justification as understood by the orthodox which allows for an "actual justification takes place upon believing" hence he differentiated between our justification in Christ and our justification in our own person. Hence he wrote:

But the question may be put, How could they be said to be justified afore, both from eternity and in Christ, if they may be truly said even in God's judgment to be justified but now, and that they were till now unjustified ?

The answer is, That these seeming contradictions, in divers respects, are both true.​


This last sentence shows he did not hold to eternal justification, because he is using the word justification in "divers respects;" and he goes on to explain it is only abstractly considered, not concretely, which is as much as to say it is not ACTUAL justification of their persons.​
 
This last sentence shows he did not hold to eternal justification, because he is using the word justification in "divers respects;" and he goes on to explain it is only abstractly considered, not concretely, which is as much as to say it is not ACTUAL justification of their persons.

Define for me "eternal justification" :)
 
This last sentence shows he did not hold to eternal justification, because he is using the word justification in "divers respects;" and he goes on to explain it is only abstractly considered, not concretely, which is as much as to say it is not ACTUAL justification of their persons.

Define for me "eternal justification" :)

Justification, as explained by Shorter Catechism answer 33, from eternity. That was an easy one. :D
 
What is the relation of faith to justification? Antinomians and hyper-Calvinists answer, Merely that of comfort or assurance. Their theory is that the elect were actually justified by God before the foundation of the world, and all that faith does now is to make this manifest in their conscience. This error was advocated by such men as W. Gadsby, J. Irons, James Wells, J.C. Philpot. That it originated not with these men is clear from the fact that the Puritans refuted it in their day. "By faith alone we obtain and receive the forgiveness of sins; for notwithstanding any antecedent act of God concerning us in and for Christ, we do not actually receive a complete soul-freeing discharge until we believe" (J. Owen). "It is vain to say I am justified only in respect to the court of mine own conscience. The faith that Paul and the other Apostles were justified by, was their believing on Christ that they might be justified (Gal. 2:15, 16), and not a believing they were justified already; and therefore it was not an act of assurance" (T. Goodwin, vol. 8).


How are we justified by faith? Having given a threefold negative answer: not by faith as a joint cause with works (Romanists), not by faith as an act of grace in us (Arminians), not by faith as it receives the Spirit's witness (Antinomians); we now turn to the positive answer. Faith justifies only as an instrument which God has appointed to the apprehension and application of Christ's righteousness. When we say that faith is the "instrument" of our justification, let it be clearly understood that we do not mean faith is the instrument wherewith God justifies, but the instrument whereby we receive Christ. Christ has merited righteousness for us, and faith in Christ is that which renders it meet in God's sight the purchased blessing be assigned. Faith unites to Christ, and being united to Him we are possessed of all that is in Christ, so far as is consistent with our capacity of receiving and God's appointment in giving. Having been made one with Christ in spirit, God now considers us as one with Him in law.


A W PINK


Arthur W. Pink - The Doctrine of Justification - Large Print

(the above portion is taken from chapter 8) RMS
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is the rest of the chapter....

Arthur W. Pink - The Doctrine of Justification - Large Print

We are justified by faith, and not for faith; not because of what faith is, but because of what it receives. "It hath no efficacy of itself, but as it is the band of our union with Christ. The whole virtue of cleansing proceeds from Christ the object. We receive the water with our hands, but the cleansing virtue is not in our hands, but in the water, yet the water cannot cleanse us without our receiving it; our receiving it unites the water to us, and is a means whereby we are cleansed. And therefore is it observed that our justification by faith is always expressed in the passive, not in the active: we are justified by faith, not that faith justifies us. The efficacy is in Christ's blood; the reception of it is in our faith" (S. Charnock).

Scripture knows no such thing as a justified unbeliever. There is nothing meritorious about believing, yet it is necessary in order to justification. It is not only the righteousness of Christ as imputed which justifies, but also as received (Rom. 5:11, 17). The righteousness of Christ is not mine until I accept it as the Father's gift. "The believing sinner is `justified by faith' only instrumentally, as he `lives by eating' only instrumentally. Eating is the particular act by which he receives and appropriates food. Strictly speaking, he lives by bread alone, not by eating, or the act of masticating. And, strictly speaking, the sinner is justified by Christ's sacrifice alone, not by his act of believing in it" (W. Shedd). In the application of justification faith is not a builder, but a beholder; not an agent, but an instrument; it has nothing to do, but all to believe; nothing to give, but all to receive.

God has not selected faith to be the instrument of justification because there is some peculiar virtue in faith, but rather because there is no merit in it: faith is self-emptying--"Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace" (Rom. 4:16). A gift is seen to be a gift when nothing is required or accepted of the recipient, but simply that he receive it. Whatever other properties faith may possess, it is simply as receiving Christ that it justifies. Were we said to be justified by repentance, by love, or by any other spiritual grace, it would convey the idea of something good in us being the consideration on which the blessing was bestowed; but justification by faith (correctly understood) conveys no such idea.

"Faith justifies in no other way than as it introduces us into a participation of the righteousness of Christ" (J. Calvin). Justifying faith is a looking away from self, a renouncing of my own righteousness, a laying hold of Christ. Justifying faith consists, first, of a knowledge and belief of the truth revealed in Scripture thereon; second, in an abandonment of all pretense, claim or confidence in our own righteousness; third, in a trust in and reliance upon the righteousness of Christ, laying hold of the blessing which He purchased for us. It is the heart's approval and approbation of the method of justification proposed in the Gospel: by Christ alone, proceeding from the pure grace of God, and excluding all human merits. "In the LORD have I righteousness and strength" (Isa. 45:24).

None will experimentally appreciate the righteousness of Christ until they have been experimentally stripped by the Spirit. Not until the Lord puts us in the fire and burns off our filthy rags, and makes us stand naked before Him, trembling from head to foot as we view the sword of His justice suspended over our heads, will any truly value "the best robe." Not until the condemning sentence of the law has been applied by the Spirit to the conscience does the guilty soul cry, "Lost, lost!" (Rom. 7:9, 10). Not until there is a personal apprehension of the requirements of God's Law, a feeling sense of our total inability to perform its righteous demands, and an honest realization that God would be just in banishing us from His presence forever, is the necessity for a precious Christ perceived by the soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top