A Refutation of the Auburn Avenue Theology’s Rejection
of Justification by Faith Alone
By: Brian Schwertley
Introduction
In
the conservative Reformed world there has been a controversy raging since 2002
due to the introduction of a new theological paradigm called the “
The
purpose of this study will be to examine the very heart of Christianity, the
doctrine of justification by faith alone, as it relates to the
The
The Theological Path to Heresy
The
theological path to a new Romanizing doctrine of justification by the
(1)
The proponents of the
Does the Bible teach that covenant is a relationship? No, it does not. According to Scripture a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties that establishes some type of relationship. There are political covenants or treaties where nations bind themselves together. There are marriage covenants where a husband and wife agree (i.e. promise) to unite for life. There are business transactions where various parties agree to mutually binding conditions. All covenants presuppose an agreement with certain promises, stipulations, responsibilities and sanctions. The important thing to note at this point is that a covenant is not a relationship but is a means by which parties enter into a relationship. “The result of a covenant commitment is the establishment of a relationship ‘in conjunction with,’ or ‘between’ people.”[6] The Shorter Catechism says that God did enter into a covenant of grace to bring the elect “into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer” (Q. 20). John Murray succinctly sets forth the historic Reformed definition of covenant. He writes:
From the beginning and throughout the development of
covenant theology, covenant has been defined as a contract, or compact, or
agreement between parties. From the earliest Reformed treatise on the subject,
that of Henry Bullinger (De Testamento seu
Dei Unico et Aeterno Brevis Expositi, 1534),
through the classic period of formulation, and continuing to recent times this
concept has exercised a great influence upon the exposition of God’s covenant
relations with men. Hence, in the words of Zachary Ursinus,
God’s covenant is a ‘mutual promise and agreement, between God and men, in
which God gives assurance to men that he will be merciful to them….And, on the
other side, men bind themselves to God in this covenant that they will exercise
repentance and faith…and render such obedience as will be acceptable to him’
(Eng. Tr., G. W. Williard, The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, grand Rapids, 1954,
97). And Charles Hodge, three centuries later, insisted that since covenant
‘when used of transactions between man and man means a mutual compact’ we must
give it the same sense ‘when used of transactions between God and man’. (Systematic Theology, II, 354)[7]
The
(2)
The next crucial step in the
A
proper understanding of the covenant of works is very important in Reformed
theology because it informs us about what is necessary for the salvation of the
elect after the fall of Adam. The first Adam failed to attain glorified life
because he did not perfectly and
perpetually obey God. But, the second Adam, Jesus Christ, the head of the
covenant of grace, not only eliminated the guilt and liability of punishment
that we all deserve for sin by His sacrificial death; but, also perfectly and
perpetually obeyed God. What Adam (and each of us) have miserably failed to do,
Christ did as our substitute. Therefore, when we believe in Jesus our sins are
imputed to Him on the cross and His perfect obedience is imputed to us. Our
Lord does not merely forgive sins but also merits our glorification. We receive
our justification by faith alone apart from the works of the law (see Ac.
The
Already
(even with this one argument) we can observe a serious problem, a logical
inconsistency, with the
Reformed
theologians have never denied that God’s creation of man was gracious. They
have never denied that Adam was God’s son (Lk.
(3)
The
By rejecting the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works and replacing it with a pre-fall covenant of grace that has the same requirements as the covenant of works (they simply leave out the word merit, Adam must obey to receive glorified life), the Auburn Avenue theology denies the radical difference by which life is obtained before and after the fall. They would certainly acknowledge that faith in Christ is needed to receive pardon for sin; but, the obtaining of “eschatological life” is still left in the sinner’s own hands. Before the fall men are saved (i.e. they obtain “eschatological life”) by believing and doing and after the fall men are saved by believing and doing. The covenant of grace and the covenant of works are merged and thus salvation by faith in Christ alone apart from the works of the law is explicitly denied.
(4)
The
The
The works to be distinguished from faith in the
Pauline passages are not good works, but works of the flesh, works that are
done to provide a meritorious ground of justification (“Doctrine of the Holy
Spirit,” Tape 37: “Paul’s Positive Estimate of Good Works,” cf. Tape 20). Faith must not be
abstracted from good works. Since faith,
repentance, and good works are intertwined as covenantal response, and since
good works are necessary to justification, the “ordo salutis” would better be: regeneration,
faith/repentance/new obedience, justification (“The Relation of Good Works
to Justification,” p. 22). But it is better still, as Mr. Shepherd sees it, to
set aside the puzzle of an individual ordo salutis and affirm the corporate and covenantal concept
of our total response to grace (“Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” Tape 3:
“Covenant and the Application of Redemption—Concept of the Ordo Salutis, Oriented to the Model of Adult
Conversion,” cf. Tape 4.).[12]
The
The
(5)
The
By Him everyone who believes is justified from all
things which you could not be justified
by the law of Moses (Ac.
Therefore by the
deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is
the knowledge of sin. But now the
righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the
Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is through faith in
Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:20-24).
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom.
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed
God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
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 mans 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” (Rom. 4:3-8).
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus,
that we might be justified by faith in
Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh
shall be justified (Gal. 2:16).
But indeed I also count all things loss for the
excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered
the loss of all things, and count them as
rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that
which is through faith in Christ, the
righteousness which is from God by faith” (Phil. 3:8-9).
By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of
God, not of works, lest anyone should
boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).
How do the
The doctrine of justification by faith came to
expression in these key letters of Paul (Galatians and Romans) as his attempt
to prove that God’s covenant blessings were for Gentiles as well as Jews, that
God was ready to accept Gentiles as Gentiles, without requiring them first to
become Jews. The Christian doctrine of justification by faith begins as Paul’s
protest not as an individual sinner against a Jewish legalism, but as Paul’s
protest on behalf of Gentiles against Jewish exclusivism….Justification
by faith is Paul’s fundamental objection to the idea that God has limited his
saving goodness to a particular people.[14]
In his
refutation of the Reformed doctrine of salvation, the
Luther took Paul’s critique of the law in an abstract
sense, as though the apostle was concerned with a generic moralism,
rather than a specifically Jewish, redemptive-historical issue. Luther assumed
Paul’s Judaizing opponents were basically medieval
merit mongers. Thus, Luther developed his infamous law/grace antithesis….
Paul’s anti-Judaic polemic thus cannot be equated with
the Reformers anti-Romish polemic. No doubt at
certain points the Reformers succumbed to eisegetically
reading their debates with
By refusing to acknowledge that the Torah had passed
away in the death of Christ, the Judaizers were
perverting its true intent. They were insisting that the new people of God continue to mark themselves out in the old way, namely, by the now defunct
badges of Torah. It’s clear these are the items under discussion in
Galatians—circumcision, dietary laws, calendrical
observances, and so forth. There is no evidence the Judaizers
were suggesting that circumcision or other marks of Jewishness
were good works and individual could do to earn or merit status before God;
rather they were suggesting submission to the old covenant identity badges as
the way of entrance into the true people of God, the promised family of
Abraham.[15]
In other words, when we see the
passages of Scripture which say that we are not justified by the works of the
law we must view them as broad exhortations about Jewish identity markers, the
various ceremonial laws. They have nothing to do with legalism in the sense of
an individual trying to contribute to his salvation by obeying the moral law.
This new view of Paul (the “New Perspective” movement began in 1977 with the
publication of E.P. Sanders’ book Paul
and Palestinian Judaism) is crucial to the
(6)
A crucial aspect of the
How does this bizarre, neo-medieval, sacerdotal concept of baptism affect the doctrine of justification? If everyone is justified by water baptism[18] because by baptism they enter the covenant community and have a real saving union with Christ, then the essence of salvation is not to lay hold of what Jesus accomplished by faith, but rather is the maintaining of what one has already received in baptism. Further, if (as the Auburn Avenue theologians insist) a person can lose their salvation if they are not faithful to the covenant, then justification cannot be a one time, past tense, permanent declaration of God that a person is righteous based on the merits of Christ. Justification must be a process[19] and/or it must be a goal [20] which one strives for. This explains why in their system faith is not an alone instrument which grasps Christ, but faith is “faithful obedience.” One can only be truly or eschatologically justified if he maintains his covenant membership acquired at baptism by persevering in faithfulness to the very end. This persevering in “covenant faithfulness” is only achieved by God’s grace, of course.
The
Having
briefly considered the theological steps the
The Covenant of Works
Is
the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works[21]
(and the bi-covenantal system that rests in part upon it) a clever invention of
Reformed theologians? The
(1) It is argued that since Adam was in relationship with God and was a covenant creature, under the lordship of his covenant King, “the covenant is not something added to the created order; it was already there.”[22] Lusk writes:
Life was not a reward Adam had to earn; it was a free
blessing from the outset….This initial spiritual life was not an attainment or
reward. Rather, God granted Adam communion with Himself before he had done
anything good to “deserve” it…Adam was not created in a neutral position with
regard to the favor of God. He began his life within the circle of God’s
covenantal blessing, as Genesis 1:26-28 declares. God’s first word to Adam was
not one of command but of blessing. Obviously, then, that initial favor was not
something Adam had to earn or merit by strict justice; it was a free gift. The
meritorious covenant of works, then, has things backwards, by suggesting that
God’s favor could only come at the end, after Adam had done work for God.[23]
While it is true that Adam had God’s favor and that there was a loving relationship between God and Adam, the whole debate centers upon what Adam did not have. Adam had life but he did not have glorified life. Once we go beyond Genesis chapter one and read chapters two and three we see that by direct revelation God added something that was not known to Adam by general revelation and that Adam, even with all his wonderful blessings, did not yet have glorified life. Turretin writes:
By his own right, God could indeed have prescribed obedience
to man (created by him) without any promise of reward. But in order to temper
that supreme dominion with his goodness, he added a covenant consisting in the
promise of a reward and the stipulation of obedience. As he wished to assert
more strongly in his own right over man, so he demonstrated the highest
benignity in this—that he (himself in need of nothing) willed to a nearer
communion with him (and more powerfully allure by that bond of love and mutual
obligation), the creature (already subject to him by right of creation and
owing him all things from natural obligation) by entering into a covenant with
him, so that man now excited by the promise of God can certainly expect
happiness, not from his mere philanthropy (philanthropia) alone, but also
from a covenant (on account of his truthfulness and fidelity).[24]
The
(a) One cannot argue (as the Monroe theologians do) that the covenant is just the way things were by virtue of creation apart from direct revelation with promises and stipulations because, if Adam already had everything (i.e. glorified life) then disobedience as well as curses or added blessings for obedience would be unnecessary and impossible. (An aspect of glorification is that men lose all possibility of committing sin and falling.)
(b)
Even if one ignores the direct revelation made with Adam and argues that “a
life of sustained obedience” was required for eschatological life, one has
unwittingly adopted a covenant of works system. Although the
(c)
The idea of merit in the attainment of eternal, glorified or eschatological
life is inescapable. This point becomes clear if we replace the word “merit”
(which has negative connotations because of its abuse by
(2)
The
(a)
The
(b)
As noted earlier, the
Once again we must point out that any system
that introduces obedience as a requirement for justification cannot avoid some
concept of merit. The covenant of works does have the concept of merit, but it
is not merit in the sense that our own works have intrinsic value before God
and thus force God’s favor; but, merit in the sense that God will honor a
perfect and perpetual obedience because He has promised to do so. God has
obligated Himself in the covenant of works to reward a perfect and perpetual
obedience with glorified life. Christ is the only person who ever lived that
perfectly and perpetually obeyed God. Thus, according to the terms of the
covenant of works Jesus merited glorified life for His people. On the basis of
Christ’s righteousness, believing sinners are justified. They are not merely
forgiven by the Savior’s blood but declared
righteous on the basis of the imputation of our Lord’s righteousness to
their account. The
Because
the concept of merit is inescapable (the important thing is to define merit
biblically and lay hold of the merits of Christ by faith) the
Could Satan want anything more out of a new heresy? It is a theological system which repeatedly and emphatically cries out against merit and works in salvation yet which is through and through a system based on merit—the personal righteousness of the believer. It is a system which replaces the imputed righteousness of Christ with “covenant faithfulness,[30] “the works of faith,” “faithful obedience” and “faith-wrought good works.”
(3)
The
(a)
As noted earlier, the fact that God was in a relationship with Adam and treated
him with love and kindness does not at all preclude Him from making a covenant
with Adam. The narrative in Genesis contains all the elements of a covenant:
the essential parties (God and man), the prescription of a law, the promise of
reward and the threat of punishment. This teaching of Scripture is supported by
other passages, such as Hosea 6:7, which says the Israelites “like Adam have
transgressed the covenant.” (NASB)[31]
Even the
(b)
The Auburn Avenue theologians fail to recognize the major difference between
pre-fall grace as love, kindness and favor to a perfect, sinless, righteous
being and post-fall saving grace which is unmerited favor to wicked sinners who
are God’s enemies, who are under the just sentence of death and deserve to go
to hell. The
The
observing and blending of the pre-fall and post-fall covenants into one
covenant (mono-covenantalism) forces the Auburn
theologians to change the covenant of grace into a new, watered-down covenant
of works: the perfect and perpetual obedience required of Adam is replaced with
a partial, imperfect, general obedience (“covenant faithfulness”). The special
grace that is directed only to the elect that actually results in salvation is
replaced with a general grace directed to everyone baptized irrespective of
faith; and, only those who persevere in faithfulness (a partial, imperfect,
general obedience) will be glorified. The
How
do the
Second,
like the papists they confound justification and sanctification. Reformed
theologians have never denied the need for covenant faithfulness, good works
and a lifestyle of obedience in the walk of believers. The man who is justified
by Christ is also sanctified by Him as well. The Confession of Faith says,
“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the
alone instrument of justification, yet it is not alone in the person justified,
but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but
worketh by love” (11:2). We are justified by faith
alone, apart from our good works or covenant faithfulness. But by virtue of our
union with Christ in His life, death and resurrection the power of sin is
broken in our lives and we are faithful to Christ in our walk. There is no such
thing as a man who is justified that is not also sanctified. What separates
Shepherd and his followers from orthodox Protestantism is: they say works are
necessary as a condition of
justification while the Reformed symbols say that good works are the fruit of salvation. Paul says “we
are…created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph.
Justification by Faith or Faithful
Obedience
Now
that we have some understanding regarding the
(1)
In Romans 2:17-25, where Paul is setting forth the necessity of Christ before
the Jews, his main point is that while the Jews were proud of the moral law and
taught it to others they were unable to keep it themselves. The apostle’s point
is unnecessary if the Jews did not regard the law as a means of salvation. “The
Jews entirely mistook the object of the law,
(2)
In Romans 3:9, 10, 23 Paul universally indicts both Jews and Gentiles as
law-breakers and guilty before God, “we have previously charged both Jews and
Gentiles that they are all under sin. As it is written there is none righteous,
no, not one….all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Obviously,
Paul’s statement in verse 20, “Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will
be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin,” applies to
the moral law for the apostle was discussing the situation for both Jews and
Gentiles; and, Gentiles had no obligation to obey the ceremonial ordinances.
This verse gives the reason why every mouth is stopped
and the whole world is condemned, to wit, that “from the works of the law no
flesh will be justified” before God. This does not overthrow the principle
stated in
(3) The
Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves
that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple
to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and
prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax
collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the
tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to
heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell
you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be
humbled, and he who humble himself will be exalted.” (Lk.
18:9-14)
Note how Jesus (like Paul after Him) contrasts two radically different views of biblical religion. The Pharisee boasts about his covenantal faithfulness; about his own subjective righteousness; about his faithfulness to God’s law. The tax collector, on the other hand, understands that his works merit nothing, that he is a sinner and thus casts himself entirely upon God’s mercy. He understands that he must receive everything from God.
Note
also that Christ is discussing two religious Jews who were at the
(4) The
“identity markers” theory is refuted by Paul’s example of Abraham in Romans
4:1-5. “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about,
but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God and
it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ Now to him who works, the wages are
not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on
Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (vs.
2-5). Abraham was justified by faith apart from works before
(5) The
The
(6) The
Thus Paul said,
“And the commandment, which was unto life, I found to bring death” (v. 10) Although
the law held out the promise of life to those who could perfectly obey it, and
Paul, a self-righteous Pharisee, believed he was on the path to eternal life,
it rather was found to bring death. Paul the good Pharisee expected life but
instead found condemnation for the law was never intended as a ground or
instrument of justification. “Sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived
me, and by it killed me” (Rom.
How, we ask, can
the apostle’s description of his own experience be harmonized with the
(7) The “New
Perspective” and
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not
pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of
faith; but
According to “covenantal nomism” the problem with the Jews was not that they were
seeking salvation in self-righteousness (“seeking to establish their own
righteousness” v. 3) but that they were excluding the Gentiles by holding to a
monopoly of covenant righteousness. They claim that the great error of the Jews
was not in their seeking a subjective
righteousness through covenant loyalty and law-keeping, but their error was
Jewish adherence to a national covenantal monopoly. Therefore (according to the
“New Perspective”) “the end of the law” (v. 4) refers to the end of
The
“New Perspective” interpretation is absurd and should be rejected for a number
of reasons. First, the parallel between the Gentiles obtaining righteousness
and the Jews not obtaining righteousness in verses 30-31 makes no sense
whatsoever if one holds to the “New Perspective.” The word righteousness in the
case of Gentiles refers to justification. The Gentiles received justification
by faith. “[T]he righteousness which Christ has provided unto our justification
is one that meets all the requirements of God’s law in its sanctions and
demands.”[40] If
verse 30 refers to obtaining salvation then obviously verse 31 does also. Paul is
not addressing covenantal exclusivity but two different methods of salvation:
one of faith and the other of works. Second, “their own righteousness” is being
contrasted with “God’s righteousness” in verse 3. The “New Perspective” theory
destroys Paul’s antithesis between a God-righteousness and a human
righteousness—an objective, perfect righteousness and a subjective defective
righteousness. “The basic error of
All human beings, who know that God is righteous and
they are not (since ‘there is no-one righteous, not even one’,
Third, Paul’s
discussion of “the end of the law” in verse 4 clearly refers (in both the
narrow and broader context) to the end of the law as a means of salvation. The
novel idea that it means the end of
(7) The “New
Perspective” and
Note how Paul addresses the use of certain ceremonial laws by Jewish believers in a mixed assembly. (Keep in mind that Romans was written in AD 57 or 58 after the epistle to the Galatians, A.D. 53-56). In the Roman church there were Jewish Christians who “regarded the holy day of the ceremonial economy having abiding sanctity.”[43] The apostle is definitely “referring to the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution.”[44] Does the apostle accuse these Jewish believers of preaching another gospel? Does he tell them they are obligated to keep the whole Mosaic law? No. He does neither. He allows for diversity in the church over the issue of Jewish holy days because (a) no works-righteousness was attributed to these practices; and (b) the first generation of believers lived in unique historical circumstances (i.e. Jewish believers were already accustomed to keeping certain holy days of the Mosaic economy). Paul tells each side (the strong and the weak) to co-exist in peace and unity. Each side must not force their views on the other side or berate their brothers. When heresy or ideas of works-righteousness are not involved in the keeping of certain “Jewish identity markers,” Paul does not accuse people of heresy, act with an extreme note of urgency, express astonishment, or proclaim anathemas against false teachers. If (as the “New Perspective” and Auburn Avenue theologians assert) the early chapters of Romans and the book of Galatians are merely dealing with “Jewish exclusivism” or “identity markers,” then how can they account for the radical difference in Paul’s attitude between those sections of Scripture and this one. They can’t explain it.
(9) Paul’s
epistle to the Galatians is especially relevant to the
Perhaps the reason Shepherd does not see the obvious contradictions within his system, is his clever redefinition of faith as obedient faith, faithfulness or penitent faith.[51] Shepherd broadens the definition of justifying faith to include all the fruits of faith. All the graces that normally accompany saving faith (repentance, sanctification, obedience, perseverance) are collapsed into one category. Thus, the biblical definition of faith as instrumental, as sharply distinguished from obedience to the law, as something that looks away from oneself and rests wholly upon Christ is abandoned for a faith plus works combination. If Shepherd was willing to say that true saying faith leads to an obedient life, or is always accompanied by faithfulness or results in good works which are evidence of a true living faith, then he would be in line with the Reformed symbols and there would be no controversy.[52] But, his insistence on a faith/works combination in justification is unconfessional, Romanizing, heretical, and deadly. Shepherd and his followers are wolves in sheep’s clothing and therefore must be defrocked and excommunicated for the safety of the sheep and the preservation of the Reformation against Romanism.
(10) A passage of Scripture which explicitly refutes the “Jewish identity markers” theory is Galatians 3:10, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” Here Paul follows the Septuagint rendering of Deuteronomy 27:36 with some slight changes. Instead of the Septuagint’s “all the words of this law” (Mt. also has “this law”)[53] Paul writes “everything that is written in the Book of the law. The apostle is emphasizing that every law in the whole written Torah in all of its details (i.e., every jot and tittle) must be perfectly obeyed to avoid being under the curse of the law. “This is the sword of Damocles which hangs over the head of all workers with law.”[54] Further, Deuteronomy 27 itself completely ignores the ceremonial law and focuses upon violations of the ten commandments (idolatry, v. 15; dishonoring parents, v. 16; theft, v. 17; adultery v. 20; murder, v. 25) and specific applications of the ten commandments (injustice, v. 19; cruelty, v. 18; bestiality, v. 21; incest, vs. 22, 23; unlawful violence, v. 24). Paul, writing under divine inspiration, makes it crystal clear that his phrase “the works of the law” refers to the whole law of god whether ceremonial (i.e. the identity markers) or moral (the ten commandments and moral case laws).
This section of
Scripture refutes the
Now what was really the purpose of God’s law? God gave
his law in order that man, by nature a child of wrath, and thus lying under the
curse (Gal. 3:13), as definitely declared in Deut. 27:26; John 3:36; Eph. 3:2,
might be reminded not only of his unchanged obligation to live in perfect
harmony with this law (Lev. 19:2), but also of his total inability to fulfill this obligation (Rom. 7:24). Thus
this law would serve as a custodian to conduct the sinner to Christ (Gal.
(11) Paul’s
condemnation of the Judaizers in Galatians 4:21-31
implies much more than a mere hanging on to Jewish identity markers or
exclusivity. Paul uses the symbol of two mothers to represent two different
systems of doctrine. Hagar the slave woman and the Jerusalem which now is,
corresponds not to the Mosaic law as
it was intended by God; which pointed to Jesus Christ and not to a system of
works salvation; but, to the slavish doctrine and worship that the Old Covenant
religion had degenerated into under the Pharisees. Although the ceremonial
ordinances were weak and beggarly elements for an immature church, the faithful
saints of the Old Covenant were not spiritual Ishmaelites
who were slaves under bondage. “This is a heavy reproach against the Jews, whose
real mother was not Sarah, but the spurious
(12) A section
of Scripture that is especially fatal to the
The slogan of the false teacher was: “unless you are
circumcised and keep the law, you cannot be saved” (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). They were thus declaring that faith in Christ
was insufficient for salvation. Circumcision and law-obedience must be added to
it. This was tantamount to saying that Moses must be allowed to finish what
Christ had begun.
See how Paul describes their position in these verses.
They are those who “receive circumcision” (verses 2, 3), who are therefore
“bound to keep the whole law” (verse 3), since this is what their circumcision commits
them to, and who are seeking to “be justified by the law” (verse 4).
What does Paul say to them? He does not mince his
words. On the contrary, he makes a most solemn assertion, beginning Now I, Paul, say to you (verse 2). He
warns them in three sentences of the serious results of their receiving
circumcision; Christ will be of no
advantage to you (verse 2), you are
severed from Christ and you have fallen away from grace (verse 4). More
simply, to add circumcision is to lose Christ, to seek to be justified by the
law is fall from grace. You cannot have it both ways. It is impossible to
receive Christ, thereby acknowledging that you cannot save yourself, and then
receive circumcision, thereby claiming that you can. You have got to choose
between a religion of law and a religion of grace, between Christ and
circumcision. You cannot add circumcision (or anything else, for that matter)
to Christ as necessary to salvation, because Christ is sufficient for salvation
in Himself. If you add anything to Christ, you lose Christ. Salvation is in
Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.[57]
Paul’s
argumentation is the reason why the new
(13) Perhaps the
most explicit refutation of the “New Perspective” and
Philippians
chapter 3 raises some important questions. Is Paul merely concerned “with the
new identity and configuration of the people of God” as Rich Lusk and the New
Perspective theologians believe? Is the apostle only dealing with broad
sociological, ecclesiastical, redemptive-historical issues as the
The apostle makes it very clear that the righteousness of the law (i.e. all of our own efforts to achieve or contribute to salvation by keeping the law) must be given up and renounced if we are to obtain the righteousness of faith. Further, he says that the righteousness that we need for justification comes from outside ourselves. It comes forth from God. What all of this means is that if anyone ascribes our justification partly to Christ and partly to man; or if anyone mixes faith and our own good works together to achieve salvation or final justification they destroy the gospel. Regarding the righteousness that we need for justification, Muller writes:
God is the origin and source of it, while faith is the
means or way or instrument by which it is appropriated. True righteousness is
not worked by law or the observance of law, but is granted by God as a gift of
grace and is accepted and personally appropriated by faith.
Nobody
can, therefore, rely on a righteousness from
man (based on law, acquired by virtue of his own conformity to the law),
but only on a righteousness from God,
appropriated through faith. Man can offer nothing acceptable to God, but all good things are granted
him by God and are accepted through
faith.[61]
Calvin writes:
He says, that believers have no righteousness of their
own. Now, it cannot be denied, that if there were any righteousness of works,
it might with propriety be said to be ours. Hence he leaves no room whatever
for the righteousness of works. Why he calls it the righteousness of the law,
he shews in Romans x. 5; because this is the sentence
of the law, He that doeth these things
shall live in them. The law, therefore, pronounces the man to be righteous
through works. Nor is there any ground for the cavil of Papists, that all this
must be restricted to ceremonies. For in the first place, it is a contemptible
frivolity to affirm that Paul was righteous only through ceremonies; and secondly, he in this way draws a
contrast between those two kinds of righteousness—the one being of man, the
other, from God. He intimates, accordingly, that the one is the reward of
works, while the other is a free gift form God. He thus, in a general way,
places man’s merit in opposition to Christ’s grace; for while the law brings
works, faith presents man before God as naked, that he may be clothed with the
righteousness of Christ.[62]
Paul teaches that only faith in Christ obtains the perfect righteousness we need for salvation because faith rests on and receives another—Christ and His righteousness. Saving faith is self-renouncing because it looks away from ourselves and our own works and obtains everything in Jesus. Therefore, faith, as it relates to our justification before God, must stand alone. If the faith that justifies is not held in a strict isolation from our own works then it is not a self-renouncing faith. This means that our good works which come after faith must always be viewed as fruits of faith, as demonstrative of saving faith. Shepherd and his followers’ fatal error is their subtle denial of faith alone for a faith-works combination.
(14) The idea that “covenantal faithfulness” is necessary for final justification is refuted by our Lord in Luke 17:10. “So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’” The point Jesus makes is that even if we could do everything required of us we could not gain anything before God. “However much our faith is increased and is able to do and actually does in the Lord’s work, let no false claims of merit enter our minds.”[63]
The
The
(15)
The
While
the
It has been necessary to insist that justification is
a judicial act of acquittal, for only so can salvation be by grace. However,
the ordinary idea of acquittal does not exhaust the Biblical concept of
justification. Section I also says that God pardons the sins of those who are
justified and accepts their persons as righteous. Perhaps the idea of pardon
needs no explanation, for its meaning is easily understood; but the idea of
acceptance needs to be distinguished from both pardon and acquittal. The
governor of a state may pardon a convicted official without restoring him to
favor and to his previous office. Appointments to office, if honest, would
depend on the future conduct of the pardoned man. But it is otherwise with
Biblical justification; for if favor with God depended on our future conduct,
eventual salvation would be based on our works—clearly contrary to
Scripture—and we could never have an assurance of success. When our position
depends on Christ’s merits instead of our own, we need have no fear.[70]
The fact that
Adam before the fall needed a perfect and perpetual obedience to obtain
glorified life coupled with biblical meaning of “to justify” leaves one with
only two options regarding the attainment of glorified life in the New Covenant
era. (a) One can argue that a perfect and perpetual obedience is still
necessary; and, that perfect and perpetual obedience has been rendered by a
substitute—the Lord Jesus Christ. This teaching is the position of the
Westminster Standards and Reformed Christianity. What we could not do because
of our sins and sinful depravity Jesus did in our place. He obeyed the
requirement of a perfect and perpetual righteousness and this righteousness is
imputed to our account when we believe in Him. We are clothed with the
righteousness of Christ. (b) The only other option is that the requirement for
a perfect and perpetual obedience has been suspended and substituted with an
imperfect partial obedience. This teaching is either explicitly held by
classical Arminians (the concept of evangelical
obedience),[71] neo-nomians[72]
(the standard of God’s law has been lowered in the New Covenant era so that we
can render an easier general obedience), dispensationalism
(the whole Old Testament law has been abrogated) and mono-covenantalism
or the
The
The
only manner in which we can avoid such blatant internal contradictions is to
return to Reformed orthodoxy. To argue that in the law God does not require a
perfect obedience is absurd. Are we to believe that the command not to commit
adultery allows for adultery once in a while? God expects and demands sinless
perfection from every one of His rational creatures. “The soul who sins shall
die” (Ezek. 18:4). “The wages of sin is death” (Rom.
(16)
The
The
biblical definition of saving faith raises an obvious question. If faith and
obedience are the same thing, then how is our obedience instrumental? How can good deeds lay hold of Christ? Such a thought
is absurd. By their very nature as a subjective doing, the works of the law can
only demonstrate that true faith exists. They cannot grasp the Savior. That is
why Paul connects all systems that are based upon or mixed with the works of
the law as guilty of violating the debt principle (see
There are apparent reasons why justification is by
faith and by faith alone. First, it is altogether consonant with the fact that
it is by grace. “Therefore it is of faith, in order that it might be according
to grace” (Rom.
(17)
Another area that sets the
He may also, in insisting upon one aspect of Scripture
truth, miss the fact that he has abstracted it from the body of revelation. In
doing so he may actually alter the character of a truth so as to better fit his
system than to fit an actual
epistolary argument. We recognize this when feminists do it to Galatians 3:28;
we tend to be look past it when claimants to sola fide do it to the character of “faith,” forcing saving faith into
the mold of mere assent rather than seeing it in Scriptural relief as a
holistic, living response to the Word and will of God. Ironically, the very
faith which the Scripture describes as “dead” and of like character with the
“faith” of devils, is imagined to be one that unites a poor sinner to the
Almighty. Biblical faith, alive in every direction, is reduced to “voluntary
assent to understood propositions.”…Whereas the Bible reveals to us a comprehensive
salvation and calling, proof-texters have bequeathed
to us a religion that saves by lining up your assent with the Set of propositions….This version of Christian salvation is
worse than nothing. The God of the Bible sends His only begotten, his dearly
beloved Son, so that man can give Him a causal nod and in this way get all He’s got to give? This is defended as if it
were not merely something, but everything! How cometh good men to believe this?[79]
As we examine James
2 (read verses 14-26) we will see that orthodox Protestant understanding of
this passage is the correct interpretation. Both Roman Catholics and the
The apostle Paul
in Romans and Galatians explains how
men are justified before God. Paul discusses the ground of a person’s
justification—the sinless life and sacrificial death of Christ and how Christ’s
perfect righteousness is imputed or credited to a believer. When Paul discusses
faith in this context, he describes faith as an instrument which lays hold of what
Christ has accomplished. Paul is explaining salvation by grace through faith.
James does not concern himself with the ground of justification, but with easy-believism, or antinomianism. He answers the question “How
does a person know if his faith is genuine or real?” Buchanan writes, “The two
Apostles were combating two opposite errors, and sought to check two opposite
tendencies. Paul contended against Legalism, and the self-righteous tendency
which leads men to ‘go about to establish their own righteousness’ [Rom.
James is showing the church that the existence of true faith is demonstrated by a person’s outward behavior or works. The contrast he discusses is between a true and living faith and a false, merely historical, dead faith. “The distinction is manifestly between theoretic belief unaccompanied by the practice of good works and a vital faith abounding in good works. Works are the outward sign and pledge, the demonstration of faith within. The man dramatically introduced in the text has faith (v. 19), but his faith is theoretic belief.”[82] It is a mere intellectual assent to certain propositions without trust. A man says that he believes something to be true, but never acts upon it. He says he believes in Christ, yet does not obey His commandments; he never lifts a finger in service to God’s people. Thus, for James the issue is not faith plus works equals salvation; but rather, faith without works is not even a real faith at all, but a mere hypocritical profession. It is dead, a corpse, or non-existent. Men are saved solely through faith in Christ; but that faith must be a genuine faith; a faith that expresses itself outwardly in works of the Spirit. “There is no inconsistency here with the doctrine of justification by grace, for this, as Cranfield observes, is ‘but a salutary reminder that the absence of compassions for one’s fellow men is conclusive proof that one’s professed faith is counterfeit, while mercy shown—may be an evidence of a genuine faith.’”[83] Thomas Manton writes:
The orthodox, though they differ somewhat in words and
phrases, yet they agree in the same common sense, in reconciling James and
Paul. Thus, which some say Paul disputeth how we are
justified, and James how we shall evidence ourselves to be justified; the one taketh justification for acquittance
from sin, the other for acquittance from hypocrisy;
the one for the imputation of righteousness, the other for the declaration of
righteousness. Or as others, Paul speaketh of the
office of faith, James the quality of faith; Paul pleaded for saving faith,
James pleadeth against naked assent; the one speaketh of the justifying of the person, the other of the faith,&c.[84]
There are a
number of indicators within this section of James which support the classical
Protestant interpretation. First, the opening sentence introducing the theme of
this whole section tells us very clearly that the topic under discussion is how
to identify true faith. For the sake of argument James pictures an imaginary
individual who is totally devoid of good works; who will not even lend a hand
to naked, starving, destitute Christians but who says he has faith. This person has a heart of stone and has
nothing to do with merciful deeds of charity, yet claims to have faith. This hypothetical solution raises the
question that is answered in the rest of the chapter: “Can faith save him?” To
paraphrase, “Can that type of faith save him? A profession entirely devoid of
works?” or “Can a faith like this save him?” This is the second question of
verse 14. Rhetorically framed, it implies that the faith of verse 14 is useless
for salvation. “James is not saying that faith (alone) cannot save (see
The person that James has in mind is not a self-conscious hypocrite or a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but an outward professor who is living in self-deception. He considers himself a Christian and intellectually assents to the general teaching of Scripture, but by his outward behavior shows that he does not have saving faith. If one proceeds on the false assumption that James is criticizing true saving faith, then the passage not only blatantly contradicts the teaching of Christ and Paul, but also is self-contradictory, for a faith cannot be genuine and worthless at the same time. Works do not and cannot transform a dead faith into a living faith. But they can demonstrate the existence of true faith. Ironically, the Roman Catholic Jerome Biblical Commentary concurs, “What was true in the case of Abraham is true universally by works and faith alone: As is clear from the context, this does not mean that genuine faith is insufficient for justification, but that faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine. There is thus no basic disagreement of James with Paul, for whom faith ‘works through love’ (Gal. 5:6).”[86]
Second, the false, non-saving type of faith is described as the same faith possessed by demons. “You believe that there is one God; you do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” (Ja. 2:19). The demons know and accept the fact that there is one God, but they do not trust in God for salvation. Their belief does not lead to commitment and obedience, but only fear. Likewise, many people have an intellectual understanding of the gospel, but they do not really trust in Christ. Calvin writes, “From this one sentence it appears evident that the whole dispute is not about faith, but of the common knowledge of God, which can no more connect man with God, than the sight of the sun carry him up to heaven; but it is certain that by faith we come nigh to God. Besides, it would be ridiculous were anyone to say that the devils have [real] faith; and James prefers them in this respect to hypocrites.”[87] Thomas Manton writes, “Bare assent to the articles of religion doth not infer true faith….Well, then do not mistake a naked illumination, or some general acknowledgement of the articles of religion for faith. A man may be right in opinion and judgement, but of vile affections; and a carnal Christian is in as great danger as a pagan, or idolater, or heretic; for though his judgement be sound, yet his manners are heterodox and heretical. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of ‘all the heart’ Acts viii. 37.”[88]
Third, James
says that good works prove the reality of genuine faith. “Show me your faith
without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (
The Bible teaches that a person who is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and united with Christ in His death and resurrection will produce good works. In other words, justification always leads to sanctification. “It is of utmost importance that while, on the one hand, justification and sanctification must be distinguished the one from the other, on the other hand, the one must never be separated from the other.”[90] If justification and sanctification are confounded, then one has fallen into the trap of legalism or salvation by faith and human merit. If justification and sanctification are separated one from another, then one has succumbed to libertinism or antinomianism. A person is saved solely by the merits of Jesus Christ; but, when a person is saved he is also sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Biblical Protestants have never affirmed that people can be saved by giving an intellectual assent to the gospel while refusing to repent of one’s sins.[91] Repentance is non-meritorious, but it always accompanies saving faith. Bible-believing Protestants look to good works done in Christ’s name as evidence that a person is truly saved. This is the teaching of James, that true faith shows itself in works. Remember, James is not expounding the ground on which believers are justified, but is considering the demonstration of true faith. Combating the same error that James did, Tertullian wrote: “Some persons imagine that they have God if they receive Him in their heart and mind and do little for Him in act; and that therefore they may commit sin, without doing violence to faith and fear; or in other words that they may commit adulteries, and yet be chaste, and may poison their parents, and yet be pious! At the same rate they who commit sin and yet are godly, may also be cast into hell and yet be pardoned! But such minds as these are offshoots from the root of hypocrisy and sworn friends of the evil one.”[92]
The teaching of
James that genuine faith always leads to good works or that the sincerity of
one’s faith in Christ can be observed in a person’s deeds is a common teaching
in the New Testament. Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits. Do men
gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Even so, every good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good
fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the
fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to
Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will
of My Father in heaven” (Mt.
Fourth, that the entire pericope revolves around the question of a genuine faith versus a spurious faith and not works as an additional element necessary for justification is proven by James’ repeated statement that “faith without works is dead” (2:17, 20, 26). If James were teaching that works must be added to faith for justification, then he could not logically say that faith without works is dead. Does dead faith, or nonexistent faith, plus works equal salvation? The type of faith that James repeatedly condemns is not Christian faith at all, but only lip service. “What we have in this comparison is not a contrast of faith over against works. The point is that faith by itself is dead, much the same as the body without the spirit is dead. The readers of the epistle know that they ought not to touch a dead body but to avoid it whenever possible. By implication they need to avoid faith that is dead because it is like a corpse.”[93] Good works do not make an insincere faith sincere. Works do not make a hypocritical profession genuine. If James were discussing what is needed in addition to genuine faith for a person to be saved, then Romanists could claim this passage as a proof text. But obviously he does not. Thomas Manton writes, “So faith without works.—The Papists understand true justifying faith, for they suppose it may be without works; but dead faith cannot be true faith, as a carcass is not a true man, and a true faith, cannot be without works, Gal.v.6. We must understand then, an external profession of belief, which, because of some resemblance with what is true, is called faith. Is dead; that is, false or useless to all ends and purposes of faith.”[94] “He does not deny that faith saves, claiming that it is not sufficient and must be completed by works. The faith which he contests is dead faith, and of such he asks, Can that faith save him?”[95]
Having considered the teaching of this section of Scripture as a whole and having noted the purpose of this pericope, we then can understand the statement that Abraham was justified by works (v. 21). James does not speak of justification in the same sense as Paul as the acquittal or declaration that takes place in the heavenly court the moment a person believes in Christ, but of the justification of Abraham’s faith. James refers to Genesis 22:1, in which we are told that God tested Abraham. What was the purpose of this test? The test was devised to demonstrate the sincerity of the saving faith that Abraham already had. “[W]hen he offered Isaac, his faith was justified to be true and right, for that command was for the trial of it; therefore upon his obedience God did two things—renewed the promise of Christ to him, Gen. xxii.16, 17, and gave him a testimony and declaration of his sincerity, ver. 12 ‘Now I know that thou fearest God,’ saith Christ to him, who is there called the Angel of the Lord.”[96] A. R. Fausset concurs, “The offering of Isaac (v. 21) formed no ground of his justification; for he was justified previously on his simple believing in the promise of spiritual heirs, numerous as the stars (Gen. xv.6). That justification was showed by his offering Isaac forty years after. That work of faith demonstrated, but did not contribute to his justification. The true shows its life by its fruits, but was alive before either fruits or leaves appeared.”[97]
This
interpretation is supported by the two verses that follow (vs. 22, 23). James
says that “by works faith is made perfect” (v. 22). This statement does not
mean that works “perfect” a defective faith, for a defective faith cannot save.
Neither does it mean that works perfect a weak and feeble faith, for Christ
said that the feeblest of faiths can move mountains (cf. Mt.
In verse 23,
James says that Abraham’s obedience fulfilled Genesis 15:6. This means that
Abraham’s act of obedience confirmed the fact that his faith was genuine. His
saving faith was objectively manifested by his work. In Genesis 15:4-5 Abraham
is promised an heir that will come from his own body and is promised
descendants as numerous as the stars. In verse 6 it says, “And he believed in
the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” How did Abraham’s
willingness to sacrifice Isaac fulfill or confirm verse 6? In Genesis 15:4-5
Abraham is given a promise by Jehovah. In Genesis 22:3 that same promise is put
to the supreme test. Abraham is told by God to sacrifice his one and only son.
Hebrews
A brief examination of James’ perspective on faith and works has shown that James and Paul are in complete harmony. They both teach that faith in Christ alone justifies; but, they also teach that a genuine, sincere, real, saving faith is never alone. It is always accompanied by good works. Not good works done to achieve salvation, but works that naturally flow from a regenerated heart. Those who are justified love Jesus Christ and love the brethren. They live to serve the Lord and His people. Martin Luther understood the nature of saving faith. He wrote, “Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith; and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises; it has already done them, and is always at the doing of them. He who does not these works is a faithless man. He gropes and looks about after faith and good works, and knows neither what faith is nor what good works are, though he talks and talks, with many words, about faith and good works.”[103]
(18) The
Paul was not saying he had earned the crown. He was
not suggesting he had merited final justification apart from grace. But he was
assured of his final vindication before the Judge’s bar. He was sure of his
covenant standing and could claim covenant loyalty on his part without becoming
arrogant.
So
pleading for God to bestow promised blessings on the basis of (non-meritorious)
covenant allegiance is not problematic. If our theology doesn’t allow to us to
pray and speak as Jesus, the psalmist, and Paul prayed and spoke, our theology
needs further reformation according to Scripture.[104]
The
For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which
is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with
gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become
clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and
the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which
he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is
burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through
fire (vs. 11-15).
The apostle is discussing Christian works which do not endure the judgment. Paul uses the analogy of two types of materials to describe the quality and enduring nature of a Christian’s work done for Christ. There are imperishable materials (“gold, silver, and costly stones”) which endure and survive the judgment and there are perishable materials (“wood, hay and stubble”) which do not endure. They are all burned up. But note that even if a Christian’s work is completely consumed on the day of judgment, that person is still saved. What this means is that a believer’s works have nothing to do with salvation. Remember, works are built on the completed foundation: Jesus Christ and His perfect accomplished redemption.
Paul’s warning is directed primarily to ministers of the gospel (note vs. 5-10). The apostle speaks of a real reward for enduring work. But what distinguishes work that endures from work that does not endure? Paul likely refers to work that is based on human wisdom rather than God’s word as work that is burned up. “It is unfortunately possible for people to attempt to build the church out of every imaginable human system predicated on merely worldly wisdom, be it philosophy, ‘pop’ psychology, managerial techniques, relational ‘good feelings,’”[105] entertainment, charismania, church growth gimmicks, and so on. Many people who have been seduced by the world’s wisdom, however, are genuine believers. But on the day of judgment their work will be exposed for what it really is: merely human, vain, and useless. Their work does not endure for it was worthless; yet they are saved.
Paul
teaches that when Christians go before the judgment seat of Christ there is no
possibility of going to hell; there is only the possibility of one’s works
being destroyed. Judgment according to works for the believer does not indicate
an alternative way of salvation beside justification by faith alone. It
completely refutes the idea that one’s own works or covenant faithfulness have
a role to play in “final justification.” Paul’s aim in the passages which speak
of judgment according to works is to spur Christians to a greater sanctification; to a greater diligence
in serving Christ. The same God who justifies the ungodly also sets the
judgment seat of Christ before believers as a motivation for obedience. Paul’s
teaching is very different than the
But
doesn’t Jesus say that all professing Christians who practice lawlessness will
be cast into hell on the day of judgment (Mt.
(19)
The
Norman
Shepherd argues that the problem with the Galatians was not that they were
adding works to Christ but that they were adding works of the flesh. In the
(d)
Both systems define justifying faith as something much broader than an instrument
which lays hold of Christ. The
Those who are creating a new “Reformed” doctrine of
justification have gone back, whether they know it or not, to the old medieval
doctrine of “faith formed by love.” The medievals and
The medieval church taught that God could not declare
a man to be just unless he was actually, personally, morally just. In this view
we are said to be justified because we are sanctified and sanctified by the
infusion of grace received in the sacraments. They spoke of “initial
justification” received in baptism and “final justification” received after
purgatory. This doctrine of progressive justification meant that no one could
be certain of his justification, because he was never fully sanctified. In
fact, it was considered sinful arrogance to claim to know, apart from special
revelation, that one was indeed right with God.[110]
Stefan Lindblad’s comments on the nature of a faith that justifies are excellent. He writes: “Justifying faith is inseparable from the other graces of salvation, and yet faith is the alone instrument of justification. There is no other way, no other instrument whereby a sinner receives Christ for justification. Repentance does not justify. Our good works do not justify. Our obedience does not justify….God declares a sinner righteous by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone. The church must gain a renewed appreciation and affection for this truth. For here is heart of the gospel. If we lose it, or worse, renounce it, then we will bring ruin to our churches and destruction to our own souls.”[111]
A
parallel comparison between the
|
Roman Catholicism/Auburn Doctrine |
Biblical View (Protestantism) |
|
Justification comes at the end of a very long process. For
Romanists God accepts men after they become personally holy and (in most
cases) are further purified in purgatory. For the |
Justification occurs in an instant of time the moment a sinner
lays hold of Christ by faith. It is an instantaneous act of God. It is whole,
never repeated, eternal and perfect, not piecemeal or gradual. (Jn. 5:25; Lk. |
|
Faith and works are the basis for justification. Romanists teach
that men are saved by faith and the good works that flow from faith. The |
Faith in Christ alone apart from anything we do is the basis for justification. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9; see Ac. 13:39; Rom. 3:20-24, 28; 4:3-8; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:8-9; etc). |
|
Justification is a cooperative effort between God and man (synergism).
Romanists teach that church members must cooperate with inward grace until
justification is achieved. The |
Sinners are saved solely because of what God has done in Christ.
“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus” (Rom. |
|
The ground of justification is the death of Christ and good works.
Romanism combines the merits of Christ with inward holiness or justification
and sanctification for justification. The |
The ground of justification is the sacrificial death of Christ and
His perfect righteousness. Jesus’ merits or perfect works are imputed to the
believing sinner. “Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for
righteousness. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but
as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the
ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness….God imputes righteousness
apart from works ( |
|
According to the |
According to Reformed
Protestantism, Jesus as the second Adam and the head of the covenant perfectly
fulfills all of the terms of the covenant in our place. Christ satisfied the
justice of His Father by His death; fulfilled the covenant of works and
perfectly obeyed God’s law in exhaustive detail. Therefore, He not only
pardoned our sins but also by His perfect and perpetual obedience merited
eternal life (or “eschatological life” as Lusk puts it). The Son of God does
not leave us where Adam was in the garden before the fall but secures for us
glorification. The good works and obedience of believers are the fruit of
saving faith. They always accompany justification but never contribute to it
(see Jn. 17; Gal. 4:4; Rom. |
Summary and Conclusion
An
examination of the
|
The |
The Reformed Faith |
|
Covenant is relationship which is rooted in the relationship between the persons of the ontological trinity. |
Covenant is an agreement. The covenant of grace is rooted in the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis). |
|
Before the fall Adam was under a covenant of grace. |
Before the fall Adam was under a covenant of works. |
|
After the fall God requires a partial obedience to His law in order to be justified. This partial obedience is fulfilled by faithful Christians and results in final justification. |
After the fall God requires a perfect and perpetual obedience to His law in thought, word and deed in order to be justified. This perfect and perpetual obedience is fulfilled by Jesus Christ and is imputed to believing sinners. |
|
Jesus’ sinless life is only an example of faithfulness for His people to follow. |
Our Lord’s sinless life is not only an example but is also a fulfillment of the covenant of works that is necessary if a believing sinner is to be declared righteous before God. |
|
Christians are justified by faith and faithfulness (i.e. perseverance in personal obedience). |
Christians are justified by faith alone apart from the works of the law. |
|
Faith and obedience are necessary to obtain final justification. Faith is introspective. It is divided between Christ and the believer’s faithfulness. Obedience is a co-instrument of justification. |
Faith is the sole instrument which lays hold of Christ and His accomplished redemption. Faith is extraspective. Obedience is a fruit of justification. |
|
Faith and obedience are the same thing. Faith is complex and includes the fruits of faith. |
Obedience flows from true faith and is distinguishable from it. Faith is simple. |
|
Good works or covenantal faithfulness has an important role to play in a believer’s final justification. |
The good works of believers are tainted with sin, are non-meritorious and only demonstrate the reality of saving faith. |
|
Paul’s condemnation of the works of the law in relation to justification concerns only the ceremonial laws or Jewish identity markers which exclude Gentiles from the covenant. |
Paul’s condemnation of the works of the law in relation to justification refers to the whole law: ceremonial and moral. The traditional Protestant law/gospel antithesis stands. |
|
Justification refers only to the pardon of sins and not the imputation of Jesus’ active [or preceptive] obedience. Pardon is supplemented by covenant faithfulness which results in final justification. |
Justification involves the imputation of the believing sinner’s guilt and liability of punishment to Christ on the cross and our Lord’s perfect righteousness to the believer. The good works or covenant faithfulness of the Christian has nothing to do with justification. |
|
If a person does not continue in obedience the justification received when baptized is removed and the apostate person loses his salvation. |
Because a Christian’s
justification is achieved solely by Christ it can never be lost. People who
apostatize never had saving faith and were never justified to begin with (1 Jn. |
|
Sanctification if faithfully continued leads to final justification. The process which leads to justification is synergistic. |
The moment a person is justified, the life-long process of sanctification begins. The justification of sinners is monergistic. |
|
The covenant of grace includes conditions. One condition is faithful obedience or good works. The personal righteousness, obedience or good works of believers has salvific “value” (i.e. merit) before God. |
The covenant of grace has only one condition which is faith. This faith is a gift. It is instrumental and non-meritorious. It merely grasps the person and work of Christ. |
|
Since faith and obedience are the same thing and we receive glorified life in the same manner as Adam before the fall, the covenant of grace is a watered down covenant of works (i.e. a partial obedience is now required for final justification). |
The covenant of grace is radically different from the covenant of works because Christ the second Adam fulfills the terms of the covenant in our place. People who are under the guilt and power of sin cannot achieve or even contribute to their own justification. |
Why don’t more
people see that Shepherd and his followers have abandoned the gospel of Christ
for another gospel? One reason is that the
Copyright 2004 © Brian Schwertley,
Home Free Downloads Books to Buy
[1]
Although the exact origins of the doctrines peculiar to the
[2] For example, in his lecture “What Does God Require?” Steve Schlissel says, “A covenant is a relationship.” Also, Doug Wilson writes: “A covenant is a relationship between two parties…a relation between persons” (Credenda/Agenda, Vol. 15, No. 1).
[3]
Karl Rahner, The
Trinity, trans. Joseph Danceel (New York:
Crossroad, [1970] 1997) as quoted by Richard Phillips, Covenant Confusion: Seminar Address for the Philadelphia Conference on
Reformation Theology (March-April 2004). Rahner
is popular with
[4]
[5]
[6] O.
Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the
Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 6. “The
closeness of relationship between oath and covenant emphasizes that a covenant
in its essence is a bond. By the covenant, persons become committed to one
another….An interpersonal commitment which may be guaranteed has come into
effect by way of the covenantal bond” (Ibid, 7). Richard D. Phillips has
written an excellent biblical analysis of the
“As Smith proceeds from this thesis, he seems to be aware of the tri-theistic leanings of his argument. Thus he tires to temper it by advancing perichoreisis, that is, mutual indwelling, as the basis of Trinitarian union—in which case there is no need for covenant as the basis of union. Later still, he tries to distinguish covenantal union from ontological union, noting vaguely that ‘in God covenant and ontology intersect or share common ground.’ But the damage is done: if the three divine persons of the Trinity have an ontological union of essence—one based on a shared being and mutual indwelling—then it is hard to see how one being is joined together by covenant, unless we totally redefine the meaning of the word covenant, which is the whole point of Smith’s exercise.”
“The only way for Smith to sustain any idea of an inner-Trinitarian covenant is simply to assume a different definition for covenant. Indeed, here is the function of Smith’s argument, to redefine covenant so that it no longer is understood to mean a pact or agreement but simply as a form of relationship and life. Covenant is no longer the way God brings us into a saving relationship, but it is that to which God saves us, defined vaguely as a union in love.” (Covenant Confusion, 2004)
[7] John Murray, “Covenant Theology” in Collected Writings of John Murray (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1982), 4:216-217.
[8]
Rich Lusk, “A Response to ‘The Biblical Plan of Salvation’” in E. Calvin Beisner, The
“In fact, if we understand that the Triune God himself is the archetype of the covenant, we see that Adam must have existed in loving fellowship with his with his Creator from the beginning. The Trinity, not Ancient Near Eastern suzerain treaties, must define our view of the covenant. Several theologians have recently argued that Father, Son, and Spirit are related covenantally not just in the economy of creation and redemption, but ontologically and eternally as well. But if this original covenant was a non-meritorious relation of love and favor, the first manifestation of that covenant in the creation must have been as well. The covenant within the Trinity is the model for extra-Trinitarian covenants. Or, better, the covenant with creation is God’s way of bringing man into the covenantal fellowship and life of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The creation covenant is just the loving outreach and overflow of the inter-Trinitarian covenant.” (emphasis added, Ibid, 122)
[9] Ibid, 123.
[10]
There is a strong similarity between the
[11] Lusk,125.
[12]
“Reason and Specifications Supporting the Action of the Board of Trustees in
Removing Professor Shepherd: Approved by the Executive Committee of the Board,
[13]
Norman Shepherd, “Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith,
Repentance, and Good Works,” presented to the Philadelphia Presbytery of the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
[14] James D. G. Dunn and Alan M. Suggate, The Justice of God: A Fresh Look at the Old Doctrine of Justification by Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1993] 1994), 25, 28.
[15] Lusk, 130, 132, 133.
[16] These questions are answered to a degree in Brian M. Schwertley, Christ’s Warning Against False Teachers, available at http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/False%20Teachers.htm.
[17]
Peter J. Leithart, “Trinitarian Anthropology: Toward
a Trinitarian Re-casting of Reformed Theology” in E. Calvin Beisner,
ed., The
[18]
The
[19] Note how, according to Norman Shepherd, believers maintain their justification by doing good works. He writes: “Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments…are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God …are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification. (Thirty-Four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance and Good Works, Thesis 23 [Presented to the Presbytery of Philadelphia of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Nov. 18, 1978])
[20]
According to Norman Shepherd, justification occurs at the end of one’s life. It
is based in part on man’s personal obedience. He writes: “There are those who
do repent. When they repent they cease being evildoers…They begin to fulfill
the law through love…They become faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ…by
way of repentance men become doers of the law who will be justified and enter into eternal life.” (“The Grace of
Justification,” Taped Lecture from
[21]
The covenant of works is defined above under number 2. Johannes G. Vos reminds us why an understanding of the covenant with
Adam is so crucial. He writes: “Why is this doctrine of the covenant of works
very important to us as Christians? Because it is parallel to the way of
salvation through Jesus Christ. Just as the first Adam brought sin and death,
so Christ, the second Adam, brings us righteousness and eternal life. Adam was
our representative in the covenant of works; Jesus Christ is our representative
in the covenant of grace. Those who reject the doctrine of the covenant of
works have no right to claim the blessings of the covenant of grace, for the
two are parallel, and stand or fall together, as is proved by Romans 5.” (The
[22] Lusk, 121.
[23] Ibid, 122-123. Lusk engages in classic straw-man argumentation. Reformed theologians have never argued that Adam deserved to be created, or did not have favor with God. The central issue is: What did God require of Adam to gain glorified life? What did Adam have to do to be placed in a position by God where falling into sin was no longer possible and Adam and his posterity would have glorified eternal life?
[24] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 1:574.
[25] Lusk, 125.
[26] Lusk, 123.
[27] Lusk writes: “…the law did not require perfect obedience. It was designed for sinners, not unfallen creatures. Thus, the basic requirement of the law was covenant loyalty and trust, not sinless perfection….Moses was right: this law was not too hard to keep, for it was a law of faith (Deuteronomy 30:11; cf. Romans 10:1-12 (p. 128).” Although the law may be easy for Lusk to keep, Paul says: “There is none righteous, no, not one….for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:3, 23). David says, “If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand” (Ps. 130:3)? “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous” (Ps. 143:2).
[28] Ibid, 146.
[29] See Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (New York: Collins World, 1978), 1127.
[30]
While the
[31] The Hebrew word for Adam can be translated as “man” instead of the proper noun “Adam.” Such a translation, however, has the prophet saying “you are covenant breakers just like other men who also are covenant breakers.” Such a statement is obvious and doesn’t really say much. Adam’s transgression on the other hand was noteworthy in that: (a) he had a loving relationship with God; (b) God had treated Adam with love and kindness; and, (c) like Israel Adam sinned against explicit direct revelation.
[32]
Francis Turretin, Institutes
of Elenctic Theology, 2:637. The
The moment
that justifying faith is divided between Christ and our own covenantal
obedience, is the same moment that salvation by Christ alone is also divided.
If a person divides saving faith by directing it to both Christ and our own
good works or covenantal obedience, then the biblical doctrine of justification
is destroyed. One cannot assert Christ
alone without also teaching faith
alone. One cannot mix the perfect righteousness of Christ with our own
sin-tainted works without denying the gospel. The
[33] Lusk, 145.
[34] Ibid, 146.
[35] Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, [1874] 1958), 101.
[36]John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1:107.
[37] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 5, Assurance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1971] 1972), 3-4.
[38]
Note how James D. G. Dunn a leader of the “New Perspective on Paul” movement
(Dunn has strongly influenced Shepherd and his disciples) attempts to
circumvent the clear meaning of Romans 5:1. He writes: “Too much weight should
not be put on the aorist tense at the beginning of
[39] Charles Hodge, Romans (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1972 [1835]), 225.
[40] Ibid,
[41] Ibid,
[42] John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 281.
[43] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 2:177-178.
[44] Ibid. Murray’s comments are helpful. He writes: “This polemic severity we do not find in the section with which we are now concerned in Romans. Here there is a tenderness and tolerance that reflect a radically different attitude. “But him that is weak in faith receive ye” (14:1). “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind” (14:5). Why this difference? The reason is clear. In Galatians Paul is dealing with the Judaizers who were perverting the gospel at its centre. They were the propagandists of a legalism which maintained that the observance of days and seasons was necessary to justification and acceptance with God. This meant a turning back again ‘to the weak and beggarly rudiments’ (Gal. 4:9); it was ‘a different gospel which is not another’, and worthy of the apostle’s anathemas (cf. Gal. 1:8,9). In Romans 14 there is no evidence that those esteeming one day above another were involved in any respect in this fatal error. They were not propagandists for a ceremonialism that was aimed at the heart of the gospel. Hence Paul’s tolerance and restraint.” (Ibid, 2:272-273)
[45]
Norman Shepherd, “Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith,
Repentance, and Good Works,” presented to the Philadelphia Presbytery of the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
[46] Ibid, Thesis 22.
[47] Ibid, Thesis 23.
[48] Ibid, Thesis 20.
[49]
Norman Shepherd, “The Grace of Justification,”
[50] Norman Shepherd, The New Testament Student and Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 74.
[51] David Van Drunen writes: “In his more recent work, Shepherd continues to speak of obedience and good works as part of faith itself. For example, he writes: ‘Faith is required, but faith looks away from personal merit to the promises of God. Repentance and obedience flow from faith as the fullness of faith. This is faithfulness, and faithfulness is perseverance in faith. A living, active, and abiding faith is the way in which the believer enters into eternal life.’ Following the train of thought here is not easy but the logic seems to be something like this: ‘repentance and obedience’ constitute the ‘fullness of faith;’ the ‘fullness of faith’ is ‘faithfulness;’ ‘faithfulness’ is ‘perseverance in faith’—all four of these terms or phrases are evidently identical. What then is the significance that Shepherd, in the very next sentence and without a hitch, again refers somewhat climatically to the saving necessity of a ‘living, active, and abiding faith?’ The obvious implication is that this ‘living, active, and abiding faith’ is what is meant by the ‘fullness of faith,’ which in turn implies that faithfulness, perseverance, and repentance and obedience, then, the very things that Reformed theology has so carefully distinguished from faith, become aspects of faith in the end.” (“Justification by Faith in the Theology of Norman Shepherd” in The New Southern Presbyterian Review, Fall 2002, 1:2, 80)
[52]
The Westminster Confession says that
God accepts “their person as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or
done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone” (11:1). “Faith, thus receiving and
resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of
justification” (11:2). The Shorter
Catechism reads: “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth
us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to
us, and received by faith alone” (33). The Larger
Catechism says that sinners are justified, “not for anything wrought in
them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction
of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone” (70)…”imputing
His righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their
justification but faith, which also is His gift…” (71). The Belgic Confession says that “God imputes righteousness to him without
works….without…any merit of ours, relying and resting upon the obedience of
Christ crucified alone” (art. 23). See the Second
Helvetic Confession 15:2,3,4 and the Canons of
[53] See Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 141 and F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 158.
[54]
R. C. H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of
[55]
William Hendriksen, Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967, 68), 1:126-127.
Ernest DeWitt Burton writes: “The unexpressed premise of the argument,
necessary to make this passage [Gal. 3:10b] prove the preceding proposition, is
that no one does, in fact, continue in all the things that are written in the
book of the law to do them” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Galatians [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980], 464). John Eadie writes: “They are under the penalty, according to the
apostle’s proof, not merely because they have broken, but because they are breaking,
the law. Their obedience is neither complete nor uniform. They are under the
curse, and the law cannot deliver them; for the function of law is to arraign,
convict, and punish. By it is “the knowledge of sin,” it shows their conduct to
be out of harmony with its requirements, and thus by its demonstration all the
world becomes guilty before God” (A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle
of Paul to the Galatians [Grand Rapids: Baker, (1869) 1979], 241). Huebner
writes: “If we will be saved by the law, we must do all, and must be able to
say, that we have never neglected any thing commanded, nor done any thing
forbidden. In brief, the matter stands thus: if we will merit salvation,
amazingly little will come of it, for our virtue is piece-work; against one or
two legal performances God can oppose ten transgressions” (as quoted in Otto Schmoller, The
Epistle of Paul to the Galatians [
[56] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 140.
[57] John R. W. Stott, Only One Way: The Message of Galatians (London: InterVarsity, 1968), 133-134.
[58]
Perhaps the best explanation as to why personal law-keeping or covenant faithfulness
can have nothing to do with our justification comes from the pen of Thomas
Boston. He writes: “1. Thy obedience must be perfect, in respect of the
principle of it; that is, thy soul, the principle of action, must be perfectly
pure, and altogether without sin. For the law requires all moral perfection;
not only actual, but habitual: and so condemns original sin; impurity of nature
as well as of actions. Now, if thou canst bring this to pass, thou shalt be able to answer that question of Solomon’s, so as
never one of Adam’s posterity could yet answer it, ‘Who can say, I have made my
heart clean?’ Prov. xx. 9. But if thou canst not, the
very want of this perfection is sin, and so lays thee open to the curse, and
cuts thee off from life. Yea, it makes all thine
actions, even thy best actions, sinful: ‘For who can bring a clean thing out of
an unclean?’ Job xiv. 4. And dost thou think by sin, to help thyself out of sin
and misery? 2. Thy obedience must also be perfect in parts. It must be as broad
as the whole law of God: if thou lackest one thing
thou art undone; for the law denounces the curse on him that continues not in
every thing written therein, Gal 3:10. Thou must give internal and external
obedience to the whole law; keep all the commands in heart and life. If thou breakest any one of them, that will ensure thy ruin. A vain
thought, or idle word, will still shut thee up under the curse. 3. It must be
perfect in respect of degrees; as was the obedience of Adam, while he stood in
his innocence. This the law requires, and will accept of no less, Matt. Xxii.
37, ‘thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’ If one degree of that
love, required by the law, be wanting; if each part of thy obedience be not
brought up to the greatest height commanded; that want is a breach of the law,
and so leaves then still under the curse. A man may bring as many buckets of
water to a house that is on fire, as he is able to carry; and yet it may be
consumed, and will be so, if he bring not as many as will quench the fire. Even
so, although thou shouldest do what thou art able, in
keeping the commands, if thou fail in the least degree of obedience, which the
law enjoins, thou art certainly ruined for ever; unless thou take hold of
Christ, renouncing all thy righteousness, as filthy rags. See
Now such is the obedience which thou must perform, if
thou wouldst recover thyself in the way of the law.” (Human Nature in Its Fourfold State [
[59] Philippians 3:9 is so clear in its rejection of the whole “New Perspective” paradigm, how can N. T. Wright and his comrades possibly explain it? They cannot fit this passage into their system. Therefore, they must arbitrarily redefine it. Note how Wright interprets Philippians 3:9. He writes: “Paul is saying, in effect, ‘I, though possessing covenant membership according to the flesh, did not regard that covenant membership as something to exploit. I emptied myself, sharing the death of the Messiah, wherefore God has given me membership that really counts in which I to share the glory of Christ’” (What Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 124). Wright translates the word “righteous” (dikaiosune) as “covenant membership” even though not one lexicon exists in the whole world (whether dealing with classical or koine Greek) that has “covenant membership” as a possible meaning of dikaiosune. Wright so strongly rejects the biblical doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ that he must arbitrarily impose his own meaning on passages which speak of it. Wright is wrong, dead wrong.
[60] “…if the complex of other graces really is part of the means of justification, then the evangelist in proclaiming the gospel must demand that these graces be present in the one coming to God for justification. Shepherd might as well say that God only saves people who are already good (While he would never actually say that, his theology requires it). I am very glad that when I was in my sin without Christ that I was not exposed to such a parody of the gospel.” (David H. Linden, with Robert L. Reymond, “Norman Shepherd’s ‘Faith Alone’” in Mark D. Anthony, Sr. ed., The New Southern Presbyterian Review [Cumming, GA: Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Fall 2002], 64-65)
[61] Jac. C. Muller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 114-115.
[62]
John Calvin, Commentary of Paul to the
Philippians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 97-98.
[63]
R.C.H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg [1946]
1961), 872. Horatius Bonar in his sermon, “Christ our
High Priest, Bearing the Iniquity of our Holy Things,” points out why even our
best works, our acts of direct devotion to God are tainted with sin and thus
cannot have anything to do with our justification before God . He writes: “But,
then, in the very act of offering these sacrifices there was sin. When the
sinner brought the lamb or the goat to the altar, there was sin committed in
the very act of bringing it. There was, for instance, the imperfect conviction
of the sin confessed—the want of a deep sense of the holiness of that God
against whom the transgression had been committed, and of the purity of that
law which had been broken. There was the coldness, the irreverence, the
deadness, the wandering, the many impure motives that mingled with the act of
service. There was the defective realization of Divine things—the want of due
solemnity—perhaps, too, the grudging of the animal offered up. These, and many
similar shortcomings and sins in the way of bringing the sacrifice, could not
fail to make the Israelite feel that iniquity was spread over all his holy
things, and must be removed before they could be accepted. The thought, too,
that God saw in him far deeper sin than he himself understood or imagined, must
have led him to ask, how the sin of his holy things was to be forgiven? If,
indeed, when he came to the altar of God he could have come with a perfect
heart, without a wandering thought or impure desire, then he might be content
with the sacrifice itself which he presented. But when he was conscious that in
every part of his holy service he was sinning still, the anxious inquiry could
but be prompted, ‘How are the sins of my holy things to be put away?’” (
[64]
Lusk, 146. If one is tempted to think that the opponents of the
[65] Alfred Nevin, Popular Commentary on the Gospel to Luke (Philadelphia, PA: William Flint, 1868), 594.
[66] “Faithfulness is required of us as covenant people; it is not required for justification. It is sad to see a theologian with Shepherd’s gifts mired in this quicksand. The more he defends this position the more he sinks. The answer is simple: we should take all our obedience and good works and flee from them to Christ alone for all hope of justification. Let us have no eye on our moral improvement whatsoever, for when the eye is fixed only on Christ, it is then that we believe in Him and repent. God will justify every such sinner for Christ’s sake. Whether we realize it or not, He will then begin the vast sanctifying improvements that continue all of this life. Shepherd has a different gospel. His covenantal moralism excludes him from the pale of reformed orthodoxy and from the pale of sound evangelicalism as well. His doctrine is heresy.” (David H. Linden, with Robert L. Reymond, “Norman Shepherd’s ‘Faith Alone’” in Mark D. Anthony, Sr. Ed., The New Southern Presbyterian Review [Cumming, GA: Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Fall 2002], 73)
[67] Lusk writes: “We have already seen that had Adam obeyed perfectly, God would have eventually given him the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This tree would have represented the bestowal of kingly office and glory upon Adam. It would have meant a promotion from earthly dominion to heavenly…” (“A Response to ‘The Biblical Plan of Salvation’” in The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons, 139 emphasis added)
[68] Lusk writes: “We know that faithfulness—or, faith filled obedience—was the basic requirement for Adam….the stance of faith [Lusk defines faith as “faithfulness—or, faith filled obedience”] as the basic requirement remains unchanged from one phase of history [i.e. before the fall] of history to the next [i.e. after the fall]…” (“A Response to ‘The Biblical Plan of Salvation,’” 124-125)
[69]
Richard D. Phillips, “Covenant Confusion,” Seminar Address for the
[70]
Gordon Clark, What Do Presbyterians
Believe? The
[71]
Gordon Clark writes: “The Arminians, even though they
were born Protestants, broke away from the Lutheran and Calvinistic teaching
and took one or more steps backward toward
[72]“…Baxter
accepted that the righteousness of Christ was imputed to the believer, he did
not regard it as the ground of justification. It merely secured a modification
of the terms of the divine covenant, so that whereas in the past God required
perfect obedience now he requires only evangelical obedience (faith and
repentance): ‘The Day of Judgement is not to try and
judge Jesus Christ or his merits, but us: He will judge us himself by his new
Law or Covenant, the sum of which is, Except ye repent, ye shall all perish:
and, He that believeth shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be
condemned’ (31). All the Scottish treatments are profoundly critical. Baxterism, they said, was nothing but the old Socinianism; it turned the covenant of grace into a new
covenant of works; it proposed something in ourselves (a personal
righteousness) as the ground of justification; it meant that we are justified
by an imperfect righteousness; it overturned the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness; it confused what is required for salvation with what is required
merely for justification; and it placed the sinner in a hopeless position:
‘Thus this poor convinced sinner, pursued by justice for a broken law, is called
to lean his whole weight of acceptance with God , and found all his hope of
pardon and justification, upon his own faith, or gospel righteousness, as the
only righteousness wherewith he is to be covered and the only righteousness
which is to be imputed to him’ (Brown, 332).” (D. Macloed,
“Justification” in org. ed., Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology [Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1993], 449-450) There are striking
similarities between the
[73] Lusk, 127-128.
[74] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:34-35.
[75]
G. C. Berkouwer, Studies
in Dogmatics: Faith and Justification (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 88. Reformed Orthodoxy has
always fought against Arminianism, neo-nomianism and all other forms of neo-legalism which makes
faith, the works of faith or evangelical obedience a condition of
justification. The
[76] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 130-131.
[77] Lusk writes, “I do not think he has substantiated his claim that James 2 uses ‘justification’ in a demonstrative rather than a declarative sense” (“Response to Smith,” 146).
[78]
Doug Wilson writes: “But it may still be argued that we ought not to say things
like “faith is obedience” without qualification because people will grossly
misunderstand.” (“
[79]
Steven M. Schlissel, “A New Way of Seeing?” in Debating the Federal Vision, 22, 24. Schlissel engages in the fallacy of black and white. He
speaks as if the only alternative to “easy believism”
or antinomianism is the
[80] It is somewhat ironic that various Auburn Avenue teachers are fond of mocking people for adhering to the standard Protestant interpretation of James, of accusing such people of forcing James into their system, of allowing systematic theology to dictate their exegesis and so on; because it is the Auburn interpretation that ignores what James is doing and forces James into their faith-works scheme of justification. They must do this because James, just as much as Paul, rejects their system. If as James teaches, good works are the evidence or fruit of justifying faith then we must make a distinction between: faith and works, trust and obedience, gospel and law, justification and sanctification. While it is true that these things always accompany each other in the person who is saved, they clearly are not the same thing.
[81] James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1867] 1977), 249.
[82] J. P. Lange and J. J. Van Oosterzee, The Epistle General of James (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 82.
[83] James B. Adamson, James: The Man and His Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 288.
[84] Thomas Manton, A Commentary on James (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962 [1693]), 264.
[85] Ralph P. Martin, James (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 81
[86] Thomas W. Leahy, “The Epistle of James” in ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy. The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 2:373.
[87] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 22:312-313.
[88] Thomas Manton, James (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1962 [1693]), 240.
[89] Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 91.
[90] J. P. Lange and J. J. Van Oosterzee, The Epistle General of James, 88.
[91]
What is somewhat perplexing regarding the whole
The
Reformed position is that saving faith is always accompanied by all the other
saving graces. The faith which justifies the sinner is never alone. It is not a
bare “intellectual assent.” Some of the reasons why believers must be holy are:
(a) God is holy and thus commands us to be holy (Lev. 11:44-45; 1 Pet.
1:15-16). (b) Christians believe in and rest upon the whole Christ who is both
Savior and Lord (
Scriptures teach that professing believers who habitually engage in wicked
behavior are not Christians (1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9-11; 1 Jn. 2:3-4;
3:4,6,9; Ja. 2:20; Mt. 7:21). (g) The Bible teaches
that everyone who is justified is also regenerated and sanctified (
Ironically,
the sacramentalism of the
[92]Tertullian as quoted in J. P. Lange and J. J. Van Oosterzee, The Epistle of James, 89.
[93] Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John, 101.
[94] Thomas Manton, James, 269-270.
[95] G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Faith and Justification (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 137.
[96] Thomas Manton, James, 245.
[97] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 3:588.
[98] Robert Johnson, James, 201.
[99] Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1963 [1685]), 3:887. Some commentators say that faith produces good works, which also in turn stimulates faith. By this they do not mean that works add anything of their own to faith by that faith in action (like a muscle that exercises) maintains it own natural vigor. Stier writes, “James by no means affirms that works give life to, produce or create faith; for faith comes by the power of the word [applied to the Holy Spirit], entering into and received by us and nothing else. But faith grows complete in works, that is the same as Paul’s saying or rather the Lord’s saying to Paul, that the strength of God may be completed in weakness (2 Cor. xii.9). The strength of faith, indwelling from the beginning and already received along with the first seizing of grace, becomes fully proved, verified, and its operation completed. Thus our calling and election are made sure in the diligence of living and doing (2 Pet.i.10). Thus Abraham’s first call was made sure in his last works and the word concerning justification by (out of) faith already before accorded to him, was lawfully and actually confirmed as a truth.” (Rudolph Stier, The Epistle of St. James [Minneapolis, MN: Kluckslock, (1871) 1982], 356-357)
[100] Thomas Manton, James, 256.
[101] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1994), 2:110.
[102] G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 136. Berkouwer quotes J. H. Ropes, “The Epistle of St. James,” in The International Critical Commentary, 1916, 220.
[103] Martin Luther, a new translation by J. Theodore Mueller, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Kreigel, 1976), xvii.
[104] Lusk, 138.
[105] Gordon D. Fee, First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 145.
[106] Some people may appeal to the description of the final judgment in Matthew 25:31-46 as evidence of a final justification based on covenant faithfulness or personal obedience. Such a view is contrary to Scripture for a number of reasons. First, the description of the Son of Man coming to judge the nations follows two parables that deal with the necessity of readiness and faithfulness. These parables do not teach that there is a direct connection between our covenantal obedience and justification. They rather contrast hypocrites who were never saved to begin with (i.e. false professors) with genuine believers. The bridegroom tells the foolish virgins, “I do not know you” (Mt. 25:12). The unprofitable servant is described as “him who does not have” (Mt. 25:29). Second, if Jesus is teaching that people who are generous and open-handed will be justified then He is asserting salvation by works; then, people who go to heaven have a reason to boast throughout all eternity; then, Christ and Paul adhere to two contradictory positions on salvation. Third, our Lord is teaching that fruit reveals the root (cf. Mt. 7:16-23); that those people who minister to poor, persecuted Christians out of a love of Jesus demonstrate that they are the subjects of divine grace which sets them apart from unregenerate hypocrites. Fourth, the Bible never teaches that we are justified because we are personally righteous. It is one thing to say that people are justified because of covenantal faithfulness or good works and quite another to say that people who have been regenerated, justified and sanctified are those who enter into eternal life. The first position makes personal righteousness a co-ground or co-instrument of justification which is heretical, while the second merely asserts the biblical truth that everyone justified is also sanctified and glorified.
[107] According to papalism: “Justification means that man himself is made just—made pleasing to God in his own person….A devout Catholic may say: ‘Righteousness by faith means that I cannot save myself, but by faith I can receive God ’s transforming grace. His grace can change my heart, and by his grace in my heart I can be acceptable in His sight….’ The focal point of Catholic theology is God’s work of grace within human experience.” (Robert D. Brinsmead, “Justification by Faith and the Charismatic Movement,” in Present Truth, 1972, 19)
[108] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 2:110.
[109] John Gerstner, “The Nature of Justifying Faith,” in Don Kistler, ed., Justification by Faith Alone (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 109.
[110] R. Scott Clark, “The Danger of a Falling Church,” in The Outlook 50 (July/August 2001), 22.
[111]Stefan T. Linblad, “Justifying Faith and the Application of Salvation” in The Banner of Truth, issue 479-480, Aug.-Sep. 2003, 20.
[112]“In Shepherd’s scheme a person’s justification is going to take time. He never indicates that it will take time for God because he does call it correctly a forensic act. (When we say forensic, we indicate that God as judge makes a judicial decision.) If God is making a judicial statement about our conduct before His all-seeing eye, we will never be justified ever! But if that verdict is based on someone else’s perfect righteousness, justification needs no time for us to catch up with covenant faithfulness. However, if we insist on including some of our holiness, then it will need time to develop and show itself as the real thing. Shepherd’s idea of justification takes time.” (David H. Linden, with Robert L. Reymond, “Norman Shepherd’s ‘Faith Alone’” in Mark D. Anthony, Sr. ed., The New Southern Presbyterian Review [Cuming, GA: Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Fall 2002], 73)
[113] Charles Hodge writes: “To whom God imputeth righteousness without works, that is, whom God regards and treats as righteous, although he is not in himself righteous. The meaning of this clause cannot be mistaken. ‘to impute sin,’ is to lay sin to the charge of any one, and to treat him accordingly, as is universally admitted; so ‘to impute righteousness,’ is to set righteousness to one’s account, and to treat him accordingly. This righteousness does not, of course, belong antecedently [i.e. going before in time] to those to whom it is imputed. For they are ungodly, and destitute of works. Here then is an imputation to men of what does not belong to them, and to which they have in themselves no claim. To impute righteousness is the apostle’s definition of the term to justify. It is not making men inherently righteous, or morally pure, but it is regarding and treating them as just. This is done, not on the ground of personal character or works, but on the ground of the righteousness of Christ. As this is dealing with men, not according to merit, but in a gracious manner, the passage cited from Ps. Xxxii. 1,2, is precisely in point: ‘Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.’ That is, blessed is the man who, although a sinner, is regarded and treated as righteous.” (Romans [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, (1835) 1989], 115)
[114] Leiden Synopsis (xxxiii, i) and Walarius p. 746 in Heinrich Heppe, Ernst Bizer, ed., Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1950] 1978), 543.
[115] The Auburn Avenue theological system with its blatant internal contradictions, new and confusing use of terms, ambiguous statements, frequent use of equivocation, hostility to systematic theology and creative methods of exegesis and theologizing reminds us of the techniques of Dr. John Henry Newman (a nineteenth century minister in the Church of England who converted to Roman Catholicism and became a priest) whose Lectures on Justification (second edition, 1840) baffled his critics with contradictory and confusing statements. James Buchanan describes the difficulties that Newman’s system presented to orthodox scholars. He writes: “Many other points in the theory of Dr. Newman might have claimed our attention, but those which have been specified are sufficient to illustrate its general character. The difficulty which one feels in dealing with it, arises not so much from the strength of his arguments, as from the subtle and intricate terms in which they are expressed,--from the frequent occurrence of paradoxical, or contradictory, statements,-- and what Lord Jeffrey called a sort of ‘wriggling lubricity,’ which makes them elude our grasp, the more firmly we attempt to hold them. ‘The least evil of Mr. Newman’s system,’ says Mr. Faber, ‘is, that it is a tissue of contradictions and inconsistencies;’ and he specifies some of them, such as the following: ‘We are justified by faith; we are justified by obedience; we are justified by baptism; we are justified conjointly by the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Our Justification precedes our faith, and our faith precedes our Justification. The word Justification cannot bear two meanings, yet it clearly does bear two meanings, to wit, the accounting righteous, and the making righteous. There is but one act of Justification, nevertheless there are ten thousand Justifications.’ But these are not its worst features; it is an elaborate attempt to overthrow the Protestant doctrine of Justification, and to undermine the only ground of a sinner’s acceptance with God. As such it has been characterized in strong terms by Mr. Bennett, when he says that, since the Council of Trent, ‘perhaps there never has been a book published, at least among Protestants, more full of insidious, but determined, opposition to the Lord Jesus Christ as our righteousness. Contradiction, obscurity, mystification,…monkish gloom, and schismatic profession of dissent from Protestants and from Romanists,--all are brought into the field, to bear against the only righteousness in which a sinner can stand before God.’” (The Doctrine of Justification, [Grand Rapids: Baker (1867) 1977], 215-216) Buchanan quotes from Stanley Faber, (Primitive Doctrine of Justification as Revealed in Scripture, in Opposition to the Council of Trent, and Mr. Newman’s Lectures, [1840], 363).