The Larger Catechism

Question 71

71.       Q. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?

A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified;[291] yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son,[292] imputing his righteousness to them,[293] and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith,[294] which also is his gift,[295] their justification is to them of free grace.[296]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[291] Romans 5:8-10, 19. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life…. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. [292] 1 Timothy 2:5-6. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Hebrews 10:10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Matthew 20:28. Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Daniel 9:24, 26. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy…. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. Isaiah 53:4-6, 10-12. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all…. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Hebrews 7:22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. Romans 8:32. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 1 Peter 1:18-19. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. [293] 2 Corinthians 5:21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. [294] Romans 3:24-25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. [295] Ephesians 2:8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. [296] Ephesians 1:17. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.

Introduction

The previous question emphatically stated that justification is an act of God’s free grace and this question explains exactly how it can be. This question may appear to be unnecessary. But this important question is more perceptive than one might imagine. The Protestant doctrine of justification by faith underwent great scrutiny due to its strong legal (and biblical) definition. That is, since justification means a person is declared innocent and righteous, then wherein lies the grace? If the payment has been paid, then justification is an act of justice and not one of grace. That is, if satisfaction was required, then justification cannot be a gracious act but one that is legally required. In order for justification to be gracious, some of have maintained, atonement cannot satisfy divine justice. (see my paper “Arminianism Exposed”) Vos framed the question in this helpful way: “Why does it seem contradictory to say that justification is an act of God’s free grace?” He answers, “It seems contradictory to make this statement, because our justification was purchased by the payment of a price; if purchased and paid for, then how can t be at the same time a free gift? This is the problem that this question of the catechism explains.”[1]

Grace and Justice

The LC offers the following subordinate clause, “Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified…” The following verses support the point: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life…. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Romans 5:8-10, 19)

Paul clearly teaches that we are “justified by his blood” (5:9, e˙n twˆ◊ aiºmati aujtouv) which is Paul’s short hand for what he said in 3:24, 25, “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood (e˙n twˆ◊ aujtouv aiºmati).”[2] Justification assumes the blood shedding that propitiated God. As the LC states, Christ “did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified.” Those who are justified are justified on the basis of Christ’s shed blood. His death satisfied divine justice.[3]

The point behind this subordinate clause is to underscore the fact that free grace in justification does not mean God’s divine justice had been overlooked. Grace and justice are not mutually exclusive in God’s dealings with us through His Son. The gracious act of justification is founded on Christ’s real and full satisfaction. Note the words — “proper, real, and full satisfaction.” It was “proper” or the appropriate and necessary satisfaction. The satisfaction was not contrived or remotely sufficient— it was the proper satisfaction. The adjective “real” denotes its genuine nature. The satisfaction was neither a façade nor a fairy tale. The satisfaction was not a meaningful “narrative” but a real divine satisfaction. In was also full, not partial, incomplete, provisional, etc. His death fully satisfied divine justice. This clause serves as the basis for answering how justification is gracious. Vos says that the “sinner cannot be justified unless God’s justice has first been satisfied” (155).

Grace and Surety

We are do not ordinarily use the word “surety” in our day. It means guarantor, a sponsor, a pledge, a bond, etc. So the LC states: “yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son.” The answer states that God accepts the satisfaction from a “surety” — from someone else, from a sponsor who guarantees the debt owed. In this case, Jesus guarantees that the debt will be paid; he satisfies that debt through His death. Various verses are offered to support this point (1Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 10:10; Mt. 20:28; Dan. 9:24-26; Is. 53:4-6, 10-12; Heb. 7:22; Rom. 8:32; 1Pet. 1:18-19, see above for the actual verses).

The grace comes in the fact that God both sends the Son (Jn. 3:16) and accepts His ransom as the basis for satisfying His divine justice — “the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his stripes we are healed” (Is. 53:5).[4] Who brought this come about? Who made this happen? The Messiah was “smitten of God [My™IhølTa]” (Is. 53:4); it pleased the Lord to bruise him (Is. 53:10) because “the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand” (Is. 53:10). God’s will was to smite and bruise His Son so that His [God the Father, h™Dwh◊y] purpose would prosper.

The catechism notes that God “might have demanded of them,” that is, God could have required that we personally satisfy divine justice. God could have demanded that we pay for our own sins. In His love, wisdom, and holiness, He provided someone who would be our guarantor. Vos says, “Salvation is free to sinners, but it cost the precious blood of Christ to make it free for us.” (155)

Couldn’t God have simply overlooked our sins and forgive? Could He not by fiat declare that we are just? Who could argue against Him? God cannot deny Himself — He cannot clear the guilty (Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18; Nah. 1:3). Wisdom has contrived a way to meet His just demands — He would have it paid by the death of His Son; Jesus would pay the ransom for our sins (1Tim. 2:5-6). The surety was God’s idea. He can be just and the justifier (Rom. 3:26). Because God provided the surety, it is His act of grace.

Grace and Righteousness

The catechism further states the following regarding God’s Son whom the Father sent: “imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.” All these elements are further demonstrations of God’s grace. The first one is imputation. In providing the surety, God in turn also imputed His Son’s righteousness to our account (see our study of LC #70 for what imputation means). This imputation is God’s free gift to us! Remember, Rom. 3:24-25 states that we are justified by his grace; justification by definition means imputation. Another element of grace in justification is that it comes to us by faith. We do not earn this righteousness, it is received by faith (more on this in the next LC question). This faith is itself a gift (Eph. 2:8). God enables us to believe. All of these element point to God’s grace.

The Gift of Justification

At its heart, justification is the gracious act of God. The Bible speaks of it in several ways,  “Justification is by grace (3:24), by faith (3:28), and connected with the resurrection (4:25); it is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:11), in the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11), in Christ (Gal. 2:17), and here it is by his blood. ³⁰ These are all facets of God’s great saving act, and the various ways of expressing it center impressively on the truth that it is all of God (8:33).”[5] Justification is something God does and His act of declaring that we are innocent, forgiven, righteous, no longer under condemnation, etc. is an act of His free grace!

Excursus[1]

Having dealt with the Reformed view of justification by faith alone, we also need to address the matter of Paul and James. I believe there is a solution to the following —

A. Paul’s statement: “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28, lit. translation—  λογιζόμεθα ⸀γὰρ ⸂δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει⸃ ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου)

B. James’s statement: “justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (2:24, ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον)

Johnson says, “It is obvious to every reader that James is saying something different from what Paul said. The question is, How different?”[2] We believe the two are very different. The solution lies in clarifying four different and significant issues surrounding this debate.[3] Once we recognize them, the “problem” disappears, not because of some slight of hand or some sneaky word play but because the issues that James and Paul were pursuing were entirely different. Even the highly liberal scholar Kummel sees a way through this difficulty by recognizing the different circumstances in James and Paul: he says, “If the distinctions in the terminology and the divergent polemical aims of Paul and James are taken into account appropriately, and if accordingly, between the two forms of theological statement a considerably larger area of commonality can be established…”[4] If we let the two respective inspired writers speak on their own terms and in their own contexts, then I believe we will find that a formal harmonization will not be necessary.

I believe the four areas in which James and Paul differed are the following:

1. Different historical situations

2. Different use of the word “faith”

3. Different use of the word “works”

4. Different use of the word “justification”

Of the four, the last item has been the traditional solution. In a sense, if the first three areas are proved, then the last point need not apply. One could argue that the word justification is used in the same way for Paul and James providing we understand the first three points. But I believe it can be shown that James was driving at a different point in his epistle (we’ll call it an “epistle” though there is debate as to its actual genre).

Different historical situations

It is obvious to many NT scholars that James and Paul are dealing with different sets of problems. They are not addressing the same circumstance and different questions were being answered. Paul was dealing with works righteousness while James was dealing with no righteousness. Paul was countering legalism while James was contending with antinomianism. Paul was destroying the notion of merit-righteousness while James was establishing the necessity of holiness. But this is no longer an accepted view. E.P. Sanders and James Dunn have argued that Paul was not writing a polemic against legalism. These two men have influenced new NT scholars. Dunn actually argues that Paul’s major concern was over the issue of Jewish nationalism and exclusivism.

In Rom. 10:3, Paul makes it clear that the Jews were “seeking to establish their own” righteousness and would not submit to the righteousness that comes from God. Romans 4:4-5 demonstrates that Paul was writing against those who trusted in their own works.[5] Paul did not want anyone to imagine that God justified on the basis of one’s works. Paul’s polemic in Romans (as well as in Galatians) was against those who believed that some performance of the law merited God’s approval. So Paul said that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

James, on the other hand, is dealing with something entirely different. Chapter two addresses those who show favoritism and he encourages adherence to the “royal law” (v. 8).  In verses 8-13, James encourages adherence to the moral law (notice, no reference to any ceremonial or ritual laws). He is encouraging obedience. When we come to vv. 14-26, James continues the same theme. “What good is it, my brothers…” is his question for this section. What benefit is it not to have “works” (obedience, evidential works)? The example he uses is critical to understanding his concern. He has already condemned favoritism and now he denounces the professing believer who neglects a brother in need. He is not arguing against works righteousness; he is condemning the absence of righteousness. Paul’s concern is soteriological while James is ethical. Paul is concerned with the way of salvation through faith in Christ while James is concerned with the way of life in salvation. Paul wrote against “works righteousness” while James combated a “lack of righteousness.”

Paul and James therefore wrestled with two different church settings. This observation means that we should expect different emphases. Their circumstances were not related at all and therefore their bold statements may appear to be contradictory. A family that lives in a dry climate may say, “Always save the waste water and put it in the backyard.” This same family, if they moved into a very humid and wet environment may say, “Never worry about saving water and make sure our waste water is removed as far as possible from our premises.” On the face of it, the statements are contradictory but the contexts clarify the statement. So, Paul and James made their statements in two different situations. Paul would have said the same thing as James were he in the same circumstance as James’s. Once we recognize this, then we will begin to see that different solutions had to be offered. Unfortunately, they utilized the same vocabulary within different circumstances.  That is why the subsequent discussions have to show how they differed from each other.

Different use of the word “faith”

James is fighting against a certain type of faith. Paul is pitting faith against works as a means of justification. Let us consider James’s view. In 2:17, James states that “faith, by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (NIV) — (NASB has, Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself; οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ ⸂ἔχῃ ἔργα⸃, νεκρά ἐστιν καθʼ ἑαυτήν). He reiterates this point in different words in 2:20 —“faith without deeds is useless” (ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ⸀ἀργή ἐστιν); and in 2:26, “faith without deeds is dead” (ἡ πίστις ⸀χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν). James is combatting dead useless faith.

Let us unpack this a little bit. We must recognize that “faith” itself is insignificant. If I have faith in Buddha, then I can be certain that such faith cannot justify. All would concur. Then naked faith can do nothing; it is not the power of faith that justifies. James is teaching that this “said” faith (“someone says he has faith but does not have works” v. 14,  ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ) is not saving faith. In v. 18, a similar pronouncement is made, “But some will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”  Lest we be led into some esoteric view, James particularizes it in verses 15 & 16. A professed faith that neglects our brethren is simply a clear demonstration that the faith that they profess is useless and dead. “James is disturbed at a faith that has no works to demonstrate its reality in the life of a believer.”[6]

Paul, on the other hand, is saying that when it comes to justification, faith is the sole instrument — works do not play any justifying role. God’s righteousness is manifested “apart from the law” (Rom 3:21) and that man is justified by faith “apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). When Paul is dealing with justification by faith, he is pitting this gospel truth against those who “rely on the works of the law” (Gal. 3:10). So, in a sense, he pits faith against works of the law when it comes to justification. He is not arguing that this justifying faith is like the faith James was condemning. Certainly, if we would just step back and consider James’s situation, we would have no problem seeing Paul stating the same things as James given the context and given the “kind” of faith James was combating.

Paul is contemplating a faith that serves as a point of entry into life while James has in mind a faith that professes to have life.  Paul views faith as a means of justification. James views faith as a living faith and not a useless one. They are not opposed to each other because they do not have the same concept of faith.

It is interesting to note that men like Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich would be the first to declare “faith alone” but their views are entirely different from Paul’s and James’s. Tillich believed that faith is “the state of being ultimately concerned” and drew from that all manner of foolishness.[7] Both James and Paul would say “Tillich’s faith” cannot justify because it is useless and dead as to its content and consequent fruit. Peter Davids suggests that someone must have been saying something like, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity.”[8] That may well have been the slogan James was refuting; it certainly fits the context.

Different use of the word “works”

We look at the words “works” and assume that certainly Paul and James are dealing with the same concept.[9] This is probably the easiest thing to overlook.  First of all,[10] the exact vocabulary of James 2:24 is not found in any of Paul’s writings. In Rom. 3:20, Paul uses “by/from works of the law” while James uses “by works.” In Rom. 3:28, it is “without works of the law” and in 4:16, it is “not only to the adherent of the law.” In the original Greek, it becomes clear that the exact phrases are never used. Secondly, the vocabulary differs at critical points. James never uses nomos or law in this section. Paul says, ‘without works of the law” — the works are always “works of the law.” James, on the other hand, never uses the word LAW in this section.

Paul’s phrase “works of the law” is a reference to positive acts of obedience. These acts of obedience to God’s law can never justify us. Again, he is dealing with one’s entry into salvation. James, on the other hand, uses “works” in the life of a believer. A professing believer should show works of holiness in his life or else it is empty. It may be better to translate everything in this section as “deeds.” The English word “deeds” connotes a demonstrative faith while the theologically technical word “works” denotes acts of obedience unto justification (which Paul refutes).

In summary, we may say that Paul is wrestling with works of the law that are a means of justification while James is confronting “works” or deeds that are entirely absent in the ones who profess to be justified. Paul is dealing with the role of works, once again, as it pertains to entering into life while James is dealing with deeds that give evidence of the one who professes to have life. In summary, Adamson’s words may be helpful here, “Faith is the inspiration of works, and works are the proof of faith.”[11] Another commentator put it this way, “Where ‘Paul denies the need for ‘pre-conversion works,’ James emphasizes the absolute necessity of post-conversion works.”[12] Works of the Law are entirely absent for Paul when it comes to justification. Works are always present in James when it comes to one’s expression of faith.

Different use of the word “justification”

The same form of the word “justify” is not in Paul and James. Paul (Rom. 3:20 [δικαιωθήσεται]; Rom. 3:28 [δικαιοῦσθαι]; James 2:21 [ἐδικαιώθη]; James in 2:24 [δικαιοῦται]). The exact word is never used which suggests that James perhaps was not arguing against Paul.[13] Though all four passages may have the passive voice, none of them have the exact same form.

Does that necessarily mean that James and Paul have defined the words differently? Not necessarily.  But the context adds something to this. In verse 18, James is saying “I will show you my faith by my works.” His concern is to demonstrate the reality of the faith before men.[14] This seems to be clearly the case in v. 21. Abraham was justified by works or vindicated by his deeds.[15] The justifying means of faith was not denied by James as he cites Gen. 15:6 in verse 23. So, the justifying in verse 24 could well be translated as “vindication.” Or, it is as Trapp says, “It is faith that justifies the man; but they are works that justify faith to be right and real, saving and justifying.” (Trapp on v. 21).

However, if we take it to mean the same thing (namely, that justification means the same thing in both James and Paul), then we can still see that the “faith alone” that James refutes is the useless dead faith he already demolished.[16] Genuine humble faith always works though one’s deeds do not earn salvation or merit justification. Remember, faith is full of works but the works in faith do not justify because we are justified by faith alone.

70.       Q. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]

PART 3

Without Works

This glorious blessing comes to believers “not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them.” Paul says that we are “justified by his grace” (Titus 3:7) and that God saved us “not by works of righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:5). None of these blessings come to us on the basis of the change that we undergo or on the basis of the works that we perform. The two phrases are critical. When the divines say that it is “not for any thing wrought in them,” they are saying that we not declared righteous because of something done in us (wrought in them). Our growth in holiness, devotion to Christ, deepening love to Christ, etc. are not the reasons for God to accept us righteous in His sight. Furthermore, it also is not dependent on the obedience we offer to God (whatever that may be).

This is entirely opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine as set forth in their  Council of Trent. Ch. VII[1] says that the cause of justification is that God “maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and cooperation.”

Notice, God “maketh” us just. We are not “only reputed” to be just before God “but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us…” Justification therefore is in fact based upon what is wrought in us and done by us. In the end, justification is not truly an act of grace and mercy but one of justice, as something that God must do. The divines also curiously cite Eph. 1:7. At first glance, it is not immediately apparent how this verse applies: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace…” Yet, the general point of the verse is critical, our full redemption is “according to the riches of his grace” and not according to the riches of our own inherent righteousness. Justification is an act of grace purchased by the redemption of Jesus Christ.

Imputation

We have already developed some of these points in our exposition above. Yet a few more points can be gleaned from the following: “but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them.” If it isn’t our own works and on the basis of something wrought in us, then on what basis can God declare us righteous in His sight? It is that question this phrase answers. The LC explains whose righteousness is imputed to us. This phrase in the LC is often labeled as active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ’s perfect obedience refers to His obedience unto the Father in everything. In particular, it is His obedience to the Law of God. The passive obedience refers to the sufferings he willingly underwent. Of these things, we have dealt with in LC #38 & 39. He fully fulfilled all the laws requirements and satisfied God in His suffering (to satisfy divine justice). This point is summarily stated in Rom. 5:19 —“through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

That full righteousness is imputed to us. It is His righteousness in our account, we are declared righteous. Wesleyans deny this.  They say, “Christ’s death is a substitute for our punishment but not for our holiness.”[2]  That is, they take the passive obedience of Christ and dispense with the active obedience. This takes us no further than Roman Catholicism. The papists all knew our sins were washed away (again and again, etc.) but could not account for the righteousness (except for what we do). Interestingly, they says our righteousness is our faith, that is, our act of faith is considered to be the righteousness which in turn makes the act of man the basis of our standing before God.[3] Paul says, “in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (thn e˙k qeouv dikaiosu/nhn e˙pi« thØv pi÷stei)” (Phil. 3:8, 9). It is a righteousness that comes from God that comes to us (not our own) —one is from God and the other from the law — “e˙k qeouv indicates that the sourceof this righteousness is God himself. It stands in sharp contrast to e˙k no/mou: Paul viewed the two as mutually exclusive.”[4]

Sola Fide

The last and most important phrase deals with the means of justification: “and received by faith alone.” All that has been said is received by faith alone. It is not faith in addition to something else (baptism, penance, immersion, etc.). The sola is critical here.

Catholics insist that it is not by faith alone. The title of the book is Not By Faith Alone.[5] It is argued that the Bible says explicitly the opposite in James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” They have a point; the Bible does not say explicitly that a man is justified by faith alone! How do we deal with this?

First of all, a word about Paul and James. I have written the following before: James “is not arguing against works righteousness; he is condemning the absence of righteousness. Paul’s concern is soteriological while James is ethical. Paul is concerned with the way of salvation through faith in Christ while James is concerned with the way of life in salvation. Paul wrote against “works righteousness” while James combated a “lack of righteousness.””[6]

Secondly, though the explicit phrase “faith alone” is not used in reference to justification, we must not assume therefore it is a wrong phrase. The phrase conveys the substance of Biblical teaching. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith without works, what are we to make of it? Rom. 3:28 says, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Again, in Rom. 4:5 Paul says, “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…” In Gal. 2:16 Paul says—  “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” In all these verses, Paul is pitting a singular act of faith against works of the law. Yes, he did not say “faith alone” but did he need to say it in view of the contrast? Was he saying, “We are justified by faith plus a few other things we do and yet it is apart from the works of the law?” That point just doesn’t need to be stated.

We have to state it because the point of the verse is undermined by sinful innovations. In those who oppose sola fide, they always make it faith plus something else (plus what God does in us, plus what acts we perform, plus this or that ritual act, etc.).

Catholics — Trent On Justification

Here are just a few extracts to give you a taste of the RC teaching on this matter. The up to date edition of J. Neuner and J. Dupuis’s work does not change any of this. Lastly, most modern Catholics (laity) are unaware of their own doctrinal foundations and views. Their personal affirmations and denials do not often represent their “church’s” teaching.[7]

CANON I. — If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. [N.B. — Papists do not deny that God’s grace is necessary; they are not Pelagians. They are semi-Pelagians and therefore God’s grace is not the sole efficient cause of our salvation.]

CANON XI. — If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. [N. B. — Papists deny that Christ’s righteousness imputed to us is the sole basis of our justification. They require inherent grace working in us; grace coupled with human effort (cooperation) are both needed in order to be justified. Grace begins it (for the papists) and human effort adds to it (works inspired by grace our labors still play a cooperative role in justification).]

CANON XII. — If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. [N. B. — Man is not justified by faith alone for the papist. Here, the papists are very clear in denouncing the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. The evangelical believer is condemned in relying solely on Christ, for believing that he is justified by faith alone.]

The Larger Catechism

Questions 70

70.       Q. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]

PART 2

Forgiveness of Sins

The LC further states that justification includes forgiveness of sin: “in which he pardoneth all their sins.” In Rom. 4:6, Paul cites David’s statement in Ps. 32:1, 2 as the “blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works (ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων).” The verses he cites to support his statement on justification deal with the forgiveness of sins: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Justification includes forgiveness of sins. God is able to forgive because of the propitiatory work of Christ (Rom 3:15, “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”). Jesus covered our sins because He paid the penalty for them. For that reason, God may forgive justly and mercifully.

Justification is more than forgiveness. Yet, Wesleyans principally focus on this as the sum and substance of justification. Forgiveness is the “vital fact of justification.”[1] We must distinguish forgiveness of sin from justification but we cannot separate or equate them.

That a man is forgiven of all his sins is indeed wonderful but positive holiness is also required of man. A pauper may be forgiven of his debt; he is still penniless. Forgiveness is important but justification is more than forgiveness. With the forgiveness of sins, the believer is also accounted righteous!

Accepts as Righteous

            So the LC further states that in justification, God “accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight.” In the verse cited above, Paul says that the man is blessed whom God “counts righteousness” apart from the works of the law. The critical verb in Ps. 32 is “counts” (λογίζεται) — God does not make the person righteous but counts, reckons, declares them righteous. Paul cites Ps. 32 (Rom. 5:7,8) and in v. 6, he summarizes the point he will prove with the citation. Paul says that God does not count the sins against his people (v.8) and this has the net effect of counting the person righteous (v. 6). “To be counted as righteous apart from works is to have one’s lawless deeds forgiven, one’s sins covered, and one’s sin not taken into account.”[2] John Murray says this about the Romans passage:

We may not say that Paul intended to define the whole nature of justification as consisting in remission of sin. Where justification is, remission must be and vice versa. That is why he makes virtual equation in these verses. But as Paul has shown already (cf. 1:17; 3:21–26) and as he will show later (cf. 5:17–21; 10:3–6), remission does not define justification, though justification must embrace remission.^[3]

The two verses from 2 Corinthians used to support the doctrine (5:19, 21) are also worth citing: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them… For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ).” Our trespasses are not counted against us because he became sin for us (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν) that we might become the righteousness of God — that is, just as God did not count sin against us, so God counts us as righteous all on account of Christ. Though two different verbs are used (reckoned and become), the parallel is assumed because in Christ God reconciled us, and in Him we become the righteousness of God. One commentator demonstrates this very point:

“To become the righteousness of God” is to gain a right standing before God that God himself bestows (cf. Rom. 5:17; Phil. 3:9). It is to be “constituted righteous” in the divine court, so that gene÷sqai dikaiosu/nh qeouv = κατασταθήσονται δίκαιοι (Rom. 5:19).[4] Although the term logi÷zomai is not used in v. 21 (but cf. v. 19), it is not inappropriate to perceive in this verse a double imputation: sin was reckoned to Christ’s account (v. 21a), so that righteousness is reckoned to our account (v. 21b).[5]

Another commentator puts it this way, “We do not simply have righteousness from God, we are the righteousness of God as a result of being in Christ (see 1 Cor 1:30; 6:11). We are given his righteousness only as we are in him, and will be raised like him only if we live in him.”[6] These are ours in Christ, in Him.

The LC states that God “accounteth their persons righteous in his sight” — it is in God’s sight and not per se in man’s sight that we are accepted and accounted righteous. His judicial verdict is what matters and this forensic alien righteousness accounted to us is our standing before God.

The Larger Catechism

Questions 70

70.       Q. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[286] Romans 3:22, 24-25. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference…. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Romans 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [287] 2 Corinthians 5:19, 21. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation…. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Romans 3:22, 24-25, 27-28. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference…. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God…. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. [288] Titus 3:5, 7. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost…. That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Ephesians 1:7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. [289] Romans 5:17-19. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Romans 4:6-8. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. [290] Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Galatians 2:16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Introduction

            As all Protestants know, the doctrine of justification is the article on which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae).[1] Protestants have historically understood this doctrine quite well but our generation has not embraced this doctrine with the necessary zeal it requires. As a result, ecumenical attempts have emerged to blur the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on this doctrine (e.g., ECT). Within Protestantism, the New Perspective on Paul has further eroded our understanding of this great doctrine. All of these forces are seducing a generation that is less theological and less concerned about historic biblical doctrines.

Ridgeley’s begins his exposition of this question by highlighting the importance of this doctrine. As he notes, in the LC, justification follows calling like Rom. 8:30, “Whom he called, them he also justified.” His explanation of how these questions relate to each other is very helpful.

Hitherto we have been led to consider that change of heart and life which is begun in effectual calling; whereby a dead sinner is made alive, and one who was wholly indisposed for good works, and averse to the performance of them, is enabled to perform them by the power of divine grace. Now we are to speak concerning that change of state which accompanies change of heart; whereby one who, being guilty before God, was liable to the condemning sentence of the law, and expected no other than an eternal banishment form his presence, is pardoned, received into favour, and has a right to all the blessing which Christ has, by his obedience and sufferings, purchased for him. (Ridgeley, 2:81)

Before expositing this question, we need to define what justification is. Modern evangelicals tend to use the word “saved” far more than “justified.” Furthermore, salvation is often simply defined as forgiveness of sins (it is that and much more).  Though debates about justification abound in the theological world, yet ordinary believers do not readily and frequently use the word. Consequently, absent are the weighty concepts related to the doctrine of justification. As a result, subtle but critical distinctions are lost. The differences, to many, seem inconsequential. In turn, differences between Evangelicals and Papists appear to be minimal. For that reason, we need to carefully explain this doctrine because eternal matters are at stake.

Definition of “Justify”[2]

1. The Latin Vulgate translated the word “justify”  with iustificare (to make righteous). Eventually, it took on the idea of spiritual transformation or a renovation of nature. This transformation presumably took place through the sacraments.[3]  Luther and the Reformers, after studying Scripture, questioned this understanding. Practically speaking, how would you know if you were justified enough, renovated enough? The Roman Catholic answer could never answer that.

2. The idea of justification deals with how a person is related to God and His law.  A court will declare Hitler guilty for infractions and crimes against humanity.  In a more profound sense, man has been declared guilty by God. Man is declared guilty for breaking God’s law.  To declare someone guilty is not to make them sinful but merely states a fact in relation to the law. In its relationship to regeneration (to which we have given some attention), Murray says, “Regeneration is an act of God in us; justification is a judgment of God with respect to us.”[4] Regeneration dealt with what happens in us. Justification is that which happens outside of us (“alien righteousness”).

3. Justification declares us righteous before God and His law.  The key word is declare. “In Scripture to justify does not mean to make righteous in the sense of changing a person’s character. It means to constitute righteous, and to do so by declaration.”[5]  But it is not a legal fiction (i.e. declaring something that is not the case).

The sentence of a human judge is merely declarative; it does not constitute a man either innocent or guilty, it only pronounces him to be so in the eyes of the law: it may even be erroneous, and may pronounce one to be innocent who is really guilty, and another to be guilty who is really innocent; whereas in justifying a sinner, God does what no human judge can do,…He first constitutes him righteous, who was not righteous before, and then declares him to be righteous, in His infallible judgment, which is ever according to truth.[6]

In other words, “The peculiarity of God’s action consists in this that he causes to be the righteous state or relation which is declared to be.”[7]  More simply put, God’s declaration is a truth, it really is the case. He declares to be the case as it really is. We may not feel it is the case or do we recognize it to be the case but that is the wonder of it.  God declares as He sees us to be in relation to Him—that is the most important “perspective.”

4. Scriptural reflections on justification.

a. Justification is declarative and is the opposite of condemnation. That is the way these verses use the term. Deut. 25:1, “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,…” Prov. 17:15, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.”

b. “The expressions used as synonyms or substitute for justify do not have the sense of ‘making righteous’, but carry this declarative, constitutive sense (cf. Gen. 15:6; Ps. 32:1-2, and Paul’s use of both texts in Rom. 4:3, 6-8).”[8]

c. “The ultimate proof that justification involves a status changed by public declaration lies in the biblical view that through the resurrection Jesus himself was ‘justified’ (1 Tim. 3:16). It would be quite impossible to understand this in the sense of an alteration in our Lord’s character.  It must refer to the vindication of him by God through the triumph and victory of the resurrection.  By the resurrection he was declared to be in a right relationship with God (cf. Rom. 1:4).”[9]

d. So, Scripture teaches justification to be a declarative act and not a statement about someone’s subjective/inherent state.  In other words, it is a declaration of a legal kind (forensic) and not a declaration of one’s inherent righteousness — declared right, not made right.

Act of God’s Free Grace

            The answer begins by affirming the most important point: “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners…” This is so important, that the next question explains it more fully by asking, “How is justification an act of God’s free grace?” The divines carefully use the word “act” in relation to justification (SC #33, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace…”) while sanctification is the “work” of God’s free grace (SC #35). Perhaps it is to highlight the fact that “act” is a thing done (actus) while a “work” is a thing ongoing? We may not able to make such a fine distinction in English but the point needs to be registered. What God does in justification is different from what He does in sanctification. I suspect the different verbs merely highlight that very point.

That God justifies is not something God is required to do. It is not a necessity. That He justifies sinners is an act of His “free grace.” God voluntarily does this out of His sheer grace and mercy to sinners. No person can require or presume to expect this from God; it is not an act of justice. No sinner can require God to justify him — the only required act is one of judgment. Unfortunately, a common belief that God exists to pardon and accept sinners permeates many hearts. For them, that is God’s function and responsibility. That God justifies sinners is good news because it is entirely an act of His grace.

God justifies sinners. This has been the source of consternation and confusion among Catholics.[10] Christ died for sinners; God justifies them.  He declares them righteous when they look in faith to Jesus Christ. Whereas Catholics also believe in the justification of the impious, they mean that the person is really made just or righteous. The phrase “justifies the ungodly” comes from Rom 4:5 (Vulgate, justificat impium) — the difference comes from the way it is interpreted. Leon Morris says this about the verse:

God’s saving activity does not operate solely on the most promising material. He justifies the impious, even those actively opposed to him. This is all the more striking in that the Old Testament says that God does not justify the wicked (Exod. 23:7; LXX has “Thou shalt not justify the ungodly”, making it a command); it forbids people from doing it (Prov. 17:15; 24:24; Isa. 5:23). Paul is not enunciating a religious commonplace, but giving expression to a resounding paradox.[11]

Indeed, it is resounding paradox. This paradox is pronounced when we read the first part of the verse: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly…” — God justifies the ungodly person who does not work but only believes in him. This is an astounding statement.

Paul’s designation of God as one who ‘justifies the wicked’ would come as a shock to his Jewish readers. In Exod 23:7 God says, “I will not acquit the guilty,” and in Prov 17:15 we learn that he “detests” the practice of acquitting the guilty when carried out by others (cf. Prov 24:24; Isa 5:23). The paradoxical phrase, however, is in keeping with the remarkable fact that a holy God accepts as righteous unholy people on the basis of absolutely nothing but faith. F. F. Bruce comments that God, who alone does great wonders, created the universe from nothing (1:19-20), calls the dead to life (4:17), and justifies the ungodly, “the greatest of all his wonders.”[12]

Lutherans rightly have emphasized the simil iustus et peccator. Those whom God justifies are at the same time sinners. Justification does not make a person righteous, it is declares Him so in God’s court. “It is God who justifies? Who is to condemn?” (Rom. 8:33, 34) Catholics believe that God can justify the impious because He actually makes them just or righteous, “justification entails the sanctification of the whole being” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1995). Justification “conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.” (§1992) We will now look at the statements in the LC that counters such a formulation.