Justification – A Right Relationship with GOD

by Craig S. Hawkins

  “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.“  - 
Romans 3:28 NIV 

 

Doctrinal Summary

The teaching or doctrine of justification has rightly been seen by many theologians (see below)  as a central, if not the central, doctrine of Christianity. There is much to be said regarding the biblical doctrine of justification–”the justice” or “the righteousness of God” (see e.g., Rom. 1:17: dikaiosyne theou in Greek, iustitia Dei in Latin).

Among the many key words in the Greek New Testament that pertain to our topic, I want to note in particular three key terms: dikaios, dikaiosyne, and dikaioo. In the context of our discussion (among other meanings), dikaios means upright, just, or righteous.⁽¹⁾ Likewise, in the context of our study, dikaiosyne means uprightness or righteousness (e.g., Phil. 3:9).⁽²⁾ Dikaioo, in context here, means “justify, vindicate, treat as just,” and Paul’s use of it as “be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous…be justified.”⁽³⁾ For example, in Romans 5:1, 9; and Titus 3:7, dikaioo occurs in the aorist, passive participle form (dikaiothentes), meaning “having been justified.” Thus, it is a past completed action with on-going effects or results that is done to or for the believer by God (i.e., passive voice–which means that the subject is the object of or receives the action–which in this case is that the believer is justified); that is, God justifies the believer in or by or because of the work of Christ. We read in BAG that “Paul … uses the word almost exclusively of God’s judgment…[especially] of men dikaiousthai[:] be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous and thereby become dikaios, receive the divine gift of dikaiosyne….”⁽⁴⁾

Definition of Justification

The believer, the one who trusts in Christ Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior is not only pronounced not guilty, is not only pronounced innocent, but is pronounced righteous (positionally now and eventually practically as well) by God (see e.g., Rom. 1:17; 3:21-24). J.I. Packer states that it (dikaioo) “…is to pronounce, accept, and treat as just, i.e., as, on the one hand, not penally liable, and, on the other, entitled to all the privileges due to those who have kept the law.”⁽⁵⁾ In other words, God views the believer as if they had/have completely or perfectly obeyed the law (i.e., the Ten Commandments). Note the following five summations in particular–among the many excellent ones–of the doctrine of justification–specifically what is termed subjective justification (the latter four):

The article of justification, which is our only protection, not only against all the powers and plottings of men but also against the gates of hell, is this: by faith alone (sola fide) in Christ, without works, are we declared just (pronuntiari justos) and saved.⁽⁶⁾

As soon as a contrite sinner believes the divine promises of grace which for Christ’s sake is offered to him in the Gospel, or as soon as he puts his trust in the vicarious satisfaction which Christ has made for the sins of the world by His perfect obedience, he is justified, or declared righteous before God….Subjective justification may therefore be defined as the act of God by which He removes from the believer the sentence of condemnation to which he is subject because of his sin, releases him from his guilt, and ascribes to him the merit of Christ. Baier defines justification as “the act by which the sinner, who is responsible for guilt and liable to punishment…but who believes in Christ, is pronounced just by God, the Judge.”⁽⁷⁾

“Justification is a judicial and at the same time a gracious act by which God, reconciled by the satisfaction of Christ, acquits the sinner who believes in Christ of the offenses with which he is charged and accounts and pronounces him righteous.”⁽⁸⁾

We explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.⁽⁹⁾

…God forgives sinful individuals, counts them as righteous on the basis of their faith in Christ, and accepts them as his own reconciled children, apart from all human merit and solely because of the superabundant merit of Christ’s work of satisfaction….⁽¹⁰⁾

The Forensic Nature of Justification

Moreover, the pronouncement of “justification” or of the believer being “justified” by God is forensic.⁽¹¹⁾ That is, it is declaratory or a legal declaration by the Sovereign Judge–indeed the Supreme Court of the universe–that the believer, on the account of the finished work of Christ, is forgiven of their sins and pronounced “righteous.” J.I.Packer declares: “It [dikaioo] is thus a forensic term, denoting a judicial act of administering the law–in this case, by declaring a verdict of acquittal, and so excluding all possibility of condemnation. Justification thus settles the legal status of the person justified.”⁽¹²⁾ However, as the TDNT points out: “Forensically does not mean….moral rectitude is attained. What it does mean is that the man who has dikaiosyne is right before God.”⁽¹³⁾ (The Reformers would often say or argue that a person was not made righteous, but declared righteous by God, by the imputed grace of God and not by “infused” grace of God.) That is, positionally speaking, the believer in Christ is declared right or righteous (in a right standing and in a right relationship with God), but this does not entail that in this present life (practically speaking), in their daily living, that they always act righteous–do not commit sins of commission or omission.

Additionally, and related to the previous point, according to the Protestant Reformation (I would argue biblical) view(s) this righteousness is said to be alien or external and objective since it is imputed or given to the believer by God because of the work of Christ. That is, this righteousness is not inherent to or from the individual, but is given to them from God. Thus, it is alien (Luther’s term) or external–it is not or did not come from within the individual, but from God; hence, it is external to the individual. Another way to say it is that this righteousness is not subjective or inherent to the individual, or a result of their working or working with or cooperating with God for salvation. Thus, “[o]ur righteousness is wholly and solely that of Christ, imputed to us; we contribute nothing.”⁽¹⁴⁾

Justification is Not because of Our Works

Throughout church history there have been discussions, disagreements, and debates about the nature of justification,⁽¹⁵⁾ for example, about the role and relationship of good works to or for salvation. Nonetheless, evangelical and orthodox Christians have been united on the above mentioned points.

Some individuals have tried to argue that good works are necessary for salvation in the sense that one needs to cooperate with God in salvation, and their part is the good works. For instance, some people have taught the idea that James (chapter 2) contradicts the Pauline teaching regarding the role and relationship of justification and faith and works (e.g, Rom. 4 and 5), and that James proves that works are part of salvation in the sense that we must cooperate with God by our good works to be declared righteous by Him. However, the Bible does not teach in James or elsewhere that we must earn or in some other way “cooperate” with God for our salvation (i.e., to be declared righteous by God). These types of claims have been thoroughly answered.⁽¹⁶⁾ Indeed, in summing-up the biblical view of Paul and James on justification and noting the views of Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer, Geoffrey Bromiley remarks: “True faith manifest itself in good works. Absence of the latter denotes absence of the former.”⁽¹⁷⁾ This distinction is between a true or genuine or saving faith and a “false faith,” and not between a genuine saving faith and works (See the previous footnote for more complete argumentation of this point). A true or saving faith always will produce good works, but the works do not save or justify the person. The works are evidence that the person possess saving faith or already is justified.

Given the points mentioned in the previously sections and the ones to follow, we see that the believer is justified because of the finished work of Christ and not because of any good works that they do or have done to earn this standing with God. For example, Paul teaches very clearly that no one is saved or justified by works (see, e.g., Rom. 3:27-28; 4:1-11; 9:30-32; Gal. 2:15-16, 21; 5:4).

Of the many passages cited and many others that could be mentioned, I will just quickly examine Romans 3:28. In Romans 3:28 Paul declares that “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (NIV). The phrase “observing the law” is an idiom for the Old Testament law, for instance, the Ten Commandments. The English word “apart” is the Greek preposition choris. In the context of Romans 3:28 (and 4:6) choris means “without or apart from” or “without relation to or connection with someth[ing]…independent of someth[ing].”⁽¹⁸⁾ In this case the something is “without regard to the observance of the law….”⁽¹⁹⁾ Thus, we are declared righteous by God without, or independent of, or separate from our obeying the law, that is, any good works. The biblical teaching here is clear.

Faith and Justification

Another point of misunderstanding that some have is regarding the role and relationship of faith to justification. It is not our faith or the faith of the individual believer that justifies, but God who justifies by grace through faith.⁽²⁰⁾ That is, faith is what is called the instrumental means or cause of salvation, not what is termed the efficient cause. As J.I. Packer rightly remarks: “Paul says that believers are justified dia pisteos (Rom. 3:25), pistei (Rom. 3:28), and ek pisteos (Rom. 3:30). The dative and the preposition dia represent faith as the instrumental means whereby Christ and his righteousness are appropriated; the preposition ek shows that faith occasions, and logically precedes, our personal justification. That believers are justified dia pistin, on account of faith, Paul never says, and would deny.”⁽²¹⁾ Packer also remarks: “faith is…personal trust and confidence in God’s mercy through Christ; that it is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, but rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ….”⁽²²⁾ B.B. Warfield notes:

It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace….Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith….The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests…It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ…faith in any other saviour…brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith….⁽²³⁾

Alister McGrath states: the reformers’ in “…faith as the sole instrument of justification. In justification, we receive by faith the effects of the work of Christ on our behalf, appropriating it and making it our own.”⁽²⁴⁾ McGrath also comments: “The objective basis of our justification is the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the means by which we appropriate this justification and make it our own is faith. To repeat: justification by faith does not mean that we are justified on account of our faith, but that we are justified on account of Christ through the grace of God.”⁽²⁵⁾

Thus, faith, which is itself a gift from God in the first place, is the instrumental cause; it is not what justifies or saves us, but it is how we appropriate what does justify or save us–God’s grace as expressed through the finished work of Jesus for us (Eph. 2:8-9). The Latin phrase per fidem propter Christum (through [or by] faith on account of Christ) rightly summarizes the biblical teaching on how we are justified and hence saved with our sins being forgiven.

Forgiveness of Our Sins

Another key aspect regarding the nature of justification is that it entails the forgiveness of the believer’s sins and their guilt before God (see e.g., Ps. 32:1; Isa. 1:18; Rom. 4:6-8; Col. 3:13). Our sin and guilt is removed from us as far as the East is from the West. This is a biblical expression used to convey this concept (Ps. 103:12).

Moreover, in the Old Testament and under the old covenant certain animals were sacrificed as offerings to cover the peoples’ sins and guilt (see, e.g., Lev. 5:16-18; 19:22). However, in the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36). Jesus, by His propitiatory work on the cross, forgives our sins (John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:24). In essence, by Jesus paying the just penalty for our sins and guilt on the cross, those who trust Him as their Lord and Savior receive His righteousness imputed to them (2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). Luther called this the “great exchange”: Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and we are credited with His righteousness.

Lastly, regarding the nature of justification I note that it is considered among many theologians (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Mueller, Sproul) to be a, if not the, chief, crucial, or foundational doctrine of the church. For instance, J.I Packer remarks: “the doctrine of justification determines the whole character of Christianity as a religion of grace and faith….It is the heart of the gospel. Luther justly termed it articulus stantis vel[sic: et] cadentis ecclesiae: a church that lapses from it can scarcely be called Christian.”⁽²⁶⁾ This is the great doctrine of justification (hence salvation) by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone.

Cultural Contradictions

Most if not all of our culture completely rejects the above ideas. This can be seen in many areas.

First, for example, many people in our society do not even believe that they are sinners in the first place. Thus, they do not believe that they need to be forgiven in the sense discussed above, let alone justified. These individuals would hold to the worldview perspective that people are basically good. The source(s) of difficulties in life are not from sin and being alienated from and in need of forgiveness by God, but do the failure of government or other social institutions, lack of education, and/or whatever else. Given more time and education, entertainment, government, prosperity, psychology, recreation, science, social programs and/or whatever else, these problems are sure to take care of themselves, or simply will not be seen as a problem at all (e.g., homosexuality).

Second, since many do not believe that God exists, if they believe that they need to be forgiven, then they might talk about just forgiving themselves for past failures (e.g., not realizing one’s potential), or for letting down a friend, family member, or otherwise, or not being very nice or “there for them” in some area of life or another.

Third, given the view that people or certainly most people are basically good and the incredible amount of pop-psychology and aversion of taking responsibility for one’s choice, many today generally want to blame somebody, anybody, else but themselves for the problems in their life. Many in our culture believe that they are a victim, that they are not responsible for the choices they have made. Few want to or will own their mistakes.

Fourth, some in our society who are involved in the New Age Movement, some Eastern religions, other forms of the occult, or whatever else, see any problems that they have as stemming from not realizing their alleged inherent divinity (e.g., Shirley MacLaine, Tom Cruse).

Fifth, if a person has any background in Christianity, or otherwise is willing to admit that they are a sinner, well “they’re not that bad” or “certainty not as bad as so-and-so.”

Thus, God will forgive them, especially if they do some good things to balance out or make up for the bad–have more good deeds than bad ones. Besides, even if they are “that bad,” many in our culture today assume that there are many paths, many ways, many religions whereby one can get right with God.

Sixth, and often in conjunction with the last point, people are sure that “God helps those who help themselves.” These people know that God wants them to cooperate or help-out in getting them saved. Surely, it is said, that there is something for us to do, something that we must contribute. The pride problem here is unfortunately alive and well. Full-fledged Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism are with us today. In short, many want to out-right earn their salvation by good works or at least contribute to some part of the “process.” This is a part of the “can-do” American spirit that many have: “One can do anything [even make themselves right with God] if they just set their mind to it and work hard enough.”

These items are some of the components of many people’s worldviews in our culture that contradict the biblical teaching on justification.

Church Accommodations

Unfortunately, instead of teaching the correct biblical view(s), as opposed to all the above mentioned ideas, much of the church (at least the professed church) is often going along with many of these ideas. In other words, much of the church, instead of attempting to correct these false notions, is to a greater or lesser extent simply accommodating some or many of these presuppositions of the non-Christian worldviews of our day.

First, whether this is being done out of sheer ignorance, that is, by people who just do not know the gospel and the great teaching of justification, or people who do know better, but have convinced themselves that you cannot tell people the truth because they will be offended and leave (before or after one tells them the truth?).

Second, for instance, I believe that we see this accommodation–comprise and watering-down of the gospel–in the little or complete lack of teaching in many churches regarding the biblical teaching of justification.

Third, since the church often as well as non-Christians down-plays or soft-sells sin and the effects of the fall and our sins, whether because this is really how these Christians view sin or in order not to offend anyone, their listeners don’t take sin too seriously either. Thus, “what’s the big deal?”

Fourth, intentionally or not, it seems that some churches use the real guilt that people have over their sins, and/or their desire to earn a right standing with God, to get all kinds of things done in the church. Thus, some churches can appeal to all the wrong reasons for people, Christian or not, to get involved, tithe, help out, get to work–you can and should do something–because there is much to do, so get busy, and “God will be pleased with you.” Thus, it seems to me that some parts of the church have fallen into the trap of manipulating people in the area of their guilt, pride (e.g, “You are just indispensable! What would we ever do without you?”), and so forth.

For whatever reasons, many in the church today seem to be greatly influenced by some of the worldview components of the worldly culture at large around us, and have taken a much weaker or no biblical view at all of sin, and the corresponding need to be right with God–justification, and ironically of the great blessings that derive from knowing, teaching, and possessing justification.

Change of Thinking

There are a number of very important ideas and implications from these ideas that impress themselves upon me as I have once again given serious thought to the great biblical truth of justification.

First, it reminds me of the importance of teaching the Bible and the great truths, that is, great doctrines that it reveals. These truths bring light and liberty to life. Thus, given the essential nature of the doctrine of justification relevant to the gospel–salvation, it and its implications reminds me of the freedom it brings or rather that God brings through it. I believe that justification needs to be regularly and thoroughly taught.

The teaching of justification has revolutionized my life and should do the same for everyone else. That is, since I know that through the finished work of Jesus, I am already right with God, this gives me a great desire to serve and worship Him, not out of mere fear, or the desire to get right with God or keep in His good graces, but from the basis of gratitude for who God is and what He has already done for me. It motivates me to serve and worship, and indeed to love God.

For instance, I know that I am not on some type of works righteous tread-mill that I must keep up with or that I will fall off and God will not be pleased with me. He already is pleased with me through Christ. Thus, I am not worrying about not going to heaven because I might not be good enough (in and of myself, I know that I am not good enough!). I know that God has already accepted me, that I am currently in a right relationship with God and hence am not trying to earn or keep my good standing by my works. Jesus has done it for me. I already possess eternal life (see e.g., 1 John 5:13).

If people only knew who God really is (and to be sure the mess that one is in who has not trusted in Christ as their Lord and Savior), and what He has done for us, and will do for us; I believe that this could and would revolutionize their lives and the preaching and teaching of the word of God, and church services. That God will take away our guilt and condemnation, and that one can know God’s verdict of pronouncing them righteous because of Jesus, what better news do we have than this?

In other words, and among many other points that should be made, the “gospel” is not “a take it or leave it,” or you too can begin working for God and hope that He will accept you, or other similar types of propositions. No, the gospel message, and the doctrine of justification clearly brings this out, tells us that while the news is at first hearing worst than we thought (the law, the bad news is that we are really in big trouble that we cannot get ourselves out of), it is also in the end much better than one ever thought. God has done for us what we cannot do for ourselves! Jesus has Himself paid the penalty for our sins. Thus, the news for the Christian and non-Christian is not that God has an instatement payment plan that he has started for you and He has paid in so much and you can pay in so much and you just might make it–pay it off. No! God has paid it in full! In Christ, God has given us everything. Now this is good news! This is what needs to be shared with Christians and non-Christians alike.

The biblical teaching of justification has transformed my life and I believe can and will transform the lives of other Christians and non-Christians as well. Praise be to God!

In light of the teaching of justification, Christians and the church today must reevaluate their thinking. Instead of guilt, God offers forgiveness and peace. Instead of condemnation and always trying to measure up and never being able to, God grants absolution. Instead of a works program, God pronounces “paid in full.” These aspects and more of the teaching of justification can and will transform or revolutionize the life of the believer in particular and the church in general, and the non-Christian that God grants mercy to.

Conclusion

What great news. What marvelous deeds God has done for us! Would to God that everyone would know the freedom that God grants (John 8:36). Would to God that every Christian would be taught in its fullness the great biblical teaching of justification, and understand it, and share it with others. Free indeed, freed and declared justified by the righteousness of God!

Endnotes

3. BAG, 196-97. Also see DNTT, Vol. 3, 352, 363, 370; TDNT, vol. 2, 214-19.

4. BAG, 196.

5. J.I. Packer, “Justification” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. by Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 593.

6. Martin Luther, as quoted in What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis, Concordia Publishing, 1959), s.v. “2186: What is Justification?,” and “2187: Another Definition.”

7. John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1934) 367.

8. Hollaz, as quoted in John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 367.

9. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by John T. McNeill, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), vol. 1, 3.11.2.

10. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker), s.v. iustificatio.

11. See, e.g., Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983, 1984, 1985), 955-59; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., reprint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), vol. 3, 118-134; Alister E. McGrath, Justification by Faith: What it Means to Us Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 55-57; Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 374-75; Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek, s.v. “actus forensis,” “actus iustificatorius,” “iustificatio“; J.I. Packer, “Justification,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker), 593-94; R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 95-116; and the TDNT, vol. 2, 204, 215.

12. J.I. Packer, “Justification” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 593.

13. TDNT, vol. 2, 204. See also 215.

14. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ), 165.

15. See, e.g, Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Edinburgh, England: Banner of Truth Trust, 1937), 203-224; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 229-39; J.I. Packer, “Justification in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology; Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. The Beginnings to the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); and Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. From 1500 to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

16. See, e.g, Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, 203-10; Bromiley, Historical Theology, 230-32, 233, 234-36; Calvin, Institutes, vol. 1, 3.11.13-15, 17-20; Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 134-41; McGrath, Justification by Faith, 30-31; James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion 1 Vol. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962) 2:191-93; Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 369-71, 376-78, 379-80; R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone, 155-171; TDNT, vol. 2, 201, 219.

17. Bromiley, Historical Theology, 235-36.

18. BAG, 899.

19. Ibid.

20. See, e.g., Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 203-10; Bromiley, Historical Theology, 230-37; Calvin, Institutes, vol. 1, 3.11.19; Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 165-70; McGrath, Justification by Faith, 66-67; Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 376; Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek, s.v. “instrumentum iustificationis“; J.I. Packer, “Justification”, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 596-97; Sproul, Faith Alone, 67-81.

21. J.I. Packer, “Justification” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 596.

22. J.I.Packer, “Faith” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 401.

23. B.B. Warfield, “Faith,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, Samuel Craig, ed. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 423-425.

24. Alister McGrath, Justification by Faith, 67.

25. Ibid.

 

 

Bibliography

Arndt, William F., Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 4th rev. and aug. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W.
Historical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Berkhof, Louis.
The History of Christian Doctrines. Edinburgh, England: Banner of Truth Trust, 1937.

Brown, Colin, ed.
“Righteousness, Justification.” In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

Buchanan, James.
The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church and of Its Exposition from Scripture. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955.

Buswell, James Oliver.
A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. 1 Vol. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962.

Calvin, John.
Institutes of the Christian Religion. John T. McNeill, ed. Ford Lewis Battles, trans. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Elwell, Walter A., ed.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

_______, ed.
Topical Analysis of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Erickson, Millard.
Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983, 1984, 1985.

Hodge, Charles.
Systematic Theology. 3 Vols., reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Ladd, George Eldon.
A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

McGrath, Alister E.
Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. The Beginnings to the Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

_______.
Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. From 1500 to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

_______.
Justification by Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Milne, Bruce.
Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

Morris, Leon.
The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1965.

_______.
The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1983.

Mueller, John Theodore.
Christian Dogmatics: A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology. St. Louis: Concordia, 1934, 1955.

Muller, Richard A.
Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Plass, Ewald M.
What Luther Says. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1959.

Schrenk, Gottlob.
“dike, dikaios, dikaiosyne, dikaioo,…” In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Sproul, R.C.
Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Tappert, Theodore G., trans. and ed.
The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959.

 

Revision Date: 10/22/98  Copyright ©1999 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

This paper (1) summarizes the biblical teaching or doctrine of justification (its nature)–of the believer, and some of the problems or concerns relevant to this teaching, (2) discusses how this teaching (justification) is contradicted in the culture at large and even undermined in the church (i.e., how the church has accommodated non-Christian views), then (3) discusses the implications of the teaching of justification for us today–how it should impact believers, and (4) discusses how you and I and the church, in light of the foregoing discussion, can and should adjust our thinking (ideas) in light of this information. Due to space considerations I must limit my discussion to certain key aspects among the many that could and should be discussed in a more lengthy work on this topic. ]]> http://thecollegeoftheology.com/2009/06/justification/feed/ 0 http://thecollegeoftheology.com/2009/06/faith-reason/ http://thecollegeoftheology.com/2009/06/faith-reason/#comments Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:33:08 +0000 admin http://thecollegeoftheology.com/?p=145

Faith and Knowledge, Evidence and Reason:
Their Role and Relationship to One Another

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” – Mark 12:30

1. The Supreme Example of Christ
   • The Use of Objective Evidence
   • If Jesus, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, used objective evidence to
     validate His claims, a fortiori, how much more so for you and me!
     • Mark 2:1-5-12
     • John 2:18-21
     • John 10:30-31-32-33, 37-38
     • John 15:24-25
     • John 20:24-29
   • The Use of Reason (Argumentation)
   • Matthew 12:24-30
     • Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
     • The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
     • Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
     • Argument from analogy (v. 27)
     • The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
     • Argument from analogy (v. 29)
     • The law of contradiction (v. 30)
     • The law of excluded middle (v. 30)
2. The Apostles
   • The Use of Objective Evidence:
     • Peter: Acts 2:14-32-39; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20
     • Paul: Acts 26:26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
     • The Appeal to Objective Eyewitness Testimony:
     • Luke 1:2-4; John 1:14; 19:35-36; 20:24, 30-31; Acts 1:1-3; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20; 9:3-8, 17; 22:6-9; 14; 26:12-18-26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3, and so forth
   • The Use of Reason–Rationality:
     • Paul: Acts 17:2-3, 11, 17, 22-31; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 26:25; 1 Timothy 6:20
3. Apollos: Acts 18:27-28
   1. Dialegomai is the Greek word used in the above passages.
   2. Dialegomai: to argue, dispute, or reason. BAG: “discuss, conduct a
      discussion…of lectures which were likely to end in disputations….” Vine’s:
      “`to think different things with oneself, to ponder’; then, with other persons, `to
      converse, argue, dispute’”… “`to dispute with others…’” (see Acts 17:2,
      17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; Jude 9).
   3. Like Considering or Weighing the Evidence of the Worth of One Truck against Another:
      Feature by Feature (4 vs 5 speed, horsepower, seats, stereo, dollar per dollar)

   Note: commended by God! 

    

4. The Value of the GOD Given Mind
   • A. Isaiah 1:18; Mark 12:29-31; Acts 26:25
   • We are created in the imago Dei–the image of God. This includes, among other
     attributes, the ability to reason.
   • Thus, this entails the value of evidence and reason. As Charles Hodge informs us:
     • If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational….We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.
5. Uses of Logic/Reason
   • Ministerial Use of Reason
     • This is the use of logic/reason as a servant or “handmaid” to the Bible and
       theology. Logic/reason is not put on par with or above the Bible, but stands in a subordinate role to God’s revelation.
   • Magisterial Use of Reason
     • This is the placing of logic/reason on par with or actually above the Bible. Here logic/reason (that of the individual or a group) is allegedly the final judge, arbitrator, or authority of truth.
   • Anti-Intellectual
     • This is the position of depreciating or out-right denying the role of reason/logic in apologetics and other concerns of Christianity.
6. God gave us a mind and He expects us to use it (Mark 12:29-31).
   • It is not true that the mind is a terrible thing, “so waste it.”
   • The emotional nature of mankind is just as fallen as the intellect. Thus, we should not exalt it relating to conversion either.
   • If we are going to glorify God as Christians and in sharing the Gospel with others, we
     must not ignore or in an unscriptural manner down-play the importance of the mind in the preaching of the Gospel.
7. Faith: A Biblical Definition
   • This is opposed to false definitions that are often given.
     • The Greek terms in the New Testament have a number of meanings.
   • The Greek pistis (noun) in the context of our discussion means (see e.g. BAG):
     belief, faith, confidence, commitment, conviction, or trust.
   • The Greek pisteuo (verb) in the context of our study means (see e.g. BAG): to
     believe, belief (in), confidence (in), conviction, commitment, to have faith, faith in, or trust (in).
   • In the context of our discussion, faith is a self-commitment or surrender to,
     confidence in, and reliance on what one knows to be true.
   • It is a confident conviction of and commitment to truth–what one believes to be true.
   • It manifests itself, or is seen in action, by acting or living one’s life in accord with
     what one knows, or at least thinks, to be true. In essence, one will live their life or
     govern their actions by their belief that what Christ said and did is true.
     • It is not the action per se, but the cause of (what causes) the action.
     • For example, moving because of a belief that you are in imminent danger.
     • Luther: “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone.”
     • Saving faith always produces action(s) or work(s).
8. Faith is the instrumental cause, it is not what saves us, but it is how we
   appropriate what does save us–God’s grace as expressed through the finished work of Jesus for us (Eph. 2:8-9). See the Warfield quote.
   • The “object” of faith (truth) in Christianity that one commits themselves to
     is Christ as their personal Lord and Savior (Rom. 10:9).
   • The New Testament word “faith” and the phrase “to believe” are
     technical terms that express reliance on Christ alone for salvation (see, e.g, John 3:16, 36; 1 John 5:13).
9. The Correct and Incorrect Correlatives or Implications of Faith
   • Faith does not mean or entail “believing” what you know in your “heart of
     hearts” not to be true or “flying in the face” of reason.
   • C.S. Lewis, who among other accomplishments was a classical language scholar states regarding faith that it is not “the intention to believe what you want to
     believe in the face of evidence to the contrary” or “the power of believing what
     we know to be untrue.”
   • Charles Hodge tells us “…faith involves assent, and assent is conviction produced
     by evidence, it follows that faith without evidence is either irrational or impossible.
   • Hodge also comments: God requires nothing irrational of his creatures. He does not require faith without evidence. Christianity is equally opposed to superstition and Rationalism. The one is faith without appropriate evidence, the other refuses to believe what it does not understand, inspite of evidence which should command belief.
   • B.B. Warfield writes: Faith is the gift of God: but it does not in the least
     follow that the faith God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds
     in right reason….The Holy Spirit does not work a blind, an ungrounded faith in the
     heart….nor yet new grounds of belief in the object presented; but just a new ability of the heart to respond to the grounds of faith, sufficient in themselves, already present to the understanding. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in Him, not though it be irrational….We are arguing that faith is, in all its exercises alike [religious or secular], a form of conviction, and is, therefore, necessarily grounded in evidence. And we are arguing that evidence accordingly has its part to play in the conversion of the soul.
   • J. Greshem Machen notes: “What the Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a
     man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.”
   • Kim Riddlebarger remarks: A man cannot acquiesce to the truth of the Gospel
     apart from the enabling of the Holy Spirit. But, a man cannot acquiesce to that which he either does not know or believe to be true. It is thus an illegitimate separation of faith into either a “mind or heart,” “faith or reason” dichotomy. Biblically understood, faith and reason are intimately, completely and inseparably involved in one another.
   • Thus, true biblical saving faith is not synonymous with credulity or having “blind
     faith.”
     • Calvin: “It is the height of absurdity to call ignorance tempered by humility
       faith.”
     • Therefore, neither ignorance nor credulity are Christian virtues!
     • Note previous quote from Warfield.
   • Faith is:
     • Lewis: “Now I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us.”
     • We continue to believe it because of, not in spite of, the evidence.
     • We hold this view because of the evidence and sound reason, by the grace of God, and will continue to until evidence and sound reason convinces us otherwise.
     • “[T]he conflict is not between faith and reason, but faith and sight.”
     • Reason may win truths, but only faith retains them.
     • Coupled with the concept of appropriating what one knows to be true, is the additional aspect of persevering in the truth one has embraced. With this perspective in mind, C.S. Lewis furthers our understanding of biblical saving faith, and for that matter any exercise of faith (e.g., in the realm of “secular” concerns), in his own inimitable style with his reflections on faith:
       • When we exhort people to Faith as a virtue, to the settled intention of continuing to believe certain things, we are not exhorting them to fight against reason. The intention of continuing to believe is required because though Reason is divine, human reasoners are not. When once passion takes part in the game, the human reason, unassisted by Grace, has about as much chance of retaining it hold on truths already gained as a snowflake has of retaining its consistency in the mouth of a blast furnace.
     • Lewis goes on to say: If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth.
     • Christianity is true, is reality, but is held on to through faith.
     • Although biblical faith is not blind it certainly is nonetheless tenacious!
     • This is a radically different understanding than most have of faith–but it is the correct understanding!
10. Faith (Sacred and Secular) and Reason
    • Key point: this is true of all matters, sacred or secular, religious or irreligious.
    • Faith is what bridges the gap between the evidence or “probability” (whatever
      percentage it may be) versus certainty.
      • 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%-70%, 80%, 90-99.99999%–to 100% certain or certainty, or apodictic certainty (“absolutely certain”)
      • For Example:
        • Crossing the street
        • Starting your car
        • Driving today (really risky–faith!)
        • Sitting on a chair
        • Being (sitting) in this building
        • All of these are exercises of faith!
    • Faith is the bridge between x percent probability and certainty. Since we can not
      have objective apodictic certainty about anything–sacred or secular–faith is what let’s
      us commit (e.g., crossing the street). We do not have 100% certainty, but we (100% of us) cross the street nonetheless. How can we? We do not have certainty that we will make it. Note we do not just take part of ourselves across the street (corresponding to the percentage of probability we have). We take all of ourselves across the street. Faith is involved in all that we do.
    • Faith is what lets anyone do anything at all in the real world–act in spite of the fact that we do not have objective certainty for our actions–such as getting home safely today!
    • Faith is not opposed to logic/reason and evidence (see above)
    • Faith, sacred or secular, is the same! It is the same for the Christian or
      non-Christian, the religious or non-religious!
    • This is true of all matters, sacred or secular, religious or irreligious.
      • Note Warfield’s quote below.
    • Thus even an agnostic or the most ardent atheist daily exercises faith. In fact the
      atheist has the “blind faith,” that is against or in the face of the overwhelming evidence and sound reason, that God does not exist. They are gambling–to say
      the least against the odds that God does not exist….Talk about a credulity quotient, the atheist has more “faith” than the Christian!
    • Biblical saving faith is trust in the finished and atoning work of Christ for us by
      knowing that it is true and appropriating it for ourselves.
      • See, for example, Romans 10:9.
11. The Reformation–Biblical Understanding of True Saving Faith
    • Saving faith is composed of three elements, which together constitute its essence. They are necessary in the sense that they comprise the very essence or nature of true biblical saving faith.
      • Thus, all three must be present in an individual or they do not–can not–possess saving faith.
    • Notitia: the Data, Evidence, or Knowledge
      • This is where one has knowledge or is cognizant of a given claim or event or other alleged fact.
      • In our case it is knowledge of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 10:14-17). It is “the actual content of the gospel and the promises of God.”
      • If a person is not familiar with the historical personage of Christ and His life, death, resurrection, and teachings, then not only do they not have knowledge of Him, but self-evidently can not consider, let alone believe or trust in Him for salvation (Rom. 10:14-17).
      • Simply stated, how can one believe in Christ unless they have heard of Him in the first place? At least a minimum of knowledge is required to believe in Christ.
      • As essential as notitia or knowledge is to saving faith, nevertheless, in and of itself, it is not saving faith (see Heb.4:2-4).
    • Assensus: to Intellectually Acknowledge as True the Claim(s) Statement(s) or
      Proposition(s) Put before You
      • It involves assenting to the veracity (truthfulness) of the knowledge or information in question as worthy of being received as fact.
      • In our case it is to intellectually assent to the events of Christ’s life as described in the New Testament as true, and hence His teaching’s as worthy of acceptance. One assents to the reality of the content (orthodoxy) of the Gospel message.
    • The Gospel message is true.
      • Assensus is the act of the intellect acknowledging the truth of the notitia,
        but, “apart from any personal trust or saving appropriation of that knowledge.”
    • Now, one has not only heard the Gospel message or is just acquainted with the
      information, but they grant that it is true.
    • However, as important as the above two are, indeed are necessary preconditions for true saving faith to exist, in and of themselves they are not sufficient.
    • Even assensus in conjunction with notitia is not sufficient for saving
      faith to be present. This type of belief is termed fides historica or (mere)
      historical faith, as opposed to fides salvifica (saving faith).
      • See, for example, James 2:19.
      • Assensus and notitia are necessary but not sufficient (pre-)conditions.
      • An example is having completed classes that one must take in order to earn a given degree–that are prerequisites, but not having completed all the classes that are necessary to obtain the degree. The former are necessary but not sufficient for the desired state to obtain–you receive the degree.
      • Thus, as essential as notitia and assensus are in order to possess saving
        faith, there is still an additional element that is required–fiducia.
    • Fiducia: to Appropriate what One Knows to be True for Themselves
      • Fiducia is the third and final necessary component of saving faith.
      • Fiducia is the Latin word for trust, “the essence of fides”
        (faith), “which appropriates savingly, by an act of the will, the true knowledge of the promises of God in Christ.”
      • Saving faith is not mere intellectual assent, but it requires it as a precondition or prerequisite.
      • Fiducia entails a self-surrender, commitment, and reliance upon what one knows to be true–here–the Gospel message. It pertains to the volition or will.
      • What is accomplished in this final element of faith is the moving of the individual’s will or volition, enabled by the Holy Spirit, to truly trust and thus to live in accord with what they know to be true. Fiducia primarily concerns the will or volition of an individual.
      • In saving faith the will is freed by the Holy Spirit to submit to what it is familiar with and knows to be true–the Gospel message–to commit oneself and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.
      • Only the Holy Spirit can enable or move an individual to appropriate the gift of life through Christ by faith.
      • Fiducia is the (saving) appropriation of the knowledge or information–what one knows to be true. In the case of the Gospel it appropriating the saving work of Christ.
        The key idea is to appropriate, not merely “know.”
      • J.I. Packer grasps the essence of this point when he writes that faith is “an
        appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ….”
      • Hence, one lives their life as if they really believe that the Gospel message is true.
        • A bomb scare
        • The analogy of a curative medicine: seven (7) scenarios
      • The genuineness of someone’s faith is not predicated on how sincere they are or how much they believe something, but only on the content of what they believe. This alone decides whether their belief is orthodox (correct belief), or a false gospel.
      • Genuine saving faith entails orthodoxy.
      • Even the most sincere and/or tenacious, but nonetheless misplaced faith or trust only leads to ruin (Prov. 14:12).
        • Orange County investors
        • People who thought they could fly
        • Heaven’s Gate group
      • Thus, B.B. Warfield rightly remarks: It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace….Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith….The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests…It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ…faith in any other saviour…brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of
        faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith….
      • Although fiducia is a volitional act, it can only occur (in saving faith), when
        conjoined with knowledge and assent to this knowledge as true.
      • Only with all three components (notitia, assensus, and fiducia)
        present, can biblical saving faith exist. Any other belief is a counterfeit and therefore is unbelief.
      • Thus, all three components (notitia, assensus, and fiducia) are
        necessary, and when found together are sufficient for saving faith to exist. But, if any one of the three is missing in an individual, then so is saving faith.
      • The essence of faith itself refutes the idea that faith is blind or can be possessed independent of knowledge acquired via evidence and reason.
      • Faith is founded on fact. Biblical saving faith is commitment to the truth–Jesus Christ, truth incarnate.
12. The Role of the Holy Spirit and Knowledge, Evidence, and Reason in Saving
    Faith and Biblical Apologetics
    • Do we merely “argue” or “reason” people into the kingdom of God? Is
      this just like the issue of whether one car is a better buy than another?
      • No! Only the Holy Spirit can enable a person to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We are clearly told in Scripture that one can only believe the Gospel message if and only God calls and enables them to believe through the work of Holy Spirit testifying to the truthfulness of the Gospel message.
      • See John 1:13; 6:44, 65; 16:8-11; Romans 9:16; Ephesians 2:8-10; 1 Corinthians 2:14 and so forth.
      • This is necessary due to man’s fallen and corrupt nature (1 Cor. 2:13-14; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph. 4:18).
      • The very ability to “hear,” consider, and respond to the Gospel is from first
        to last the gift of God (Rom. 1:17; Eph. 2:8-10). No one can believe or even begin “looking” for the gift of salvation through the Gospel, save by the gracious calling of God (Rom. 3:10-13).
      • However, the Holy Spirit does not do this independent of knowledge, evidence, and solid reason(s).
    • The role of the Holy Spirit, and knowledge, evidence, and reason are not opposed to each other.
      • The Holy Spirit uses the word of God and knowledge, evidence, and reason from it to draw or lead people to trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.
      • See Acts 17:22-31-34.
      • See 1 Peter 3:15.
      • God ordains both the means and the ends (analogously see, e.g., Acts 27:22-26 and 29-34).
    • It is not a case of either having evidence and being reasonable, or being
      “spiritual.”
      • They are not “at each other’s throats.”
      • They are not contradictory but complementary.
    • Thus, it is a false dichotomy to juxtapose knowledge, evidence and logic/rationality, versus the work of the Holy Spirit.
      • The past (Old) Princeton great J. Gresham Machen states: What the Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.
      • Dr. Kim Riddlebarger rightly remarks: A man cannot acquiesce to the truth of the Gospel apart from the enabling of the Holy Spirit. But, a man cannot acquiesce to that which he either does not know or believe to be true. It is thus an illegitimate separation of faith into either a “mind or heart,” “faith or reason” dichotomy. Biblically understood, faith and reason are intimately, completely and inseparably involved in one another.
      • Thus, while it is true that no one using human reasoning, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, is going to reason their way into the kingdom, it is equally true that saving faith is not independent from evidence and reason either.
      • In the last analysis you can not divorce the mind from the work of the Holy
        Spirit in conversion.
      • The Holy Spirit enables one to properly attend to the clear evidence for the truth of Christianity (John 16:8-11).
    • Therefore, we are not usurping the role and work of the Holy Spirit by using knowledge, historical evidences, and logic/reason in apologetics.
      • In fact, we are being obedient to what He has called us to do when we do this.
      • See 1 Peter 3:15!
    • Again, you can not by using only “evidence or reason and argumentation,” that
      is, in and of themselves, lead a person into the kingdom, but neither can they believe unless they are given at least a minimal amount of information or answers.
      • See 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 and Ephesians 2:1-2.
      • See Romans 10:9-14-15.
      • Recall the above quotes (Machen and Riddlebarger).
    • Thus, the working of the Holy Spirit and His use knowledge, evidence, and reason are necessary preconditions for salvation.
      • See Romans 10:9-14-15.
      • B.B. Warfield, another great past theologian of Princeton, comments: Faith is the gift of God: but it does not in the least follow that the faith God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds in right reason….The Holy Spirit does not work a blind, an ungrounded faith in the heart….nor yet new grounds of belief in the object presented; but just a new ability of the heart to respond to the grounds of faith, sufficient in themselves, already present to the understanding.
      • Therefore, by the grace and working of the one true triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit we exhort Christians to be confident in the claims of Christ Jesus and “…in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15).

 

 

 

 

]]> http://thecollegeoftheology.com/2009/06/faith-reason/feed/ 0