On this thread I posted something from John Owen’s Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated and as I’m going (slowly) through this big book, I’m going to post here from time to time those quotations I’ll find useful and insightful for those who are trying to have a better and more sure grasp of justification, the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. Admittedly Owen is a tough read, but also much rewarding than other authors.
At the beginning Owen spends almost 100 pages just to present some General Considerations. Here is perhaps the most important question that he’s going to answer in the book, the answer which divides reformation (lutheranism and reformation theology) from romanists and the rest of the world.
Now the inquiry, on what account, or for what cause and reason, a man may be so acquitted or discharged of sin, and accepted with God, as before declared, does necessarily issue in this: — “Whether it be any thing in ourselves, as our faith and repentance, thee renovation of our natures, inherent habits of grace, and actual works of righteousness which we have done, or may do? Or whether it be the obedience, righteousness, satisfaction, and merit of the Son of God our mediator, and surety of the covenant, imputed unto us?” One of these it must be, — namely, something that is our own, which, whatever may be the influence of the grace of God unto it, or causality of it, because wrought in and by us, is inherently our own in a proper sense; or something which, being not our own, nor inherent in us, nor wrought by us, is yet imputed unto us, for the pardon of our sins and the acceptation of our persons as righteous, or the making of us righteous in the sight of God. Neither are these things capable of mixture or composition, Romans 11:6. Which of these it is the duty, wisdom, and safety of a convinced sinner to rely upon and trust unto, in his appearance before God, is the sum of our present inquiry.
No mixture: either something external to us, or something internal, there is no middle ground. Notice that, in regard to something internal, even faith or repentance can practically function as a means of justification, turned into work-righteousness if it becomes the basis of acceptance, or justification before God. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to resist the temptation to think in those terms:
1 Faith and repentance or other “inherent habits of grace” are worked by the Holy Spirit in us.
2. Because these things are coming from God, they are acceptable before Him and we are accepted because of these graces.
3. Only works that are done in our power are falling under the rubric of works-righteousness condemned by the Bible.
4. We are justified before God because we did all we can do with God’s help, with God’s enabling power, and we rejected works that are done in our own power.
No, it doesn’t matter how we obtained those works, either only by ourselves or through God’s empowering grace, they are still our works, we did them, they are properly our own works because they are done by us and not without us. In contrast, the Bible speaks about Jesus’ work in our behalf, done apart from us, without us, which is counted to us as we did it.
Owen is right when he’s speaking about mixture: some are trying to mix justification through imputation with something else, here is Owen again:
At present, the generality of men are secure, and do not much question but that they shall come off well enough, one way or other, in the trial they are to undergo. And as such persons are altogether indifferent what doctrine concerning justification is taught and received; so for the most part, for themselves, they incline unto that declaration of it which best suits their own reason, as influenced with self-conceit and corrupt affections. The sum whereof is, that what they cannot do themselves, what is wanting that they may be saved, be it more or less, shall one way or other be made up by Christ; either the use or the abuse of which persuasion is the greatest fountain of sin in the world, next unto the depravation of our nature.
Red letters: do your best, and Christ will impute you the rest, will count to you the difference.
When I left adventism, the professor from my former seminary with whom I was in conversation for a time, brought repeatedly to my attention Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified
When I pointed to him that in the context this is brought as a proof that nobody can be justified by works of the law because there are no truly “doers of the law” since nobody performs 100% the law, he said that we do our best with God’s help and what remains undone is done by Christ, God counts us Christ’s righteousness and our works, albeit imperfect are counted perfect because Christ’s work, we qualify as “doers of the law” and we are justified. That was a mixture of starting with inherent righteousness and finishing with imputed righteousness, a combination that ends with us being justified partly because Christ did for us and partly because of the Holy Spirit work in us with our cooperation. It’s exactly the theology Owen spoke about.
Here a short commentary on Romans 2:13 from Calvin is useful. Calvin was very brief in his commentaries, he directed people to his Institutes for a thorough treatment of biblical themes:
This anticipates an objection which the Jews might have adduced. As they had heard that the law was the rule of righteousness, (Deuteronomy 4:1,) they gloried in the mere knowledge of it: to obviate this mistake, he declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such consequence, that any one should on that account lay claim to righteousness, but that works must be produced, according to this saying, “He who will do these shall live in them.” The import then of this verse is the following, — “That if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.” They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, — That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them.Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.
Pretty clear, I wish I had read Calvin 15 years ago, it would have spared me a lot of confusion.
Thanks so much for sharing this. I look forward to future posts as you read through John Owen’s book. You investment in time and your willingness to post here means a lot to me, and to others, I’m sure, who also benefit from your effort.
I also wish I could have understood justification much earlier in life. Justification of us sinners is either absurd or the most fantastic news ever.
Thanks so much for sharing this. I look forward to future posts as you read through John Owen’s book. You investment in time and your willingness to post here means a lot to me, and to others, I’m sure, who also benefit from your effort.
I also wish I could have understood justification much earlier in life. Justification of us sinners is either absurd or the most fantastic news ever.
Praise God!!
Bob Johnston
Amen Bob and good to hear from you. I also appreciate the time and effort Gabriel puts into his posts on such important topics as these. John Owen is difficult to read but it is great to see Gabriel bring out the great morsels of truth.
Thanks Bob and Stan, good to hear from you Bob. I don’t think we will ever get over our amazement regarding God’s grace and praise for his infinite mercy, and God forbid we will “graduate” from it. Following in the steps of Michael Hortons idea to put “amazing” back into grace, if a time will come when grace is just simply grace and is no longer amazing for us, that will be the time to go back to the SDA church and plead forgiveness for abandoning it.
Back to our subject, I’m still in the General Consideration introductory part (which is pretty big in itself) and found something that may even bring some smile on your face. Speaking about those who plead the role of works in justification, Owen says that even in them there is an obstacle that refrains them in being entirely consistent with their own teachings, at least in prayer:
And whereas we may and ought to represent unto God, in our supplications, our faith, or what it is that we believe herein, I much question whether some men can find in their hearts to pray over and plead before him all the arguments and distinctions they make use of to prove the interest of our works and obedience in our justification before him, or “enter into judgment” with him upon the conclusions which they make from them. Nor will many be satisfied to make use of that prayer which Pelagius taught the widow, as it was objected to him in the Diospolitan Synod:
“To nosti, Domine, quam sanctae, quam innocentes, quam purae ab omni fraude et rapina quas ad te expando manus; quam justa, quam immaculata labia et ab omni mendacio libera, quibus tibi ut mihi miserearis preces fundo;”
— “Thou knowest, O Lord, how holy, how innocent, how pure from all deceit and rapine, are the hands which I stretch forth unto thee; how just, how unspotted with evil, how free from lying, are those lips wherewith I pour forth prayers unto thee, that thou wouldst have mercy on me.” And yet, although he taught her so to plead her own purity, innocency, and righteousness before God, he does it not as those whereon she might be absolutely justified, but only as the condition of her obtaining mercy.
Interesting is that even Pelagius in this prayer that certainly boasts a lot about personal righteousness, does not use this self-righteousness as an absolute merit, but as a half-merit or semi-merit which has the role of obtaining grace. Even he had not the courage, or, as Owen said, could not find in his heart to “enter into judgment” with God upon the conclusions that are necessarily following his own teaching about the role of works in justification. The reformers, in my view, are those truly consistent with their doctrine which eliminates any personal works and personal merits from justification. Works follow justification, but they have no part in it.
Owen also establishes his goal in writing the book. He’s writing primarily for those who are convicted of their sins and their desperate need of justification, not for those who quarrel with it. While he’s going to answer some of their objections, he’s not going to try to change their minds. And he offers an insight that explains a lot while people like us may look as crazy people and imbalanced for manifesting such an unusual interest in justification, especially when the majority of it take God’s forgiveness of sins for granted and are focusing on “living the gospel”. There are two points here, very important, and both are connected to the perception of the true condition in which men are:
1. since people don’t perceive their true sinful state, they are incapable of sensing the solution to their need, because there is no connection between the earthly and visible reality with the spiritual and invisible reality.
As our Savior said unto them unto whom he had declared the necessity of regeneration, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things” so may we say, If men will not believe those things, whereof it would be marvelous, but that the reason of it is known, that they have not an undeniable evidence and experience in themselves, how can they believe those heavenly mysterieswhich respect a supposition of that within themselves which they will not acknowledge?
This is close connection between cause and effect: the spiritual, heavenly, unseen and somehow not subject to verification solution offered by God suppose a problem which is earthly, seen, perceived, concrete, practical. But if this problem, which is at hand, which is close to the man, is not perceived, the solution which is far remote and somehow ethereal will not be at all recognized.
2. as long as they will not perceive their lack of righteousness, they will rest satisfied in what they possess or think they do, and will refuse something that is clearly not their own, the external, alien, righteousness that is not in a proper sense their position. Christ’s righteousness is counted, imputed to us, and we possess it only as something that is not inherent in us.
Whilst men have no sense in their own hearts and consciences of the spiritual disorder of their souls, of the secret continual acting of sin with deceit and violence, obstructing all that is good, promoting all that is evil, defiling all that is done by them through the lusting of the flesh against the Spirit, as contrary unto it, though no outward perpetration of sin or actual omission of duty do ensue thereon, who are not engaged in a constant watchful conflict against the first motions of sin, — unto whom they are not the greatest burden and sorrow in this life, causing them to cry out for deliverance from them, — who can despise those who make acknowledgments in their confession unto God of their sense of these things, with the guilt wherewith they are accompanied, — (they) will, with an assured confidence, resect and condemn what is offered about justification through the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to us. For no man will be so fond as to be solicitous of a righteousness that is not his own, who has at home in a readiness that which is his own, which will serve his turn.
They simply have something in their hand that will serve their purposes, a personal righteousness, why trust in something which is not your own, which is not as palpable and concrete as your own inherent righteousness. From their perspective sanctification is a much more sure ground for their acceptance before God because it’s something visible to which they can look and they have it, this works! Only when its inadequacy is truly perceived, only then, out of necessity, people will find something not palpable, not as evident and perceived only by faith, not by sight, to be something most trustworthy than their own achievements. Only when what is seen becomes a negative certitude, only when their own righteousness is seen as something that doesn’t work, doesn’t serve their purpose, rather it’s a sure sign of condemnation, only then people will look away from themselves toward the achievements of somebody else, Christ. In this situation, and only in such conjecture the righteousness of Christ becomes truly something quite practical and only it can serve man’s purpose, to be accepted, justified before a holy God..
In the last time I became interested in the writings of the church fathers. I have a friend who’s concerned about an apparent lack of the existence of the doctrine of justification by faith alone in the early period of the church history. While we cannot expect the church fathers to act and write by using the later categories of the reformers in their exposition of the doctrine, we nevertheless should not take it lightly the question regarding the existence of the gospel in their writings.
Without entering into much detail because the objective of his work is not justification by faith alone in the writings of the church fathers, Owen advances an interesting thesis that in my views needs to be taken into consideration. He says:
And that I may add it by the way, we have herein the concurrence of the fathers of the primitive church. For although by justification, following the etymology of the Latin word, they understood the making us righteous with internal personal righteousness, — at least some of them did so, as Austin in particular, — yet that we are pardoned and accepted with God on any other account but that of the righteousness of Christ, they believed not. And whereas, especially in their controversy with the Pelagians, after the rising of that heresy, they plead vehemently that we are made righteous by the grace of God changing our hearts and natures, and creating in us a principle of spiritual life and holiness, and not by the endeavors of our own free will, or works performed in the strength thereof, their words and expressions have been abused, contrary to their intention and design.
For we wholly concur with them, and subscribe unto all that they dispute about the making of us personally righteous and holy by the effectual grace of God, against all merit of works and operations of our own free will (our sanctification being every way as much of grace as our justification, properly so called); and that in opposition unto the common doctrine of the Roman church about the same matter: only they call this our being made inherently and personally righteous by grace, sometimes by the name of justification, which we do not. And this is laid hold on as an advantage by those of the Roman church who do not concur with them in the way and manner whereby we are so made righteous. But whereas by our justification before God, we intend only that righteousness whereon our sins are pardoned, wherewith we are made righteous in his sight, or for which we are accepted as righteous before him, it will be hard to find any of them assigning of it unto any other causes than the Protestants do. So it is fallen out, that what they design to prove, we entirely comply with them in; but the way and manner whereby they prove it is made use of by the Papists unto another end, which they intended not.
The argument is simple: the church fathers were not pelagians neither semi-pelagians, but their writings are improperly used by semi-pelagians catholics in order to promote their version of justification by infused righteousness against the protestant view justification by imputed righteousness. The fathers talked about justification by being made internally righteous, but this form of speech, in Owen’s view is misleading, because when it comes to the subject of being accepted as righteous before God, they attribute it to the same cause as protestants do: God’s mercy.
Owen offers some very good quotations, in my view, from the church fathers. I didn’t take the time to verify them, here they are:
Justin Martyr:
He gave his Son a ransom for us; — the holy for transgressors; the innocent for the nocent; the just for the unjust; the incorruptible for the corrupt; the immortal for mortals. For what else could hide or cover our sins but his righteousness? In whom else could we wicked and ungodly ones be justified, or esteemed righteous, but in the Son of God alone? O sweet permutation, or change! O unsearchable work, or curious operation! O blessed beneficence, exceeding all expectations that the iniquity of many should be hid in one just one, and the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors.
Gregory of Nyssa:
He has transferred unto himself the filth of my sins, and communicated unto me his purity, and made me partaker of his beauty.
Augustine:
He was sin, that we might be righteousness; not our own, but the righteousness of God; not in ourselves, but in him; as he was sin, not his own, but ours, — not in himself, but in us.
Chrysostom:
What word, what speech is this? What mind can comprehend or express it? For he says, ‘He made him who was righteous to be made a sinner, that he might make sinners righteous. Nor yet does he say so neither, but that which is far more sublime and excellent; for he speaks not of an inclination or affection, but expresses the quality itself. For he says not, he made him a sinner, but sin; that we might be made, not merely righteous, but righteousness, and that the righteousness of God, when we are justified not by works (for if we should, there must be no spot found in them), but by grace, whereby all sin is blotted out.
These quotes are followed by other quotations from romano catholic authors who expressed protestant views on the subject. Perhaps the most interesting quote is coming from somebody who describes the deathbed convictions of Charles V, the emperor before whom Luther stood against and who ruled against the reformation.
So died that great emperor, Charles V, as Thuanus gives the account of his Novissima. So he reasoned with himself:
That in himself he was altogether unworthy to obtain the kingdom of heaven by his own works or merits; but that his Lord God, who enjoyed it on a double right or title, by inheritance of the Father, and the merit of his own passion, was contented with the one himself, and freely granted unto him the other; on whose free grant he laid claim thereunto, and in confidence thereof he should not be confounded; for the oil of mercy is poured only into the vessel of faith or trust: that this is the trust of a man despairing in himself, and resting in his Lord; otherwise, to trust unto his own works or merits, is not faith, but treachery: that sins are blotted out by the mercy of God; and therefore we ought to believe that our sins can be pardoned by him alone, against whom alone we have sinned, with whom there is no sin, and by whom alone sins are forgiven.
I have only one more point to emphasize from the introduction of Owen’s book and I’ll proceed to the first chapter where the quality of faith that obtains justification and the object of this faith is discussed.
I discovered some interesting things in the first chapter of Owen’s book on justification.
I was aware that regarding assurance of salvation there were some differences between the first reformers, Calvin and Luther, and the later puritans: the first affirmed that assurance of forgiveness of sins is essential to faith, and without this assurance the sinner cannot consider himself a true believer, exercising true faith. The later reformed writers excluded assurance from faith and apparently contradicted the first reformers.
Well, Owen shows that there is harmony between these two parties, and places their ideas in context. Speaking about the first reformers, he said
Faith, therefore, they make to be a full persuasion of the forgiveness of our sins through the mediation of Christ; or, that what Christ did and suffered as our mediator, he did it for us in particular: and a particular application of especial mercy unto our own souls and consciences is hereby made the essence of faith; or, to believe that our own sins are forgiven seems hereby to be the first and most proper act of justifying faith. Hence it would follow, that whosoever does not believe, or has not a firm persuasion of the forgiveness of his own sins in particular, has no saving faith, — is no true believer; which is by no means to be admitted. :
He disagrees with what it seems to be the fiducia element, personal trust in Christ’s merits for us. Still this apparent difference is not as it may seem to be.
Many great divines, at the first Reformation, did (as the Lutherans generally yet do) thus make the mercy of God in Christ, and thereby the forgiveness of our own sins, to be the proper object of justifying faith, as such; — whose essence, therefore, they placed in a fiducial trust in the grace of God by Christ declared in the promises, with a certain unwavering application of them unto ourselves
That which inclined those great and holy persons so to express themselves in this matter, and to place the essence of faith in the highest acting of it (wherein yet they always included and supposed its other acts), was the state of the consciences of men with whom they had to do. Their contest in this article with the Roman church, was about the way and means whereby the consciences of convinced, troubled sinners might come to rest and peace with God. For at that time they were no otherwise instructed, but that these things were to be obtained, not only by works of righteousness which men did themselves, in obedience unto the commands of God, but also by the strict observance of many inventions of what they called the Church; with an ascription of a strange efficacy to the same ends unto missatical sacrifices, sacramentals, absolutions, penances, pilgrimages, and other the like superstitions. Hereby they observed that the consciences of men were kept in perpetual disquietments, perplexities, fears and bondage, exclusive of that rest, assurance, and peace with God through the blood of Christ, which the gospel proclaims and tenders; and when the leaders of the people in that church had observed this, that indeed the ways and means which they proposed and presented would never bring the souls of men to rest, nor give them the least assurance of the pardon of sins, they made it a part of their doctrine, that the belief of the pardon of our own sins, and assurance of the love of God in Christ, were false and pernicious. For what should they else do, when they knew well enough that in their way, and by their propositions, they were not to be attained? Hence the principal controversy in this matter, which the reformed divines had with those of the church of Rome, was this, — Whether there be, according unto and by the gospel, a state of rest and assured peace with God to be attained in his life? And having all advantages imaginable for the proof hereof, from the very nature, use, and end of the gospel, — from the grace, love, and design of God in Christ, — from the efficacy of his mediation in his oblation and intercession, — they assigned these things to be the especial object of justifying faith, and that faith itself to be a fiduciary trust in the especial grace and mercy of God, through the blood of Christ, s proposed in the promises of the gospel; — that is, they directed the souls of men to seek for peace with God, the pardon of sin, and a right unto the heavenly inheritance, by placing their sole trust and confidence in the mercy of God by Christ alone. but yet, withal, I never read any of them (I know not what others have done) who affirmed that every true and sincere believer always had a full assurance of the especial love of God in Christ, or of the pardon of his own sins, — though they plead that this the Scripture requires of them in a way of duty, and that this they ought to aim at the attainment of.
The argument goes like this:
1. The false gospel does not produce any kind of assurance
2. The romanists who promoted it excluded assurance from the christian life, because practically their gospel did not produce any assurance
3 since the true gospel leads to assurance, it follows that it is a peculiar trait of the true gospel and true faith to lead to assurance
4 consequently the difference between true faith and false faith is that one leads to assurance while the other can’t produce it and by definition excludes if
In parenthesis, Ellen White’s statement that we can never affirm that we are saved are placing her clearly in the camp of the false gospel.
Owen turns to what is his slightly different version about faith and object of faith, but he mentions
Wherefore, neither opposing nor rejecting what has been delivered by others as their judgments herein, I shall propose my own thoughts
concerning it
It’s very important to keep in mind that he’s not rejecting the position of reformers. Nevertheless his formulations add something significant and very helpful
While the reformers affirmed “to believe that our own sins are forgiven seems hereby to be the first and most proper act of justifying faith” Owen shows how the forgiveness of sins is not the most proper act of justifying faith. The first and foremost object of faith is not forgiveness of sins, but Jesus Christ through whom and in whom these benefits resides. That’s quite important, because while we are confident that our sins are forgiven, what precedes this confidence is the conviction that because of Christ’s redemption our sins are forgiven. We are invited to come to Christ, where there is our redemption. Christ and the benefits of his work are inseparable and these benefits are obtained by trusting in him.
I say, therefore, that the Lord Jesus Christ himself, as ordinance of God, in his work of mediation for the recovery and salvation of lost sinners, and as unto that end proposed in the promise of the gospel, is the adequate, proper object of justifying faith, or of saving faith in its work and duty with respect unto our justification.
The reason why I thus state the object of justifying faith is, because it completely answers all that is ascribed unto it in the Scripture, and all that the nature of it does require. What belongs unto it as faith in general, is here supposed; and what is peculiar unto it as justifying, is fully expressed.
There is an especial assent unto the promises of the gospel, wherein some place the nature and essence of justifying faith, or of faith in its work and duty with respect unto our justification. And so they make the promises of the gospel to be the proper object of it. And it cannot be but that, in the acting of justifying faith, there is a peculiar assent unto them. Howbeit, this being only an act of the mind, neither the whole nature nor the whole work of faith can consist therein. Wherefore, so far as the promises concur to the complete object of faith, they are considered materially also, — namely, as they contain, propose, and exhibit Christ unto believers. And in that sense are they frequently affirmed in the Scripture to be the object of our faith unto the justification of life.
Wherefore, asserting the Lord Jesus Christ, in the work of his mediation, to be the object of faith unto justification, I include therein the grace of God, which is the cause; the pardon of sin, which is the effect; and the promises of the gospel, which are the means, of communicating Christ and the benefits of his mediation unto us.
And all these things are so united, so intermixed in their mutual relations and respects, so concatenated in the purpose of God, and the declaration made of his will in the gospel, as that the believing of any one of them does virtually include the belief of the rest. And by whom any one of them is disbelieved, they frustrate and make void all the rest, and so faith itself
.
Owen’s purpose is to show that the faith is not simply a mental assent to historical truth, it goes beyond this: it’s trust in a person, for something. By trusting in Christ, all elements of true faith are included. It’s not simply an assent to historical truth, it has a personal element, trusting that the benefits of Christ’s work are for me, and it’s a personal trust because faith has as its primary object a person, Christ (in whom the benefits of salvation are embodied), and involves trust in somebody, another personal element.
Some fix their faith on the things themselves which they aim at, — namely, the pardon of sin and eternal life. And these also in the Scripture are proposed unto us as the object of our faith, or that which we are to believe unto justification, Psalm 130:4; Acts 26:18; Titus 1:2. But this is to be done in its proper order, especially as unto the application of them unto our own souls. For we are nowhere required to believe them, or our own interest in them, but as they are effects of the grace and love of God, through Christ and his mediation, proposed in the promises of the gospel. Wherefore the belief of them is included in the belief of these, and is in order of nature antecedent thereunto. And the belief of the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life, without the due exercise of faith in those causes of them, is but presumption.
The contrast between presumption and true faith is this: believing that we are forgiven without believing in the promises of the gospel that we have these benefits as the effects of the grace of God manifested through Christ is presumption. The promise of the gospel is this: come to Christ and he will give you rest. Christ is the proper object of faith. We come to Christ, because we are heavy laden with sin, and he will give us rest. We don’t receive rest because we believe that God gives us rest, but because we believe that God gives us this rest “in Christ”, that in Christ we find those benefits. Apart from a personal trust in Christ for salvation there is no benefit obtained.
That whereby we are justified, is the especial object of our faith unto justification. But this is the Lord Christ in the work of his mediation: for we are justified by the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; for in him we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sin. Christ as a propitiation is the cause of our justification, and the object of our faith or we attain it by faith in his blood. But this is so under this formal consideration, as he is the ordinance of God for that end, — appointed, given, proposed, set forth from and by the grace, wisdom, and love of God. God set him forth to be a propitiation. He makes us accepted in the Beloved. We have redemption in his blood, according to the riches of his grace, whereby he makes us accepted in the Beloved. And herein he “abounds towards us in all wisdom,” Ephesians 1:8. This, therefore, is that which the gospel proposes unto us, as the especial object of our faith unto the justification of life.
The promise of the gospel is this: come to Christ and he will give you rest. Christ is the proper object of faith. We come to Christ, because we are heavy laden with sin, and he will give us rest. We don’t receive rest because we believe that God gives us rest, but because we believe that God gives us this rest “in Christ”, that in Christ we find those benefits. Apart from a personal trust in Christ for salvation there is no benefit obtained.
----------------------------------------------
Thanks Gabriel for this statement on the essence of the gospel. Jesus made this promise in Matthew 11:28
28 “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
When I left Evangelical Protestantism (where, in Sunday school as a child I even learned a little song that, at a certain point, said that “whoever works on Sunday is robbing from God”, which arouse to me the importance of the Sabbath principle) what they taught was the “dispensationalism” idea that the Era of the Law was surpassed by the Era of Grace.
As a Seventh-day Adventist I learned correctly that Grace and Law were always together, each one in its own function. God’s grace was offered to the original couple soon after the Fall, as God promised the One who would bruise the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). Rev. 13:8 says that “the Lamb was slain from the creation of the world”. Nobody was ever saved by his own works of obedience to the law.
Regarding justification by faith, I wonder whether the critics of the SDA position had the “curiosity” of checking what OFICIALLY the SDA Church teaches regarding the means of salvation in the Basic Beliefs, items 9, 10 and 19. The problem that I see with so many critics is the STRAWMEN they build regarding supposed SDA teachings, and their later work of destroying that fake thing of their own devising, which is typical of Dale Ratzlaff and his associates.
I have no problem at all in understanding what justification/sanctification are. I even checked the Roman Catholic understanding of this subject going to the Vatican official website (http://www.vatican.va) and looking up the entry “Justification by Faith” in the virtual ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’ available there. It indeed explains the contrast between the Protestant and Catholic positions.
Our justification cannot have any measure of our works gaining favor before God because it is impossible for men to perform perfect works. Besides, to count on any measure of our own works to be saved is an offense to Christ, because we would be trying to establish a parallel betwen OUR EXPERIENCE and CHRIST’S EXPERIENCE. Can these be ever put at a similar level?!
I thank God that the Seventh-day Adventist church presents the correct perspective between JUSTIFICATION and SANCTIFICATION. Jesus said that a proof of real LOVE to Him would be keeping His commandments (John 14:15). And John mentions the faithful ones at the endtime characterized as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12).
Faith of Jesus associated with keeping of commandments? Right--that is JUSTIFICATION and SANCTIFICATION hand in hand.
Regarding justification by faith, I wonder whether the critics of the SDA position had the “curiosity” of checking what OFICIALLY the SDA Church teaches regarding the means of salvation in the Basic Beliefs, items 9, 10 and 19. The problem that I see with so many critics is the STRAWMEN they build regarding supposed SDA teachings, and their later work of destroying that fake thing of their own devising, which is typical of Dale Ratzlaff and his associates.
From SDA Fundamental Belief #10:
Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment.
Salvation based on works.
From SDA Fundamental Belief #24:
The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom.
Anyone wondering whether the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone still matters ought to read this post. I would also urge any Adventist to carefully and thoughtfully read it, and think deeply about what the Roman Catholic is saying. This teaching of Rome, which is nearly identical to the Adventist understanding, is exactly the position rejected by the Reformation. Please, read it through. If you’re not familiar with the name Norman Shepherd or the Federal Vision stuff, don’t worry. The main thing I want everyone to see is the Roman position on salvation.
Nate
Side note: just take a gander over at revival sermons where they discuss this subject. The Adventists would agree fully with Sungenis (the Romanist).
From the article on HB indicated by Nate, expressing the Romanist view of the role of works and faith, here is Robert Sungenis in his interview with Michael Horton:
On the other hand, the Catholic Church does teach that works are salvific, that they do justify, but when it uses works in that sense it is talking about works that are done under the auspices of God’s grace, i.e., someone who’s already entered into God’s grace by faith and God can now look at those works a lot differently than he did when the person was not under God’s grace. When the person was not under God’s grace, the law, which God would use as the standard to judge those works, would condemn him for any work that he did because it would never meet up to the standard of God’s righteousness. But once he’s in the system of grace…then God looks at him in a very different way and thus those works he does for God, God can look at those works and bless those works and give a reward for those works, which we call salvation.(emphasis mine)
Well, according to this view, if your works are done under God’s grace in cooperation with God’s grace, he rewards these works. Only works done outside of God’s grace he doesn’t reward.
In case you missed, again:
“You have faith and works that are under God’s grace and both of those are looked at by God as things that he requires you to do and he blesses those and as long as you remain in the faith and keep doing the works you remain in the justification.”(emphasis mine)
On revivalsermons the following quote from Ellen White was presented as fitting the Lutheran perspective on salvation. I’ll reproduce below the quotations from Ellen White exactly as it was emphasized on revivalsermons:
We are accepted through Christ’s merits alone; and the acts of mercy, the deeds of love, which we perform, are the fruits of faith; and they become a blessing to us; for men are to be rewarded according to their works. It is the fragrance of the merits of Christ that makes our good works acceptable to God, and it is grace that enables us to do the works for which He rewards us. Our works in and of themselves have no merit. When we have done all that is possible for us to do, we are to count ourselves as unprofitable servants. We deserve no thanks from God. We have only done what it was our duty to do, and our works could not have been performed in the strength of our own sinful natures.” E.G. White, Bible Commentary, Vol.5, p.1122.
Notice: the merits of Christ make our good works acceptable to God, and also God’s grace empowers us to do the works. Consequently God rewards these works because they are done in God’s power and are combined with Jesus merits. Luther’s view? Nope. Rome’s? Yup.
This reminds me of one of the most funny conversation in the classic Pilgrim’s Progress written by John Bunyan, between Ignorance and Christian.
Christian: How dost thou believe?
Ignorance: I believe that Christ died for sinners; and that I shall be justified before God from the curse, through his gracious acceptance of my obedience to his law; or thus, Christ makes my duties that are religious acceptable to his Father by virtue of his merits, and so shall I be justified.
Christian: Let me give an answer to this confession of thy faith:
1. Thou believest with a fantastical faith; for this faith is nowhere described in the Word.
2. Thou believest with a false faith; because it taketh justification from the personal righteousness of Christ, and applies it to thy own.
3. This faithmakes not Christ a justifier of thy person, but of thy actions; and of thy person for thy actions’ sake, which is false.
4. Therefore this faith is deceitful, even such as will leave thee under wrath in the day of God Almighty; for true justifying faith puts the soul (as sensible of its lost condition by the law) upon flying for refuge unto Christ’s righteousness – which righteousness of his is not an act of grace by which he makes for justification thy obedience accepted with God; but his personal obedience to the law in doing and suffering for us what that required at our hands. This righteousness, I say, true faith accepts; under the skirt of which, the soul being shrouded, and by it presented as spotless before God, it is accepted, and acquitted from condemnation. (emphasis mine)
Anyone wondering whether the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone still matters ought to read this post. I would also urge any Adventist to carefully and thoughtfully read it, and think deeply about what the Roman Catholic is saying. This teaching of Rome, which is nearly identical to the Adventist understanding, is exactly the position rejected by the Reformation. Please, read it through. If you’re not familiar with the name Norman Shepherd or the Federal Vision stuff, don’t worry. The main thing I want everyone to see is the Roman position on salvation.
Nate
Side note: just take a gander over at revival sermons where they discuss this subject. The Adventists would agree fully with Sungenis (the Romanist).
Thanks Nate for referring us to that post.
I remember listening to that broadcast.
I will try to share this on the forum you referred to.
There is one question I usually ask adventists who knew me and discover that I’m no longer adventist, the first and foremost reason being unbelief in the sanctuary/investigative judgment theory. I investigated the issue for myself being forced to do this because I realized I had no chance to pass the test of the IJ. Since I was going to be judged according to the perfect standard of God’s law, I’m far away for being perfect, I understood that I have no chance to pass the test. My next question is “What makes you think you’ll pass the test?” and there are usually two answers:
1. The perfectionist answer: they believe that the “latter rain” will bring such a power from the Holy Spirit in their life that they will live a perfect life.
2. The non-perfectionist answer: God will judge our deeds not according to stern justice, but also mercifully. If on a scale from 1 to 10, their performance is around 7 or 8, God will take a performance of 7 and count it as 10, as perfect, because of Christ’s mercy and merits.
This view is rampant in adventism, people hope that God will see their efforts, their sacrifice, and even if these efforts are not perfect, they believe that since God is merciful, he will use Christ’s blood to compensate for their lack of perfection. They confuse law and gospel, mercy with justice, and behold!, they can pass the judgment. This is exactly the view exhibited by Ignorance in Pilgrim’s Progress, quoted previously:
Ignorance: I believe that Christ died for sinners; and that I shall be justified before God from the curse, through his gracious acceptance of my obedience to his law; or thus, Christ makes my duties that are religious acceptable to his Father by virtue of his merits, and so shall I be justified.
As ironical as it seems, adventists need to get into touch with the true role of the law as an expression of God’s justice and also of future judgment. Judgment is the bare law, not mercy, not a combination of these two elements. When they will understand this true, investigative judgment will have apologists only in the ranks of the perfectionists. It will force people either to become perfectionists or drop the IJ entirely.
