068. CHAPTER 31 - JUSTIFICATION - FALSE THEORIES REFUTED - JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS ALONE, AND BY F...
CHAPTER 31 - JUSTIFICATION - FALSE THEORIES REFUTED - JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS ALONE, AND BY FAITH AND WORKS UNITED, CONSIDERED. THE third method of justification which we propose to examine, is that which teaches that we are justified by works alone.
Justification by works alone may be understood in several different senses.
1. It may mean justification by perfect obedience to the original law of God. This, as we have already shown, is absolutely impossible to a fallen sinner. The condition of the first covenant being “Do this, (in your own person,) and live,” and “Cursed is every one that continued not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them, it will hence follow that, as the apostle declares that “all have sinned,” and “all the world are guilty before God,” to be justified by works of perfect obedience to the first covenant, or original law of God, is absolutely impossible.
2. Justification by works alone may mean a perfect conformity to that moral code or law given to the Jews in their own Scriptures, and to the Gentiles by the influence of the Holy Spirit given unto them, to “show the work of the law written in their hearts.” This is substantially the same law that was given to Adam, and, in reference to its subject-matter, is identical with the covenant of works, which is still in force, not as a principle of justification, but as a rule of life, by which to estimate the moral standing of man, and exhibit the magnitude of his delinquencies in the sight of God; for, as the apostle says, “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” In reference to this law, it was that the Jews, in St. Paul’s day, set up a claim to justification by works. The great argument in the Epistle to the Romans is to show the utter impracticability of this scheme of justification. We need only in this place quote the words in which the apostle sums up his grand conclusion, or sets forth his main position, thus: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” This one passage, to such as are willing to abide by the teachings of inspiration, must forever explode the old Jewish scheme of justification by the works of the moral law; and as we know not that any respectable authority in the Christian Church since the apostle’s days has pleaded for justification in professedly the same way, we may pass this scheme without farther notice.
3. Justification by works alone may be understood as implying justification by works of evangelical obedience under the gospel, or those works which proceed from faith, and are performed by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. This scheme has had some advocates in different ages of the Church, and in modern times has found an able patron in Bishop Bull, the impress of whose views upon this subject is still perceptible upon many of the clergy of the Church of England. The grand argument in support of this scheme has been founded upon the language of St. James, who, it is contended, expressly teaches justification by works; and the effort has been made to reconcile St. Paul to St. James, by alleging that the former, when he denies the possibility of “justification by works,” refers only to works of obedience to the Mosaic law; and that, when he teaches justification “by faith,” he means the works which spring from faith. We reserve the refutation of this and every other scheme of justification by works, till we come to examine the doctrine of justification by faith only; since the establishment of the latter will disprove the former. They cannot stand together. The fourth scheme of justification to be considered, is that which teaches that we are justified by faith and works taken together. This scheme has had a respectable number of advocates, but they have differed considerably among themselves in reference to the kind of works which are united with faith in justification, and the degree of importance which should be attached to particular works.
Dr. Macknight, perhaps one of the ablest defenders the scheme has ever had, presents a statement of the doctrine in the following words: “And surely it belongeth to God to appoint what conditions or means of justification seemeth to him good. Now that he hath actually made faith and works, not separately, but jointly, the condition of justification, both Paul and James have declared.” But Dr. Macknight understood justification to mean, not the pardon of sin in this world, but the sentence of acquittal to be pronounced upon the righteous at the day of final judgment. Hence, according to him, justification is a blessing which no man can attain in this life.
Others, however, who have held to justification by faith and works have admitted that it takes place in this life; and not a few have attached peculiar importance to some particular works, especially to the ceremony of Christian baptism. This by some has been considered the great sine qua non in order to justification. It is true, they have not considered baptism available for justification in an adult, except it be preceded or accompanied by faith; but when connected with faith, they have considered that ordinance not only as the prescribed means, but also as the only legitimate evidence of justification. Indeed, so much importance has been attached to that ordinance in this connection, that it has been strenuously contended that without baptism there can be no remission of sin. It is difficult to determine, from the manner in which a certain class have expressed themselves, whether it would not be more correct to say that they hold to justification by works; for they certainly attach far more importance to baptism than they do to faith, inasmuch as they say that a proper faith may exist without justification, but a proper baptism cannot.
Closely allied to this notion is the doctrine of the Roman Catholics on the subject of satisfaction, penance, etc. They not only hold that works are essential to the complete remission of sin, but they teach that they are meritorious. They confound justification with sanctification, and contend that we must be inherently righteous before we can be just in the sight of God; and this inherent righteousness, according to them, is derived from the merit of good works. Hence their peculiar views on the subject of penance, indulgences, purgatory, etc. But the full refutation of all these variant schemes of justification by faith and works united, we trust will be sufficiently apparent in the discussion of the scheme of justification by faith only. We will, however, remark at this time, that the prima facie evidence of Scripture is against them, as we read nothing there in reference to justification by faith and works taken together: to be justified “by faith,” and to be justified “by works,” are both terms used in Scripture; but justification by faith and works is a phrase not found in Holy Writ. We presume the advocates of this doctrine will not pretend that it is taught by St. Paul, and unless they can find something to sustain it in the Epistle of St. James, we know of no text in the Bible upon which they can base a plausible defense of their theory. But as that passage will be particularly examined in the discussion of justification by faith only, we will close the present chapter by presenting one leading objection to all these schemes of justification by works, and by faith and works - it is this:
All these schemes are either based upon an entire misapprehension of the nature of justification as presented in Scripture, or else they labor under most of the difficulties connected with the schemes of imputation already exhibited.
We have already shown that, in the Bible acceptation, to justify is to pardon or forgive sin; or, in other words, it is a sentence by which the punishment due to sin is remitted. This is a great and prominent truth, most clearly presented in the New Testament; and most of the difficulties and inconsistencies on the subject of justification may be traced to a disregard of this leading principle; therefore we should, while on this subject, endeavor to keep it still in view. The proofs on this point already presented we think are very conclusive, but as there is scarce an erroneous scheme of justification but what must necessarily battle with this truth for its own existence, we beg leave at this time to ask a careful attention to the concluding part of the fourth chapter of 2 Corinthians. Here we learn that “reconciliation to God,” the “non-imputation of trespasses,” and being “made the righteousness of God,” are phrases that are all used as expressive of the same thing, and as synonymous with justification. The passage admits no other sensible interpretation. If, then, we admit that to justify means to pardon or forgive sin, the schemes now in question are involved at once in inextricable difficulties.
1. As justification means pardon, then, as the Scriptures declare, “God justifieth the ungodly,” for none others can need pardon. Hence we must be pardoned before we become righteous by personal obedience or inherent holiness; therefore we cannot be justified by those works of obedience which none but the righteous can perform. This would be to require us to do, in order to justification, what can only be done by such as are already justified, which is absurd.
2. If we are justified by works at all, these works must either embrace perfect obedience to the law of God, or they must not: if they do, then the law can demand no more, and we have no need for the death of Christ: if they do not, then we cannot be justified by them; for the law saith, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”
3. If we are justified by faith and works taken together, then these works must either be performed before or after justification. If they are performed before justification, then they must be performed while we are in unbelief; “for all that believe are justified;” and if in unbelief, they must be sinful; for “whatsoever is not of faith is sin;” and if so, it would follow that we are justified by sin, which is absurd. But if the works are performed after justification, then it will follow that the effect precedes the cause, which is also absurd. Indeed, if we are justified by works of evangelical obedience in connection with faith, it would seem inconsistent to say that we can be justified in this life; but if, with Dr. Macknight, we deny this, we deny the Scriptures. But we reserve the full refutation of these schemes for the next chapter.