072. CHAPTER 32 - JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY - OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
CHAPTER 32 - JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY - OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
WE proceed now to consider some of the leading objections to the doctrine of justification by faith only. They may all, so far as we consider them deserving any notice, be embraced in two: first, it is objected to this doctrine that the Scriptures teach justification by evangelical obedience; secondly, it is said that the Scriptures teach justification by baptism. These two leading objections we will now briefly consider.
I. First, it is objected that the doctrine of justification by faith only, is inconsistent with what the Scriptures teach in reference to justification by evangelical obedience. That we may perceive the true force of this objection, we here observe, that the word justify is sometimes used in Scripture in relation to that sentence of acquittal or condemnation which shall be awarded to every man at the day of judgment. In this sense it is used by our Saviour in Matthew 12:37 : “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” This justification is, in a certain sense, by works; for “words” in the text denote the entire actions; but this is not by the merit of works, but only implies that we are justified by the evidence of our works, or that we are to be rewarded, as the Scriptures repeatedly declare, “according to our works.” So that we remark, in reference to this justification, 1. It is not by works on the ground of merit, but only by the evidence or measure of works.
2. These works themselves are not contemplated in the abstract, but only as connected with, and growing out of, evangelical faith.
3. This justification is entirely a distinct and separate thing from the justification in question. The justification generally spoken of in the Scriptures, of which St. Paul treats so largely in the letters to the Romans and to the Galatians, and which we have presented as being by faith only, means pardon for the guilt of past sin bestowed upon the believer the moment he believes. Hence it is apparent that any thing affirmed in reference to justification at the day of judgment, can have no bearing on the subject in hand. The scripture, mainly relied upon in defense of justification by works of evangelical obedience, in opposition to justification by faith only, is the Epistle of St. James. To this we will for a few moments direct our attention.
Some have rashly concluded that St. James, on the subject of justification, contradicts St. Paul. Under this view, Luther rejected the Epistle of James from the canon of Scripture, calling it “an epistle of straw.” The great body of the Church have not, however, doubted its authority; and many different plans have been presented to reconcile the seeming contradictions of the two apostles. To enter extensively into the controversy which has been connected with this subject, would be tedious, and we think unnecessary. All that seems to be required is, to show that St. James does not contradict what we have seen to be so clearly taught by St. Paul, and so fully set forth in the Scriptures. This, we think, will not be difficult to evince. The contradiction supposed between the two apostles respects what they have written in reference to the justification of Abraham. That there can be no discrepancy between them, we think will be evident from the following considerations.
1. They do not refer to the same event. St. Paul speaks of the justification of Abraham when the promise of the seed was made to him before the birth of Isaac: St. James speaks of the justification of Abraham when “he offered Isaac his son upon the altar.” The two justifications were so far from being the same, that they stand in history about twenty-five years asunder.
Hence, whatever St. James may say, he cannot contradict St. Paul, as they speak of entirely different transactions.
2. The two apostles do not speak of the same faith - they do not use the term in the same sense. St. Paul speaks of that faith which confides or trusts in the merits of Christ for salvation; which “works by love and purifies the heart;” which implies “believing with the heart unto righteousness” - in a word, he speaks of a living, active, powerful, evangelical faith. St. James speaks of a “dead” faith, a faith which is “alone,” a mere assent of the understanding; such a faith as the “devils” possessed. So far from St. Paul affirming that we are justified by such a faith as this, he said not one word in reference to such faith. The faith of which he spoke is never “alone,” though it alone justifies. Hence it is manifest that, when St. James asks the question, “Can faith save him?” he does not mean the same faith spoken of by Paul when he affirms that “we are justified by faith;” consequently there can be no contradiction between them.
3. The two apostles do not use the term justification in the same sense. That St. Paul uses the term as synonymous with pardon, or the remission of sins, has been abundantly proved. That St. James does not use the term in this sense, is evident from the case of Abraham appealed to for illustration. In the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, where Moses records the transaction referred to by St. Paul, he declares that “he (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness.”
Now, if we understand St. James to affirm that Abraham was not pardoned till years afterward, when he offered Isaac upon the altar, we make him contradict both Paul and Moses, and we may set ourselves to reconciling him with the latter as well as the former. But surely this view cannot be maintained. Hence we conclude that the two apostles could not use the term justification in the same sense.
St. James, by the term, can only mean that the faith of Abraham was manifested or proved to be genuine; his works were a manifestation or evidence of his former justification by faith; or they may be taken as a proof that he had not forfeited his justification by apostasy. So that, in this accommodated sense of the term, the only sense consistent with the history of the case, and a sense not at all used by St. Paul, Abraham was said by James to be justified “by works.” Hence we conclude that, when St. James says, “Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” he does not refer to the same kind of justification of which St. Paul treats; consequently there can be no contradiction between them. As this is the main reliance of the advocates for justification by evangelical obedience in opposition to the doctrine of justification by faith only, and as we find here nothing irreconcilable with the view of the doctrine which we have advocated, we deem it unnecessary to pursue this subject farther.
II. In the next place, we notice the objection that the doctrine of justification by faith only is inconsistent with what the Scriptures teach concerning justification or remission of sins by baptism.
If, by such as urge the above objection, the meaning be merely that baptism is a means of grace, which, like hearing the word, prayer, and various other means, should be used sincerely, in reference to, or as a help to, the exercise of evangelical faith, there can be no controversy; for all this is freely admitted. But if the meaning be that baptism is the condition of justification, in such sense as we have shown faith to be - that is, that it is a condition in such sense that none can be justified or have their sins remitted without it, and that all who are baptized are that moment justified - if this be the meaning, then do we most explicitly repudiate the notion as being unscriptural and pernicious.
Again: if it be contended that faith and baptism united are the condition of justification, in the sense above defined, this modification of the subject we consider equally unscriptural and pernicious with the one above named. The first view presented, which admits baptism, like the hearing of the gospel or prayer, to be a condition as a means of grace, being in no sense incompatible with the view presented of justification by faith only, we presume cannot be the sense in which the abettors of this objection understand the subject. The two latter views - that is, first, that baptism or second, that faith and baptism united, are the condition of justification in the sense in which we have defined faith to be - must be considered as embracing the meaning of the objectors. We shall therefore endeavor to consider the claims of both these notions, in view of Scripture and reason. This much we would here premise, that, as we have already shown from numerous and explicit declarations of Scripture that faith is the absolute and indispensable condition of justification, and as we have also shown that to suppose two such conditions involves a contradiction, it will necessarily follow that, if the Scriptures do authorize the view of the objectors, as just defined, the book of God must be charged with self-contradiction. But we rejoice to believe that a brief examination of the Scriptures relied upon by the abettors of the objection in question, will discover to us that we need have no such apprehension.
Those who make baptism the only appointed means of remission, rely almost exclusively upon the following passages: - Acts 2:38 : “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 22:16 : “And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
1 Peter 3:21 : “The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
We think it will be admitted by all intelligent and candid persons, that when a passage of Scripture is susceptible of two different constructions, the one perfectly consistent with all other scriptures, and the other irreconcilable with a number of plain declarations of scripture, the former interpretation should be adopted. Taking this rule of interpretation, which we think none can oppose, as the basis of our reasoning, we proceed to consider the above texts.
1. We will show that they may, without violence, be construed so as not to conflict with the doctrine of justification by faith only, as we have defined and endeavored to establish it.
2. We shall show the violence to many plain declarations of the Bible which the construction required by the objectors in question would involve.
Then we inquire, How can these passages be explained in accordance with our views of justification by faith only?
(1) First, in reference to the words of Peter, in the second chapter of The Acts, we remark, that the “remission of sins,” it is true, is here promised in connection with baptism. But, we ask, is it not in connection with something more than baptism, both expressed and implied? The words are, “Repent, and be baptized.” Here repentance is expressed, and faith is evidently implied, as being connected with repentance. If we deny this, we admit that sins may be remitted without faith, and contradict the whole tenor of Scripture; if we admit this, then we admit that these persons may have been justified by faith only.
Baptism is a sign or emblem of the cleansing of the soul, and all who faithfully use the sign have here the promise of the thing signified; but can any say that this is absolutely connected with the sign, whether it be faithfully used or not? We think this can scarcely be contended for; and if so, then it follows that baptism is not the essential condition in the case, but the faith with which it was required to be used. They are commanded to “repent, and be baptized, eiv (in order to) the remission of sins” - that is, to use these means with reference to the end in view, which will certainly accompany the means when used in faith; but, at the same time, the faith implied as connected with, or as being obtained in, the use of the means, is the availing condition, as it alone can apprehend the merits of that “blood, without the shedding of which there can be no remission.” But that faith was here connected with ‘the use of the means, and that it, and not baptism, nor yet baptism and faith taken together, was the real condition through which the spiritual blessings promised was communicated, we are not left to conclude by mere inference. The same apostle who here gave the command to “repent and be baptized,” promising “remission of sins,” and “the gift of the Holy Ghost,” refers to this matter in the fifteenth chapter of The Acts, and testifies, (speaking of the Gentiles,) that God gave “them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us (the Jews,) and put no difference between us (Jews at Pentecost) and them, (the Gentiles,) purifying their hearts by faith.” Now, as justification, or “remission of sins,” is inseparably connected with the purification of the heart spoken of, we have the direct testimony of Peter himself, that these Jews at Pentecost were justified, not by baptism, but “by faith.”
(2) The same mode of explanation which we have above presented will equally apply to the next passage - the words of Ananias to Saul -
Acts 22:16 : “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Here baptism is not alone, but is connected with “calling on the name of the Lord,” which is used here, as in the Scriptures frequently, as another expression for evangelical faith, This same person who was here commanded to “wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” affirms, in the tenth chapter to the Romans, that “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” It is beyond controversy that this implies faith, and therefore the passage in question, so far from disproving the doctrine of justification by faith, is no inconsiderable evidence in its favor.
(3) The last text we proposed to examine, in this connection, is 1 Peter 3:21 : “The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us,” etc. Here it may be sufficient to observe that the apostle, as if by special design to guard us against the notion which we are now opposing, takes special pains, by the use of parenthesis, to define the sense, in which he uses the word baptism. “Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” -that is, it is not the external rite of washing the body with water that “saves us,” but it is “the answer of a good conscience toward God” - that is, it is the internal baptism, or purification of the heart by the Holy Spirit through faith, (which alone can impart a “good conscience,”) that “doth now save us.”
We think, from what we have now presented, it will be manifest to the unprejudiced mind, that the texts adduced may be construed, without violence, in consistency with the doctrine of justification by faith only.
III. We conclude the present chapter by presenting a few of the difficulties which are necessarily involved in the notion that baptism, or even baptism in connection with faith, is the condition of justification.
1. If baptism be the prescribed and only means of justification, or pardon, then it will follow, either that the ordinance must be repeated in order to forgiveness, every time the baptized person subsequently commits sin, or that there are two different methods of justification. The former is contrary to the practice of the apostolic, as well as all modern, Churches; the latter is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture, which recognizes but one “sacrifice for sin,” and but one mode of access to that sacrifice.
2. This scheme of justification leaves us without any evidence that the apostles themselves were ever justified; for, although they were commissioned to preach the gospel, and to baptize the nations, there is no proof that they themselves ever were baptized under the gospel economy. If it be said that they baptized each other, we reply, this is assertion without proof; but were we to admit the fact, some one of them must have been the first, and consequently he must have administered the ordinance while he himself was under condemnation.
3. This scheme, which inseparably connects the remission of sins with baptism, either implies that God saves the heathen without the “remission of sins” at all, or that none of them can be saved. Either position is repugnant to Scripture.
4. This scheme of justification is contrary to the Scripture history. Christ, when here upon earth, said to various individuals, “Thy sins are forgiven, go in peace and sin no more;” and to the thief on the cross, he said “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” In these cases two things are certain:
1. There was real “remission of sins;” for so it is either undeniably implied, or expressly declared.
2. There was no baptism, nor any other work of obedience; but the simple exercise of faith. The language of the great Teacher was, “Be it according to thy faith;” “Thy faith hath saved thee;” or “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” There is not one word in reference to baptism. Indeed, it is undeniable that there was no such thing.
Again: while Peter was preaching in the house of Cornelius, (Acts 10:1-48.,) and declaring “that whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” the Holy Ghost fell on the people, and they “magnified God.” Now, that this implies the renewing influence of the Spirit, as well as miraculous gifts, is evident from the fact that they were immediately admitted to Church-fellowship, not as having the promise of remission in baptism which was proposed, but they were recommended to baptism on the ground of what they had already received.
If we say that they did not receive the “remission of sins” previous to baptism, then we admit that the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they were recommended by the apostle for Church-communion in consequence thereof, while they were in a state of guilt and condemnation; and, moreover, that Peter commanded them to be baptized, (although as Gentiles they, of all persons, the most needed full instruction,) without one word, so far as the narrative shows, on the subject of the “remission of sins,” as connected with that baptism. If we say that they received “remission of sins” previous to baptism, then the point in controversy is fairly surrendered. Nor can this be evaded by saying that this was the first introduction of the gospel among the Gentiles. What if it was? Unless it can be proved that God designed to make the plan of salvation different among the Gentiles in its commencement from what it was to be in its progress, the fact of its being the commencement of the gospel with them cannot affect the question before us in the least. To say that this case was an exception to the general rule, and that the case on the day of Pentecost was the true model of God’s regular method of justification, is perfectly gratuitous. It is a human invention; a fiction of our own, without a word or syllable of Scripture for its support. Why not say that the case of Pentecost was the exception, and this, in the house of Cornelius, the regular plan? If we may make laws, and exceptions to laws, in the kingdom of Christ, at pleasure the latter would seem rather the more plausible of the two, especially as the Christian Church has hitherto been mainly composed of Gentile converts. The truth is, baptism, like other means of grace, may either precede or follow the act of faith which justifies. Faith being the great and only indispensable condition of pardon, and as it may be exercised either before, or after, or even in the act of, baptism, there is, on this hypothesis, no difficulty in harmonizing the two cases under consideration. But by the scheme of baptismal justification, as presented above, they are perfectly irreconcilable.
5. But the crowning objection to the whole scheme is its direct opposition to the general tenor of the Scriptures. If we admit it, we must directly contradict a vast number of plain declarations of the inspired record, and render a good portion of the Bible absurd and ridiculous. This may soon be made manifest.
(1) The Scriptures everywhere represent justification, or the forgiveness of sins, as the proper work of God; and nowhere is it presented as a work of man, either as the prime or constituted agent. When the great Jehovah proclaimed, under circumstances of the deepest solemnity, his character to Moses, one of its essential properties was declared to be the prerogative of “forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.” When the Jews made against the Son of God the foul charge of blasphemy; their principal specification was that he had said to the paralytic, “Thy sins are forgiven thee:” this is blasphemy, exclaimed the Jews; for “Who can forgive sins but God?” and St. Paul declares, “It is God that justifieth.” Now, if baptism be the act that justifies, and which invariably remits sin, does it not follow that the administrator of the ordinance is the agent in justification? And thus this doctrine is closely allied to the papal absurdity of remission by the priest.
(2) The Scriptures everywhere represent that justification by works is impossible; but if we are justified by baptism, since it is undeniable that it is, in the proper sense, a work, it follows that the word of God expressly contradicts itself; for the apostle declares “that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
(3) If baptism be the essential and invariable condition of pardon, how can those scriptures be true which represent that salvation is possible to all men who have not squandered their day of gracious visitation; and that, not at some future period, but immediately, without any delay, except what arises from the state of the sinner’s heart? That such is the general tenor of Scripture, we think will not be denied. Upon the supposition that faith is the grand essential condition, we perceive at once its perfect adaptation to all circumstances and conditions, to all climates and to all places. Neither cold, nor drought, nor time, nor place, nor disease, nor prison, which may frequently preclude the possibility of baptism, and consequently the possibility of salvation, according to the theory of remission which we now oppose, can insuperably obstruct the salvation of any man, on the principle of justification by faith.
6. Lastly: if the system of justification against which we have been speaking be admitted, then it will follow that, in all places where justification or salvation is spoken of, and any thing mentioned as the condition thereof the specified condition may be omitted, and baptism substituted for it, in consistency with the gospel scheme.
Apply this rule to the following scriptures, and let any intelligent and sober person determine whether, as Baxter has expressed it, “the word of God” ought to be thus “audaciously corrected”: “He that believeth not shall be damned?” “He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Now, if baptism be the absolute and essential condition of salvation, it necessarily follows that without violence it may be here substituted for faith - then the passages would read thus: “He that is not baptized shall be damned.” “He that is baptized in his name is not condemned; but he that is not baptized in his name is condemned already, because he hath not been baptized in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” The above is sufficient to show how ridiculous such a reading would render the word of God. Many such passages might be quoted, in which to substitute baptism for faith, would be nothing better than trifling with the sacred word.
We consider it needless to pursue the subject farther. We think we have shown clearly that there can, in the very nature of the subject, be but one absolute and invariable condition of justification. And we think it must be obvious, from what has been presented, what that condition is. Baptism, it cannot be; for there is not one text in the Bible which attributes it to that ordinance alone. It is attributed to baptism, to repentance, to conversion, to prayer, and various other things, in connection with faith; but never to any one of them, nor to all of them taken together, in the absence of faith. On the other hand, there are near a hundred plain passages of Scripture that attribute salvation or justification (which mutually imply each other) to faith, as the only essential condition.
We therefore close, by repeating, as the conclusion of this investigation, the following declaration: - Justification is by faith only, in such sense that none can be justified without faith, and all who have it are justified. Or, in the words of the Methodist Discipline, (Art. IX.,) “That we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.”