Affirming the Reformed Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone
Let me begin by saying thank you to JP for extending this invitation/challenge to debate the Biblical doctrine of justification. This is the single most important issue a man or woman must deal with in their lives. How are we as fallen people to be made right with the holy God we have offended by our sins? Paul says that our sins have made us objects of wrath by nature (Ephesians 2:1-14). As fallen men, we are at enmity with because our minds are on the flesh. This enmity will ultimately end in our death (Romans 8:6, 7). Every fallen sinner crumbles under the weight of the holiness of God, asking the same question that the psalmist asked �If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?
But the very subject of our debate is the answer to the dilemma we find ourselves in. Though the sinner has offended God and earned His wrath, God has come to us and brought us good news. The good news is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the subject of the debate we are about to engage in. How are we brought into a state where we are at peace with God? The answer is justification (Romans 5:1).
The debate is how we are justified. This debate over the manner in which we are justified is naturally intertwined with the very definition of justification, so both are important. I will be defending the Reformed position commonly known as sola fide: Faith alone. I believe that we are justified before God by faith alone plus nothing, because this is the teaching of the Scripture en tota. I will prove this by exegesis of the key passages that touch on this doctrine.
I have two goals in mind in this opening statement. First, I want to highlight the vital differences between the Reformed/Biblical position, and the Roman Catholic position. Second, I will turn to the text of Scripture and argue that the Reformed position is the one that most precisely explains the doctrine of justification.
The Meaning of Justification
The first vital difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines of justification has to do with what Scripture means when it discusses justification. In Reformed theology, justification is succinctly stated that God is the Judge, who makes a legal, forensic declaration of our status before Him. Berkhof representing the Reformed position states:
�Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner.� (Systematic Theology, pg. 513)
The important thing to recognize is that in Reformed theology, justification is a judicial declaration. It is not the moral renovation of the sinner. Justification is God�s making a judgment, a statement concerning our status, not in making us subjectively righteous.
The Roman Catholic position is quite different. Consider the words of the Council of Trent:
�This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby a man becomes just��
In contradistinction to Reformed theology, Karl Keating writes, �The Catholic Church, not surprisingly, understands justification differently. It sees it as a true eradication of sin and a true sanctification and renewal� (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg. 167, 168). The contrast could not be clearer. Roman Catholicism teaches that justification brings about a fundamental change in the ontological nature of man, that is, he is made subjectively righteous, and can fall from this state if not given the special grace of final perseverance.
When we examine the Scripture, what do we find? When we observe the meaning of the verb �to justify� in the Bible, we see it often occurs in a legal context, and clearly has nothing to do with subjective change in us, but rather is a legal declaration. In the Old Testament we find texts like Exodus 23:7, �Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty�. The context of Exodus 23 is clearly a legal setting. The previous verse speaks of �perverting justice� (23:6). We find judicial terms like �false charge�, �acquit� and �guilty�. Is the meaning of the verse �do not make a guilty man subjectively righteous�? Of course not. The command is against a judge making a declaration that God will not declare innocent, someone who is not. The same is true for Deuteronomy 25:1, �If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked�� The context is obvious here. We are dealing with a courtroom, the decision of judges. The judge�s verdict does not in any way change the subjective nature of the person in court. The declaration is forensic in nature. Again, in Proverbs 17:15, the writer states, �He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.� The forensic nature of the word �justify� is clear, being that it is placed in opposition to the equally forensic word �condemn�. The subjective nature of the people in this verse is not in question. One is righteous, and one is wicked. But the sin is in making a declaration about them that is not true. James White correctly observes:
�It (the verse) is not viewing this act of justifying as changing the person; instead, the writer is clearly speaking of the sinfulness of declaring a person who is evil to to be just, as well as the outrage of declaring an innocent person to be guilty. Both are abhorrent to God, and both are clearly declarations relative to law.� (The God Who Justifies, pg. 79)
One more verse will serve to show the forensic nature of justification in the Old Testament. Isaiah 5:23 states �Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!� The subjective nature of the person is not in question. They are �wicked�. But the sin in the verses is again, the wickedness of making a declaration of righteousness about them. Isaiah is not saying that the wicked people of Israel went about subjectively making wicked people righteous. That would be a good thing! Rather, Isaiah (God through Isaiah) is saying that these wicked people are declaring wicked people to be just. Why is this important? It is important because these terms, and their common use in the Hebrew Old Testament, as well as the Septuagint (The Greek Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Bible of the early church), color the way pay uses these same terms.
When we turn to the New testament then, do we find this same pattern of using �to justify� in the same forensic way? We do indeed. Space limitations demand that I give only one example from the Apostle Paul, but it is a vital one. In Romans 8:30-34 Paul writes:
�and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.�
The forensic nature of justification is clear. Notice that the term �justifies� is placed in the same context as �condemns� (and equally forensic term). Paul mentions someone bringing a �charge� against God�s elect. He also mentions Christ �interceding� on our behalf. These are all legal terms.
I conclude then that the Reformed position that justification is a forensic declaration concerning our status before Him is correct, and accurately represents the Biblical text. Leon Morris summarizes well:
�it is sometimes argued that the verb normally translated �to justify� (dikaioo) means �to make righteous� rather than �to declare righteous.� But this agrees neither with the word�s formation nor with its usage. Verbs ending in �oo and referring to moral qualities have a declarative sense; they do not mean �to make-.� And the usage is never for transformation of the accused; it always refers to a declaration of his innocence.� (New Testament Theology, pg. 70)
The Ground of Our Justification
The next critical difference between the Reformed and Roman Catholic doctrines of justification is the ground of our justification. When we discuss the �ground� of our justification, we are asking the question �On what basis can God declare a sinner to be righteous�? As was the case with the meaning of justification, Reformed and Roman Catholics posit different ground for our justification.
In Reformed theology, the ground of our justification is the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Reformed theologians have historically made a distinction in the work of Christ. They have distinguished between the active obedience of Christ, and the passive obedience of Christ. By passive obedience, Reformedtheologians refer to the passive reception of the punishment for our sins that Christ endured. Christ was punished in the place of His people for the sins that they committed. But an atoning for our sins would leave us in a neutral state. Christ also actively obeyed the Father perfectly in our place. By active obedience, then, we are referring to Christ�s work of living a perfect life in obedience to the Law of God. This is the perfect life that no sinner could ever live. His obedience makes His people righteous (Romans 5:19). The ground of our justification then is completely outside of the sinner. In Reformed theology, God can declare a sinner just because Christ lived the perfect live he could not live, and died to pay the punishment of sins that man could never pay. How this is received will be taken up later.
The ground of our justification is quite different in Roman Catholic theology. Consider Karl Keating�s words. He says the Catholic Church sees justification as �a true eradication of sin and a true sanctification and renewal. The soul becomes objectively pleasing to God and so merits heaven. It merits heaven because it is now actually good.� (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg. 167, 168). The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same thing, �Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.� (2010). The words of the council of Trent are most clear in this regard:
�For Since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head, into the members and the vine into the branches (John 15:1f), continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent Them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine Law according to the state of this life and to have Truly merited eternal life...� (Chapter 16 of the Council of Trent, cited in R.C. Sproul Faith Alone, pg. 125).
Clearly then in Roman Catholic dogma, the ground of our justification is not the completed work of Jesus Christ done in our behalf, but rather, it is the faithful doing of works �in God�, that ultimately merits eternal life for us.
There are four reasons I believe the Roman Catholic view is wrong according to Scripture (these 4 reasons come from John Murray�s Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 127). The first is that justification happens because we are united to Christ (Acts 13:39; Romans 8:1; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:17). It is on the basis of our union with the truly righteous one that we can be declared righteous. Secondly, Scripture declares that Christ�s sacrificial work accomplished our justification (Romans 3:24; 5:9; 8:33-34). The righteousness of Christ�s life and death is our standing before God, none of these texts point to our deeds as our grounds for being justified. Thirdly, we are said to be justified by �the righteousness of God� (Romans 1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:3; Philippians 3:9). I believe Murray is right in saying that this refers to a righteousness that is not human in origin, or even human in augmentation. The righteousness that is ours in justification is not human in any sense. In fact, this righteousness is something that God gives to us. It is something divine in origin that is given to us (not produced in us) when we believe in the gospel. Finally, we are said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ (Romans 5:17-19). Here Paul lays out the wonderful truth that just as Adam�s sin was imputed to us resulting in our condemnation, so the righteousness of the God-Man Jesus Christ is imputed to us as our ground for justification. At no time does Paul says that our righteousness is the ground for our justification. Space forbids me from going any further. R. C. Sproul sums it up well �In our justification this perfect righteousness and merit of Christ are imputed to the believer. This is the ground of our justification. It is the inherent righteousness of Christ, not the inherent righteousness of the believer that is the ground of our justification.� (Justification by Faith Alone, pg. 37) It is to this important concept of imputation that we now turn.
Imputation or Infusion?
If the ground of our justification is the righteousness of Christ that God gives to us by faith, how does it happen? Once again Roman Catholic dogma and Reformed theology are at odds. In Reformed theology righteousness is imputed, or accounted to the believer by God. The importance of this can not be emphasized too much. Sproul is right when he says, �Imputation is of the heart and essence of forensic justification. There is no forensic justification without imputation� (Justification, pg. 36). In justification, the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer. It is �reckoned� to his account.
In Roman Catholic theology, however, the righteousness of Christ is infused into the believer. This infusion of righteousness empowers and enables the Christian to do good works and ultimately merit for himself eternal life. The portion of the Council of Trent that I cited above is enough to show this.
What does the Bible mean by �imputation�? Imputation is the judicial transfer of something to another party. Consider Leviticus 17:4, where the worshipper places his hands on the offering and his sins are �imputed� to the offering. Clearly he is not infusing his sins into the goat. Or consider the case of Rachel and Leah in Genesis 31:14-15. In this text they complain that they have been �reckoned� as foreigners by their father. Now they were being infused with �foreignerness� (I know that�s not a word). Rather, they were complaining of being judicially treated as foreigners by their father. The same is true of Leviticus 25:31 where a house with no is to be �reckoned� as an open field. The house is not being infused with �open fieldness�. Rather, the house is to be treated or considered by the people, to be an open field.
With this definition in mind, what do we make of Paul�s statements that we are �reckoned� as righteous in Christ (Romans 3-5; 2 Corinthians 5:21)? God imputes to us the righteousness of Jesus Christ. He treats us as if we were the ones who had lived the perfect life (in the same way that Rachel and Leah were treated like foreigners though they weren�t, and the offering is treated as if it had sinned, though it hadn�t, and the house is treated like an open field thought it isn�t). This is good news!
Conversely, Christ has the sins of His people �imputed� or �reckoned� to Him. It is sheer blasphemy to assert that our sins were subjectively infused into Christ, so as to make Him subjectively sinful! Sproul is right �If our sins were infused into Him rather than imputed, he would become inherently evil and therefore unable to offer an atonement for Himself, let alone us� (Justification, pg. 37).
The Instrument of our Justification
When we turn to the New Testament this is precisely what we find. Paul says that we are justified by faith, apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:20, 28). Paul also says that God gives the gift of righteousness to those who �do not work, but believe� (Romans 4:5). He then says that David describes the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness �apart from works� (4:6). As Paul so often does, he contrasts working with believing.
In summary, I will quote a sister in Christ, Julie Staples, from her concluding remarks in her debate on Justification:
How man is declared righteous before God is by grace alone through faith alone. Man stands condemned in the Law because of his unrighteousness and total inability to please God, and thus needs the perfect and completed work of Christ, which is fully able to save sinners without needing any supplement from man. Indeed, in our sin, we could never hope to merit even a part � it is only Christ�s merits which the Father will accept. Thus, though the imputation of our sins to Christ, and His righteousness to us, we are formally declared by God once-for-all to be righteous. Faith alone is the instrument through which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and this faith itself being a gift from God, otherwise grace would not be grace, and instead would be nullified. I pray that all reading this debate are edified by it, but most importantly that God is glorified. This is a serious subject well deserving of your time and attention as it makes up the heart and soul of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
