Originally printed in Mid-America Jou=
rnal
of Theology 17 (2006), pp. 239-265.
Saying
“Justification by Faith Alone”
Isn’t
Enough
by J. Wesley =
White
Introduction
If any doctrine deserves to be called “the central dogma” of the Refo=
rmed
Church, it is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The four profes=
sors
of
=
=
The
doctrine of the Reformed Church on this topic is often summarized by the La=
tin
phrase sola fide (faith alone) =
or
“justification by faith alone.” However, it is important to
understand that even this phrase is liable to misinterpretation and must be
carefully explained. Johannes Wollebius explained that the full sense of the
phrase “’we are justified by faith’ is a metonomy and
equivalent to ‘we are justified by Christ’s merits apprehended =
by
faith.’”[5]
This is what Reformed theologians intended to convey when they said
“justification by faith” or “justification by faith
alone.”
=
=
It
is therefore important for historical and theological understanding that we
carefully understand not only the slogan but also its fuller exposition and
definition. This is true for two reasons. First, there are some inherent
difficulties in understanding the doctrine. Witsius noted, “As this
subject is the foundation of all solid comfort, so it is full of mysteries =
and
perplexed with many controversies.”[6]
This first point is even more the case because man’s fallen nature, as
VanderKemp noted, always seeks to imagine that his own righteousness is eit=
her
a part or all of his righteousness before God.[7]
=
=
The
second reason why we must carefully define what we mean by sola fide is because of heretics. Ursinus remarks that this art=
icle
is the one that is “most frequently called in question by
heretics.”[8]
Brakel even goes so far to say that “when new errors appear on the
horizon, even when they initially do not pertain to justification at all, t=
hey
in time will eventually culminate in affecting this doctrine.” Brakel
concludes from this phenomenon that we “must therefore be all the more
earnest to properly understand, defend, and meditate upon this doctrine.=
221;[9]
As with most doctrines, the attacks of heretics forced the Church to make t=
heir
formulations of doctrine even more explicit.
=
=
The
problem that is encountered in this topic is that all will say that they
believe in justification by faith. Thus Louis Le Blanc writes,
Scripture teaches in many p=
laces
and ways that we are justified through and by faith such that no Christian =
can
have doubt on this point. But theologians do not agree among themselves abo=
ut
the way this is to be understood and in what sense the Holy Spirit attribut=
es
the justification of the sinner to faith.[10]<=
/a>
Thus no professing Christian would deny that=
justification
is by faith. The real question is, “What exactly does that phrase
mean?” Similarly, vario=
us
Reformed opponents could use the term “by faith alone” (if they
were allowed to define the terms). For example, the Socinians defined faith=
as
“trusting and obeying Christ.” They defined the works excluded =
from
justification as “meritorious works.” With that understanding, =
they
could say the words “justification by faith alone” but actually
mean “justification by trust in and obedience to Christ and not by
perfect obedience to the law.”[11]<=
/a>
In light of this situation, the Reformed had to explain very carefully what
they did and did not mean by the phrase “justification by faith
alone.”
=
=
In
this article, we wish to examine what Reformed theologians meant by each te=
rm
in the phrase “justification by faith alone” and provide an
overview of the debates that surrounded each term. We intend to show that t=
here
is a clear demarcation between the Reformed view and that of their opponent=
s.
Second, we shall briefly illustrate the utility of such an analysis for
clarifying debates in our own day by examining the views of Norman Shepherd=
on
the doctrine of justification.
First Term: Justification
=
The
meaning of the word “justification” was at the heart of the deb=
ate
between
=
=
In
contrast to this, the Romanists generally claimed that the word was not
declarative but transformative, or, to put it another way, that it involved=
a
change of the thing itself (realis<=
/i>)
rather than of status. Thus Martin Becanus (d. 1624), a Roman Catholic
apologist, wrote in the first paragraph of his disputation on justification,
“Justification is nothing other than a transformation or change (mutatio) by which an ungodly person
becomes righteous just as a cure is a transformation by which someone who is
sick becomes well”[15]<=
/a>
Justification, then, for Rome, means basically “to make righteousR=
21;
and not “to declare righteous.”[16]<=
/a>
=
=
Since
justification is actually a transformation of the sinner from being righteo=
us
to unrighteous, it is not surprising that
If anyone says that the sin=
ner is
justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperat=
e in
order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way
necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, l=
et
him be anathema.
But,
we might ask, if justification is simply a transformation, then how can they
affirm justification by faith at all? The Council answered this question in=
Chapter
VIII of the same session:
But when the Apostle says t=
hat
man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in t=
hat
sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held =
and
expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith,
because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root =
of
all justification.
Thus we see that
Second Term – By Faith
The Reformed =
View
– “By Faith” Means “By Christ”
The disagreement between the Reformed and th=
eir
opponents becomes even more apparent when we come to the discussion of R=
20;by
faith.” Since the Reformed defined justification as a declaration that
someone is righteous, it is important to understand that this
“righteousness” on account of which we are justified is not ours
but Christ’s.[18]<=
/a>
Thus Edward Leigh called the Reformed view simply “justification by
Christ” both to indicate the positive content of the doctrine and
contrast it with that of their opponents.[19]<=
/a>
=
=
Campegius
Vitringa gave a helpful overview of this point in his Doctrina Christianae Religionis by an examination of the various
words that are used in the Hebrew and Greek to explain this doctrine. Of
course, the word dikaiosunē=
; means “righteousness” and dikaioō means “to justify,” but he distinguished dikaiosunē from dikaiō=
;m=
a which he defined as “that on account =
of which
someone is justified or that on account of which someone is absolved by the
judge and this or that good is adjudicated to him.” He then went on to
cite Romans 5:19 to show that Christ’s dikaiōma
is that on account of which we are declared to be righteous.[20]<=
/a>
=
=
Other
Reformed theologians also emphasize adamantly that it is Christ’s
righteousness that is the basis of the declaration that we are righteous.
Piscator wrote,
To speak properly, that whi=
ch is
in a man is not said to be imputed to him but that which is without a man. =
And
faith is in a man, but Christ’s satisfaction which faith apprehends is
without a man; whereby it comes to pass that it is imputed unto man by fait=
h.
That is to say, it is accounted his so that man is esteemed in this place a=
s if
he had performed the satisfaction for himself.[21]<=
/a>
The Westminster Confession states simply that
justification occurs by “imputing the obedience and satisfaction of
Christ unto believers.”[22]<=
/a>
Similarly, Johannes Heidegger writes, “[Our righteousness] does not c=
ease
to be a legal righteousness, since [it differs] from evangelical not
essentially…but as regards the circumstances alone, Christ being put =
in
the sinners’ place, fulfilling the dikaiō=
;m=
a of the law.”[23]<=
/a>
Thus it is not our own righteousness that is declared to be our righteousne=
ss
(or justification) but the righteousness of Christ that becomes ours through
faith. This point is determinative for their understanding of justifying fa=
ith.
The
Opponents’ View – Faith Itself is our Righteousness
Since, for the Reformed, Christ’s
righteousness was the righteousness on account of which we are justified, it
could not be faith itself that was our righteousness before God. Thus Mastr=
icht
emphasized that “this faith of ours may in no sense be our dikaiōma or part of it or depend on our strength.”[24]<=
/a>
The Westminster Larger Catechism
asks,
How does faith justify a si=
nner
in the sight of God? Answer. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, =
not because of those other grac=
es
which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of i=
t, nor as if the grace of faith, or any a=
ct
thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an
instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.[25]<=
/a>
However faith may be involved in justificati=
on,
the Reformed consistently denied that the righteousness on account of which=
we
are declared righteous (justified) is our faith.[26]<=
/a>
=
=
In
contrast to this, the opponents of the Reformed asserted that it was faith
itself that was our righteousness before God. Thus Rijssen set up the debat=
e by
asking, “Is faith itself, whether alone or including love, accepted by
God as our righteousness? No against the Remonstrants.”[27]<=
/a>
Turretin also explained that this is a major dividing point between the
Reformed and their opponents: “All our opponents agree in this—=
that
faith justifies properly and by itself and so is our very
righteousness—but with some differences.”[28]<=
/a>
Edward Leigh also emphasized the importance of explaining the meaning of
“by faith” clearly because, “The Papists, Socinians, and
Remonstrants all acknowledge that faith justifies, but they mean by this
obedience to God’s commandments and thus make it a work and do not
consider it as an instrument receiving Christ and His promise.”[29]<=
/a>
=
=
The
Remonstrant and Socinian views were very similar in that they believed that
faith itself was graciously counted as our righteousness before God. Thus, =
for
them, it was not Christ’s righteousness that was the basis of the
declaration that we are righteous. When we read the definition of justifica=
tion
in The Racovian Catechism, we m=
ight
be tempted to think that there is nothing wrong with it: “What is
justification? It is when God accounts us for just, which he does when he
forgives our sins and endues us with eternal life.”[30]<=
/a>
But the problem occurs because the Socinians did not say that we are accoun=
ted
righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. The f=
aith
by which we are justified, according to the Socinians, includes both confid=
ence
in Christ and obedience to God̵=
7;s
commands. Thus the Catechism asks,
“Do you then include obedience under faith? Answer. Yes, for …
Christ has promised [eternal life] only to those who obey Him.”[31]<=
/a>
Thus, for the Socinians, faith itself was that righteousness on account of
which we are justified.
=
=
Similarly,
the Remonstrant view also considers faith itself as our righteousness.[32]<=
/a>
Arminius’ successor, Simon Episcopius, provided a good overview of the
Remonstrant view in his Disputation=
es.[33]<=
/a>
In his dispute on justification, he wrote that it is not therefore
“correct to say that it is Christ’s righteousness whether activ=
e or
passive … [that] is imputed to us but it is the basis for imputing fa=
ith
itself as righteousness for those who believe in Christ.”[34]<=
/a>
This, of course, does not mean that it is in itself worthy of such a reward=
or
merits it, but it is “a condition that the New Covenant demands and
requires without which God does not want to impute righteousness and forgive
sins.”[35]<=
/a> Thus
the Remonstrants also considered faith itself as the righteousness on accou=
nt
of which we are justified.[36]<=
/a>
=
=
Since
both groups held that faith itself was the righteousness by which we are ju=
stified,
they opposed the Reformed view that justifying faith was an instrument by w=
hich
we take hold of the merits of Christ. Accordingly, the Socinian, Smalcius,
boldly wrote, “Away with this dream of receiving the merit of Christ
through faith!”[37]<=
/a>
And Episcopius wrote, “[Faith] cannot properly be called an instrument
but a condition that the New Covenant demands and requires without which God
does not want to impute righteousness and forgive sins.”[38]<=
/a>
Thus we see that while the opponents of the Reformed did claim that faith
justified, they explained it in entirely different sense than the Reformed.
Christ’s righteousness, for them, was not the righteousness by which =
we
are justified, and faith was not an instrument receiving Christ’s mer=
its.
The Reformed View of Faith – An Instrument
=
Since
the Reformed taught that it was Christ’s righteousness that is the ba=
sis
for the declaration that sinners are righteous, what was the role of faith?
Quite simply, it was an instrument which receives Christ. Thus we go back to
Wollebius’ definition, “The phrase ‘we are justified by
faith’ is a metonomy and equivalent to ‘we are justified by
Christ’s merits apprehended by faith.’”[39]<=
/a>
Ursinus gave a helpful explanation of this in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:
The act which belongs prope=
rly to
faith is to apprehend and apply to itself the righteousness of Christ; yea,
faith is nothing else than the acceptance itself or the apprehension of the
merits of Christ…. When we say ‘we are justified by faith
only,’ the sense is that it is not by meriting but only by
receiving…. If we were justified on account of our faith, then faith
would no longer be the acceptance of the righteousness of another, but it w=
ould
be the merit and cause of our own righteousness; neither would it receive t=
he
satisfaction of another, for it would no longer stand in need of it.[40]<=
/a>
Thus
we see how the two elements went together. The ground of our acceptance bef=
ore
God was the righteousness of another; therefore, faith could only justify by
receiving that righteousness. “Faith [is] said to justify because it
receives and embraces the righteousness offered in the Gospel.”[41]<=
/a>
The Third Term – “Alone”
The Reformed
Argument for and Definition of “Alone”
The proper
understanding of the term “alone” flows logically out of what h=
as
been already said. Thus Zanchius concluded from the definition of “by
faith”:
Since to be justified by fa=
ith in
the sight of God is nothing else but to be accounted righteous by the remis=
sion
of sin and the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith and this only is
true righteousness; whereas, whatsoever inherent righteousness there is in =
us
and whatsoever good work we do is such as cannot stand in the sight of
God…it most plainly appears that our belief concerning justification =
by
faith alone is most certain and most true.[42]<=
/a>
Since it was Christ’s righteousness th=
at was
the ground of the verdict of “righteous” in God’s court, =
none
of our works could contribute to it. Christ provided for us a positive verd=
ict
in God’s court; therefore, there was nothing left to do but receive i=
t.
This is the first reason why the Reformed said that it was faith alone that
justified.
=
The
other side of the argument was that the Apostle Paul excludes absolutely all
works from our justification. Leigh summed up that argument this way:
We are justified only by fa=
ith,
for what else do all those negatives in Scripture mean: “not by
works” (Rom. 9:11, Gal. 2:16, Tit. 3:5), “not of works” (=
Rom.
11:6, Eph. 2:9), “not according to works” (2 Tim. 1:9),
“without works” (Rom. 4:6), “not through the law” (=
Rom.
4:13), “not by the works of the law” (Rom. 3:20), “without
the law” (Rom. 3:27), “not but by faith” (Gal. 2:16)?[43]<=
/a>
All
these verses formed the backbone of the argument that it is “by faith
alone” that we are justified. This argument was so universal and well
established that Witsius could say:
I know not by what right th=
e very
learned man [Dr. Cave] takes it for granted that by the works of the law, w=
hich
Paul excludes from justification, are understood works before conversion, d=
one
without faith, by our own strength, which popish fiction the Protestant
champions have so often and so solidly refuted, that it is amazing [that] a
Protestant is found who again patronizes it.[44]<=
/a>
One of these “Protestant champions,=
221;
no doubt, was Calvin who rebuked those who would say that only certain type=
s of
works are excluded from justification when he wrote, “But they observe
not that in the antithesis between Law and Gospel righteousness, which Paul=
elsewhere
introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded (G=
al.
3:11-12).”[45]<=
/a>
This is the key to the argument for faith alone. All works of whatever kind=
are
excluded from our justification.[46]<=
/a>
=
This
meant, first, that it was only faith that was the instrument of justificati=
on.
Thus the German theologian Crocius wrote, “Even if faith is never alo=
ne
but is supported by good works as its fruits, yet it alone grasps
Christ’s merits and so alone justifies, even without the concurrence =
and
assistance of works.”[47]<=
/a>
Piscator made the same point against Bellarmine when he wrote,
Although faith justifies af=
ter
the manner of a cause, yet it justifies alone. For it justifies as an
instrumental cause apprehending Christ’s satisfaction, for which only=
we
are justified. And there is no other instrumental cause whereby Christ̵=
7;s
satisfaction is apprehended.[48]<=
/a>
Thus faith alone meant that although the Holy
Spirit works love as well as faith in the one justified, love never concurs
with faith or contributes any efficacy to faith in justification.[49]<=
/a>
Faith takes its efficacy from Christ’s righteousness, and faith alone
takes hold of Christ’s righteousness.
=
=
Secondly,
even faith as a work is excluded from our justification. This is an applica=
tion
of what we have already said about the righteousness of Christ and that fai=
th
itself is not that righteousness by which we are justified, and is further
confirmed by the exclusion of all works whatsoever from our justification.
Burmann explained the point this way: “Indeed, faith is so opposed to
works in this matter that it even excludes itself, if it is considered as a
work. Although regarded by itself it is a work, in justification it is not
regarded after this manner but purely as an instrumental work.”[50]<=
/a>
Likewise, Ursinus wrote that “all works are excluded from our
justification, yea even faith itself in as far as it is a virtue or
work.”[51]<=
/a>
The exclusion of all works thus defines the role of faith in justification.
Faith does not justify because it does something or because it is a work or
obedience, but it justifies simply by receiving Christ and His righteousnes=
s.
T=
he
Response of the Socinians, Remonstrants, and Romanists
=
The
opponents of the Reformed could not deny that the Bible states that we are =
justified
by faith without works. Consequently, they tried to explain such passages i=
n a
different sense than the Reformed. They did this in two ways. First, they t=
ried
to define faith in a way that included obedience. Second, they defined the
works that Paul excludes from justification as only certain types of works =
and
not all works.
=
=
First,
the Socinians argued that faith included obedience to the commands of Chris=
t.
In the Racovian Catechism we have the question:
What is that faith which is=
of
necessity attended with salvation? Answer. It is a confidence through Chris=
t on
God; whence it appears that faith in Christ comprehends two things. First, =
we
confide not only in God but also in Christ. Next, we are obedient unto God,=
not
in those things only which He has commanded in the law delivered by Moses a=
nd
are not abrogated by Christ, but also in those things which Christ has adde=
d to
the law. Q. Do you then comprehend obedience under faith? Yes.[52]<=
/a>
We
have already noted how the Socinians did believe in a forensic justificatio=
n by
faith, but we see here that they included obedience and works in faith.
Episcopius said in a similar way that good works are not taken away in
justification because faith “by its nature contains them in itself and
includes them.”[53]<=
/a>
In contrast to the Reformed, who always emphasized that the obedience that
flowed from faith was one thing and justifying faith another thing, the
Remonstrants and Socinians sought to make them virtually the same thing or =
give
them a relationship of part to the whole.[54]<=
/a>
=
=
But
ultimately the question of faith alone turned on the question of whether Pa=
ul
excludes all works or only certain types of works from justification. Typic=
al
of the arguments of the Reformed opponents is that of Becanus. In writing o=
f the
“adversaries” use of Eph. 2:8-9 and Rom. 3:28, he responded:
They conclude from these th=
at we
are justified by faith. How? Because the Apostle opposes works; therefore, =
when
he says that someone is justified by faith without works, he excludes all w=
orks
besides faith. Therefore, he also excludes the acts of fear, hope, love, and
repentance. I respond that works are twofold. Some precede faith; others
follow. The Apostle excludes the first sort and not the second.[55]<=
/a>
This
is also the way that the Socinians argued. After the Racovian Catechism asserts that obedience is part of faith, we
read:
But why does Paul the Apost=
le
oppose faith to works? Answer. In those places where he opposes faith to wo=
rks,
he speaks of such works as contain perfect and perpetual obedience which wa=
s by
God required under the law but not of such works as comprehend that obedien=
ce
which God requires of us who believe in Christ.
In
that way, the opponents of the Reformed thought they could overthrow the
Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. They attempted to define=
the
works that Paul excludes from justification as “certain types of
works” rather than “all works.”
=
=
These
attempts fell basically into two categories. The first category was to make
“works” mean “ceremonial works.” The second category
was to make “works” mean a particular type of moral work, wheth=
er
works done before regeneration, according to the rigor of the law or not do=
ne
out of faith. Calvin referred to this second category in the Institutes when he said, “The
Sophists, who delight in sporting with Scripture and in empty cavils, think
they have a subtle evasion when they expound works to mean such as unregene=
rate
men do.”[56]<=
/a>
As he continued the discussion, he then referred to the first category,
“Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of the=
ir
own devising, but taken from Origen and some ancient writers, is most child=
ish.
They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works.”=
;[57]<=
/a>
His response is based on a discussion of Galatians 3:10-12, “Unless t=
hey
are themselves raving, they will not say that life was promised to the
observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced only against the transgres=
sors
of them.”[58]<=
/a>
This debate was at the heart of the argument over justification by faith al=
one.
Reformed theologians commonly used these two categories to prove their own =
view
and refute their opponents’ view.[59]<=
/a>
=
The
Reformed opponents, then, could certainly admit justification by faith and
oftentimes even “faith alone,” but, in all cases, they had to
define it according to their own terms. Thus the Remonstrants and Socinians
could easily say that we are justified by faith alone as the only condition=
of
the new covenant, but they could not say “faith alone” if it me=
ant
that we are “we are justified by Christ’s merits apprehended by
faith.”[60]<=
/a>
An Analysis of Norman Shepherd’s Doctr=
ine of
Justification by Faith
=
With
these categories in mind, we now move to show how an understanding of the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century debates can still be fruitful for analyz=
ing
controversies in our own day. Inasmuch as Norman Shepherd’s views on
justification have generated significant discussion and debate in recent ti=
mes,
it is fitting to consider his opinions on this topic.
=
Like
his Reformed predecessors, Shepherd claims to hold to “justification =
by
faith alone,” though he recognizes that his view conflicts with what =
he
calls “a commonly received understanding of justification by faith
alone.”[61]<=
/a>
Thus we shall examine his view from his writings and try to determine what =
he
means by “justification by faith alone.”[62]<=
/a>
Shepherd on
“Justification”
=
We
find Shepherd’s definition of justification in his “34 Theses on
Justification”: “Justification is an act of God, by which He forgives
sinners, acquitting them of their guilt, accounts and accepts them as
righteous, and bestows upon them the title of eternal life.”[63]<=
/a>
We see here that Shepherd holds to a forensic definition of justification. =
It
should be observed, however, that in this definition he does not say that G=
od
accepts sinners as righteous only f=
or the
sake of the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them. Here his view
stands in marked contrast to the consensus Reformed view. But in his sixth
thesis he writes:
The gr=
ound
of justification or the reason or cause why sinners are justified is in no
sense to be found in themselves or in what they do, but is to be found whol=
ly
and exclusively in Jesus Christ and in his mediatorial accomplishment on th=
eir
behalf.
This can be taken to mean that the righteous=
ness
of Jesus Christ is imputed to us as our righteousness, but it can also be t=
aken
to mean that the only reason why sinners can be declared to be righteous pe=
ople
is because of Christ’s atonement—that is, apart from or without=
Christ’s
full obedience being imputed to believing sinners for their righteousness
before God. This latter construal of the above thesis seems far more likely
when we read in Shepherd’s later writings the following: “The
ground of justification—the b=
asis
on which forgiveness is possible—is the suffering and death of our
Lord.”[64]<=
/a>
Moreover, Shepherd’s original definition of justification is reaffirm=
ed
in this later writing in slightly different words, “Justification is =
the
forgiveness of sins so that we are accepted by God as righteous and receive=
the
gift of eternal life.”[65]<=
/a>
Once more we find that something is missing in Shepherd’s conception =
of
justification when placed alongside the classic Reformed definitions. Since Shepherd does not venture to
include in his definition of justification an explicit statement to the eff=
ect
that believing sinners are declared righteous on the basis of the righteous=
ness
of Christ imputed to us, we are forced to ask what is the positive
righteousness or fulfillment of God’s law that grounds justification?=
To
be sure, for Shepherd, Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross removes=
the
guilt of sin, but why should God accept us as righteous? By whose righteous=
ness
are we justified? By our own? By Christ’s? Shepherd’s definitio=
n of
justification leaves things unclear and full of ambiguity. Are we declared
righteous because Christ’s righteousness is now ours? Or does God dec=
lare
us to be righteous based on somethi=
ng in
us in addition to the forgiveness of our sins wrought by Christ? We dis=
cover
the answer to this question by an examination of Shepherd’s explanati=
on
of “by faith” and “alone.”
Shepherd on
“By Faith”
When we examine Shepherd’s
understanding of the words “by faith” in the locution
“justification by faith alone” we discover that, for Shepherd, =
our faith is that on account of wh=
ich we
are declared righteous (justified). For example, in his article, “Law=
and
Gospel in Covenant Perspective,” Shepherd makes these claims:
Faith for Adam was what true faith always is, a living and active faith…. <= o:p>
The
method of justification for Adam before the fall is exactly what it is for =
Paul
after the fall: ‘The
righteous will live by faith’ (Rom. 1:17).[66]<=
/a>
These statements are qu=
ite
noteworthy. For Shepherd, Adam (even before the fall) was justified—t=
hat
is, declared righteous and accepted by God—by a living and active fai=
th;
and what was true for Adam in paradise before the fall is likewise true for=
all
believers after the fall. This is not an equivocation. Shepherd believes th=
at
both before and after the fall we are justified by a living and active faith
with the exception that after the fall we must have our sins forgiven.[67]<=
/a> The difference between the two is not that Adam is justified by f=
aith
as his own righteousness and that believers, post-fall, are justified by the
righteousness of Christ imputed to them.[68]<=
/a>
Rather, just as Adam certainly was not justified by the righteousness of
another, so we are not justified by the righteousness of another. Consequen=
tly,
faith itself was Adam’s righteousness before God and faith itself is =
our
righteousness before God. The only change for faith, post-fall, is that now=
it
includes “faith in the blood of Jesus.”[69]<=
/a>
This is confirmed from the way
Shepherd explains the important phrase concerning Abraham, namely that
“his faith was credited to him as righteousness.” Shepherd expl=
ains
the righteousness of Abraham this way:
In fact, Genesis 15:6 says =
that
Abraham’s faith was so significant that it was credited to him as
righteousness! If so, then ri=
ghteousness
was a condition to be met, and faith met that condition.[70]<=
/a>
In contrast to Shepherd, we would never find=
the
Reformed claiming that Abraham’s faith justified him because his
“faith was so significant.” On the other hand, and in contrast =
to
the Reformed, Shepherd does not say, as the Reformed did, that this phrase =
is a
metonymy for its object, that is, faith is credited for righteousness becau=
se
of its object, namely, Christ.[71]<=
/a>
Here Shepherd stands far apart from the Reformed consensus.
=
For
Shepherd, the significance of faith constituting our righteousness on accou=
nt
of which we are justified before God is carried over or applies to Christ
himself. He too was declared righteous because of his faith. Speaking of our
salvation, Shepherd says,
All of this is made possible
through the covenantal righteousness of Jesus Christ. His was a living, act=
ive,
and obedient faith that took him all the way to the cross. This faith was
credited to him as righteousness.[72]<=
/a>
Obviously, Christ’s faith is not a fai=
th
that takes hold of the righteousness of another. Jesus’ faith was
credited to him as righteousness because his
faith was itself his actual
righteousness before God. Shepherd uses the language of Gen. 15:6 and, cont=
rary
to Scripture, applies it to Jesus Christ. Shepherd does this because he
believes that faith itself is a person’s righteousness before God.[73]<=
/a>
This is how Adam in paradise is righteous before God; this is how all human
beings are righteous before God. Once more, Shepherd’s view stands at=
odds
with and is far removed from the Reformed position.
=
It
is fitting at this point to add a word about Shepherd’s constant use =
of
the adjectives living, active, abiding, and obedient as
modifiers of faith. Shepherd emphasizes that we are justified by a living,
active, obedient, and abiding faith. When confessionally committed Protesta=
nts
hear Shepherd saying this, they are likely to think that this refers to the
good works that inevitably flow fro=
m
faith. But this is a mistake, for that is not Shepherd’s conception. =
=
For
the Reformed, the good works that flow from faith meant that when Christ is
embraced for justification, he is also embraced for sanctification, so that
those who are declared to be righteous on account of the righteousness of
Christ will also be transformed into righteous people by the indwelling pow=
er
of the Holy Spirit.[74]<=
/a>
Thus, Reformed theologians have always emphasized that justifying faith is =
one
thing and the obedience that flowed from it is something distinct from fait=
h,
even though faith and obedience are inseparably connected.[75]<=
/a> Shepherd’s position takes a
different path. For Shepherd, obedi=
ence
is a part of the faith that justifies. That is why Shepherd can say that
Adam and Christ are justified by faith.&nb=
sp;
Faith includes obedience; therefore, the faith of Christ and pre-fall
Adam can be credited to them for righteousness. Since this method of justification=
is
the same for us, obedience is also a part of the faith whereby we are justi=
fied.
Thus we see that Shepherd says “faith alone,” but he considers =
our
faith as our righteousness and includes obedience in it. What, then, does he
mean by “alone”?[76]<=
/a>
=
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>
Shepherd’s Definition of “Alone”
When we exa=
mine
Shepherd’s writings, we find that he lines up with the Socinians and
Romanists in his explanation of the works that are excluded from our
justification. In his article “Justification by Faith in Pauline
Theology,” under the section “The Works Excluded from Justification,”
Shepherd explains very clearly what works he believes Paul excludes from our justification.[77]
=
Shepherd
is aware that many believe that the works that Paul excludes from justifica=
tion
“includes everything that God commands in his word, all works of any
kind, whether good or bad, whether done in faith or unbelief.”[78]<=
/a> He
rejects this view.
=
So,
what does Paul mean by “the works of the law”? First, Shepherd
says, he means the Mosaic covenant as a way of life.[79]<=
/a>
Second, “by works of the law Paul means obedience to a limited selection of laws found in=
the
Scripture.”[80]<=
/a>
He goes on to say, “People who are seeking to be justified by the wor=
ks
of the law are sinners who do not confess their sin but pretend to be
righteous.”[81]<=
/a>
This is similar to the view of Becanus and other Romanists who claimed that
“works of the law” were works done before regeneration and fait=
h.[82]<=
/a>
Shepherd then goes on to explain that they are “works done in the
strength of human flesh in order to obtain the justifying verdict of
God.”[83]<=
/a>
As with other statements of Shepherd, we might interpret this last statemen=
t as
excluding all works, but he specifically denies this in the previous senten=
ce,
“These works of the law were not good works; they were not the obedie=
nce
of faith wrought by the power of God.”[84]<=
/a>
The works that Shepherd terms “the obedience of faith” are not
excluded but constitutive of faith; and, as we saw earlier, faith, for
Shepherd, is our righteousness before God.
=
Shepherd
provides an illustration that is helpful for understanding his view from Mi=
cah
6:7-8 (“Will the L
C=
onclusion
on Shepherd
=
First,
the classic Reformed theologians said that the righteousness on account of
which we are justified is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Shepherd claims
that it is our faith-as-righteousness, though we can only have this
righteousness because our sins are forgiven in Christ. Second, the Reformed
said that faith was only an instrument and, then, too, the only instrument =
for
receiving Christ and all his
righteousness. Shepherd claims that faith is the righteousness on accou=
nt
of which we are declared to be righteous and includes obedience just as it =
did
for pre-fall Adam and for Jesus Christ. Third, the Reformed said that all w=
orks
of every kind are excluded from our justification. Shepherd claims that only
certain types of works are excluded from justification and that good
works—the obedient acts of faith—are certainly not excluded.
Consequently, we may easily conclude that Shepherd lines up with opponents =
of
the Reformed in the doctrine of justification, and so it is evident that Shepherd does not hold to the Reformed =
view
of justification by faith alone.[85]<=
/a>
Conclusion
=
Simple
formulae such as “justification by faith alone” are helpful ped=
agogical
tools and rallying points for particular doctrines. However, we hope that we
have demonstrated that believers must also be cautious that their use of su=
ch
formulae does not become a substitute for careful exegesis and clear
definitions. As with other doctrines, simple phrases can be used with entir=
ely
different meanings. This has always been true, and thus we need to pay care=
ful
attention to how these words are defined.[86]<=
/a>
Further, when we carefully examine the origi=
nal
debates in which a doctrine was codified, we will have a much better
understanding of the meaning of the terms they used. This is true whether we
refer to the Church Fathers in their battle for the doctrine of the Trinity=
and
the two natures of Christ or the distinctive doctrines of the Reformation. =
In
the case of the doctrine we have just discussed, we have seen that the brief
phrase “justification by faith alone” is a summation of a broad=
er
understanding that “we are justified by Christ’s merits apprehe=
nded
by faith.”[87]<=
/a>
This explanation was necessary in the context of the sixteenth and seventee=
nth
century for both pedagogical and polemical purposes. The Reformed teachers
wanted their congregations to understand that it is only the righteousness =
of
Jesus Christ that is the righteousness by which believers are justified, th=
at
faith is only an instrument, and that all works whatsoever are excluded from
justification. Similarly, the Reformed had to oppose those who used the same
terms but meant something entirely different by them.
The same care should be taken today. As we h=
ave
seen, an examination of the sources sheds much light on what we ourselves m=
ean
by “justification by faith alone.” The same careful Scriptural
definition can help our congregations understand what we mean by this phras=
e,
even if we do not use all the quotations and detailed argumentation with th=
em
as we might in a discussion with other pastors or the academy. Second, such=
an
analysis helps us understand more clearly our own debates today. We also mu=
st
debate those who use the same words as the Reformed confessions but assign =
new
and/or entirely different meanings to them. An examination of the older deb=
ates
helps us to frame the debate properly in our own day and determine whether
various theologians are saying the same thing as the Reformed confessions a=
nd
the Reformed consensus. As we have seen in the case of Norman Shepherd on
justification, his views do not conform to the classic Reformed position. In
our use of the classic sources, we are simply saying that God has given us
Church officers and teachers so that “we [might] all come to the unit=
y of
the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God … [and that] we shou=
ld
no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind =
of
doctrine” (Eph. 4:13-14, with context). Since God has given teachers =
to
the Church for such a purpose, it becomes us to make good use of them.
[1] Cited in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. G.T. Thomson, rev. & ed. Ernst B=
izer
(London: Wakeman Great Reprints), 543. See also the quote from Walaeus in t=
he
same paragraph.
[2] John Calvin, The
Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), trans. Henry Beveridge, 2 vols. (Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdman=
s,
1966), III.xi.1.
[3] Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the
[4] For similar statements see Wilhelmus &agrav=
e;
Brakel, The Christian’s Reaso=
nable
Service, Vol. II, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapid=
s:
Reformation Heritage Books, 1993), 341; Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, trans. George Musgrave
Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 19=
94),
XVI.i.1; Herman Witsius, Economy of=
the
Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity,
trans. William Crookshank (London: R. Bynes, 1822, Reprinted Den Dulk
Foundation, 1990), II.viii.1.
[5] Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Christianae Theologiae (
[6] Witsius, II.viii.1.
[7] See Johannes VanderKemp, The Christian Entirely the Property of Christ in Life and Death
Exhibited in Fifty-Three Sermons on the
[8] Ursinus, 324.
[9] Brakel, 341.
[10] Louis Le Blanc, Theses Theologicae (
[11] For citations and further explanations see =
below
in the section “by faith.”
[12] Witsius, II.viii.2.
[13] For example, Witsius, II.viii.7-15 and Turr=
etin,
XVI.i. Leonard Rijssen in his Summa
Elencticae Theologiae (
[14] Turretin, XVI.i.5.
[15] Martin Becanus, Manuale Controversarium (Franciscum Metternich, 1696), I.xvi.1.=
See
also Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Ca=
tholic
Dogma, trans. Patrick Lynch (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, In=
c.,
1974), IV.16.
[16] The view of Becanus is dir=
ectly
contradicted by William Bucanus, “What is the form of justification? =
Not metabolē, mutation, or any motion of alteration, where=
by
righteousness is attained by the shunning of evil and endeavoring to do good
for this is proper to sanctification.” Cited in A Body of Divinity or the Institutions of the Christian Religion,
trans. Robert Hill (
[17] See James
Sadolet, “Letter by James Sadolet, a Roman Cardinal, to the Senate and
People of Geneva; in which he endeavours to bring them back to the allegian=
ce
of the Roman Pontiff,” in Sel=
ected
Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, volume one, part one, eds. He=
nry
Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, trans. Henry Beveridge (1844; repr.
[18] We are therefore justified by “an ali=
en
righteousness” or “the righteousness of another.”
[19] Edward Leigh, A
System or Body of Divinity (
[20] Campegius Vitringa, Doctrina Christianae Religionis Per Aphorismos Summatim Descripta
(Franeker: Franciscus Halma, 1714), 210-5.
[21] John Pisactor, A Learned and Profitable Treatise of Man’s Justification =
(
[22]
[23] Cited in Heppe, 548, see also the rest of t=
he
discussion Heppe, 546-50 and for additional examples see Bucanus, 367; the
controversy in Rijssen, 228; Jerome Zanchius, Confession of the Christian Religion (London: John Legat, 1599),
XIX.9; Turretin, XVI.iii; Witsius, II.viii.38; VanderKemp, 473-4; and Brake=
l,
360.
[24] Cited in Heppe, 555.
[25] Q. & A. 73 (emphasis mine).
[26] The main text used to prove the opposite is=
Rom.
4:3 with Gen. 15:6. See Turretin’s response in XIV.vii.10. He said th=
at
it is “imputed organically because it is the instrumental cause which
apprehends the righteousness of Christ.” Thus it is similar to the
passages such as Luke 7:50 that teach that “faith saves.” Turre=
tin
commented on this verse, “Faith is said to save us, not by meriting
something in order to justification, but only receptively and organically b=
ecause
it was the instrument receptive of the benefit” (XIV.vii.17).
[27] Rijssen, 223.
[28] Turretin, XVI.vii.3.
[29] Leigh, 730. He goes on to say, “A Pap=
ist, a
Socinian, and a Protestant will say, ‘We are justified by faith,̵=
7;
but ‘as a disposition,’ says the Papist; ‘as a
condition,’ says the Socinian; ‘by applying’ says the
Protestant.” See also Bucanus, 378; VanderKemp, 490-1.
[30] The
Racovian Catechism (Brooer Janz, 1652), 152-3. This is the chapter on
justification.
[31] Ibid., 140-141. Here the catechism explains=
faith.
[32] This is what the Synod of Dort condemned in=
the
Second Main Point of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors IV: “Who teach that
what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with
men through the intervening of Christ’s death is not that we are
justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts
Christ’s merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for
perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedie=
nce
of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as
worthy of the reward of eternal life.”
[33] Simon Episcopius, Disputationes Theologicae Tripartitae in Operum Theologicorum, Pars Altera (
[34] Ibid., Disputation XXII.4.
[35] Ibid., XXII.6.
[36] We hardly need to add here that the Romanis=
ts
considered our faith as the righteousness by which we are justified. See Tu=
rretin,
XVI.vii.14 where he “prove[s] against the Romanists that faith does n=
ot
justify dispositively or meritoriously as the beginning and roof of
righteousness.”
[37] Cited in Johannes Hoornbeeck, Socinianismi Confutati Compendium (Lugduni Batavia: Felicem Lop=
ez,
1690), 726.
[38] Episcopius, XXII.6.
[39] Wollebius, I.xxx.8.
[40] Ursinus, 331.
[41] Calvin, III.xi.17. See also Leigh, 730; Rij=
ssen,
225; Wollebius, 204; Bucanus, 379; and Heppe, 553-55.
[42] Zanchius, XIX.7.
[43] Leigh, 731.
[44] Herman Witsius, Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions, trans. Thomas Bell
(Glasgow: W. Lang, 1807), VIII.5.
[45] Calvin, III.xi.14. Consider also Pisactor&#=
8217;s
debate with Bellarmine who claimed “that by the works which are oppos=
ed
to faith and excluded from justification are understood works which go befo=
re
faith and which are done by the only strength of free will and not all
absolutely” (31). Piscator responded that Paul “speaks of works=
in
general, whether they be done by the strength of free will or by grace
(32),” and also “in Gal. 2 he speaks in general of the works of=
the
law (37).” See the whole chapter for this discussion, 30-41.
[46] Brakel, 360: “The exclusion of works =
from
justification cannot be stated in a more clear and absolute sense than the
apostle does in these and in other texts.” See also, 360-3, 373-6.
[47] Cited in Heppe, 561.
[48] Piscator, 91. We also note that Piscator di=
d not
teach that faith justified because it produced obedience: “Although
God’s grace whereby a man is justified leads him by faith unto good
works, yet it is not in that respect that man is said to be justified by fa=
ith
. . . but he is said to be justified by faith because by faith he lays hold=
of
Christ’s satisfaction for which only he is justified” (34).
[49] Witsius made the same point when he said: “The whole comes to this, that no faith justifies, but that which is living and fruitful in good works…. But that those acts of love, holiness, and conversion concur with faith to justification and are include= d in justifying faith, as such, is a strange way of speaking to reformed ears, n= or agreeable to scripture, which always, in the matter of justification, sets faith in opposition to all works whatever” (II:viii.53). See also Turretin, XVI.viii.6.
[50] Cited in Heppe, 554.
[51] Ursinus, 331.
[52] Rac=
ovian
Catechism, 140-1.
[53] Episcopius, XXII.10.
[54] Witsius in Economy
strongly stated that they are two different things: “It is also false
that faith and new obedience are one and the same thing. I own that faith i=
s a
virtue or grace, commanded by the law of God and that a believer, by his ve=
ry
believing obeys God. I likewise confess that we are to look upon nothing as=
a
true and living faith, which is not fruitful in good works. But yet faith is
one thing, and the obedience flowing from it quite another, especially in t=
he
matter of justification, of which we now speak, where Paul always
contradistinguishes the obedience of all manner of works to faith”
(II.viii.48).
[55] Becanus I.xvi.14. Ott, on the other hand, s=
ays
that they are ceremonial works: “When
[56] Calvin, III.xi.14.
[57] Ibid., III.xi.19.
[58] Ibid. See also his commentaries, particular=
ly on
Galatians and Romans.
[59] For example, Brakel, 360-3; Bucanus, 381;
Turretin, XVI.ii.10-12; VanderKemp, 495-7.
[60] Wollebius, I.xxx.8.
[61] Norman Shepherd, “Justification by Wo=
rks in
Reformed Theology” in Backbon=
e of
the Bible: Covenant in Contemporary Perspective, ed. by Andrew Sandlin =
(
[62] We sidestep Shepherd’s attempt to fra=
me the
debate in terms of a works/merit paradigm versus a faith/grace paradigm. Si=
nce
Shepherd does not deny but believes that sin merits hell, that Christ’=
;s
atonement merits the forgiveness of our sins—that is, that it has
intrinsic moral value toward that end—he has not escaped some idea of
merit. Consequently, the real debate is not about the existence of merit but
what does merit mean and what merits what? See Turretin’s discussion =
of
merit, Institutes, XVII.v.1-45;=
also
the quotations in Heppe, particularly from Cocceius, pp. 281-290. Thus, we =
are
of the opinion that when the rhetoric has subsided the issue will always co=
me
down to how we exegete the Scriptures and define our terms.
[63] Norman Shepherd, “Thirty-Four Theses =
on
Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works” (Docu=
ment
online: http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/norman_shepherd/the_34_thes=
es.htm).
[64] Norman Shepherd, “Justification by Fa=
ith in
Pauline Theology” in Backbone=
of
the Bible, 89 (emphasis mine).
[65] Ibid. Shepherd contends in “Justifica=
tion
by Works in Reformed Theology” that the early Reformed believed that
justification was simply the forgiveness of sins. Turretin, however, gives a
more helpful explanation of why we find the language that Shepherd cites am=
ong
Reformed writers: “This is not, however, to deny that the orthodox
sometimes define justification as simply the remission of sins. But they sp=
eak
this way against the Papists who do not want justification to pertain only =
to
the remission of sins but also to the internal renovation of the soul and t=
he
infusion of righteousness. The orthodox properly maintain that justification
consists only in remission of sins under which they also include a right to
life against those who maintain the whole of justification to be summed up
exclusively, not in a right to life, but in an infusion of
righteousness.” Cited in Francis Turretin, Compendium Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae ex Theologorum Nostrorum
Institutionibus Theologicis auctum et illustratum a Leonardo Rijssenio =
(
[66] Norman Shepherd, “Law and Gospel in
Covenantal Perspective,” Refo=
rmation
and Revival Journal 14/1
(2005): 76.
[67] Ibid.
[68] The difference here is not merely that of =
denying
the active obedience of Christ being imputed to believing sinners. It is an
issue of the definition of faith and works. This is clear from the quotes we
offered above from Piscator. Piscator was a Reformed theologian who denied =
that
the active obedience of Christ was imputed to believing sinners but still
claimed, in contrast to Shepherd, that Christ’s
[69] Ibid.
[70] Norman Shepherd, The Covenant of Grace, 15.
[71] See fn. 25 above.
[72] Ibid., 19.
[73] See also what he says about “the full=
ness
of faith” in Ibid., 39 and 50.
[74] See the
[75] As we see in the careful qualification of
Witsius, fn. 48 and fn. 53 above.
[76] Shepherd, “Justification by Faith
Alone,” 82-89.
[77] This has not changed since 1978. See Thesis=
24 in
his “34 Theses.”
[78] Norman Shepherd, “Justification by Fa=
ith in
Pauline Theology,” 94. Shepherd claims (on the following page) that s=
uch
a view is in conflict with Reformed theology. On the contrary, as we have s=
een
above, from Calvin and the rest, Reformed theologians had no problem assert=
ing
that all works whatsoever are excluded from justification and that faith wa=
s a
living and active faith. Here we might ask how Shepherd’s failure to
reject all works relative to justification squares with thesis 6 cited earl=
ier.
His position seems to come to this: sinners can never have a faith-as-righteousnes=
s on
their own. The exclusive reason why believing sinners are capable of
having a faith-as-righteousness is because of the redemptive work of Jesus
Christ for them. In other words, nothing man ever did can make him att=
ain
to a state where he is justified by faith, but Jesus Christ supplies that w=
hich
is necessary for attaining that state. Again, this means that there was
absolutely no way for man to bring about his own forgiveness. <=
span
style=3D'font-family:Perpetua;color:blue'>
[79] Ibid., 95-6.
[80] Ibid., 97 (emphasis mine).
[81] Ibid., 98.
[82] See note 54 above.
[83] Shepherd, “Justification by Faith,=
221;
99.
[84] Ibid.
[85] It is therefore not surprising to hear Shep=
herd
say in The Call of Grace, ̶=
0;Is
there any hope for a common understanding between Roman Catholicism and
evangelical Protestantism regarding the way of salvation? May I suggest that
there is at least a glimmer of hope if both sides are willing to embrace a
covenantal understanding of the way of salvation” (59). We would take=
it
a step further and say that if Shepherd’s views were adopted, there w=
ould
be no reason at all why there could not be a common understanding since at =
key
points their views are, in substance, the same. To be sure, Shepherd holds =
to a
forensic justification, but as Hoornbeeck long ago noted, “however mu=
ch
Socinus asserts in this matter with the orthodox that justification is a
judicial act by which the believing sinner is absolved, we know that the su=
m of
this matter is not situated in this but in the material and form, and in bo=
th
Socinus advances the opposite” (727).
[86] For example, obviously anyone who claims to=
be a
Christian can say that Christ is the “Son of God,” but the Aria=
ns
and Jehovah’s Witness mean something entirely different than an
evangelical does. For a helpful and careful discussion of this issue, see T=
urretin,
III.xxiiii.
[87] This is Wollebius’ definition, II.vii= i.1.
=
270 • MID-AMERICA JOURNAL OF THEOL=
OGY
SAYING “JUSTIFICATION =
BY
FAITH ALONE” ISN’T ENOUGH • 271
MJT=
17 (2006) 239-265