The Upper Register

Gospel as New Law: The Error that Refuses to Die

Pelagius (early 5th century)

“The Lord of Justice wished man to be free to act and not under compulsion; it was for this reason that ‘he left him free to make his own decisions’ (Sirach 15:14) and set before him life and death, good and evil, and he shall be given whatever pleases him. Hence we read in the Book Deuteronomy also: ‘I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you may live’ (Deut 30:19)” (Letter to Demetrias [413] https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/1296.html).

“It is on this choice between two ways, on this freedom to choose either alternative, that the glory of the rational mind is based, it is in this that the whole honour of our nature consists, it is from this that its dignity is derived and all good men win others’ praise and their own reward.”

“When [human nature] had now become buried beneath an excess of vices and as if tainted with the rust of ignorance, the Lord applied the file of the law to it, and so, thoroughly polished by its frequent admonishments, it was enabled to recover its former brilliance.”

Aquinas:

“The Law of the Gospel which is called the New Law” (Summa Theologica I-II, Q106)

Justification is a movement or change from the state of ungodliness to the state of justice (Rom 4:5), which is a certain rectitude or order in the interior disposition of man (I-II, Q113, A1).

“This movement of faith is not perfect unless it is quickened by charity” (I-II, Q113, A4). “Faith formed by charity” (II-II, Q4, A3) “The merit of eternal life rests chiefly with charity” (I-II, Q114, A4).

The Council of Trent, Sixth Session (1547)

Justification is not the imputation of righteousness but an infusion of righteousness (a new habit of virtue) by the Spirit. As a result of this infusion of a new habit of virtue, we do good works. These works are so pleasing to God that we can be said “to have truly merited eternal life” (Article 16).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992)

Par. 1965: “The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law.”

Par. 1966: “The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it.”

Par. 1970: “The entire Law of the Gospel is contained in the ‘new commandment’ of Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us.”

The Remonstrants (1610)

“That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, has determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end.”

Richard Baxter

Aphorisms of Justification (1649) https://heidelblog.net/2018/02/richard-baxter-on-initial-and-final-justification-through-faith-and-works/

Thesis 70: “Faith in the largest sense, as it comprehends all the condition of the new covenant,” which includes faith, repentance, and obedience.

Thesis 71: “The sincere performance of the summary, great command of the Law is still naturally implied in the conditions of the Gospel, as of absolute indispensible necessity … But it is not commanded in the sense, and upon the terms, as under the first Covenant.”

Thesis 72: “As the Accepting of Christ for Lord, (which is the hearts subjection) is as essential a part of justifying faith, as the accepting of him for our Saviour: So consequently, sincere obedience, (which is the effect of the former,) has as much to do in justifying us before God, as affiance, (which is the fruit of the later.)”

Thesis 73: “Faith only justifies as it implies and includes all other parts of the condition of the new covenant … Those works [of the Gospel] do also justify as the secondary, less principal parts of the condition of the Covenant.”

Thesis 78: “Sincere obedience is without all doubt, a condition of our salvation: therefore also of our justification.”

“The Day of Judgement is not to try and judge Jesus Christ and his merits, but us: He will judge us himself by his new Law or Covenant” (Dictionary of Scottish Church History, pp. 449f).

Norman Shepherd

34 Theses on Justification (1978) http://hornes.org/theologia/norman-shepherd/the-34-theses

Thesis 11: “Justifying faith is obedient faith, that is, ‘faith working through love’ (Gal. 5:6), and therefore faith that yields obedience to the commands of Scripture.”

Thesis 18: “Faith, repentance, and new obedience are not the cause or ground of salvation or justification, but are as covenantal response to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the way (Acts 24:14; 2 Peter 2:2, 21) in which the Lord of the Covenant brings his people into the full possession of eternal life.”

Thesis 19: “Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are his disciples, who walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God, are in a state of justification and will be justified on the day of judgment.”

Thesis 20: “The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, ‘the doers of the Law will be justified,’ is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified.”

Thesis 22: “The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day.”

Thesis 23: “Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1 John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9).”

Shepherd, The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism (P&R, 2000)

“The obedience that leads to the fulfillment of the promise … is the expression of faith and trust in the Lord, not the expression of confidence in human effort” (p. 21).

The Mosaic covenant has been viewed by some theologians, like Charles Hodge, as a republication of the covenant of works (p. 25). But that is not correct according to Shepherd. The Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of works but an administration of the covenant of grace (p. 27).

“Israel had to persevere in faith in order to inherit what was promised” (p. 33).

“The Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works, but a ‘covenant of love’” (p. 39).

“Like the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant has two parts, promise and obligation” (p. 39).

“The obedience required of Israel is not the obedience of merit, but the obedience of faith” (p. 39).

“Eternal life is an undeserved gift of grace; we enter into it by way of a living, active, and obedient faith ... The covenantal demand for faith, repentance, and obedience is simply the way in which the Lord leads us into the possession of these blessings” (pp. 51, 63).

Shepherd, “Justification by Faith in Pauline Theology,” in Backbone of the Bible, edited by P. Andrew Sandlin (Covenant Media Press, 2004)

“Justifying faith is not only a penitent faith but also an obedient faith. As faith and repentance are inseparably joined, so also repentance and obedience are inseparably joined” (p. 91).

“Justification comes by a penitent and obedient faith … Gospel proclamation calls us to living faith, that is, to a penitent and obedient faith …. Those who by God’s electing grace respond to the gospel call with penitent and obedient faith are the righteous who will enter into eternal life” (pp. 100-1).

“Those who are forgiven and who are transformed into covenant keepers are the righteous who will inherit eternal life” (p. 110).

John F. MacArthur Jr.

The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan, 1988):

“A believing heart surrenders to the Master with great joy … He is glad to give it all up for the kingdom. That is the nature of saving faith … Saving faith retains no privileges. It clings to no cherished sins, no treasured possessions, no secret self-indulgences. It is an unconditional surrender, a willingness to do anything the Lord demands … It denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith … True faith is humble, submissive obedience” (pp. 139f).

“The biblical concept of faith is inseparable from obedience. ‘Believe’ is synonymous with ‘obey’ … ‘To believe’ is ‘to obey’” (pp. 174-75).

“Grace is the power of God to fulfill our New Covenant duties” (p. 31).

The Federal Vision

The Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference titled “The Federal Vision” held at Auburn Avenue PCA in Monroe, Louisiana (2002): Douglas Wilson; John Barach; Steve Wilkins; Rich Lusk; Steve Schlissel

James Jordan: “Nothing in the Bible says that Adam was supposed to earn glory. He was, rather, called to remain faithful and mature ... My thesis is that what Adam was supposed to provide, and what Jesus has provided for us, is maturity. That is to say, the new status that Jesus provides for us does not come about because He earned something Adam failed to earn, but because He persevered in faith toward the Father until he was mature ... Far from earning His exaltation, Jesus received it as a free grace or gift from the Father ... There is no ‘merit’ theology in the Bible. There is no covenant of works”  (“Merit Versus Maturity,” in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins [Athanasius Press, 2004], pp. 153, 155, 193, 195).

Rich Lusk: “In the covenant construction advocated by Dr. Smith ... [t]he covenant of grace is simply the covenant of works fulfilled by a sinless substitute provided by God himself. While there is much to appreciate about the symmetry of such a covenantal scheme, it seems fraught with biblical difficulties ... It ends up looking something like this:  In Genesis 1-2, God constructed Pelagian machinery for man to earn his way to blessing ... Jesus is the successful Pelagian, the One Guy in the history of the world who succeeded in pulling off the works righteousness plan” (The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision, ed. E. Calvin Beisner [Knox Theological Seminary, 2004], pp. 136-37).

Steve Schlissel: “‘For not the hearers of the Law [unbelieving Jews] are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the Law [believing Gentiles and Jews] will be justified.’ This statement is not a theoretical proposition concerning some meritorious method of being righteous before God. The presuppositions undergirding Paul’s statement include the facts that the Law is ‘obeyable,’ that truly responding to the Law (the Word) in faith does justify” (The Federal Vision, p. 260). “Obedience and faith are the same thing, biblically speaking” (The Auburn Avenue Theology, p. 26).

Joint Federal Vision Statement (2007):

“We affirm that Adam was in a covenant of life with the triune God in the Garden of Eden, in which arrangement Adam was required to obey God completely, from the heart. We hold further that all such obedience, had it occurred, would have been rendered from a heart of faith alone, in a spirit of loving trust. Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone.”

“We affirm that those in rebellion against God are condemned both by His law, which they disobey, and His gospel, which they also disobey … We deny that law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.”

“We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith.”

Doug Wilson, “Living Faith” (2008) https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/living-faith.html - “I am treating obedient faith and living faith as synonymous … it is obedient in its life, and in that living condition it is the instrument of our justification.”

Progressive Covenantalism

Ardel Caneday, “Covenantal Life with God from Eden to Holy City,” ch. 4 in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, ed. Stephen Wellum and Brent Parker (B&H, 2016).

Caneday: “Gentry and Wellum affirm that the blending of God’s sovereign promise making and covenant keeping with the conditional stipulations of obedience is integral to the biblical story line beginning in Eden and reaching consummation in the Holy City” (p. 102).

“This chapter disavows the notion that all of Scripture consists of two isolatable messages: law, consisting of God’s demands, and gospel, composed of God’s gracious giving. Instead, it argues that the formulation of covenant stipulations remains the same across the covenants while the content of stipulations changes … True, God unconditionally establishes his various covenants with humans, but each covenant entails provisions with stipulations that both promise blessings to all who obey (remaining in saving covenant relationship with God) and announce curses upon the disobedient” (p. 103).

“Inheriting God’s promises is always conditional, for he grants his covenant blessing to those who, by his own grace, observe stipulations that require persevering, obedient belief. From Adam’s habitation of the Edenic garden with access to the tree of life to inheritance of our eternal habitation, God’s holy city, with free access to the tree of life, covenantal life with God always entails stipulations expressed as commands or conditionals” (p. 105).

“God’s word, entailing promise and threat, required Adam to believe, to trust the Lord, in order that he might obey God and receive his covenant blessing” (p. 108).

Caneday agrees with John Murray in setting aside the term “covenant of works,” in order to uphold the notion that the “covenant of creation” was gracious and did not entail merit (pp. 109-10).

He further rejects the notion that the Mosaic law was a republication of the covenant of works, again so as to uphold the notion that the old covenant was gracious. “The Mosaic covenant is not to be construed as entailing merit in any sense” (p. 109-10).

“Concerning their content, new covenant stipulations of repentance, faith, obedience, or doing good are distinctively different from old covenant stipulations. The new, with the law engraved on the heart, stipulates obeying Christ Jesus as Lord; the old, etched on stone tablets, stipulates obeying God’s covenant commandments that feature a panoply of heavenly shadows and copies. Though the content of stipulations differs, their form does not, for both new and old covenants employ variously formatted stipulations including imperatives and conditionals. ‘If you obey, then I will bless you’ or ‘Do this, and you will live.’ Thus, to claim that the stipulations of the new covenant are different formulations structurally—‘Do this because you are blessed’ versus ‘Do this in order to be blessed’—is not accurate” (p. 111).

“Grammatically, how the old and new covenants express stipulations as well as blessings or curses does not differ. Consider Leviticus 18:5: ‘Keep my decrees and laws [covenant stipulation], for the person who obeys them will live by them [covenant blessing]. I am the Lord.’ Now ponder Paul’s stipulation to Timothy: ‘Watch you life and doctrine closely [covenant stipulation]. Persevere in them, because if you do [covenant stipulation], you will save both yourself and your hearers [covenant blessing]’ (1 Tim 4:16)” (p. 116).

“The difference between the old and new covenants is not how the stipulations are grammatically structured or formed or that the former stipulates obedience and the new does not. Nor is the difference that the law covenant threatens divine curses and promises divine blessing with conditional stipulations but that the grace covenant in Christ issues no stipulations. Clearly the New Testament is filled with gospel threats and promises addressed to believers, which if heeded inviolably lead to eternal life but if ignored will end in condemnation” (p. 117).

“If we obey God’s stipulations proclaimed in and through his new covenant in Christ Jesus, God’s Word assures us that we shall have access to the tree of life in God’s Holy City. But if we do not heed God’s threatening stipulations, we will be cast outside, and our share in the tree of life and in the Holy City will be taken from us” (p. 126).

In sum, “Gospel as New Law” is the view that:

The grace of God is primary, even before the fall.

Even before the fall, God established his covenant with Adam as a gracious covenant relationship that involves promises but also involves certain conditions if we are to enjoy the fulfillment of those promises.

After the fall, God continues to the same pattern. The details of the specific requirements differ, but same covenant relationship is continued with Abraham and with Israel under the Law. 

The Old Law is summarized in the demand: “The one who does these things [Mosaic commandments] will live by them” (Lev 18:5). God did not require perfect obedience but loyalty and covenant faithfulness.

The Gospel is a New Law that, like the Old Law, demands obedient faith and threatens a curse for those who are unfaithful.

What makes the New Law “new” is that the burden of the ceremonies and shadows of the Old Law are no longer required.

The sentence “we are justified by faith” is affirmed, but faith is defined as living, active, and obedient, so in the end it actually means “we are justified by works.”

At each point, God raised up a theologian to answer the “Gospel as New Law” error:

Against the Judaizers – Paul

Against Pelagius – Augustine

Against Rome – Martin Luther

Against Baxter – John Owen

Against Shepherd – Meredith Kline

Response to Mark Jones on Faith as a “Condition” of Justification

Mark Jones has come to the defense of John Piper, chiding me for taking issue with Piper for what I consider to be Piper’s imprecise and confusing language regarding justification. Piper wrote in the foreword to Schreiner’s new book Faith Alone, that faith is the sole “condition” for “entering a right relationship to God”—Piper’s non-standard phrase for justification. He goes on to say that there are other conditions, besides faith, for attaining heaven. My post was not a “nasty” attack on Piper, but an expression of brotherly concern about the importance of using precise language with respect to the heart of the gospel—justification by faith alone. Jones doesn’t see any problem with Piper’s language and thinks it’s “perfectly within the Reformed tradition.” I am not as cocksure as Jones on this point.

I wish that Jones had linked to my original post so that readers of his blog post could be directed to my post in order to read it in full (I note that he has belatedly added the link). It makes a difference to read the one paragraph he quotes in the larger context of my entire post. In my post, after quoting Piper, I explain that, in my view, Piper’s use of confusing and non-standard language is the culprit that leads him to make these confusing statements that can, at the very least, be taken the wrong way. While it is possible to put an orthodox construction on his language, it is also possible that it betrays a sloppiness of thought and articulation that is dangerous since it relates to the heart of the gospel and the foundation of our assurance. I conclude my post by writing, “I am confident that the intent of what Piper wrote is not far from the doctrine as the Westminster Confession articulates it, but I wish he had been more precise and clear in his terminology.”

I argued that the confusing terminology is in three areas, not just the word “condition”: (1) Piper’s unfortunate rewording of justification as “entering a right relationship to God,” (2) his explanation of the role of faith in justification as that of being “the sole condition,” and (3) his additional statement that, while faith is the sole condition of entering a right relationship to God, there are other conditions for attaining heaven—such as perseverance and evangelical obedience.

All three of these points that I made ought to be taken together. I see them as interconnected. The first terminological modification (changing “justification” to “entering a right relationship to God”) is the “original sin” that opens the door to the other two. If Piper had stuck to the traditional definition of justification as the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (per the Westminster Confession and Catechisms), then it would have helped him to see that faith is not best understood as a “condition” of justification but as the means or instrument of justification. Why is that? Because if justification is the pardoning of our sins and the “accounting and accepting” of our persons “as righteous ... for Christ’s sake alone” (WCF XI.1), then it is becomes instantly clear that faith’s role in justification is simply instrumental and receptive. Faith is simply accepting, receiving, and resting in Christ and his righteousness as the righteousness by which we are accounted as righteous in the sight of God. It is not a “condition” in the sense of being something in us that qualifies us for justification, as evangelical obedience (apparently) qualifies us for heaven.

This, then, throws a bright light on Piper’s the third linguistic mistake (I’m trying to be as charitable as I can here!) in which he implies that, although faith is the sole condition for entering a right relationship to God, it is not the sole condition for attaining heaven. If Piper had stuck to the traditional definition of justification, this third error could have been avoided as well. For if we are accounted and accepted as righteous for Christ’s sake alone, then we are righteous, and being righteous means we are legally entitled to the reward of righteousness, namely, eternal life. To say that we need to add other conditions or qualifications would be to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness. It is to imply that Christ’s righteousness is not sufficient to qualify us to attain heaven. I am confident that Piper would disavow that implication with vehemence. My point is that his language is unclear and that he would have been able to avoid that lack of clarity if he hadn’t gotten off on the wrong track by glossing justification as “entering a right relationship to God.”  That bad gloss is what allowed him to separate justification from being qualified to attain heaven and to imply that it is not Christ’s righteousness but our evangelical obedience that is the condition for attaining heaven.

But all of this broader context is left out in the post by Jones. Jones ignores the broader context of my post and lifts out one sentence of mine, dealing with the second terminological point: “Faith has never been viewed as a condition of justification in Reformed theology or in the Reformed confessions.” Jones is “flabbergasted” at this claim, and says it is “simply false.” He goes on quote John Owen, Stephen Charnock, Thomas Manton, and John Flavel.

To begin with, it should be pointed out that I did not claim, “No Reformed author has ever called faith a condition of justification.” What I said is that faith is never “viewed,” i.e., treated, understood, and defined, as a condition of justification. I stand by that claim. If you look at the treatment of the doctrine of justification in all of the major Reformed confessional documents, they all address the question, “How does faith justify us in the sight of God?” And you will find that the uniform answer they give is that faith justifies, not because of any inherent value of faith, but only as it is a receptive means or instrument. We are accounted as righteous in God sight for Christ’s sake alone, and faith is the means by which we lay hold of Christ. Here are some quotes from the principal confessions and catechisms:

“Why do you say that you are righteous by faith alone? Not because I please God by virtue of the worthiness of my faith, but because the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ alone are my righteousness before God, and because I can accept it and make it mine in no other way than by faith alone” (Heidelberg Catechism Q. 61).

“We do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us—for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness” (Belgic Confession XXII).

“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification” (Westminster Confession XI.2).

“How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God ... only as it is an instrument, by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness” (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 73).

“Because faith receives Christ our righteousness and attributes everything to the grace of God in Christ, on that account justification is attributed to faith, chiefly because of Christ and not therefore because it is our work” (Second Helvetic Confession XV).

Conspicuously, in the above quotes, faith is never said to have efficacy to justify on the ground that it is a condition of justification. The term “condition” is not even used, at least not when the article of justification is being discussed. (Admittedly, the term “condition” is used when dealing with the topic of the covenant of grace [e.g., WLC #32], but that is a separate issue. If someone wishes to make the argument, “Faith is a condition of the covenant of grace; justification is one of the blessings of the covenant of grace; therefore, faith is a condition of justification,” they will need to explain to me why repentance, perseverance, and evangelical obedience are not also conditions of justification.)

Nor did I say that faith could never be called a “condition” of justification in an orthodox sense. I think it could be, as long as it simply means that one must believe in order to be justified (e.g., “we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ,” Gal 2:16). I am not surprised that Jones can pull out some quotes where orthodox Reformed theologians use the language of condition, but if they are orthodox, they explain it and make clear that what they mean by “condition” is nothing more than the necessity of faith in order to be justified.

I want to deal now with the Flavel quotes. Jones fails to mention this, but the treatise by Flavel that he cites was Vindiciarum Vindex, or, A Refutation of the Weak and Impertinent Rejoinder of Mr. Philip Cary. It wasn’t a treatise on justification but was part of a debate over paedobaptism. Philip Cary, the credobaptist, had argued that the new covenant or the gospel covenant is absolute or unconditional—a position that was even held by some paedobaptists, most notably John Owen. Flavel disagrees and argues that the gospel covenant is conditional upon faith. I happen to agree with the paedobaptist (Flavel) against the credobaptist (Cary) in this particular debate.  Flavel’s entire discussion of the various meanings of the word “condition” has to do with paedo- vs. credo-baptist debates over covenant theology, e.g., questions like whether the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision was the same in substance with the new or gospel covenant, and whether the new or gospel covenant is conditional. The precise question of the role of faith (instrumental vs. conditional) in justification is not directly in view (although justification is mentioned several times and Flavel even attaches an appendix critiquing the hyper-Calvinist doctrine of eternal justification, but, again, only to argue that faith is a condition in the obvious sense that it is necessary for justification).

So much for Flavel. What about the other quotes? The Charnock quote is one isolated sentence in a sermon on the holiness of God; the topic of justification is not at hand. Charnock provides no elaboration, so one cannot be sure what he intended. I could not locate the Manton quote. That leaves the Owen quote. And guess what? In the context, Owen is not really endorsing the position that faith is best defined as the condition of justification. The sentence in bold in the block quote below is the one quoted by Jones. But Jones takes that sentence out of context against the drift of Owen’s whole argument, which is that faith is best viewed as the instrument rather than the condition of justification. We receive the righteousness of Christ by the instrumentality of faith. Faith is the merely that by which we receive, apprehend, lay hold of, and appropriate Christ’s imputed righteousness.

“Some do plead that faith is the condition of our justification, and that otherwise it is not to be conceived of. As I said before, so I say again, I shall not contend with any man about words, terms, or expressions, so long as what is intended by them, is agreed upon. And there is an obvious sense wherein faith may be called the condition of our justification. For no more may be intended thereby, but that it is the duty on our part which God requireth, that we may be justified. And this the whole scripture beareth witness unto. Yet this hindereth not, but that as unto its use, it may be the instrument whereby we apprehend or receive Christ and his righteousness. But to assert it the condition of our justification, or that we are justified by it as the condition of the new covenant, so as from a pre-conceived signification of that word, to give it another use in justification exclusive of that pleaded for, as the instrumental cause thereof, is not easily to be admitted; because it supposeth an alteration in the substance of the doctrine itself.

“The word is no where used in the scripture in this matter; which I argue no farther, but that we have no certain rule or standard to try and measure its signification by. Wherefore it cannot first be introduced in what sense men please, and then that sense turned into argument for other ends. For thus on a supposed concession, that it is the condition of our justification, some heighten it into a subordinate righteousness, imputed unto us, antecedently as I suppose, unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in any sense, whereof it is the condition. And some who pretend to lessen its efficiency or dignity in the use of it in our justification say, it is only causa sine qua non, which leaves us at as great an uncertainty as to the nature and efficacy of this condition as we were before. Nor is the true sense of things at all illustrated, but rather darkened by such notions” (The Works of John Owen, vol. 5, p. 113).

The terminology of “condition” is clearly problematic for Owen. He’s not comfortable with it. He’s squirming all over the place. He allows that it can be used in a harmless sense, but he points out that the word “condition” is nowhere used in Scripture in relation to justification. The term does not help but rather darkens understanding. Once you speak of faith as a condition of justification, faith can all too easily be heightened into a subordinate righteousness. Those who try to soften the term condition by saying it is only a causa sine qua non do not add clarity but only leave us with just as much uncertainty as to the nature and efficacy of this so-called condition. He’ll allow someone to say faith is the “condition” of justification, but only if “condition” is understood as synonymous with “instrument”!

All of that is to say, the best of the Reformed tradition generally thinks it is better and safer to define faith as the instrument of justification rather than as the condition of justification. The fact that faith is the instrument of justification follows from the reality of what justification is—not entering a right relationship to God, but receiving the gift of the imputed righteousness of Christ, as Owen argued:

“Whereas therefore the righteousness wherewith we are justified is the gift of God, which is tendered unto us in the promise of the gospel, the use and office of faith being to receive, apprehend, or lay hold of and appropriate this righteousness, I know not how it can be better expressed than by an instrument, nor by what notion of it more light of understanding may be conveyed unto our minds .... If we are justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which faith alone apprehends and receives, it will not be denied but that it is rightly enough placed as the instrumental cause of our justification” (Ibid., p. 112).

I am willing to grant that Jones is right on the narrow point that some Reformed theologians did on occasion use the language of faith as a “condition” of justification. But that doesn’t contradict my claim in context. My claim in context was that Reformed theology never “viewed” (i.e., defined) faith as a condition in Piper’s sense, as one condition that can be numbered along with other conditions including evangelical obedience, with faith being the sole condition for entering a right relationship to God and evangelical obedience being the condition for attaining heaven. That is the larger context that I was dealing with in my original post.

I also grant that Jones is entirely correct that the term “condition” can be used in a variety of senses (antecedent, consequent, sine qua non, essential, organic, and I am sure the scholastics could come up with more!), and that, depending on which sense is in view, the statement “faith is the condition of justification” can be intended in an orthodox sense. But I would urge people, if they use it, to immediately clarify the sense in which they are using it. Preferably, we should not use it at all. It’s too ambiguous, as Owen said. We should use instrument instead—just as the Westminster Confession does. Besides, if faith is an instrument, then it is in some sense a condition. But not every condition is a mere instrument. So “instrument” is better because it is more precise.

I’d like to conclude with another quote from Owen on why it is dangerous to ascribe to faith the efficiency of a condition with respect to justification, if that conditionality is not clearly defined and circumscribed in purely instrumental terms:

“For we ascribe the efficiency of an instrument herein unto our own faith; when they say only that it is a condition, or causa sine qua non, of our justification. But I judge that grave and wise men ought not to give so much to the defense of the cause they have undertaken, seeing they cannot but know indeed the contrary. For after they have given the specious name of a condition, and a causa sine qua non, unto faith, they immediately take all other graces and works of obedience into the same state with it, and the same use in justification; and after this seeming gold hath been cast for a while into the fire of disputation, there comes out the calf of a personal inherent righteousness, whereby men are justified before God, virtute foederis evangelici, for as for the righteousness of Christ to be imputed unto us, it is gone into heaven, and they know not what is become of it” (Ibid., p. 106).

In no way am I claiming that Piper is guilty of denying the imputed righteousness of Christ, but it is worrisome that his faulty gloss of justification as “entering a right relationship to God” fails to mention it. 

Faith Alone: John Owen and John Murray

I love these two quotes articulating with power and absolute clarity the wonderful truth that we, as sinners, are justified (reckoned as righteous in the sight of God) by faith alone. 

John Owen

The first quote, by John Owen, could have been written today. It certainly needs to be heard today. He points out that many, out of pious anti-antimomian motives, err when they include works in the definition of the faith by which we are justified. Watch out for that venomous snake in the grass! We are not justified by “obedient faith,” as Norman Shepherd would say, but by faith alone. In its role as the instrument by which we are justified, faith excludes even the good works that are the necessary fruit of faith. Let that sink in.

“It hath been said, that faith is the receiving of Christ as a priest, and a lord, to be saved by him, and ruled by him. This sounds excellent well. Who is so vile that, endeavoring to believe, is not willing to be ruled by Christ, as well as saved by him? A faith that would not have Christ to be Lord to rule us, is that faith alone which James rejects. He that would be saved by Christ, and not ruled by him, shall not be saved by him at all. We are to receive a whole Christ, not by halves;—in regard of all his offices, not one or another. This sounds well, makes a fair show, and there is, in some regard, truth in what is spoken; but ‘Latet anguis in herba’ [a snake is hiding in the grass],—Let men explain themselves, and it is this:  The receiving of Christ as a king, is the yielding obedience to him. But that subjection is not a fruit of the faith whereby we are justified, but an essential part of it; so that there is no difference between faith and works or obedience, in the business of justification, both being alike a condition of it … Others at length mince the matter, and say, that faith and works have the same respects to our justification that shall be public and solemn at the last day, at the day of judgment … How they will justify themselves at the day of judgment for troubling the peace of the saints of God, and shaking the great fundamental articles of the Reformation, I know not … It is true, then, we acknowledge, that faith receives Christ as a lord, as a king; and it is no true faith that will not, doth not do so, and put the soul upon all that obedience which he, as the captain of our salvation, requires at our hands. But faith, as it justifies (in its concurrence, whatever it be, thereunto), closeth with Christ for righteousness and acceptation with God only. And, give me leave to say, it is in that act no less exclusive of good works than of sin. It closeth with Christ in and for that, on account whereof he is our righteousness, and for and by which we are justified” (John Owen, “The Strength of Faith,” Works, vol. IX, pp. 24-26)

John Murray

The second quote, by John Murray, passionately spells out exactly why it is that we are justified by faith alone. Other graces or fruits of faith do not have that unique quality of being utterly receptive and extraspective, looking away from ourselves to Christ and his righteousness. Beware of cutting the throat of the sinner’s confidence by inserting works into the definition of faith!

“The differentiating quality of faith is that the nature and function of faith is to rest completely upon another. It is this resting, confiding, entrusting quality of faith that makes it appropriate to and indeed exhibitive of the nature of justification. It is consonant with its source as the free grace of God, with its nature as a forensic act, and with its ground as the righteousness of Christ. Faith terminates upon Christ and his righteousness and it makes mention of his righteousness and of his only. This is the Saviour’s specific identity in the matter of justification—he is the Lord our righteousness. And in resting upon him alone for salvation it is faith that perfectly dovetails justification in him and his righteousness. Other graces or fruits of the Spirit have their own specific functions in the application of redemption, but only faith has as its specific quality the receiving and resting of self-abandonment and totality of self-commitment. This is both the stumbling-block and the irresistible appeal of the gospel. It is the stumbling-block to self-righteousness and self-righteousness is the arch-demon of antithesis to grace. It is the glory of the gospel for the contrite and brokenhearted—if we put any other exercise of the human spirit in the place of faith, then we cut the throat of the only confidence a sinner conscious of his lost and helpless condition can entertain. Justification by faith is the jubilee trumpet of the gospel because it proclaims the gospel to the poor and destitute whose only door of hope is to roll themselves in total helplessness upon the grace and power and righteousness of the Redeemer of the lost. In the words of one, ‘cast out your anchor into the ocean of the Redeemer’s merits.’ Faith is always joined with repentance, love, and hope. A faith severed from these is not the faith of the contrite and therefore it is not the faith that justifies. But it is faith alone that justifies because its specific quality is to find our all in Christ and his righteousness” (John Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 2, pp. 216-17).

Faith Alone and the Importance of Precise Terminology

John Piper’s foreword to Tom Schreiner’s new book Faith Alone (which looks like an outstanding book, by the way), has been making waves, mainly because he (Piper) wrote:

The stunning Christian answer [to the question, “How can a person be right with God?”] is: sola fide—faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely: He says right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.

The main problem, as I see it, is that Piper is using confusing and non-standard language, and this leads to lack of clarity.

The first confusing terminology is his language of “entering a right relationship with God.” From the context, Piper seems to be using this phrase as a gloss for “justification.” But as a gloss for justification it is not very helpful. It leads to confusion and mixing things with justification that are distinct from it. Justification is simply the forgiveness of sins (negative removal of guilt) and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (positive reckoning as righteous). Entering into a right relationship with God is not part of it. Entering into a right relationship with God is a consequence of being forgiven and reckoned as righteous. In traditional terminology, we would speak of this right relationship as our adoption as God’s children and reconciliation with God (or peace with God). Justification is a purely forensic verdict in which we are freed from guilt and are reckoned as righteous before God. To be sure, there is a relational dimension to salvation, but it is the result or consequence of justification, not to be confused with justification itself. Paul made that distinction when he wrote, “Having therefore been justified (dikaiōthentes, aorist participle) by faith, we have peace with God” (Rom 5:1).

The second confusing terminology is his use of the word “conditions.” He wants to say that faith is the sole condition of entering into a right relationship with God. But if we replace “entering into a right relationship with God” with “being justified,” then it is not true that faith is the sole condition, since faith is related to justification not as a condition but as a means. Faith has never been viewed as a condition of justification in Reformed theology or in the Reformed confessions. Paul himself never uses the prepositional phrase dia + accusative, “justified because of faith.” Instead he uses dia + genitive or ek + genitive, “justified by faith.” Faith is not the ground of justification, but the means by which we are justified, by which we rest upon Christ and receive the gift of his imputed righteousness. Faith is a purely passive and receptive instrument. It is an open hand that receives the gift. In this it is the exclusive means or instrument by which we are justified, since we do not receive the righteousness of Christ by works of obedience, even by Spirit-wrought works of obedience. And even faith itself is a sovereign gift of God. So it is simply wrong to say that faith is the condition of justification.  

Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (The Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF] XI.1).

Piper goes on to say, “There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.”

This is terribly confusing. If we have been justified by faith, we are righteous in God’s sight and therefore entitled to heaven. Christ’s righteousness is sufficient. We do not need to meet any other conditions for attaining heaven. If we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, then we are legally righteous in the eyes of God and qualified to attain heaven. “Those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom 8:30). If not, then we would be saying that Christ’s righteousness does not merit heaven.

I think what Piper is attempting to say is that faith is the sole instrument of receiving the righteousness of Christ, and if we have true faith, that faith will manifest itself in a changed life as we bring forth fruits of evangelical obedience. If that is what he is trying to say, then I fully agree. The Westminster Confession, again, says it well:

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love (WCF XI.2).

In this sense, it is true to say that no one who enters heaven will be devoid of good works and evangelical obedience. But these things have no role to play as means or conditions of attaining heaven. They are the fruit and evidence of saving faith. We do not attain heaven by means of or on the condition of producing the fruit of faith. We attain heaven by being reckoned as righteous in Christ by faith. But faith is never alone “in the person” who is justified, “but is ever accompanied” with its fruits.

It is important to be precise and clear when explaining the gospel. I am confident that the intent of what Piper wrote is not far from the doctrine as the Westminster Confession articulates it, but I wish he had been more precise and clear in his terminology. 

Cyrus the Great

Wikipedia says this about Cyrus the Great:

Cyrus the Great (c. 600 BC or 576 – December 530 BC), also known as Cyrus II of Persia and Cyrus the Elder, was the first Zoroastrian Persian Shāhanshāh (Emperor). He was the founder of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenid dynasty, which was an empire without precedent — a world-empire of major historical importance.

It was under his own rule that the empire embraced all previous civilized states of the ancient Near East, expanded vastly, and eventually conquered most of Southwest Asia and much of Central Asia, from Egypt and the Hellespont in the west to the Indus River in the east, to create the largest empire the world had yet seen.

Yet what the Bible says about this great man is focused not on his vast empire but on his obscure role in restoring the Jews to the land and encouraging them to rebuild the temple. For example, Yahweh through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah said:

"Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped,  to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: 'I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron, I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD,  the God of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.' ... 'I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,' says the LORD of hosts" (Isa 45:1-4, 13 ESV).

John L. McKenzie comments:

That an Israelite prophet should view the conquests of Cyrus purely as directed to the restoration of Israel may seem an intolerably narrow view of history. But it is a fact that the restoration of a Jewish community in Palestine has had a more lasting effect than anything else accomplished by Cyrus, who has been given in history the title of the Great. In the light of subsequent developments, the prophet does not show narrow vision; he shows an astonishing insight into the meaning of history.

[Second Isaiah (The Anchor Bible 20; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), 79.]

How often we view world affairs from a fleshly point of view, rather than seeing things as God sees them. The great movers and shakers of the City of Man are nothing in God's eyes. They are but tools in his hand for the accomplishment of his eternal purpose in Christ.

Faith: accept no substitutes

In Philippians 2:5-11 Paul quotes an ancient Christian creed that dramatically rehearses the central events of the historia salutis:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (ESV).

Do we believe that this grand, cosmic drama really happened in this world, in our world, and that Jesus really is God’s obedient and exalted bond-servant? It may seem easy to believe the basic facts of the gospel. How hard is that? And yet, when you reflect on it further, you realize how little we really do believe. We go about our daily lives, going to work, taking care of our kids, watching TV, surfing the web, listening to our iPods, Facebooking and Twittering, and so on. But how firmly do we really believe these amazing, earth-shattering facts? We spend so much of our lives acting as if, for all practical purposes, these things are not true, or at least only true in some vague spiritual way, but not absolutely factually true in the same way that our daily lives are real. We think we believe, but believing is harder than we think. It is hard to believe the facts of the drama of salvation. The incarnation, humiliation and exaltation of Christ are not easy facts to accept. They are totally alien to reason and experience.

Since real faith is too hard, we grasp for faith substitutes, things that are close enough to faith, that we can deceive ourselves into thinking that we really do believe when in fact we struggle with unbelief. There are three main substitutes: Church activity, piety, and theology.

Church activity

We throw ourselves into serving at church. We keep ourselves so busy with church activities, that we don’t have time to stop and reflect on the person of Christ. We are going a mile a minute, running to this church meeting and that church activity, doing Bible studies and evangelism and missions and small groups and children’s ministries. But often we’re so busy, we’re running on fumes. Our hearts are empty, so we pour ourselves even more into church activity to make up for it. When Mary sat at Jesus’ feet listening to his teaching and Martha was distracted with much serving, Jesus said, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:41-42). There is nothing wrong with serving the church. But it is no substitute for faith.

Piety

The second substitute for faith is piety. Many Christians are addicted to having certain spiritual experiences and feelings, because it makes the faith seem more real to them if they can feel it and see it. Some Charismatics take this to great extremes. They think the Holy Spirit is a physical force that literally knocks them to the ground or fills them with ecstasy. They get into a trance-like state as they speak in tongues or sway to the powerful beat of the music. There is nothing wrong with spiritual emotions, and from time to time God grants us deeply moving experiences. But they are no substitute for faith.

Theology

The third substitute is theology. We think that if we study theology carefully and come to all the right doctrinal positions, then we will be safe and right with God. This one hits closer to home for me. There have been times in my Christian walk where the only thing I had was theology. The emotions and spiritual experiences had waned, so I spent all my energy on studying theological issues, reading different views, and seeking the truth. But what I was really seeking was not the truth itself, not Christ himself, but the self-satisfied feeling that I had figured out a complex issue and grasped the absolute truth of God. Again, theology certainly has an important role to play. But it is no substitute for faith.

Paul said, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). In other words, faith comes from hearing the message, the good news, concerning Jesus, his self-emptying love for sinners to the point of death on a cross and his exaltation by God. Faith arises in your heart when you hear this awesome story of the drama of redemption, and you find yourself attracted to this humble, obedient, and exalted bond-servant. You find yourself drawn to him, drawn by his love, by his humility, and by his grace. You are enthralled with the fact that he is now exalted as Lord, not merely as if he were a master with his boot on your neck, before whom you cower in fear. Rather, your heart is ravished by the beauty of this humble bond-servant, who did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped and used for his own advantage, and who, because of his self-surrendering obedience in love for humankind, deserves to be exalted to the highest place. Because of his utter lack of grasping after glory, he deserves the highest glory. Because he made himself nothing for us, he deserves everything from us. We do not submit to his Lordship simply because he is Lord and demands it. We gladly submit to his Lordship, we gladly hail him as our loving King, because he has won our hearts - creating faith within us - by his humble service in our behalf.