By the REV. DONALD MACLEAN, Portree.
2—Justification by Faith.
The question of “how should a man be just with God?” is one of the greatest which can exercise the mind of man. The various religions of the world pay testimony to the fact that to some extent mankind, feels a guilty conscience, and endeavours in many ways to be reconciled to God. The Scriptures reveal the true condition of man before God, as a creature who fell from a state of innocence and happiness into a condition of condemnation and misery through sin. In the light of such a solemn fact the question of the pardon of sin and obtaining a place in the favour of God becomes one upon which the sinner needs the clearest possible light. This light is given him in the Word of God, in which a Saviour is set forth Who wrought out salvation for His people, and through Whom alone they can be saved. The part of this salvation which embraces the pardon of sin and acceptance with God is called justification. The excellent definition in the Shorter Catechism gives this in the following words: “Justification is an act of God’s grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone.” S.C. Qu. 33. It has been the work of Satan and his agents in all generations to obscure this great doctrine, and so blind men to the Scriptural way of salvation.
In giving consideration to the exact meaning of the phrase “justification by faith alone,” there are three positions we need to keep clearly before our minds. The first of these is that in saying “by faith alone,” the Reformers meant that the grace of faith had a particular place in the justification of a sinner which was not given to the other graces of the Spirit. We are not said to be justified by love or by hope or by repentance, but by faith. The Reformers acknowledged that faith “is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied by all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.” C. of F. XI. ii. Yet at the same time, they insisted that as far as justification was concerned the grace of faith was “the alone instrument of justification.” C. of F. XI. ii.
The second position is the well-known one that “justification by faith alone” means the exclusion of all works of human merit. “Not of works lest any man should boast.” Eph. ii. 9. “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.” Gal. ii. 16. Further comment on this point need not be made.
The third position is that there is no merit in faith itself as far as justification is concerned. Although faith is wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God, and yields obedience to the call of the everlasting gospel, yet such faith and obedience have no place in the justification of a sinner as far as merit is concerned. God, in justifying, has respect to the righteousness of Christ alone, which He imputed to the sinner and which is received by faith. The office of faith is to receive: it is the instrument by which the soul receives Christ in the everlasting gospel. The Reformers thus held the Scriptures to teach that God justified sinners “not for anything wrought in them, or done of them, but for Christ’s sake alone: not 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.” C. of F. XI. i.
But to return to Dr. Niven’s book. He acknowledges that justification by faith alone was exalted by all the Reformers. To Luther’s mind it was the article “of a standing or falling church,” while “Calvinists, Lutherans and Zwinglians were at one in teaching this doctrine as the very heart of the Gospel.” p. 71. In noticing the change which has taken place at the present time, he goes on to say: “But a strange thing has happened. The formula for a long time has been almost unheard in Protestant pulpits or on the evangelistic platform,” nor do people hear “the most evangelical ministers or distinguished evangelists use it either.” p. 22. This certainly seems a strange thing, as one would naturally conclude that when the heart of a matter was left out, there would be nothing left but death. The gospel which can afford to ignore justification by faith alone is not the glorious gospel of the blessed God, and it is certainly not according to the Reformed Faith.
In endeavouring to explain this change, Dr. Niven raises the usual objection against the terms in which the doctrine is expressed. We do not intend to follow him into all these by-paths, except to instance one or two which throw light on the matter under discussion. He says that some difficulty is found as to the meaning of justification in its present-day usage, as distinct from its meaning theologically or biblically. He, however, states the real difficulty when he points to the religious ignorance of those in the pews. “There was far less of such difficulty in bygone days when the pews were filled by Presbyterians nurtured on the Shorter Catechism, and many were familiar even with the Westminster Confession of Faith. p. 95. Had he wished, Dr. Niven could have added that what ceased to be preached in the pulpit soon ceases to be believed in the pew. He would certainly have been nearer the real source of his difficulty.
The three positions we have outlined with regard to the meaning of justification by faith alone, were aimed by the Reformers at the Romanist theology in particular. The Romanist taught that to justify meant to make righteous by infusing righteousness into the sinner, instead of the Reformed view that to justify meant to declare righteous for Christ’s sake. Dr. Niven says that the Romanist view seems more tenable to many, despite its confusing of justification and satisfaction. In particular the Romanist denied that the sinner was justified by faith alone, but alleged that there were six other virtues along with faith necessary for justification or for preparation thereto. These six virtues were—fear, hope, love, penitence, a purpose of receiving the sacrament, and a purpose of leading a life of obedience. There is not a scrap of Scriptural evidence to show that any sinner is justified by these “virtues,” but the whole tenor of Divine Truth is that he is justified by faith. The present writer hopes he is not being unfair to Dr. Niven in saying that the distinct impression left on his mind is that the difficulties Dr. Niven finds on this subject arise from his leanings to Romanist theology. For instance he says “If you teach people that their good works have nothing to do with their acceptance by God, and if you adopt the view that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, it must be admitted that a good deal seems to have been taken from the spring of Christian ethics.” p. 94. Such a thing would never be admitted by the Reformers or any other Protestant theologian, although it is the Romanist position. Again, he raises the question of repentance, and insists that faith and repentance must go together. It is quite true that where faith is, repentance, love, and hope will be also, but the Word of God does not say we are justified by these graces, but by faith. The Romanist, virtues, of course, included repentance. He also says “It gives one to think, and to wonder if in St. Paul’s mind justification and sanctification were so sharply distinguished as our theology has made them.” p. 93.
Without following the matter up, however, let us turn to the present position in the Church of Scotland teaching. It is given in the following words: “In former days, God was represented as a stern Judge with frowning, or at least, austere face. There the justified sinner found a loving face bent upon him. We now believe that God is love all the time, that God is the Father all the time, that His love has been pursuing us, pleading with us, in all our wanderings. He is not like the father in the Parable of the lost son who could only wait at home. God in Christ is the Shepherd who goes out into the darkness and peril to seek and to save that which was lost.” p. 95. So the great, God-glorifying doctrine of justification by faith alone has been removed from the pulpit and this colourless collection of religious absurdities put in its place!
Let us now notice that the removal of the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith is bound to have its own effect on doctrines closely related to it. The doctrine that man is a sinner is related to justification. The Scriptures teach that we fell in Adam and came under the sentence of condemnation. We are born into the world under the sentence of death, and we are dead spiritually in our souls, without a spark of spiritual life or holiness. “This view,” says Dr. Niven, “of the absolute inability of the unregenerate to think anything that was true or to do anything that was right, has been by many softened.” p. 94. He quotes with favour the view of William Law that “in every man there remains a spark of goodness.” p. 93. “Law’s view that despite men’s ruin by the Fall there remains in the heart or conscience or mind of man something to which appeal can be made, is the experience, and determines the approach of, the evangelist or the Chaplain to the Forces.” p. 94. In other words, Dr. Niven and his colleagues have a very different view of man’s state by nature than that of the Reformers, who based their view on the Word of God, and not the experience of men.
Again, the work or atonement of Christ is closely bound to the doctrine of justification. The righteousness of Christ comprises the work that He finished on the Cross of Calvary, and this righteousness is reckoned to the sinner in the day of justification. To any soul, awakened by Divine power to see the nature of sin and the wages of his own sin, it is clear that the claims of law and justice must be met. These claims he is fully convinced he can never meet himself. In the work of Christ alone he sees them met, and he realises that it is in that Person and His righteousness that salvation alone is to be found. The importance of sinners having clear views on this subject is beyond dispute. Dr. Niven calmly asserts that “no Church has ever definitely and dogmatically committed herself to a doctrine of the atonement.” p. 73. It would have been more accurate of him to say that no one can make sense of the doctrine of the atonement set forth by Professors in the Church of Scotland. Surely the Reformed Church of Scotland was clear on the atonement! “The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given Him.” C. of F. VIII, v. Let Dr. Niven and his colleagues also note how this doctrine of atonement is beautifully applied in the justification of a sinner.
“Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice on their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them, and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.” C. of F. XI. iii. The glorifying of the justice and the grace of God is part of the glory of the gospel of God’s dear Son. It is evident that a glimpse of this glory can be got no longer from many pulpits in the Church of Scotland, Only the artificial light of human wisdom now shines there.
We have already observed that Dr. Niven appears to have leanings towards the Romanist theology in some particulars. This feature may well arise from his desire to see the Protestant and Romanist churches reunited. There seems to be also a rationalistic tendency running through his book which we believe to be fairly common in the Church of Scotland today. It evidences itself in opposition to the Reformed Faith in particular. The original form of rationalistic thought, wearing the cloak of Christianity, arose at the time of the Reformation under the name of the Socinian heresy. This heretical scheme covered the whole realm of theology although its prominent denial of the Trinity led to its modern supporters being called Unitarians. Principal Cunningham gives the following description of this cast of thought: “The Socinians differ from the great body of Christians in regard to the subject of the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. . . The position, accordingly, which they maintain upon this point is, that the Bible contains indeed a revelation from God, but that it is not itself that revelation, or that it is not in any proper sense the Wort of God, though the Word of God is found in it. . . Socinians are also fond of dwelling upon all those topics which seem fitted to shake in men’s minds a due sense of the reverence with which the sacred Scripture ought, as being the Word of God, to be regarded such as the obscurity attaching to some of its statements, and the difficulty of ascertaining their true meaning; the various readings and the difficulty of ascertaining the true text; the apparent inconsistencies and the difficulty occasionally of reconciling these Historical Theol. II. pp. 160, 162. . . . that since men are weak and frail, though not sinful or depraved creatures, and since God is nothing but a kind and merciful Father, and has no punitive justice as a constituent element of His character, there can be no difficulty in their obtaining His forgiveness, and being restored to His favour, and thus escaping all the consequences of their transgressions.” Ibid p. 175.
This description has a familiar ring to anyone who has read Dr. Niven’s book or other writings by Church of Scotland ministers, and shows that a rationalistic outlook tends to Socinianism—an ancient heresy. Nor is this at all surprising, for fully-developed Socinianism is just the religion of the natural man who has never been enlightened spiritually by the unction from the Holy One. The drift from the Reformed Faith traced in this book is therefore not progressive but shows a tendency, in our opinion, to return to the principles of a heresy of such a serious nature that those who opposed it felt warranted to deny to its supporters the name of Christian. It is certainly a subject requiring study at the present time, how far the modern religion embraces the Socinian positions in the name of scholarly advancement. The dangers from such a drift are too obvious to need further explanation. “Buy the Truth and sell it not” Proverbs xxiii. 23. should be our watch-word in these days of doctrinal declension. “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” I. Tim. iv. 16.