Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of Justification, Part 2

[A fundraising break-through: We have surged to about 40% of our goal! Thanks be to the Most High God!

We still have some ground to cover. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

THESIS III:  The causes, effects, and adjuncts of this Evangelical Justification are to be considered.

THESIS IV:  Among the causes [is] the principal efficient, GOD the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT.

EXPLANATION:  I.  That this is the principal cause of justification, Scripture teaches us.  Romans 8:33, it is God that justifieth.  Romans 4:5, and whoever believeth upon God, who justifieth the ungodly, His faith is counted for righteousness.

* II.  No one is able to justify us except God.

(1.)  Because the sins, from which we must be absolved, were committed against the Majesty of God.  But no one is able to remit an offense committed against another.

(2.)  Because the guilt of sin depends upon the obligation of divine law and righteousness:  whence it is not able to be removed except by God, who is greater than the law.

(3.)  Because by justification we are received into God’s grace and are given eternal life:  which is only able to be done by God.

III.  It is objected:  He that justifieth the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah, Proverbs 17:15.  Therefore, Jehovah Himself does not justify the impious or wicked:  and so He is not the cause of justification.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale of the negation:  because GOD justifies the wicked through the intervening satisfaction of Christ.  But in Proverbs he that justifies, that is, that absolves, the wicked without an intervening satisfaction, with the cause of his condemnation yet cleaving to him, is an abomination to Jehovah.

THESIS V:  The internal Impulsive cause is the gracious benevolence and mercy of God, whereby, as from eternity He destined us wretched sinners for the adoption of sons, so He, moved also by the same, justifies, by imputing to us the righteousness of His Son.

EXPLANATION:  Scripture commends this gracious benevolence of God to us.  Ephesians 1:5, 6, Who predestinated us, whom He would adopt unto Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, wherein He hath freely made us acceptable to Himself in that beloved.  Titus 3:5, not by righteous works which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.  Romans 3:24, we all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption made in Jesus Christ.

THESIS VI:  The instrumental cause, through which, or whereby, we are justified, is faith, that is, trust, whereby we embrace it and apply it to ourselves, through and because of which in the judgment of God we are freed from the curse of the law, and are received unto grace, namely, the merit of Christ.

EXPLANATION:  I.  It is asked here, (1.)  Whether we be justified by faith?

Between us and our opponents the affirmative is beyond question.  For there are express testimonies of Scripture, Romans 3:28, we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.  Romans 5:1, We, being justified by faith, have peace with God.  Galatians 2:16, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

II.  It is asked, (2.)  In what sense are we said to be justified by faith or through faith?

At this point the opinion of the Papists is one thing, that of the Photinians another, and the opinion of the Orthodox yet another.

The Papists teach, that faith justifies, because it disposes us to receive special grace, by the help of which we might acquire our own inherent righteousness, whereby we might be regarded as righteous before God.

That this interpretation is false, we prove:

(1.)  Because nowhere in Scripture is faith said to justify by means of disposition:  neither is it called the beginning of justification, but is said to be imputed for righteousness, because it apprehends that in which our righteousness consists.

(2.)  Because justification is not performed by alteration, as heating is:  but by apprehension, absolution, and imputation.

(3.)  Because it ascribes justification and righteousness to the dignity of faith, and thus indicates that faith justifies after the manner of a work; which is contrary to Scripture, which in the matter of justification sets faith in opposition to works, and never says that we are justified διὰ τὴν πίστιν, that is, because of faith; but διὰ τῆς πίστεως, through faith, τῇ πίστει, by faith.

III.  The Photinians, because by faith they understand nothing other than the study of a new and pious life, interpret to be justified through faith, or by faith, as to be justified by the study of a new life, that is, through good works:  to which they, with the Papists, ascribe the power to justify.

This opinion of the Photinians concerning faith and justification through faith is altogether false:  for Scripture expressly distinguishes faith from works, and in the matter of justification sets them in opposition to each other, when it says that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, or through faith, not by works, Romans 3:28;[1] Galatians 2:16.[2]

IV.  We, therefore, the Orthodox, say that faith justifies correlatively, that is, instrumentally, because it apprehends Evangelical righteousness constituted in Christ outside of ourselves and applies it to us.

The rationale of this opinion:

Because from Scripture it is plainly manifest, that through and because the satisfaction of Christ alone are we freed from the curse of the law and reputed as righteous, and received unto grace.  Therefore, since the same effect is also attributed to faith, it is the consequence, that faith justifies only after the manner of an instrument, apprehending the satisfaction of Christ and applying it to us.  In the same sense, according to Paul, faith is imputed for righteousness, not that because of the dignity and perfection of faith we are freed from the curse of the law and reputed as righteous; but that the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, is imputed to us, or is reckoned to be ours.  At the same time, you may find Theologians of the Evangelicals today, who would deny that faith is the cause of justification:  their rationale:  because otherwise justification would not be gracious, but of ourselves.  Whence they want faith to be called justifying, not because it justifies, or precedes justification, but because it is bestowed upon the justified, and is later than justification in order, if not in time.

We are determined not to innovate anything here.  We acknowledge faith to be the cause of justification, not meritorious, but instrumental, on the part of the man apprehending the meritorious cause:  because we are justified only because of the merit of Christ:  which is not reckoned as ours, unless it is apprehended by faith:  neither because of it are we absolved before we believe it to be intended for us.  Whence we judge faith to be prior to justification, if not in time, at least in order.  Neither is there any danger, that in this manner justification might be thought to be not gracious:  because an instrument, which is not of ourselves, but is graciously given, is not able to obtain merit, Ephesians 2:8.  Thus the hand apprehending offered alms does not prevent the alms and their enjoyment from being gracious, especially if the grace of the one offering also gave the hand itself.

Others here distinguish between active justification, with respect to GOD justifying, and passive, with respect to the man justified.  Thence they acknowledge faith as the instrument of passive justification, not active.  Whence Trelcatius the Younger,[3] in his Institutione Theologiæ, book 2, locus concerning justification.  Which we leave in its place.  Otherwise, every transient action, with respect to the subject in which it is terminated, has the nature of a passion.  Whence there is a certain diversity among teachers.  So also is sanctification able to be distinguished into active and passive.  A distinction is to be made here between the procurement and application of absolution:  The procurement precedes faith:  faith is conjoined with the application, as a cause is with its effect.  Actual justification consists in application, rather than in procurement:  even if application is not able to be, where there is no procurement.

V.  It is asked, (3.)  Whether we are justified by faith alone?  We answer in the affirmative, and prove:

(1.)  We are not justified by works.

Therefore, by faith alone.

The antecedent is proven:  because Scripture expressly excludes works from the causes of justification, Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16.  Philippians 3:9, That I might be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ.

(2.)  Justification is completely gracious.

Therefore, it comes by faith alone, not by works.

The antecedent is proven:  Romans 3:24, We are justified freely by His grace, through the redemption accomplished in Jesus Christ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood.

The rationale of the consequence:  because grace excludes works, in such a way that what is through grace is not by works, and what is by works is not through grace, Romans 11:6.

(3.)  Faith alone apprehends the righteousness of Christ and the remission of sins offered in the Gospel.

Therefore, faith alone justifies.

(4.)  The same is taught by the ancient Theologians, Greek and Latin, Chrysostom,[4] Basil,[5] Theodoret,[6] Ambrose,[7] Augustine,[8] Hilary,[9] and others.

VI.  The Papists deny that we are justified by faith alone, and prove it:

(1.)  Faith is not alone, that is, separated from good works.

Therefore, faith alone does not justify.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale:  because faith, even if it is not separated from good works, is nevertheless rightly said to justify alone:  because faith alone apprehends the merit of Christ, which works do not apprehend.  Thus we see with our eyes alone, although our eyes are not alone, but are conjoined with the forehead, temples, and cheeks.

The same argument is also wont to be framed in this way:

Faith separated from hope and love does not justify.

Therefore, faith alone does not justify.

(2.)  Scripture nowhere says, that we are justified by faith alone.

Therefore, we are not justified by faith alone.

Response:  I deny the antecedent:  For, even if it does not expressly say that we are justified by faith alone, yet it does say it by good consequence, or by an equivalent expression:  when it says, that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law, Romans 3:28.  Therefore, if we are justified by faith, even indeed without the deeds of the law, certainly we are justified by faith alone.

(3.)  Love also justifies.

Therefore, faith alone does not justify.

The antecedent is proven out of Luke 7:47, her many sins are forgiven, because she loved much.

Response:  I deny the antecedent.  I respond to the proof:  love here is not alleged as the cause of the remission of sins, but as the sign of remission.

(4.)  James 2:24, by works is a man justified, and not by faith alone.

Therefore, faith alone does not justify.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale:  because James is not speaking of justification before God, or of deliverance from the curse of the law; but of justification before men, that is, concerning the declaration of the righteousness of faith, whereby it is also made known to men that we are just.  Whence he also commands faith to be shown to him by works.  As if he would say, it is not enough to boast of faith and justification in words, but both also have to be demonstrated by their works:  and that one is not able to be considered as believing or justified, unless he be commended by the testimony of works.

Some, in this passage of James, by works understand living faith, that is, faith accompanied by good works, which is opposed to a dead faith, destitute of good works.

(5.)  Fear also justifies.

Therefore, faith alone does not justify.

The antecedent is proven, because it is the beginning of wisdom, which is perfected justification, Proverbs 1:7.  It is a fountain of life, Proverbs 14:27.  Fear has this in common with faith, which itself is also declared to be the fountain of life, when the just man is said to live by faith, Habakkuk 2:4.

Response:  I deny the antecedent:  Nowhere in Scripture is fear said to justify.  The proofs that are adduced are inconsequent.  Therefore, to be the first beginning of wisdom and to justify are not the same thing:  neither is wisdom justification, or even that righteousness whereby we are reputed as righteous and freed from the curse.

Now, the fear of the Lord is said to be the beginning of wisdom:  because the man that sincerely fears God, which is not able to be done without faith, understands rightly and savingly, seeing that he flees sin, which offends God.  But justification is something quite different.  Then fear is said to be a fountain of life, not because it apprehends and applies Christ as the fountain of life (which belongs to faith alone, to the extent that it justifies), but because believers, moved by fear, abstain from sin, and advance more and more in spiritual life, that is, holiness.  But the just is said to live by faith, principally indeed with respect to justification, because it apprehends the fountain of life, and diverts it to us, as it were:  but secondarily with respect to sanctification, to which it, together with fear, greatly contributes.  Therefore, justification is the more proper effect of faith.  But Sanctification is common to it with fear.

(6.)  Hope also justifies.

Therefore, faith alone does not justify.

The antecedent is proven:  because those that hope in God are saved, Proverbs 28:18; Psalm 37:9.

Response:  Hope is sometimes in Scripture taken for faith:  whence to be justified by hope and to be justified by faith alone are not repugnant to each other simply considered.  But if hope is understood as distinguished from faith, I deny the antecedent:  the proof is inconsequent; because it is one thing to be justified, another to be saved:  the latter is the consequent of the former:  and many things are required for salvation, which nevertheless do not justify; for example, the hearing of the divine word, the use of the sacraments, and various exercises of piety.

(7.)  If we are justified by faith alone, as the instrument and hand apprehending the mercy of God toward us; it would follow that murderers, fornicators, and adulterers were going to obtain the kingdom of God.

But the consequent is false.

Therefore also the antecedent.

The consequent of the hypothetical is proven:  Because with that faith, whereby one is persuaded that the sins which he will have committed are not to be imputed to him, he is able to commit many scandalous acts.

Response:  1.  The hypothetical is denied concerning fornicators and murderers, who without repentance persevere in these scandalous acts.

The proof is false:  for the intention and obstinacy of sinning is no more able to consist with justifying faith, than cold is with fire.  Whence Augustine, question 76 de diversis quæstionibus:  The man justified by faith is not able to act any other way thereafter than justly.  And John:  Whosoever is born of God is not able to sin, 1 John 3:9.

2.  The minor is false concerning penitent murderers, fornicators, etc.:  For the Gospel promises the kingdom of God to all penitents.

(8.)  If faith alone were justifying, repentance, prayer, etc., would be of no moment.

But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

Response:  The hypothetical is denied:  For repentance is able to be, and most certainly is, necessary, even if it is not necessary to effect justification or to merit salvation.

(9.)  If we are justified by faith, because we are said in Scripture to be justified without works, either all works are excluded from the causes of justification, or not all works.

If not all works, it follows that we are not justified by faith alone; but also by works:  If all works, it follows that faith itself is also excluded, the act of which is a good work.

Response:  All works are excluded:  nevertheless, faith is not for that reason excluded.  For the Apostle in the matter of justification, when the cause of justification is treated, sets faith in opposition to works in a general way, without any limitation, and to believe in opposition to to work, Romans 4:5, to him that worketh not, but believeth, etc., his faith is counted for righteousness.  Therefore, even if the act of faith is also able to be called a work, yet not after the manner of a meritorious work does it justify, but after the manner of an instrument:  for it does not merit righteousness, but apprehends the righteousness offered in the Gospel, as a beggar does alms.

(10.)  The sacraments also, as visible signs according to our opinion, apply to us the Gospel promise.

Therefore, faith alone does not apply after the manner of an instrument.

Response:  The antecedent is denied.  The sacraments do not properly apply the Gospel promise (for to us to apply in this place is to apprehend):  but they offer, seal, and confirm it, having been applied by faith.

(11.)  If faith alone would justify the impious, faith alone would save.

But the consequent is false:  for works are necessary for salvation.

Therefore, the antecedent is false also.

Response:  The minor is denied:  Faith alone saves after the manner of an instrument, apprehending the cause of our salvation, that is, the righteousness of Christ:  works do not apprehend this, even if they are not separated from faith.

(12.)  Formerly the doctrine concerning justifying faith alone was considered a heresy, which was ascribed to Valentinus[10] by the Fathers, Irenæus and Epiphanius, and after Valentinus to Eunomius,[11] Aërius:[12]  Augustine, de hæresibus, chapter 54.  To this heresy James set himself in opposition also in his Epistle.

Therefore, it is the doctrine of the impious.

Response:  If the consequence speaks of the doctrine of justifying faith alone according to the opinion of Evangelicals, we deny the consequence.  The rationale of the denial:  because the opinion of the heretics concerning justifying faith alone is quite different than that of Evangelicals.  For the heretics understood faith alone, which was separated from good works, which James calls dead; and so they contend that works are in no way necessary:  which is condemned by Evangelicals, no less than by the Fathers and the Apostle James.

(13.)  The Socinians thus argue:

Those that are justified are justified by their obedience to the commandments of Christ.

Therefore, they are not justified simply without works.

The antecedent is proven:  Because faith is nothing other than obedience to the commandments of Christ, under the hope of obtaining eternal life.

Response:  The antecedent is false, together with the proof.  Paul expressly distinguishes faith from works and obedience to commandments.

[1] Romans 3:28:  “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith (πίστει) without the deeds of the law (χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου).”

[2] Galatians 2:16:  “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου), but by the faith of Jesus Christ (ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ (ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ), and not by the works of the law (καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου):  for by the works of the law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) shall no flesh be justified.”

[3] Lucas Trelcatius the Younger (1573-1607) was a Dutch Reformed theologian, pastor, and professor.  He served as Professor of Theology at Leiden University (1603-1607).

[4] See Homilies on Genesis, homily 27; Homilies on Romans, homily 8.

[5] See Homily on Humility, § 3.

[6] See his Commentary on Romans 3:24, 25; Commentary on Ephesians 2:8, 9.

[7] See his Expositionem on Psalm 43; Ambrosiaster, Commentarium on Romans 3:24, 25.

[8] See Enarrationes on Psalm 67; De fide et operibus.

[9] See his Commentarium on Matthew 9.  Hillary, Bishop of Poitiers (died 368), was, among the Latin Fathers, one of the chief defenders of the Nicean theology against Arianism.

[10] Valentinus (c. 100-c. 160) was perhaps the most influential Gnostic of his day, with many followers.  In his system, the spiritual elite would be saved through their inherent knowledge, not by works.  Although Valentinus’ work survives only in fragments, his system continued, albeit in modified forms, in his disciples.

[11] Eunomius (died c. 393) was a leader among extreme Arians, who believed that the Son was of a completely different nature than the Father (Anomœanism).  Eunomius’ highly intellectual system emphasized the assent of the mind, which did not necessarily entail good works.

[12] Aërius was a fourth-century Christian presbyter from Sebaste in Pontus (Asia Minor).  He is remembered for his rejection of prayers for the dead, and prescribed fasts and feasts.