|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
I lay my sins on Jesus,
The spotless Lamb of God;
He bears them all and frees us
From the accursed load:
I bring my guilt to Jesus,
To wash my crimson stains
White in His blood most precious,
Till not a stain remains.
Henry Alford (1810‑1871)
One of the astounding truths of the New Testament is the believer's union with Christ and his attendant justification. Surely the church should glory in this marvelous provision of the grace of God. It seems, however, that sin is so endemic to the human situation that even such a freeing truth as this soon becomes obscured by error. In less than fifteen centuries this doctrine had been so perverted by the church that when it was rediscovered and proclaimed with clarity it was as though there were a new beginning.
Undoubtedly, one of the mightiest evidences of the providence of God in the nearly two thousand years since this truth was enunciated by the Apostle Paul under the direction of the Holy Spirit was the Protestant Reformation.
Among other things, justification by faith alone (sola fide) by grace alone (sola_gratia) for the glory of God alone (soli_Deo gloria) was again given prominence as the believer's heritage. Sadly, this truth continues to be misstated and misunderstood to this day. Nonetheless, the truth stands that "there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1) and "we have been justified through faith" (Rom. 5:1).
I. Union with Christ
Simply stated this doctrine is that the life of Jesus Christ risen, glorified, and dwelling within the believer is the life of the Christian. This affirmation precludes some other views that have been held as to the meaning of union with Christ. It is not the union of pantheism whereby God and man are somehow absorbed in one another being so intertwined that no distinction is possible. It is not the moral union of brotherly love between friends as significant as that may be. It is not a union of nature whereby human personality is absorbed into God as held by some mystics.
"The Scriptures represent the relationship between Christ and the believer as an 'I' and 'you' relationship, even in the case of those farthest advanced in the Christian life (Phil. 3:7‑14)." [i] And, finally, it is not a material union which some claim to experience as a result of partaking of the ordinances of the church. These ordinances are intended to witness to this union and thus presuppose it on the part of the one so witnessing.
A. Biblical Data
There are two categories of passages which describe this relationship between Christ and the believer.
1. Christ is in us
a) It is a relationship true only of those in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5).
If you are in the faith Christ is in you.
b) It is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at Christ's behest (John 14:16‑20, 23)
The Lord promised to his disciples that on the day the Holy Spirit was given (forever) they would know he was in them.
c) It places Christ's life within us (in place of ours) and involves a quickening of the human spirit (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 8:10)
Galatians 2:20 refers to the contemporary life of Christ (zei en emoi Christos, present tense, Christ is living in me). If Christ is in us, then, our spirit is alive because of his righteousness (Rom. 8:10).
d) It needs to be recognized and experientially realized (2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 4:19)
God wants this truth known and we are spiritual midwives in the process.
e) It provides hope for the future (Col. 1:27)
His presence in us is our hope of glory.
2. We are in Christ
a) This relationship was planned in eternity past (Eph. 1:4)
Our choice by God was "in him before the foundation of the world."
b) It is effected by a spiritual identification (baptism) with Christ (Rom. 6:3‑5; Eph. 2:4‑7)
Having been baptized into Christ identifies us with his death, burial, resurrection, present position in heavenly places and future blessedness.
c) It provides a new, eternal life (Rom. 6:4, 11, 23; 1 Cor. 15:22)
We are alive to God in Christ Jesus and have eternal life in him.
d) It involves the blending of spirits (1 Cor. 6:17)
Those joined to the Lord are one spirit with him.
e) It results in our becoming new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17)
1) Old things passed away
i. There is no more condemnation (Rom. 8:1) when we are in Christ Jesus.
ii. This becomes the basis for exhortation to pure living (1 Cor. 6:15‑ 20). As being joined with and in him what I am and do involves him.
2) New things have come
i. This is to be experientially realized (Eph. 4:15‑16; Col. 1:28). Individual growth in him leads to mutual growth of the body.
ii. It should be a fruitful relationship (John 15:1-7). One aim of being in Christ is fruit bearing.
iii. It will bring corporate unity and thus a significant witness to the world (John 17:21). Oneness comes from our being joined with the Godhead and this in turn becomes a compelling apologia.
iv. It will lead to a holy and blameless life- style (Eph. 1:4). He chose us in Christ to the end that we may be holy and blameless in his sight.
B. Theological Implications
1. The nature of this union
a) It is spiritually effected (John 14:16-20, 23; Rom. 6:3-5)
This union with Christ is accomplished by God the Holy Spirit.
b) It is eternal
1) Quantitatively—it spans the ages (Eph. 1:4; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27).
It relates to the past ("before the foundation of the world"), the present ("Christ lives in me... the life which I now live in the flesh") and the future ("hope of glory").
2) Qualitatively—it is an inseparable bond (1 Cor. 6:17).
What can I" separate blended spirits?
c) It is vital—Christ's life is mine (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:4, 11, 23)
I am not simply given a quantity, namely, life, but rather my new life is his life in me.
d) It is both positional and experiential.
1) Positional (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:5; Eph. 2:4-7)
To state that this union is positional does not mean that it is tentative. Neither is it any less real for being positional. It is simply a way of saying "where" the believer is, namely in Christ. The two concepts of position and experience are complementary and are not to be disjoined. The positional provides for the experiential.
2) Experiential (Gal. 4:19; Eph. 4:15-16)
As the experiential is made possible by the positional so the positional is demonstrated by the experiential.
2. The results of the union
a) A new position (Rom. 8:1-4, 10)
Because we are in Christ there is no more condemnation; because he is in us we enjoy his righteousness. In theological terminology this is called justification (see below for further discussion).
Furthermore, being united with Christ positionally means that through identification with his death we are freed from sin, through identification with his resurrection we may walk in newness of life, and through identification with his exaltation we may anticipate limitless grace in the future (Rom. 6:3-7; Eph. 2:4-7). In him we are unassailable and eternally safe from all external and internal foes (Rom. 8:1, 37-39).
This truth is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of the believer's adoption. The term adoption (huiothesia, literally, son-placing; a technical term which means to bestow with family privileges and may apply to both sons and daughters) is strictly a Pauline one and "is used of believers when the question of rights, position, and privilege is involved." [ii]
This adoption, or being given the privileged position of adult sons and daughters, was planned by God in eternity past (Eph. 1:5); is experienced in time as a present privilege, (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 3:26; 4:6); and will be completed, or brought to its fullest form, in the future when we join the rest of the material creation in being freed from sin's slavery over our bodies (Rom. 8:18-25, esp. v. 23).
Some of the results that have accrued to us as a result of this privileged position are
i. That we are being led by the Spirit of God;
ii. We are delivered from slavery and fear;
iii. We may experience intimate love in the family of God (we are privileged to address God as Abba! Father!);
iv. We enjoy the Spirit's witness within that we are God's children, his sons and daughters, and his heirs, and
v. We have the assurance of the future redemption of our bodies from the futility, bondage and ravages of sin (Rom. 8:14-23; Gal. 4:5-7).
b) A new practice (2 Cor. 5:17)
It is God's intent that this perfect position in Christ be realized on an experiential level in daily life. It is now not only possible but God's will that there be growth in grace, a fruitful life, and the control of sin in the believer's life (Eph. 4:15-16; John 15:1-7; Rom. 6:12-14; 1 Cor. 6: 15- 2 0). In theological terminology this is called sanctification (see chapter 39 for further discussion).
II. Justification
A. Terminology
1. Tsāḏaq—justify (Exod. 23:7)
Most frequently this term means that one is declared judicially acceptable before the law. It is quite apparent from Genesis 15:6 (cf. Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23) that this is not merely a New Testament doctrine.
2. Dtkaioō –justify (Rom. 3:24)
This term means to make a legal declaration that a person is right (just) before God.
3. Dikaiōsis—justification (Rom. 1:25)
This refers to the act whereby God declares one to be free from the guilt of sin and acceptable before Him.
4. Some general observations
Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian theology (some Roman Catholics, some Arminians, all liberals) reject the claim that these terms are forensic in nature. Biblical usage, however, clearly establishes that they describe a legal transaction rather than an inner moral change (Gen. 15:6; Deut. 25:1; Ps. 32:1-2; 143:2; Rom. 3:20-28; 4:5-8; 8:31-34; 2; 1 Cor. 5:19 ; Gal. 2:16 ; 3:11). Note that these passages refer either to the basic terms themselves, to cognate terms describing the same thing, or to cognate ideas describing the same thing.
B. A Definition
Justification is that work of God's grace whereby he pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in his sight because, having been united to Christ by faith, Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to us.
C. The Nature of Justification
1. Illustrated by contrast with sanctification
As indicated above, justification involves a judicial declaration rather than a moral change. Some of the distinctions are:
i. Justification deals with the guilt of sin; sanctification deals with the pollution of sin.
ii. Justification relates to the courtroom, involves legal declaration, and views God as the righteous Judge; sanctification relates to the sanctuary, involves moral transformation, and views God as the holy focus of worship.
iii. Justification is external and has to do with one's standing; sanctification is internal and has to do with one's state.
iv. Justification is a once for all act; sanctification is an ongoing process.
v. Justification involves the condemnation of sin and the vindication of God; sanctification involves separation from sin and the purity of God. As Bloesch notes, "In justifying man God justifies himself. Sin challenged God's authority, and by taking a position against sin and evil he vindicates himself as Creator." [iii]
2. A question: How can God declare righteous those who in fact are not so?
In answering this question it must be remembered that justification is not an arbitrary action of sovereignty whereby the demands of the law are set aside. Instead we see a righteous Judge accepting Christ's person and work as a satisfactory and sufficient basis for justification. He suffered in our place (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13); he fully satisfied God's justice (Rom. 3:24-26); and since we are united with him his death and new life are ours (Gal. 2:20).
3. The elements of Justification
Since Arminians deny the reality of imputed sin, that is they do not view man as judicially guilty before God, they have no place for the imputation of righteousness. Justification is limited to the pardon of sin, only. This error is perpetuated in the popular idea that justification means "just-as-if-I'd-never-sinned" which is only a half-truth. Related to this misconception is the idea that in justification one experiences the impartation of ethical righteousness. That is, the person is made righteous rather than declared righteous. This, too, stems from the denial of the forensic character of justification. George Ladd convincingly addresses this error in the following words as he comments on Paul's statement, "It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns?"
Justification is the opposite of condemnation. Condemnation is not sinfulness of character or life; it is the decree of condemnation pronounced against the guilty man. Similarly, justification is not subjective ethical righteousness; it is the decree of acquittal from all guilt and issues in freedom from all condemnation and punishment.... it [the forensic concept] is further reinforced by Paul's saying "For our sake he [God] made him to be sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). This verse clearly asserts that in some sense of the word Jesus was a sinner; and at the same time it asserts that he knew no sin. His "sinfulness" must then be a forensic sinfulness by virtue of which he stood in the place of sinners, bearing their sin, their guilt, and the doom of their sin. In the same way those who are in him have become the righteousness of God. Righteousness in this context is not an ethical subjective righteousness any more than the “sinfulness” of Christ is ethical subjective sinfulness. It means rather that the man in Christ now stands in the position of a righteous man and sustains a relationship to God that only the righteous can enjoy. He is in fact in terms of his relationship to God a righteous man.[iv]
D. The biblical doctrine, however, has two facets
1. Negative—remission of punishment (Acts 13:8-39; Rom. 5:9; 8:33)
Sin is forgiven and we are delivered from wrath. "The doctrine of justification means that God has pronounced the eschatological verdict of acquittal over the man of faith in the present, in advance of the final judgment." [v]
2. Positive—restoration to favor, Rom. 5:18)
Paul speaks not only of justification which brings forgiveness but of "justification which issues in life" (Rom. 5:18; see also NIV translation of this passage). "The righteous man is not 'regarded as if he were righteous'; he really is righteous, he is absolved from his sin by God's verdict." [vi] Ladd goes on to support this by referring to the example of Christ. "When Christ was made to be sin (2 Cor. 5:21), God did not merely treat him 'as if' he were a sinner. Rather, God made the (ethically) sinless one to be a sinner (forensically). Thus the man in Christ is actually righteous, not ethically but forensically, in terms of his relationship to God.” [vii]
That justification involves the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer is seen in the meaning and usage of the term justification and from the following:
i. The believer is stated to have been reckoned righteous by God (Rom. 4:6, 22-25).
ii. The believer is adopted into God's family and thus becomes his heir (Tit. 3:7; cf. Rom. 8:15-17; Gal. 4:5-6).
iii. The believer receives peace with God (Rom. 5:1).
iv. The believer thus is provided a basis for glorification (Rom. 8:30).
E. The Time and Instrument of Justification
Thousands of years ago Job was already asking, "How then can a man be just with God?" (Job 25:4). The answer for him, as for Abraham and for us, was by faith in the promise of God which promise, in turn, anticipated (for them) and is made efficacious by (for both them and us) the death of Christ. Paul is very emphatic that “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (stated once in Rom. 3:20 and twice in Gal. 2:16). He underscores this as he declares that justification is ''as a gift (dōrean, freely) by his grace" (see also, Tit. 3:7). Thiessen states:
Justification thus originates in the heart of God. Realizing not only our lack of righteousness, but also our inability to attain it, he in his kindness determined to provide a righteousness for us. It was his grace that led him to provide it; he was under no obligation whatsoever to do it. [viii]
1. Objectively—at the cross (Rom. 4:25)
This views justification as past/historical and potential. “Because of" (dia plus the accusative case) points to that which provides the ground for the resurrection, namely, justification or the finished work of Christ when he was "delivered up." "Because Christ has borne the punishment of our sins in his own body, God is able to remit the penalty and restore us to his favor. In justification, sins are not excused but punished in the person of Christ, the substitute." [ix]
2. Subjectively—at the time of faith
This views justification as present/historical and realized. This aspect of the truth cannot be realized apart from the former (his death) while the former fact is not experienced or entered into apart from the latter (faith).
A variety of constructions involving pistis indicate that justification is by faith. It occurs as a simple dative in Romans 3:28; with the preposition dia in Romans 3:30; Galatians 2:16, and with the preposition ek in Romans 3:30; 5:1; Galatians 2:16. The majority of commentators insist that little, if any, distinction is to be drawn from these variations. When a difference is noted the dative form and the combination with dia are usually said to emphasize instrumentality and the construction is held as indicating origin in personal experience.
F. The Ground of Justification
Justification by faith alone has always proven to be an elusive doctrine to Roman Catholicism even among the more evangelical of its theologians. Ambrose, who on occasion could speak very biblically of justification, [x] on other occasions, linked justification with the sacraments. As Bloesch notes, "it seems that through his stress on the sacramental mediation of grace Ambrose is not able to hold consistently to sola fide.” [xi]
Thomas Aquinas is similarly ambivalent holding on the one hand to faith apart from merit [xii] and on the other hand to a semi-Pelagian form of synergism. [xiii] Karl Rahner, a contemporary Roman Catholic theologian, writes, "Even this faith which leads to justification in no way merits this justification, even though it is a gift of God's free grace." [xiv] “At the same time he reaffirms the traditional view that faith precedes justification and that justification can be acquired by cooperation with prevenient grace." [xv] This is semi-Pelagianism all over again.
In corrective response the Reformers and their evangelical heirs, have insisted that justification is by faith alone. For them "faith is not a virtue that merits grace, but it is the action of grace itself in the soul of the sinner that justifies and redeems him." [xvi] The evangelical pietists and puritans held to the same doctrine. [xvii]. This, too, was the teaching of John Wesley. [xviii]
1. Negatively
In sharp contrast to all Pelagian-oriented theologies, the Bible repeatedly insists that human merit has no part in justification (Rom. 3:24; 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). Not even faith is to be viewed as having merit. It is the work of god (John 6:29) rather than a work of man. Faith “is the condition of our justification, not the meritorious ground of it…. The apostle is consistently opposed to a justification by works (Rom. 3:27 ff.; Gal. 2:16). It is not for faith that we are justified, but by faith.” [xix]
2. Positively
The ground of justification is Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner who is in him (Rom. 3:24; 5:9, 19; 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9).
[i] H. C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, revised, p. 283
[ii] Ibid., p. 285
[iii] Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 151
[iv] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 446
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Thiessen, op. cit., p. 278
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Ambrose, Saint Ambrose: Letters, trans. by Sister Mary Melchio Beyenka, p. 468
[xi] Bloesch, op. cit., I, 229
[xii] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, p. 96
[xiii] See “Nature and Grace, Selections from the Summa Theologica”, trans. by A. M. Fairweather, Library of Christian Classics, XI, 270
[xiv] Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations IV, trans. by Kevin Smith, p. 207
[xv] Bloesch, op. cit., p. 233
[xvi] Ibid., I, 230
[xvii] See e.g., Philip Spener, Pia Disederia, trans. and edited by Theodore G. Tappert, p. 63; Jonathan Edwards as quoted by Ralph Turnbull, ed., Devotions of Jonathan Edwards, p. 58.
[xviii] See e.g., Albert Outler, ed., John Wesley, p. 125.
[xix] Thiessen, op. cit., p. 278
