A Novel Twist on Justification

Yesterday I received in my mailbox the July 2011 issue of the Primitive Baptist periodical The Banner of Love. I immediately gave a chuckle when I discovered it buried beneath my cable bill. Since I do not subscribe to the paper, it had to have been forwarded to me by another. There was no return address but I have my suspicions as to the sender. My instincts told me that the mailer was making an attempt to rescue me from my grave “sin” of switching to “cold Calvinism”. There had to be a special reason as well why this particular issue was sent. It obviously must contain an article, I thought, which was pivotal in the controversy over gospel means, perseverance, or some other point of doctrine in which a distinction is made between Hardshell vs. Calvinistic soteriology. Lo and behold, there was!

It didn’t take me long to find the article entitled Does God Have Faith? As I’m very familiar with the anti-means theology taught by many of the Primitives today, I didn’t even have to read its contents to know the purpose behind its composition and the argumentation the author would employ. Using Rom. 3:22-25 as the “proof” text, the subliminal argument made therein and that which is becoming increasingly popular among many today is that justification is not in any wise connected to the faith extended God-wards from man. Instead, it is the faith which God himself possesses and is directed toward the work of His Son, or that of the Son directed to the Father. The purpose is part of the determined effort by today’s extremists to try to devise an exegetical way whereby salvation can be made available to unbelievers. It’s a difficult task to say the least seeing that the scriptures so utterly refute the notion. Thus, this growing trend of trying to establish that God possesses faith is in reality a smokescreen obscuring the true purpose behind the effort. The real goal sought is actually to establish something completely different --- that sinners need not have it! If any of our friends happen to be reading this, we hope they will consider what we are saying. Whenever your ministers are pressing the idea that men are justified by the faith OF God or that OF Christ in the sense they mean it, the purpose is to convince you that faith IN Christ is not necessary for salvation. He is not necessarily concerned with trying to prove that faith is a disposition found within God or Christ. Rather, his ultimate intent is to deny that such must be found within man! The intended goal behind this modern take on justification is to redirect the instrument of justification from being God-given faith to God-possessed faith, thereby allowing for the existence of 'justified unbelievers' which their time salvation paradigm demands.

Brother Stephen has already written a very nice article entitled Faith in the Blood rebuking this evolving view of faith, so I wish not to rehash his arguments. However, I do wish to encourage others to consult some of the great writers of the past on the doctrine of justification and see what they had to say on the subject. And then ask yourself “Why didn’t they see these things?" In addition, if this modern twist on justification is "Old-Line teaching" then where is all the historical documentation to prove it? The doctrine of justification was probably the central doctrine focused on by the early reformers, seeing that the Roman church had confused it with sanctification. The need was therefore great in order to demonstrate systematically “How then can man be justified with God” (Job. 25:4). If sinners were justified by faith in the sense intended by our moderns, then it would have been both discovered and analyzed by these and other great theologians of the past. To therefore argue that sinners are justified by the faith that God “possesses”, which need not be communicated to man, is to immediately declare all of these ministerial giants as WRONG! At this point the argument becomes laughable. To say that 20 centuries of the Christian era have elapsed and that no clear, accurate presentation of justification has been given until this generation came along is absolutely ridiculous! As far our part, we would much rather be found standing on the shoulders of giants, than rely on present-day antinomians who pretend to be ‘wise above the fathers’.

To claim to have found a verse of scripture, which upon deduction, says that faith is not necessary for salvation is without a doubt in violation of one of the most fundamental rules of biblical interpretation: the analogy of faith. The individual is in obvious error. There are so many express statements in God’s Word which stress the necessity of believing in Christ that it’s amazing how anyone could say otherwise. I have a close friend who used to imbibe this heretical notion. One of the things which delivered him from such thinking was by going through the gospel of John and underlining all the places in which faith is yoked together with salvation. If a person were to do that very thing he would see just how much stress the Lord laid upon faith in his earthly ministry. Christ taught the necessity of faith in this gospel two different ways. First, he did it negatively by condemning those who had it not!

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (v.36)

“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.” (8:24)


Secondly, he does so positively by simply connecting the two together. Here we can only place a few for the sake of space.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (3:16)

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (5:24)

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:40)

“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (20:31)

Could it be any plainer? In these places, and many others, faith is set forth as something possessed by man which is extended God-wards. And what other purpose could the Savior have in connecting faith with salvation but in order to demonstrate its necessity for the same? If it is true, then, based on the testimony of Christ himself that faith is necessary for salvation then something contrary could not be asserted by Paul when inscribing the expression ‘the faith of God’ or ‘the faith of Christ’, regardless of its exact meaning. It’s very telling that such plain facts of scripture as related above can be given secondary attention, while a case is built to render salvation available for the unbeliever by complete dependence upon a simple change of preposition! But even if justification was by ‘the faith of Christ’ in the manner intended by our moderns, then the texts to which this appeal is made nevertheless utterly refute the notion that this allows room for unbelievers to be saved.

“Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference (Rom. 3:22)

So let us grant for the moment that the faith OF Jesus Christ is that which Christ himself possessed. Does this mean then that unbelievers can be saved in their state? Certainly not! The text plainly says that the faith OF Christ is upon those that believe. So even if this expression is to be interpreted in the way which our moderns suppose, the righteousness is nevertheless said to be upon those that believe! This latter expression speaks of faith as possessed by the man, not by God or Christ. What is needed by those who have put this modern twist on justification is for the text to say that the faith OF Jesus Christ is upon those that don’t believe! An argument could then gain a possible footing.

The same truth is established in Gal. 2:16:

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”

Likewise, Gal. 3:22:

“But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”

Friend, do not the above passages limit justification to those who have believed in Jesus Christ? Or is the promise given to those that don’t believe as well? And if so, is it for all of them, or some of them? If for all, then why is not everyone saved? If for some only, does this mean that unbelievers are part of Abraham’s seed?

Having said all of this however, there essentially is no reason why our moderns should feel the need to trumpet forth this novel idea concerning justification. A method has already been in place for years, maybe decades, for them to explain it in a way compatible with their anti-means theology. The traditional way by which many of the Primitives have explained the doctrine is by their reliance upon 'seed' faith for justification. They were actually forced into this position by recognizing that justification by faith is a reality, but yet could not tolerate the idea that faith comes by hearing the gospel (Rom. 10: 17). A way had to be devised to get faith to the sinner which by-passed all forms of instrumentality. So the question now arises. Why the need to place such great emphasis on an idea when 'seed-faith justification' is already in place to satisfy your soteriology by meeting your objections to gospel instrumentality?

Despite the reason, additional interpretations of the doctrine of justification have now been cast into the fray, and today’s extremists find themselves with three alternatives in defining the doctrine. They may choose to say that it is by 'seed faith', by 'the faith OF Christ', or by 'the faith OF God'. They may do this according to their own liking, as it doesn’t really matter which they one they select. Either of them are acceptable to remain in fellowship and to be considered “in good standing” with the churches. In this particular case, theological precision is not that necessary. As long as an explanation of justification is provided which does not include the gospel as an essential element, then the view is deemed acceptable. Yea, any of the three positions on justification can be set forth as long as it does not infringe upon their established premises and preconceptions. As a result, their ministers can travel forth from one church to the next, trumpet forth that we are justified by 'seed faith', 'the faith of God', or that of Christ, without fear of reproval despite their lack of agreement on which one is truly correct.

What is worse is how this newfangled idea about justification has grown to compromise other portions of God’s Word as well. No longer is this nonsense about God having faith confined to Romans 3 and Galatians 3 from which it originated. In the eyes of some extremists this is how one ought to explain the great regeneration passage that is Ephesians 2. When Paul stated that we are saved by grace through faith (v.8) some are having the tendency to now claim that this too is not speaking of a faith issuing forth from man, but God’s faith in His Son! This is absolutely tragic! This text of scripture has always been one of the Primitives’ most prized possessions, being constantly referenced to teach the grand truth that faith is a gift of God. With this new twist being put upon the text, however, we wonder how much longer they can continue to preach it in their traditional way.

Along with Eph. 2:8 we have noticed how some have even come to use this novelty to discredit the Bible’s assertion that the regenerate persevere in faith as taught in 1 Peter 1:5. Yea, that treasured text is now to be interpreted as…

“Who are kept by the power of God through faith (that is, either God’s faith or Christ’s faith – KF) unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”

Geez! What’s next?!!!!

It is quite clear from such butchering of God’s Word that the growing trend among many of today’s extremists is to strip salvation of all its substance, and to teach the Lord’s people that God deals with His people like they are machines. They are regenerated, but yet experience no change. The first error was in exchanging evangelical faith for seed faith. That in itself was enough to present them with the problem of hollow-log regeneration. With this latest novelty, our minds are made to wonder if it’s about to become even more hollow. If seed faith is about to give place to the faith OF God or that OF Christ as the prominent explication for justification, then is anything at all gonna happen to one when regenerated?

Not even on the subconscious level????