In a word, Hardshells reject the belief that justification which is "by faith" has anything to do with a man's actual justification before God or the condemning law. To the Hardshells, justification which is "by faith," is as unnecessary for being eternally saved as is being converted to Christ. The typical manner in which Hardshells attempt to defend this strange and novel idea is to affirm that there are three different kinds of justification in scripture, each pertaining to a different court of justice. Only one of these three kinds of justification, however, is necessary to salvation.
Elder R. V. Sarrels, Hardshell apologist who wrote what is called a "Systematic Theology," wrote the following on "Justification By Faith" in chapter 16:
"The principles set forth in this chapter regarding the Doctrine of Justification by Faith differs fundamentally from the generally accepted view concerning this important doctrine. The opinion of Christian scholarship predominantly favors the idea that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ."
Sarrels basically proves what I have affirmed, that the Hardshell interpretation and understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith is not orthodox, nor the traditional view of Christians in general or Baptists in particular. Sarrels admits that Hardshell teaching on this Bible doctrine is an extreme minority view, and lends credence to the fact that they hold a cultic and novel view. Sarrels admits that the teaching that interprets "by faith," in the context of justification, teaches "that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ." From this citation it is clear that Sarrels shifts from the idea of justification to that of regeneration and union with Christ. Sarrels implies that those theologians who affirm that faith logically precedes justification also affirm, or must logically affirm, that faith precedes regeneration. But, this is not true. Most of today's "Reformed" Baptists, such as James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, believe that faith follows regeneration but precedes justification. The position of the first Particular Baptists, in England and America, taught that faith logically precedes all. It is the means of joining one to Christ. Being justified, regenerated (reborn), and being sanctified are the results of this union. They taught that these things were concomitants, "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) One does not exist without the other. There is no such character who is regenerated but not justified, and vice versa. There is no such character who is justified and regenerated but not joined to Christ. There is no such character, as the Hardshells invent, who is justified, regenerated, sanctified, and joined to Christ, but who "has not faith." I will expand upon this point shortly.
Sarrels also wrote:
"By the phrase "united to Christ" this prevailing view means the work which makes one a new creature in Christ...In contrast to this common idea concerning the place of Justification by Faith in the Christian system, is the view that this justification follows regeneration and that it plays no part in either leading up to or in bringing about the birth from above."
Sarrels is not correct when he says that the "common idea" about "the place of Justification by Faith" among Christian scholars affirms that justification follows regeneration. The "common idea" is rather that justification logically precedes regeneration. This is certainly the teaching of classical Arminians, of men such as Arminius and Wesley. The view of "Reformed" and "Hyper" Calvinists teach that the ordo salutis is: first regeneration, then faith (conversion), and then justification and sanctification. But, many of them argue that regeneration only logically precedes faith and justification, not chronologically. These Calvinists are not consistent nor reflective of the Puritans and old Baptists who wrote the first English confessions of faith.
It has always been the peculiar difference between Protestants and Catholics, relative to the ordo salutis, that justification logically precedes regeneration. Protestants have emphasized, among other things, that Paul says that God "justifies the ungodly," which would not be the case if men were regenerated (made godly) before being justified. To say that men are regenerated before they are justified is to say that men who are yet condemned are "regenerated." Nearly all scholars, both Arminian and Calvinist, affirm that union with Christ logically precedes all, precedes justification, precedes regeneration, precedes sanctification. They also teach that actual union with Christ is "by faith." Those who affirm that union with Christ is primordial, and that union with Christ is "by faith," and who affirm that regeneration precedes faith, are inconsistent. It is good thing, that despite this inconsistency and opposition to Protestant views, these Reformed Calvinist theologians nevertheless teach that there is no chronological order, that justification, regeneration, faith, and sanctification, are all concomitants.
Sarrels identifies the chief error of Hardshellism on the Christian doctrine of justification by faith, saying that justification "plays no part in" being born again. Though he mentioned that being justified does not "lead up to" or "bring about" the new birth, he really believes that being justified does not occur at the same time one is born again. Thus, they have a man born again who is still condemned! If a man is not justified, then he is still condemned. He denies the historic Protestant doctrine that says that justification logically precedes regeneration, and he does not believe that justification is always linked with regeneration. He certainly does not believe that being justified by faith is necessary for escaping Hell and going to Heaven.
Sarrels wrote:
"It is the purpose of the author in this chapter to show that this, exactly this, is what the Bible teaches concerning this doctrine. But it must not be inferred from what is here stated that a new concept in theology has been born. From the days of the apostles till now there has been a succession of Christian thinkers, in the main unaccredited by the world, who have, with varying degrees of clearness, stood forthrightly and unafraid in defense of the view we hold." (pg. 373)
Sarrels claims that they has always been Christians who believed as he does, "from the days of the apostles till now," he says, "there has been a succession" of Christians who believed as Hardshells do on the doctrine of salvation, on justification and regeneration. But, he states a falsehood, for Hardshellism was born in the early to mid 19th century in America. I have repeatedly challenged the Hardshells to prove this "succession." They cannot find anyone, prior to the 19th century, who held to their peculiar views and so it is the height of deception for them to state that their views have a "succession" of adherents since the days of the apostles. The typical Hardshell will read such claims as Sarrels gives and, being a good cult member, simply accept what Sarrels avers, and will not study the matter for himself.
The Hardshells say that the only justification that is necessary for being eternally saved is that justification which is "by grace" (Rom. 3: 24; Titus 3: 7) or "by his blood" (Rom. 5: 9). Being justified "by faith" (Rom. 3: 28; 5: 1), however, is a "different kind of justification" than that which is by grace and the blood of Christ. Thus, they teach that many are justified by grace and blood who are not justified by faith.
The Hardshells argue that justification by grace and blood is "before God," or "in his sight," or before the court of Heaven, or before the law. On the other hand, justification by faith is not "before God," or "in his sight," but simply and solely in the "court of conscience," before the eyes of believers themselves. Being "justified by faith," to the Hardshell, is receiving assurance that one is already elected and regenerated, equivalent to conversion or to their "time salvation." And, "justification by works" is also not "before God," but "before men," in the "court of public opinion."
In Hardshellism, justification occurs by faith when the previously "regenerated" soul trusts in the atoning death and righteousness of Christ and receives a sense of acquittal in his conscience, when he comes to realize that he is "freed from condemnation." Hardshells argue that this is not when God actually justifies the sinner before the law, and removes actual guilt before the eyes and judgment of God, but when guilt is removed from the burdened and convicted conscience.
One of the problems with this view is the fact that it makes the Holy Spirit to bear witness to a falsehood. In the Hardshell paradigm, the Holy Spirit convicts the regenerated soul of his guilt. But, the soul is not really guilty of sin, for he has already been justified prior to his conviction of sin and faith in Christ. Thus, when the Spirit convinces a soul that it is guilty, he is convincing him of what is not true, for the soul the Spirit convicts has already been justified by blood and grace.
But, the scriptures are clear about all who do not believe in the one true God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the only Savior and Lord. Jesus said:
"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)
The soul that does not believe in Jesus "is condemned." The soul that believes in Jesus, however, is one who is "not condemned," that is, is "justified." This simple teaching overthrows Hardshellism and its unscriptural teaching that many unbelievers are "not condemned."
Jesus also said:
"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." (John 3: 36)
To be justified is to be delivered from the judicial "wrath of God." All sinners are condemned, and are therefore "under sin" and "under wrath." Unbelievers are condemned and under wrath. But, Hardshells will not accept this to be true. That makes them enemies of the gospel of Christ.
Another problem with this paradigm is the fact that Paul, in Romans and Galatians, where he discusses justification in detail, does not distinguish between that justification which is by grace and blood from that which is by faith. In Romans 3: 20-31 Paul speaks of the same justification, not of different kinds of justification. The Hardshells do the same thing with the word "salvation" as they do with the word "justification." Just as they make all passages that make salvation to be conditioned upon faith and repentance to be a temporal or time salvation, so they make all passages that make justification to be conditioned upon faith to be a temporal justification. In verse 20 of Romans chapter three Paul speaks of being "justified in his sight." The context clearly shows that the justification that Paul is discussing is that which justifies a sinner in God's sight, before his law. Paul then continues with these words:
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (vs. 24-28)
It requires great dishonesty to make the justification which is "by faith" (vs. 28) to be different from that justification which is "by his grace" (vs. 24). When Paul says "therefore we conclude," he shows that he is not making that justification which is "by faith" to be different from that which is "by grace."
Further, Paul says that "faith" in Christ "excludes" any possibility of "boasting," and shows that he does not consider faith to be "works," for works promote boasting. The Hardshells often argue that salvation cannot be "by faith" because faith is a "work" and Paul says we are not saved or justified "by works," that is, "not by faith." But, such hermeneutics has Paul contradicting himself, saying on one hand that salvation and justification are "by faith" and then turning around and saying that they are not "by faith (work of faith)." Salvation and justification are "by faith" but "not by works," which clearly shows that Paul did not, like the Hardshells, see faith as a work.
No comments:
Post a Comment