Justification Unto Life & Regeneration

I deny that God must regenerate us to justify us. That is too much like the Catholic idea which affirms that God first "infuses" his righteousness in us and then begins the process of justification and sanctification, which continues throughout the life of a believer if he fall not away. The believer in this view conflates justification and sanctification. It sees justification as making a character personally just and righteous in character and life. The Catholic therefore tangles together justification and sanctification (the latter including regeneration, renewing, and transformation). Protestants have generally held that justification is forensic and happens once, though its effects are continuous and without end. Catholics have not, but have seen justification as a change of character and thus a synonym for sanctification. Protestants have also generally placed justification as having logical priority to sanctification. 

So, those Protestants (mainly in certain "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" circles) who put regeneration before justification are too similar to the Catholic view of infused righteousness before justification. God does not work in us to transform us in regeneration and sanctification until he has first taken care of the legal question of our standing. 

Justification involves imputation of the righteousness of Christ, reconciliation, and remission (forgiveness or pardon) of sins, and as such are the legal basis upon which the Lord is justly free to dispense the fruit of that legal change of state ('that he might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus' - Rom. 3: 26). The objective state of a sinner must first be changed before his subjective moral and spiritual state be changed. Justification concerns what God does outside of us, while all moral change (regeneration, renewing, sanctification, etc.) is what God does within us. Justification guarantees moral transformation. There are two heads to the varied work of salvation from sin, what Calvin called the "double grace," and they are 

Justification and Sanctification 

Under justification would include reconciliation, imputation, forgiveness or remission of sins, atonement, propitiation, redemption (price paid to secure release). Under sanctification would include moral cleansing, purification, holiness, regeneration and rebirth, renewal and transformation, spirituality, conformity to the image and likeness of God. Of these two distinctive categories and their relation to each other deserves our focus. 

This post will be a follow up to previous articles on this subject. It will be an affirmative argument for the proposition that says that justification or imputation of Christ's righteousness, with its remission and forgiveness of sins, logically precedes sanctification, regeneration being a part of sanctification. 

Proof Text #1

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Rom. 5: 18)

In the above text Paul compares the modus operandi of "condemnation" with the modus operandi of "justification." How people come to be condemned is similar to how people come to be justified. 

The condemnation that comes on "all men" results first from the one sin of the one man Adam and its being imputed to those he represented in that great transaction. This is what is termed "original sin." That one sin brought condemnation and guilt to all men. His sin was "imputed" or "reckoned" to the account of all men (who Adam represented as a 'head'). As a result of that imputation, guilt follows, and from guilt comes inherited moral and spiritual corruption, a being "born in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) It is important at this point to discuss the differences between "immediate" versus "mediate" imputation of Adam's sin.

Does God condemn the sinner because he is born with a depraved nature (mediate imputation) or are sinners born with a depraved nature because God has condemned them? I believe the latter. John Murray wrote an excellent thesis on this disputed issue, taking, as I do, the immediate imputation view. What I will show is that the putting of regeneration before justification is equated with putting degeneration before condemnation. 

If one believes in immediate imputation of Adam's sin, then he ought to believe, to be consistent and in agreement with Paul, that immediate imputation of Christ's righteousness, precedes regeneration. On the other hand, if we believe in mediate imputation of Adam's sin (that degeneration precedes guilt and condemnation), then logically we should believe that regeneration precedes justification (imputation of Christ's righteousness). Imputation of Adam's sin results in condemnation and that condemnation results in an inherited sinful nature, and from a sinful nature results actual personal transgressions.

We do what we do because of who we are, and not vise versa. It is because we are condemned that we are morally degenerate. Likewise it is because we are justified that we are morally regenerate. This is the order of the apostle Paul. 

Wrote Dr. Charles Hodge on the subject (Systematic Theology - here):

"As guilt precedes punishment, if, as Edwards says, depravity or spiritual death is a punishment, then the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s first sin precedes depravity, and is not consequent upon it. This is the current representation throughout the work on Original Sin."

This is clearly the teaching of the apostle Paul. Hodge continued:

"Rivet, however, clearly shows that although not rendered prominent, the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin as universally assumed. This is plain from the fact that all the evil consequences of Adam’s apostasy, mortality, the loss of original righteousness, corruption of nature or spiritual death, etc., etc., were of the nature of punishment." 

This is clearly the teaching of the apostle in Romans chapter five. Depravity, or a degenerate state, is the effect of that "judgment" of God which constituted all men as "condemned," as guilty. So too is death a punishment, whether it be physical or spiritual death. All men die, even those, like infants, who die without any personal transgressions, and death is the wages of sin, the result of guilt and condemnation. Death is punishment for sin and the fact that all men die proves that all men are accounted guilty by original sin. 

Hodge continued:

"The leading objections against the doctrine of mediate imputation are, — 1. That it denies what the Scriptures assert. The Scriptures assert that the sentence of condemnation has passed upon all men for the sin of one man. This the doctrine of mediate imputation denies, and affirms that the ground of that condemnation is inherent depravity. We are accounted partakers of Adam’s sin only because we derive a corrupt nature from him. According to the Scriptures, however, the reason why we are depraved is, that we are regarded as partakers of his sin, or because the guilt of that sin is imputed to us. The guilt in the order of nature and fact precedes the spiritual death which is its penal consequent."

Though I have seen where some have suggested that Hodge did not believe in immediate imputation, yet the above is very clear that he did believe it. Being born with a depraved nature is a punishment inflicted because of a prior condemnation. I have also seen how Hodge affirmed that "regeneration," viewed in its limited sense, preceded faith and justification. All I can say in regard to this is that Hodge, in doing this, contradicts what he says regarding immediate imputation. Hodge does say in his section on Regeneration that the term "regeneration" was once synonymous with conversion but later, beginning with Turretin, regeneration began to be limited so as to exclude conversion. Wrote Hodge:

"With the theologians of the seventeenth century conversion and regeneration were synonymous terms." (Systematic Theology Vol. 3 page 12 - See here) 

This is certainly true with John Owen. He regularly used conversion and regeneration in ways which showed he thought of them as the same. Many would later affirm that "broad regeneration" included conversion, but regeneration more strictly defined excluded conversion.

Hodge continued:

"This doctrine (mediate imputation) denies the penal character of the hereditary corruption in which all men are born. According to the Scriptures and to the faith of the church universal, mortality, the loss of original righteousness, and hereditary corruption are inflicted upon mankind in execution of the threatening made against Adam, and are included in the comprehensive word, death, by which the threatened penalty was expressed. This is as emphatically taught by President Edwards as by any other of the Reformed theologians. He devotes a section of his work to prove that the death mentioned in Genesis, and of which the Apostle speaks in Rom. v. 12, included spiritual death, and that the posterity of Adam were included in that penalty. He says: “The calamities which come upon them in consequence of his sin, are brought on them as punishments.” He moreover says, it destroys the whole scope of the Apostle’s argument “to suppose that the death of which he here speaks as coming on mankind by Adams sin, comes not as a punishment.” And again: “I do not suppose the natural depravity of the posterity of Adam is owing to the course of nature only; it is also owing to the just judgment of God.” But punishment supposes guilt; if the loss of righteousness and the consequent corruption of nature are punishments, they suppose the antecedent imputation of guilt; and therefore imputation is immediate and not mediate; it is antecedent and not consequent to or upon inherent depravity."

This all being true, then logically justification must precede regeneration or else the likeness between Adam's sin and death (condemnation) and Christ's obedience and life (justification) is overturned. Condemnation preceded degeneration of nature. Justification precedes regeneration of nature.

Hodge continued:

"It is a still more serious objection that this doctrine destroys the parallel between Adam and Christ on which the Apostle lays so much stress in his Epistle to the Romans. The great point which he there labours to teach and to illustrate, and which he represents as a cardinal element of the method of salvation, is that men are justified for a righteousness which is not personally their own. To illustrate and confirm this great fundamental doctrine, he refers to the fact that men have been condemned for a sin which is not personally their own. He over and over insists that it was for the sin of Adam, and not for our own sin or sinfulness, that the sentence of death (the forfeiture of the divine favour) passed upon all men. It is on this ground he urges men the more confidently to rely upon the promise of justification on the ground a righteousness which is not inherently ours. This parallel destroyed, the doctrine and argument of the Apostle are overturned, if it be denied that the sin of Adam, as antecedent to any sin or sinfulness of our own is the ground of our condemnation." 

Exactly! 

Hodge continued:

"If we are partakers of the penal consequences of Adam’s sin only because of the corrupt nature derived by a law of nature from him, then we are justified only on the ground of our own inherent holiness derived by a law of grace from Christ. We have thus the doctrine of subjective justification, which overthrows the great doctrine of the Reformation, and the great ground of the peace and confidence of the people of God, namely, that a righteousness not within us but wrought out for us, — the righteousness of another, even the eternal Son of God, and therefore an infinitely meritorious righteousness, — is the ground of our justification before God. Any doctrine which tends to invalidate or to weaken the Scriptural evidence of this fundamental article of our faith is fraught with evil greater than belongs to it in itself considered. This is the reason why the Reformed theologians so strenuously opposed the doctrine of La Place. They saw and said that on his principles the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness antecedent to our sanctification could not be defended."

All this demonstrates the truth of the apostle Paul in Romans chapter five, that men are first condemned and declared guilty and as a result are born degenerate and under the wrath of God, and experience death. It also affirms that men are first justified and declared righteous and as a result are born (regenerate) and reconciled to God, and experience life. As degeneration and death follow condemnation so regeneration and life follow justification. That is the apostle's teaching, as Hodge and many others agree.

There are those who object to the justice of God in holding Adam's posterity accountable for the sin of Adam. However, let them consider the consequences of denying the fact of it first and then consider the justice of such an imputation afterwards. 

If God cannot condemn all men for the sin of Adam, then he likewise cannot justify men for the one righteous act of the second Adam. If God cannot justly punish one person for another person's sin, then he also cannot justly reward one person for another person's righteousness. So, those who say that each must be condemned for his own sins also affirm that each must be justified for his own righteousness. Paul is affirming this truth (paraphrased): "we are condemned for what someone else did and we are saved for what someone else did." 

Those who put regeneration before justification do not follow the order of the apostle. Those Calvinists who put regeneration before justification are like those who believe in "mediate" imputation of Adam's original sin, affirming that the presence of the depraved nature logically precedes guilt and condemnation. Imputation of guilt follows degeneration of nature. This is the same order for those who put regeneration before justification (mediate justification/imputation). However, most Calvinists believe in immediate imputation, as respects original sin, and yet say that regeneration precedes justification (or imputation). This is contradictory and fails to understand the parallelism the apostle draws. Degeneration results from imputation of guilt. Regeneration results from imputation of righteousness or from justification (which includes remission or forgiveness).   

Justification Unto Life

The words "unto justification of life" show that justification precedes regeneration (life). Being a genitive the words may be interpreted in several ways. If it is a genitive of source, then it would read "unto justification arising from life," life, regeneration life, would be the source for justification. If it is such a genitive, then it would show that regeneration precedes justification. But, it is not such a genitive, or genitive of result. Rather, as is clear from the context, the genitive is an objective genitive and thus means "justification unto life" or "justification which results in life," or "justification for life." In the parallel with Adam, condemnation resulted in death (including spiritual death and degeneration), yet justification results in spiritual life or regeneration.

Said one on this subject:

"The association between righteousness and life appears even clearer and closer in Rom 5,18 in the expression "justification of life" (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς). The connection is given there by a genitive that can be interpreted as denoting a result, given the causal relationship inferred in 5,17 between the reception of the gift of righteousness and reigning in life, as well as from the expression in 5,21 -  διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον and διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον; or else as an epexegetic genitive: justification that consists in life. The genitive of result has stronger arguments in favor. However, both interpretations are not opposite. Therefore, the existence of a relationship between righteousness and vivification which is seen implicitly in Gal 3,21 is confirmed by the explicit formulation in Rom 5,17.18.21: justification results in life." (here)

That is my view and I believe it expresses the mind of the apostle.

Thus, this is my first affirmative argument for the proposition that justification precedes regeneration (and sanctification). In the next several articles we will offer further affirmative texts.