← Back to sermon library

Chapter 11 of Justification, 
one of those chief doctrines of the Christian faith. We'll 
just look at this chapter by way of an overview this morning. 
Chapter 11 of Justification, beginning in paragraph 1, those 
whom God affectionately calleth, He also freely justifieth, not 
by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their 
sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous. not 
for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's 
sake alone, not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, 
or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, 
but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law 
and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole 
righteousness. They receiving and resting on 
Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have 
not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Faith thus receiving 
and resting on Christ and His righteousness is the alone instrument 
of justification. Yet it is not alone in the person 
justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, 
and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. Christ, by His obedience 
in death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are 
justified, and did, by the sacrifice of Himself in the blood of His 
cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make 
a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as He was given 
by the Father for them, and His obedience and satisfaction accepted 
in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their 
justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice 
and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification 
of sinners. God did from all eternity decree 
to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of 
time die for their sins and rise again for their justification. 
Nevertheless, they are not justified personally until the Holy Spirit 
doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them. God doth continue 
to forgive the sins of those that are justified. And although 
they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they 
may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure. And 
in that condition, they have not usually the light of His 
countenance restored unto them until they humble themselves, 
confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance. 
the justification of believers under the Old Testament was in 
all these respects one and the same with the justification of 
believers under the New Testament. Amen. Well, hopefully a very 
familiar chapter of the Confession of Faith. As I said, we'll just 
kind of skim through the paragraphs, focusing primarily on paragraphs 
1 and 2, just to draw out this doctrine of justification. I 
just want to quote from Brockle on the importance of justification. He says, justification is the 
soul of Christianity and the fountainhead of all true comfort 
and sanctification. He who errs in this doctrine 
errs to his eternal destruction. The devil is therefore continually 
engaged in denying, perverting, and obscuring the truth expressed 
concerning justification. I think that's important for 
us to understand. If we err, if we mess up, if 
we get sidetracked in the doctrine of justification, we do so to 
our own eternal destruction. And as well, the devil is seeking 
to deny, pervert, and obscure the truth of justification by 
faith alone. He's got a vested interest in 
confounding persons with reference to God's means of salvation by 
grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. It's always 
some sort of a challenge to this doctrine in the history of the 
church, and that challenge continues in our own day. There's a lot 
of things that compete with the biblical doctrine of justification 
by faith alone. So as is the case with every 
other biblical doctrine, to know the truth is the best way to 
guard against the error. to know the genuine article is 
the most helpful way to spot the counterfeit, and hopefully 
resist those sorts of things as they come up from time to 
time. Now, with reference to chapter 11, paragraphs 1 and 
2, we see the nature of justification. And notice the recipients of 
justification. Again, that golden chain of salvation. If you go to Romans chapter 8, 
just to refresh our memories on what is called the ordo salutis, 
or what some have called the golden chain of salvation. In Romans 8, 29, it says, for 
whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image 
of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 
Moreover, whom He predestined, these He also called. Whom He 
called, these He also justified. And whom He justified, these 
He also glorified." So you see that the confession of faith 
here follows that biblical trajectory. The confession of faith here 
opens up, develops, and amplifies what we find here in Romans chapter 
8. It is the ordo, or the order of salvation, the application 
of the redemptive benefits secured by Christ to those that God had 
chosen before the foundation of the world. So we see effectual 
calling in chapter 10, and here in chapter 11, those whom God 
effectually calls, He also freely justifies. So it is them and 
them alone. Effectual calling ultimately 
leads to, in this case, justification and all the other benefits that 
accrue for the people of God. So without the effectual call, 
there will be no justification. The idea being that we are dead 
in our trespasses and sins. God must make us alive. He must 
grant us the graces of faith and repentance, draw us savingly 
to the Lord Jesus Christ. So that when by God's grace we 
believe the gospel, we are justified freely by His grace. And then 
notice, the confession highlights the essence of justification, 
or sort of a description of the means by which this comes. It 
is first negatively, not by infusing righteousness into them. Now 
this is an argument against Roman Catholicism. One of the great 
debates of the Protestant Reformation was right here, with reference 
to the imputation of righteousness or an infused or an imparted 
righteousness. Roman Catholicism taught infused, 
and essentially what you end up with in Rome is that faith 
plus works equals justification. And so the emphasis here in the 
Confession is absolutely necessary. It is not by infusing righteousness 
into them. It is not a making of them holy, 
but rather it is forensic, and the Confession will develop this 
as it continues. It is a legal declaration. It 
is imputed to us. It's not an infused righteousness. 
So the papist doctrine of infused righteousness is in view here, 
not by infusing righteousness into them. If you're still in 
Romans 8, turn back to chapter 5 in the book of Romans. As I said, the Protestant doctrine 
of imputation is stressed later on in the Confession, but it's 
helpful for us to understand what's happening here in Romans 
chapter 5. This doctrine of imputation is being asserted, declared, 
and taught by the Apostle Paul. Now, if you look at verse 19 
specifically, It says, for as by one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners, so also by one man's obedience many will 
be made righteous. Now that can be a little bit 
confusing, the verb choice by the New King James translators 
with reference to made. It sort of lends itself to this 
understanding of an infused righteousness, me being more holy. And that's what Roman Catholicism 
emphasizes. But here, the proper translation 
of the verb is best translated, constitute or appoint. For as 
by one man's disobedience, many were constituted, or appointed, 
or imputed. The term does not speak to a 
moral change within the descendant of Adam. It refers to the change 
in legal or forensic status of the descendant. The same concept 
is obvious in 2 Corinthians 5. 2 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 
21. The Bible speaks of three different 
imputations. We see first Adam's sin imputed 
to us. We see at the cross our sin imputed 
to Christ. And as a result of the cross, 
Christ's righteousness imputed to us. So it's legal. It's forensic. It's not a making somebody more 
holy. but rather it is a declaration. 
It is declarative in nature. 2 Corinthians 5.21 indicates 
that. For He made him who knew no sin 
to be sin for us. Now that doesn't mean Jesus committed 
sin. Right? He was wholly harmless 
and undefiled. Jesus never committed sin or 
he would have disqualified himself from the role of mediator. But 
nevertheless, he was made sin for us. The language must reflect 
forensic terminology. It must be imputation. It must 
be constitution. It must be appointment. It is 
not a making of one sinful any more than it is making someone 
righteous in terms of their practical Christianity. So He made him 
who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness 
of God Again, it's constitutive, it's imputed, it is not just 
a transformation. And so Rome confused justification 
and sanctification and made it one particular doctrine. So essentially 
what you have is a faith plus works in order to get to heaven 
scheme in Roman Catholicism. Now the confession of faith and 
the best theologians in the history of the church have always appreciated 
this legal character of the doctrine of justification. So the positive 
statement now follows. Notice, not by infusing righteousness 
into them, but by pardoning their sins and by accounting and accepting 
their persons as righteous. So the forgiveness of sins and 
the imputation of righteousness, by accounting and accepting their 
persons as righteous. Accounting and accepting, again, 
forensic terminology, legal terminology. It's not because we did right, 
it's not because we did good, but it's because God imputed 
to us the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Perhaps just a sort of 
a helpful statement. The doctrine of justification 
is Christ's work for us. That's what we desperately need. 
Christ's work for us. Sanctification is the Spirit's 
work in us, right? You see the difference? Well, 
what Rome does is collapses the distinction. So you have Christ's 
work for us. They don't deny that Christ died 
on the cross, and it was sacrificial, and it was propitiatory, and 
all that sort of thing. But we must also be made holy. And so they collapse the distinction, 
mold it all into one, and you end up with Christ's work in 
us, Christ's work for us, the Spirit's work in us, and that's 
what ultimately commends us to God. That is faulty, and that 
ends in dangerous places, vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism. And if our 
status with God depends at a minimum on our performance, we are in 
a desperately hopeless condition. It is Christ's work for us that 
is here stressed and we must understand that by pardoning 
their sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as 
righteous. Now notice they continue to highlight 
the differences And again, it's not just Romanism. There's other 
errors and problems that have assaulted the doctrine of justification, 
primarily in view. Now, notice what they stress 
in terms of this accounting and accepting their persons as righteous. 
In other words, God accounts and accepts us as righteous. 
Why does He account and accept us as righteous? Well, they give 
three reasons why it's not the case. Not for anything wrought 
in them. Okay? Not for anything wrought 
in them. It's not based on what we are 
or what we do. So he accounts and accepts not 
for anything wrought in them. Listen to the difference between 
what we have here in Canon 11 of the Council of Trent. It says, 
if anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation 
of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins to 
the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth 
in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and remains in them, or also 
that the grace by which we are justified is only the goodwill 
of God, let him be anathema. So essentially what they're saying 
is that Protestants should be anathema because Protestants 
say it's not anything that is wrought in us. It's not anything 
that is charitable or decent or good in us. The ground of 
our acceptance with God is Christ. That's the emphasis. Now again, 
persons will say, well does that mean we can believe the gospel 
and live any old way that we want? No. True biblical faith, 
as we'll learn in paragraph two, it's not alone. It will always 
produce sanctification. In fact, I thought that was beautiful 
the way Brockle puts it. Justification is the soul of 
Christianity and the fountainhead of all true comfort. We'd affirm 
that, right? Justification by faith alone 
brings comfort, doesn't it? Isn't this the announcement of 
Paul in Romans 5? Therefore, having been justified 
by faith, we have what with God? We have peace. It's the fountainhead 
of all comfort, but he goes on to say sanctification. You see, 
through the history of the church, persons have taught that if we 
affirm justification by faith alone, it will lead to licentiousness, 
it will lead to antinomianism, it will lead to all manner of 
ungodliness. Well, Paul countered this in 
Romans 6. What shall we say? Shall we continue in sin that 
grace may abound? May it never be. It is the doctrine of justification 
by God's grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ alone, 
that produces sanctification. Without this doctrine of justification, 
we won't be holy men and women. It's a faulty understanding that 
sort of argues that if I'm justified by faith, it doesn't matter how 
I live, it doesn't matter what I do, it doesn't... No! When 
the Spirit of God applies the redemptive benefits of Christ 
to us, when we are effectually called, we believe the gospel, 
we are justified freely by His grace, sanctification is inevitable. Sanctification is a result of 
that. It will be pursued by the people 
who have been saved. And so the confession says, not 
for anything wrought in them or done by them, and the Scriptures 
are clear on this, Romans 3, Galatians 2, Titus chapter 3. How many times does Paul say, 
not on the basis of words? Not because of works. He excludes all works in terms 
of our acceptance with God. He excludes all works of man. 
He doesn't exclude the works of Christ. I mean, we are saved 
by works, brethren, but it's the works of Jesus Christ. We're 
not saved by our works to, you know, any degree whatsoever. 
And not on the basis of the imputation of faith or any other evangelical 
obedience. Notice the last part where it 
says, "...for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith itself, 
the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to 
them as their righteousness." The idea being here is probably 
Baxterianism or Neo-Nomianism. And essentially what these persons 
taught is that this new law, the new covenant, was faith. 
And when we believe, then God justifies us because of that 
faith. Well, that's not the way Paul 
depicts it in Scripture. Faith is an instrument. It's 
not the condition or the cause or the basis. It's not because 
of faith. It is through faith. And so Baxter 
and other neonomians got things wrong on that particular account. 
But with reference to this whole idea of the exclusion of human 
effort, merit, works, law-keeping, Ian Murray makes this observation. 
There was the strongest biblical reason for the urgency with which 
the Reformed divines have always distinguished the act of justification 
from the process of sanctification. We surely need Christ for us 
and Christ in us, but the two things are not to be confused 
as the ground of our acceptance before God. We're accepted because 
of the work for us, not because of the moral transformation that 
occurs in us. If that's our view, we're going 
to be a miserable people. Now, you may not fully appreciate 
that, but, you know, just go be a Roman Catholic for a week 
and see how things are there on that side of the Tiber. I 
mean, it's just not a happy place to live when there's this feeling 
that you have never done enough or you cannot do enough. Now 
again, That may increase or diminish with reference to persons and 
their understanding of things, but it's the doctrine that Christ's 
objective work on the cross is the means by which we are counted 
and accepted as righteous before God. Now, don't let that suggest 
that there's no sanctification, there's no holiness, there's 
no righteousness. The confession of faith is dealing with justification. 
But even there, it's going to couch it or it's going to qualify 
so that we cannot deduce these unbiblical ideas that, well, 
if we believe the gospel, then it doesn't matter how we live. 
No, if we believe the gospel, it will certainly matter how 
we live because our lives are gonna manifest and give evidence 
to the fact that we have believed the truth. This is James' point. 
This is what James is doing in James 2, 14 to 26. He's expounding 
the reality that we find specifically in paragraph 2 here. There were 
persons there that perhaps drew the unbiblical conclusion. While 
we believe the gospel, we can just live like pagans sitting 
in a church pew and discriminating against poor people that come 
in. James says that can that faith save you? It's not the 
genuine article, because true biblical faith always produces 
or is always accompanied by all these other saving graces. So 
the negative assertion, not on the basis of anything wrought 
in us, not on the basis of anything done by us, not on the basis 
of the imputation of faith or any other evangelical obedience, 
but note the positive assertion, but, right there in the middle 
of the paragraph, this is one of those wonderful buts in the 
Confession, but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole 
law. Isn't that beautiful? That is 
imputed to us. That's the reality behind 2 Corinthians 
5.21, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him, 
or Philippians 3.9, and be found in Him not having my own righteousness 
which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, 
the righteousness which is from God by faith. So we see that 
the imputation of Christ's active obedience under the whole law 
is one of those aspects that comes to us in terms of justification. Now turn to 1 Samuel chapter 
15. 1 Samuel chapter 15. As you will probably realize there has been some who 
have denied this imputation of the act of obedience of Christ. 
N.T. Wright, for instance, says, righteousness 
is not an object, a substance, or a gas which can be passed 
across the courtroom. He sort of mocks what he does, 
mocked the idea of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ. And essentially, the act of obedience 
of Christ means everything he did in his life in terms of obeying 
the law of the Father, right down to celebrating the Passover 
feast with his disciples there in Matthew 26. He always did 
what the Father called him to. He always did what was commanded 
of him. He engaged in active obedience 
to the law of the Father. We need a righteousness. 1 Samuel 
chapter 15. Notice in verse 22, so Samuel 
said, Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices? as in obeying the voice of the 
Lord. Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than 
the fat of rams." Turn over to Hebrews chapter 10. Just to show 
you that justification, while it does afford the forgiveness 
of sins, it's also accompanied by this imputation of the act 
of obedience of Christ such that we are counted as righteous now. 
So we're not only forgiven, but we're actually righteous by virtue 
of Christ's work for us at Calvary. Notice in Hebrews chapter 10, 
specifically at verse 5, "...therefore when He came into the world, 
He said, Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body 
you have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices 
for sin you had no pleasure. Then I said, Behold, I have come, 
in the volume of the book it is written of Me to do your will." previously saying, Sacrifice 
and offering, burnt offerings and offerings for sin you did 
not desire nor had pleasure in them, which are offered according 
to the law. Then he said, Behold, I have 
come to do your will, O God. He takes away the first, that 
he may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified 
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 
The point there, sacrifice an offering you did not desire, 
but a body you have prepared for me. In burnt offerings and 
sacrifices for sin you had no pleasure. Then I said, Behold, 
I have come, in the volume of the book it is written of me, 
to do your will. You see, it's the same sort of 
idea there in 1 Samuel 15. God's not saying He hates sacrifices. 
God's not saying He hates burnt offerings. But He's stressing 
the importance of obedience. You see, someone has to obey 
the Father for sinners to enter into heaven. It's either Christ 
or us, and it's either Christ or us, and Christ perfectly or 
us perfectly. It's not a mingling of the two. 
We don't have some faith in Jesus, some works, and that brings together 
that sort of righteousness that we need. No, the Bible condemns 
that approach, as does our confession of faith. But obedience to the 
Father is absolutely requisite, and Christ fulfills that in His 
active obedience. So it says, by imputing Christ's 
active obedience unto the whole law. Machen makes this observation. He says, as a matter of fact, 
Jesus has not merely paid the penalty of Adam's first sin and 
the penalty of the sins which we individually have committed, 
but also he has positively merited for us eternal life. He was, 
in other words, our representative both in penalty paying and in 
probation keeping. He paid the penalty of sin for 
us and he stood the probation for us. Those who have been saved 
by the Lord Jesus Christ not only are righteous in the sight 
of God, but they are beyond the possibility of becoming unrighteous. I quite like that. We're not 
only righteous, but we're beyond the possibility of becoming unrighteous. In other words, we're safe and 
secure in the arms of Jesus Christ. This is what inspired men to 
write hymns like 582. My hope is built on nothing less 
than Jesus' blood and righteousness. A papist can't sing that. A Baxterian 
can't sing that. A New Perspective on Paul person 
can't sing that. A federal visionist, I mean, 
they may, but to actually affirm it, confirm it, and relish it, 
and delight in it, How could they, with this idea that we 
are accounted and accepted as righteous because of a little 
of what Jesus did and a little of what I've done? Man, brethren, 
if you properly understand God's holiness in your own sinfulness, 
the only possible hope Scripture affords is in the gospel, which 
is by grace or received by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. 
Machen goes on to say, In their case, the probation is over. 
He develops this whole idea. I took off some of the quote 
here because of time and length and whatnot. But he basically 
says, if all we receive in justification is the forgiveness of sins, it 
brings us back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 
We're back in a probationary period. You see, without the 
active obedience of Christ, guess what happens? Now our works come 
into play. So you got that faith brings 
us, in terms of forgiveness, back to the tree, but in terms 
of a positive righteousness, how do we get that? Well, it's 
by our works. It's by the Spirit's work in 
us. And that will ultimately, thankfully, be accepted by God 
if we've done enough. Brethren, there's no hope or 
comfort in such an arrangement. He says, it is not over because 
they have the probation. It is not over because they have 
stood it successfully. It is not over because they have 
themselves earned the reward of assured blessedness, which 
God promised on condition of perfect obedience. But it is 
over because Christ has stood it for them. It is over because 
Christ has merited for them the reward by His perfect obedience 
to God's law." Now, that shouldn't be, or it should come as no surprise 
that Machen's last words, according to his biographer, Ned Stonehouse, 
he died on about 7.30 p.m. on January 1st, 1937. I think 
he was in Bismarck, North Dakota. That seems to be the place. Just 
like Bismarck, North Dakota in January? I mean, come on. That's probably like the worst 
place ever to be. I would imagine anywhere in the 
confines of either Dakota on January 31st would be the worst 
place to be. Apparently he was just alone. 
He was there preaching or teaching or doing something and I think 
he was traveling alone. But he wrote, or rather he talked 
to somebody, and the last words he said were, I am so thankful 
for the active obedience of Christ, no hope without it. I think that's 
absolutely positively beautiful, in light of this reality. Counting 
and accepting their persons as righteous. by imputing Christ's 
active obedience unto the whole law and passive obedience in 
his death for their whole and soul righteousness. So, you know, 
I spent a little more time on the active obedience. That's 
typically more often denied, or at least it is, you know, 
in modern times. Of course, the death of Christ. 
Of course, the passive obedience. And passive obedience doesn't 
mean that Jesus wasn't involved. Passive there probably relates 
to the word passion, but Christ was actively obedient even in 
his passive obedience. I think that word passive obedience 
suggests that the light switch went off and Jesus just went 
as it were. you know, as a sheep led to the 
slaughter, but not with that intellect or mindset. As Calvin 
says, he wasn't dragged to the cross. Jesus went willingly. Jesus was active even in the 
passive obedience for our benefit. So the imputation of Christ's 
active obedience under the whole law and passive obedience in 
his death for their whole and soul righteousness. Which addition 
here or this here is not in the Westminster Confession? It's 
in the Savoy, right? And passive obedience in his 
death. Yeah, is that in Savoy? It is, but yeah, it's not in 
the Westminster. I always find a certain amount 
of pride. I know pride's bad, but I'd love 
to tell our Westminster Presbyterian brothers that our confession 
is better here. I think it's clearer, and I think 
it's something that has been emphasized in the history of 
the Church, that is something that we ought not to ever exchange, 
exclude, or diminish. That in essence is, I mean, this 
is the hope of our salvation. by imputing Christ's active obedience 
unto the whole law and passive obedience in His death for their 
whole and soul righteousness. Without that, we are lost, brethren. Now notice the instrument by 
which we come into saving contact or union or communion with the 
Lord Jesus. It says, "...they receiving and 
resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have 
not of themselves, it is the gift of God." I love this quote 
by John Murray. It's from Romans, his commentary 
on Romans in chapter 3, verses 27 to 31. He says, justification 
by works, note the emphasis in the confession, they receiving 
and resting on him and his righteousness by faith. I think that's metaphorical 
language that reflects scripture receiving and resting. We see 
Jesus using metaphorical language to sort of illustrate what faith 
looks like. He does that in John 6, eating 
my flesh, drinking my blood. Well, we're not literalists, 
we're not Romanists, we don't believe he's actually calling 
us to cannibalism. That is a metaphorical expression 
or a figurative expression for faith, believing in him. So this 
idea of receiving and resting, it looks like what faith is. 
We receive Him, we rest on Him. But Murray says, justification 
by works always finds its ground in that which the person is and 
does. It is always oriented to that 
consideration of virtue attaching to the person justified. See, 
justification by works, so we're always looking at ourselves, 
right, to make sure we've done enough or we could do better, 
we could try harder. I'm not suggesting the doctrine 
of justification by faith should cause us not to want to do better 
and not to want to try harder. By all means, do better, try 
harder. But your acceptance with God isn't dependent upon your 
works, okay? That's the point. He says, the 
specific quality of faith is trust and commitment to another. 
It is essentially extra-spective. I love that. We are introspective, 
or works are introspective. We're looking at ourselves. Faith, 
however, is extra-spective, and in that respect, it is the diametric 
opposite of works. Faith is self-renouncing. Works are self-congratulatory. Faith looks to what God does. Works have respect to what we 
are. It is this antithesis of principle 
that enables the apostle to base the complete exclusion of works 
upon the principle of faith. That is just a wonderful statement. Faith looks to what God does. Works have respect to what we 
are. Faith is self-renouncing, right? That's what happens when we look 
to Christ. When we look to Christ, who are 
we looking away from? Our biggest problem, and that's 
not the devil and it's not the world, it's ourselves. So we 
need to have that self-renouncing. Works are rather self-congratulatory. You meet this all the time, don't 
you? People would say, yeah, I'm a good this or I'm a good 
that. Not persons who have been conquered by sovereign grace. 
Typically they say, I'm a miserable wretch and I'm thankful for the 
grace of God. They say things like, I'm so happy or so thankful 
for the act of obedience of Christ. No hope without it. That's the 
difference, you see. So we see the identification 
of the instrument by which we come into this state, and then 
the source of faith. Notice, they receiving and resting 
on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have 
not of themselves, it is the gift of God. You see, it's not 
even the case that we have the faith that contributes to this 
plan, because if we did, what would we do? We'd congratulate 
ourselves for our faith, wouldn't we? Oh no, not me, bro. You just aren't honest with yourself 
if you don't think you would congratulate yourself. If you 
had, you know, the smallest bit to play in terms of your acceptance 
with God, most likely you would seize upon that and capitalize 
on it. Notice in Romans 4, Romans chapter 
4, Paul counters this whole idea. Romans 4.1, what then shall we 
say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to 
boast about, but not before God. I love that, but not before God. Basically Paul is saying, I'm 
right, everybody who disagrees is wrong, because Abraham does 
not have the ability to boast before God. Because it's justification 
by faith alone. It's not by works of righteousness. So even the faith that we have, 
it's not some thing that we are to congratulate ourselves over. 
It is the gift of God. In fact, let's look at a couple 
of passages that flesh that out. Notice in Acts chapter 15. Acts 
chapter 15. at verse 9, well, verse 8. So God who knows the heart acknowledged 
them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us. 
This is Peter's testimony concerning Gentile inclusion in the covenant 
blessings of God or the covenant promises of God. And then notice 
he amplifies in verse 9, "...and made no distinction between us 
and them, purifying their hearts by faith." So God purified Gentile 
hearts by faith. Notice in Ephesians 2, perhaps 
the most familiar of the passages that teach that faith is a gift. Ephesians 2, specifically verses 
8 to 10, for by grace you've been saved through faith, and 
that not of yourselves. Some say, well, the sorts of... What's the term I'm looking for? 
The masculine gender. What's the... Masculine and feminine 
are what? What's the voice or the terminology? 
There has to be a complement between an antecedent and the 
noun that it modifies. And here, specifically, faith 
is feminine, and they suggest, well, it's not the faith that's 
in view. The best interpretation of verse 
8 is that, for by grace you've been saved through faith, and 
that, so they would say, the that can't modify faith because 
of the difference in terms of the gender. But it's that not 
of yourselves, it is the gift of God. I take it, and I think 
the best interpreters take it, not saying I'm the best interpreter, 
that it's the whole package. The salvation by grace through 
faith package is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. In other 
words, everything included in salvation, including grace, faith, 
everything, it is the gift of God and that not of yourselves. But notice, faith is indeed included 
there. And then notice in Philippians 
chapter 1, in terms of faith as a gift. Philippians chapter 
1 verse 29 teaches this in an incidental sort of way. It's 
not even the main point in chapter 1 verse 29. For to you it has 
been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but 
also to suffer for His sake. You see, the big point Paul's 
making is your suffering is according to the will of God. Your suffering 
is a gift given to you by God. That's his point, but in terms 
of a parallel sort of idea, he just says this as well as something 
that would have been understood by everyone. It has been granted 
on behalf of Christ not only to believe in Him. Who would 
ever argue against that? How can a dead man believe the 
gospel? It must have been faith, it must 
have been granted to us, it must have been given to us. So faith 
is a gift and the confession underscores and highlights that. Now notice, it goes on in chapter, 
let's see, Yeah, notice there at paragraph two, faith thus 
receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness is the 
alone instrument of justification. The emphasis here is on the faith 
alone sort of a thing. Sola fide, we're justified by 
grace through faith alone. Murray makes this observation, 
this time in his works, the collected works, his chapter on justification. with reference to the aloneness 
of faith. He says, this is both the stumbling 
block and the irresistible appeal of the gospel. I love this. Justification 
by faith alone is both the stumbling block and the irresistible appeal 
of the gospel. It is the stumbling block to 
self-righteousness, and self-righteousness is the arch-demon of antithesis 
to grace. He says, it is the glory of the 
gospel for the contrite and broken-hearted. If we put any other exercise 
of the human spirit in the place of faith, then we cut the throat 
of the only confidence a sinner conscious of his lost and helpless 
condition can entertain. Justification by faith is the 
jubilee trumpet of the gospel because it proclaims the gospel 
to the poor and destitute whose only door of hope is to roll 
themselves in total helplessness upon the grace and power and 
righteousness of the Redeemer of the lost. In the words of 
one, cast out your anchor into the ocean of the Redeemer's merits. It's beautiful. So it's faith 
alone, and the Bible everywhere affirms this, not least of which 
what we just saw there in Ephesians 2, Galatians 2, the exclusion 
of works. In fact, look at Romans 3 for 
just a moment. People say, well, Paul doesn't 
say alone there. Well, if he excludes everything 
else, then we have to conclude he means alone, right? The exclusion 
of all things will ultimately leave the aloneness intact. Romans 
3.28, therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart 
from the deeds of the law. Does he have to say alone? No, 
he just said alone. Therefore, we conclude that a 
man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. It 
means alone. He's justified by faith alone 
because it's apart from the deeds of the law. Does everybody follow 
that? You don't need the actual written 
word alone to find the concept of the doctrine underscored. 
We conclude that a man is justified by faith. If he just said that 
and somebody said, well, he didn't say alone. Well, still, we conclude 
that a man is justified by faith. But he goes on to say, apart 
from the deeds of the law, the sola fide, the sola, the aloneness, 
is calculated to exclude works of the law. So if Paul excludes 
the works of the law, he is underscoring the aloneness in the sola fide. That's the point that we ought 
to conclude with reference to 328. And then notice this qualifying 
statement with reference to the place of sanctification. You 
see, sometimes when persons preach and teach and set forth truth, 
it's good to make qualifications. It's good to try and answer objections. It's good to try and head things 
off at the pass. Now, certainly that could make 
sermons hours long, so pastors or preachers need to be careful 
about that. But a common objection that is foreseen should be dealt 
with. Again, Paul in Romans 6, what 
shall we say? Shall we continue in sin that 
grace may abound? Romans chapter 9, what shall 
we say? Is there unrighteousness with 
God? In fact, this is one of the tools that Paul uses in the 
book of Romans to set forth his argument. And probably they weren't 
abstract sort of objections, they weren't theoretical objections, 
Paul probably didn't sit in his study and think, wow, I wonder 
how people will oppose the doctrine of justification by faith alone. 
Oh, this is what... No, he probably heard it in the 
back of a synagogue. Or with reference to Romans 9, when he's 
setting forth the unparalleled sovereignty and might and electing 
power and predestinating power of God Most High. Paul didn't 
say, well, some might actually conclude that there's unright... 
He probably heard it. When he preached sovereignty, 
persons would say, well, why does God still find fault with 
us? Or, is there unrighteousness 
with God? Paul counters these objections 
ahead of time, being the chief ones that have been presented. 
And I think that's what we ought to appreciate here in paragraph 
2. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness 
is the alone instrument of justification, in case they didn't make that 
clear. just, you know, in the preceding paragraph, yet it is 
not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with 
all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh 
by love. You see, if they taught that 
justification by faith alone meant no holiness, no righteousness, 
no good works, no godliness. The confession could have just 
moved on to matters of eschatology. It could have gone from 11 to, 
you know, 31 and 32. Well, they might have wanted 
to hit baptism and Lord's Supper in there, so you got sacraments. 
Well, probably some others, but the rest of the ordo salutis, 
right? Why would they want to deal with 
sanctification and assurance and perseverance and good works 
and all that sort of thing? Paragraph 2 tells us, yet this 
saving faith is not alone in the person justified. Just again 
a heads up, and James 2, the issue isn't faith versus faith 
plus works, it's true faith versus false faith. That's the problem 
for James, because true faith always results in sanctification. Now, not as godly as we ought 
to be, or hopefully one day will be, but there is that movement 
forward toward the things of God in the people of God. So this is what is going on here. 
Yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied 
with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh 
by love." So genuine saving faith is not a dead faith. It does 
worketh by love, Galatians chapter 5. So Paul and James teach the 
exact same thing. Now, we'll just skip paragraph 
3, not because it's unimportant. This deals with the objective 
and subjective cause in terms of justification, and it's most 
important. In paragraph 4, basically we 
have an argument there against what's called eternal justification, 
that we've been eternally justified. Basically what the Confession 
says is we're not justified until we believe the Gospel. And then 
in paragraph 5, we'll just spend our last few minutes here, because 
it's a bit of a practical sort of view, of the issue of justification 
and the sins that we continue to commit, right? We say, we're justified. Why 
do we keep sinning? Because of the doctrine of remaining 
corruption. Romans 7, Galatians 5, and the 
Old Testament teaches us the doctrine of remaining corruption. But notice, in paragraph 5, God 
does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, 
and although they can never fall from the state of justification, 
yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure. And in that condition, they have 
not usually the light of His countenance restored unto them 
until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, 
and renew their faith and repentance. You see, the doctrine of justification, 
while it certainly affords that peace with God and that joy and 
that thanksgiving and that comfort and that stability, does not 
continually keep one from any struggles or difficulties in 
the Christian life. There will be struggles and difficulties 
in the Christian life. And the confession here is realistic. It is dealing with the reality 
that justified persons still have remaining corruption. And 
in that sort of scheme where they are justified freely by 
His grace and nevertheless have this remaining corruption, here's 
what happens. God does continue to forgive 
the sins of those that are justified. Again, not as a license so that 
we can continue in sin that grace may abound. But God doesn't, 
you know, do things half-heartedly. He doesn't justify us on a Monday 
and, you know, strip us of it on Thursday. That's not the way 
God functions. He does continue to forgive the 
sins of those that are justified. And although we can never fall 
from the state of justification, isn't that a beautiful thing? 
We never fall from it. Like Machen says, not only are 
we righteous, but we don't have the possibility of becoming unrighteous. 
Because of what Christ has accomplished, yet they may, by their sins, 
fall under God's fatherly displeasure. I think this is how we ought 
to appreciate or view 1 John 1.9. If we confess our sins, 
He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from all 
unrighteousness. I don't think John there is engaged 
in evangelism. He's writing to the believing 
people of God. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and 
He's just to forgive us. Now, there is a truism there 
with reference even to unconverted people. We can tell them, if 
you look to God, you believe the gospel, you come to the Father 
in the name of Christ, there is forgiveness to be had. But 
with reference to 1 John 1, 9, it's probably dealing in the 
context of fatherly displeasure. not judgmental sort of condemnation. If we confess our sins, He is 
faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from all 
unrighteousness. So that's our ongoing sort of 
relationship with our Heavenly Father. The judge is bang the 
gavel. We are not guilty. Again, not 
because we're great guys and girls, but because of what Christ 
has accomplished. So the gavel's been banged, the 
judge is on our side, but in terms of our relationship to 
our Father, yeah, there's seasons, there's times whereby our sins, 
we fall under God's fatherly displeasure. We don't sense the 
smile of our Father. Now, in your own home, if your 
kid messes up, do you disown him? Do you excommunicate him? Probably not. Even if you're 
unhappy with Junior, you still love him. You're still his father. 
That bond, that filial relationship hasn't been severed. It hasn't 
gotten to the point where you've said, OK, go away and never come 
back. I'm no longer your father. No. But you can be upset with him. 
You can emotionally punish him for the bad things he did to 
you. I'm just kidding. I'm not suggesting God emotionally 
punishes us, but you know how it goes, right? Your kid does 
something wrong and you're not wanting to go out and buy him 
balloons. You're kind of upset with them. There's a fatherly 
displeasure. How does the kid restore that 
fatherly displeasure? by repentance, by, you know, 
reconciliation, pursuing... Again, it's not, you know, restoring 
the father-son relationship, or father-son sort of status. That can never be disbanded, 
but it's the relationship. And that's what the Confession 
speaks to here. Yet by their sins, they may fall, or they 
fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and in that condition, they have 
not usually the light of His countenance restored unto them. 
We continue in that sort of a pattern, and we're going to know God's 
displeasure. This is what people oftentimes do. They just get 
satisfied with that. Why would we? Don't we want the 
smile of God? Don't we want the pleasure of 
the Father? Doesn't a child want balloons from his father? Families, 
don't they want harmony and peace and joy and happiness? Yes! So 
the believer, too, ought to want that. And then it says, "...until 
they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew 
their faith and repentance." So the idea being is that justification 
does not result in this sort of relationship of, you know, 
all we do is skip and sing now and everything's going to be 
great. No, there's seasons and times in the history of God's 
people where even though their sins are forgiven, they have 
repaired or they have hurt the relationship. And so that's when 
we employ texts like 1 John 1. If we confess our sins, He's 
faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from all 
unrighteousness. That's the fatherly displeasure 
of God being turned, hopefully, into pleasure. And then the last 
paragraph there basically says, anybody who's ever been saved, 
it's been this way. It's not two different means 
of or two different ways of salvation, one in the old, one in the new. 
Abraham, David, they're all justified by grace through faith in Jesus. 
I just want to conclude real quick with some thoughts from 
J.C. Ryle. I think these are, this is in 
his book Holiness. If you don't have holiness, I 
don't mean as a personal virtue, but if you don't have the book 
holiness, it'd be something to purchase. If you don't have the 
virtue holiness, it might be something to purchase as well. 
But he says, in what then are justification and sanctification 
alike? Both proceed originally from 
the grace of God. It is of His gift alone that 
believers are justified or sanctified at all. Both are part of that 
great work of salvation which Christ in the eternal covenant 
has undertaken on behalf of His people. Christ is the fountain 
of life from which pardon and holiness both flow. The root 
of each is Christ. Both are to be found in the same 
persons. Those who are justified are always 
sanctified, and those who are sanctified are always justified. 
God has joined them together and they cannot be put asunder. 
Both begin at the same time. The moment a person begins to 
be a justified person, he also begins to be a sanctified person. 
He may not feel it, but it is a fact. And then he highlights, 
wherein do justification and sanctification differ? Justification 
is the reckoning and counting a man to be righteous for the 
sake of another, even Jesus Christ the Lord. Sanctification is the 
actual making a man inwardly righteous, though it may be in 
a very feeble degree. The righteousness we have by 
our justification is not our own, but the everlasting perfect 
righteousness of our great Mediator Christ, imputed to us and made 
our own by faith. The righteousness we have by 
sanctification is our own righteousness, imparted, inherent, and wrought 
in us by the Holy Spirit, but mingled with much infirmity and 
imperfection. In justification, our own works 
have no place at all, and simple faith in Christ is the one thing 
needful. In sanctification, our own works 
are of vast importance, and God bids us fight and watch and pray 
and strive and take pains and labor. Justification is a finished 
and complete work, and a man is perfectly justified the moment 
he believes. Sanctification is an imperfect 
work, comparatively, and will never be perfected until we reach 
heaven. Justification admits no growth 
or increase. A man is as much justified the 
hour he first comes to Christ by faith as he will be to all 
eternity. Sanctification is eminently a 
progressive work and admits of a continual growth and enlargement 
so long as a man lives. Justification has special reference 
to our persons, our standing in God's sight, and our deliverance 
from guilt. Sanctification has special reference 
to our natures and the moral renewal of our hearts. Justification 
gives us our title to heaven and boldness to enter in. Sanctification 
gives us our meatness for heaven and prepares us to enjoy it when 
we dwell there. Justification is the act of God 
about us and is not easily discerned by others. Sanctification is 
the work of God within us and cannot be hid in its outward 
manifestation from the eyes of men. That's good, to know wherein 
they are alike and wherein they differ. And I think that if we 
get that down, it really does afford comfort in the Christian 
life. I've often believed that two doctrines that you ought 
to have a good understanding of in the 1689 is justification 
and sanctification. You'll be a happier Christian 
for it. Let us pray. Father, we thank 
you for your truth taught in Scripture, everywhere taught 
in Scripture. And we thank you for these good 
confessions of faith that do indeed take these biblical truths 
and compact them and systematize them and put them in a ready 
digest, and we give You thanks for this. We ask that You would 
bless our morning worship, be with all our brothers and sisters 
that gather together. May Your Holy Spirit come and 
enable us to approach the throne of grace with trembling and with 
great joy. And we ask these things through 
Christ our Lord. Amen.