← Back to sermon library

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." I realize that 
your copy probably doesn't contain that particular line. I did some 
checking. That line should be included. 
So I have the original. Actually, I'm just kidding. But 
I don't know why it didn't make it into this particular edition 
or that particular copy of it. However, it is repeated again 
in paragraph two. So it's not as if it's lacking 
in your document. It's just not present in paragraph 
one. 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 works 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 does in due time actually apply 
Christ unto them. 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. 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. This is a wonderful description, 
a wonderful presentation of the article upon which the church 
stands or falls. This is a most important subject. 
It answers the perennial question, how can a man be accepted by 
God? Job asked this question. The 
rest of the Bible addresses this particular question. How can 
sinful men ever stand in the presence of a thrice holy God? 
Well, it's the doctrine of justification that answers that very specifically 
for us. So let's look at this particular 
chapter. There are several things going 
on. In paragraphs 1 and 2, we have the nature of justification. Paragraph 3 is the cause of justification. Paragraph 4 is the time of justification. Paragraph 4, I'm sorry, Paragraph 
5 is the forgiveness of sins after justification. And then 
Paragraph 6 is the uniformity of justification. That it's always 
been the same among the people of God, whether it's the Old 
or the New Covenant, man has only and ever been accepted by 
God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. So let's look at 
the nature of justification. Note first the recipients. If 
we followed along up to this point, we'll see that this is 
a systematic presentation of Christian doctrine. What we're 
dealing with here specifically is the ordo salutis, or the order 
of salvation. How is it that we move from the 
decree of God to this place where we receive the redemptive benefits? Well, it's through the work of 
Christ, the mediator, and through the power of the Holy Spirit 
that the benefits secured by Christ in his work are now applied 
to the elect. And so the recipients are indicated 
in the first statement. Those whom God effectually calls, 
he also freely justifies. You'll notice that sort of language. 
We looked at that when we considered the effectual call. in Romans 
chapter 8, those whom God foreknew, he predestined to be conformed 
to the image of his son. And those ones he called, the 
ones he calls, he justifies, and the one he justifies, he 
ultimately glorifies. Now notice the essence of justification. It says, he freely justifies 
not by infusing righteousness into them. That's a negative 
statement. Much of Christian theology is 
stated negatively. Sometimes people say, all you 
guys ever do is talk about what you don't believe. Well, that's 
very important in the Bible, as we've considered in the doctrine 
of God. We learn a lot about God by what He is not. When we 
say that He's infinite, we know that He's not finite. When we 
say that He's impassable, we know that He's not passable. 
When we say that He's immutable, we know that He's not mutable, 
or He doesn't change. When we say that he is invisible, 
we know that he is not visible. He is a spirit. He doesn't have 
a body like men. So much of theology is seen not 
only by what we affirm, but by what we negate. And this is a 
very important negation that the divines put in this place. 
Not by infusing righteousness into them. Now what is in particular 
view is the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness. We'll 
deal with this a little bit this morning as we move through the 
teaching year. But it's important for us to understand that Rome 
sees no distinction between justification and sanctification. One of the 
blessings of our confession, if you look at chapter 11, you 
have justification. If you turn over at chapter 13, 
you have sanctification. In the Roman Catholic documents, 
they don't make a distinction here. For the Roman Catholics, 
justification and sanctification is the one means whereby we are 
accepted with God. Does everybody get that distinction? 
We all affirm justification and sanctification. But we are accepted 
by God, holy and alone, because of his justifying grace that 
we receive through faith in Jesus Christ. Sanctification is the 
Spirit's work in us subsequent to that blessed declaration by 
God in terms of Christ's work for us. So we go to heaven not 
because the Spirit is causing us to deal with our anger, but 
because Jesus lived and died and rose again. Roman Catholicism 
does not have a distinction between those two doctrines. They collapse 
it and they fold it all into one package so that we are saved 
by grace, according to Rome, by Christ's work for us, and 
by the Spirit's work in us. You see, that is Maybe a subtle 
distinction, but it's a huge and monumental distinction. So 
that when a Roman Catholic stands before God on that day, it's 
not only what Jesus has done, but it's also what they have 
done in terms of their obedience to God and to his law. So it's 
huge. So what the confession here says, 
it negates this idea, not by infusing righteousness into them. If you look for just a moment 
at Romans chapter 5, Romans chapter 5, there's something we ought 
to clarify with reference to verse 19. Because as the new 
King James renders verse 19, it could almost take on that 
feel of the infused righteousness or the moral transformation. Again, we're not neglecting or 
negating the fact that there is a moral transformation that 
happens to the justified sinner. That is sanctification. But when 
we stand before God, we're accepted not because of that moral transformation 
in part or in whole. We are accepted because of the 
doing and the dying and the rising of Jesus. Notice in Romans 5.19. 
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." The 
word made there is not the best translation of the verb. It does 
have the feel of a moral transformation. We were made, we became, we are 
sinners. The idea is more constituted. The idea is more akin to imputation. Guy Waters says the verb is best 
translated constitute or appoint. Notice in verse 19, for as by 
one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one 
man's obedience many will be made righteous. It's not that 
made is a bad word, but there is a better word in terms of 
constitute or appoint. Water says 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. So 
that's important to get. And I think that if we understand 
that whole idea that's constituted or it's appointed, we're solely 
or saved solely and alone based on what Jesus Christ has done, 
then Romans 5.1 makes perfect sense to us. Notice in Romans 
5.1, therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with 
God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Would you have that peace with 
God on a daily basis if your acts, your works, your faithfulness 
had anything to do with your acceptance with God? Certainly 
when you get up and you stub your toe and you say something 
mean or vicious or when you sin against God throughout the day, 
Wouldn't that affect your status or your state or your peace if 
you thought that by doing that, now I'm out? That is no sure 
place for the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding. 
We're justified not by the infusing of righteousness unto them. Going 
back to the confession, note what it says positively. But 
by pardoning their sins and by accounting and accepting their 
persons as righteous. what we find in the Westminster 
Shorter Catechism. Those two aspects. And when we 
refer to the catechism and I refer to the confession, I believe 
these documents accurately and correctly tell us what the Bible 
says. Their codifications, their precise 
statements, and declarations concerning biblical truth. And 
so what we find here is that we have our sins pardoned and 
we are accepted or counted and accepted as righteous in the 
sight of God Most High. So it's wonderful. How does a 
man stand before a holy God? It is the justification by faith 
in Christ alone. Now note the basis. And again, 
there's a negative statement and a positive statement. Notice 
in the negative statement. 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. Again, we want to make sure we're 
understanding what it is not. You are not accepted by God through 
Jesus Christ on the basis of anything wrought in you. It's 
not what you do. It's not the sense that, wow, 
I read my Bible eight times this week, and I wasn't mean to anybody, 
and I stopped at every red light, and I didn't roll through stop 
signs. I'm a pretty decent guy. God's going to accept me in Jesus 
Christ. What text speaks to that kind 
of a mindset? Galatians 2.21, I do not nullify 
the grace of God, for if righteousness comes to the law, then Christ 
died in vain. Why would Christ be crucified 
on the cross if our acceptance with God could be garnered by 
us not rolling through stop signs or by us not saying mean or vicious 
things? Sin is all-inclusive. It goes to the very heart. Every 
fiber of our being is affected by sin. It's not the case that 
we can add to our acceptance with God. Listen to Rome on this 
issue of anything wrought in us. Canon 11 of the Council of 
Trent. 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. 
You've got to get this. Rome does not teach work salvation. Rome does not say strictly work 
salvation. They affirm the work of Christ. 
They affirm grace. They affirm faith. But notice 
what they are picking on here. If anyone says that men are justified 
either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by 
the sole remission of sins, that's the Protestant doctrine of justification. That's what we've just read. 
Then they say, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity 
which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost. You 
see, for Rome, we need both the sole imputation of the justice 
of Christ, the remission of sins, and we need this grace and charity 
which is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. We 
need both those components in order to be accepted by God. 
So it's not a works only, but it is a faith plus works. It 
is the Galatian heresy. It is adding to the finished 
work of Christ, albeit not circumcision, but the sacraments of the Roman 
church, the work of the spirit in terms of charity, all those 
particular things. Now look at what they go on to 
say. and remains in them, or also that the grace... Let me 
just read it again. 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 good will of God, let him be anathema." 
So essentially what Rome has said concerning chapter 1 in 
paragraph 11 of both the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster 
Confession, they have said, let you be anathema if you affirm 
this. Okay? That's what's at stake 
here. They believe it's the faith, or faith in Christ, plus the 
works of faithfulness that we do, and it's that package deal 
that God says, well done, good and faithful servant. That's 
what's at stake. Listen to what Ian Murray has 
recently said. If you want some really good 
resources right now on justification and faith and all that, go to 
the Heidel blog. Dr. R. Scott Clark has been responding 
to a couple of posts that were made on a blog called Reformation 
21. And he is just amassing a wealth 
of confessional and theological witness to the reality of justification 
by faith alone. You probably heard Pastor Porter 
refer to Norman Shepard. Norman Shepard was a professor 
at Westminster Seminary that basically imbibed a Romish view. It's not faith alone, but it's 
our faithfulness is the language that Shepard used. So that's 
faith in Christ plus our obedience in terms of the law. And so what 
Scott Clark has been doing is amassing a wealth of material 
there on different men that dealt with Norman Shepard. And Ian 
Murray was one of those men. And this is what he said. He 
said, there were the strongest biblical reason for the urgency 
with which the reformed divines have always distinguished the 
act of justification from the process of sanctification. It's important. Justification 
is a one-time event. We believe, we are pardoned, 
we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. It's a 
one-act event. Spurgeon, Paul, Isaiah are no 
more justified than you and I are. Spurgeon Paul and Isaiah may 
be more sanctified than we are, but not more justified. You don't 
grow in your justification. You don't excel in your justification. You don't get better at your 
justification. You have the forgiveness of sins 
and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, when by God's grace 
you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. So listen to Murray again. 
There were the strongest biblical reason, or perhaps that should 
be, 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. Now what he says here is goal. 
We surely need Christ for us and Christ in us. That's the 
work of sanctification. But the two things are not to 
be confused as the ground of our acceptance before God. If 
you get that, it's going to help you tremendously. If you get 
chapter 11, it's going to help you tremendously. So the first 
negation or negative statement in terms of the basis of our 
justification, it's not on the basis of anything wrought in 
us. Secondly, it's not on the basis of anything done by us. Pastor Porter just preached Titus 
chapter 5. Doesn't Paul take pains to say, 
it's not by words he saved us? It's not by words. Therefore, 
we conclude that a man is justified not by the works of the law. Paul, in Romans chapter 3. Galatians 
chapter 2, verse 16. Galatians chapter 2, verse 21. 
Already said it. If righteousness comes through 
the law, then Christ died in vain. So the divines are careful 
again, not on the basis of anything done by us. And then a third 
negation, they say, not on the basis of the imputation of faith 
or any other evangelical obedience. Now probably what they had in 
view here was what was called neo-Nomianism, new law-ism. And basically what neo-Nomianism 
taught is that in the new covenant, faith and repentance are the 
evangelical works that we do and then we're justified. In 
other words, when I believe and I repent, God sees that as obedience 
to this new law. And when I do that, then I'm 
justified freely by his grace. There's a famous pastor in the 
history of the church named Richard Baxter. Sometimes neo-Nomianism 
can be called Baxterianism or Neo-Baxterianism. I know these 
may sound a little bit confusing, but just listen to what our confession 
says and then listen to what Baxter says. It says, not by 
imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical 
obedience to them as their righteousness. Now, as we move through the confession, 
as we see in the Apostle Paul, faith is always an instrument. 
Never, ever in Paul's writings does faith account, or is it 
ever because we're saved because of faith? That's what Baxterianism 
teaches. That's what neo-Nomianism teaches. 
We're saved because of faith. Paul never says that. We are 
saved because of grace through faith. Faith is the instrument 
by which the elect lays hold of the righteousness of Christ. 
But it's not the condition, it's not the cause, it's not that 
which affects this blessed activity of justification. Give me a nod 
if you're with me. I don't want to lose anybody 
here. I want to make sure it's crystal clear, because I think 
this is probably one of the most important chapters in the Confession, 
and I agree with the brothers in the history of the Church, 
this is the article upon which the Church falls or stands. You 
err here, and you go to hell. That's all there is to it. You 
mess up on the doctrine of justification, and there is no blessed remedy 
for you. It's either all of Christ, or 
it's none of Christ. In fact, Fisher, in his Marrow 
of Modern Divinity, makes a beautifully pointed statement to this particular 
effect. Another great book, everybody 
should buy and read. Fisher says, so that if you desire 
to be justified before God, you must either bring to Him a perfect 
righteousness of your own and wholly renounce Christ. or else 
you must bring the perfect righteousness of Christ and wholly renounce 
your own. Christ Jesus will either be a 
whole Savior or no Savior. He will either save you alone 
or not save you at all. So this whole idea of Baxterianism. Baxter taught a neo-Nomian doctrine 
of justification by denying the imputation of Christ's act of 
obedience and claiming that an obedient faith fulfills the condition 
for justification. That's Roman Catholic. That's 
why John Owen took pains to write against Richard Baxter. There's 
a book currently in print by Baxter called The Reformed Pastor. When you see that title, it is 
not a reference to his theology. It is a reference to his pastoral 
ministry. Baxter was a great guy. He would 
catechize. I mean, I hope he was catechizing 
properly, but he was wrong when it came to Reformed theology. 
I think I've shared with you before, J.I. Packer is a big 
fan of Richard Baxter. There's a book by Packer called 
The Quest for Godliness. And it's a study in Puritan theology. 
When he comes to Baxter, he says, it pains me to have to write 
what I'm about to write. Essentially, Baxter got justification 
wrong. John Owen fought hard against 
Richard Baxter. Here's Baxter. Faith is imputed 
for righteousness. because it is an act of obedience 
to God. It is the performance of the 
condition of the justifying covenant. See, there's a big difference 
between the imputed righteousness of Christ to the elect and the 
imputed faith to the elect. What's the cause? What's the 
basis for our justification? It's not that imputed faith. 
It's the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ that faith holds 
on to. Faith is always instrumental. 
It is not a condition. It is not the cause. It is not 
the reason for which or the basis upon which we stand. When we 
stand before God on that day, there will be no one to praise 
us for our faith. All praise, all glory, all honor 
goes to Jesus Christ alone, in his doing, and in his dying, 
and in his rising. So it's absolutely crucial you 
understand these negations and their historical context. Specifically, 
Rome is in view, specifically the idea that anything we do 
is commendatory to God, and then on the basis of the imputation 
of faith or other evangelical obedience. These are all condemned 
by the Bible. Again, I've only highlighted 
a few texts. Romans chapter 3 and 4 are fantastic 
places to show the exclusivity of grace alone, through faith 
alone, and Christ alone. The book of Galatians. Why do 
you think Paul anathematizes, or Paul says, I marvel that you 
are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of 
Christ to another gospel? For Paul, the addition of works 
to faith was to distort and to preach another gospel. You know, 
you might say, wow, it's just a small thing, this whole idea 
of circumcision. And it is. If it's just a cultural 
activity, Paul had Timothy circumcised, right? He didn't want to be an 
offense in Jewish regions. Paul had Timothy circumcised. 
Culturally, there's no problem with it. But the very moment 
you believe that this circumcision somehow helps me to gain acceptance 
with God, Paul says, let them be a curse. Let them be damned 
to hell. Let them rot in the pit forever, 
those who would come and preach that other gospel to you. Again, 
we say, well, that's pretty harsh, Paul. No, Paul saw what was at 
stake. He said, essentially, what Fisher later would write. 
Either Christ alone saves or you will not be saved. That's 
all there is to it. Because if salvation is about 
the glory of God in Jesus Christ, there can be no place for human 
boasting or any sort of introduction of human merit as a reason for 
our salvation. So it's crucial you understand 
this whole thing. Now notice positively. After 
treating this whole idea of what it's not by, what it's not by, 
what it's not by, notice about the middle of paragraph one, 
but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law 
and passive obedience in his death, for their whole and sole 
righteousness. Now, most everybody would agree, 
I say most everybody, I think it's probably a non-negotiable, 
but I'm sure there's some odd duck out there that would deny 
it, the passive obedience of Christ. Everybody understands 
when we refer to the active obedience and the passive obedience. So 
that's why I don't always like to have this. So I like to get 
people saying what it is, because I want to make sure that you're 
not all zoned out looking at me and thinking about Tuesday's 
lunch or whatever it might be. But passive obedience or the 
blood of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, even the papists acknowledge 
this. In Canon 11, if anyone says that 
men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice 
of Christ, that's active obedience, or by the sole remission of sins, 
that's passive obedience. Again, everybody pretty much 
understands. The imputation of the passive 
obedience, Christ's death on the cross, satisfied divine justice, 
and by his wounds we are healed. It's the active obedience that 
has not gone unchallenged in the history of the church. The 
active obedience of Christ, that idea that God imputes the righteousness 
of Christ to the elect sinner whom he justifies. Take, for 
instance, N.T. Wright, a proponent of the new 
perspective on Paul. He denies the imputed righteousness 
of Christ. He denies that there is the active 
obedience of Jesus imputed to the elect. He says it this way, 
righteousness is not an object. a substance or a gas which can 
be passed across the courtroom. When he's mocking this traditional 
Protestant conception of the imputed righteousness of Christ, 
he goes to the courtroom and he says, when we get to the courtroom, 
it's not like there's this gas called the imputed righteousness 
of Christ or the act of obedience of Christ that's somehow given 
to the defendant in the box. So he certainly does not accept 
that. in the federal vision do not 
accept the imputation of the Act of Obedience of Christ. There 
were divines at the Westminster Assembly that did not receive 
the Act of Obedience or the imputation of the Act of Obedience of Christ. 
And if you look at our confession, it is stronger here. following 
the Savoy Declaration than the Westminster. The Westminster 
does not bring out by imputing Christ's active obedience unto 
the whole law and passive obedience in his death for their whole 
and soul righteousness. I'm not saying it doesn't affirm 
it. I'm not saying they didn't believe it. But there were some 
disagreements on that. And the language at Westminster 
is not as strong as this and the Savoy Declaration. because 
there were men that disagreed on things at the Westminster 
Assembly. What makes it into the confession 
is what we, by common consent, can confess. Anyway, so the act 
of obedience of Christ is not always affirmed. You know, one 
thing that should cause us to reflect upon this is the Bible 
study from Wednesday night. In 1 Samuel, chapter 15, God 
Almighty, or Samuel speaking for God Almighty, says specifically, 
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. You see, if 
we have our sins remitted, if we have our sins pardoned, if 
we have our sins forgiven, we still need a righteousness, don't 
we? This is the beauty and the blessing of the doctrine of the 
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which, by the way, 
is most biblical. Romans 4, 1 Corinthians 1, 2 
Corinthians 5.21, perhaps the clearest expression, God made 
him Christ who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become 
the righteousness of God in him. And then Philippians chapter 
3, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that 
righteousness which is from God through faith in Jesus Christ. 
Even Galatians 2.21 highlights the reality that we need a righteousness. I do not nullify the grace of 
God. For if righteousness comes to the law, then Christ died 
in vain. What's the implication? We need 
righteousness, right? In the book of Hebrews in chapter 
10, this statement is reaffirmed. An Old Testament text is being 
applied in the context of New Covenant religion, and it's highlighting 
the blessed reality of the work of the Savior. Hebrews 10, 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, O God. You see what Jesus is doing? 
He's doing the will of God. Why does Jesus do the will of 
God? Because we need a righteousness that avails with God. If it was 
only the passive obedience of the Lord Jesus that we needed, 
then perhaps it could have been the case that as soon as he was 
born, it could have been a stillbirth and we would be justified freely 
by his blood. Now, I certainly think that he 
needed to die on the cross in terms of the satisfaction of 
divine justice and all of that. But his life of 33 years was 
with a specific purpose in view. It was to obey the law of God. It was to do what the father 
had commanded him. Do you understand? Burkoff is 
absolutely right in this regard. You all know what the covenant 
of redemption is. I'm supposing that we've been here for a while. 
Covenant of Redemption is the pre-temporal, intra-Trinitarian 
compact to save the elect. Birkhoff rightly noted and notes 
that the Covenant of Redemption is a covenant of works for the 
Lord Jesus. Because the father gives to the 
son a miserable lot of sinners and the son swears his faithfulness 
to redeem them. Right? It's a covenant of works 
for Christ. One or some rightly have seen 
as well. The covenant of grace for us 
was a covenant of works kept for us by our Redeemer. You see, Adam, under the covenant 
of works, in a paradise setting, failed and did not obey God. 
Jesus, in a world filled with sorrow, death, sin, misery, and 
temptation, obeyed the Father perfectly for that 33 years, 
so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Brethren, if we 
toss out the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Jesus 
Christ, we are in a very difficult position. Listen to J. Gressom 
Machen. Now this is a lengthy quote, 
but I hope that you'll pay attention. That's not an indicator that 
I think you don't. Sometimes lengthy quotes can 
be difficult. I understand that as a preacher. 
I try not to give lengthy quotes unless they're easy to follow. 
I mean, if I quoted something out of a computer technical manual, 
none of us would get it. We'd all be, well, sometimes 
technical theology can be that way. If we're not in it, we're 
not reading it, we're not trafficking in it. And I'm mindful of that. 
I try not to give great big quotes or if I do I try to break them 
up so that it gives the mind the ability to retain what's 
actually being said. Listen to what Machen says. Suppose 
Christ had merely paid the penalty or had paid the just penalty 
of the law that was resting upon us for our sin and had done nothing 
more than that. Where would we then be? Well, 
I think we can say if indeed it is legitimate to separate 
one part of the work of Christ, even in thought from the rest, 
that if Christ had merely paid the penalty of sin for us and 
had done nothing more, we should be at best back at the situation 
in which Adam found himself when God placed him under the covenant 
of works. You see, if we're forgiven through 
the passive obedience of Christ, we do not have a righteousness 
of our own, which is from the law. Then we got to go back to 
the garden. We got to go back to a probationary 
period. And we have to now flesh out 
this righteousness. He says, that covenant of works 
was a probation. If Adam had kept the law of God 
for a certain period, he was to have eternal life. If he disobeyed, 
he was to have death. Well, he disobeyed and the penalty 
of death was inflicted upon him and his posterity. Then Christ, 
by his death on the cross, paid that penalty for those whom God 
had chosen. Well and good! But if that were 
all that Christ did for us, do you not see that we should be 
back in just the situation in which Adam was before he sinned? 
The penalty of his sinning would have been removed from us because 
it had been all paid by Christ. But for the future, the attainment 
of eternal life would have been dependent upon our perfect obedience 
to the law of God. We should simply have been back 
in the probation again. Now, I understand that not everybody 
who denies the imputation of the act of obedience takes it 
to this conclusion. I don't think that these guys 
are saying, we have to obey perfectly now that we've been forgiven. 
But that's the implication. That's the corollary. That's 
where it leads to. If we don't have the spotless 
righteousness of Christ imputed to us, then we either, A, have 
to provide that or just make up some of it. He elsewhere 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. We are secured and confirmed 
in this state. Pastor Barcelos wrote a book 
called Better Than the Beginning. What Christ, the last Adam, does 
is better than the beginning. Because in Adam, obviously, all 
died. But even if Adam hadn't have 
failed, what Christ brings is better than the beginning. He 
goes on to say, it is not, or in their case, the probation 
is over. 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. Man, if you deny the imputation 
of the act of obedience of Christ, where it leads is not a happy 
place. affirming the doctrine of justification 
as we have it here in our Baptist confession, as it is in the Westminster 
as well. It's that one language or that 
one statement is lacking. And in the Savoy Declaration, 
which does accurately reflect the truth of the scripture, there 
is peace. Romans 5.1 is a reality. We have 
peace with God because we've been justified by faith. Now, 
is it any wonder? that J. Gresser Machen, when 
he came to die, these were his last words. On January 1st, in 
1937, he contracted pneumonia. I think he was in Bismarck, North 
Dakota. Bismarck is north, right? Not 
south? OK. So he's in Bismarck, North Dakota. 
He gets sick. I think he's by himself. Somebody 
did visit him. But I think he telegraphed or 
something to his brother or somebody in his life. These were his last 
words. I'm so thankful for the act of 
obedience of Christ. No hope without it. It's a man 
who understood the confession, a man who even more so understood 
the Bible. Brethren, if we take these things 
away, we are in a bad, bad, bad place. And that's why we spend 
time to not only say what we are, but what we are not. Because 
oftentimes, these lines of distinction are subtle, and they may seem 
small, and they may not seem that big. But when you start 
to parse them out, you will see that there are some horrific 
implications. So our confession affirms the imputation of Christ's 
active obedience under the whole law and passive obedience in 
his death for their whole and sole righteousness. Answers to 
the satisfaction of divine justice to God for the elect that they 
may be forgiven of their sins. And that's developed further 
in the confession. Now notice the instrument. We're 
still just in paragraph one, specifically the idea of the 
nature of justification. We've seen the recipients, the 
essence of it, the basis of it. Now notice the instrument. 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. Now the Pauline epistles. are 
clear and obvious with reference to justification by faith alone. Some have said that Paul is at 
odds with Jesus. Jesus taught obedience and you 
will be saved. The Gospels are full of justification 
by faith as well. James is not a challenge to this 
idea either. Some would take James, say that 
James and Paul are teaching a different doctrine. Paul says not by works. James says by works. They're 
dealing with two different audiences. They're dealing in two different 
contexts. Paul affirms the place of good works, just like James 
does. James affirms sovereign grace, 
just like Paul does. James affirms faith as well, 
just like Paul does. James is writing to deadbeat 
professors of religion, and he says, look, you say you have 
faith. If you look at 2.14 in James and follow it to the end, 
it's if you say you have faith. He's dealing with a profession. 
He is dealing with somebody who claims to be a believer. You 
say you have faith and then some poor person comes to your door 
and you say, be warm and be filled and send them on their way. The 
person who has a genuine saving faith, like our confession says 
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." That is 
a reference to James. James's point is those who profess 
that they've been justified freely by grace through faith ought 
to pony up and deal righteously with reference to that profession 
or that confession. Paul affirms the same things 
that James does. James affirms the same things 
that Paul does. What does Paul tell us in Galatians 
chapter 2? When he came to Jerusalem, what 
happens? He meets James. Do they have 
this big theological debate? Do they fight with each other? 
Do they argue with each other? Does James say, Paul, you're 
not emphasizing words. Does Paul say to James, you're 
not emphasizing? No, they have harmony. They have 
peace. James and the others offer to Paul and Barnabas the right 
hand of fellowship. They told us only to remember 
the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. There's no disparity 
between James and Paul. That is a Roman Catholic construct 
placed on the document so that they can weasel in this whole 
idea of works plus faith in order to be saved. The language of 
James 2, 14 to the end, does not uphold what they claim it 
does. It is not a contextual and a 
responsible exegesis of the passage. Faith is the instrument. Faith is the means by which we 
lay hold on these blessings. Listen to John Murray. 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, right? 
I mean, if you think you're saved by your works or by a combination 
of faith plus works, what do you need to look at? Your virtue. You need to look at your accomplishment. 
You need to look at your faithfulness. And what typically happens when 
persons imbibe this mentality? They get proud, right? I mean, if just for a moment 
we can say we attain to a little bit higher degree of righteousness 
than that poor slob that just believes in justification by 
faith alone. What happens to these people? They get proud. 
See, one of the designs of the Christian gospel is that we may 
not boast in ourselves, but glory in the cross. That's 1 Corinthians 
chapter 1, right? We don't boast because we did 
good this week. We don't boast because we made 
good decisions. We don't boast because we did... 
We boast in the grace of God. We boast in the cross of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, 
and I to the world. That's where the Christian's 
boast is. It's not in himself. It's not in his virtue. It's 
not in his ability. Murray continues, the specific 
quality of faith is trust and commitment to another. It is 
essentially extra-spective. I love that. Works is introspective. We look at ourselves. Have I 
done enough? Have I been good? Have I gone 
the extra mile? He says faith is essentially 
extra-spective. What's extra-spective? If intro 
is looking in, extras looking out, looking at Christ, it is 
essentially extrospective and in that respect 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's goal two. We've got good guys in our tradition, 
just so you know. In case you ever doubted that, 
we have good guys in our tradition. The essence. It's described here 
using metaphorical language. They receiving and resting on 
Him. Is that a beautiful conception 
of what faith is? Isn't that a great metaphor to 
use in terms of faith? We are receiving and resting 
on Him. and his righteousness by faith, 
and then, lest we've missed it, unless we devolve into Baxterianism, 
which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of 
God. They underscore that reality again. The very fact that we 
have this faith that is the instrument by which we hold on to Christ, 
we can't even boast about that. Well, I had faith. This guy did 
it, but I went forward at the meeting. I went forward. I raised 
my hand. When the preacher said, every eye closed and every head 
bowed, I shot my hand up. I exercised my will. I had my 
faith. No, we can't even boast in that. 
Philippians 129, it's not only been granted to you to believe 
in him, but as well to suffer for his sake. Ephesians 2, 8 
to 10, it's by grace you've been saved through faith. And that 
not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Some say, well, 
the different tenses or the different endings and the different cases 
there indicates that it's not faith that is being highlighted 
there. It's the entire package. It's 
salvation by grace through faith that is not of yourself. It is 
the gift of God. God gives you the entirety of 
the package. And that's what our confession 
underscores in this particular situation. Now notice, as we 
consider the instrument of faith, there is an exclusivity. Notice 
in paragraph two, faith thus receiving and resting on Christ 
and his righteousness is the alone instrument of justification. 
It is the alone instrument of justification. We ask the question, 
how does a man get accepted by God? It's not by Buddha. It's 
not by Islam. It's not by good works. It's 
not by part good works and part Jesus. It is by faith or grace 
alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Sola was a big 
word during the Protestant Reformation. It ought to be a big word today. 
Sola, alone. It's only by God's grace. And 
then notice the accompaniments that faith has. It says, yet 
it is not alone in the person justified. No Protestant ever 
teaches that justification by faith leads to antinomianism. 
You certainly can see how that would be the charge, right? Rome 
would say, if you preach that doctrine, justification by faith, 
then people are going to do whatever they want. Well, who else had 
to deal with that charge? Anyone? Anyone? Paul. What shall we say then? Shall 
we continue in sin that grace may abound? May it never be. 
You see, if we are never charged with promoting antinomianism, 
we're probably not preaching Paul's gospel. We're probably 
not preaching Paul's gospel, because Paul had to deal with 
this, no doubt, in the back of a synagogue when he said, look, 
we're justified by faith alone. There was probably a beeline 
to him. He wasn't there signing books. You know, best wishes, 
Paul. He wasn't there saying, good luck in your rabbinic training, 
Paul. He was back there fighting over the doctrine of justification, 
because they were going to run back there and say, look, if 
you are true in what you say, and justification is by faith 
alone, then it doesn't matter how people live. This is not 
the implication of the gospel. The gospel always tells us that 
we are justified, or that faith alone is the instrument of justification, 
yet it is not alone in the person justified. That saving faith 
that we have, by which we are justified, then leads to the 
process of sanctification. But they're kept in their proper 
categories. We need Christ's work for us, 
and then we will receive Christ's work in us by the Spirit. But 
when we stand before God, our acceptance isn't Christ's work 
in us, it's Christ's work for us. and the passive obedience 
of Jesus imputed to the elect and received by faith alone, 
which answers to our need for forgiveness and a righteousness 
that avails with God, because God delights in obedience. God delights in righteousness. So 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, they are fighting 
against antinomianism. There are people out there, there 
are those who say, if you believe on the Lord Jesus, once you are 
forgiven and you've got the righteousness of Christ imputed to you, it 
doesn't matter what you do at that point. It can't be taken 
away. It won't be stripped from you. Well, that's not the doctrine 
that Paul presents. The Bible says that when we are 
justified freely by his grace, we will then, by his grace, put 
to death the deeds of our bodies. We will seek to be holy. This 
is a great test and a great indicator. Somebody who says, yeah, I have 
faith in Jesus, but they live like the devil, that's not justifying 
faith, is it? Sanctification at least will 
evidence and tell us if, in fact, somebody hasn't deep been justified. So these things need to be properly 
understood. We want to fight against a neonomianism. We want to fight against a legalism. 
We want to fight against an antinomianism. And what this particular chapter 
does is does that very, very well.