reformed blogging.

The reformation doctrine of “miserable sinners” is a doctrine of penitent sinners. It has no application to the indifferent or the secure. It offers itself only to those who, broken-hearted in repentance, look to Jesus alone as their compassionate Savior, and tells them that for them too Jesus alone is enough. It does not tell them that they are not sinners; that would not be true, and they know it is not true; no one know himself a sinner like a penitent sinner. It tells them that they are saved sinners–and that is the most glorious thing it could tell them.
- Benajamin B. Warfield, Perfectionism: Volume I (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), 227.

 

Anyone who does not have a solid grasp of the distinction between justification and sanctification must read this! As Warfield says, it is the very essence of Protestantism, and if we fail to properly understand this we may as well go back to Rome:

We are not dealing here, however, with merely an apex logicus. We are dealing with the very essence of Protestantism. The progressive character of salvation lies at the very heart of Protestantism’s heart, because (among other things) the Protestant doctrine of justification and its effects takes to a considerable extent its form from it. A large part of the religious value of the Protestant doctrine of justification, in its distinction from sanctification, is lost, if sanctification be not a process, the completion of which occupies the whole of life; if, that is, the injunction, “Work out your own salvation,” does not apply to the whole of the Christian’s walk on earth, but ought to be addressed to men only at some particular stage of their Christian experience-say, only at its beginning. For a large part of the religious value of this distinction turns on this-that the Christian’s hope of salvation (his assurance) does not depend on the stage of sanctification to which he has already attained. Sanctification being a process, and a process which reaches its completion only when this life is over, the discovery of sin remaining in him at any point of his earthly life is no proof that the Christian may not nevertheless be in Christ. In proportion as it is made the Christian’s duty not so much to work out his salvation continuously but to enjoy it at once in its completeness, the believer, conscious of sin, loses his confidence that he is a believer at all. If this attainment of complete salvation is made coincident with justification, all sense of continued sinfulness is a clear disproof of present salvation. The matter is only mitigated, not changed, by separating the attainment of complete sanctification in time from justification. Salvation involving taking this second step, the continued sense of sinfulness becomes evidence of failure of such portentousness as to shatter our peace and assurance. If it belongs to the Christian to be without sin, and to be without sense of sin-in this sense of the statement-then the fact of experience that we are not without sin and not without the sense of sin is pretty clear proof that we are not Christians. It is not a matter of little importance, then, that we should settle it with ourselves whether the characteristic of the Christian walk in the world is constant advance towards sinlessness, or complete present enjoyment of sinlessness. If the latter, then, gloss it as we will, no one is entitled to think of himself as a Christian, no one is justified in regarding himself as saved, unless he is in the possession of complete sinlessness. In that case the whole religious gain of the Reformation doctrine of justification in distinction from sanctification is lost, and we are thrown back again into the despairing task of determining our religious state and our future hope on the ground of our own merits. [bold emphasis added]
- Benajamin B. Warfield, Perfectionism: Volume I (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), 88-90. 

Following the exposition of the decalogue, the Heidelberg Cathechism asks the question that perhaps many (if not all) Christians ask when they realize that though sin’s power has been defeated by Christ, struggling with it (and often failing) remains a reality. The logic in our mind goes something like this: Christ defeated sin so that sin no longer has mastery therefore I should no longer sin. Such reasoning is sound, and true, but fails to take into consideration the aspect of the “already” and the “not yet” of Christian eschatology. The kingdom of heaven has arrived and yet is still coming, we have died and been raised with Christ, but have yet to die and be raised. In a similar way, sin has been defeated but we continue to fight with it. 

Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?

Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; (a) yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God. (b)

(a) 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:9; 1 John 1:10; Rom.7:14;  Rom.7:15;  Eccl.7:20;  1 Cor.13:9; (b) Rom.7:22; Ps.1:2; James 2:10.

The writers of the HC understood that whether Christian or not, anyone under the Law of God is absolutely unable to keep it. Our best works are as filthy rags before a holy God. Only those ignorant of the law’s demands would ever think that they could keep it perfectly. 

Naturally, when we are told that we are unable to do something we wonder why it was ever commanded in the first place. This is the Arminian’s argument, namely, that God would not command what we cannot keep. And it is a valid point. It is not just for God to expect man to do what he is or was not able to do. Yet, those who believe that Adam was a federal head, know that man was originally created with the ability to obey. The HC addresses this very issue in question 9:

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

Answer: Not at all; (a) for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, (b) and his own wilful disobedience, (c) deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

(a) Eph.4:24; Eccl.7:29; (b) John 8:44; 2 Cor.11:3; Gen.3:4; (c) Gen.3:6; Rom.5:1; Gen.3:13; 1 Tim.2:13; 1 Tim.2:14.

It’s settled then, those under the law cannot keep the law. God is just in his requirements and all men are under condemnation. For many Christians, though, this is insufficient. There are those who would maintain that since Christians are no longer under the law, it’s power being destroyed, they are now able to keep it. Christ was crucified so that “we might no longer be in bondage to sin,” God predestined and saved us for good works, didn’t he? These things are truly and really accomplished, and yet until we die we will struggle with sin. Until we are glorified we walk by faith, not by sight. The HC is clear that none, not even the converted, are able to keep the law perfectly and while it is tempting to assume an overrealized eschatology, we must trust that Christ’s work, apart from our own, in both justification as well as sanctification, is sufficient. Yes, we begin to live to all the commandments of God, but this is a “small beginning” according to the HC, and by no means a perfect keeping of the law.

Getting to the point, why are Christians commanded to keep the law? This question is especially pertinent because, for one, we acknowledge are inability to keep it and second, we are justified by faith in Christ. Question 115 addresses this issue:

Question 115. Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?

Answer: First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know (a) our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ; (b) likewise, that we constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come. (c)

(a) Rom.3:20; 1 John 1:9; Ps.32:5; (b) Matt.5:6; Rom.7:24; Rom.7:25; (c) 1 Cor.9:24; Philip.3:11; Philip.3:12; Philip.3:13; Philip.3:14.

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
 

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, (a) am not my own, (b) but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; (c) who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, (d) and delivered me from all the power of the devil; (e) and so preserves me (f) that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; (g) yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, (h) and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, (i) and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him. (j)   

(a) Rom.14:7; Rom.14:8; (b) 1 Cor.6:19; (c) 1 Cor.3:23; Tit.2:14; (d) 1 Pet.1:18; 1 Pet.1:19; 1 John 1:7; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 2:12; (e) Heb.2:14; 1 John 3:8; John 8:34; John 8:35; John 8:36; (f) John 6:39; John 10:28; 2 Thess.3:3; 1 Pet.1:5; (g) Matt.10:29; Matt.10:30; Matt.10:31; Luke 21:18; (i) 2 Cor.1:20; 2 Cor.1:21; 2 Cor.1:22; 2 Cor.5:5; Eph.1:13; Eph.1:14; Rom.8:16; (j) Rom.8:14; 1 John 3:3.

The doctrine of sola fide has been long under fire. During the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church hurled assaults at the Reformers for their “antinomian” doctrine of justification by faith alone and to this day she stands by the anathemas pronounced at Trent against the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believing sinner. Unfortunately, enemies of the beloved doctrine have formed within the walls of protestantism bringing the battle much closer to home.

Arguments are made that a faith that is “never alone,” as the Reformers put it, means that we are, at least in a certain sense, justified by our works. Thus, it is wrong to preach a salvation by mere faith. Others would redefine justifying faith as “faithful obedience” making our righteousness a thing attained not by works (as the pelagians would have it) but by good works which cooperate with grace and so justify. Such people dare to call their doctrine a gospel of grace (while Paul argues that such a “grace” is no longer grace). Ironically, though these men claim to be finishing what Luther and Calvin started they inevitably end up back in Rome; here they argue against any gospel that would comfort men in their state of sinfulness, any gospel that would assure men that they are, by faith, righteous and yet, simultaneously, sinner.

Such arguments against sola fide are nothing new. In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism Zacharius Ursinus deals with similar objections:

Obj. 4 Faith does not justify without that which is required in those who are justified. Good works are required in those who are justified. Therefore, faith is not without good works, and so does not justify alone. 
Ans. There is here the same fallacy to which reference has just been made, on account of the doubtful construction of the particle without. Faith does not, indeed, justify without those things which are required in those who are justified. But although it never exists alone, and is always joined by love, by which it works, yet it alone justifies–is the act of embracing and applying to itself the merits of Christ. The minor also must be more fully explained; for faith and good works are not required in the same sense in those who are justified. Faith, with its own peculiar act, (without which it cannot be considered) is required as the necessary instrument, by which we apply to ourselves the merits of Christ. Good works, on the other hand, are not required that by them we may apprehend the merits of Christ, much less that we may be justified on account of them; but that we may thereby prove our faith, which without good works is dead, and can only be known by their presence. Good works are required as the fruits of our faith, and as the evidences of our gratitude to God. That is not always necessary for the accomplishment of a certain result, which is necessarily connected with the cause of the same thing. So good works, although they are necessarily connected with faith, are nevertheless not necessary for the apprehension of the merits of Christ.

Obj. 5 Where there are a number of things required, there we cannot use any exclusive particles. But good works are required in addition to faith in them that are justified. Therefore, we cannot say by faith only.
Ans. The same answer may be returned to this objection which we have given to the one just noticed. Many things are required, but not in the same sense. Faith is necessary as the means by which we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, whilst good works are necessary as the evidences of our faith and gratitude.  
- Zacharius Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Cathechism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed), 337. 

The true biblical doctrine of justification by faith has to be formulated with great precision and care to teach both the glorious free justification that we have in Christ and its fruit in holiness. True doctrine is like walking a tight rope. One can fall off the tight rope of justification in two directions: the antinomian direction and the neonomian direction. Both the antinomian and the neonomian miss the biblical doctrine of justification.
… Paul declared that Christians should enjoy a sense of peace with God through faith in Christ. Any claim to teach or preach the gospel that does not lead to such peace is no gospel at all. So Luther was right in understanding Paul: “A man is justified, not by the works of the law, but by faith alone.” 
- W. Robert Godfrey, “Faith Formed by Love or Faith Alone?,” in Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry (ed. R. Scott Clark, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company), 280-84. 

Rome, too, affirmed the need for forgiveness and grace, with its own provisions for sin through sacrifices and penance. Furthermore, the Reformers never argued that Paul’s opponents had no place for grace, forgiveness, and sacrifice. Rather, they were convinced that, like the medieval church, the Jewish believers in Galatia had confused law and gospel, grace and works, promise and conditionality, Abraham and Sinai. Justification is either by works or by grace, but it cannot be both.
…Monocovenantalism old and new attempts to combine merit and grace, and the result is that both concepts are weakened… both the justice of God in upholding his righteous law and his mercy in satisfying its conditions himself are eclipsed–or, better, both his justice and his mercy are relativized by each other instead of being held together simultaneously in their integrity. The end product is a relaxed law and a demanding gospel.
- Michael S. Horton, “Which Covenant Theology,” in Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry (ed. R. Scott Clark, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company), 199-201.

In Christ in His Sufferings, the first part of the Schilder Trilogy, Klass Schilder presents this antithesis as he compares Matthew 26:14-15 and Zechariah 11:12-13, the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding Christ’s being sold for thirty pieces of silver.

Self-Redemption:

1. Man can save himself.
2. Redemption is a limited thing.
3. Man does God’s work.

Free Grace:

1. Redemption is eternally beyond our own capacity. God must justify and sanctify us anew each day. We cannot live without the Shepherd of our soul one moment.
2. Redemption transcends the possibility of compensation. We cannot by drawing on the resources of the whole world amass money enough to pay God. His gifts are inestimable worth. And the gift cannot be separated from the Giver, who is infinite.
3. We can never put ourselves in God’s position. We want to remain the sheep of His care, following, believing, and listening to the Shepherd’s voice.

In light of Christ’s being sold for the price of a slave, Schilder comments:

The roof did not crash down upon these merchandisers. That it did not is not due to any “semen religionis” still hidden in some corner of the arid souls of these traitors to God, to prophecy, and to Christ. That is because of the will of God which selects these dark ways to the redemption of His people. God deliberately lets the thirty pieces of silver roll through the ages over the market place of the world. He does that in order that men may choose between free grace and self-redemption.
That choice is still the liveliest option of men. The conflict between those two contenders is uncompromising. The way of a legalistic, “good works” salvation leaves that of the preaching of free grace: the way of the Judaistic, pharisaic “earning” of salvation is incompatible with the New Testament Pauline Gospel of redemption by faith. On this question Rome and the Reformation part company too. For Catholicism, though but in part, would buy salvation, and, though not intentionally so, would by its system of absolution again put thirty pieces of silver upon the table. Luther and Calvin, in bidding farewell to the Roman Tetzel, must protest: by faith alone; by faith, not by works, lest any should glory.
Klass Schilder, Christ in His Sufferings, 78.

Objection. But it may be said, “Surely this course of procedure can never be acceptable to Jesus Christ. What! shall we daily come to him with our filth, our guilt our sins? May he not, will he not, bid us keep them to ourselves? they are our own. Shall we be always giving sins, and taking righteousness!”
Answer. There is not any thing that Jesus Christ is more delighted with, than that his saints should always hold communion with him as to this business of giving and receiving. For,–
This exceeding honours him, and gives him the glory that is his due. Many, indeed, cry, “Lord, Lord,” and make mention of him, but honour him not at all. How so? They take his work out of his hands, and ascribe it unto other things; their repentance, their duties, shall bear their iniquities. They do not say so; but they do so… Herein, then, I say, is Christ honoured indeed, when we go to him with our sins by faith, and say unto him, “Lord, this is thy work; this is that for which thou camest into the world; this is that thou hast undertaken to do. Thou callest for my burden, which is too heavy for me to bear; take it, blessed Redeemer Thou tenderest thy righteousness; that is my portion.” Then is Christ honoured, then is the glory of mediation ascribed to him, when we walk with him in this communion.
- John Owen, Works, Vol. 2: Communion With God, 195.

Never was sin seen to be more abominably sinful and full of provocation, than when the burden of it was upon the shoulders of the Son of God. God having made his Son, the Son of his love, his only begotten, full of grace and truth, sin for us, to manifest his indignation against it, and how utterly impossible it is that he should let the least sin go unpunished, he lays hand on him, and spares him not… is it not most clear from hence, even from the blood of the cross of Christ, that such is the demerit of sin, that it is altogether impossible that God should pass by any, the least unpunished? If he would have done it for any, he would have done it in reference to his only son; but he spared him not.
- John Owen, Works, Vol. 2: Communion With God, 96.