The Meaning of Justification by Faith Alone

The phrase "justification by faith alone" is not found in those very words in the Scriptures. It is taken from phrases like those found in Rom. 3:28, "Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." If justification by faith alone is understood as saying what Rom. 3:28, then everyone who believes the Bible is the authoritative and inspired Word of God will agree that in the sense of Rom. 3:28, justification is by faith alone.

The Protestant View

The question is, then, what do we mean by "justification by faith alone"? Johannes Wollebius, in his Compendium of Christian Theology, gives a concise explanation: “The phrase ‘we are justified by faith’ is a metonomy and equivalent to ‘we are justified by Christ’s merits apprehended by faith'” (204). The actual "righteousness" by which we are declared to be righteous is not our own but Christ's. As Jerome Zanchi noted, “A man is justified by that righteousness which consists in the forgiveness of sins and imputation of Christ’s righteousness and not properly by his own works" (Confession of Faith, XIX, 19). Brakel makes the same point in The Christian's Reasonable Service: “[It is] not good works—neither whole nor in part—but only the righteousness of Christ imputed by God to the elect and received by them in faith [that] is the meriting cause of their justification" (1:360). The righteousnes by which we are justified before our God is only the righteousness of Christ. This righteousness is received by faith.

Since this is the case, Protestants have made a sharp distinction (following the Apostle Paul) between justification by works and justification by faith. Justification by works consists in actually doing what the law requires (Rom. 2:13, Rom. 10:4-10, Gal. 3:10-12). If someone did what the law required, without omitting anything, then they would be declared righteous on the basis of what they had done (Gal. 3:10, Jas. 2:10).

There is nothing wrong with justification by works. It would be perfectly right and good for a man to obey God's law and then be declared to be righteous on the basis of it. The problem with justification by works is simply that wedo not have that which is necessary to be justified by works, namely, perfect obedience. As the Apostle Paul says, "For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin," that is, the Scripture declares everyone guilty (Gal. 3:21-22, cf. Rom. 3:19-20). The law is spiritual, but I am carnal. The way of justification by works was only open to Adam before the fall and Christ. The only way open to us is justification by the righteousness of another.

Opposing Views

Today, within our own Reformed ranks, there is an attack on this basic distinction between justification by works and justification by faith. Now, this is rarely done by claiming that in every case, pre- and post-fall, we are justified by works. Instead, they say that Adam before the fall and Christ Himself were justified by faith alone and by the imputation of righteousness by faith. According to these men, there is nothing wrong with saying, Jesus Christ is justified by faith and not by works. As Norman Shepherd writes, “The method of justification for Adam before the fall is exactly what it is for Paul after the fall: ‘The righteous will live by faith’ (Rom. 1:17)" ("Law and Gospel in Covenantal Perspective," 3).

This phrase will seem very strange to many, and it can be very difficult to grasp the implications because of its unusual way of speaking. However, we need to think carefully about this just for the reason that it is so unusual. Consider, if Adam before the fall and Christ Himself could justified by faith alone, then what does justification by faith alone mean? Can it mean, as Wollebius stated, “The phrase ‘we are justified by faith’ is a metonomy and equivalent to ‘we are justified by Christ’s merits apprehended by faith'"? Are these men claiming that Jesus Christ was justified by His own merits which He took hold of by faith? Did Adam before the fall take hold by faith of Christ's righteousness for his justification? Obviously, this is not the case. Both Adam before the fall and Christ after the fall were justified by their own obedience, and not by the righteousness of another.

What, then, do they mean by justification by faith alone? Whatever else they may mean, they do not hold to a justification in which all of our works are excluded. According to these men, when Paul excludes works from our justification, he only excludes a certain type of works. Norman Shepherd says, “by works of the law Paul means obedience to a limited selection of laws found in the Scripture.” “These works of the law were not good works; they were not the obedience of faith wrought by the power of God (emphasis mine)” (Backbone of the Bible, 97 & 99). Similarly, Andrew Sandlin believes that the works of the law that are excluded from our justification "[do not refer] to the revelatory law, but to the Pharisaic and Judaistic misinterpretations of the law by Paul's opponents" (A Faith that is Never Alone, 219-220). In other words, true obedience to God's law is not excluded from our justification before God.

Conclusion

Proponents of this latter view have stated that they believe that they are offering a different paradigm. With this we agree. They claim, however, to be offering a grace/faith paradigm over against a works/merit paradigm. This confuses the issue. The classic Protestant paradigm is better thought of as a law/justice paradigm. We believe that man's basic relation to His Creator is always one of law. Man cannot get out of his relationship to God as His Sovereign and King. Man, having broken God's law, has made himself totally incapable of enjoying a good relationship with this great God and instead a recipient of His wrath. However, God in His grace, satisfies the demands of the law through the work of another, namely, Christ. It is on the basis of Christ's satisfaction to God's justice (and apart from any of our works) that we are able to enter into and enjoy a good relationship with God and be freed from eternal punishment. In this way, God becomes both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:25-26).

The classic Protestant paradigm preserves God's justice, maintains the integrity of God's law, magnifies Christ, and glorifies God's grace. This new paradigm while claiming to be a paradigm of "grace" brings works into our justification, confuses the proper distinction between law and Gospel, flattens out the difference between the pre- and post-fall situation, and calls into question all of the things that the traditional Protestant paradigm preserves. In sum, it brings confusion into the very areas where we need to be as clear as possible. Zacharias Ursinus wrote that “if [this doctrine] is overthrown, the other parts of our faith easily fall to pieces" (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 324-325). Consequently, the greatest diligence and care is needed on this doctrine, not a sloppy confusion of categories.