It is a difficult and perhaps even a dangerous task to take a single doctrine from the body of Christian theology and isolate it. You have to ensure that the doctrine being extracted and examined is not given a life independent of the body from which it is taken. In other words, care must be given that the doctrine being isolated for examination is not considered a part that is greater than the whole. The possible danger of magnifying a single doctrine is the risk of appearing to undervalue any or all of the doctrines not being treated simultaneously. Having provided this warning, scrutinizing the doctrine of justification by faith is a valuable enterprise because it is so often misunderstood.
The Cornerstone of the Gospel
Question thirty-four of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Baptist Revision) asks, "What is justification?" The answer: "Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone." Of all of the issues that fueled the Protestant Reformation, this one was most vigorously debated and was considered by the reformers to be the cornerstone of the gospel. For Roman Catholics, justification was more than a legal or judicial declaration; it consisted in God actually making the sinner righteous through the infusion of righteousness rather than the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. The concern behind Rome's position was that the reformers were overthrowing the doctrine of sanctification, thereby giving license to sin. Roman Catholics could not fathom the idea that a sinner could be accepted by God while still a sinner. This is the exact opposite of Luther's claim of simul iustus et peccator (at the same time just and sinner). Both the Council of Trent and the New Catholic Catechism (1992) state "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man." In contrast, as theologian Louis Berkhof explains in his Manual of Christian Doctrine, justification "is not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion and sanctification, and does not affect the condition but the state of the sinner." John Gill, the eighteenth-century Baptist theologian, explains that justification is not "to be understood of making men righteous, by infusing righteousness into them; for this is to confound justification and sanctification together which are two distinct things…. The word justifyis never used in a physical sense, for producing any real internal change in men; but in a forensic sense, and stands opposed, not to a state of impurity and unholiness, but to a state of condemnation."
Distinction between Justification and Sanctification
For Protestants, justification and sanctification are two distinct doctrines and should be treated as such. Berkhof defines sanctification as "that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit by which he purifies the sinner from the pollution of sin, renews his holy nature in the image of God, and enables him to perform good works." It is not that Protestants overthrow or undervalue the doctrine of sanctification. To the contrary, we believe that the Bible presents justification and sanctification as distinct, and, therefore, they should be treated and defined separately.
The distinction between justification and sanctification is crucial both to a proper understanding of the Reformation's genius and more importantly for what it explains about the gracious character of salvation. For one thing, this distinction is what the Bible teaches. The fourth chapter of Romans is a thorough and clear articulation of the doctrine of justification. By this point in the epistle, the Apostle Paul has already established the need for the atonement: "There is none righteous;" "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." He has also illuminated the dynamics of the atonement: "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by his blood, through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness." This leads to the powerful statement of Romans 3:26: "That he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Having explained the dynamics of justification, Paul uses chapter 4 to illustrate this doctrine. Here it is worth noting that sanctification (or good works on the part of the person that is justified) is summarily dismissed as the ground for justification. In fact, a careless reading of this chapter could give the impression that Paul is not concerned about good works, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Apostle's aim is to address the specific question of how a person gains a right standing before God. Sanctification is about our being conformed to Christ inwardly, but justification is about something different though related; it is about God's declaration of righteousness based on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
In Romans 4:2, Paul says that if Abraham were justified by works, he would have a reason to boast, and then in verse 4 that "to him who works the wages are not counted as grace but as debt" (this will be elaborated on below). The crux of Paul's argument is really in verse 5 where he states, "but to him who does not work but believes on him who justifies the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousness." Again, Paul unequivocally divorces human works from the discussion of justification. So, this is not a distortion by Protestantism or the Reformed tradition. This is a biblical doctrine and it is important that we likewise distinguish justification and sanctification as Scripture does. Failure to do so confuses these doctrines and Scripture itself.
Saving Faith as Gift of God
Notice what happens if justification is not distinguished from sanctification. Saving faith becomes a work because such faith would then include works or sentiments that somehow merit God's favor. This was true of the Roman Catholic system of penance and is equally true of many evangelical appeals and altar calls. In both cases, sinners are called upon in essence to show sufficient cause for God to justify them. The reformers understood saving faith to be a gift of God which, as Paul indicates in Ephesians 2:8, is passively received. Saving faith has been called the instrumental cause of justification, meaning that it is the instrument by which we receive or appropriate God's saving grace as set forth in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Many evangelicals, however, describe faith as a power that accomplishes something rather than receiving something.
An example of this erroneous view of faith is a Sunday school lesson that I read a number of years ago. The lesson was on Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus in John 3. Among other things, it taught that by exercising faith one becomes born again or regenerate. If that is indeed the case such faith would be a work that accomplishes regeneration, which then would not be a gift of God's grace but, in the language of Romans 4, it would be a wage counted not as grace but a debt. The same can be said of appeals made to unbelievers to make a commitment to Christ. A report on "Evangelism and Church Growth" by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 1987, has some important statements on this point: "A witness should not press for a commitment from someone who is not a Christian. It is important, therefore, that the witness have a correct understanding of the nature of faith…. Saving faith is essentially the reliance of the heart on the promises of grace set forth in the gospel. It is the hand of the alarmed sinner appropriating to oneself the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross." After making the point that faith cannot be defined as a commitment to obey and serve the Lord, the report goes on to say, "While Lutherans believe that the commitment to dedicate one's life to the Savior will certainly follow faith, commitment is not a part of the essence of faith itself. It is instead a result or fruit of faith which belongs in the sphere of sanctification rather than justification." That is precisely the point. By defining faith as a human work rather than a divine gift, or by combining it with requisite affections as with the "anxious bench" from the nineteenth-century revivals of Charles Finney, we confuse the doctrines of justification and sanctification. This confusion leaves the sinner with the impression that God's grace is free once they have done their part which, as Romans 4 also points out, is not grace at all.
Confusing these two important doctrines also has important ramifications for the Christian life. It is almost inevitable that those who believe justification to consist in deeds or affections which somehow unleash God's grace, will also have misconceptions about the dynamics of sanctification. In other words, if human works figure in the equation for justification, then the value of human works in sanctification will also be distorted. Contrary to what many evangelicals may teach or think, sanctification is not the basis upon which we are sustained in our salvation. If that were the case then each time we sin we would be brought back to a state of condemnation. With such a mindset, it would be difficult to maintain true assurance of one's salvation. There would be no way of determining whether or not one has done enough or has confessed every sin. Sanctification without a clear and proper understanding of justification produces a life of spiritual misery and uncertainty or one of great self-deception, rife with notions of Christian perfectionism. Only with a proper understanding of justification can sinners recognize they are no longer condemned by God because (1) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them, and (2) in his death on the cross, Christ has borne the divine wrath that was due the sinner. With this understanding the good works of the justified person (which necessarily follow) are seen in the proper light, namely, as the genuine and grateful affections of a regenerated heart.
Justification and sanctification are to be distinguished but not separated. They are to be distinguished so that faith is not overthrown by works thereby nullifying grace. However, they are not to be separated so that saving faith is not confused with a barren and presumptuous faith. As the reformers claimed, "We are saved by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone."
Properly distinguishing these two critical doctrines puts grace, faith, and works in their proper places, with the person and work of Christ at the center of them all. "But of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that as it is written 'He who glories, let him glory in the Lord'" 1 Corinthians 1:30-31.
