# Jonathan Edwards on the Conditions of Justification



## Dan....

> from: http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Doctrine/Five Discourses/Justification.htm
> 
> Here, if I may humbly express what seems evident to me, though faith be indeed the condition of justification so as nothing else is, yet this matter is not clearly and sufficiently explained by saying that faith is the condition of justification, and that because the word seems ambiguous, both in common use, and also as used in divinity. In one sense, Christ alone performs the condition of our justification and salvation. In another sense, faith is the condition of justification, and *in another sense, other qualifications and acts are conditions of salvation and justification too. *There seems to be a great deal of ambiguity in such expressions as are commonly used (which yet we are forced to use), such as condition of salvation, what is required in order to salvation or justification, the terms of the covenant, and the like, and I believe they are understood in very different senses by different persons. And besides, as the word condition is very often understood in the common use of language, faith is not the only thing in us that is the condition of justification. For by the word condition, as it is very often (and perhaps most commonly) used, we mean anything that may have the place of a condition in a conditional proposition, and as such is truly connected with the consequent, especially if the proposition holds both in the affirmative and negative, as the condition is either affirmed or denied. If it be that with which, or which being supposed, a thing shall be, and without which, or it being denied, a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition of that thing. But in this sense faith is not the only condition of salvation and justification. For *there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, with which justification shall be, and without which, it will not be, and therefore are found to be put in Scripture in conditional propositions with justification and salvation, in multitudes of places. Such are love to God, and love to our brethren, forgiving men their trespasses, and many other good qualifications and acts.* And there are many other things besides faith, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or performed by us, in order to eternal life, which if they are done, or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and if not done, or not obtained, we shall surely perish. And if faith was the only condition of justification in this sense, I do not apprehend that to say faith was the condition of justification, would express the sense of that phrase of Scripture, of being justified by faith. There is a difference between being justified by a thing, and that thing universally, necessarily, and inseparably attending justification: for so do a great many things that we are not said to be justified by. It is not the inseparable connection with justification that the Holy Ghost would signify (or that is naturally signified) by such a phrase, but some particular influence that faith has in the affair, or some certain dependence that effect has on its influence.
> 
> Jonathan Edwards.



What am I missing? How does this mesh with _sola fide_ ?How is it that when Rome says that there are more prerequisites on the part of the sinner unto justification it is anathema, but when Jonathan Edwards says it he is viewed as one of the greatest theologians of history?

I must be missing something....

Help.

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## py3ak

Did you read the whole article?


----------



## turmeric

I didn't read the whole article but I'm guessing those other conditions occur as a result of faith, not as prerequisites.


----------



## Dan....

Yes I have, and I have more quotes for you:



> But the determining what concerns acts of Christian obedience can have in justification in this respect, will depend on the resolving of another point, viz. whether any other act of faith besides the first act, has any concern in our justification, or how far perseverance in faith, or the continued and renewed acts of faith, have influence in this affair. And it seems manifest that justification is by the first act of faith, in some respects, in a peculiar manner, because a sinner is actually and finally justified as soon as he has performed one act of faith, and faith in its first act does, virtually at least, depend on God for perseverance, and entities to this among other benefits. *But yet the perseverance of faith is not excluded in this affair. It is not only certainly connected with justification, but it is not to be excluded from that on which the justification of a sinner has a dependence, or that by which he is justified. *



It sounds to me that Edwards is here saying that our being justified is dependent upon our perseverance. We are not only justified by initial faith, but continuance in faith is also necessary and included in that by which we are justified.



> God in the act of justification, which is passed on a sinner´s first believing, has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith, and it is looked upon, and taken by him that justifies, as being as it were a property in that faith. *God has respect to the believer´s continuance in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow, and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith*, as much as if it were a property in it, it is then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended. But were it not for this, it would be needful that it should be suspended, till the sinner had actually persevered in faith.



So he is saying that though our justification may be past tense, that God justifies with respect to the continuance of faith. This implies that ones justification which is past is dependent on ones perseverance. Hence I must still be working towards that past justification.

He continues:



> And that it is so, that God in the act of final justification which he passes at the sinner´s conversion, has respect to perseverance in faith, and future acts of faith, as being virtually implied in the first act...





> But inasmuch as a sinner, in his first justification, is forever justified and freed from all obligation to eternal punishment, it hence of necessity follows, that future faith and repentance are beheld, in that justification, as virtually contained in that first faith and repentance.



In other words, I am still repenting that I may be justified although that justification may be past.



> And besides, if no other act of faith could be concerned in justification but the first act, it will then follow that Christians ought never to seek justification by any other act of faith. For if justification is not to be obtained by after acts of faith, then surely it is not a duty to seek it by such acts.



Get that? We are still to be seeking justification even though we have already been justified.



> And thus it is that a truly Christian walk, and the acts of an evangelical, child-like, believing obedience, are concerned in the affair of our justification



The Christian walk and obdience is now considered necessary unto justification.




> So that, as was before said of faith, so may it be said of a child-like believing obedience: it has no concern in justification by any virtue or excellency in it, but only as there is a reception of Christ in it.



Again, our obedience as being concerned with our justification.



> 3. It has been just now shown, how that *acts of evangelical obedience are indeed concerned in our justification itself, and are not excluded from that condition that justification depends upon*, without the least prejudice to that doctrine of justification by faith, without any goodness of our own, that has been maintained.



Our justification is dependent upon acts of obedience?



Is this Reformed Theology? Have I totally missed the boat?

I might not be too bright, and I'm sure that in comparison to Edwards I'm as dumb as a box of rocks, but I cannot read this article and come away thinking that Edwards is teaching anything other than that good works and persevering faith (although they be after the declaration of justification) are prerequisite to the declaration of justification.

I admit, for the most of the article I was impressed with the defense he gives of justification by faith alone. But then at places in the article it seems he is taking away what he is giving.

I must be missing something. Am I totally out of step with Reformed Theology?

It has been my understanding that justification is through the instrument of faith alone and that good works and perseverance necessarily follow as a result of our union with Christ. It seems that Edwards is making a condition out of what I have always thought of as a result.

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Is this Reformed Theology? Have I totally missed the boat?



Edwards is pure reformed theology, at least so far as his sermon on justification goes. I regret to say that much of what passes for reformed theology today is Antinomian.

It is helpful to remember when reading older writers that the word "condition" can be used in many senses. Usually reformed writers will speak of conditions of the covenant, justification, etc, in the sense of a "sine qua non," that is, something without which justification cannot be accomplished.

Sola fide pertains solely to the "instrumental means" by which justification is apprehended. However while "faith" is the "only" means of appropriating justification, the faith which justifies is itself never alone, but is always accompanied by other saving graces and produces good works. See the Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 11, sect. 2.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Yes, it is true that the faith that justifies is never alone but the legalist is afraid to leave justification at the naked free grace which receives Christ nakedly and utterly alone, with no eye toward the fruits that arise from this same grace quite naturally, thus they are called fruits of the Spirit and not fruits of the striving flesh. The legalistic tendency is always the greater danger is proven in many ways. 

First, the legalistic tendency shows itself forth in that when one asks, "Are we justified by faith alone?", the answer comes, "Yes, BUT (there's always the "but" proving one doesn't believe the Gospel to REALLY be the power and Christ the fruit of the fruits thereof), it's not one that is alone". This in and of itself would be fine BUT if you asked the question in reverse, "Does saving faith have its proper fruits?" You would get just a plain "yes". RARELY would you get, "Yes, BUT we are justified by faith alone", like you would when the question is asked of "faith alone". Thus, legal tendency shows itself in our language.

Second, the legal tendency shows itself forth in that the alarm historically is ALWAYS on the side of the Pharisees cry, "too much grace causes antinomianism", which is utter absurdity and frankly rank stupidity, as IF the Gospel causes sin, blaspheme of the highest caliber. The warning sides against antinomianism, yet history proves legalism to be the greater continually ignored danger.

Third, the legal tendency is natural to fallen man. It is the basis of fallen man's religion and self justification and self righteousness both of false saints and rank immoral sinners. In fact it is complete inanity to speak of "self righteousness" apart from this legalism in the nature of fallen man and the old Adam.

Fourth, the legal tendency defines ALL other religions that are of fallen man. As it has been said, "there are only two religions in the world, one of "do" and one of "done".

Fifth, one could slip legalism into ANY church practically unnoticed so intrinsic is it to our fallen nature.

Sixth, the law is natural to ALL mankind either in the formal tables or written upon the conscience. Even rank sinners "œjustify themselves".

Seventh, the Gospel or free grace is utterly alien and entirely impossible for man to generate, sustain or believe naturally (even the Christian), it must come from the outside hence the term Good NEWS.

Eighth, the church holds in common with both other religions and the general fallen world the form of the Law. This does not differentiate anything.

Ninth, the Gospel or the full reformed formula is justification BY grace alone THROUGH faith alone IN Christ alone is the standing and falling of the true church of God's people. The "alones" and prepositions are calculated. Without this there is no visible evidence of a church in spite of a building or gathering, nor is Christ present nor is the Holy Spirit present.

Tenth, if the bulk diet or emphasis of a church worship and sermon is imperatives, one should make no mistake about it, one is in a pagan worship with "christian" terminology.

Eleventh, the legalist reveals himself in that he still thinks the Law has power to do what it demands, contra Paul, and actually is in unbelief that the Gospel is the ONLY power, also contra Paul.

Twelveth, the legalist pretends to love the holy Law but really hates it because he doesn't remain in Christ and the Gospel where the holy Law is completely fulfilled. He leaves Christ to complete it in the flesh.

Thirteenth, the legalist thinks the Gospel is to serve the Law rather than the Law serving the Gospel.

Fourteenth, the legalist distinguishes good works proving he hates instead of loves, the heart of the holy Law.

Fifteenth, the legalist ALWAYS, lower others and raises himself as if he "does the law".

Sixteenth, Christ is viewed as a "œnew lawgiver" by the legalist rather the bearer of grace.

Seventeenth, the legalist, like the devil, is quite crafty in overthrowing justification with sanctification, rather than knowing the Gospel drives and sustains both.

Eighteenth, the legalist is afraid of Christ´s words, "œit is finished" and must redefine them as something other than what they are.

Nineteenth, the legalist will drive you spiritually inward rather than outward unto Christ. Making one so sinfully self absorbed in anxiety that you will never truly serve your neighbor.

Twentieth, the legalist is FULL of church yard piety duties and despises the free service that grace frees a man to do.

Twenty-first, this saying is utterly incomprehensible to the legalist, "œGod may suffer a man to do no good works that a man may at last learn to trust in Christ alone".

Twenty-second, the increasing legalistic congregation will increasingly be isolated unto itself.

Twenty-third, the legalist would rather cut out his own tongue than eat with sinners or have his "œwitness" damaged by such associations.

Twenty-fourth, the legalist doesn´t really see himself as a sinner and forgets Christ dwells in sinners alone that trust in Christ alone.

Twenty-fifth, the legalist doesn´t realize that it is the Law which is otherwise salutary and good, is the very thing that keeps him from God and free grace, rather his sin nature attempting the Law.

And we could go on and on.

Ldh


----------



## turmeric

Yes, Larry, but what about Jonathan Edwards? Was he a legalist or are we misunderstanding him? Great post, BTW!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Serious questions have been raised by scholars in recent years about Edwards' doctrine of justification.

At best, Edwards was at times confusing about justification. At worst he was contradictory and unconfessional re the same.

Its not antinomian to wonder if Edwards was wrong. It's a long discussion, but see Marsden's recent biography (e.g., pp. 72ff) who shows that Edwards (and following Fiering and other recent scholarship) was deeply influenced by Cambridge Platonism and idealism. These rationalizing influences show up in his doctrine of justification and in his view of religious affection. He was very much an 18th century thinker and theologian. His theology was not pristine as judged by 16th or 17th century standards as summarized by our confessional documents.

There is nothing wrong about talking about _consequent_ stipulations that flow from justification sola gratia, sola fide. Those conditions, however, are a logical consequence and they amount to a requirment that the justified believer demonstrate evidence of true faith. They can never be confused or conflated with the instrument of justification is is faith that is receiving Christ and resting on his whole obedience for us.

Our confessions are unambiguous about this.

rsc




> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Yes, Larry, but what about Jonathan Edwards? Was he a legalist or are we misunderstanding him? Great post, BTW!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Larry Hughes

Edwards was reformed but one has to have two major cautions when approaching American Puritans.

1. Today, most neo-reformed folks have a tendancy to extract the legal character of the Puritans writings.

2. The Puritans unlike the continental Reformers were much much more subjective concerning assurance. As to where Calvin and the others CLEARLY put it in the objective work of Christ. On this point if you call the continental reformers the baseline for the term, then no the puritans where not so reformed.

But you do have to careful in reading Edwards because he was an excessive analyzer.

For example when he says "perserverance in the faith" that can sound legal. The old man in us gets in the way and says that sounds like something I need to do and it panics us. But all its really saying is that one that IS already IN the faith will constantly and increasingly see his/her need of Christ, that is Gospel. It's not saying, "you must do this thing, perservere, in order to be justified and if you don't you will not be - that is a command/works/imperative construction. Rather it is saying, "the Christian sees his/her sinfulness and thus fearing himself, thus seeing his inability, even to preserve himself, WILL nakedly trust in Christ alone continually. In other words you have to be careful and not turn "faith" into a work needing to be done, faith is always receptive of the gift and that's the persevering, the always receiving, the being the beggar continually if you will.

Another example is the term "obedience". There are two ways to understand that. A legal way and a gospel way. Obedience can mean IF I obey X, THEN I receive Y, legal, living under the Law. OR obedience can simply mean that I TRUST in Christ alone, the trusting, the receiving of the gift is a non-meritorious "obedience". E.g., the doctor says take this medicine and you will be well. The act of obeying merits me nothing, but the receiving of the gift of medicine does. The command is not in view here, giving is. If I GIVE you something and you receive it, that is a gospel view of obedience. The gift is NOT dependant upon your working to obey, but the gift GIVES you the life to RECEIVE it.

Hopefully that helps some,

Ldh

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## MW

I am far from supporting legalists, in the biblical sense of the term. However, it is a fact of history that wherever an awakening to the grace of God has occurred there has also been an ungodly element which deprecated the proper place of "graces" and "fruits," and which led godly men to stress these things as NECESSARY, according to the faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.

Mr. Hughes, I am afraid that your post, though containing some good points, is too reactionary, and is not concerned with presenting the whole counsel of God in biblical balance. Your first point sets out on the wrong path. The BUT which you regard as legalistic is biblical; see James 2, unless this is only to be regarded as a strawy epistle and not of divine inspiration.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Rev. Matt,

With all due respect, the fact that men abuse a thing does not in any way justify changing the message, massaging it or altering its force. A man can kill with a scapel but that would NOT justify removing its use from a surgeon's hand. Infinitely more with the message of Christ. Secondly, James ultimately speaks of free grace, he does not say "vivify" dead faith with works. Thirdly, you cannot use James to over throw Paul as if he opposes Paul or vice versa. And fourth, a disturbing truth I've discoverd when on mission trips to Salt Lake was this, Mormons will pull James 2 out on you like a gun when witnessing to them, legalist tend to do the same. It's not that James is the problem, rather the disturbing and twisted emphasis many think they derive from him.

You've missed the point of the "But", its not that fruits are not biblical, it's the emphasis many lay on it as if the fruit produces the vine or itself rather than the Vine producing the fruits. The Gospel ALONE is still the Power and James makes that very clear in chapter 4. You will never produce true fruits from the hammering of the Law nakedly, one never, if fruit is to be real, leaves Christ alone. Even James throws the Law at them after he says "this faith" which is another way of saying false faith, cannot save. It is notable that the Pharisees had a faith that was legally derived but could that faith save them?

Larry

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## MW

You may call me Matthew, Winzer, Matthew Winzer, Winzer Matthew, add any combination of titles, Rev., Pastor, Mr., but pleeease do not call me Matt. Oh, and don't call me late for breakfast. 

Mr. Hughes, with due respect to you, are you not the one who is arguing that an abuse has taken place? That is the whole thrust of your anti-legalist post.

Secondly, you took issue with people saying, we are justified by faith alone, BUT..., calling that BUT legalistic. James, however, says, "BUT wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (2:20.)

Thirdly, the correct interpretation of Paul does not require us to pit James against him. Neither was I doing so. The faithful saying which I mentioned in the first paragraph is Paul's.


----------



## Dan....

I spent much of the evening reviewing Hodge, Berkhof, and Murray on Justification; then I checked with all the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms that I have on hand and found nothing about "perseverance," "Christian walk" or "evangelical obedience" as "conditions" unto justification.

Pastor Winzer,

I have no problem at all with WCF XI:2, or anything that it or the Catechisms say about justification. Especially note WLC 73 where it speaks of good works as the "fruits" ['result, product or consequence'] of justification, and not as a condition for justification. It appears, however, that Edwards goes a bit beyond the Confession concerning the doctrine of justification.

Dr Clark,

Thank you for the info on Edwards. I'm sure the elders of my church would thank you also, as now I won't have to hit them with this topic unawares this Sunday afternoon. -By the way, good job on the article in _The Confessional Presbyterian_.

Larry Hughes, 
Thanks for the 25 points about legalism. Definitely some things to think about concerning our natural tendencies toward self justification.


[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Pastor Winzer,
> 
> I have no problem at all with WCF XI:2, or anything that it or the Catechisms say about justification. Especially note WLC 73 where it speaks of good works as the "fruits" ['result, product or consequence'] of justification, and not as a condition for justification. It appears, however, that Edwards goes a bit beyond the Confession concerning the doctrine of justification.



If there is no problem with WCF 11:2, then there can be no problem with the idea, ably espoused by Edwards, that other saving graces are necessary to a justified state, i.e., without them, there can be no justification.

And if Hodge has been properly digested, his antidote against Antinomianism should have entered the blood stream, namely, "that such is the nature of the union with Christ by faith and indwelling of the Spirit, that no one is, or can be partaker of the benefit of his death, who is not also partaker of the power of his life."


----------



## daveb

I think when we consider Edwards on justification that we must understand he is speaking primarily against Arminianism and, to a lesser extent Antinomianism.

It is clear from Edward's writings that the basis of justification is union with Christ. It is from this union that we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. Faith alone is the instrument whereby one can partake of this union. Edwards does believe that we are justified by works - the works of Christ. He is concerned with obedience but only as an expression of faith. Edwards does not believe that one needs a persevering obedience to remain in a justified state.

What Edwards attempts to do in speaking of justification is bring greater precision than the Reformers did. You can find this when he speaks of "fitness". However, it is this same precision that often causes confusion.


----------



## JJF

I agree Dan; I think that Edwards was off on this. Justification is judicial or forensic properly speaking. The only prerequisite for us to be justified is Christ's active obedience. To say that it isn't, confuses the gospel with the law. This is tantamount to saying the good news really isn't all that good. As others are saying, the fruits of justification are an extension of justification, not a prerequisite or condition. A person that is justified will do good works, but this doesn't make justification _conditional_ on our good works, which Reformed theology renounces as erroneous. I think that Edwards lacked precision on this particular point.


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> I think that Edwards was off on this. Justification is judicial or forensic properly speaking. The only prerequisite for us to be justified is Christ's active obedience. To say that it isn't, confuses the gospel with the law.



Edwards does say: "œIn justification are two things, viz. the pardon of sins through Christ´s satisfaction and being accepted through his obedience."


----------



## Don Kistler

Gentlemen, without wanting to take anyone on here, may I offer a few things. In his work on "Justification by Faith Alone," Edwards is confronting a situation that had affected his congregation at that time. It was not his intent to say everything there was to be said about justification; nor could he have imagined what men 250 years later would wonder if he meant by what he said to his own congregation.

It is the same with many of the Puritans. They preached sermons to their local congregations, and men 3 centuries later criticize them for what they didn't say! 

And when we introduce who a man read, surely none of us thinks that we are NOT influenced by those whom we have read. Nor should we assume that because a man reads someone, it necessarily influenced their thinking adversely. Yes, Edwards read John Locke; he also read Turretin, Van Mastricht, Ames, and many others. He read Locke mainly on "the reasonableness of Christianity." But we can't *assume* that because he read Locke, that led to his being unorthodox at some point. Edwards was certainly discerning, to say the very least.

Before we criticize Edwards as being outside the Reformed camp, we would have to read everything that he wrote or preached on justification to make sure that we are accurate in our assessment. And since there are many, many sermons by Edwards on justification that have stll not been published, we will have to withhold final judgment. There are over 400 sermons at Yale that have never been published. And remember that each of those has a historical context, as to whom and what Edwards was addressing, and what errors of his own day he was refuting.

Edwards preached his graduation sermon at Yale on the title, "A sinner is not justified in the sight of God except through the righteousness of Christ obtained by faith." You can find that in volume 14 of the Yale edition of Edwards's "Works." He is very clear that there is no merit in anything we do: 

"We assert therefore that a sinner is justified in the sight of God neither totally nor in part because of the goodness of such obedience, or of any works at all, but only on account of what Christ did and suffered, received by faith."

He later preached a sermon entitled "None are saved by their own righteousness." You can find that in Yale volume 19. 

As for conditions, God lays down conditions for sinners. The wicked must forsake his ways and his thoughts. He must return to the Lord before God dispenses His abundant pardon. But there is no merit of any kind in forsaking or returning. We must repent and believe; but there is no merit in repenting or believing. But all of those things are acts of obedience. We are not saved BECAUSE of them, but it is for certain that we will never be saved WITHOUT them.

Were Edwards able to respond today to our concerns, I'm quite sure we would be amazed and satisfied with the orthodoxy of his responses.

I hope you men don't mind my intrustion into your discussion.

Don Kistler


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Don Kistler_
> 
> Before we criticize Edwards as being outside the Reformed camp, we would have to read everything that he wrote or preached on justification to make sure that we are accurate in our assessment. And since there are many, many sermons by Edwards on justification that have stll not been published, we will have to withhold final judgment. There are over 400 sermons at Yale that have never been published. And remember that each of those has a historical context, as to whom and what Edwards was addressing, and what errors of his own day he was refuting.





To take on Edwards is a large task, there is so much material and most have not read all that is currently in print (myself included). 

I did spend the better part of my senior year at College studying Edwards on justification and found that in the end I needed more time to go through all the material. However, I did learn that if anyone wants to speak definitively on Edwards they really need to do their homework. There are no shortcuts to understanding Edwards, you need to be widely read and well studied.



> I hope you men don't mind my intrustion into your discussion.



Not at all, thank you for your wise words.


----------



## JJF

Edwards, in my estimation, is confusing, but, as long as he doesn't assert that justification hinges on our obedience, then I won't quibble. Justification is all of Christ--nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps a double or triple period on this point is necessary!


----------



## py3ak

Hmm, I thought he was very clear. Ah well. Thanks, Rev. Kistler.


----------



## JJF

> 3. It has been just now shown, *how that acts of evangelical obedience are indeed concerned in our justification itself, and are not excluded from that condition that justification depends upon*, without the least prejudice to that doctrine of justification by faith, without any goodness of our own, that has been maintained.



The bold above is why I think that Edwards is confusing. His use of condition is equivocal. Is he saying that justification is conditional, but not conditional?


----------



## py3ak

I thought he explained that.


----------



## JJF

On the hand he says that justification is based on Christ's active obedience, but on the other he says that evangelical obedience is a condition of justification. Which one is it? It can't be both, unless of course he equivocates the word "condition."


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> On the hand he says that justification is based on Christ's active obedience, but on the other he says that evangelical obedience is a condition of justification. Which one is it? It can't be both, unless of course he equivocates the word "condition."



Does he define "condition"? Is a condition a "prerequisite" or a "consequence". Does a condition have any causative value, or is it a condition because the absence of condition B is proof or evidence of the absence of A. "Faith without works is dead". 

For instance, I would never say works is a condition of faith, but I would say lack of works implies a lack of faith - if that makes sense. That is, I would say that faith implies some good works, therefore a lack of works implies lack of faith. This is Modus Tollens. 

Justification implies faith (because all who are justified are believers), and faith implies some good works (because all who have faith are compelled to do good works over time), so that by Modus Tollens, a lack of works implies a lack of faith, and a lack of faith implies a lack of justification. 

P.S. Someone wrote it's "justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone" so that the implication seems to be that that faith is not the cause or precondition of justification, but merely the instrument of it. The cause of justification is the grace of God. Works are neither a precondition or (it seems to me) a necessary consequence of justification. It seems the Word does not say works are necessary for salvation (and certainly not for justification), but that the absence of works is evidence of a lack of salvation. Calling works a "condition" of justification seems to confuse the logical order of good works in relationship to justification.


----------



## py3ak

It seems to me that Edwards is using the term condition simply to indicate something essential. Along these lines: "Without repentance we will not be justified". But repentance does not merit justification; indeed, depending on your view of the faith-repentance connection, repentance does not receive justifcation. Or we could put it in another way: "Without the new birth we will not be justified". That is certainly true; but the new birth is not the reception of justification; without it, however, we don't believe, and without belief there is no justification. "Without holiness, no man shall see the Lord". Is holiness justifying?


----------



## Dan....

Let's presume for the moment that "necessary consequence" can be included as part of a definition of _condition_. (Certainly not something I would consider doing in 21st Century English; however, possibly the definition of _condition_ was a bit different 300 years ago).

Edwards gives his definition of condition in the above article as:


> For by the word condition, as it is very often (and perhaps most commonly) used, we mean anything that may have the place of a condition in a conditional proposition, and as such is truly connected with the consequent, especially if the proposition holds both in the affirmative and negative, as the condition is either affirmed or denied. If it be that with which, or which being supposed, a thing shall be, and without which, or it being denied, a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition of that thing.



To put that in modern English, he seems to be saying: 

1. The presence of "necessary consequence" yields evidence of the presence of that which is in question.

2. The absence of "necessary consequence" necessarily infers the absence of that which is in question.

Therefore: "necessary consequence" can be considered conditional (in the presumed "_300-year-ago definition_".)

(The 2nd premise is deductively true; the first premise is only _inductive_, and hence, not necessarily true, but I'll ignore that for the time being).

Given Edwards' definition, the following would logically follow:



> But inasmuch as a sinner, in his first justification, is forever justified and freed from all obligation to eternal punishment, it hence of necessity follows, that future faith and repentance are beheld, in that justification, as virtually contained in that first faith and repentance.



In other words, that which is a _necessarily consequence_ (or as Edwards would say "that which is a condition") namely, "future faith and repentance", is seen as "virtually contained" in that "first faith and repentance." 

(Note the use of "virtually"; i.e., not to say that future faith is _actually_ contained in first faith, but _virtually_ inasmuch as it must necessarily follow).

And following both the use of "virtual", and Edwards' definition of "condition" this also would follow:



> And that it is so, that God in the act of final justification which he passes at the sinner´s conversion, has respect to perseverance in faith, and future acts of faith, as being virtually implied in the first act...



I.e., "perseverance in faith", being a necessary consequence of "first faith", hence "virtually implied" in that "first faith," is _conditional_ (in the _Edwardsian_ use of the term) to justification.

So far so good.


But I still have what I deem to be an important concern, namely:



> And besides, if no other act of faith could be concerned in justification but the first act, it will then follow that Christians ought never to seek justification by any other act of faith. For if justification is not to be obtained by after acts of faith, then surely it is not a duty to seek it by such acts.



Even allowing Edwards to define his own term "condition," I cannot yet come to grips with what he means in the above. What does he mean when he says we are to "seek justification by...other acts of faith"? Does that mean that we are to be constantly seeking to be justified? It seems to me that if I am now to be seeking to be justified (although seeking presently for that which is already past), that there is no room for assurance. I can never fully say that "Christ is mine," because I am still seeking to be justified. And if I cannot say that "Christ is mine," then can I really say that I am trusting Christ? It seems to me to be an important matter of perspective. Is my focus intra-self (ego?) or outside myself? Am I to say, "okay, I seem to be persevering in faith and repentance, so I might be justified..."? But if I look with the perspective of justification as totally past tense, dependent (instrumentally) on first faith, then I am more apt to say "Christ is mine," and hence more apt to look outside myself and cleave to Christ alone.

Does that make sense?

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## Don Kistler

Perhaps this quote from Edwards Miscellanies will be of some help:

JUSTIFICATION. See No. 315. Nor if we mean by condition, that which is directly proposed to be pursued or performed by us in order to eternal life; or that which if done or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and if not done or not obtained, we shall surely perish. There is a great deal of ambiguity in such expressions as those which are commonly used, viz.the condition of salvation, what is required in order to salvation or justification, the terms of the covenant, and the like; and I believe they are understood in very different senses by different persons. In one sense of the word, Christ alone performs the condition of salvation; he has performed those things which God looks upon as necessary to belong to the fallen creature, in order to its being a meet thing, that he should be freed from an obligation to punishment and have a right to eternal life. In another sense, faith, or the heart's giving entertainment to Christ and the gospel, is the only condition of salvation, viz.as it is that in men, which as He accounts renders it a meet thing (as the case now stands, there being a Saviour), that they rather than others should be received to salvation; that is, that they should be looked upon as being in Christ, and so that what Christ has performed should be looked upon as belonging to them. 

(See No. 488.) And in another sense, an universal and persevering obedience, and bringing forth the fruits of love to God and our neighbor, are conditions of salvation; as they may be put into a conditional proposition, and often are so in Scripture (if we have them, we shall have eternal life; and if we have them not, we shall not have eternal life), by reason of their necessary and immutable connection with faith, as immediately flowing from the nature of it. And they are as much and as immediately proposed to be sought for by us, as we would obtain and make sure to ourselves eternal life, as faith itself is; because they are in their nature so related to faith and so connected with it, that in seeking them we seek faith, in obtaining them we obtain faith, and in obtaining faith we obtain them. And they are also conditions of salvation, as they are included in that salvation and eternal life itself: the salvation is, to be made holy, to have the image of God, to have God's Spirit, and the love of God, etc.; God offers to us no other salvation. And therefore being holy is as necessary a condition of salvation, as receiving money, or taking possession of goods or lands, is to becoming rich. 


Don Kistler


----------



## Don Kistler

And another statement about "conditions" of justification from Edwards:

620. JUSTIFICATION. Faith is the condition of salvation because it trusts in Christ and ascribes salvation to him. Repentance is the condition because it renounces confidence in self and disclaims the glory of salvation. So that neither of them justifies as a work, for the nature of the one is to renounce works, and the nature of the other is to depend on the works of another.


----------



## Don Kistler

And one more for your consideration:

855. JUSTIFICATION. FAITH CONDITION OF SALVATION. As to that question, whether closing with Christ in his kingly office be of the essence of justifying faith, I would say: l. That accepting Christ in his kingly office is doubtless the proper condition of having an interest in Christ's kingly office, and so the condition of that salvation that he bestows in the execution of that office, as much as accepting the forgiveness of sins, is the proper condition of the forgiveness of sin. Christ in his kingly office bestows salvation, and therefore accepting him in his kingly office, by a disposition to sell all and suffer all in duty to Christ, and giving proper respect and honor to him, is the proper condition of salvation. This is manifest by Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him"; and by Romans 10:10, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." The Apostle speaks of such a confessing of Christ, or outward and open testifying our respect to him, and adhering to our duty to him, as exposed to suffering, reproach and persecution. And that such a disposition and practice is of the essence of saving faith, is manifest, John 12:42-43, "Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also, many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the praise of men, more than the praise of God"; compared with John 5:44, "How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?" 2. Accepting Christ as a priest and king can't be separated. They not only can't be separated, or be asunder, in their subject; but they can't be considered as separate things in their nature. For they are implied one in another: accepting Christ as a king is implied in accepting him as a priest, for as a priest he procures a title to the benefits of his kingly office; and therefore, to accept him as a priest implies an accepting him in his kingly office. For we can't accept the purchase of his priesthood [but] by accepting the benefits purchased. If faith is supposed to contain no more immediately than only an accepting of Christ as a mediator for our justification, yet that justification implies a giving a title to the benefits of his kingly office, viz.salvation from sin, and conformity to his nature and will, and actual salvation by actual deliverance from our enemies, and the bestowment of glory.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I think it's clear enough from the quotations which Don has kindly provided that, at best Edwards was confusing. His relative lack of clarity (e.g., moving between justification and salvation, i.e., between a narrower and a broader category rather fluidly) language does not compare favorably with Owen or Turretin or Witsius. One of my MA students is presently translating Van Mastricht on justification and has, in converstation, raised questions about the relations between some of VM's language and Edwards. I wonder if some of this language is not the theological corollary of his approach to _Religious Affections_? Certainly I don't not find this sort of ambiguity in Polanus or Wollebius for example.

In fairness, if I recall (and Don can correct me) the recently published (Yale edn) _Miscellanies_ which has renewed interest in his doctrine of justification were notes from his notebooks and were not published works as such. I'm away from my office and don't have have access to my copy to check. George Hunsinger (a Barthian and Barth scholar at Princeton) has written on Edwards. He did an essay for MR and I think a longer piece for the WTJ and I think Bob Godfrey did a paper for the Puritan Conference in London a few years ago. Both came to similar conclusions about the ambiguities and problems in Edwards' language. I don't know what became of Bob's paper, but I believer there's an effort to get some of his heretofore unpublished research into print.

Blessings,

rsc

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Rev. Matthew,

No disrespect at all was meant by short hand of your name, thank you for clarifying it for me so that I would not continue to do so.



> Secondly, you took issue with people saying, we are justified by faith alone, BUT..., calling that BUT legalistic. James, however, says, "BUT wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (2:20.)



Here´s where you may have misunderstood me and perhaps the difference lies in what we each are surrounded by. I obviously am not warring with James. 

The "œBUT" is not arguing with the text in James 2:20, that is pulled entirely out of context. My argument is not with that but those who are of a "œlegal spirit" in which they will on one hand if asked, "œAre you justified by faith alone" quickly respond, "œyes, BUT"¦". However, if questioned in the reverse, "œDoes faith have its fruits", they would respond, "œYes." Period and never qualify it showing forth the legal spirit for they speak in one direction, quoting James to support their isolated doctrine. 

In short IF one cannot communicate the Gospel without qualifications and let it rest, one has NOT communicated the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And if one refuses to do so, at length likely one them selves does not understand the Gospel. And many, at least in my region of the United States use the term "œpreach whole council of God" as a kind of code meaning (blind to it themselves), "œI will refuse to endeavor to maintain the Law/Gospel distinction and confuse it." "œPreach whole council of God" has become an excuse for blind preaching that refuses to maintain the Law Gospel distinction and the new pavement to the road back to Rome, if not worse. Now, I assume upon your character that is NOT what you yourself meant.

People impugn Luther in tremendous ignorance, and I mean that without apology, for his "œstraw epistle" of James statement when Luther NEVER questioned the word of God. In fact, unlike many pastors today, he most highly used the analogy of faith. Luther´s question was not doubt upon the word of God but what constitutes the Word of God founded upon that which is firmly established, the doctrine. We have a plague today in the world, specifically much of the American church called "œhistorical arrogance". IN Luther´s day he couldn´t just go down to the local "œLifeway" and purchase ten copies of the latest English translation of the Bible, let alone other languages for the cannon was still being debated let alone translated. Yet, today, in historical pride, many persecute Luther on this point as if"¦ 

Luther never questioned the Word of God but what IS and constitutes the Word of God, this in fact is the highest application of analogy of faith. Along this line, here is an interesting thought experiment to do that a Christian brother of mine discussed with me: (This is purely hypothetical and a thought experiment) IF tomorrow it could be shown that James (again this is pure hypothetical for this is NOT what James really says, unfortunately, I´ve got to keep that warning high lest I be falsely accused of denying James as the Word of God) actually taught some form of works justification or works sanctification, without a shadow of doubting, would you still hold to "œJames" as the word of God? It´s an interesting question and thought experiment to get one into the reformers mindset of the time. Because if one would say, "œYes I would hold to James, so understood, as cannon", then one has gone outside the faith and placed "œcanonization" above the central doctrine of the standing and falling church. This is where Luther was at, but he understood that the doctrine of justification must be the highest. Yet, many today would slowly over throw Paul with James very similarly and then scoff at Luther. (Mormons make this "œbible as appropriately interpreted argument as well", it´s true in a way but it´s also used as a false defense). You have to ask yourself what is YOUR real central "œstanding and falling" doctrine from which ALL doctrine flows, is it justification by faith alone, or does the fruits produced thereof stand in parallel to it? Many would say in parallel, but this cannot be since true fruits ONLY arise from the source doctrine of Christ crucified, EVEN for the Christian. Those who parallel it in some sense or another do not preach the Christian faith and in fact are well on their way back to Rome. In fact you can hardly tell any difference between their message and that of a JW, Mormon or Roman service.

In any case thanks for your kind replies.

Christ alone,

Ldh

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## MW

Mr. Hughes,

Samuel Rutherford complained in his day of Antinomians calling the orthodox legalists. And I have read much in reformed writers which you have condemned as legalist.

The distinguished name of Herman Witsius having been mentioned, perhaps his thoughts on the subject will be appreciated. His Irenicum specifically addresses this issue. I will append a significant portion on chapter 16.

<quote>
2. In the matter itself, there is that I approve and what I disapprove. I approve indeed of the scope of all this doctrine, which has this for its object that men may be called off from all presumption upon their own righteousness, and trained up to the exercise of generous piety, which flows from the pure fountain of divine love. But I do not equally approve that it seems, at least in a great degree, to take from good works all that fruit and utility so frequently assigned them in scripture. Free justification is so to be consulted that nothing be derogated from the benefit of sanctification. And as the oracles of the divine Spirit which speak of the former, are to be explained according to their utmost emphasis, lest the merits of Christ alone be any how diminished, so those which treat of the latter are not to be extenuated by unnatural interpretations. We must accurately distinguish between a right to life and the possession of life. The former must so be assigned to the obedience of Christ that all the value of our holiness may be entirely excluded. But certainly our works, or rather those which the Spirit of Christ worketh in us and by us, contribute something to the latter. And here again, that excessive rigidity of disputation is inconsistent with the moderation and mildness of the scriptures. Which I shall show distinctly and in order.
3. 1st, Scripture teacheth that man must do something, that he may obtain the possession of the salvation purchased by Christ. "œLabour" (said he) "œfor the meat which endureth unto everlasting life," which indeed he interprets afterwards of faith, but so, that there he plainly reduces it to the catalogue of works; for justification is not the subject, John 6:27-29. And Paul expressly say, "œWork out your own salvation with fear and trembling," Phil. 2:12. And again, "œTherefore my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know, that your labour is not in vain in the Lord," 1 Cor. 15:58.
4. Neither because Christ is the way to life, is the practice of Christian piety therefore not the way to life. Christ is the way to life because he purchased us a right to life. The practice of Christian piety is the way to life because thereby we go to the possession of the right obtained by Christ. For it is more than a hundred times designed by the name of life: again, the way of righteousness, the good way, the way of peace; yea, that nothing might be wanting, it is called the way of life and salvation. Prov. 6:23, "œThe commandment is a lamp, and the law is light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life." And, chap. 10:17, "œHe is in the way unto life who keepeth instruction." Chap. 15:24, "œThe way of life is above to the wise." Ps. 50:23, "œWhoso ordereth his way, I will cause him to enjoy the salvation of God." And what does Christ himself understand by that narrow way which leadeth unto life, Matt. 7:14, but strict practice of Christian religion? which is called the way of salvation, Acts. 16:17.
5. It is certain indeed that the true Christian lives to Christ, that is, to his glory: but it does not follow from thence that he does nothing for his own advantage. It is not contrary to the duty of a holy man to desire life, love days, and enjoy good, Ps. 34:13. Nor did Eliphaz the Temanite advise Job amiss: "œpray, acquaint thyself with him, and be at peace: whereby good shall come unto thee," Job 22:21. Nor is it unlawful to anticipate how good it shall be for me if I live to Christ. "œIt is good for me, to draw near to God," Ps. 73:28.* 
6. In fine, it is not inconsistent to do something from this principle, because we live, and to the end, that we may live. No man eats indeed but he lives, but he also eats he may live. We both can and ought to act in a holy manner because we are quickened by the Spirit of God. But we must also act in the same manner, that that life may be preserved in us, may increase, and at last terminate in an uninterrupted and eternal life. Moses said excellently of old, Deut. 30:19, 20, "œI call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set life and death before you: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, in loving the Lord thy God, obeying his voice, and cleaving unto him, for he is thy life." Deut. 7:1, "œObserve to do, that ye may live." And chap. 30:6, "œThe Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart to love the Lord thy God, that thou mayest live." Truly these speeches are not legal, but evangelical.-
7. 2ndly, A mercenary baseness is certainly unworthy of the high born sons of God: but their heavenly Father does not forbid them to have any regard to their own advantage in the exercise of holiness. He not only permits, but also willeth, "œthat by a patient continuance in well-doing, we seek for glory, and honour, and immortality;" and to them who do so, he will render eternal life, Rom. 2:6, 7. And though he requires us to love him above all, yet he does not command that all love to ourselves be entirely banished. For we are not bound to love our neighbour, and not to love ourselves. It is also just that the study of holiness be excited in us by this love to ourselves. For, pray, what is the end of all these promises, where-by God hath commended his precepts to us, but that stimulated with a desire after them, we might the more cheerfully obey him? Not to love the benefits promised is to contemn the goodness of God who promiseth. Not to be animated to piety through a desire after them is to abuse them to a purpose quite opposite to that for which they were designed of God. David himself confessed that the "œprecepts of God were far more desirable than gold, yea, than fine gold; and sweeter than honey, and the honey-comb," even on that account, "œbecause in keeping them there is great reward," Ps. 19:10, 11. And the faith of Moses is commended, "œbecause he had respect to the recompence of the reward," Heb. 11:26. Yea, that faith is required of all who "œcome unto God, whereby they must believe that he is the rewarder of them who diligently seek him," verse 6.
8. But at the same time this love to ourselves ought to flow from the love of God, be subordinate, and referred to it. It is not lawful to love God for our own sake, so as to consider ourselves as the end, and him as the mean, by the enjoyment of whom we are rendered happy. But since we are the property of God, whom we ought to love above all things, therefore we are also bound to love ourselves in relation to him. Our good is therefore to be sought, that in it we may taste the sweetness of the Lord, and that his peculiar treasure may be so much the more increased. Thus love to ourselves shall at last be absorbed in the ocean of love divine. The subject itself obliges me to repeat here what I observed elsewhere.
9. 3rdly, Neither is it agreeable to the perpetual tenor of the scriptures, that we reap no real advantage from duties rightly performed; that no evil is averted by prayers, fastings, and penitence; and that neither peace of conscience, nor joy of heart, are promoted by the exercise of virtue. Certainly this is contrary to the Mosaic doctrine, Deut. 6:18, "œDo that which is right, that it may be well with thee." Add verse 3, "œHe who followeth after righteousness and mercy, shall find life;" "œrighteousness, and honour," saith the writer of the Proverbs, chap. 21:21. Paul tells us "œthat godliness is great gain, and that it is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come:" and that "œgood works are good and profitable unto men," 1 Tim. 6:6; 4:8; Tit. 3:8.
10. That impending calamities are averted by penitence, is taught of God, Jer. 18:7, 8. And remarkable is Zephaniah´s speech, chap. 2:3, "œSeek the Jehovah, all the meek of the earth, who work his judgment: seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of Jehovah´s anger." Further, it is written in Isaiah, chap. 32:17, "œThat the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever." In the same prophet we are also taught, that if any cease to do evil, and learn to do well, it shall come to pass that their sins, though as scarlet, shall be white as snow; and though red like crimson, they shall be as wool," chap. 1:16-18. He also teaches, "œthat if any man rightly observed the Sabbaths of the Lord, he should delight himself in the Lord," chap. 58:13, 14. When we believe the scripture asserting all these things, we do not believe that the exercises of virtue or religion merit any such thing, or that the efficacy of these duties is so great, that of themselves, setting aside the divine blessing, they can procure benefits or avert calamities: but we believe, so great is the goodness of our heavenly Father, that for Christ´s sake, he liberally rewards the sincere endeavours of his children, who rejoice to please him. "œFor God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name," Heb. 6:10.
11. 4thly, It is much more difficult to say what is controverted as to the evidences of grace, than what should be determined according to holy scripture. For sometimes it seems to be denied that any inherent qualities are proper evidences of justification. "œLet not thy comfort" (says one) "œdepend on thy personal sanctification, because no certainty and constant consolation can flow from hence. Again, From the effects of sanctification, a man has reason to doubt in his own soul concerning justification: wherefore no effect of sanctification can show the soul its justification. The soul which apprehends its justification in Christ, not only knows it, but also lives by and enjoys its delicious fruits, peace, joy, and strengthening, without any sanctification in itself." Lest any, however, infer from hence, that sanctification may be altogether separated from justification, it is immediately added: "œas we ought not to infer our justification from any effect of sanctification; so that apprehension of justification is not of God, which withdraws a man from the means and the rules of sanctification: for it is uncomely not to walk in holiness according to the word of God." And sometimes it seems to be acknowledged that sanctification and its effects are, in their kind, remarkable evidences of justification; but not sufficiently convincing without the witnessing of the divine Spirit. Things so intricate, who can explain?
12. How much clearer here is the simplicity of the scriptures? It teaches a double way whereby a man may come to the certain knowledge of his state: the one depends on the illumination of divine grace alone, and on the most liberal witnessing of the Holy Spirit to our spirit: but the other is committed to our own diligence. What kind of witnessing of the Spirit they conceive, and what they experience in their own souls, God and themselves know. I would not deny that there is a certain internal instinct, not to be explained by human language, which, by a secret conviction of conscience, assures the beloved of God concerning their justification and adoption.
13. Nevertheless, since the ordinary dispensation of the gracious providence of God, which is common to all the elect, ought to be distinguished from those extraordinary revelations of the Spirit, which were peculiar to the prophets; and since this witnessing of the Spirit, of which we now treat, consists not so much in words as in facts; it is credible that the Holy Spirit generally so works in the souls of believers that he excites their spirit, otherwise languishing, to the diligent observation of those qualities which are in the soul, and of those things which are done in it and by it, and irradiates the eyes of the mind with a super-celestial light, lest they should be deceived by things more specious than solid, or overlook those things which God hath taught in scripture to be evidences of his grace. For the Spirit of God so beareth witness that he witnesseth together with our spirit, in exciting it to bear a true testimony, and in confirming its testimony, and convincing the conscience of its truth. My conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, Rom. 9:1; and thus indeed, even the witnessing of the divine Spirit is not altogether separated from the observation of the signs of grace. And it often happens that the Spirit of God so embraces his elect with these allurements of his most beneficent love, that while they enjoy those spiritual and ineffable delights, which earthly souls neither receive nor taste, they are no less persuaded of their election and justification than if they saw their names engraven on the very hands of God.* 
14. But farther, it is a part of our duty to study to make our calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1:10. That is, to endeavour that by evident signs we may be persuaded of the love of God towards us. But how shall we obtain that? If we give all diligence to add to our faith fortitude, to fortitude knowledge, etc. For if these things be in us, and abound, they will make us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins, verses 5-9. Therefore from a consciousness of Christian virtues, there arises in godly men an assurance of their election and vocation: "œand these virtues" (as Bernard elegantly says, in his Book concerning Grace and Free Will) "œare certain seminaries of hope, incentives of love, evidences of hidden predestination, and presages of future felicity."
15. Paul also commands that every man examine and prove himself whether he be in the faith, and whether Jesus Christ be in him, 2 Cor. 13:5. To the right performances of which examination, it is necessary that first we be solidly taught from the word of God what are the distinguishing marks of a state of grace; then that we begin a diligent search of our own conscience, whether they can be found in us. If we consult the word of God, almost every where, we find that the heirs of present grace and future glory are described by their qualities and virtues, and by the exercise of these. See, if you please, Ps. 15 and 24, and Matt. 5; yea, in some places we are expressly taught that it is from hence that our state is to be known; 1 John 3:14, "œWe know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." Again, in the 19th verse, and "œhereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him." These words certainly signify something very different from, and diametrically contrary to, these assertions we lately heard.
16. Since the learned men confess that sanctification is a consequence and an effect of justification, and such an effect indeed, which is inseparable from a consciousness of justification, it is strange why they deny that it is a cer-tain sign of justification. Cannot therefore the cause be known from its proper effects? From one of two inseparable benefits, cannot the other be inferred?
17. The brethren confess that none can have a consciousness of his justification, but from faith and by faith. But how does a man know that he has faith? From the evidence of the thing, say they. For since the soul is immediately conscious to itself of its own actions, it knows whether it hears the testimony of God´s Spirit, whether it receives it, and by believing, answers it: for faith is the echo and, as it were, a certain repercussion of the divine voice speaking to the soul. I do not choose to oppose. But pray, let them tell the reason why the soul is less conscious of its affection than of its assent. How comes it that I do not as well know that I frequently think with pleasure concerning God, that I eagerly desire and long after familiar communion with him, and am solicitous to do what may be pleasing to him, and in fine, am grieved when I wander from the rule of duty; as that I know the sacred whispers of God to my soul is truly the voice of God, and that my soul, by the assent of faith, answers to it? Hence I conclude that sanctification and its effects are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification.
18. Neither will it be improper to com-pare the assurance which is from the witnessing of the divine Spirit with that which arises from discerning the evidences of grace. If the witnessing of the Holy Ghost be viewed in itself, and known to be the testimony of the Spirit himself, truly nothing surer than it, nothing more worthy of credit, can be conceived. Which Chyrsostom hath illustrated to excellent purpose: This is the voice not only of the gift, but also of the Comforter who bestows the gift. But when the Spirit beareth witness, pray, what doubt can remain? For if either man, angel, or archangel, or any such power should pro-mise this, it might be proper to doubt. But when the Supreme Being, and he indeed who bestows this gift, testifies to us, even by these things which he hath commanded us to ask, who, pray, can doubt of his fidelity?"* I do not doubt, but that the testimony of the Spirit, where it is present, shines with such splendid rays of celestial light in the souls of believers, that they are most fully persuaded it is God who speaks. But I desire to hear from pious men, how they experience that testimony in themselves, whether by way of some constant act; or intermitting, indeed, but very frequently repeated; or whether they happen to enjoy these most pleasant whisperings more rarely, and by long interruptions and intervals of time. If they are perpetually, very frequently honoured with such pleasant and familiar intercourse, they owe the greatest gratitude to God. Neither can any reason be assigned, why others should envy them such extraordinary happiness. But neither let them, by rash judging, be injurious to the generation of God´s children, to whom it is not vouchsafed to be so blessed, that they can glory in such a frequent, much less the uninterrupted, witnessing of the Spirit: and whose faith is not generally the echo, or repercussion of the internal whispers concerning the remission of their sins; but an assent to the gospel, as preached by Christ and the Apostles, and committed to writing by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But let us suppose, it is of late that some believer has enjoyed such pleasant whispers of the Spirit; does the memory of it remain so deeply impressed on the mind, that, after a considerable time, it will always be present in the soul with the same degree of light, and that reasons of doubting do not now and then arise? What if perhaps he deceived himself with his own imagination, and took that for a dictate of the Spirit which was nothing but the pleasant play of a deluded mind? In the charge souls which I have now borne upwards of forty years,* I have often had occasion to hear doubts of that kind from those, concerning whom I had no reason to think amiss. But since the habits of Christian virtues are permanent, though not always active in the same degree; and since therefore not their equal vivacity, but sincerity, is an evidence of grace; in fine, since it is not very difficult for a man to discern how he is towards God, and from what principle, and with what purpose he is engaged in the worship of God and the exercise of virtue; I have generally found that more solid and permanent tranquillity arises from the perpetual study of preserving a good conscience than from the obscure remembrance of God speaking to the soul, which does not use to be very frequent with the Christians of our age. Blessed are they who can say with Paul, "œour rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity, and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world," 2 Cor. 1:12.
19. 5thly, With respect to the beauty of Christian virtues and their acceptableness in the sight of the Lord, I thus judge, that none in this life obtains such perfect holiness but that it labours under its imperfections; on account of which, if God should deal with us according to the rigour of the law, and his highest right over us, it would be rejected. Hence it is, that our righteousness can by no means have place before him in order to justification. And if any should presume to obtrude it upon God for that very purpose, truly it would be loss and dung to the man himself. Neither do the brethren differ here, as to the substance of the matter. For I see it is taught on both sides, "œThat it is incumbent as a duty, even on the best of Christians, to renounce all the grace they possess, all the good they do, as contributing nothing at all to the expiation of sins or to the obtaining of a right to life: yea, that they are condemned, who deny that our most excellent obedience deserves the curse according to the rigour of law, and stands in need of pardon: or who neglect to inculcate on their hearers, that all these things must be renounced which may be found in ourselves, lest in any manner they be accounted the cause of the expiation or of the forgiveness of sins." But when, through the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, the believer´s person is made acceptable to God, then his virtues which he obtained by sanctifying grace, and the exercise of virtues flowing from the same grace, are likewise acceptable to God; and what blemishes of ours cleave to them, these are covered with the most perfect righteousness and holiness of Christ.
20. In the meantime, since that holiness to which we were predestinated by the Father, which Christ purchased for us by his blood, and which is infused into us by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, is true holiness, and the very image of God, according to which we are renewed; it cannot but "“ even in consideration of itself, because it is holiness, and as it is holiness "“ please God; and in this respect Christian virtues are not filthiness and dung, but the beauty of the royal bride and the comeliness wherewith she is all glorious within, Ps. 45:13, 14. "œHoliness becometh the house of the Lord for ever," Ps. 93:5.* 
21. Further, since God cannot but love himself, he also delights in that which is like him; and the more of his image he discerns in any thing, the more he delights in it. Charnock on the holiness of God (p. 509), expresses himself with elegance: "œGod is so holy that he cannot but love holiness in others. By his nature, he cannot but love that which is agreeable to his nature, and in which he finds the lovely draughts of his own wisdom and purity. It is impossible that he should not be delighted with his own image. He would not be holy by nature if he were not delighted with holiness in every nature. He would deny his own nature if he did not love everything wherein the image of his nature is expressed; so indeed, that if the devils themselves were capable of an act of righteousness, God, by the purity of his nature, would be inclined to love it, even in those naughty and rebellious spirits." Hence it follows that they who diligently apply themselves to the exercise of Christian holiness are as acceptable to him as they are odious who obey their lusts. Whatever others may think, I do not doubt but that is a generous and a laudable emulation of Christians whereby they endeavour to excel one another in the study of godliness; that, as they have been taught by the gospel how they ought to walk and to please God, so they would abound more and more; 1 Thess. 4:1, "œWherefore we labour, that whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him," 2 Cor. 5:9.* 
</quote>


----------



## Larry Hughes

Rev. Matthew,

I'm not condemning ANY reformed writers on this subject, nor have I done so, but you've continued to set up that strawman for knocking down. I've ignored it until now. All I was doing was getting behind the language that's all and there is nothing wrong with that, last I looked ex cathedra doesn't exist in the protestant church. Please do not openly false accuse me and likewise if I have offended I DO apologize and ask your forgiveness.

It is not wrong to think through doctrine and question what is meant. My point was to the modern usage and unless you've walked a mile in MY shoes, which you have not, in heavy pietistic circles, then you have little to say on the matter. You have no knowledge of our region.

But if a man says that justification by faith alone in Christ alone is not sufficient then I stand here without movement. For in the last day of judgment I will plead nothing and stand under the blood of Christ which I so desparately need. That's the good thing about trials and suffering, especially final death; AT last a man sees the folly of all his "works" and has nothing left to plead for the hour has come and the stroke of the clock is at last. All wrangling is over. As I told my wife upon the news of a childhood friend of mine just recently converted who now lays dying wracked with massive cancer, having less than weeks to go, "Where is all the works preaching now, where's the pietism, where's constant emphasis upon third use of the Law at the expense of the Law and Gospel, what good will that do him now that his hour is at last and he can move no further than his death bed and near his approach of a holy God, where are those preachers of THIS day who so hide Christ from the needy!" The doctrine is in the end under trials, dare I say, quite practical at that point.

I appreciate your time and consider this matter closed between us. Apparently we come from two entirely different worlds and are talking past each other.

I give you the last word if you desire and shall respond no further so that it might yours.

Your Brother In Christ alone,

Larry

[Edited on 7-5-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## MW

Dear Mr. Hughes,

My purpose was not to accuse you but simply to show that there are elements of orthodoxy in what you are calling legalism. That we need to be careful about how we use that term. That's all. I am not offended -- just concerned.


----------

