# Justified by the faith OF Christ



## fralo4truth (Mar 20, 2012)

Hi friends,

I'm looking for any good resources which treat of the distinct expression the faith OF Christ, as opposed to the faith IN Christ. This occurs a few times in Romans and Galatians where the Apostle is handling justification. I realize that opinion may be divided as to whether this refers to the _object _of faith, or the body of truth we call _the faith_, or as some have affirmed, Jesus' own personal faith.

Thanks a lot for your help.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 20, 2012)

Hi:

The verses you are referring to, Galatians 2:16 and the Romans passages, which speak in the Genitive about the "Faith of Christ" are referring to the righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that is the Meritorious cause of our Justification, and part of that righteousness is his faithfulness in all things. Thus, it is the faith of Christ that Justifies us. Some, however, will use this to deny that one needs to believe in Jesus in order to be Justified (the Instrumental cause). The Westminster Confession of Faith deals with this subject in the chapter on Justification, especially section four of the chapter.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Hilasmos (Mar 20, 2012)

I started this a couple years ago and a lot of the relevant arguments were mentioned...

http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/pistis-christou-subjective-objective-poll-40813/


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 20, 2012)

The exegetical issue is just whether the words in question are an "objective" or "subjective" genitive construction.

In other words, context and grammar, plus a study of Paul's (and the whole Bible's) theology, are factors in deciding/determining what he means.

Is "faith of Christ" speaking of MY faith in Christ as _object_ of faith? Or is "faith of Christ" speaking of Christ's faith, he being the _subject_ doing the believing.

The latter really has no theological basis, other than someone choosing to make the "most" of the few times such a grammatical expression is used, and making such a read properly basic. But why, when the former not only yields a reasonable and helpful sense? Further when the same idea is frequently expressed in compatible or comparable language, using the plain language of "faith in" (Gk. 'en' or 'eis'), we find the Bible using a multiplicity of expression for a common notion.

And what does it even mean to say that we are saved by "Christ's faith," or his "faithfulness" as it is recast by NTWright and others, in those contexts where we find it? If important texts that contain the expression "faith of Christ" are hijacked from the objective meaning to the subjective, what is lost? Is it Paul's intent to speak in those passages about the vital centrality of faith in the production of salvation, and the corresponding marginalization of works to the same end? It certainly is, so it would seem that a recasting of the expression does cause us to lose an important emphasis.

If it be said that works are still vital, or if it be contended that Christ's "active obedience" (his faithfulness) is also important to our redemption, who can argue? But the question is whether these texts have those ideas in view. What we do find is that frequently where the subjective-read is taken, the result is a new emphasis on the believer's imitation of Christ's "faith" or "faithfulness" as that condition which is essential to his salvation. Being "faithful" to the Christ-who-was-faithful" (turning one's allegiance over to Christ-as-Lord) becomes the mark of one who is prepared for salvation. But the problem is: such a view (we contend) undoes the apostolic argument for salvation by grace through faith alone. "Faith" is not _substituted_ for "works" in the salvation equation. Faith does not become, or is not accepted by God in lieu of, works; nor especially is faithfulness or commitment so taken.

Faith is "not-working" in regards to salvation. Faith is _instrumental_ for receiving the incoming of God to save the unsavable, but it is not itself meritorious or worthy or a mark by which God (now) judges. Faith is that means by which God justifies the UNGODLY. God says, "I save you by my power, and by my work; I deal with the consequences of sin, and I grant eternal life gratuitously; and all this I do without prejudice to myself, my justice, my holiness." And (some) men believe that seemingly impossible Word, and in believing they are in fact saved.

As for Christ's fidelity to his Father, this doctrine receives just the right amount of emphasis in the Word. And it is noticeably more implied than often stated baldly. Jesus "efforts" at obedience do not receive great emphasis, precisely because he is not our "example" in effort for salvation. We see him maybe twice (in the Temptation, and in the Garden) showing us his contests with Satan. But the great emphasis is on his dying for our sins, on his being the spotless Lamb, on his doing God's work of man's redemption. For us, on the other hand, the powerful and repeated statements regarding the absolute necessity of our faith in His work. "Stand STILL! and SEE the salvation of your God!"


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 20, 2012)

If you want a resource that explores the issue from different perspectives and gives different conclusions, I would recommend this book, which is a collection of essays: Amazon.com: Faith of Jesus Christ, The: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (9780801045646): Michael F. Bird, Preston M. Sprinkle: Books


----------



## fralo4truth (Mar 20, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Some, however, will use this to deny that one needs to believe in Jesus in order to be Justified (the Instrumental cause).



Might I ask who does this? Surely they are only speaking of their view of justification, and not salvation as a whole? The reason I ask this is because many of the Hardshell Baptists have gone to an extreme in their opposition to the conditionality of salvation and are denying that sinners must believe in Christ for salvation. They're beginning to say that we're justified by the faith OF Jesus (i.e. Jesus' faith), and therefore faith is not necessary on the part of sinners. 

And yes, I give you permission to shudder at that last comment. But I kid you not. This is how they're interpreting the expression _the faith of Christ_.

I'm wondering if anyone else out there has imbibed such a heretical notion.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 20, 2012)

I believe John Murray's commentary on Romans has a discussion of this issue.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 20, 2012)

Hi:

Galatians 2:16 reads:



> Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not be the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


Paul, it appears to me, seems to be speaking about both the Faith of Christ as His righteousness that justifies (the Meritorious cause), and, about our own personal faith given as a gift of God ("even we have believed") as the Instrumental cause of our justification. This is clearly taught in WCF on Justification. The question is: Does this passage support the interpretation. I will leave it for you to decide.

People who deny the instrumentality of faith hold to eternal justification. One of the biggest proponents is Harold Camping.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 20, 2012)

fralo4truth said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Some, however, will use this to deny that one needs to believe in Jesus in order to be Justified (the Instrumental cause).
> ...



Wow...I shuddered. I've experienced pastor's who use this idea to say that human faith is not good enough, that it must be God-given faith, or Christ's faith imparted through the Spirit. I'm not so sure, however, that such straining is mandated by the original grammar.

Blessings!


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 20, 2012)

"eternal justification"?


----------



## Hilasmos (Mar 20, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> "eternal justification"?



Eternal Justification - John Brine


----------



## Josiah.W (Apr 16, 2012)

What are the implications theologically for those who deny Christ's imputed righteousness, considering it "deficient" or "unnecessary" category? Bird, Seifrid and Gundry deny this element of Justification, I believe. 

Does this necessarily lead to a view that we are saved by "Christ's faith"?

I appreciate the responses so far.


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 16, 2012)

Josiah.W said:


> What are the implications theologically for those who deny Christ's imputed righteousness, considering it "deficient" or "unnecessary" category? Bird, Seifrid and Gundry deny this element of Justification, I believe.
> 
> Does this necessarily lead to a view that we are saved by "Christ's faith"?
> 
> I appreciate the responses so far.



To deny Christ's imputed righteousness seems to me to deny the faith altogether. For, one is then refusing to wear the garments of Christ and is trying to climb in some other way. We have to have a positive righteousness to stand before the Father with, hence our wedding garments. Those without wedding garments are cast out of the wedding feast.

It would necessarily lead to some other option, whether it be to cling to works, or to cling to Christ's faith, as you say. But, to cling to Christ's faith, what does that mean exactly? If one is having confidence that Christ exhibited faith for me, am I not having faith in Christ's faith? It all boils down to me having confidence or faith in something. 

The question now becomes what is the object of my confidence? Is it that Christ exhibited faith for me? That seems silly to me, for where are we ever told to have confidence in such a promise? Where are we ever given the promise to believe in substitutionary faith? The promises rather refer to an atonement, and direct us to have confidence in the atonement that the Messiah accomplishes, and the refuge that exists for us by trusting that God is now favorable to us in Christ. Christ fulfilled the law for us, and when we are in him and engrafted into him, his entire record counts as our record in regard to the law. He does not have confidence for us, but rather works that confidence in us that we might have it in him and in his atonement...confidence that God is now favorable to us in Christ.

That's how I tend to see it...

Blessings!


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 16, 2012)

Many of the statements on this thread betray a lack of familiarity with the actual assertions being made by those inclined to read πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου as a subjective genitive. Here's a good article by a Lutheran, showing how a Lutheran might appropriate Richard Hays' exegesis of Gal. 2:16. http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/justfaithofchrist.pdf


----------

