Justification by Faith, and Justification of Life
Table of Contents
Justification by Faith, and Justification of Life: Part 1
JUSTIFICATION by faith is a cardinal truth of divine revelation, and an article of the creed of what are called reformed churches, which on this point differ most materially from the teaching of the Church of Rome, which, confounding justification with practical righteousness, really denies the ground of the believer's standing before the throne of God, to be only and purely according to the merits of Christ's atoning death, and the value of His precious blood.
On this vital subject scripture gives no uncertain sound. We are justified instrumentally by, or through (δια) faith of Jesus Christ (Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:30), and of faith (Rom. 5:1), that is, proceeding from, or arising out of, faith (ἐκ πίστεως), in contrast to justification from, or arising out of, works of law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου). We are justified in virtue of (ἐν) Christ (Gal. 2:17; Acts 13:39), in contrast to justification in virtue of (ἐν) law. We are justified meritoriously in virtue of the blood of Christ (ἐν τῶ αἴματι αὐτοῦ). (Rom. 5:9.) And we are justified declaratively by, or from (a) works. (James 2:21.) Such are the statements of scripture as to the manner of justification. The reader may see these different forms in two verses of Gal. 2:16, 17; διὰ πίστεως, ἐκ πίστεως, and ἐν Χριστῶ, thus helping to point out their distinctive meaning. Then as to the time of justification, that is, on what it was dependent, we learn that the Lord Jesus Christ was delivered for our offenses, and raised for our justifying, or justification (διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν). (Rom. 4:25.) Our justification is here seen to be an act consequent on His resurrection. That was needed for souls to be justified.
Clear and definite is the teaching of scripture on this momentous subject. The Rev. Mr. Sadler, the rector of Honiton, has, however, written a book entitled, Justification of Life, in which he attempts to show that the New
Testament teaching of justification " in every epistle of St. Paul, and in those of St. Peter, and St. John, appears as justification of life, that is, not justification in the sense of mere imputation of the merits of the death of Christ, or of the righteousness of His previous life; but justification in the sense of God imparting to us a share in His Son's resurrection-life, to be in us will, and power, and grace to serve and love God." Again he writes, " The especial aim of the treatise is to show how God in Holy Scripture leads us to believe that justification is not a matter of mere imputation, but of the implanting within us of Christ's righteousness simultaneously." (Preface pp. 1, 10.) Mr. S. confounds justification with practical righteousness. He seeks to establish his point from scripture. To that we would appeal, and from it, as enabled by the Spirit of God, show what the teaching of the word really is. "Justification of life" is a scriptural statement (Rom. 5:18), but its application in this book is, we think it can be demonstrated, clearly unscriptural.
For centuries the true doctrine of justification by faith had been lost by the mass of Christians. At the Reformation it was through God's grace recovered, for the first action of the Spirit of God in the process of the recovering of truth was to bring out afresh from the word the doctrine, which witnesses to the all-sufficiency of the atoning death of Christ. Since that day how much of the truth has been recovered! Who teacheth like God? said Elihu. (Job 36:22.) How true! He teacheth wisely and well. And we see this in the order in which He has recovered His truth. First it was the gospel made plain, and foundation-truth as to the believer's standing made clear, and what he needs as a saint set forth. After that his associations as a member of the body of Christ, and of the church of God, and what is connected specially with church truth was once more ministered on earth in the assembly of the living God. Who can doubt, as they survey the order observed in this recovery of truth, that the Spirit of God was at work in this matter?
Now, of all the apostles, Paul is the only New Testament writer who dwells on justification by faith, as he is the first evangelist, of whom we read, who preached it, and that in words which must have sent a thrill of joy through the heart of every child of God who heard them in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. " Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by [εν] [or, in virtue of] him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by [or, in virtue of] the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38,39.)
Here, at the outset of our inquiry, we observe a marked difference between the apostle's announcement and the doctrinal statements put forth by Mr. Sadler. He affirms that apostolic teaching sets justification forth as, in part at least, "the imparting to us a share in the resurrection-life of the Son of God, to be in us will, and power, and grace to serve and love God." Those at Antioch heard from Paul of justification from all charge of guilt. The difference between these two is immense. Apostolic preaching had reference on this point to the past acts of those addressed, and their freedom from the guilt of them, with a righteous title to stand before the throne through the sovereign grace of God. Mr. Sadler would tell his readers that justification has respect likewise to the condition, or state of the person, by which provision is made for him to serve God. St. Paul treats on this point of the believer's standing before the throne of God. Mr. Sadler would mix up with it the question of the believer's state and walk. Both lines of teaching, freedom from the guilt of sin, with which our standing is connected, and freedom from the power of sin, which has to do with our condition and walk, are essential parts of the gospel of God. But to mix them up is to distort and really to misrepresent the gospel.
In the Acts, the only canonical book which supplies us with samples of apostolic preaching, Peter and Paul are both introduced as preaching forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38, 39), Paul alone adding to that the announcement of justification. This last truth, then, is clearly different from, and more than that of, forgiveness of sins. Mr. Sadler quotes with approval from Dean Alford, that Paul in the Acts speaks of it as synonymous with forgiveness. (p. 48.) For centuries the true doctrine of justification of sins, and justification from all things, from which by the law they could not be justified, were not synonymous. Nor indeed are they. As forgiven, the believer is assured of freedom from the punishment he deserved. As justified, he knows that he has an unchallengeable standing before the throne of God. For if reckoned righteous by God, who can legitimately keep him out of God's presence? To be forgiven, and to be reckoned righteous, one would have supposed none could confound. As forgiven, the person owns he is not righteous. As justified, he learns that what he is not in himself, that God reckons him to be before the throne. The importance then of justification, in order to have peace with God, all may see, and the grace of it all understand. God thereby sets the guilty one, when believing, free in His presence from all fear of deserved punishment, because forgiven, and in the consciousness as well of the favor bestowed on him to stand in holy boldness and righteously before the throne. God reckons him righteous. Now the proper place of a righteous person is to stand before the throne of God.
But we must turn to the epistles of Paul to learn fully about justification. He declared it in Acts 13; he enters at length into the subject of it in the Epistle to the Romans. We have said that justification is more than forgiveness: the doctrine of the Epistle to the Romans makes that plain; for forgiveness, so clearly preached by both Peter and Paul, is not treated of in the Epistle to the Romans, though the primary and special teaching in it is about the gospel of God. Only twice is forgiveness noticed. In chapter iv. 7 we meet with it as part of the apostle's quotation from Psa. 32:1, but he does not dwell on that point, though he does on another part of that same quotation. Again in chapter 11: 27 we meet with it, where it comes in with reference to Israel in the future. The saints to whom Paul wrote knew of their forgiveness, yet he desired to preach to them the gospel (chap. 1:15); so he enters at length on the question of righteousness, and tells them about justification. Was it, we may ask, proof of divine prescience that Paul wrote on this subject to the saints in that city, which in after ages would become the center from which doctrine, subversive of this 'cardinal truth of the gospel, should be widely disseminated As true catholic and apostolic teaching?
Wrath of God from heaven has been revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18); and a day is coming when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to Paul's gospel (chap. 2:16), a day described as one of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds. (Chapter 2:5,6.) Hence arises the necessity for the gospel, if any one of Adam's race is now to be assured of immunity from condemnation. Whereupon the apostle enters on that subject, demonstrating that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, and therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified, for by the law is the knowledge of (ἐπίγνωσις) sin. (Chapter 3:9, 20) How then can any one hope to stand before the throne of God without being condemned? God can justify ungodly ones, is the glorious answer made to us in the gospel. And He is righteous in so doing, we learn from this epistle. Two questions are then taken up and settled. First how God can righteously justify ungodly ones; and second, how it is that guilty creatures can personally share in justification. The first of these questions is treated of in. Rom. 3:21-31, the second in Rom. 4
(To be continued.) C. E. S.
Justification by Faith, and Justification of Life: Part 2
BUT we are turned by our author to scripture. He quotes 2 Tim. 1:9, and thus remarks on it: " Here the salvation is spoken of as preceding the calling even, and rightly so, for the work of salvation was fully wrought out by the death and resurrection of the Son of God; and as this was in the counsel of God a matter surely foreseen and foredetermined, the salvation is spoken of as accomplished, even before the sufferings, which purchased it, had actually been endured. Thus Zacharias prophesied that God hath raised up a mighty salvation for us,' and Simeon, when he was holding the infant Savior in his arms exclaimed, `Mine eyes have seen thy salvation.' So also when Christ came to the house of Zacchaeus, and delivered him from the bonds of his fraud and covetousness, it was said by Christ Himself, ' This day is salvation come to this house.' " We have let Mr. Sadler speak for himself, that the reader may see how he would endeavor to explain away an unmistakable assertion of present, and in this sense final salvation. " The salvation," he says, " is spoken of as accomplished, before the sufferings which purchased it had been endured." We must give to this statement an unqualified denial. Paul is writing to Timothy, a disciple of Christ, and one of his own converts, years after the death of Christ on the cross, and speaks of the grace, not of the salvation, as given us in Christ before the world began; and rightly speaks of the salvation before the calling, not for the reason Mr. Sadler assigns, but because, as saved, Timothy was to act at all cost in harmony with the character of his calling, not shrinking from the most painful consequences of faithful testimony to the truth-the martyr's death if need be. But what about the references to Zacharias, Simeon, and the Lord in the house of Zacchaeus? Will they bear out the construction attempted to be put on their words? Surely not. Zacharias spews, if we compare Luke 1:69 and 71, that God raising up a horn of salvation for them, and Israel being saved, are two different things. The presence of Christ in person, and the effects of His coming, are not the same thing. Salvation as a present soul blessing is New Testament doctrine, unknown to any of the saints before the first advent of Christ. And no one is said to be saved till he is saved. For salvation tells of deliverance from something, saved from or out of it, so the condition or danger in which the person was he is in no longer.
But Mr. S. on this subject has more to say (p. 194), " In several cases salvation is predicated of those who had been grafted into Christ in baptism. Our Lord had said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' and so says St. Paul after Him, By his mercy he saved us by the bath or font of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; ' the word λουτρόν used here signifying, not the act of washing, but the vessel in which the bath or washing takes place, rendering the reference to the rite of baptism absolutely certain; and St. Peter also enunciates the same thing, when he says, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' St. Paul also, in speaking of a part in the death and resurrection of Christ received by all Christians in baptism (Rom. 6), implies that the power of the death and resurrection of Christ, that is, His salvation, had been made over to each one in his baptism." In these words there is hardly one statement which is really correct. No one ever was or is grafted into Christ in baptism. We are in Christ by the Holy Ghost given us (Rom. 8:9), not by baptism. This last puts the baptized one into the company professedly of the Lord Jesus Christ who has died, inasmuch as he is thereby buried with Him by baptism unto death, being baptized unto His death. Now baptized unto (εἰς) Christ is not the same as being grafted into Him. All Israel at the Red Sea were baptized unto (dc) Moses. (1 Cor. 10:2.) Were they grafted thereby into Moses?
Then to bear out his statement, Mr. Sadler refers to Mark 16:16; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21; Rom. 6; Acts 2:37,38;8. 36, 22. 16; John 3:5. On these we would remark, that neither John 3. 5 nor Titus 3. 5 treat of the rite of baptism. John 3:5 treats of the new birth, being born of water and of the Spirit, not of water only, nor of water by the Spirit. The Lord is speaking to Nicodemus of the way of life. Baptism puts us into the company of the Lord who has died. The way to enter the kingdom we learn in John 3 By baptism christian discipleship is professed. The Jews prided themselves on being, by natural generation, sons (νἱοὶ) of the kingdom. The Lord tells Nicodemus that no one enters into (εἰς) the kingdom, unless he is born of God by water and the Spirit. Now to enter into (εἰς) the kingdom is only predicated in the present dispensation of true believers. Many are found within the range of the kingdom who have never entered into it. Only those born again have entered into it. It is of entrance into it that the Lord here speaks (εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν). Now if John 3:5 treats of baptism and its effects, all the baptized must thereby enter into the kingdom, that is, be really believers. But Mr. Sadler himself would repudiate that surely. Experience shows it is not the case.
To Titus 3:5 we would next turn. There we learn God " hath saved us [that is, true Christians] by the washing of regeneration [παλιγγενεσία], and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Is baptism here spoken of? Mr. Sadler asserts it is; and that the term λουτρόν unmistakably proves it. Unfortunately for this assertion, in the only other place where the word occurs in the New Testament, it does not refer to baptism, but as the passage explains (Eph. 5:26), to the word of God. No deduction in favor of the rite of baptism can then be drawn from the word λουτρόν, any more than from the word regeneration (παλιγγενεσία), which elsewhere is used of that new order of things which will be introduced when the Lord comes to reign. (Matt. 19:28.) That then of which Titus speaks is the washing which flows from the new birth, bringing a person now morally into harmony with the new order of things, which will be established when the kingdom is set up in power. Of this washing every one born of God is a subject, whether baptized or not. Of that washing Peter was a subject, just as much as Paul and every saint called out after Pentecost. Are we thinking lightly of baptism? By no means We could not consistently with scripture teaching now accredit any one as professedly on christian ground if unbaptized, for how take the place openly of a disciple of Christ, unless one has been buried with Him by baptism unto death? Hence the Lord instituted this rite for all those who should believe on Him after His death and resurrection, but never mentions it till He had risen. (Mark 16:16.) As baptized unto (εὶς) Christ, we have put on Christ. (Gal. 3:27.) In accordance with this Peter told the 3000, who were pricked in their hearts, to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So Paul was told by Ananias to be baptized. So too the company in the house of Cornelius were commanded by Peter to be baptized, after they had received the Holy Ghost; a clear proof that baptism does not ingraft into Christ, for these saints were in Christ already, and evidenced it, because they were partakers of the Holy Ghost. Baptism is most important in its place, when rightly understood.
But baptism saves, Mr. Sadler would remind us. (1 Peter 3:21.) Perfectly true. Yet it does not save the soul from the deserved judgment of God. Of this Peter, who alone speaks of its saving power, bears witness. Writing to the strangers of the dispersion in Asia Minor who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, with reference to the maintenance of a good conscience, he calls attention to baptism as saving them, not the putting away the filth of the flesh (that is, not an external washing), but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. We should observe in this passage three things (1 Pet. 3. 14-32): first, what is desired or the thing asked for (ἐπερώτημα), that is, the answer, is a good conscience, not a purged conscience. Now the former is dependent on the believer's walk and ways; the latter is derived from the knowledge of the value of the atoning blood of Christ. (Heb. 9:14; 10. 2.) Next, that it is by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, applied to the believer practically, that the good conscience is secured, and not by His atoning death, which is the ground of our standing before the throne. Hence, condition, or state, not standing, is that with which baptism here, as elsewhere, is connected. The person desires a good conscience. The thing desired (that is, the answer to his request), he gets by practically carrying out that which by baptism he has professed, namely, that he is a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, the resurrection of the Lord is made prominent here. Thirdly, it should be noticed that the apostle, who had classed himself with those to whom he wrote, when treating of the beneficial results of Christ's death (ver. 18), as sharing also in them-" that he might bring us to God"-writes of baptism that it saves you (not us) for so we should read the passage-they, not he, having been baptized with christian baptism. Now, if baptism saves in the sense Mr. Sadler would understand salvation, how comes it that, whilst the Lord commanded Peter, and others who were His disciples before the cross, to baptize, He, made no provision for their being baptized? In truth they did not need it. But baptism saves, since, if what it speaks, of is practically carried out-burial with Christ unto death—the person is saved from old associations and ways, as Noah and his sons were saved from all association with the evils of the antediluvian world. Saved by water, which was the instrument of death to others, they did not thereby receive soul-salvation. Noah surely possessed that before he entered the ark. Nor did they leave earth, but were brought into a new position on earth by passing through the flood in the ark. So Christians, by Christ's death applied to them practically do not leave the scene in which they were personally, but are brought into a new position here on earth. With this teaching of Peter Paul agrees.
But let us hear Mr. Sadler: " St. Paul, also, in speaking of a part in the death and resurrection of Christ, received by all Christians in baptism (Rom. 6), implies that the power of the death and resurrection of Christ (that is, His salvation) had been made over to each one in his baptism So that salvation, as a past act of God for the world, is connected with the accomplishment of that salvation in the death and resurrection of Christ; and the formal assignment of a part in this salvation to each individual, is connected by the sacred writers, not with a man's first exercising faith, but with his submission to receive holy baptism" (p. 195). It is true, "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." (Mark16. 16.) No one who professed to believe after the cross was to be accredited as a disciple, unless he submitted to the rite of baptism. But the salvation of those who believed before the cross, and of those in the house of Cornelius, who received the gift of the Spirit (the proof they were saved before they were baptized), refute these statements. Cornelius and his friends believed, and, as believing, they received the fullest christian blessing, the gift of the Holy Ghost. Not a word had been spoken to them about Christian baptism. " Words whereby they should be saved" they were to hear from Peter; and they did, and believed them, God sealing them with the Holy Ghost, in token that they were saved. Mr. Sadler's theory, that " the grant of salvation is said to be made over to no one on his merely believing, no matter how sincere in his belief" (p. 195), is at variance with the history of Cornelius, and with God's ways in grace with the company in his house.
Nor will his reference to the teaching of Paul (Rom. 6) help him. Paul never taught that all Christians were baptized, though he was; nor did he tell the Romans that the power of the death and resurrection of Christ (that is, His salvation) had been made over to each one in his baptism. Mr. Sadler confounds state and standing. We have died to sin was Paul's doctrine, how shall we live any longer in it? But how is it we have died to sin? By baptism? No, but as being in Christ, who has died to sin. (Rom. 6:9.) Every true Christian, whether baptized or not, has died to sin. Hence, to continue in sin that grace may abound would be an absurdity. How continue in that to which we have died? Why, then, is baptism introduced? To chew more plainly the absurdity of such a principle. We have died with Christ to sin, and by baptism profess to be disciples of Him who has died, buried with Him by baptism unto death. So the apostle, after asking, "How shall we who have died to sin live any longer therein?" adds, "Or OD, know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Christ Jesus, were baptized unto his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism unto death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." As in Christ, we have died to sin. As baptized, we have been buried with Christ unto death. Our condition, then, as in Christ, and our professed position before God and man on earth, as baptized unto Christ's death, alike forbid the acceptance of such antinomian doctrine. Thus baptism, it will be seen, comes in as an additional reason to make patent the absurdity of such a conclusion.
But salvation, we are told, " is assumed to be a present state in the distinct sense of being a continuous, or progressive, thing, ' worked out' by him to God who vouchsafes it" (p. 196). We have only to remember the difference between the salvation of the soul and final deliverance of the whole person, so carefully distinguished in 1 Peter 1 to see that the present salvation of the former is compatible with the working out the salvation of the latter. But the passages on which Mr. Sadler relies to throw doubt on present salvation, do not support his doctrine. Phil. 2:12, when the whole verse is read, is plain enough. Salvation is there viewed (as always in that epistle) in the light of final deliverance. So the Philippian saints, deprived of Paul's presence, had to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling; but-let the reader mark it-not by doubt or uncertainty, the apostle immediately adding, " for it is God that worketh in you the willing and the working, according to his good pleasure." Are we to suppose that God begins a work which he does not finish? Incredible that that should be. We are further told that the Greek phrase, οἱ σωζόμενοι, when rightly understood, unmistakably favors Mr. Sadler's doctrine. Occurring in Luke 13:23; Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15, and nowhere else, it is plain, from its use in 1 Cor. 1:18, it cannot mean those who are being saved, in the sense for which it is quoted, since it is used there of Paul, and the Corinthian saints, who had, each and all of them, already received, and manifestly to all, the gift of the Holy Ghost. All such were saved. Their soul's salvation, which Mr. Sadler, by his translation of this term, " those being saved," would imply, still hung in the balance, was effected once and forever, seeing they were sealed by the gift of the Spirit unto the day of redemption. In truth, the term, of οἱ σωζόμενοι, describes a class-the saved-distinct from the of οἱ ἁπολλίμενοι-the lost (2 Cor. 2:15; 4. 3; 2 Thess. 2:10), not their state as on the way to salvation. C. E. S.
(Continued from page 205.)
(To be continued.)
THE path of Jesus was His own. When man was bowed down in sorrow at the thought of death, He was lifted up in the sunshine of resurrection. But this sense of resurrection, though it gave this peculiar current to the thoughts of Jesus, left His heart still alive to the sorrows of others. For His was not indifference, but elevation. And such is the way of faith always. Jesus weeps with the weeping Mary and her company. His whole soul was in the sunshine of those deathless regions which lay far away from the tomb of Bethany; but it could visit the valley of tears, and weep there with those that wept. Such was the peculiar path of the spirit of Jesus. Resurrection was everything to Him. J. G. B.
Justification by Faith, and Justification of Life: Part 3
IN fact, in treating of salvation as scripture teaches us. about it, we have need to mark the context, to understand in what sense the sacred writer is treating of it. We shall be saved from wrath through Christ-that is future; but we know it because we are now justified by His blood. (Rom. 5:9.) Would any one aver that those now justified by the blood of Christ are in danger of everlasting perdition? We shall be saved by His life (that is, because He lives), and we know it, since we are already reconciled to God by the death of His Son. (Rom. 5:10.) Are any reconciled to God in danger of being lost, and that forever? Does Mr. Sadler believe that? His teaching implies it. Then Timothy's salvation, we are told, is spoken of as in some sense conditional; and the scripture is quoted, " Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine, continue in them: for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (1 Tim. 4:16.) Now it is no use to quote one scripture to neutralize another, unless by the former God has canceled the latter. Timothy was directly told he was saved. (2 Tim. 1:9.) Paul distinctly taught present salvation. (Rom. 7:24; Eph. 2:5,8; Titus 3:5.) And the clue to that which may seem to some contradictory, Peter furnishes, as we have already remarked. Salvation is both a present blessing and a future one, according as the soul's salvation, or deliverance of the person out of all troubles, or from sin, is the subject in hand. But it is not true that "salvation is now assigned us, but is capable of being forfeited by us" (p. 200). Nor were the Israelites brought into a state of conditional salvation by their baptism into-rather unto-(Eic) Moses, any more than that they were sustained in their state of salvation by the constant feeding on the manna (p. 204). "The Lord," we read, "saved Israel that day out of the hand.
of the Egyptians," as He had promised. " The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace." (Ex. 14:14,30.) The salvation was effected by divine power, not by baptism unto Moses. The people, as a people, were redeemed, though the mass of them never entered the land. We shall not understand the teaching of Israel's history, unless we distinguish the national salvation from the condition of the individuals amongst them. So, if all Israel had been cut off, except Moses and his family, the promise to Abraham would still have been fulfilled, the nation would not have perished. The confounding the fortunes of the nation with that of the individuals is a fruitful source of mistakes, as his remarks about the manna skew. The manna sustained the physical life of the individual, but did nothing for the nation, as such, nor could it even ward off the approach of death, as the Lord reminded the Jews: " Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." It did not sustain them in their state of salvation. The nation was elect and redeemed, but not every individual composing it.
Confusion indeed characterizes the book. There is confusion as to the scripture teaching about the olive-tree and the vine-tree (pp. 16, 17, 36, 55, &c.); between the church and the kingdom (p. 33); between being under the new covenant, and our enjoying the blessings of it (p. 40); between God imputing righteousness to us, and God's righteousness (pp. 59, 64); between justification and cleansing (p. 43); between justification and forgiveness (p. 48); between justification and the receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (p. 26); and between union with Christ and being in Christ, and Christ in us (pp. 21, 22, 50, 72), &c. We have said enough to indicate to any intelligent student of the word, if our statements are correct, what a mass of confusion, on important doctrinal points, there is in this book of 367 pages.
A few words on the two trees may be of use, as the teaching about them concerns us all. The teaching about the olive-tree treats of what is dispensational, Gentiles, as such sharing in privileges to which once they were strangers. The teaching about the vine treats of true discipleship to produce fruitfulness for God. Israel and the Gentiles are concerned with the olive-tree, real saints and mere professors are illustrated by the vine. The root of the olive-tree is Abraham, the depositary of privileges on earth. The stem of the vine is Christ, by abiding in whom alone fruitfulness can be produced. From the branches of the vine fruitfulness is expected, whereas the branches of the olive-tree are viewed as partaking of the root and fatness of the tree. What the branches enjoy, is the teaching of the olive-tree; what the branches should be, is the teaching about the vine. The olive-tree is spoken of when Israel's rejection is the theme. The vine is brought in when fruitfulness for God on earth, and that during the Lord's absence, is insisted upon. To the olive-tree belong natural branches, which can be, and some of which have been, broken off, but yet may be grafted in again; meanwhile branches of a wild olive-tree have been grafted in in their stead. From the vine branches can be taken away, but there is no word of their being grafted in again, nor of any being substituted in their place.
Now how could we apply the olive-tree as a figure of the Lord Jesus Christ? How could we speak of natural branches of Christ, and of such, or any of them, being broken off for unbelief, and then, if repentant, being re-grafted in? Into what confusion do we get-to say the least of it-by such an interpretation, which must land us in one of two doctrinally false conclusions-either the denial of the spotless nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, or the denial of the consequences of the fall being shared in by all of Adam's race. How could there be unbelievers (for the branches are broken off because of unbelief), once naturally connected with Christ, as branches of a tree, partaking of its root and fatness? For the olive-tree, Mr. Sadler avers, is Christ. (P. 15.) Now all the natural branches of the olive-tree, it should be observed, are not broken off. Then, if the teaching of Mr. Sadler is true as he expresses it, " the wondrous inherence in Christ by the Spirit, St. Paul sets forth under the figure of the olive-tree" (p. 55), there are those who, as born into this world, were always children of God. In a word, the common condition of all men by the fall is denied, and the need of the death of Christ for all is set aside, for people could be vitally connected with Christ apart from any work in the soul. Now Mr. Sadler would surely reject such conclusions, yet, according to his teaching about the olive-tree, such are the only conclusions which can be drawn. Inconsistent, too, he is in his teaching on this head, for he dwells on the thought of the graft, but omits to take into account the natural branches.
Then, as to the vine, his teaching is at fault. He dwells on being in the vine-only once mentioned by the Lord-but forgets to emphasize the abiding in Christ (p. 16, 59), by which alone a branch can be fruitful. Being in the vine is not the same as being really in Christ, with which he confounds it. A branch in the vine, if unfruitful, will be taken away. The Lord Himself marks the importance of abiding in Him (John 15:2), for the vine and the branches are the figure of the Lord and His disciples on earth, illustrating thereby how they can be fruitful, and how nothing short of that will satisfy the husbandman. Judas was a branch in the vine. Was he ever really in Christ? Further, there is no thought in the passage of transference into it, only of being cast out of it. Nor does the figure of the vine teach anything about union with Christ, as Mr. Sadler would suppose. The vine treats of the fruitfulness of saints. Union with Christ, which is by the Spirit dwelling in us, makes us members of His body, not branches of the vine. Union with Christ is not taught in John's Gospel.
Then justification is not the same as forgiveness (p. 48), as Acts 13:38,39, which distinguishes them, clearly proves; nor is it synonymous with cleansing (p. 43), as 1 Cor. 6:11 shows; nor is it the reception of the spirit of God, as Mr. Sadler asserts. (P. 26.) Justification refers to the believer's standing before the throne. The gift of the Spirit is what he receives from God. Again, union with Christ, and being in Christ, and Christ. in us (pp. 21, 22, 50, 72), are quite distinct lines of teaching, though they are effected for the believer by the gift of the Holy Ghost. The former-union with Christ -is truth connected with the church of God; the latter -the being in Christ, and Christ in the believer-is an essential part of the gospel of God, as the Epistle to the Romans demonstrates. As united to Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; vi. 17), we are members of His body, and so members one of another. As in Christ, and Christ in us, we have died to sin and to the world, and He is in us by the Spirit. Now, unless we have these truths distinct in our minds, teaching about them must be confused.
But is there no such thing as justification of life? Assuredly there is, but it has not to do with the believer's, standing before the throne. With this Mr. Sadler confounds it. " If justification," he writes, " be justification of life," &c. (P. 96.) Again, " Justification, if it be the bringing a man into Christ," &c. (P. 92.) Again, " He that hath the Son hath justification, because he that hath the Son hath life, and justification is justification of life." (P. 57.) Indeed, throughout this book the two, as the reader may see from the above quotations, are confounded. Now the believer's standing is treated of, and. definitely settled, ere justification of life is even mentioned. " We have access," we read, " by our Lord Jesus Christ into this grace wherein we stand." (Rom. 5:2.) Here our standing is mentioned as settled on the ground of the atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ, the believer being justified by God's grace (chap. 3. 24), on the principle of faith (chap. v. 1), and meritoriously by the blood of Christ. (Chapter 5:9.) With this, the first great section of the gospel of God, as set forth in the Romans, comes to a close. God's righteousness has been manifested in justifying the ungodly. How, then, should the justified one walk? and what is his condition in relation to sin, and to the law? On these questions the apostle next enters, thus carefully guarding against any antinomian tendencies which are to be found in the heart of man. This the second section of the gospel the Romans takes up, which commences at chapter 5. 12, and continues to chapter.8, 11. Here, treating of the doctrine of headship of race, the truth of being in Christ, and results from it, are taken up, and explained, and in this part of the epistle the term, justification of life (δικαίωσινζωῆς), is met with.
Now this has to do with our condition, as in connection with the Head of the race-Christ Jesus. The believer's condition is, that he is in Christ who is risen from the dead. His standing rests solely on the ground of the atoning death of Christ, and of His resurrection. All that gives him a place in righteousness before the throne of God-and his standing is that-is provided for by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, on his behalf. The teaching about his state, or condition, and walk, is another line of things, and is connected with, and rests on, his being in Christ, and the correlative truth of Christ in him. This flows from the gift of the Holy Ghost, without which he cannot be in Christ, nor Christ in him. (Rom. 8:9.) The distinction between these parts of the gospel it is of great importance to understand. What• gives peace to the conscience, peace with God, is the divine testimony to the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, as it directly concerns us. What can set free from the power of sin and the world, is truth connected with the believer's condition as in Christ, and Christ in him-the present condition of the Lord Jesus Christ as regards sin, He having died to it (Rom. 6:10), being necessarily the condition of all those who are in Him. Thus the doctrine of headship, and the connection between the head and the race, come up; for the consequences of the act of obedience, or of disobedience, of the head affect every one ranged under that headship. So we read, " Therefore, as by one offense towards all men unto condemnation, so by one act of righteousness towards all men unto justification of life." Condemnation was the consequence, in which all were involved by the one offense of Adam; justification of life, that is, a righteous title to live, the opposite to condemnation, is the consequence which can flow to all by virtue of the one act of obedience unto death of the Lord Jesus Christ. So far the principle. But all are not saved. Hence the word proceeds, " for as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous."
Justification of life, then, is stated as showing the condition of the believer who is in Christ. It speaks of a condition in which he is, and not of his standing, nor indeed of a work in him, though closely connected with this last. But with Mr. Sadler all is confusion. Again, he writes that righteousness is not only imputed, but imparted, and this righteousness is Christ's righteousness which is ours; we partake of it because we partake of His nature. If we fall from Him we lose His righteousness. "His one righteousness is imputed to us, and imparted to us by one act of God, when we are first brought into Him, or when, after falling from Him, we are brought back again into Him." (P. 59.) Now Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us any more than God's righteousness, nor imparted to us either. God imputes to the believer righteousness, without works. But we read not of righteousness imparted, nor could the one righteousness of Christ (δικαίςμα, not δικαιοσίνη), that is, His one act of obedience, be imparted to any one. How impart to -us the Lord's act of obedience unto death?
The apostle's teaching on all this is clear and simple, when we take note of the context. But into what confusion may we get, if we do not keep the question of the believer's standing, as justified from all things, and so having a righteous title to stand before the throne, distinct from the question of practical righteousness, and of the truth of being in Christ, and Christ in us Mr. Sadler wants to press on us the importance of practical righteousness. We fully accept it. But we shall never promote practical righteousness in a scriptural way, which is the outflow of the divine nature within the believer, if we confound standing and state. We shall then be in danger of seeking to make good our standing by our state. What Mr. Sadler is anxious for-practical godliness-scripture insists upon. But to set the heart free for this, the believer must first know of his perfect and unalterable standing before the throne of God. It is in this order the gospel of God is presented to us. It is in this order we should present it to others. But this book,. entitled," Justification of Life," makes standing dependent. on walk (p. 59), and so confounds the two. C. E. S. (Concluded from page 216.)