Faith as a Non-Meritorious Condition & Instrument of Justification

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Rom. 5:1

“To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

Rom. 3:26

“…not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith…”

Phil. 3:9

Subsections

What Respects the Covenant is Conditional
Let Jesus into your Heart
You must Choose Christ to be Saved
Faith counted for Righteousness Rom. 4
How Faith Falls under Obedience in some Respect(s)

Order of Contents

Condition 10+
Instrument 10+
Justification before Faith? 18+
. Infants 4

Faith is a Non-Meritorious Condition for Justification

Order of

Westminster
Articles 4
Quotes 18+
Rutherford’s Positions

Westminster

Larger Catechism #32

“The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,[t] and life and salvation by him;[v] and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,[w] promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit[x] to all his elect, to work in them that faith,[y] with all other saving graces;[z] and to enable them unto all holy obedience,[a] as the evidence of the truth of their faith[b] and thankfulness to God,[c] and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.[d]

[t] Gen. 3:15. Isa. 42:6. John 6:27.
[v] 1 John 5:11,12.
[w] John 3:16. John 1:12.
[x] Prov. 1:23.
[y] 2 Cor. 4:13.
[z] Gal. 5:22,23.
[a] Ezek. 36:27.
[b] James 2:18,22.
[c] 2 Cor. 5:14,15.
[d] Eph. 2:18.”

Articles

1600’s

Rutherford, Samuel

ch. 3, section 12, ‘Whether Faith is both a Condition & Promised? [Yes]’ in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019), pp. 72-73

‘The Gospel is Conditional’ (1648) in A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, pt. 2, ch. 38, pp. 39-40

pp. 471-478 of Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself, or, A Survey of our Saviour in his Soul-suffering, his lovelinesse in his death, and the efficacy thereof… (London, 1647)

Turretin, Francis – Question 3, ‘Is the covenant of grace conditional and what are its conditions?’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James Dennison Jr., trans. George Giger, 3 vols. (P&R, 1992–1997), vol. 2, pp. 184–89

“How faith is a condition.

XI. As to the former, when we say that faith is a condition of the covenant, we do not mean it absolutely and according to its nature and essence… Rather it must be considered relatively and instrumentally, inasmuch as it embraces Christ and applies to Him for righteousness and through him obtains the right to eternal life. First, it is distinguished from the works of the law (which could not be done if it were taken absolutely because thus it is a work of the law)…

Therefore it [being a condition] cannot be ascribed to faith materially (inasmuch as it is a work), but instrumentally (inasmuch as it is the hand apprehending).”

Flavel, John – “John Flavel’s (1630–1691) Reply to Baptist Hyper-Calvinism from Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis and the Issue of Conditions” from Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis: Or, A Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solemn Call (1690) in The Whole Works of the Rev. Mr. John Flavel, 6 vols. (London: Baynes & Son, 1820), vol. 6, pp. 348–56 at Theological Meditations

“(1.) What we mean by a condition in the gospel-covenant. By a condition of the covenant, we do not mean

in the strictest rigid sense of the word, such a restipulation to God from man of perfect obedience in his own person, at all times, so as the least failure therein forfeits all the mercies of the covenant; that is rather the condition of Adam’s covenant of works, than of the evangelical covenant:

nor do we assert any meritorious condition, that in the nature of an impulsive cause shall bring man into the covenant and its privileges, or continue him in when brought in. This we renounce as well as you:

but our question is about such a condition as is neither in the nature of an act perfect in every degree, nor meritorious in the least of the benefit conferred, nor yet done in our own strength. But plainly and briefly, our question is, Whether there be not something as an act required of us in point of duty, to a blessing consequent by virtue of a promise? Such a thing, whatever it be, hath the nature of a condition, inasmuch as it is antecedent to the benefit of the promise; and the mercy or benefit granted, is suspended until it be performed.

The question is not, whether there be any intrinsical worth or value in the thing so required, to oblige the disposer to make or perform the grant or promise, but merely that it be antecedent to the enjoyment of the benefit; and that the disposer of the benefit do suspend the benefit until it be performed? Thus an act or duty of ours, which has nothing at all of merit in it, or answerable value to the benefit it relates to, may be in a proper sense a condition of the said benefit. ‘For what is a condition in the true notion of it, but (1) the suspension of a grant until something future be done?’”

1800’s

Girardeau, John – sect. 4, 3. ‘The Condition of Justification’ in Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism (Columbia, SC: Duffie, 1890), pt. 2, pp. 522-66

Girardeau was a southern presbyterian minister.

Quotes

Order of

Calvin
Pareus
Boyd
Wotton
Wolleb
Rivet
Gataker
Voet
Ball
Baxter & Twisse
Le Blanc
Flavel (& Davenant & Downame)
Witsius
Willard
Shaw
Dabney
Hodge
Berkhof
Beeke & Smalley

1500’s

John Calvin

Institutes of the Christian Religion trans. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845) Note Calvin speaking of repentance as a “condition” for the forgiveness of sins in vol. 2, bk. 3, ch. 3, sect. 20, p. 174.

vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 7, sect. 4, p. 410

“4. Therefore, if we look merely to the Law, the result must be despondency, confusion, and despair, seeing that by it we are all cursed and condemned, while we are kept far away from the blessedness which it holds forth to its observers. Is the Lord, then, you will ask, only sporting with us? Is it not the next thing to mockery, to hold out the hope of happiness, to invite and exhort us to it, to declare that it is set before us, while all the while the entrance to it is precluded and quite shut up?

I answer, although the promises, insofar as they are conditional, depend on a perfect obedience of the Law, which is nowhere to be found, they have not, however, been given in vain. For when we have learned that the promises would be fruitless and unavailing, did not God accept us of his free goodness, without any view to our works, and when, having so learned, we, by faith, embrace the goodness thus offered in the gospel, the promises, with all their annexed conditions, are fully accomplished.

For God, while bestowing all things upon us freely, crowns his goodness by not disdaining our imperfect obedience; forgiving its deficiencies, accepting it as if it were complete, and so bestowing upon us the full amount of what the Law has promised. But as this point will be more fully discussed in treating of justification by faith, we shall not follow it further at present.”

vol. 2, bk. 3, ch. 4, sect. 22, p. 212

“From all these absurdities [of the sacrament of penance] the doctrine which we deliver is completely free. For absolution is conditional, allowing the sinner to trust that God is propitious to Him, provided he sincerely seek expiation in the sacrifice of Christ, and accept of the grace offered to him.

Thus, he cannot err who, in the capacity of a herald, promulgates what has been dictated to him from the Word of God. The sinner, again, can receive a clear and sure absolution when, in regard to embracing the grace of Christ, the simple condition annexed is in terms of the general rule of our Master Himself—a rule impiously spurned by the Papacy—’According to your faith be it unto you,’ (Mt. 9:29).”

vol. 3, bk. 4, ch. 16, pp. 373-74

“24. Thus the Lord, when he chose Abraham for himself, did not commence with circumcision, in the meanwhile concealing what he meant by that sign, but first announced that He intended to make a covenant with him, and, after his faith in the promise, made him partaker of the sacrament. Why does the sacrament come after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac?

It is right that he who, in adult age, is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant by one from whom he had hitherto been alienated, should previously learn its conditions; but it is not so with the infant born to him. He, according to the terms of the promise, is included in the promise by hereditary right from his mother’s womb. Or, to state the matter more briefly and more clearly. If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations.

This undoubtedly is the reason why the Lord sometimes declares that the children born to the Israelites are begotten and born to Him (Eze. 16:20; 23:37) For He undoubtedly gives the place of sons to the children of those to whose seed He has promised that He will be a Father. But the child descended from unbelieving parents is deemed an alien to the covenant until he is united to God by faith. Hence, it is not strange that the sign is withheld when the thing signified would be vain and fallacious. In that view, Paul says that the gentiles, so long as they were plunged in idolatry, were strangers to the covenant (Eph. 2:11).

The whole matter may, if I mistake not, be thus briefly and clearly expounded: Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance. These alone can give them access to the fellowship of the covenant, whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism.

To this we must refer the narrative of the evangelist, that those who were baptized by John confessed their sins (Mt. 3:6). This example, we hold, ought to be observed in the present day. Were a Turk to offer himself for baptism, we would not at once perform the rite without receiving a confession which was satisfactory to the Church.”

David Pareus

‘A Piece of a Speech concerning that Question, To whom properly do the benefits of Christ’s sufferings and death belong? And how Christ is said to die for all…’ in Zachary Ursinus, Sum of Christian Religion… (London: Young, 1645)

p. 808

“Therefore, the Gospel debars from the benefits of Christ all infidels, not only by a plain exclusion, but also by that condition of faith and repentance, under which, either expresly or tacitly, God promises to men the benefits of Christ, and which is never to be found in those that persevere in sin.”

p. 810

“So Christ, ‘He that believes in the Son, has life eternal.’ And Peter, ‘To Him bare all the prophets witness, that all who believe in Him, shall receive remission of sins through his name.’ There is the like reason of all other evangelical promises: for they have annexed expressly or tacitly the condition of faith and repentance;”

1600’s

Robert Boyd

Commentary on Ephesians, ch. 2, verse 8, p. 273 trans. Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Confession of his Faith… (London: 1655), ch. 10, sect. 3, p. 409

“[Papists:] The Lord says not [in Mt. 15:28; Mk. 7:29], ‘Thy daughter is saved by thy faith,’ as if it were by a means or instrument only of attaining that benefit, as you [Protestants] say, but [rather] for this saying as [it was] a meritorious cause. Answer:

1. Confession is taken for faith itself.

2. Faith is here taken in an objective sense, as it signifies Christ apprehended by faith, to whose only merit this benefit is to be ascribed: but by the means of faith; which God requires as an intermediate conditon on our part to this, that any benefit from his bountiful hand may be obtained, etc.

[3] Unless that solution please better, which taking the name of ‘faith’ properly, says, that by that speech is not signified a cause, but a condition only, because all things are promised to him that believes; whence it is no wonder if when God gives any benefit to the faithful, He is said to give it for faith, which He necessarily requires in the receiver: Not that he deserves it by believing, but because God has promised it to none but to the believer; and that of mere grace in the Mediator Jesus Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and Amen.”

Anthony Wotton

Mr. Anthony Wotton’s Defence against Mr. George Walker’s Charge... (d. 1626; Cambridge: Daniel, 1641), ‘Mr. Wotton’s Defense’, p. 30

“Whereas faith (being the condition required on our part) must go before justification, at least in nature.”

John Wollebius

Compendium of Christian Doctrine, pt. 1 in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965)

ch. 3, (3), proposition 2, p. 48

“Thus the divine will is also called that which God wants done [voluntas signi], because it signifies what is acceptable to god; what He wants done by us. It is called ‘consequent’ because it follows that eternal antecedent; ‘conditional’ because the commandments, prohibitions, warnings, and promises of God all have a condition of obedience or disobedience attached to them. Finally it is called ‘revealed,’ because it is always explained in the word of God.”

ch. 20, sect. 7–8, pp. 116-17 Latin: conditione

“VII. He calls both [kinds of people] in earnest [serio] and without any deceit.

Concerning the elect there is no doubt. As to the reprobate, although they are not called ‘according to his purpose,’ or to salvation, nevertheless they are called in earnest, and salvation is offered them on condition of faith. Nor are they mocked because they have been deprived of the grace of believing. Rather, because they destroyed the original grace of their own accord, and also, by their evil passion, despised the means of grace, God therefore has the right to demand faith from them and uses it no less justly than do other creditors, so that their mouths are closed, they are without excuse, and the justice of God is upheld. Therefore, He does not call them to mock them, but in order to declare and reveal his justice.

VIII. Therefore, common calling is not the basis for any conclusion regarding election, both because common calling is extended to both the reprobate and the elect, and because it is subject to the condition of faith.”

Andrew Rivet

ed. te Velde, Dolf – Synopsis of a Purer Theology (1625; Brill, 2015), vol. 1, Disputation 23, §29, p. 597 “New obedience” is likely being referred to as a condition, not of justification, but of final salvation.

“29. Furthermore, we do not say that the Gospel and the New Testament demand no condition at all, for the condition of faith and new obedience (which is everywhere impressed on us) is demanded. But God provides these conditions freely, and their imperfect quality forms no hinderance to salvation (which flows from another source), so long as they are genuine.”

Thomas Gataker

in Anthony Wotton, Mr. Anthony Wotton’s Defence against Mr. George Walker’s Charge... (Cambridge: Daniel, 1641), ‘The Issue’ (1641), pp. 54-55 See also p. 36.

“Yet is it as clear as the light at noon-day, that whosoever shall deny faith in Christ to be a condition appointed by God to be performed on man’s part for the obtaining of justification, shall have all Jews, pagans and Mahumetans concurring therein with him, as in a point naturally flowing and necessarily following from what they hold.”

Gisbert Voet

Voet, Gisbert – 9. ‘Justification’, Of Justification in General in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 3 Abbr.

“Whether it [justification] requires some movement of free choice and faith? It is affirmed with a distinction.”

John Ball

A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace… (London: 1645), ch. 3, ‘Of the Covenant of Grace in General’, p. 24

“Externally this covenant is made with every member of the Church, even with the parents and their children, so many as hear and embrace the promises of salvation, and give and dedicate their children unto God according to his direction; for the sacraments—what are they but seals of the covenant?

But savingly, effectually, and in a special manner it is made only with them who are partakers of the benefits promised. And as the covenant is made outwardly or effectually, so some are the people of God externally, others internally and in truth. For they are the people of God with whom God has contracted a covenant, and who in like manner have sworn to the words of the covenant, God stipulating and the people receiving the condition; which is done two ways:

[1] for either the covenant is made extrinsically, God by some sensible token gathering the people, and the people embracing the condition in the same manner, and so an external consociation of God and the people is made;

[2] or the covenant is entered after an invisible manner, by the intervention of the Spirit, and that with so great efficacy that the condition of the covenant [faith] is received after an invisible manner, and so an internal consociation of God and the people is made up.”

Richard Baxter

Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable... (London: White, 1675), Preface, n.p.

“I had never read one Socinian, nor much of any Arminians… and I remembered two or three things in Dr. [William] Twisse (whom I most esteemed) which inclined me to moderation in the five Articles [disputed between Arminians and the Reformed]:

…
5. That faith is but causa dispositiva justificationis, and so is repentance.”

Louis Le Blanc

Theological Theses put forth at Various Times at the Academy of Sedan, vol. 2 3rd ed. tr. AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1645; London: Moses Pitt, 1683), On Justifying Faith, pt. 1, pp. 165-66 Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a reformed professor of theology at Sedan, France.

“CXIII. Then, it seems somewhat uncertain when they [some Reformed theologians] distinguish between the act that predisposes one to justification and the act they say is formally justifying. According to the Reformed perspective, faith does not justify as a sort of form through which we are justified but rather as an instrument grasping Christ’s merit, as many say, or as a condition of the covenant of grace, which God counts as righteousness for Christ’s sake, as others prefer to say.

These views, upon closer examination, converge to the same point. No one would say faith is a physical instrument of our justification; it can only intervene as a moral instrument. But faith can’t be a moral instrument of justification unless in the sense that God has promised forgiveness of sins to believers, which cannot be attained without the intervention of a living and effective faith. This is essentially the same as being a condition of the covenant of grace, wherein God offers grace and glory to believers and repentants.”

John Flavel (& Davenant & Downame)

The Whole Works of the Reverend John Flavel, 6 vols. (London: Baynes & Son; 1820), vol. 3, “A Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solem Call”, pp. 528–31

“That learned, humble, and painful minister of Christ, Mr. John Ball (Of the Covenant of Grace, ch. 1, ‘Of the New Covenant’, p. 198), stating the difference betwixt the two covenants, shows that in the covenant at Sinai, in the covenant with Abraham, and that with David, that in all these covenant-expressures, there are for substance the same evangelical conditions of faith and sincerity.

Dr. [John] Davenant thus:

‘In the covenant of the gospel it is otherwise; for in this covenant, to the obtainment of reconciliation, justification, and life eternal, there is no other condition required than of true and lively faith, John 3:16. Therefore justification, and the right to eternal life does depend on the condition of faith alone.’ (Of Actual Righteousness, ch. 30)

Dr. Downame harmonizes with the rest in these words:

‘That which is the only condition of the covenant of grace, by that alone we are justified: But faith is the condition of the covenant of grace, which is therefore called lex fidei [the law of faith]. Our writers, says he, distinguishing the two covenants of God, that is, the law and the gospel, whereof one is the covenant of works, the other the covenant of grace, do teach that the law of works is that which to justification requires works as the condition thereof: the law of faith that which to justification requires faith as the condition thereof. The former says this, ‘Do this, and thou shalt live’; the latter, ‘Believe in Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’’ (Tract 1, Of Justification, bk. 6, ch. 8, sect. 10 and bk. 7, ch. 2, sect. 6)”

1700’s

Herman Witsius

𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘐𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘈𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯, trans. Thomas Bell (Lang, 1807), p. 118

“God forbid that I should impeach such a divine with heterodoxy on this account, that he perhaps chooses rather to call faith ‘a condition’ of justification, while I consider it as ‘an instrument.’”

Samuel Willard

The Truly Blessed Man (Boston: Green & Allen, 1700), pp. 254–57 HT: Tony Byrne

“And what greater discovery of good will could there be?

3. In the free offers that he makes of it to men. He has not only made way for it, by the obedience of his Son, who paid the price for our redemption, but published it in the Gospel, and tendered it to all that come within the sound of that proclamation: And there are two things that set forth his readiness to apply this forgiveness to sinners.

1. That He makes offer of, and invites sinners to accept it. He has ordered that man be told that He has forgiveness, and that they be bidden to come for it. He does not wait till miserable sinners cry to Him for it; which yet would be a rich favor, if so they might find it at his hands, but because they sought it not, nor ever would have done so, He sends them an embassy about it, Isa. 65:1-2; 2 Cor. 5:20. And would He do so, did He not delight in pardoning?

2. That He offers it freely. And if He did not do so, the sinner must forever go without it, for he had nothing to purchase it with. The gospel invitations come as freely as can be supposed, Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17. If it be here objected, You teach that there are gospel conditions on which it is only to be had; how then can it be said to be free? It may readily be replied:

There are no other conditions required in the Gospel but what among men are required in order to receiving and being invested with the freest gift that can be: there is nothing but acceptance of this gift and acknowledgment of the kindness of the bestower; faith is the hand that receives it, whereas unbelief puts it away; and is it not meet that he who would have the benefit of a gift, do accept of it? or does such acceptance derogate from the grace of the Giver? and what is our obedience, but our thankfulness to God for so unspeakable a gift? and shall any say the gift was not free, because I was thankful for it? the sinner was worthy of death and deserved no pardon, and yet he may have it for receiving, and is not God willing?”

1800’s

Robert Shaw

An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 8th ed. (Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1857) HT: Tony Byrne

pp. 91–92

“That God ‘requires of sinners faith in Christ that they may be saved,’ admits of no dispute. The part assigned to faith, however, has been much controverted.

Many excellent divines, in consequence of the distinction which they made between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, were led to speak of faith as the condition of the latter covenant. But the term, as used by them, signifies not a meritorious or procuring cause, but simply something which goes before, and without which the other cannot be obtained. They consider faith merely as a condition of order or connection, as it has been styled, and as an instrument or means of obtaining an interest in the salvation offered in the gospel.

This is very different from the meaning attached to the term by Arminians and Neonomians, who represent faith as a condition on the fulfilment of which the promise is suspended. The Westminster Assembly elsewhere affirm, that God requires of sinners faith in Christ, “as the condition to interest them in him.” But this is very different from affirming that faith is the condition of the covenant of grace.

That faith is indispensably necessary as the instrument by which we are savingly interested in Christ, and personally instated in the covenant, is a most important truth, and this is all that is intended by the Westminster Divines. They seem to have used the term condition as synonymous with instrument; for, while in one place they speak of faith as the condition to interest sinners in the Mediator, in other places they affirm, that ‘faith is the alone instrument of justification,’ and teach, that ‘faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.’ As the word condition is ambiguous, apt to be misunderstood, and is frequently employed in an unsound and dangerous sense, it is now disused by evangelical divines.”

pp. 130-31

“V. Faith is the alone instrument of the sinner’s justification. That we are justified by faith is so frequently and expressly declared in the Scriptures, that no one who professes to receive the Word of God as the rule of his faith can venture to deny it. There are very different opinions, however, in regard to the office of faith in the justification of a sinner.

Some say that a sinner is justified by faith, as it is an act performed by him; as if faith came in the room of perfect obedience, required by the law. This we have already disproved; and “it is well known,” says Witsius, “that the Reformed Churches condemned Arminius and his followers for saying that faith comes to be considered, in the matter of justification, as a work or act of ours.”

Some have said, that faith is to be considered as the condition of our justification. The “condition ” of anything usually signifies that which, being done, gives us a right and title to it, because it possesses either intrinsic or conventional merit. To call faith, in this sense, the condition of our justification, would introduce human merit, to the dishonour of divine grace, and would entirely subvert the gospel.

Some worthy divines have called faith a condition, who were far from being of opinion that it is a condition properly so called, on the performance of which men should, according to the gracious covenant of God, have a right to justification as their reward. They merely intended, that without faith we cannot be justified—that faith must precede justification in the order of time or of nature.

But as the term ‘condition’ is very ambiguous, and calculated to mislead the ignorant, it should be avoided.”

Robert L. Dabney

Syllabus & Notes of the Course of Systematic & Polemic Theology, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company, 1878), pp. 438–39 HT: Tony Byrne

“May faith be properly called a condition

The question has been keenly agitated between Calvinists, whether faith itself should be spoken of as a condition of the covenant. One party has denied it, because they supposed that the language which represented man as performing a condition of his own salvation would make an inlet for human merit. But it is most manifest that there is a sense in which faith is the condition, in all such passages as Jn. 3:16; Acts 8:37; Jn. 11:26; Mk. 16:16.

No human wit can evade the fact, that here God proposes to man a something for him to do, which, if done, will secure redemption; if neglected, will ensure damnation—and that something is in one sense a condition. But of what kind? Paul everywhere contrasts the condition of works, and the condition of faith. This contrast will be sufficiently established, and all danger of human merits being intruded will be obviated, if it be observed that faith is only the appointed instrument for receiving free grace purchased by our Surety.

It owes its organic virtue as such, to God’s mere appointment, not to the virtue of its own nature. In the Covenant of Works, the fulfilment of the condition on man’s part earned the result, justification by its proper moral merit. In the Covenant of Grace, the condition has no moral merit to earn the promised grace, being merely an act of receptivity. In the Covenant of Works, man was required to fulfil the condition in his own strength. In the Covenant of Grace, strength is given to him to believe, from God.”

A.A. Hodge

Outlines of Theology: Rewritten & Enlarged (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878), p. 374 HT: Tony Byrne

“10. In what sense can faith be called a condition of salvation?

Faith is a condition sine qua non [without which: nothing] of salvation, i.e., no adult man can be saved if he does not believe, and every man that does believe shall be saved. It is, however, a gift of God and the first part or stage of salvation.

Viewed on God’s side it is the beginning and index of his saving work in us. Viewed on our side it is our duty, and must be our own act. It is, therefore, as our act, the instrument of our union with Christ, and thus the necessary antecedent, though never the meritorious cause, of the gracious salvation which follows. Faith as the condition is of course living faith, which necessarily brings forth “confession” and obedience.”

1900’s

Louis Berkhof

Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1938), pp. 280–81 HT: Tony Byrne

“f. It is both conditional and unconditional.

…
In a sense it may be said that God Himself fulfills the condition in the elect. That which may be regarded as a condition in the covenant, is for those who are chosen unto everlasting life also a promise, and therefore a gift of God.

Finally, the covenant is not conditional in the sense that the reception of every separate blessing of the covenant is dependent on a condition. We may say that faith is the conditio sine qua non [condition without which: nothing] of justification, but the reception of faith itself in regeneration is not dependent on any condition, but only on the operation of the grace of God in Christ.”

2000’s

Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley

𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 4 vols. (Crossway, 2021), vol. 3, p. 528

“We will not criticize those who speak of faith as a ‘condition’ of justification if the word condition is rightly defined, but it seems wiser to speak of faith as the ‘instrument with which we embrace Christ our Righteousness,’ as the Belgic Confession (Art. 22) says.”

Rutherford’s Positions

Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: 1647), pp. 261-69

“Antinomians believe that all the promises in the Gospel made upon conditions to be performed by creatures, especially free-will casting in its share to the work, smell of some grains of the Law and of obedience for hire, and that bargaining of this kind cannot consist with free grace.

And the doubt may seem to have strength in that our divines argue against the Arminian decree of election to glory upon condition of faith and perseverance foreseen in the persons so chosen, because then election to glory should not be of mere grace, but depend on some thing in the creature, as on a condition or motive at least, if not as on a cause, work or hire. But Arminians reply: the condition being of grace cannot make anything against the freedom of the grace of election, because, so justification and glorification should not be of mere grace; for sure we are justified and saved upon condition of faith, freely given us of God.

The question then must be whether there can be any conditional promises in the Gospel of Grace, or whether a condition performed by us and free grace can consist together. Antinomians say they are [as] contrary as fire and water.

Hence these positions for the clearing of this considerable question.”

Position 1. The condition that Arminians fancy to be in the Gospel can neither consist with the grace of election, justification, calling of grace or crowning of believers with glory; this condition they say we hold, but they err: because it is a condition of hire that they have borrowed from lawyers, such as is between man and man, ex causa onerosa, it’s absolutely in the power of men to do or not to do and bows and determines the Lord and his free-will absolutly to this part of the contradiction which the creature chooses, though contrary to the natural inclination and antecedent will and decree of God wishing, desiring and earnestly inclining to the obedience and salvation of the creature.

Position 2. Evangelic conditions wrought in the elect by the irresistible grace of God and grace do well consist together. Jn. 5:24, ‘Verily, Verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and beleeveth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but is passed from death to life.’… Faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace and the only condition of justification and of the title, right and claim that the elect have, through Christ, to life eternal. Holy walking, as a witness of faith, is the way to the possession of the kingdom. As Rom. 2.6, ‘Who will render to every man according to his deeds.’ Verse 7, ‘To them who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternall life.’

Position 3. The decree of election to glory may be said to be more free and gracious in one respect, and justification, glorification and conversion more free in another respect, and all the four, of mere free grace.

Position 4. Conversion, justification are free for election, and therefore election is more free, but all these as they are in God are equally free and are one simple good will. Though Christ justify and crown none but such as are quallified with the grace of believing, yet believing is a condition that removes nothing of the freedom of grace:

1. Because it works nothing in the bowels of mercy and the free grace of God as a motive, cause, or moving condition that does extract acts of grace out of God; only we may conceive this order, that grace of electing to glory stirs another wheel (to speak so) of free love to give faith, effectual calling, justification and eternal glory.

2. It’s no hire nor work at all; nor does it justify as a work, but [it] only lays hold on the Lord our righteousness.

Position 5. Though it be true that grace is essentially in God and in us by participation, yet is it false that grace is not properly in us, but that faith, hope, repentance and the like that are in us are gifts, not graces. For grace in us may be called a gift in that it is freely given us…

There is a great deceitfulness in our heart in the matter of performed conditions:

[1.] So soon as we have performed a condition, though wrought in us by mere grace, we hold out our hand and cry, ‘Pay me, Lord, my wages, for I have done my work;’ so near of kin to our corrupt hearts is the conceit of merit.

2. A second deceit is, when an obligation of obedience presses us, we overlook the condition and fix our eyes on the promise when we should eye the precept; and when it comes to the reward, when we should most look to the promise of free grace, then we eye the precept and challenge debt and forget grace.

3. When we are pressed with the supernatural duty of believing and should look only to free grace, which only must enable us to that high work of believing, we look to ourselves and complain, ‘Oh, I am not weary and laden, and therefore not qualified for Christ,’ and so we turn wickedly and proudly wise to shift ourselves of Christ; when we should look to ourselves, we look away from ourselves to a promise of our wages, but our bad deservings, if looked to, would turn our eyes on our abominations that we might eye free grace; and when we should eye free grace, we look to our sinful unfitness to believe and come to Christ.

On Faith as an Instrument

Order of

Bible Verses 20+
Westminster
Articles 3
Quotes 8+
Contra 1

Bible Verses (not exhaustive)

Jn. 1:12 ““But as many as received Him… even to them that believe on his name.”

Jn. 6:35 “He that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.”

Jn. 7:37–38 “If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink. He that believeth on Me…”

Acts 15:9 “…purifying their hearts by faith.”

Acts 25:18 “…that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance… by faith that is in Me.”

Acts 26:18 “…that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance… by faith that is in Me.”

Rom. 3:22 “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:”

Rom. 3:30 “Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

Rom. 3:25 “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood…”

Rom. 5:2 “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand…”

Gal. 3:14 “…that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Gal. 3:26 “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

Eph. 2:8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith”

Eph. 3:17 “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith…”

Phil. 3:9 “…the righteousness which is of God by faith.”

Phil. 3:12 “…that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.”

Phil. 3:9 “…not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith…”

1 Tim. 6:12 “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life…”

2 Tim. 3:15 “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Heb. 6:18 “Heb. 6:18 “…who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.”

1 Pet. 1:9 “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.”

Westminster

Confession of Faith, 11.2

“II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;^a yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.^b

a. John 1:12; Rom 3:28; 5:1
b. Gal 5:6; James 2:17, 22, 26“

Larger Catechism #73

“Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?

A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.

Gal. 3:11; Rom. 3:28; Rom. 4:5; Rom. 10:10; John 1:12; Phil. 3:9; Gal. 2:16“

Articles

1600’s

Forbes, William – pp. 33-37 & 55-59 in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 1, chs. 3-4

“10. Protestants, however, almost universally teach that we are justified by faith alone, and that not after the manner of a disposition (as the Romanists say) but after the manner of an instrument; that is, that justification is received, or as they themselves say, apprehended by no other thing than faith.” – p. 33

Burgess, Anthony – Objection 2, pp. 256-59 in sermon 26 in The True Doctrine of Justification… (London, 1654)

Warren, Thomas – pp. 192-97 in ch. 8, ‘…and the instrumentality of faith is proved’ in Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ… (London, 1654)

This is very good and more detailed than Burgess.

Turretin, Francis – 7. ‘Does faith justify us properly and of itself or only relatively and instrumentally? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Romanists.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 16^th Topic, pp. 669-75

Quotes

Order of

Calvin
Wolleb
Ball
Spanheim
Leigh
Burgess
Le Blanc
Turretin
Witsius
A. Hodge
Beeke & Smalley

John Calvin

Institutes, bk. 3, ch. 11, sect. 7

1600’s

John Wolleb

Compendium of Christian Doctrine, pt. 1, ch. 30, sect. 10

John Ball

A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace… (London: 1645), ch. 3, ‘Of the Covenant of Grace in General’, p. 19

“Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of justification, which is amongst the number of true causes, not being a cause without which the thing is not done, but a cause whereby it is done. The cause without which a thing is not done, is only present in the action, and does nothing therein: But as the eye is an active instrument for seeing, and the care for hearing, so is faith also for justifying. If it be demanded whose instrument it is? It is the instrument of the soul, wrought therein by the Holy Ghost, and is the free gift of God.

In the Covenant of works, works were required as the cause of life and happiness: but in the Covenant of grace, though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith, yet not repentance, but faith only is the cause of life. The cause not efficient, as works should have been, if man had stood in the former Covenant, but instrumental only: for it is impossible that Christ, the death and blood of Christ, and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of justification or salvation.”

Friedrich Spanheim

‘Miscellaneous Theological Disputation exhibiting a Theological Compendium’ in Disputationum Theologicarum Miscellaneorum Pars Prima (d. 1649; Geneva: Chouët, 1652), trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology Latin

“36. The instrument of application is faith, not theoretical but practical, nor an act of the mind only but also of the heart, and that not superficial but radical.

37. But this faith is regarded in application neither habitually or qualitatively, but only relatively and organically, whence the benefit of justification is promiscuously ascribed, sometimes to the instrument, sometimes to the object apprehended through the instrument, in an identical sense.

38. The instruments of producing this faith are the Word and sacraments, not by reason of inherent virtue, but by reason of adhering blessing, and that from God’s ordination. Whence both the use of the Word and Sacraments is to be employed, yet to be circumscribed, and neither is to be attributed to the instruments what belongs to Him who acts through instruments, nor is God to be bound to them, but man only, nor is the same latitude to be judged of our duty and of grace.

39. The efficient cause of this faith is God’s Spirit, who through internal calling produces its act, through sanctification its habit, and through this omnimodo-sanctity according to parts, although not according to degrees, both as to the repurgation of faculties corrupted through sin and as to the convenient subordination of them inverted through sin.”

Edward Leigh

A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, pp. 528-29

“The Papists, Socinians and Remonstrants all acknowledge faith to justify, but by it they mean obedience to God’s commandments, and so make it a work, and [do] not consider it as an instrument receiving Christ and his pro∣mise.

A Papist, a Socinian, a Protestant says, ‘We are justified by faith,’ but dispositive [dispositionally, as an inherent disposition], says the Papist, conditionaliter [conditionally, as a condition only], says the Socinian, applicativè [applyingly], says the Protestant.

Faith justifies not as a quality or habit [an inward abiding power] in us, as the Papists teach, Ipsa fides censetur esse justitia [faith itself is considered to be righteousness], for so it is a part of sanctification, but as it is the instrument and hand to receive Christ who is our righteousness, much less as it is an act, as Socinus and his followers teach, as though [Greek] ipsum credere [‘to believe itself’], did properly justify; if we should be justified by it as it is an act, then we should be justified by our works and we should be no longer justified actually then we do actually believe, and so there should be an intercision of justification so oft as there is an intermission of the act of faith; but justification is a continued act.
…

We are said to be justified by faith, to live by it, to be saved by it, to have it imputed unto us for righteousness: all which is to be understood not principally, immediately, meritoriously in regard of any worth or dignity of it, or efficacious∣ly in regard of any power or efficacy in itself, but mediately, subserviently, organically, as it is a means to apprehend Christ his satisfaction and his sufferings, by the price and merit whereof we are justified, saved and stand as righteous in God’s sight, and as it has a special respect and relation thereto. Mr. Gataker against Saltmarsh [an antinomian], Shadows without Substance [1646], p. 56.

In the Covenant of Works, works are considered as in themselves performed by the parties to be justified and in reference unto ought done, or to be done for them by any other; whereas in the Covenant of Grace, faith is required and considered, not as a work barely done by us, but as an instrument or mean whereby Christ is apprehended and received, in whom is found, and by whom that is done, whereby God’s justice is satisfied, and life eternal meritoriously procured for us, that which carries the power and efficacy of all home to Christ.
…

Only faith receives Christ and a promise. Faith justifies by the mere ordination of God, that on the receiving of Christ, or resting on Him we shall be justified. The proper act of faith which justifies is the relying on Christ for pardon of sin.

To justify does not flow from any act of grace, because of the dignity and excellency of that act, but because of the peculiar nature, that it does receive and apply. Therefore to receive Christ and to believe in Him is all one, and faith is always opposed to works.”

Anthony Burgess

The True Doctrine of Justification… (London, 1654), sermon 23, pp. 224-25

“…our orthodox divines do say that faith justifies as it’s an instrument, laying hold on Christ, so that Christ received by faith is properly that which justifies, not faith itself, or any dignity in it. This is the hand that receiveth the jewel, which does enrich us.

This doctrine, though so generally received and avowed by all Protestant writers, yet of late is rejected among other reasons, because [it is said] there cannot be any passive instrument. Now I much wonder that Bellarmine, Becanus and other subtil Jesuits that turned every stone to overthrow faith’s instrumentality in justification, should so far forget their logic and metaphysics as not to pitch upon this objection above all, that there cannot be any such thing as a passive instrument.

Truly I think, when a man of godly affections broaches an error, which he takes to be a truth, he himself is a passive instrument to bring others into errors. If we regard natural causes and moral, we may easily mention many passive instruments: In natural things the throat is a passive instrument of drinking. The Conduit-pipe of conveying water, and twenty such instances men may think of. In morality, taking that largely, there are many passive instruments: Nebuchadnezzar and all wicked men are God’s passive instruments. The Serpent by which the Devil deceived Eve, was a passive instrument: and to come nearer to our purpose, who can deny but that miraculous faith was a passive instrument in doing miracles, for the power of working miracles is infinite and could not be communicated to a creature no more than the creation of a world, only they by resting on God’s power, God wrought these wonderful things by them.

But nothing does so fully represent this as the opinion of Aristotle and others following him, that intelligere is pati, and so videre, audire, are pati, ‘to understand is to receive,’ and so ‘to see’ and ‘hear;’ the soul does these by those faculties which are passive instruments therein; and therefore when Bellarmine would prove that credere and apprehendere were actions and works, it’s well answered that to believe or to lay hold on Christ (the Greek word applied often to faith is [Greek].

Though they be grammatical actions, yet they are naturally passions, as intelligere, videre are active verbs according to grammar, but naturally and physically are passions: So that a man in believing is passive, that is, he receives Christ for his righteousness: But of a passive instrument more hereafter.

Justification is not in giving something to God but in receiving from Him; we do not curiously litigate about the word ‘instrument;’ by instrumentum we mean no more than medium, whereby the soul receives the Gospel-righteousness tendered unto it, and those peculiar expressions you heard the Scripture gives to faith, can evince no less.

If therefore faith justify upon a peculiar reason, that that grace only has, viz. because it receives and applies Christ our righteousness, then other graces and holy works, having no such capacity, cannot justify. As the hand only, not the eyes or the feet, are the instrument that take alms given to a poor man. This consideration made that learned man Mr. [John] Ball, say how faith and works should be conjoined as con-causes in justification is impossible to conceive. Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, p. 70.

And it’s a mere sophism to say that if by faith we receive Christ, and faith is the receiving of Christ, then we receive Christ by receiving; for its not the notion of faith that is properly the instrument receiving, but faith as the habit putting itself into act. So that the meaning is, faith acting or laying hold upon Christ, is the instrument receiving Him. Neither is this to give too much to faith, no more than in the faith of miracles, when Christ said to some, ‘Thy faith hath made thee whole,’ that thereby our Savior gave any dignity to faith, as if that were the cause of their health.”

Louis Le Blanc

Francis Turretin

Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James Dennison Jr., trans. George Giger, 3 vols. (P&R, 1992–1997), vol. 2, Question 3, ‘Is the covenant of grace conditional and what are its conditions?’ pp. 184–89

“How faith is a condition.

Therefore it [being a condition] cannot be ascribed to faith materially (inasmuch as it is a work), but instrumentally (inasmuch as it is the hand apprehending).”

1700’s

Herman Witsius

1800’s

A.A. Hodge

Outlines of Theology: Rewritten & Enlarged (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878), p. 374 HT: Tony Byrne

“10. In what sense can faith be called a condition of salvation?

2000’s

Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley

𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 4 vols. (Crossway, 2021), vol. 3, p. 528

Contra Faith being an Instrument

Quote

1600’s

Peter van Mastricht

Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 5, pt. 1, bk. 6, ch. 6, ‘The Justification of those to be Redeemed’, sect. 14, ‘How faith influences justification: How it does not influence’

“XIV. In addition, it is worth inquiring how faith influences justification, or how it stands in relation to justification:

(1) it certainly does not influence it as its meritorious cause, either totally or partially, because Scripture not only testifies constantly that we are justified freely by the grace of God (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 2:8–9), but it also refers our justification to the righteousness of Christ as our only dikaioma on account of which we are justified (Rom. 3:25; Phil. 3:9).

Nor (2) on account of our faith considered in any way as our righteousness which is admitted in the gospel by God by way of acceptilation, in place of full obedience to the law, because Scripture nowhere says that we are justified on account of faith, but only by faith, and in addition, it wholly refers that on account of which we are justified to Christ’s righteousness (Rom. 5:18; 3:25).

Nor (3) by faith insofar as that speaks of and implies an obedience to the commands of Christ on account of which through the pure grace of God we are justified, because Scripture throughout contrasts faith and obedience or good works (Rom. 3:27–28; Eph. 2:8–9; Gal. 2:16).

Perhaps (4) it justifies as an instrument by which we take hold of Christ. Protestants generally think in this way, and certainly truly, if only you take this with due distinction. And so that you may do this, we must distinguish between passive and active justification.

In passive justification, we are persuaded that we are justified by God, or from it we conclude that we are justified by God. In this way it certainly can be said that we are justified by faith as an instrument, insofar as in the practical syllogism, by means of which we conclude that we are infallibly justified, faith stands as the middle term: “The one who believes is justified; I believe; therefore, I am justified.”

In active justification, God justifies us, and this in turn is either immediate, which is accomplished by the living voice of God the Judge at the last judgment—this admits of entirely no instrument—or mediate, by which God in this life justifies a person in his conscience, or absolves him from the guilt of his sins—this certainly allows an instrument, but none other than the gospel, by whose voice God absolves all believers, “That whosoever believes should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Therefore, is faith not the instrument by which we take hold of Christ and his righteousness? Does he not justify for this reason? I respond:

(a) Let it be the instrument by which we take hold of Christ, yet it is not thereby the instrument through which God justifies us.

(b) It is the very taking hold of Christ, or the act of taking hold of Christ (John 1:12; Col. 2:5–6), and for that reason it without a doubt provides the reason for God to justify us (Rom. 3:24–25).

But (c) it is not the instrument through which we take hold of Christ, unless we speak quite ambiguously, just as it is hardly accurate to say that the very act of seeing is the instrument through which we see.

Accordingly, how it does influence
In what way then does faith concur with God’s active justification?

I respond, As a prior condition required by God for justification, or as a cause without which God does not will that his Son be our Mediator, nor will to justify us on account of his righteousness alone. So that faith has its entire efficacy in this matter of justification from the most free establishment of God, whereby God chose faith before all other things as the condition of our justification.

For if you should ultimately resolve the efficacy of faith to some intrinsic aptitude to apprehend Christ, or to its instrumentality, such that God was moved by it to justify us, then it would happen less graciously.

But if you should ask further by what reason God was led to choose faith as the condition to confer justification, I could respond: (1) God’s will stands as the reason. But (2) I would say, because:

(a) faith is the apprehension of Christ, and thus

(b) this method of justifying especially inclines to God’s glorification (Rom. 4:20), insofar as in it most brightly shines the glory of his grace and mercy toward the miserable sinner whom he willed to justify on account of his Son’s righteousness, to be accepted by faith alone (Rom. 3:26 with 2 Cor. 5:21; John 3:16; Rom. 8:5; 1 John 4:9).

Likewise, (c) for the glorification of the Son himself, the Mediator, which in this whole matter of redemption and justification God most especially intends, after his own glorification (John 5:23; Isa. 49:6; cf. Isa 45:24–25).

Finally, (d) this method of justifying by faith alone is the most effective for casting down the pride of man, insofar as he confers absolutely nothing for his justification except faith alone (Eph. 2:9; Rom. 3:27), the entire efficacy of which also depends upon God’s establishment alone, and the promise made to it.

Moreover, what that faith is by which we are justified, and in what it consists, namely in this, that we earnestly will to have God as our supreme end and Christ as our only Mediator, we said expressly in book 2, chapter 1.”

Is Justification before Faith in Rational Adults? No

Order of

No 16+
Infants et al. 4
Yes 3 (Not Recommended)

No (Recommended)

Order of

Articles 8
Books 2
Latin 1
Quotes 8+

Articles

1600’s

D.H. – An Antidote Against Antinomianism… The Unjustifiableness of Justification before Faith… (London: G.B. & R.W., [1643]) 42 pp.

Bedford, Thomas – ch. 3, ‘A Brief Answer to the Arguments of H. D. by him brought to prove Justification before Faith, i.e. before the act of Believing’ in An Examination of the Chief Points of Antinomianism… (London: Field, 1647), pp. 25-33

Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 18, ‘That we are not justified until we believe’ in A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist… (London: 1648), pt. 2, pp. 19-20

“We hold against Antinomians that we are never justified till we believe.” – p. 19

Mather, Richard – The Sum of Certain Sermons upon Gen. 15:6, wherein Not Only the Doctrine of Justification by Faith is Asserted & Cleared & Sundry Arguments for Justification before Faith Discussed & Answered, but also the Nature & the Means of Faith, with the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, and of Christ’s Righteousness to us are Briefly Explained & Confirmed (Cambridge, MA: Samuel Green, 1652) 45 pp.

Woodbridge, Benjamin – Justification by Faith: or, a Confutation of that Antinomian Error, that Justification is Before Faith; being the Sum & Substance of a Sermon (London: John Field, 1652) 36 pp.

Woodbridge (1622-1684)

Burgess, Anthony – The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated, from the Errours of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and More Especially Antinomians (1655), pp. 185-216 on Mt. 6:12 IA

Lectures 20, ‘Whether Pardon of Sin be Immanent or Transient Act of God, and whether it be Antecedent to our Faith and Repentance. The Contrary Proved, viz. that God does not Justify or Pardon us Before we Believe & Repent’

Lecture 21, ‘The Antinomian Arguments for Justification before Faith Answered’

Lecture 22, ‘More Arguments to Prove Justification before Faith Answered’

Owen, John – ch. 5, ‘About Justification before Believing’ in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (d. 1683) in Works, 10.449-51

“…evangelical justification, whereby a sinner is completely justified, that it should precede believing, I have [previously] not only not asserted but positively denied, and disproved by many arguments.” – p. 449

Anon. – Actual Justification Rightly Stated, containing a True Narrative of a Sad Schism made in a church of Christ at Kilby in Leicester-shire, Proving None of the Elect are Actually Justified before Faith (London: B. Harris, 1696) 26 pp.

Books

1600’s

Warren, Thomas – Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, nor of Mystical Union to Christ: being the Sum of a Sermon… with a Vindication of it from the Objections & Calumniations Cast upon it by Mr. William Eyre… Together with… a refutation of that… Error Asserted therein: viz. the Justification of Infidels, or the Justification of a Sinner before & without Faith. Wherein also the Conditional Necessity & Instrumentality of Faith unto Justification, together with the consistency of it, with the freeness of God’s grace, is explained, confirmed & vindicated… (London: E.T. for John Browne, 1654) 255 pp.

Warren (1616 or 1617 – 1694)

Graile, John – A Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace & the Defenders thereof, from the Aspersions of Arminianism & Popery, which Mr. William Eyre Cast on them (London, 1654) 125 pp.

John Flavel: “And as for those ancient and modern divines whom the Antinomians have corrupted and misrepresented, the reader may see them all vindicated, and their concurrence with those I have named evidenced by that learned and pious Mr. John Graile, in his Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace, from p. 58 onward;

a man whose name and memory is precious with me, not only upon the account of that excellent sermon he preached, and those fervent prayers he poured out many years since at my ordination; but for that learned and judicious treatise of his against Mr. Eyre [below], wherein he hath cast great light upon this controversy, as excellent Mr. Baxter and Mr. Woodbridge have also done. But alas! what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate men!” – Works, vol. 3, Appendix, Vindicarum Vindex, pp. 530-31

Latin Article

1600’s

Voet, Gisbert – 27. ‘Of the State of the Elect Before Conversion’ in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1655), vol. 2, pp. 402-24

Quotes

Order of

Rollock
Cowper
Wotton
Forbes
Maccovius
Woodbridge
Le Blanc
Cole
Mastricht

1500’s

Robert Rollock

Select Works of Robert Rollock ed. Gunn (d. 1599; Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1849), vol. 1, A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling, ch. 33, ‘Of Charity or Love’, p. 237

“For which cause principally, I thought good to speak of it [love] briefly in this treatise, after faith and hope, for that faith, wherein we say consists the second part of our effectual calling, has these for inseparable companions, faith, hope, and repentance; after which follows our justification by order, not of time, but of nature.”

‘Treatise on Justification’ trans. Aaron Clay Denlinger & Noah Phillips MAJT 27 (d. 1599; 2016), p. 103

“After effectual calling follows justification, which consists in God’s imputation of the righteousness of Christ, who has already been apprehended by faith in effectual calling, to the sinner, just as if that righteousness were the sinner’s own…

On the basis of these considerations, take note that faith has a twofold function: the first in effectual calling, when it accepts Christ with his righteousness as such is offered to man; the second in justification, when it accepts Christ with his righteousness as such is imputed to man.

It should be noted, moreover, that when man is said to be justified through faith, the faith in question is that which has already played a role in effectual calling—a role, that is, in apprehending Christ and his righteousness as such is offered to man. But salvation is more appropriately attributed to that faith that apprehends the righteousness of Christ imputed to man in justification. “By grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph. 2.8).”…

It may be asked: If in effectual calling Christ’s righteousness is apprehended through faith, then cannot someone be said to be justified already by that righteousness?

I answer, no. For justification is the pronouncement of a sentence. But in effectual calling there is no pronouncement of a sentence. Therefore, one cannot be called justified as a result of effectual calling alone.”

1600’s

William Cowper of Galloway

Three Heavenly Treatises upon Romans 8... (1609), on Rom. 8:30, p. 389 Cowper (1568–1619) was a reformed Scottish bishop.

“‘And whom He called, them also He justified.’ Having spoken of our calling, we come now to speak of our justification. This is a new benefit different from the former benefit of our calling, posterior to it in order of working but not in time: for in the same moment wherein the Lord by effectual calling gives us faith to believe, He does also justify us.”

Anthony Wotton

Mr. Anthony Wotton’s Defence against Mr. George Walker’s Charge... (Cambridge: Daniel, 1641), ‘Mr. Wotton’s Defense’, p. 30

“Whereas faith (being the condition required on our part) must go before justification, at least in nature.”

William Forbes

Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 3, p. 27

“…they cannot deny that faith at least precedes justification in nature; which [faith] we certainly have not from ourselves, but from the preventing grace of Christ. (Colloquy of Aldeburg, p. 48; Robert Rollock, On Effectual Calling, ch. 33, p. 279; ch. 38, pp. 325 & 328; George Downame, On the Covenant of Grace, Appendix, p. 198 ff.)”

Maccovius, John

Scholastic Discourse: The Distinctions & Rules of Theology & Philosophy (1644), ch. 13, ‘On Justification’, p. 231

“1. Active justification differs from passive justification.

In Latin, the nouns ending in –io are generally interpreted in this way [as active and passive]. God justifies and we are justified.

2. Passive justification is later than faith.

Passive justification follows after passive faith, because it is through faith that we receive the remission of sins, Act 26:18.”

Benjamin Woodbridge

The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners… (London: T.R., 1656), ch. 6, sect. 1, pp. 132-33

“2. I deny that condemnation comes upon any man by virtue of the Law given to Adam, till himself be born a child of Adam. Therefore, from the acknowledged pnrity of reason it must follow that no man is justified by the Covenant made with Christ, till himself be borne of Christ, that is, by faith, Gal. 3:26; Jn. 1:12-13 and 3:5…”

Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu

Theological Theses, vol. 2 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica at Discord (1675; London, 1683), ‘On Justifying Faith’, pt. 1, pp. 156, 164, 166 Latin

“LXX. Yet, among the Reformers, there are those who seem to concede that the act of faith by which we are justified is the belief that our sins have been erased and forgiven through Christ. They don’t see a contradiction in saying that God forgives us our sins and erases our sins because we believe they have been forgiven and erased. But they note that our sins can be said to be erased in two ways:

First, regarding God’s decree and Christ’s death already completed based on that decree;

Second, regarding the effective application, both on Christ’s part who grants forgiveness of sins and on the believers’ part who receive it through faith.

Thus, their understanding is that we are granted and applied forgiveness of sins because we embrace Christ with certain confidence and are persuaded that Christ, according to God’s decree, has erased and atoned for our sins with his death. This is the teaching of Henricus Altingius.

LXXI. [Daniel] Chamier straightforwardly admits that our sins are forgiven before we believe and that faith follows justification. Yet, the faith by which we believe our sins have already been forgiven is said to justify because it occurs in the justified and is required by the justified; hence, no one who is indeed rational is justified unless he possesses this faith, and no one has this faith unless they are justified.

LXXII. Peter Molinaeus, often cited and professor of theology at the Academy of Sedan, seems to share this view. He considers justification to be from eternity and different from regeneration, which occurs in time and has a beginning. Discussing man’s justification before God, he mentions:

“It is from eternity, part of the decree of election, although its awareness is given to the faithful at a certain time. In contrast, regeneration happens in time, starting with the first sparks of faith and the initial movements of repentance.”

Thus, according to his hypothesis, a sinner’s sins are forgiven before they believe, and faith justifies only because through faith we are aware of justification.
…

CIV. However, Chamier and some others believe that justification is attributed to faith because of the act through which we believe our sins have been forgiven. But this view is entirely contrary to the truth. How can we be justified through an act that presupposes justification has already occurred? But the trust by which we are convinced our sins have been forgiven presupposes that justification has already occurred, as a person to whom sins are forgiven and pardoned is already justified. Chamier concedes that a person is justified and sins are forgiven before they believe. But this contradicts the entire Scripture, which consistently teaches that God’s wrath remains on those who do not believe, and faith and repentance are the conditions under which forgiveness of sins is promised to us, without which it cannot be obtained.

CV. Chamier’s argument that faith is said to justify because all who are justified eventually partake in it, and none is found justified without it, does not resolve the difficulty. By the same logic, we could also be said to be elected to grace through faith and good works because all who are elected to grace eventually exhibit faith and good works, and no one has faith and good works who is not also elected to grace.
…

CXV. Chamier and some others contend that justification is attributed to faith because of the act through which we believe our sins have been forgiven. However, this stance seems to conflict with the core essence of faith and justification. How can we be justified by an act that presupposes justification has already occurred?
…

CXVII. Among these various perspectives, some find more plausibility in the view that faith justifies as it adheres to God, relies on His mercy, and seeks grace and forgiveness.”

Thomas Cole

A Discourse of Regeneration, Faith & Repentance... (London: Cockerill, 1692), Discourse of Regeneration, ch. 4, ‘Manner of Regeneration’, p. 92

“Some would suppose our union to Christ, and consequently, by virtue of that, our justification by Christ, to be before actual faith, even in adult persons, and consequently without it; they insist upon a priority in nature and time, and build positions upon that distinction that will not hold…

They who hold justification before faith are afraid lest they should be betrayed into a justification by works, if they should hold otherwise; and therefore choose rather to plead for a justification before faith, and without faith, lest they should seem to be justified by anything in and from themselves; but how contrary is this to Scripture, ‘He that believeth not, is condemned’? (Jn. 3:18) But he that believes not, is justified, is nowhere written in my Bible.”

Peter van Mastricht

Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 5, pt. 1, bk. 6, ch. 6, ‘The Justification of those to be Redeemed’

pp. 116-17

“VIII. Third, the object of the justifying action:… (2) men (1 Tim. 2:5), not just any, but:

…
(d) called to receive the Redeemer and the conditions of redemption (Rom. 8:30; 1 Pt. 2:9–10); (e) regenerated and made alive (Eph. 2:5), illuminated in mind (Eph. 1:17–19), renewed in heart or will (Ezek. 36:26), so that they are able to submit to calling, and receive the Redeemer offered to them, and the terms of redemption; (f) converted (Jer. 31:18–19), so that through the power received in regeneration, they by faith actually receive God and the Mediator (Phil. 3:12), and turn themselves from their sins to righteousness (Jer. 31:19); (g) united with Christ, so that they possess, in none other than Christ, a righteousness not their own, but Christ’s, that which is through faith (Phil. 3:9; 1 Cor. 1:30; Acts 4:12).

From these things can at the same time be perceived the order and procedure of God whereby he is accustomed to provide the justification of the miserable sinner.

IX… whereby he calls the elect to receive the Redeemer given to them (2 Tim. 1:9), whereby he grants faith to them, by means of which they receive him (Phil. 1:29) and are united with him (Phil. 3:9), the same grace, I say, whereby he reckons and pronounces them righteous in Christ.”

p. 128

“(6) The Antinomians do not even have faith as a prerequisite for justification, but require it only for this purpose, that it may provide a testimony to the conscience that justification has already happened, because they say that actual justification happened in the satisfaction that Christ offered on the cross.”

Is Justification before Faith in Infants & in other Extraordinary Cases?

Order of

Intro
No 2
Yes 1

Intro

Note that George Walker below (a Westminster divine), who argues justification is before faith in infants, does not necessarily disagree (on this point) with Thomas Warren, who argues that justification is not before faith with regard to infants, as Walker speaks of an actual exercise of faith and Warren posits in elect infants, so ordained, an implicit power of faith, though not actualized in exercise.

Note this solution for infants, though, is yet different than in adults, where the actual exercise of faith is typically considered to be required for justification, not merely an implicit power of faith.

See here God working in accord with the natures of his creatures: God requires faith for justification so far as persons are able to have faith: for infants (or handicapped adults), this may merely be an existant power; for rational adults, the full exercise of their rational souls in faith is required for justification.

Quotes

Order of

Warren
Voet

1600’s

Thomas Warren

Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification… (London: Browne, 1654)

p. 14

“As for infants, their case is of a peculiar consideration, God by his Spirit supplying what is wanting [lacking] through the imbecility of their age; and hence the Spirit working semen fidei [a seed of faith], and apprehending them, though they cannot apprehend Christ; I question not their union to Christ, and the imputation of his righteousnesse to their justification; but we speak now de adultis [of adults], that none that are of years sufficient are justified without actual faith.”

pp. 247-49

“[Objection:] Sixthly, if it be the will of God that the death of Christ should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the elect, without any condition performed by them, then it was his will that it should be for all of them. But it is the will of God that it should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the elect, viz. infants, or else they cannot be reconciled.

I answer: Mr. [William] Eyre is hardly put to it, that he must run to the Philistines to sharpen his goad; this argument is taken from [Francis] Suarez [a Romanist], who argues against faith in general upon this ground, because infants are justified without it. Now this argument proves, if it proves anything at all, that we are justified without it, and not before it, and so believers are not the sole subjects of justification, as Mr. Eyre elsewhere affirms; but the case of infants is not to be urged in most questions, especially when we are speaking of what God requires in those that are adulti, ‘of age’ unto salvation; but I deny his minor and affirm that infants are not united to Christ without faith; they are saved by faith as well as we.

Thus [Jerome] Zanchi (tome 5, Commentary on Hosea, p. 28):

Ut uniamur huic capiti Christo, Spiritus propriae fidei per sese omnibus ipsis etiam parvulis pernecessarius est; justus enim ex sola fide sua vivet, non aliena: assensus autem propriae voluntatis omnibus adultis est necessarius, etc.’

‘ac proinde etiam parvuli quodammodo sibi ponunt hoc caput, cum Spiritu fidei interno in hoc caput donantur:’

‘That we may be united to Christ, the spirit of a man’s own faith by itself is necessary to all, yea to infants also; for the just shall live by his own faith, not by another man’s; but the assent of our own proper will is necessary to all that are of age.’

And a little after he says:

‘and therefore also infants do in a manner appoint themselves this head, when they are given unto this head by the internal Spirit of faith.’

So also learned [Andrew] Rivet (ad vers. Babyl Jesui. Tom., [section ?] 297, p. 254.):

Agnoscimus Deum in infantibus supplere quod deest propter aetatis imbecillitatem interna Spiritus sui operatione, qui fidei semen in ipsis ingenerat, et vi sua eis applicat meritum Christi, cujus suo tempore in eis sensum est excitaturus:

‘We acknowledge that God supplies in infants what is wanting through the weakness of their age by the internal work of his Spirit, who engenders a seed of faith, and by his power applies the merits of Christ to them, whereof He will raise up a sense in his time;’

Therefore I acknowledge there is at least wrought in them semen fidei, ‘a seed of faith’, by which they become members of Christ, and that relation which is in their faith to Christ’s merits is the instrument by which they obtain remission of sins, and without which they could not be saved.

Nor may this seem strange, seeing we grant that in men grown up they are merely passive in the first work of grace, their understandings and wills no ways concurring antecedently to this work; and seeing it is a work wrought in us without us, why may not children be capable of this? Besides, if Adam had stood, even infants before the use of reason had been sanctified, and Christ was so from the womb, and John Baptist, and infants received the seal of the righteousness of faith; and are they capable of the seal of the righteousness of faith, and not of faith? And therefore though they have not the use of knowledge, this hinders not a seed and work of faith; they have not actual reason, yet they have reasonable souls; and when it is said that faith comes by hearing [Rom. 10], it is to be applied to persons that are of age, to whom the ordinary means to beget faith is hearing of the Word preached.”

Gisbert Voet

Disputation 29, ‘On Regeneration’, pt. 1 (1639) tr. AI by Roman Prestarri in Select Theological Disputations (1655), vol. 2, pp. 432-65 Latin at Confessionally Reformed Theology

“As for regeneration or conversion in the second moment, it can be analogically conceived thus:

I. The one generating is the Holy Spirit through second grace as through a plastic power.

II. The matter of generation and seed is the new creature implanted in the first moment of regeneration, from which those acts are elicited.

III. The form is the second act of faith, which as it were actuates and πληροῖ [plēroi, fills/fulfills] that seed of regeneration.

IV. Preparatory dispositions are certain acts of repentance preceding faith.

V. Mixture is the actual union of faith with the promises of the Gospel, Heb. 4:2.

VI. Animation of the fetus, or introduction of the form, is when by actual faith Christ is applied for justification.

VII. The first thing emanating from the form now introduced, or the elicited act, is the reflexive act of faith.

VIII. To which follows the impetrated act: namely, the ἐνέργεια [energeia, energy/activity] of charity.

IX. The process and succession of acts which dispose to the production of the first actual faith nearly holds itself as that of the human fetus, which, although the rational soul infused is specific, by which the vegetative and sensitive are contained (in the same way as the binary is in the ternary and the triangle in the quadrangle), yet man first lives the life of a plant, then of an animal, then of a man.

So faith, although it is the first act of the new creature, indeed as it were the radical principle of the whole new creature, yet its second act, at least the complete and formed or sensible one, is exercised nearly among the last.”

Disputation 30, ‘On Regeneration’, pt. 2 (1639) tr. AI by Roman Prestarri in Select Theological Disputations (1655), vol. 2, p. 447 ff. Latin at Confessionally Reformed Theology

“1. That intrinsic or passive justification is viewed in a twofold manner: either as without sense, or as with sense. In the latter manner it is viewed in adults already actually and in the second act converted. In the former manner, both in regenerate infants departing in the state of grace and in adults constituted in the first moment of conversion—where, with the habit of faith impressed, immediately a relative change of state and with it passive or intrinsic justification must be thought to be present:

Not otherwise than dominion over creatures was present to the image of God in the first moment of creation, or rather flowed from it by natural resultance or necessary connection, and followed upon it. Or as a firstborn son of a king has and receives in his person such and such a principality, although in the first moment of birth he does not sense this nor actually rejoice in it.”

Yes

Quote

1600’s

George Walker

The Key of Saving Knowledge, Opening out of the Holy Scriptures the Right Way & Straight Passage to Eternal Life… (London: Badger, 1641), pp. 79-82

“Question: Can any man be justified before he does actually believe?

Answer: If we take justification in the first, most proper and principal sense, as it is the act of God alone, communicating Christ’s righteousness and satisfaction to his elect, when He does first unite them to Christ by his Spirit, and make Christ theirs with all his treasures: then it must be granted that men may be and are justified, before and without any express act of believing.

As for example: elect infants which die in their infancy, when they are regenerated and united to Christ by his Spirit, they have communion of his righteousness and are justified and made righteous, and all their sins are abolished and blotted out; and yet they do not actually believe, nor perform any explicit and express act of faith.”

Yes (Not Recommended)

Quotes

Order of

Walker
Voet

1600’s

George Walker

The Key of Saving Knowledge, Opening out of the Holy Scriptures the Right Way & Straight Passage to Eternal Life… (London: Badger, 1641), pp. 79-82

“Question: Can any man be justified before he does actually believe?

Answer: If we take justification [1] in the first, most proper and principal sense, as it is the act of God alone, communicating Christ’s righteousness and satisfaction to his elect, when He does first unite them to Christ by his Spirit, and make Christ theirs with all his treasures: then it must be granted that men may be and are justified, before and without any express act of believing.

Also they who are not effectually called to the state of grace and to communion with Christ till they come to years of discretion, though they have the gift of faith immediately at the same time infused into them: yet Christ’s righteousness is in order of nature communicated to them, and they are made righteous by it before God, before they do actually believe, or can truly believe that Christ is made to them righteousness, or can by believing possess and enjoy his righteousness for justification.

As a child may be born, or made an heir to lands, honor and riches, and may have a true right and interest in them, and be lord of all, before he has wit [understanding] to know his own estate, or discretion to possess actually and use them: so men may be justified by Christ’s righteousness made theirs, in the first instant of their regeneration and spiritual union with Christ, before they do actually believe, and sensibly possess and enjoy Christ and his obedience for justification.

[2] But if we take justification in a secondary sense, as it is an act wherein the elect themselves do cooperate and work together with God, by receiving and applying to themselves particularly the gift of righteousness freely given unto them, and by possessing and enjoying it; then must actual believing go before it as the instrumental cause, by which God justifies them in their own sense and feeling, and upon which He does esteem and account them righteous in the intercourse between Him and them, and gives them his warrant to esteem themselves justified with Him.

[3] But if we take justification in a judiciary sense, as it is used in courts of justice and judgment, for proving, declaring, and pronouncing men righteous: then not only faith and actual believing, but also repentance, amendment of life, and all holy Christian duties, and good works of piety, mercy, and charity must necessarily go before as evidences, testimonies, and proofs by which men must be justified, that is, judged, declared, and pronounced righteous.

First, in the court of their own conscience, so often as sin and Satan stand up against them to accuse them.

Secondly, in the common judgment of men.

Thirdly, in the general judgment at the last day.

Of [1] the first [“most proper”] justification, the apostle speaks, Rom. 5:19, where he says that by the obedience of Christ many are made righteous, and Rom. 8:4 and 2 Cor. 5:21.

Of [2] the second [of enjoying it] he speaks, Rom. 3:28, and 4:3, and Gal. 3:8, where he says we are justified by faith without works or deeds of the law.

Of [3] the third [“in a judiciary sense”] Saint James speaks, where he says that Abraham was justified by works, James 2:21; and Job 13:18, where he says, “Behold now I have ordered my cause, I know that I shall be justified”; and this St. Paul calls ‘justification of life’, Rom. 5:18, because it is an adjudging of men to eternal life, according to the evidence of their works, as our Savior shows, Mt. 24:35.”

Gisbert Voet

Disputation 30, ‘On Regeneration’, pt. 2 (1639) tr. AI by Roman Prestarri in Select Theological Disputations (1655), vol. 2, p. 447 ff. Latin at Confessionally Reformed Theology

“Effects arisen and dependent from faith considered organically are:

I. Real and passive, or received, union with Christ, and ingrafting into the new covenant, and thus communion of all goods in Christ.

II. Passive reconciliation and justification (as they call it), or rather internal, in us—from which is distinguished external or active justification, which is concerning us.

Furthermore, this necessary distinction [between active and passive justification] has been illustrated above all others, and clearly and solidly defended by Dr. [Johannes] Maccovius in his Theological Collection, pt. 4, Disputation 9, compared with pt. 3, Disputation 16, and his particular syllabus of disputations on Justification. And we in the Problems on Justification shall vindicate it ἐν παρόδῳ [en parodō, in passing] from certain objections.

There is no reason therefore to pursue it here at greater length. Only I add these three things for the sake of younger students:

1. That intrinsic or passive justification is viewed in a twofold manner: either as without sense, or as with sense. In the latter manner it is viewed in adults already actually and in the second act converted. In the former manner, both in regenerate infants departing in the state of grace and in adults constituted in the first moment of conversion—where, with the habit of faith impressed, immediately a relative change of state and with it passive or intrinsic justification must be thought to be present:

2. That active justification is distinguished from the decree of justification, as the execution of a decree from the decree, and the emanating action of God from the immanent. Just as the decree of creation must necessarily be distinguished from creation itself.

3. That the same was accomplished fundamentally and κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν [kat’ epangelian, according to promise] in the first institution, contracting, and promulgation of the new covenant, Gen. 3 [v. 15]; consummatively in the cross and resurrection of Christ, Rom. 8:32–33; 2 Cor. 5:18–19.”

Book

1600’s

Eyre, William – Vindiciæ justificationis gratuitæ [A Vindication of the Freeness of Justification] = Justification without conditions, or the Free Justification of a Sinner: explained, confirmed, and vindicated from the exceptions, objections and seeming absurdities which are cast upon it by the assertors of conditional justification: more especially from the attempts of Mr. B. Woodbridge in his sermon entitled, Justification by Faith, of Mr. Cranford in his Epistle to the Reader, and of Mr. Baxter in some passages which relate to the same matter : wherein also, the absoluteness of the New Covenant is proved and the arguments against it are disproved (London: R.I., 1654) 210 pp. ToC

Eyre (c.1612-1670), affirms the instrumental nature of faith in Justification, but as passive only, not active (pp. 30-31).

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

John 3:16

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”

Gal. 3:24

“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…”

Gal. 2:16

Related Pages

On the Recovery & Redemption of Man

Application of Redemption

Faith is Grounded in Evidence

Faith that does Not Work does Not Justify