Justification and Salvation.
It is said that Martin Luther rejected the letter of James, because he thought it disagreed with Paul's letter to the Romans on the doctrine of justification. It is not surprising that Luther, just emerging from the darkness of Roman superstition regarding the merit of church rituals, should take extreme ground in the other direction, and feel alarmed at what appeared to be a dangerous error in the letter of James on justification by works. But the present generation of Protestants ought to be able to take a more calm and consistent view of these letters. There is no discrepancy between the teachings of Paul and James; but there is, even to this day, a sad misunderstanding of what Paul really teaches. We propose to show that the modern "holiness" teachers argue concerning sanctification exactly as Paul does concerning justification. Now while Paul's position on justification is perfectly consistent with reason and with the principles of justice and of government, to apply the same argument to sanctification is subversive of justice and government. It leads to the rankest and most dangerous form of "antinomian perfectionism." It must be admitted that at first view, or on a superficial reading, of the writings of Paul and James, there seems to be a contradiction between the letter of James and that of Paul to the Romans. Paul says that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, or without works. James says a man is not justified by faith alone without works. Can these be harmonized? They can; and their harmony may be easily shown. Carefully examining the argument of Paul we find that he was discoursing of the sinful condition of the human race, and of the utter inability of a sinner to relieve himself by the law. The law is a rule of right; of course it condemns all wrong. Some find fault with the law because it condemns, but will not justify, the sinner. But for this very fact we respect it and love it. We could not respect a law which justified wrong-doing. It condemns the sinner only because he deserves condemnation. In this it does right. The wrong is in the transgressor—not in the law. Now Paul affirms that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." And then he immediately presents the remedy. This is the blood of Christ, and faith in his blood. As Christ is the gift of God's love (John 3:16), justification is "freely by his grace." But the subject of the argument is not for a moment lost sight of, though it is strangely overlooked by many modern theorists. He is speaking of sinners condemned, and therefore the justification of which he speaks is "for the remission of sins that are past. In this is found the solution of the apparent difficulty; Paul speaks to the Romans of justification from past sins; James does not; he has quite another subject for his discourse. It must be evident to all that our present or future conduct has no influence over our past life. Present obedience meets only a present demand, and we can do no more than our duty to-day. It is required of us, every moment of our lives, to love the Lord our God with all our heart. Less than this is short of duty, but more than this we cannot do. Now if we fail to love the Lord with all our heart to-day, can we make amends by loving him with more than all the heart to-morrow? The idea is absurd. Man can do nothing whatever toward relieving himself of the burden of guilt for past sins. Therefore in regard to remission of sins that are past, justification is, and of necessity must be, without the deeds of the law—entirely outside of our own works. "Freely by his grace." James, to the contrary, says not one word about the remission of past sin. He is speaking of what is necessary to the formation of character. And his remarks on this subject are as evidently true as are those of Paul on the subject of remission. We can form character by our actions as regards the present and future; but we cannot reform the past. That is gone, beyond our control. We must all give assent to that which James says as readily as we assent to that which Paul says. A rich man's prayer for the suffering poor will doubtless be accepted, but only just as far as he puts forth an effort to relieve their sufferings. All must accept the truth that "faith without works is dead, being alone;" that it is better to show our faith by our works than to assert our faith without works. Paul, so far from contradicting this, asserts the same thing in the very strongest terms; stronger, if possible, than the expression of James. No writer in the Bible pleads for obedience and good works more vehemently than does Paul. Thus in Phil. 2:12; "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." How Martin Luther could reject the letter of James and accept this, we cannot understand. Nor can we understand how the modern "holiness" teachers can take the ground which they do, in the face of such exhortations or injunctions as this of Paul to the Philippians, except on the ground of the well-known fact that hobby-riders seldom realize the necessity of being consistent. Now if the question is asked, why did not Paul speak in Rom. 3:28 as he did in Phil. 2:12? the answer is at hand: He was speaking on another subject. It was because he made the just and proper distinction between justification and salvation. Justification is not of or by works; it only fits a person for working; it places him where he can work to divine acceptance. But if he refuses or neglects to work, he forfeits his justification, and falls from the grace whereby he was "freely justified." Justification is for past sins, or for their remission; salvation is future, and is conditioned upon "patient continuance in well-doing." Rom. 2:7. It must be remembered that justification, referred to in these remarks, is in the sense used by Paul, that is, a releasing from the condemnation of sin. James uses the word in quite another sense: as showing one's self to be right, or conforming to justice. Though Webster gives his third definition as the "theological" one, his second is equally so, namely, "To pronounce free from guilt, or blame; to absolve; to clear." Now it is evident that James does not use the word "justify" in this sense at all. Webster's first definition will exactly meet the case, namely: "To prove or show to be just, or conformable to law, right, justice, propriety, or duty." This explanation is necessary to prevent misunderstanding of the term as used by the two writers. Now we are prepared to examine the error of the "perfectionists." A writer on holiness recently gave as one means "to prevent the spread of holiness" among the people, the following: "Imbue them with the idea that they are to be holy by striving to do right, to keep the law of God." This position is unscriptural; it is not evangelical. We would supplement it with this statement: If you would spread fanaticism among the people; if you would fasten upon them the chains of "antinomian delusion," imbue them with the idea that they can be holy without obedience to God's commandments; that they can be good without doing good. The words of the apostle John are very appropriate here: "Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." 1 John 3:7. Holiness is by obedience. But these modern "holiness" teachers make no just distinction between justification and sanctification. As we have before remarked, they treat sanctification precisely as Paul treats justification in his letter to the Romans. Paul says that justification is without works, or without the deeds of the law. They say that holiness is without works—without the deeds of the law. But their declaration is contrary to the Scriptures; contrary to every principle of justice and of government. Again they make sanctification and salvation identical; but Paul's idea of "working out your own salvation" is, in their estimation, a great error, and to be greatly avoided. Their ideas of the gospel of salvation are partial or one-sided. The gospel makes provision for the past and for the future. For the past it offers justification or remission; for the future, it takes away the carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, and leads to obedience to the law. For the past it absolves from sin; for the future it prevents sin. If it does not this it does nothing to prepare us to stand in the Judgment of the great day. To prevent sin is to prevent the transgression of the law, "for sin is the transgression of the law." Now if a sense of duty to obey God's commandments is detrimental to holiness, then a sense of license to transgress the commandments of God must lead to an increase of holiness. But transgression is sin; and, hence, in this modern holiness system, sin and holiness are closely allied; they are nearly convertible terms. We do not wish to be unjust, or even severe. But what else can we say when it is boldly avowed that the idea of being holy by obedience to God's law is detrimental to the cause of holiness? But they might say they believe in obedience, but not in holiness acquired by obedience. We give them the benefit of our own supposition, and then declare the position unscriptural. We repeat the quotations: "Work out your own salvation." "He that doeth righteousness is righteous." "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." We will examine this point more particularly. As concerning moral character, holiness, sanctity, and purity, mean the same thing. The Saviour prayed thus to his Father: "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." John 17:17. We inquire, What is necessary to fulfill this prayer? No man can be sanctified by merely hearing the truth. To the contrary, a knowledge of the truth increases the condemnation of the hearer if he does not accept it. Neither is a man sanctified by merely believing the truth. Many are convinced of the truth, and really believe it, but it has no influence on their lives, and they are not benefited by it; their faith is dead and profitless. Peter shows how the work is accomplished: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth." 1 Peter 1:22. It is obedience which purifies or sanctifies. In obedience to the word of God the prayer of the Saviour is answered in us. To sanctify the disciples of Jesus through the truth, is to lead them to obey the truth. Once more: the truth which is directly sanctifying in its nature is that which calls for obedience; it is the law of God. The soul is not purified by a truth which we cannot obey. Take for illustration the very important truth, "There is one God." Of this James says: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils [demons] also believe, and tremble." This truth must be believed, but cannot be obeyed; it is declarative, not preceptive. The demons do as "well" with it as we—they believe; and do even better than some men—they tremble, but are demons still. If to their belief they would inquire for the will of the "one God," and walk in obedience to his commandments, they would cease to be demons. And so would all sinners—transgressors of law—cease to be sinners, and become saints of God, if they would cease to transgress and become obedient. He who speaks disparagingly of obedience to the law of God disparages true holiness and presents a false standard of righteousness. It is fanaticism, and not holiness. All such are self-deceived—"vainly puffed up by the fleshly mind," or carnal mind, which is not and cannot be in harmony with the law of God. Of course it is understood that no one pleads for obedience independent of faith in Christ. Justifying faith is that which leads to obedience and enables us to obey, or to do good works. To teach obedience as the means of justification from past sins would indeed frustrate justifying grace; for obedience can answer no demand of past short comings. If the "holiness" teachers will apply their declarations to unconverted sinners and to the subject of justification, no one could reasonably dissent. But as applied to sanctification they are every way unscriptural, fanatical, and subversive of true Bible morality.