Salvation From--not In--Sin.
By Editor
A MORAL duty, whether it be called law or gospel, cannot justify a sinner. That law which points out sin, which is therefore the rule of right, will not justify. This is the teaching of Rom. 3:20, 21. It is singular indeed, that those who teach the abrogation of the original law, and its insufficiency to justify, and who hold that all that is binding in the law is incorporated in the gospel, really teach justification by law—by the same system that points out sin, which Paul calls "the law." This is contrary to reason, and to the apostle's words in Rom. 3:20. The truth is evidently this: The gospel upholds the law, and enforces it upon the conscience, and incorporates it into the life of the believer. But it does not abrogate law, nor release the believer from obedience to it; nor does it incorporate law into itself so as to have a blending of the two in one. The difference between the law and the gospel is as distinct now as it was in the days when the gospel was preached to the sinners in the wilderness. Heb. 4:1. The law is moral; sin is immorality; the gospel is the remedy. Medicine may restore health, but health is not medicine. This matter may be tested by the following plain statement: The blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant, is that whereby we have remission of sin. See Heb. 9:22; Rom. 3:25. And this is freely and exclusively by faith or grace. Hence, baptism may be a gospel condition of justification, because it is not any part of the original obligation or moral duty. If it were moral duty it could not be performed for remission of sin, simply because as such it would be required on its own account. So the commandment, which says, "Thou shalt not steal," cannot be incorporated into the same system and take part in the work of remission, being itself a moral duty. How reasonable is the conditional plan which says, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sin." And how absurd it would be to read, "Thou shalt not kill for the remission of sin; or, Honor thy father and mother for the remission of sin. It appears absurd, whether these be called law or gospel, to claim justification or remission through them. But they who teach the abrogation of the law, and the incorporation of these commandments into the gospel, are responsible for this absurdity. It belongs to their system. In speaking of justification by faith, or of the exercise of grace through the blood of Christ for the remission of sins past, the apostle clearly divides between faith and works, and excludes works entirely. It is faith only—works not at all. But when he speaks of the future life of the justified, he speaks in a different manner. Then he teaches to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phil. 2:12. This is evangelical truth as well as the other; but it is an order which could not be given or obeyed relative to justification for past offenses, of which he is speaking in Rom. 3; for no one could work out a justification for a past offense. There is, then, this distinction to be regarded: the gospel is a remedy for sin; obedience is a preventive of sin. Now we cannot believe that God regards future sin with any more favor than he does past sin. And if he does not, it would be reasonable to expect that his plan of salvation contemplated prevention as well as cure; and so we find it. Jesus saves from sin; puts away sin by the sacrifice of himself; says to the justified one, Go, sin no more; he is not a minister of sin, but of righteousness; therefore we shall not continue in sin that grace may abound. Both are in the gospel plan. Thus, man is under condemnation for sin; he also has a carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and not subject to the law of God; Rom. 8:7; by position, a sinner—in disposition, sinful. It would not be sufficient to forgive past transgression and leave the sinful disposition, as we should become involved again in sin and condemnation. Nor would it be sufficient to remove the sinful disposition and leave the burden of past sin upon us, for that would condemn us in the Judgment. Therefore Christ becomes a Saviour to us in both respects. He freely forgives our past sins, so that we stand free and justified; and he takes away the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and not subject to his law, and makes us at peace with God—subject to his law; he writes it in our hearts so that we may delight in it. Then "the righteousness of the law" is "fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh," the carnal mind, "but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:4. The following remarks by Andrew Fuller are pointed, and worthy of careful consideration:— "An atonement has respect to justice, and justice to the law or rule which man has violated. If this be worthy of being traduced by a servant of Christ, it was worthy of the same treatment from his Lord and Master; and then, instead of being honored by his life and death, it ought to have been annulled, both in respect of him and of us. The doctrine of the cross, according to this view of things, was so far from being a display of divine glory, that it must have been a most shocking exhibition of injustice." "If the doctrine of the Atonement leads us to entertain degrading notions of the law of God, or to plead an exemption from its preceptive authority, we may be sure it is not the Scripture doctrine of reconciliation. Atonement has respect to justice, and justice to the law, or the revealed will of the Sovereign, which has been violated; and the very design of the Atonement is to repair the honor of the law. If the law which has been transgressed were unjust, instead of an Atonement being required for the breach of it, it ought to have been repealed, and the lawgiver have taken upon himself the disgrace of having enacted it. Every instance of punishment among men is a sort of atonement to the justice of the country, the design of which is to restore the authority of good government, but if the law itself is bad, or the penalty too severe, every sacrifice made to it must be an instance of cruelty. And should a prince of the blood royal, in compassion to the offenders, offer to suffer in their stead, for the purpose of atonement, whatever love it might discover on his part, it were still greater cruelty to accept the offer, even though he might survive his sufferings. The public voice would be, There is no need of any atonement; it will do no honor, but dishonor, to the legislature; and to call the liberation of the convicts an act of grace, is to add insult to injury. The law ought to have been enacted, and now it is enacted, ought immediately to be repealed. It is easy to see from hence, that in proportion as the law is depreciated, the gospel is undermined, and both grace and atonement rendered void. It is the law as abused, or as turned into a way of life, in opposition to the gospel, for which it was never given to a fallen creature, that the sacred Scriptures depreciate it; and not as the revealed will of God, the immutable standard of right and wrong. In this view the apostles delighted in it; and if we are Christians we shall delight in it too; and shall not object to be under it as a rule of duty, for no one objects to be governed by laws which he loves."—Atonement of Christ, from the Works of Andrew Fuller, pub. by Am. Tract Society, pp. 124, 160, 161. They who object to this as tending to salvation by works, cannot have looked deeply into the divine word. If Jesus takes away the sinful disposition, renews us or gives us a new heart, and brings us into subjection to the law of God, all our obedience to that law is by virtue of that change of heart effected by him; therefore, while he grants to us all the virtue of his blood for the remission of past sin, he is entitled to all the glory of our obedience in the future. So it is all of grace, and we have nothing of which to boast in any respect, nor anything to claim on our own account, for all that we do is by strength imparted by him. Here we have a system which is all grace, and no license to sin; a gospel worthy of Heaven, imparting mercy freely, and maintaining law and justice strictly. Here we see that without him we can do nothing; though we shall work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, "it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure." We are justified by faith, yet we must add to our faith virtue; patiently continue in well doing; keep the commandments of God; fulfill the righteousness of the law, etc. Some have been troubled to harmonize Paul with James on justification; but we apprehend the difficulty grows out of a disregard of the distinction here noticed. Paul, in Rom. 3, is treating on justification by faith for past offenses only; while James is speaking of the obedience of faith. "By faith, Abraham obeyed." Paul also speaks of faith which works by love. Gal. 5:6. But neither Paul nor James say that works will procure the remission of past offenses, or that faith will save without works. There is no difference in this respect in their teachings. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31. And as we do not make void the law through faith, so we do not supersede faith by obedience to the law; for that is through faith. The blood of Christ is our only refuge; his death opens to us the way of life through the obedience of faith.