JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
AS TAUGHT BY JOHN HENRY NEWMAN
and the
S. D. A. SABBATH SCHOOL
LESSONS ON GALATIANS April-June 1990
John Henry Newman was born in London in 1801, the eldest of six children. His family had evangelical sympathies, and these evangelical roots had the strongest influence on his early life
Newman entered Trinity College, Oxford, in 1817 and was elected to a fellowship at Oriel College in 1822. While there, he began to relinquish the kind of evangelicalism he was acquainted with. A number of friends had a significant influence on his life at this time. They impressed upon him the divine appointment of the church, the value of tradition and also moved him towards High Church beliefs.
In 1828 he became the vicar of St. Mary’s church in Oxford. In the early 1830’s he associated with the Oxford Movement and became its leading spirit. The aim of Newman and his friends was to show that the Church of England was a VIA MEDIA between Romanism and Protestantism. These views were published and widely disseminated through Newman’s sermons and tracts. In 1838 he delivered his now famous “LECTURES on the DOCTRINE of JUSTIFICATION.” They contain the heart of the theology which was to take him into Rome.
In 1841 Newman wrote Tract No. 90, in which he tried to reconcile the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England with Roman Catholic dogma. This brought him under heavy fire. About this time he began to have grave doubts regarding the validity of the Church of England. He resigned his appointment at St. Mary’s in 1843 and was received into the communion of the Roman Catholic Church on October 9, 1845.
Newman’s life within Romanism was not without strain, but after overcoming some early misunderstanding, he gradually won the confidence of Rome. In 1879 he was made a cardinal by Leo X111. Newman died in 1890.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEWMAN’S THOUGHT
Newman’s life was a spiritual pilgrimage which took him from evangelicalism to High Anglicanism and from High Anglicanism to Romanism. If we are to follow that pilgrimage, we must follow the development of Newman’s thought on justification by the righteousness which is of faith. Contemporary Roman Catholic scholar, Louis Bouyer, who was also converted from Protestantism to Romanism, agrees that justification is the key to understanding Newman.
Newman’s development may be conveniently divided into three stages:- The early Newman, Newman in transition, and Newman’s attempted synthesis of the Protestant and Roman Catholic faith.
“Newman’s life was a spiritual pilgrimage which took him from evangelicalism to High Anglicanism and from High Anglicanism to Romanism… justification is the key to understanding Newman”
—— Michael Marsh
THE EARLY NEWMAN
Newman’s religious upbringing was basically within the evangelical wing of the Church of England. At the age of fifteen he experience a remarkable evangelical conversion under the ministry of the Rev. Walter Mayers. Mayers directed the serious and youthful convert to the writing of Thomas Scott. Scott left the deepest impression on Newman’s early thinking. Scott was a moderate Calvinist, a product of the Wesley-Whitefield revival of the eighteenth century. He held the orthodox Protestant doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, which he understood to be distinct but never separate from sanctification. Two features in Scott’s teaching left a lasting impression on Newman’s mind: a strong antipathy towards antinomianism (which Scott tried to offset by greatly stressing regeneration) and a preference for practical divinity rather than abstract, speculative theology.
In the years 1817-1822 the youthful Newman, to use his own words, was “devoted to the evangelical
[ 40 · 2 ]
creed and more strict in his religious duties than at any previous time.” He was earnest, intense, serious beyond his years and, like young people who take themselves too seriously, somewhat strongly opinionated and lacking humor.
From the documents of this early period which are available, we know that Newman believed in forensic justification (imputed righteousness) on the ground of the atonement and in regeneration by the Holy Spirit. However, like many pietists, his great interest seemed to be in the inner work of regeneration. He tended to conceive of it as a higher stage in the soteriological process than “mere” justification. This should not surprise us, since Wesley-Whitefield revival often had the same tendency.
NEWMAN IN TRANSITION
In April 1822 Newman was honored by being elected to an Oriel Fellowship. Here he came into contact with High Churchman who opposed the evangelical party by stressing apostolic succession, tradition, the importance of the visible church and the sacraments. E.B. Pusey undermined Newman’s belief in justification by an imputed righteousness and influenced him towards seeing baptism as the instrumental means of justification and regeneration. Hawkins taught Newman the value of tradition in determining the dogmas of the faith. This was not altogether bad counsel for young Newman. He was an immature young Christian wrestling with theological problems far too much on his own. He needed to identify with the experience of the church down through the centuries. However, Hawkins influenced Newman with the extreme position that the normal channel of Christian truth is the teaching of the church rather than the Bible. R. Whately also influence Newman toward such High Church views as the idea of apostolic succession and the impartation of the Holy Spirit through association with the visible church. J. Keble and R. H. Froude further led him to reject evangelicalism in favor of High Church views.
Newman’s developing though in this period of time should also be seen as a reaction against certain tendencies within the evangelical movement. Some of these had already been drawn to his attention by reading Scott. Newman’s own observations at the parish level reinforced his reaction. After a period of thorough pastoral visitation in 1824, Newman noted in his diary that the religion that he had received
“from John Newton and Thomas Scott would not work in a parish.”
The main elements in evangelicalism which troubled Newman were:-
(1). ANTINOMIANISM. Within Protestantism there had often been a tendency to separate regeneration from justification, and to reduce justification to an abstract theory of imputed righteousness which leaves the convert essentially unchanged. Newman struggled for a long time with the problem of the relationship of justification to regeneration until he came to his final synthesis in 1838.
(2). INDIVIDUALISM. Much of the evangelicalism that Newman encountered did not do justice to the corporate aspect of redemption, to the biblical doctrinal of community. Among evangelicals Newman witnessed an exaggerated and unbiblical individualism.
(3). SUBJECTIVISM. Along with the individualism which stressed a private conversion experience that devalued baptism, the Supper and the visible church, Newman discerned that many evangelicals were far to subjective. Perhaps he reflected on the subjectivism of his own experience. Many tried to find the assurance of salvation in their own conversion experience. Newman felt that evangelicalism was leading them into bondage to their own feelings.
(4). SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY. Newman inherited from Scott a dislike for abstract, scholastic theology. He saw that the Calvinist teaching on predestination, which tended to be presented in an abstract, speculative framework, was unless on a pastoral level. Even the great Protestant doctrine of justification by an imputed righteousness of faith tended to be presented as a celestial abstraction. In the 1820’s the extreme individualism and intellectualism which prevailed in the church had produced a great surge of liberalism. About 1827 Newman struggled briefly against the temptation towards liberalism, but them reacted by making his final break both with liberalism and with evangelicalism. About this time Newman began a systematic reading of the church Fathers. He did not find support in the Fathers for the Lutheran doctrine of justification by the righteousness of faith. When a group of clergy launched the Oxford movement in 1833, Newman soon became one of its leading
[ 41 · 3 ]
spirits. Newman saw the Church of England as a VIA MEDIA between the evangelicals and Rome. He thought that both Luther and the Council of Trent had erred from the purer form of teaching found in the church Fathers. His aim and the aim of his colleagues was to make the theology of the Fathers normative for the Anglican Church.
NEWMAN DEVELOPS A SYNTHESIS
In 1838 Newman published his “LECTURES ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Roman Catholic scholar T. L. Sheridan is right when he says, “The Lectures on Justification” remain, for all practical purposes, Newman last word on the subject.” (Sheridan, Newman on Justification, p. 239).
In his “LECTURES” Newman arrived at what Sheridan calls a “synthesis of justification and regeneration.” Ibid., p. 108. What Protestantism had always regarded as two distinct (through inseparable gifts, Newman finally conceived as one gift. At this time Newman still retained some misgivings about Romanism, but he found evangelicalism even more objectionable. He tried to create a synthesis between the theology of Protestantism and Romanism—a synthesis that would satisfy both sides. He succeeded only in coming to a position in harmony with Rome. Consequently, he joined her communion in 1845.
The history of Newman proves a vital lesson which should not be lost in this ecumenical age when many are emulating Newman’s idea of creating a synthesis between Protestantism and Romanism. ROME CAN ACCEPT THE SYNTHESIS AND STILL BE ROME. PROTESTANTISM, HOWEVER, CANNOT ACCEPT THE SYNTHESIS AND STILL BE PROTESTANT.
AN ANALYSIS OF NEWMAN’S SYNTHESIS
Newman began his “LECTURES ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION” with a survey of both Luther and Roman Catholic positions.
NEWMAN’S CRITICISM OF THE PROTESTANT POSITION. Newman called Luther’s position the “extreme Protestant idea of justifying faith” (Newman, Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification, p. 15). One does not need to read far to see that Newman was not really analyzing the theology of
Luther. Rather, his eye was on the contemporary evangelical scene. The “Lectures” clearly demonstrated that Newman had not grappled with Luther firsthand, but he was reading contemporary evangelicalism’s antinomianism, its extreme individualism, with all its distortions back into Luther. He blamed Luther’s teaching for all of evangelicalism’s antinomianism, its extreme individualism, its devaluing of the sacraments and the visible church, and its bondage to religious feelings. Newman claimed that the Lutheran doctrine was not taught in the church until the sixteenth century and hence must be seen as a novelty which only enjoyed the patronage of the previous three hundred years. The Protestant theory which came from Luther, said Newman, could only be supported by those who, “like the Arians, entrench themselves in a few favorite texts.” It was “an utter perversion of the truth” (Ibid., p. 61-62).
Newman attacked a caricature of Luther, but he also attacked as unscriptural the heart of the Protestant faith–that is, the distinction between justification and sanctification. In 1519 Luther broke through the medieval system when he discerned the distinction between the passive righteousness of faith and the active righteousness of the believer’s life. Before this, these two gifts of God–the imputation of Christ’s merits and the impartation of the Holy Spirit–were always fused as one, even in great teachers like Augustine. The Reformation stands or falls on this proper distinction between gospel righteousness and the law righteousness. Neither Luther nor any of the Reformers denied the necessity of righteousness of life–that is, a righteousness which consists in Spirit-inspired obedience to God’s law (Rom. 8:4)–and it was a lack of insight on Newman’s part to impute antinomianism to Luther. But Luther and the Reformers declared with one voice that law-keeping righteousness, either with or without the Holy Spirit’s aid; is no part of the righteousness which justifies us before the tribunal of God. The only righteousness which can stand before God in judgment is the holy obedience of Jesus Christ. Those whom God freely justifies He also freely gives His Holy Spirit, who enables them to live in new obedience; and God justifies no one whom He does not regenerate and sanctify. But the two gifts must be distinguished so that the glory of our salvation may be ascribed to the finished work of Christ, so that troubled consciences may not have to ground their acceptance on their spiritual attainments. Newman, however, called this distinction between justification and sanctification “technical and unscriptural” (Ibid., p. 41).
[ 42 · 4 ]
As for the Protestant doctrine of justification by an imputed righteousness alone, Newman likened it to Judaism and its “shadows of religion” (Ibid., p. 57). He called it a “visionary system,” “an unreal righteousness” (p. 57). Then went on to call it “a private, arbitrary, unscriptural system…..Ibid.).
These seeds of disaffection towards the Protestant doctrine of imputed righteousness had been growing in Newman’s mind for more than ten years.
But in his sermons Newman continued making the Protestant distinction between forensic justification and effective regeneration until about the time he began reading the Fathers (1827) and having intimate fellowship with High Churchman Richard Froude (1829). From as early as 1822 one can trace the growing tendency in Newman to merge justification and regeneration more and more closely until he arrived at his synthesis in his 1838 LECTURES.
NEWMAN’S CRITICISM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC POSITION
In his LECTURES Newman was the spokesman of a VIA MEDIA theology. He saw both sides—Protestantism and Romanism—as somewhat of a distortion of the truth. But he was clearly more congenial to Roman Catholicism. While he called Luther’s position “an utter perversion of the truth,” he merely said that the Roman Catholic position “does in some respects come short” of the truth. (LECTURES, p. 30). Rome’s position said Newman, is “not unsound or dangerous in itself (like Protestantism), but in a certain decree incomplete,–truth, but not the whole truth” (Ibid).
It is very interesting to observe that while Newman seemed to do his best to caricature Luther’s theology, he represented the Roman position quite accurately.
NEWMAN’S UNDERSTANDING OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
We come now to an analysis of the heart of Newman’s theology–his understanding of justification.
(1). JUSTIFICATION IS FUSED WITH REGENERATION. No good Protestant divines have ever quarreled with the idea of seeing justification and regeneration in the closest, indeed, inseparable
relationship. But Newman made the fatal mistake of arguing from their union to make a fusion of the two. In the years preceding his LECTURES Newman wrestled with this problem of the relationship between justification and regeneration. We can sympathize with his concern over the tendency among Protestants to separate regeneration from justification, and to reduce justification to an abstraction, which fails to do justice to the transforming power of the gospel. But as Newman reacted against this antinomian element, he moved closer to the fusion of the two gifts. In his LECTURES he achieved this synthesis. Using David’s penitential Psalm (Psalm 51), Newman argued that because David prayed for both forgiveness and renewal, “we are forgiven BY BEING, or WHILE WE ARE renewed” (Lectures p. 41). Forgiveness, therefore, said Newman, “relates not only to the past but to the present” — that is, it consists in pardon plus renewal” (Ibid., p. 43).
“Gospel righteousness,” Newman said, “is obedience to the law of God, wrought in us by the Holy Ghost” (Ibid., p. 44). The law is written on the heart, or spiritual renovation, is that which JUSTIFIES US” (Ibid., p. 45). The righteousness of God spoken of in Romans 3:21 was said to be the renewing work of the Spirit in the heart (Ibid., p. 50). Newman then cited Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-8; and Galatians 5:18 to show that regeneration and justification are the same. Thus:-
“Justification and sanctification were (are) in fact substantially one and the same thing.”
“Justification, then, as such, is an imputation; but the actual Gospel gift called justification is more, it is renewal also.”
“Justification renews, therefore I say it may fitly be called renewal.“
“It is a parallel mode of speaking, to say that justification CONSISTS in renewal, or that renewal CONSTITUTES justification.“
“Justification …consists of two parts, acceptance and renewal….JUSTIFICATION IS A CHANGE OF HEART.“
In the next statement we see that Newman argued from the fact of the union of the two things to make a fusion:-
[ 43 · 5 ]
“I have been arguing from the essential union between justification and renewal, that they are practically convertible terms.“
The previous eight statements from his LECTURES pp. 63-138, are quoted here along with the previous Bible texts from Psalm 51, Ephesians, Titus and Galatians to show the close parallel between Newman’s LECTURES, and the S.D.A. Sabbath School Quarterly on Galatians for April–June 1990. In these lessons positions are taken, and statements are made which appear to have been lifted out of Newman’s LECTURES on JUSTIFICATION by FAITH. The Sabbath School Quarterly presents a mixture of Osiander’s and Newman’s errors, although the emphasis is clearly on Newman. The position taken on fusing justification with regeneration can only lead to the same results as it did with Osiander and Newman, BACK TO THE CHURCH OF ROME. IT CAN LEAD NO WHERE ELSE. In the Sabbath School Lessons justification is grounded on, and fused with regeneration and sanctification, particularly in the teacher’s quarterly.
Calvin and Melanchthon saw justification as “consisting in remission of sins;” Rome sees it “as consisting in renewal.” Newman said that both are right. Hence his synthesis. Referring again to Titus 3:5-8, Newman concluded that “RENEWING of the Holy Ghost” is equivalent to “‘being justified by His grace.‘ “Apparently the S.D.A. Sabbath School Committee believes as does Newman, that “RENEWING of the Holy Ghost” is equivalent to “being justified by His grace.” See Appendix for amazing parallel between Newman and the Sabbath School Lessons.
(2). JUSTIFICATION IS A DECLARING RIGHTEOUS AND A MAKING RIGHTEOUS.
Newman was quite well aware of the classical Protestant argument on the forensic meaning of justification in the Hebrew and the Greek—a meaning which had first been brilliantly defined by Melanchthon, Calvin and Chemnitz. That is to say, the word “justify” means a declaring righteous by the judge. Newman evidently felt the strength of this Protestant argument and was not disposed to refute it, as many Roman Catholic scholars had vainly tried to do for three hundred years. Roman Catholics had contended that the word “justify” signifies a MAKING RIGHTEOUS (justum efficare). They based their interpretation largely on the meaning of the Latin word instead of basing it on the Greek and Hebrew.
On this contentious point Newman achieved what appeared to be a brilliant synthesis between the two positions. In other features of his LECTURES there are contradictions and inconsistencies, but with respect to the argument about whether “justify” is a declaring righteous or a making righteous, Newman produced the most subtle synthesis. We need to give close attention to this point, not just because it is the heart of Newman octopus, but because the same subtle arguments are now being produced by both Roman Catholic and Protestants scholars, (and some S.D.A’s, as we shall see later. Although it is far from an official S.D.A. position. The S.D.A. Bible Dictionary p. 616-617 presents the S.D.A. position on Justification as purely Pauline, Lutheran and sound Protestantism, and is a clear denial of the position taken by Newman, and as taken in the 1990 Sabbath School Lessons, and in some Lessons since then). See Appendix for S.D.A. Bible Dictionary statement.
In the first place, Newman, like many contemporary Roman Catholic scholars, admitted that justification is a counting righteous and that the verb “to justify” does mean “to declare righteous.” Now let us follow how Newman tried to reconcile this with the Roman Catholic idea of justification being a “making righteous.“
“It is a pronouncing righteousness while it is a making righteousness. As Almighty God in the beginning created the world solemnly and in form, speaking the word not to exclude, but to proclaim the deed,–as in the days of His flesh He made use of the creature and changed its properties not without a command; so does He now new-create the soul by the breath of His mouth, by the sacrament of His voice. The declaration of our righteousness, while it contains pardon for the past, promises holiness for the future.
The justifying voice of God effects what it declares…..Imputed righteousness is the coming in of actual righteousness. They whom the sovereign voice pronounces just, forthwith become in their measure just. He declares a fact, and makes it a fact by declaring it. He imputes, not a name but a substantial Word, which, being “ingrafted” in our own hearts, ‘is able to save our souls.’
God’s Word I say, effects what it announces. This is its characteristic all through Scripture. He ‘calleth those things which be not, as though they are,’ and they are forthwith. Thus in the beginning He said ‘Let there be light, and there WAS light.’ Word and deed
[ 44 · 6 ]
went together in creation; and so again ‘in regeneration.’
It would seem, then, in all cases, that God’s Word is the instrument of His deed. When, then, He solemnly utters the command, ‘Let the soul be just,’ it becomes inwardly just.’
On the whole then, from what has been said, it appears that justification is an announcement or fiat of Almighty God, which breaks upon the gloom of our natural state as the Creative Word upon Chaos; that it declares the soul righteous, and in that declaration, on the one hand, conveys pardon for its past sins, and on the other makes it actually righteousness.
The Psalmist says, not ‘He spake, and He did,’ but He spake, and it was done.’ ….In like manner….He does not make us righteous, but He calls us righteous, and we are forthwith made righteous. But, if so, justification, which in its full meaning is the whole great appointment of God from beginning to end, may be viewed on its two sides,–active and passive, in its beginning and its completion, in what God does, and what man receives; and while in its passive sense man is made righteous, in its active, God calls or declares. That is, the Word will rightly stand either for imputation or for sanctification, according to the grammatical use of it.
Thus the divines, who in the main agree in what the great mercy of God is AS A WHOLE, may differ as to what should be called justification; for according as they view it as active or passive. God’s giving or man’s receiving, they will consider it God’s accounting or man’s becoming righteous. One party, then, in the controversy consider it to be a mere acceptance, the other to be mainly renewal. The one considers it in its effects, the other in its primacy idea. St. Austin, that is EXPLAINS it, and Protestants DEFINE it. The latter describe it theoretically, and the former practically. The Protestant sense is more close to the word, and the ancient use more close upon the thing” (Lectures on Justification pp. 29-83).
Newman’s theological forerunner was Osiander, who also confounded justification with regeneration and rejected the purely forensic understanding of justification. Osiander had said that God cannot declare the sinner to be righteous unless He first makes him righteous. Osiander rejected the forensic meaning of the word “justify.” Both
Chemnitz and Calvin had soundly refuted Osiander on the plain biblical meaning of “justify”–that it means “to declare righteous.” Newman, as we have seen, admitted this point, but then he turned the old argument backward by saying that since God’s word creates what it declares, justification is both a declaring and a making righteous.
(3). JUSTIFICATION BY THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Osiander had contended that the basis of justification is the indwelling of the essential or divine righteousness of Christ. With an eye on Osiander, the Lutheran Formula of Concord had declared emphatically. “This indwelling of God is not the righteousness of faith” (Book of Concord p. 254). The Reformers fiercely contended this point because here was the heart of the issue with Rome. Is the ground of the sinner’s justification the atonement of Christ ALONE, or is it the renewal of the sinner’s heart? Rome of course, always professed salvation by grace alone, but it was always a justification by God’s transforming grace. Hence, its doctrine of justification rested on regeneration and sanctification.
On this matter of the basis of justification, Newman aligned himself with Rome and Osiander. Newman’s theory was that the believer is justified by the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This error is really a Trinitarian error. It improperly ascribes our justification to the work of the Third Person instead of the Second Person of the Godhead and utterly confounds the work of the Mediator and High Priest with the work of the Holy Spirit. Said Newman:-
“The coming of the Holy Ghost, to write the Divine law in our hearts: that law then so implanted is our justification….”
“Justification, or the imparting of righteousness, is not infrequently mentioned as an act depending on our Lord’s Resurrection, and therefore, according to the analogy of faith, more naturally connected with the Holy Ghost.”
“The Holy Ghost is given us unto or in order to, renovation and justification….Justification is wrought by the power of the Spirit, or rather by His presence within us.“
“Justifying righteousness, then, consists in the coming and the presence of the Holy Ghost within us.“
[ 45 · 7 ]
“In like manner ‘Christ in us’ is said to be the hope of glory.’ Christ then is our righteousness by dwelling in us by the Spirit: He justifies us by entering into us, He continues to justify us by remaining in us. This is really and truly our justification, not faith not holiness, not (much less) a mere imputation; but through God’s mercy, the very presence of Christ.”
“It is the Divine Presence that justifies us.”
“Justification is wholly the work of God.”
Newman categorically denied that men are justified solely by Christ’s atonement. He argued that since the redemptive work of Christ must be applied by the Holy Spirit, it is really Christ’s work plus the Holy Spirit’s work in us which justifies us before God. (Lectures p. 46-176).
(4). JUSTIFICATION BY THE INSTRUMENT OF BAPTISM AND ON THE CONDITION OF FAITH. Newman’s sacramental view of justification has been left to the last, because one’s view of the sacraments are generally the formal expression of the spirit of one’s theology. Newman’s mystical theory of justification is well summarized in his following statement:-
“We are new-created, transformed, spiritualized, glorified in the Divine nature,–that through the participation of Christ, we receive, as through a channel, the true Presence of God within and without us, imbuing us with sanctity and immortality, THIS, I repeat, is our justification” (Lectures. p. 219.
Once we see that this mystical indwelling of the grace/Spirit/Christ is the principle of Newman’s justification, we can then see how in this theory the sacraments of the church are like a filling station through which “sanctifying grace” is infused into the believer. But if one starts with the sacramental means of justification instead of the principle of justification, one may easily be thrown off the track. Many hastily conclude that Newman’s sacramentarianism is the heart of his error, just as many think Rome’s sacramentarianism is the heart of her error. They think they part company with Newman and Rome because they part company with their view of the sacraments. This represents a very superficial, even dangerous, grasp of the real issue at stake.
In Newman’s view, baptism rather than faith was the real instrument of justification. Whereas most
Protestants see faith as the instrument and baptism as the symbol of the reality. Newman, turned it the other way around. Faith was the “symbol,” and it could only be called an inward “instrument” as it “unites the soul to Christ through the sacraments (Lectures p. 251). With Newman, faith was more of a condition of justification for adults, though not for children.
Being a synthesis theology, Newman’s theology blurs all proper distinctions:
He removed the distinction between faith and obedience (works).
He removed the distinction between justification and regeneration (sanctification).
He removed the distinction between Christ’s work for us and in us.
He removed the distinction between the work of the Second Person and the work of the Third Person of the Trinity.
He removed the distinction between the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of the life.
He removed the distinction between the law and the gospel.
Newman concluded His LECTURES by saying that works justify, faith justifies, and the sacraments justify. Protestants are right. Rome is right. Both sides are part of one glorious truth found in his synthesis.
In his book, “John Henry Newman,” p. 46, Roman Catholic scholar C. S. Dessain very adequately summarizes Newman’s aim:-
“Newman’s aim in writing this work ‘Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification’ was irenical and ecumenical. He wished to show that the teaching of Roman Catholic theologians on God’s gift of grace to men, and that of all Protestants (except those extreme Evangelicals who held a rigid doctrine of justification by faith only), could be reconciled….Newman wished to reconcile the Lutheran view that it is faith which makes men pleasing to God, and that of ‘the Romanist that justification consists in spiritual renovation.'”
[ 46 · 8 ]
NEWMAN ALIVE AND WELL TODAY
As was stated in the introduction, Newman was in some respects ahead of his time. But the late Pope Paul VI showed that he well understood the religious climate today when he declared:- “The present time can be considered in a special way as Newman’s hour.”
Among both Catholic and Protestant scholars today, John Henry Newman is alive and well. For two reasons the religious climate is now right for the favorable reception of Newman’s views.
(1). Within a degenerate Protestantism we see the same tendencies which provoked Newman to react against evangelicalism. Who can deny that Protestantism is rite with antinomianism, an exaggerated individualism, frantic subjectivism and run-away liberalism. (To some extent these condition are also seen in Adventism).
Just as Newman saw these perversions in his day and blamed them on Luther’s “extreme” doctrine of justification by faith, so many today are prone to see these same perversions as an out-growth of the Protestant faith. Rome bides her time, she has always predicted that these evils would be the fruit of the Reformation. But Protestant scholars are also reacting against these “ism,” especially against antinomianism, by backing away from the Reformation principles of the centrality of justification and its strictly forensic character.
(2). Ecumenism is the spirit of the age, and Christian leaders and teachers are more often employed in exploring the unity that exists between Protestants and Catholics than in stressing the distinctions. The fact that we now live in a post Christian society in which all Christians are in a distinct minority and threatened by a hostile secularism contributes to this growing feeling of harmony between the two great branches of the Christian Church.
We are seeing scholars on both sides bending their efforts to effect a synthesis between the theologies of Romanism and Protestantism. It should not surprise us, therefore, that John Henry Newman lives again. In fact we must ask, Was Pope Paul VI right when he said that the present time is Newman’s hour.
Let us show concrete examples how theologians
on either side have resurrected Newman’s synthesis:-
HANS KUNG Catholic scholar states:- “Protestants speak of a declaring just which includes a making just: and Catholics of a making just which supposes a declaring just. Is it not time to stop arguing about imaginary differences.”
LOUIS BOUYER states:- “The fiat which saves must be a creative fiat: it causes what it enunciates, and makes us just in complete reality.” The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism.
KARL BARTH states:- “Justification….It is a declaring righteousness which without any reserve can be called a making righteous. Christian faith does not believe in a sentence which is ineffective, or only partly effective” (Church Dogmatics, Vol. 4. The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part One, p. 95.
PAUL ALTHUS represents some modern Lutheran scholars who say that the doctrine of a purely forensic justification comes from Melanchthon and not from Luther. Luther is said to have taught an “effective justification.” If by effective justification these scholars meant that God’s act of justification has sanctifying effects in the life, they would be in harmony with the best Protestant tradition. But the entire history of “effective justification” is suspect. This expression comes from the Latin “justum efficare,” which was used as a slogan by the Roman Catholic opponents of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. “Justum efficare” means “to make righteous.” Effective justification is a technical term for Newman’s theory, which says that when God declares a sinner to be righteous, His Word EFFECTS what it declares.
It is without any doubt significant that today there is a fundamental agreement between Catholic and Protestant theology, precisely in the theology of justification–the very point at which Reformation theology took its departure. (This agreement in the theology of justification includes a great many Adventists, as, the April-June Sabbath School Quarterly for 1990 reveals.
J.A. Ziesler, in his book “Meaning of Righteousness in Paul,” attempts a synthesis between Roman Catholics and Protestants positions. He does this by saying that “justification by faith” means to “declare” righteous, but “righteousness by faith” means to “make” righteous. Ziesler calls this “some sort of reconciliation between Protestant and
[ 47 · 9 ]
Catholic traditional exegesis (p. 171). He says his interpretation is “an exegesis which satisfies the concerns of both traditional Catholics and traditional Protestants” (p. 212). We would suggest, however, that Ziesler and others attempting this kind of synthesis are treading Newman’s path. It will be proved in this twentieth century, as Newman proved in the nineteenth, that Rome can accept the synthesis and still be Rome, but a Protestant cannot accept the synthesis and still be Protestant. (J. A. Ziesler was quoted favorably in the S.D.A. Sabbath School Quarterly, Teachers Helps p. 48. April-June 1990, on this very point).
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON NEWMAN’S THEOLOGY
Newman”s greatest weakness was his failure to grasp the gospel at its most fundamental level. We can agree with him that an abstract theory of forensic justification is not the gospel. But neither is Newman’s reduction of the gospel to a mystical internal experience. The alternative to dry Protestant scholasticism is not mystical internalism.
The gospel is the proclamation of an historical event. The framework of the gospel is neither rationalism nor mystical, but historical. In a concrete event, God broke into history in the Person of His Son. In one infinite sinless life, and one awesome act of judgment and deliverance, Christ Jesus fulfilled all that the Old Testament had promised. He dealt with sin, sins, defeated the enemy, abolished death, brought in everlasting righteousness and reconciled the world to Himself. In the Christ event, God recapitulated Old Testament history, He rewrote the history of Adam and Israel. And in the place of man’s history of failure, He gave him a new holy history. The new creation took place in Christ, for in His death and resurrection humanity was saved from sin, made righteous, justified, and glorified at God’s right hand. That is the gospel.
We cannot talk correctly about justification, new birth, the Spirit, sanctification or anything that applies to the individual until we have first settled that the gospel is the proclamation of the absolutely finished deed of redemption which has taken place in history altogether outside the individual’s experience. Outside of this finished work of Christ, justification by the imputed righteousness of faith, and the Sabbath have no salvational value. When we talk about justification, new birth and
sanctification, we are talking about the application and benefit of the work of Christ to the individual believer. In order to participate in and benefit from the saving event which took place in history, the believer must be INCORPORATED into this holy history of Christ–that is to say, he must become vitally identified with Christ in such a way that Christ’s life, death, resurrection and ascension all belong to him and become part of his existence. In this context it is proper to talk about hearing the gospel, faith and the work of the Holy Spirit. By these the sinner is incorporated into the new history and into the new creation which has already taken place in Christ. And by this baptism of faith and of the Spirit, he becomes justified, born again and sanctified. All these are as inseparable as the fingers on a hand, but they are just as distinguishable.
This incorporation into Christ accomplishes the sinner’s justification. Justification pertains to the way the sinner stands before the Judge and before the eyes of the law. When we say that justification is strictly forensic, we mean that justification is based on the holy history of Christ plus nothing. It means that the believing sinner must look to nothing in himself, but solely to what Christ has done and suffered. If justification were not strictly forensic, then the righteous life and blood of Jesus would not be enough. Thus, a denial of forensic justification is a denial of the gospel.
We do not insist on forensic justification in order to maintain some legal abstraction, as Newman and the opponents of the Reformation faith claim. God’s saving act in Christ constrains us to confess that nothing can be added or needs to be added to this perfect redemption. For the glory of Christ and for the comfort of troubled consciences, that finished work of Christ must remain the sole and all-sufficient basis of a right standing before the judgment of God.
Forensic justification does not mean a justification which takes place apart from regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. For when the sinner is incorporated into what exists for him in Christ, HIS STATE WILL BE CHANGED AS WELL AS HIS STANDING. He is given participation in the new creation and becomes a sharer of the Spirit and of the new age. Thus, justification and regeneration are absolutely inseparable. But they must remain distinguishable since in this life the believer only experiences the first-fruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8:23). The believer’s completeness is found only in Christ
[ 48 · 10 ]
at God’s right hand (Col. 2:9; 3:1-3). Since the righteousness by which he stands approved before the judgment of God must be whole and lacking nothing, the believer cannot find this in his regenerate state but only in what Christ has already done.
Newman, however, utterly confounded the believer’s standing with the believer’s state. He transferred the “righteousness which is of faith” from the finished work of Christ to the unfinished work of the Spirit in the heart. In calling forensic righteousness a shadow and an abstract fiction, Newman showed how little he valued the holy history of Christ.
Not grasping the reality of what God has already done prior to either our justification or sanctification, Newman saw the work of Christ merely as a stepping stone to secure the Holy Spirit. Then he ascribed our justification to the work of the Third Person of the blessed Trinity rather than to the Second Person. Instead of seeing the Spirit’s work as incorporating us into the holy history of Christ, he saw the Spirit as adding to the work of Christ.
Newman’s failure to grasp the objective, historical, gospel led him to propose that the individual’s justification brings the new creation into existence. This is the theology of what has come to be called “effective justification.” It contends that God’s justification is not a “bare,” “mere” verdict but a creative word which creates what it declares. Thus, when God declares a sinner to be righteous, His Word is said to make the sinner righteous–just as God said, “‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
The truth, however, is that the new creation or the making righteous took place prior to the verdict of justification. It took place in God’s act in Christ, and this what the gospel announces. Faith does not bring something into existence, it only lays hold of that which is already in existence in Christ. The Holy Spirit makes effectual in the believer what God has already procured, and provide for him in Christ prior to his justification, new birth, and acceptance. The reality is always before God in Christ and never in the believer on earth. Newman’s creation analogy is inappropriate to describe the reality of justification, for the first is an imperative command and the second is a statement of a fact. The verdict of justification finds a truer analogy in what God declared at Christ’s baptism:- “This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). We
would like to ask the advocates of effective justification two simple questions about God’s verdict upon His Son. Did that verdict MAKE Christ pleasing to the Father? And if not, is this precious statement from the lips of the Father to be called a “bare,” “mere” verdict?
APPENDIX.
THE REMARKABLE PARALLEL BETWEEN NEWMAN’S “EFFECTIVE” JUSTIFICATION AND OSIANDER’S “ANALYTICAL” JUSTIFICATION WITH THE S.D.A. SABBATH SCHOOL QUARTERLY FOR APRIL-JUNE 1990, ARE REVEALED IN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FROM THE SABBATH QUARTERLY. THEY ARE QUOTED HERE WITHOUT COMMENT. (All statements are from the teacher’s quarterly unless otherwise stated).
“Justification includes transformation of heart, as well as God’s legal declaration of acquittal” (p. 44).
“Justification is both God’s legal declaration of acquittal and a transforming experience for the believer who receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of divine grace” (Std. Edt. p. 29).
“Justification is salvation by the new birth experience” (p. 47. Std. Edt. p. 29).
“Justification includes transformation of heart as well as God’s legal declaration of acquittal” (p. 48).
“God declares righteous those who are righteous by virtue of His presence in their lives” (p. 48).
“Righteousness in God’s sight is the result of His divine presence in the heart of the believer” (p. 48).
“Justification as transformation of the heart” (p. 49. Std. Edt. p. 29).
“The Holy Spirit justifies” (p. 58. Std. Edt. p. 36).
“As we saw….Titus 3:5-7 identifies justification with the new-birth experience. God’s saving act is God’s justifying act that involves both a declaration of forgiveness for the sinner’s past sin and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in the new-birth experience” (p. 59. Std. Edt. 36).
“The new-birth experience (justification) involves the
[ 49 · 11 ]
transforming presence of the righteous Christ coming in to dwell in the heart of the believer” (P. 59. Std. Edt. 37).
“The bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon us (justification)” (p. 59. Std. Edt. p. 37).
“In context the beginning of the Christian life with the Holy Spirit is justification” (p. 60).
“Justification is Christ coming to live within us by the Holy Spirit” (p. 60).
“The point is that God declares a person righteous only when the righteous Spirit comes into that Person life. God never declares anything to be true that is not” (P. 60).
“Therefore, justification is the writing of the law on the heart of the believer. Justification is not merely a heavenly declaration; it is a spiritual transformation that God produces in the life” (p. 61).
“Then this is exactly how He justifies us. He was able to declare us righteous because the righteous Christ came into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (P. 61).
“Justification is both a legal declaration and heart transformation. God declares righteous the person who receives Christ into his heart by the Holy Spirit” (p. 36).
ON THE SUBJECT OF SHARING ADAM’S GUILT, THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE MADE:-
“Some have taught that every human being shares the guilt for Adam’s sin, as though each one of us had committed that sin ourselves. Adventists reject this unscriptural teaching.”
“No was born guilty of Adam’s sin” (Std. Edt. 42).
THE SCRIPTURE AND THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY MAKES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE IMPUTATION OF ADAM’S GUILT:-
“Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his GUILT and its consequences” (Faith and Works. p. 88-89).
“As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death” (B.C. 6.
1074).
“Children receive from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death” (EGW. Letter 8. 1895. Manuscript Releases Vol. 13. The Baker Letter, p. 192).
“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become GUILTY before God” (Rom. 3:19. 9.).
“But the Scripture has concluded all under sin….” (Gal. 3:22).
Our involvement in guilt and sin by the sin of another is indeed a very difficult doctrine for some to accept. But should it be any more difficult than our involvement in guiltlessness and sinlessness through the sinlessness of Another? If we reject the one we must reject the other, for they stand or fall together.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
JUSTIFICATION: The principle by which, in all ages and countries, the power of Satan has been most successfully assailed, and the human heart most strongly actuated, is that of simple reliance on Christ Jesus; simple acceptance of the truth, that He is “made unto us of God, wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).
Accordingly, this doctrine, that, lying under God’s wrath and condemnation, we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ; this plain and simple truth has uniformly been assailed by every instrument which the enemy could bring to bear against it. From the time of the Apostle Paul until now, this gospel has been the point of the attack, because on this all depends. It is the aim of the enemy to confound things which ought to be kept distinct; things internal in man with things extraneous to man; individual duties with vicarious merits.
It has been another part of the same system to involve the blessing of our justification in obscurity; what has been done FOR us, and what is to be wrought IN us, are confused and fused together. It is, in truth, “the offense of the cross” (Gal. 5:11). For, “By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest nay man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).
The Scripture truth is as clear as it is simple.
[ 50 · 12 ]
“When all were dead, Christ died for all;” so that “he that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son, hath not life” (2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 5:12. And again:- “We are accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6).
It is true, that, being thus accepted with God, and endued with His Spirit, man becomes a new creature. But he is not accepted because he is a new creature, but because Christ has made atonement for the wrath which in his old nature he has incurred. His faith in that atonement which led to his acceptance, leads also to his doing in the Spirit works meet for one who is accepted: but the works which follow his being justified, and are its effects, can never also be the cause of his justification.
There is a righteousness which is not internal, and a righteousness which is internal. The righteousness by which we are justified is perfect, but not internal; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is internal, but not perfect. The righteousness we will possess at glorification will be both perfect and internal.
This is a fundamental and characteristic article of the Reformation: laid as it were its cornerstone; that we are accounted righteous before God through the merits of Christ alone, and not by our own works, or even the work of the Holy Spirit in us. That a lively faith is known by its works, as a sound tree by its fruit, but that they do not bear the root, but the root them.
It is necessary to “keep under the body, and bring it into subjection,” by abstinence, and mortification, by whatever means experience has shown to be profitable. Still, for what purpose? Not that we may be accepted of God, but because “this is the will of God, even your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3). It is necessary to cultivate humility, to practice charity, to exercise piety; not, however, that we may be hereby justified, but because we are justified: for “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” (Rom. 8:9). Not justified at all.
Therefore, in the present crisis in Protestantism church experience proves that the only doctrine which conveys real comfort to the soul, is the only doctrine which produces the genuine spirit of Christian piety. Experience proves, as does the Word of God teach, that the more we labor to establish ourselves in the practice of holiness, the more need we find of clothing ourselves in the
righteousness of our Redeemer. And again, the more firmly we trust to that outside of us righteousness which is not our own, the nearer we advance towards that Spirit wrought personal righteousness which we are striving to attain, and cannot be satisfied without attaining.
THE CURRENT ADVENTIST SCENE
No one can successfully deny that the same conditions that were in Protestantism in Newman’s time, and provoked him to react as he did, are likewise seen in Adventism. There is seen the principle and spirit of antinomianism, which is revealed in run away liberalism. There is also seen as a result of that much individualism which is made manifest by the rise of many self-supporting groups and off-shoot movements, the first mentioned of which are not bad in themselves provided they keep a healthy tension between the law and the gospel, but such is not usually the case. They are rife with subjective legalism, as is much of church preaching in general.
Why has such a condition of things come about? Because of the neglect on the one hand, or perversion on the other hand of the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness which is of faith. The enemy of souls knows only too well the strength of the church when that truth is clearly presented in the power of the Spirit, and received by believers. Therefore he has bent every effort to pervert this capstone of the gospel; this citadel of the Christian’s faith; this cardinal doctrine of the Scriptures, by causing it to be taught either in the context of Catholic justification, or as celestial book-keeping, or in an abstract way that fails to touch the heart and win it to Christ, or not even taught at all, as is the case in many churches. The result in the church is what has been described above; then he places the blame for those conditions squarely on the blessing of justification by faith itself.
Justification by the imputed “righteousness of faith” being a forensic transaction must be taught in context of the law of God. Christ came into this world firstly, to uphold and honor the law of God by fulfilling its demands for infinite righteousness. Inseparable from that, but secondary to it, His purpose was to justify and save humanity in Himself. To accomplish and fulfill His purpose He kept the law perfectly and infinitely, was justified in the Spirit, so that in Him “justification unto life, passed upon all”
[ 51 · 13 ]
(Isa. 45:24-25; 50:8; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 5:18).
Our justification in Christ was procured at an infinite and eternal cost by the Substitute and Surety of the human race. By a life of infinite obedience He fulfilled an infinite law, and by His death He satisfied and exhausted its penalty. We have been saved justly. That is, without a waver nor an amnesty (Rom. 3:26; 1 John 1:9). We have been saved in a way that has upheld and honored God’s law, and reconciled the conflicting attributes of justice and mercy (Isa. 42:21; Ps. 85:10). Then by His resurrection He presented Himself as our justification before God, so when justified, we are said to be “justified in Him” (1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 7:22; Rom. 4:25; Isa. 45:24-25). The only righteousness which the believer has before God for his justification is this actual righteousness which is before God (Col. 1:21-22). This righteousness he possesses only by faith, therefore it is called “the righteousness which is of faith,” (Rom. 4:11.13; 9:30; 10:6). This righteousness which the believer has before God for his justification, is the very infinite, eternal “righteousness of God,” which is complete and perfect (Rom. 3:21-22; Dan. 9:24), and must never be confused with the “righteousness of the law” fulfilled in him for his sanctification, which is incomplete and imperfect (Rom. 8:4).
Never was the law of God more honored than when such a One as Christ Jesus stood before its judgment bar presenting such a righteousness to make reparation for the damage done. This was far more honor to the law, than if it have poured out all our blood and upheld its honor and glory on the ruins of the whole creation. When the believer sees and understands this he will realize that there was no other way God could save him, except by providing His own righteousness in Christ, and sacrificing Himself in Christ at such an infinite cost. He will then see the law is immutable, and is indeed “holy, the commandment holy, and just, and good,” and will seek by the Holy Spirit’s effectual working to honor and uphold it in his own life (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). This is “the truth as it is in Jesus” (Eph. 4:21).
Our justification is infinitely great, not because it costs us anything, but because it cost Another everything; infinite humiliation, pain, and suffering; for “He learned obedience by the things which He suffered; and being made perfect, He became the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him” (Heb. 5:8-9). Therefore, in Him, and in Him alone is a righteousness and life with which the law
is well pleased and satisfied. In Him, and in Him alone, we are provided with a righteousness which fulfilled the law’s infinite claims for the covenant, for it is a righteousness and life which measures with the very righteousness and life of God. “For God was in Christ.” Therefore,” Christ is the end (fulfillment) of the law for righteousness to every one who believeth.” (2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 10:4).
Moreover, it should be seen that the procuring of a justification by God in Christ that is seen to uphold the law, will produce believers who will uphold the law. The provision of a law honoring way of salvation, will produce law honoring believers, it cannot do otherwise. Thus it is, as the believer sees in the light of the cross that revelation of his own sinfulness, and the infinite claims of the law that condemns him, satisfied for him in Christ by the infinite sacrifice of divine love, his heart is broken, and he has high and holy emotions towards the law. Moreover, he sees only through Christ can he be justified and brought into harmony with its precepts. Believing then on Christ for his justification, the believer has forgiveness of sins, and is justified. Then receiving the Spirit that writes the principles of that law on his heart he is regenerated, going on by the Spirit to reveal its precepts in his life–sanctification. Regeneration and sanctification are grounded and based on our justification in Him, for such a revelation of love is to be the only motivation for holy living, and looking for the coming kingdom, any other motivation is purely selfish.
It is easily apparent, therefore, that appeals to souls to decide for Christ based either in the glory of the home of the saved, or the fearful doom of being lost, are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The motive which leads the soul to surrender to the principle of the cross is not hope of reward, nor even to get out of a sinful world. In fact, to the extent that hope of reward is present is the principle of the cross obscured, for as Christ was dying upon the cross no hope of reward illumined the darkness of the grave (Matt. 27:46. D.A. 753). He poured out His soul unto death (Isa. 53:12), and thus died the second death. Only that death could he have tasted for every man. These are serious thoughts to consider if we look upon the saving of our souls as the supreme goal in life. Christ Jesus won the throne by renouncing it to uphold and honor God’s law. For the sake of love to us he went through the fearful separation from His Father that God’s law might be upheld and we be justified. The coronation comes to those who, like Him, abdicate.
[ 52 · 14 ]
When justification by the imputed “righteousness which is of faith” is thus presented in the context of Christ’s fulfillment of the law of God, then the principle and spirit of antinomianism, liberalism, and subjective legalism will no longer follow the Pauline–Reformation message as a dark shadow. Then, and not until then, shall the church of Christ endued by the Holy Spirit in latter rain power arise and finish her God appointed task. For what other light and truth does God have with which to finish His work, than the light of law and gospel as it shines from the life that was lived and then hung upon cross of Calvary for humanity? Justification being then presented in the context of the law will quickly go to the world, and call out a people who “keep the commandments of God, and who have the faith of Jesus.”
CONCLUSION
We should not view Newman’s experience as something peculiar to him and his age, Paul met the same errors in his day; adding before justification by faith–the error of the Galatians, or adding after to make the blessing complete, the error of the Corinthians. The principle of justification by the imputed righteousness of faith is “the offence of the cross” (Rom. 9:32-33; Gal. 5:11). Luther met it in his time, as have other Christian Reformers. It “takes away the daily” (Dan. 8:11-12). Christ’s ministry of intercession that justifies and set the believer right before the law. It is the “abomination at makes desolate” (Dan. 11:31). Rome is the religious personification of human nature. We cannot reproach Rome with anything which does not recoil upon man himself.
Human history is but an illustration of human nature. When read aright, it teaches us the history of our own poor hearts. It has been God’s plan that the last generation on earth shall finally learn and profit by the lessons written large in the past 6,000 years of human history (1 Cor. 10:11).
Let it be remembered that history is but the outworking of the principle of human nature. Our own hearts reflect it. In that light the remnant church must view it at last. Romanism is not merely a sectarian delusion which deceives only its own communicants and adherents. It is a heart principle in deadly opposition to the principle of the cross. Thus it is in deadly opposition to the principle of justification by the imputed
righteousness of faith.
The remnant church, expecting the immediate end of all things, should of all people on earth understand clearly the significance of human history which she professes to use in explaining prophecy. Real popery is not sectarian. It is a principle of sinful human nature. It is the summus bonum of all that opposes the principle of the cross—the principle of justification by the imputed righteousness of faith. The ultimate pope is self; real popery is self-worship.
Hence there are but two religions in the world. Their adherents will at last be divided into two clearly defined groups. One group will be those who accept the principle of His cross as theirs. And all others devoted to the opposing principle of self-worship, will worship the beast.
The writer’s and the reader’s particular sectarian affiliation will not of itself determine in which of the two ultimate groups he will find himself at last. God alone knows who sees the secrets of our hearts which we ourselves so seldom discern. But this we may know now; our heart attitude towards both the eternal principle of the cross, and/or justification by the imputed righteousness which is of faith, will be the deciding factor governing our eternal destiny. The question each one must ask; Has that one principle revealed in the truth of the cross, and in justification by the righteousness of faith, become central and all absorbing, and do I allow that one principle to interpret all and every man’s teaching? Let us be thankful to God that the possibility of discerning the thoughts and intents of our secret heart is still ours through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In the light still streaming from the cross, we may yet still see ourselves. The door of mercy is not yet closed.
SOME RECENT OBSERVATIONS
In a recent publication “Beyond Belief” published in 1993 by Pacific Press Publishing Ass., we read the following statements which indicate Newman is also alive and well in Adventism in 1993 as he was in the 1990 Sabbath School Quarterly:-
“Righteousness by faith, therefore, includes both the joy of justification and sanctification” (p. 95).
“….let’s look at the two main areas–justification and sanctification–that together make up this doctrine of righteousness by faith” (p. 101).
[ 53 · 15 ]
“Only by putting together justification by faith (the receiving of Christ’s righteousness) and sanctification by faith (the experiencing of His righteousness) do we get a complete, accurate picture of what righteousness by faith really is” (p. 102-103).
“Justification, on the other hand, is both a negative and a positive truth. It includes the negative aspect–forgiveness–but it goes beyond that to declare us righteous and to change our hearts from being self-centered to being Christ centered” (p. 104).
“Justification includes forgiveness, but it goes beyond it to declare us righteous and to change our hearts from being self-centered to being Christ centered” (p. 109).
These statements along with others in the above named book are clearly fusing together justification with sanctification, confusing the work of the Second Person of the Godhead with that of the Third Person of the Godhead can only lead to where such mingling led Newman, right back to Rome. (See article “Scope and Limits of Righteousness by Faith” for complete study on this Pauline expression). The Church of Rome can accept these statements and still be Rome, but Protestant Adventism cannot accept them and still be Protestant Adventism, it is as clear cut as that.
This publication also denies original sin. “We must not teach that in Adam all humanity also inherits his guilt. This is the heresy of “original sin” introduced by Augustine and adopted by the Roman Catholic Church” (p. 54).
“Paul does not mean that all humanity inherits Adam’s guilt. That is the heresy of “original sin” (Page 58). These statements have been answered on page. 11 of this study.
The publication Beyond Belief also denies the truth of Christ’s vicarious atonement:- “Christ, in His humanity, saved men and women in actuality–not vicariously” (Page 42-43). These statements along with other errors and heresies certainly are “beyond belief!”
SDA BIBLE DICTIONARY on Justification p. 616-617.
“‘Judicial sentence,’ ‘declaration of right’; “justification ,” “vindication,” “acquittal.” The verb “justify” is much more frequent than the noun “justification.” As used theologically, the divine act by which God declares a penitent sinner righteous, or regards him as righteous. Justification is the opposition to condemnation (Rom. 5:16). Neither term specifies character, but only standing before God. Justification is not a transformation of inherent character: it does not impart righteousness any more than condemnation imparts sinfulness…..Condemnation is earned, or deserved, but justification cannot be earned–it is a “free (unmerited) gift (Rom. 5:16). In justifying the sinner God acquits him, declares him to be righteous, regards him as righteous, and proceeds to treat him as a righteous man. Justification is the act of acquittal and the accompanying declaration that a state of righteousness exists…This state of righteousness to which the sinner attains through justification is imputed (v. 4:22), that is counted (v. 3) or reckoned (v.4)……..
Justification has both negative and affirmative aspects. It consist first in the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 4:5-8), but this is accompanied by a declaration that the pardoned sinner has been restored to divine favor…….Justification accords the repentant sinner the right to enter the highway of the kingdom and travel there, but it does not provide power to make progress upon it. That power is imparted by the indwelling Christ (Gal. 2:20.” See also Eph. 2:16-17).
The subsequent life attests to the reality of justification.
[ 54 · 16 ]
Every attack on the forensic nature of justification is represented by two men–Osiander and Newman.
OSIANDER. Andreas Osiander was a German pastor who opposed the Reformers after the death of Luther. His basic thesis was that “God would not commit the injustice of declaring a man to be righteous in whom there is nothing of true righteousness.” Osiander therefore contended that God must make a man righteous so that He can declare him righteous. He proposed that Christ indwells the believer with His divine righteousness. This is what God sees, and seeing this essential righteousness of Christ in the believer, God pronounces him righteous. In theology Osiander’s principle of justification is called “analytical justification.”
NEWMAN. John Henry Newman of the mid-nineteenth century was as we have seen a brilliant scholar who desperately tried to make a synthesis between the Protestant and Catholic positions. He admitted that “justify” in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament means “to declare righteous.” But Newman argued that God’s word is a potent word which creates what it declares. Newman used the analogy of the creation epic. God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light (Gen. 1:3). So, concluded Newman, when God declares the sinner righteous, that mighty creative word makes him righteous. Justification is therefore a declaring righteous which is also a making righteous.
Whereas Osiander said God declares righteous as a result of making righteous, Newman said that God makes righteous as a result of declaring righteous. Both roads lead back to Rome because, in both instances, regeneration or sanctification becomes confounded with justification.
Newman earnestly tried to find a way to satisfy both the Protestant and Catholic camps. His synthesis and his history prove one thing that we must never forget. Rome can accept the synthesis of the two positions and still be Rome, but Protestantism cannot accept the synthesis and still be Protestant, or Adventist Protestantism.
Whereas Osiander’s principle is called “analytical” justification, Newman’s principle is called “effective” justification. Of the two theories, Newman’s is the most seductive, and has many modern adherents. But not surprisingly owing to the tendency in Adventism to legalism, Osiander’s theory has taken deep root in the church, also having many adherents. Most self-supporting schools and magazines are classic examples.
The other side of the issue is the comfort of troubled consciences. If the renewal of life which the Holy Spirit accomplishes in the believer is included in the righteousness which he must plead before God in judgment, then the believer can never stand before God with an easy conscience. For who could look at his own Christian experience and be satisfied that he loves, prays and lives as unselfishly as strict and perfect infinite justice demands. When the basis of our justification is not kept distinct from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, we confuse our acceptance with our spiritual attainment. We fall from salvation by grace to the devilish counterfeit of salvation by character. To say the character is by God’s grace does not mitigate the error. Rather it compounds the error. It uses the Holy Spirit to deny the all-sufficiency of the merits of what Christ has done and suffered for us. Therefore in order that troubled consciences may have full assurance of faith and boldness to enter the favor of God’s presence, nothing of the earthly human experience of the believer must be mingled with “the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Rom. 1:17; 4:11, 13; 10:6; Phil. 3:9).
This insistence that renewal and sanctification must be excluded from the article of justification is not done for the purpose of devaluating the necessity of a holy life. The testimony of the apostles at this point is decisively clear. If we are to live a holy life, we must first have a good conscience by knowing that we are accepted of the Father. By injecting sanctification into the article of “righteousness by faith” before God, false teachers disturb the consciences of believers and thus poison the springs of holy living. Good works can only spring from a good conscience. And a good conscience comes only by resting on that “alien” righteousness which has already satisfied divine justice (1 Jh. 3:19-24; Heb. 9:14; 10:22).
[ 55 — appendix chart ]
APPENDIX — COMPARATIVE CHART
| THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH. | THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LAW. |
| ROM. 4:11,13. 10:6 | ROM. 8:4 |
| WORK OF SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. | WORK OF THIRD PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. |
| JUSTIFIES. | SANCTIFIES. |
| SUBSTITUTIONARY | NOT SUBSTITUTIONARY |
| WORK FOR US. | WORK IN US. |
| OUR STANDING BEFORE GOD. | OUR STATE BEFORE GOD. |
| LEGAL DEATH TO PENALTY OF SIN. | MORAL DEATH TO POWER OF SIN. |
| FREES FROM CURSE & CONDEMNATION. | FREES FROM POLLUTION. |
| OUR TITLE TO HEAVEN. | OUR FITNESS FOR HEAVEN. |
| IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. | IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. |
| VICARIOUS AND INFINITE. | NOT VICARIOUS, AND ONLY FINITE. |
INSEPARABLE BUT DISTINCT.
UNION BUT NOT FUSION.
| GOSPEL OF NEW TESTAMENT | MYSTERY OF INIQUITY | MYSTERY OF INIQUITY | MYSTERY OF INIQUITY |
| Justified continuously by faith alone. | Justified by faith | Justified by regeneration or new birth. | Justified by faith. |
| Initially / Immediately / Ultimately | Initially | Infusion of grace. | Initially. |
| By the reality of righteousness without in Jesus Christ. | But adding to justification to make salvation complete by some reality within. | Adding before justification / Justified by reality in the believer. | But something must be added after justification to make salvation complete. |
| Truth of early church and Protestantism | Error of Galatians. (circumcision) | Error of Rome (infusion of sanctifying grace) | Error of Pentecostalism (Tongues etc). |
