11. § 45. Faith and Justification.

11. § 45. Faith and Justification.

§ 45. Faith and Justification.

. The spiritual life, which is implanted in regeneration, agrees with natural life in this, that, in order to increase and to grow up, it must be nourished and strengthened. There is otherwise indeed a great difference between the two, for spiritual life has its origin in God, not as Creator but as Saviour; it has been acquired by the resurrection of Christ; it is an eternal life, which cannot sin and cannot die. But nevertheless the regenerate person continually has need to be strengthened with power by the Spirit according to the inner man. This strengthening [512] of the spiritual life, too, is just as much as its origin from God and the riches of his grace. The life of the spiritual man is, even after its coming into being, not for a moment to be conceived apart from God and his communion. It is in the same strict and special sense, in which it is from God, also through and unto

God. He is the one who nourishes and maintains it, who never lets it go, who causes it to pass over into deeds and activities, who not only grants the ability but also works the willing and working according to his good pleasure, Phil. 2:13, 2 Cor. 3:5. It is a life in communion with Christ; the

believers have in baptism become one plant with him in his death and also in his resurrection, Rom. 6:5, they are in Christ and Christ lives in them, 2

Cor. 13:5, Gal. 2:20, they can do nothing without him, if they do not abide in him as branches in the vine, Joh. 15:4, 5; they can become strong only ἐν κυριῳ και ἐν τῳ κρατει της ἰσχυος αὐτου, Ef. 6:10, through the Spirit of Christ and in his communion, Rom. 8:13, 26, 2 Cor. 13:13, Ef. 3:16. But that Spirit works in the regenerate in different respects. That can and that ought to be so, because the new man is not at once perfect in "degrees", but indeed in "parts". In regeneration, in principle the whole man is re-created; the I of man himself dies and rises again out of and in Christ, Gal. 2:20; it is at once a καινος ἀνθρωπος, who is created in Christ, Ef. 4:24, Col. 3:10, indeed small and tender but yet complete in all parts. And therefore the Holy Spirit works in different respects, in order to let the new man grow up uniformly and proportionately in all his parts. He works as Spirit of wisdom, of holiness, and of glory and adorns the believers with all kinds of powers and gifts and virtues, Rom. 15:13, 1 Cor. 12:3v., Gal. 5:22.

Specifically he works on the side of the understanding the virtues of faith, knowledge, wisdom, etc. Although in mysterious, untraceable manner implanted by the Spirit in man, Joh. 3:8, spiritual life is nevertheless, as soon as it becomes conscious in man, from the first moment onward bound to the Word of God. It has been awakened by the Holy Spirit out of a λογος ἐμφυτος, out of the inward, evangelical calling of Christ; it remains in its growth bound to that word, and thus, as soon as it becomes conscious, also dependent on Holy Scripture, which is the word of [513] Christ. Spiritual life, by virtue of its nature, stands in relation to Scripture, as the plant to the soil in which it is rooted and from which it draws its juices. Not with Scripture only as outwardly written in letters, but also as continually borne,

animated, and spoken in the heart by the Holy Spirit. The vocatio interna is not only necessary at the coming into being but also at the growth of spiritual life. It does not take place once and is not finished with the creation of life, but it always continues; just as God first created all things through the Word and thereafter through that same Word maintains all things, so the vocatio interna is also active in the maintenance and development of spiritual life. The believers are κλητοι, Rom. 1:6, who partake of the heavenly calling, Hebr. 3:1, who are continually called by God to his kingdom, until they will actually have inherited it, 1 Thess. 2:12,

5:24. The act now, by which the Holy Spirit causes the Word of Christ to be understood in its spiritual sense and content and opens consciousness to the truth, still bears in Scripture the special name of illumination. Because sin has darkened the understanding, Rom. 1:21, 1 Cor. 1:21, 2:14, Ef. 4:18, 5:8, there is also needed an ἀποκαλυψις του νοος, Rom. 12:2, Ef. 4:23. This is brought about by God, who through ἀποκαλυψις, in man, ἐν ἐμοι, Gal.

1:16, removes the hindrance which up to now impeded the right knowledge of matters, Mt. 11:25, 16:17, Gal. 1:16, cf. part I 245. He does this by giving the Holy Spirit, who is a πνευμα σοφιας και ἀποκαλυψεως, Ef. 1:17, leads into the truth, Joh. 16:23, teaches all things, Joh. 14:26, 1 Joh. 2:20, and causes the things of God to be understood, 1 Cor. 2:10-16. Just as at creation by his word of power he caused the light to shine out of darkness, so he also through the Son, Mt. 11:27 and through the Spirit causes it to become light in the hearts of men, 2 Cor. 4:6, and makes the eyes of the heart enlightened, Ef. 1:18. Thereby they know the things that were bestowed upon them by God in the gospel, 1 Cor. 2:12, they have a γνωσις and ἐπιγνωσις, i.e. a knowledge concerning them personally and working upon them, of the Father, Mt. 11:27, 2 Cor. 4:6, Ef. 1:17, of Christ, Mt.

16:17, of the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14 etc., and they are children of the light, Luk. 16:8, Ef. 5:8, 1 Thess. 5:5, citizens of the [514] kingdom of light, 1 Petr. 2:9, Col. 2:12 and walk in the light, Ef. 5:8, 1 Joh.

1:7, 2:9, 10. Through the illumination of the Holy Spirit an entirely new light dawns for man over all things, over God, Christ, sin, grace, Scripture, church, world, death, judgment etc. In God's light he now sees light.

This knowledge is now further described in Scripture as a knowledge of faith. It is wholly in accordance with Scripture to say that the knowledge of God in the face of Christ saves, justifies, grants forgiveness of sins and eternal life, 1 Kon. 8:43, 1 Chr. 28:9, Ps. 89:16, Jes. 1:3, 11:9, 53:11, Jer.

4:22, 31:34, Hos. 2:19, 4:1, 6, Mt. 11:27, Luk. 1:77, Joh. 8:32, 10:4, 14, 17:3, Rom. 10:3, 2 Cor. 2:14, Gal. 4:9, Ef. 4:13, Hebr. 8:11, 1 Joh. 5:20, 2

Petr. 1:2, 3:18. But because by virtue of its origin, essence, and object it bears an altogether special character, it is called a knowledge of faith. Thus defined, however, it is thereby absolutely not indicated as something that is, as such, foreign to human nature and, in the sense of a donum superadditum, is added to it. Darkness, error, lie, etc. are contrary to nature, properties of fallen nature, but the light of knowledge belongs to the image of God, which was originally and essentially proper to man. And also the knowledge of faith is no absolutely supernatural addition to man. Believing quite in general is what every human being does, always and in every domain, especially also in that of science. There is no knowledge without some faith; the dualism between faith and science is theoretically and practically impossible. One even speaks in dogmatics, besides saving, also of historical, Mt. 7:26, Joh. 12:42, 43, 13:17, Hd. 26:27, 28, Jak. 2:19, temporal, Mt. 13:21, and miracle-faith, Mt. 9:2, 17:20, Hd. 14:9, 1 Cor.

13:2, which are indeed essentially distinct from the first and can also occur

in the unregenerate, but must nevertheless have so much agreement with it that they can bear the same name of faith. But even faith in the narrower sense, the fides justificans or salvifica, is no donum superadditum according to the Roman conception. Indeed faith is a gift of God, Hd. 5:31, Ef. 2:8,

Phil. 1:29, fruit of his δυναμις, 1 Cor. 2:4, 5, Ef. 1:19, 1 Thess. 2:13, and specifically bestowed by the H. Spirit, [515] 1 Cor. 12:3, 2 Cor. 4:13. But it is nevertheless a gift that is necessary not in an absolute sense, but only accidentally, for the sake of sin. For re-creation never introduces a new substance into world or humanity; also in faith it does not bestow upon man such a new faculty, power, or activity as the original human nature created in God's image did not possess. On the contrary, the Reformed rightly maintained against the Remonstrants, e.g. Arminius, Op. 160, that Adam before the fall possessed in his nature the power to believe in Christ, although he of course did not know Christ and although he then did not need Him as Saviour, Gomarus, Op. I 93. Moor IV 461. Shedd, Dogm.

Theol. I 454. II 482v. And they likewise maintained against the Romanists that Christ as man on earth had lived by faith, above 294. Since now regeneration is in principle a re-creation of the whole man according to the image of him who created him, the capacity for faith (fides potentialis, seminalis, habitualis, semen or radix fidei) is of itself given with and in it.

Just as little children are rational beings ante rationem actualem, so are they, if they are children of the covenant, also fideles ante fidem actualem.

Indeed it is incorrect, with older Lutheran theologians, to let regeneration be absorbed into donatio fidei, cf. M. Vitringa III 222, for in regeneration the semina spei, caritatis etc. are just as well implanted; but nevertheless in it, as all faculties and powers, so also the capacity for faith is restored.

Believing in God, in Christ, etc., is for the regenerate man as such just as

natural as it is natural for every human being to believe in the visible world.

Indeed, just as every potentia first passes over into actus through a certain influence from without and a grain of wheat germinates only in the bosom of the earth, so also the capacity for faith, which has been implanted by regeneration, passes over into the act of faith only through the continuing vocatio interna. But in regeneration God nevertheless restores the relation of life that originally existed between Him and man; re-created according to God's image, man is again akin to God himself and to all that is God's, to his Christ, to the things of the Spirit, to his Word, to his church, to his heaven, to the things that are above. Crucified to the world and dead to sin, he lives to God. And [516] therefore, being enlightened by the H. Spirit, he also knows God and is blessed in that knowledge, Joh. 17:3.

But this must not be understood in such a way, as if the regenerate drew this knowledge of God in Christ from his own heart, from the inward instruction of the Holy Spirit. Mysticism has at all times set Word and Spirit over against one another, despised the letter, exalted the inward word at the expense of the outward, and for that has even appealed to Holy Scripture,

Jes. 54:13, Jer. 31:34, Mt. 11:25, 27, 16:17, Joh. 6:45, 1 Cor. 2:10, 2 Cor.

3:6, Hebr. 8:10, 1 Joh. 2:20, 27. Against that it should be remarked: 1o that very certainly all knowledge, in the natural and spiritual domain, presupposes a relation, an affinity between object and subject. In order to see an eye is necessary; and object and subject must be illumined by one and the same light. In order to know understanding is necessary, and it is the same Logos, who created the known object and the knowing subject for one another. Thus also, on spiritual terrain, with the Word the Spirit, with the vocatio externa the vocatio interna, with the revelation the illumination must be added, in order to make us know God in the face of Christ. 2o

Scripture expresses this in the above-mentioned and other places decisively and clearly. In God's light alone do we see the light. But it nowhere says that the regenerate can or must draw the material of this knowledge from himself. In 1 Joh. 2:20-27 the apostle most closely connects the anointing of the Spirit, which the believers have received from the Holy One, i.e. from Christ, with the truth which they have heard, vs. 21-24; if they remain in it, they also remain in the Son and the Father and have no further instruction necessary. Everywhere Scripture refers the believer outside himself, to the revelation of God in nature, law, and gospel, Deut. 4:1, Jes. 8:20, Joh. 5:39,

Rom. 1:20, 15:4, 2 Tim. 3:15, 1 Petr. 1:25, 2 Petr. 1:19 etc. 3o In the natural it is so, that the human being indeed brings along a consciousness, understanding, reason, but that he nevertheless must obtain all content of knowledge from outside, part I 161v. II 39v. Much more is this the case in the spiritual. For although all believers are also taught by the Lord, they nevertheless still live in the flesh, and remain inclined to error. Time and again thoughts rise up in them, which they have to lead captive to the obedience of Christ. Left to themselves, [517] they would immediately fall into error and falsehood. And therefore here an objective revelation is necessary, which serves as rule of doctrine and life. 4o There is added to that still, that not visible, but invisible, spiritual, eternal things are the object of this religious knowledge. That which no eye has seen and no ear has heard and has not ascended into the human heart, that God has prepared in the gospel for those who love Him. How shall we know these things, firmly and certainly, unless they are placed before our eyes in a faithful image, pure and unmixed? We do not walk here by sight; thus we ought then to behold the glory of the Lord in a mirror, in order to be transformed in form according to that same image. 5o And finally, just as in the natural every

creature seeks food according to its nature, so also in the believer the new life always again draws toward the gospel, toward the word of Christ, toward the Scriptures as toward the ground on which it rests, as toward the food by which it is strengthened. Not less dispensable but ever more indispensable and glorious does Scripture become to him who grows up in the faith. The testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart binds him in the same measure and power to Scripture as to the person of Christ Himself, part I 502v. From all this it now also becomes clear why religious knowledge in Scripture is described as a knowledge of faith and faith in the subjective work of salvation is placed so strongly in the foreground. Properly speaking, faith or knowledge does not make blessed, but God makes blessed in Christ through the Holy Spirit. He makes blessed, through the benefits of the covenant, through Christ, by giving Himself to the sinner.

But what would that salvation avail, if it were not conscious to us and we bore no knowledge of it? Then it would not even exist. Unconscious salvation is indeed for the Buddhist the highest, and many nowadays give preference to non-being above being. But the highest being is for the Christian to know God and through that knowledge to have eternal life.

Knowledge is therefore not an accidental, from-outside-coming addition to salvation, but forms in it an indispensable element. There is no salvation that is not known, not enjoyed. What would we have from the forgiveness of sins, from regeneration and complete renewal through the Holy Spirit, from the heavenly [518] glory, if we had no consciousness and no knowledge of it. They could not exist, they presuppose and demand consciousness, knowledge, enjoyment, and give therein salvation. God makes blessed, by making Himself known and enjoyed in Christ. Since, however, the benefits of the covenant of grace here on earth are still only in

part bestowed, since communion with God, regeneration, sanctification are still imperfect, since knowledge is imperfect, has invisible things as object and is bound to Scripture, therefore the knowledge of God here on earth is a knowledge of faith. Faith is the only way along which it is obtained, the only form in which it can appear. Yes, all benefits, forgiveness, regeneration, sanctification, perseverance, heavenly salvation are for us only through faith; only in faith do we enjoy them; we are saved only in hope.

2. In the O. T. there is still lacking a technical term for faith. The thing is not lacking, for many a time salvation appears in the form of a promise, which cannot be accepted otherwise than by faith. Deeds and works of faith are therefore related to us almost on every page. But the religious relation of man to God is usually expressed by other words, such as: to fear God, to serve, to love, to cleave, to trust, to abandon oneself to Him, to lean, to hope, to wait etc., above p. 427. To believe the word most closely related is

‎‏‏האמין‎ with ‎‏‏ב‎ or ‎‏‏ל‎ from ‎‏‏אמן‎, to make firm, to make oneself firm, to hold fast to something, to lean, to trust, Gen. 15:6, Ex. 4:31, 14:31, Deut. 9:23, especially Isa. 7:9, Ahaz, who seeks help from Assyria and leans on that, will not be confirmed, if he does not desist from that and relies only on God, and Hab. 2:4, the Chaldeans make their power into their god and their soul is puffed up, but the righteous shall live by his trust in God and His promise. In later Judaism faith consisted not only in accepting the law as God's gift but also in the opinion that God's goodness would supplement what might be lacking in legal righteousness. Over against that John the Baptist appears with the preaching that such a faith and such a righteousness have no value, that for all μετανοια and baptism are necessary, in order to enter into the kingdom of the [519] Messiah. Jesus

joins in with this, but adds to it that that kingdom has come in Him, the Son of man; He brings the glad message of it and says: repent and believe the gospel. As long as Jesus was on earth and Himself preached, faith consisted, by the nature of the case, first of all in this, that one personally placed an unqualified trust in Jesus and thereby was convinced that God spoke and did miracles in and through Him, e.g. Mt. 8:10, 9:28, 15:28, 17:20, 21:21,22 etc. Jesus' person had its correlate in the words that He spoke, and the works that He did, and conversely these words and deeds were again verified by His person. But when Jesus had departed, there came in this this change, that one could no longer meet Him personally but, in order to get to know Him, was bound to the word of the apostles. Now faith as it were received two sides; 1o the accepting as true of the apostolic testimony concerning Christ, and 2o the personal trust in that Christ, as now still living in heaven, and mighty, to forgive sins etc. Although both sides occur alongside each other in the writings of the apostles, yet John especially lays the emphasis on the first moment, πιστευειν c. acc. or with an object clause or c. dat. rei, Joh. 2:22, 4:50, 5:47, 6:69, 8:24, 11:42, 13:19, 17:8,21, 1 Joh.

5:1,5; Paul on the other hand on the second, and then speaks of πιστις c. gen., of Jesus, Rom. 3:22, Gal. 2:16, 20, 3:22, Ef. 3:12, Phil. 3:9, of the truth, 2 Thess. 2:13, of the gospel Phil. 1:27, προς θεου, 1 Thess. 1:8, εἰς

Χριστον, Col. 2:5, Phil. 5, ἐν Χριστῳ, Gal. 3:26, Ef. 1:15, 2 Tim. 3:15, and of πιστευειν τινι, Rom. 4:3, Gal. 4:6, 2 Tim. 1:12, Tit. 3:8, ἐπι τινα, Rom.

4:5, 24, ἐπι τινι, Rom. 9:33, 1 Tim. 1:16 and especially εἰς τινα, Rom.

10:11, Col. 2:5, Phil. 1:29 etc. But an absolute opposition is not this, for John speaks many a time of πιστευειν εἰς τινα, 2:11, 3:16, 18, 36, 4:39, 6:29 etc., εἰς το ὀνομα, 1:12, 2:23, I 5:13 and also τινι, 3:15, 5:24, 38, 46, 6:30 and τῳ ὀνοματι, I 3:23; and Paul construes πιστευειν also with τι and ὁτι,

Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 13:7, cf. 15:14,17, 1 Thess. 4:14. Above all it is wrong, to identify the later distinction of Deo credere and in Deum credere or also that of historical and saving faith with the above-mentioned. For many a time the construction [520] of πιστευειν with ὁτι, e.g. that Jesus is the Christ, indeed includes saving faith, Joh. 6:69, 8:24, 11:27, 17:8, I 1:5,

Rom. 10:9; and πιστευειν τινι or εἰς τινα is often no more than a historical faith, Joh. 7:31, 40v., 8:30v., 10:42, 11:45, 48, 12:11, 42; in 1 Joh. 5:10 there even stands πιστευειν εἰς την μαρτυριαν. And this is also understandable. Truly to believe the testimony which God has testified concerning His Son can only and does only he who places an unqualified trust in the person of Christ; and conversely, whoever trusts in Christ as Son of God also unconditionally accepts the testimony of God concerning Christ through the mouth of the apostles. Faith thus includes in the N. T. two elements: trust in the person of Christ and acceptance of the apostolic testimony. These two hang together inseparably, they constitute in a subjective sense the essence of Christianity. If Christ were only a historical person, who by His teaching and life had left us an example, then a historical faith in the transmitted testimony would be sufficient, but then it also would not come to true religion, to essential communion with God and would resemble deism. If Christ conversely, according to the opinion of pantheism, were not the historical but only the ideal Christ, then faith in a testimony would be wholly superfluous, Christ would be nothing else than the being of God in us, but then it again would not come to true communion of God and man, since this presupposes the essential distinction of both.

But now Christ is both: a historical person, the Christ of the Scriptures, and at the same time the glorified Lord in heaven, who still lives and reigns as the head of His church. He acquired salvation in the past, but applies it

Himself in the present. And these benefits of the covenant comprise the recreation of being and of consciousness; they consist in justification and in redemption, in light and in life, in truth and in grace. They change man in the world of thought, make him free from lie, error, darkness, make him know God as the gracious One, who forgives sins, place him in the right relation to God and all things, make him think on the things that are above and give him in faith a firm ground of the things that one hopes for, and a proof of the matters that one does not see. And they also change man in his being, make him [521] free from the stain of sin, make him in the hiddenness of his heart live in communion with God through Christ in the H. Spirit, make him a citizen of the heavens, born from above, from God, re-created according to the conformity to the image of the Son, so that He may be the firstborn among many brethren. And these two stand in indissoluble connection. For Christ, who has descended, is the same who has also ascended far above all heavens, in order that He might fill all things, Ef. 4:10. The H. Spirit, who regenerates, is the same who also testifies in us of Christ. Scripture leads us up to Christ, who is above, seated at God's right hand, and Christ, who through the Spirit dwells in our hearts, leads us back to Scripture. With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth one confesses unto salvation, Rom. 10:10. Faith according to Scripture excludes both: a faith of the heart that does not confess and a confession that does not root in the faith of the heart. It is mystical and noetic at the same time, an unqualified, unshakable trust in Christ, as He who according to the testimony of Scripture has accomplished everything for me and on that ground now and eternally is my Lord and my

God. Cf. on faith in the H. Scripture, besides the handbooks for Bibl.

Theology of Weiss, Holtzmann etc., Schlatter, Der Glaube im N. T. Zweite

Bearbeitung. Calw u. Stuttgart 1896. C. Boetticher, Das Wesen des relig.

Glaubens im N. T. Berlin Gaertner 1896. Haussleiter, Was versteht Paulus unter Chr. Glauben? Greifsw. Studiën, H. Cremer..... dargebracht, Gütersloh

1895 S. 159-182. Huther, Die Bedeutung der Begriffe ζωη und πιστευειν in d. Joh. Schriften, Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1872 S. 1-34. Cremer s. v.

3. What thus occurs undivided and in organic unity in Scripture has in theology and in Christian life many times been torn apart from one another or only mechanically connected. Rome conceives faith as assensus firmus ac certus ad ea omnia, quae Deus credendo proponit and rejects the Protestant definition that it would be a fiducia specialis, that my sins are forgiven; trust is the fruit of faith in the will and can only follow upon justification, since otherwise the Protestants themselves would not be able to maintain that faith alone justifies; for in trust there is also hope and love.

[522] This faith as assent is therefore, with Rome, insufficient for justification; together with other activities it is indeed a preparation for it, but in itself it is informis and must through love become a fides formata.

With Rome faith is as yet not at all a personal, religious relation to God; it bears an introductory character and is for a great part fides implicita, an accepting as true of everything, quod credit sacrosancta mater ecclesia. The personal relation to God comes into being only in love, and this is then also what justifies and saves, cf. above p. 442 and vol. I 476. In essence the conception of faith in the Greek church, among Socinians, Remonstrants,

Rationalists, etc., corresponds with that; it is in itself nothing but a historical holding-for-true, actually not a religious but an epistemological concept, not drawn from Scripture but introduced into theology from ordinary, daily usage. The Reformation, however, did not ask: what is believing in general? and then determine the religious concept of faith accordingly, but it went

back to Scripture, investigated what meaning and place this assigned to faith, thereby arrived at a wholly different conception of the fides salvifica and said antithetically over against Rome: it is not only a firmus assensus but also a certa fiducia; faith is the central, personal, religious relation of man to God. But it cannot be denied that this determination of faith brought with it peculiar difficulties and gave occasion to all kinds of different views.

In the first place the question had soon to arise, in what relation these two elements of faith stand to one another. From the beginning some placed the seat of faith in the understanding, defined it preferably by cognitio certa, certitudo, and regarded the fiducia as a consequence and fruit of faith in the will; others sought the essence of faith in the fiducia and made it have its seat in the heart. Later this difference developed into the antithesis of orthodoxy and pietism; orthodoxy wanted to come through the understanding to the heart, through doctrine to life, and often became indifferent to life; pietism trod the reversed path and often considered doctrine of slight significance. In the second place there soon arose difference over the relation of faith and justification. The Reformation had

[523] conceived faith as cognitio or fiducia certa, that Christ is my Saviour and that my sins are forgiven. But it seemed that this certainty could not precede justification but had to follow upon it; thus since Gomarus a distinction was made between an actus directus and reflexus of faith, between refuge-taking and assured trust, between essence and well-being of faith. This difference later led to the antithesis of nomism and antinomism; nomism thought that all kinds of conditions and experiences had to precede the certainty of the forgiveness of sins and thus placed the essence of faith in a seeking, hungering, thirsting after Christ, etc.; antinomism considered all this superfluous, a nullification of the work of Christ, and defined faith

as firm conviction that the sins are forgiven. In the third place finally the relation of faith and work was difficult to define. It was a living faith, fides sola but not solitaria, that according to the Reformation justified. Standing in opposition to all works, faith therefore on the one hand absolutely must not be a work. There must, says Comrie, Heid. Cat. Voorrede XXVI Nijkerk

Malga 1856, cf. p. 412, be something in the inner nature of faith by which it is distinguished from all works, however they may be named. On the other hand it was nevertheless a living faith and thus indeed a work and an act, for the potentia or habitus fidei, which is implanted in regeneration, is formaliter not yet fides, just as an egg is not already a hen, Voetius, Disp. II 403. 499. This difference over the relation of faith and work led in practice to the antithesis of the passive and the active Christians; the former remain at justification and do not come to sanctification; the latter run the danger of failing to recognize the former and of making themselves dependent on the latter.

All these objections and dangers, however, which are connected with the Reformation conception of faith, plead not against but for it. Rome has a very simple and intelligible definition of faith, but by that very fact does injustice to the richness of this concept in Scripture. For faith is not merely an accepting of the testimony of the apostles concerning Christ, but a bond of the soul to Christ himself, who is above, seated at the right hand of God.

It is το ἐργον του θεου par excellence, John 6:29, the one and all in the Christian life, the means by which we become partakers of Christ and all his benefits, the subjective source of all salvation and blessing. While it binds us through Scripture to the historical Christ, it at the same time lifts us up to the invisible world, and makes us live in communion with the Lord from heaven. Wherever it may be seated in man, it acts upon all his

faculties and powers, gives them direction and guidance, governs his understanding and his heart, his thinking and doing, his life and conduct;

Christians are believers, πιστοι. It is mystical and noetic, receptive and spontaneous, passive and active, an antithesis of all works and itself the work of God par excellence, means unto justification and principle of sanctification, accompanying our whole life and only at death passing over into sight. It is no more than natural that theology wrestles with it, in order to give a somewhat correct description of this faith. And even if it should succeed in this, it is nevertheless never able to govern life and to prevent all one-sidednesses and errors in practice. Yet it is possible, in the order of salvation, to give to faith that place and significance which, according to Scripture, belongs to it. 1o To that end it must be placed in the foreground that all benefits of salvation have been acquired by Christ and are present in him, and that he himself, as the Lord from heaven, is through his Spirit the distributor and applier thereof. Neither faith nor conversion are conditions which in any way acquire salvation; they are only the way in which the benefits of the covenant come into subjective possession of those for whom they have been acquired. 2o Insofar it is perfectly correct to say that justification, like the other benefits of the covenant, precedes faith. In the pactum salutis the Son already appeared as surety and mediator for his own.

According to 2 Cor. 5:19 God reconciled the world with himself in Christ and did not impute to it its sins, and Rom. 4:25 says clearly that Christ, just as he was delivered up for our sins, so also was raised δια την δικαιωσιν ἡμων, i.e. for, on account of our justification, because we were objectively justified in him by his suffering and death in our place. The καταλλαγη is not distinguished from the ἱλασμος in that the latter is objective and the former subjective. The first also is objective; the content of the gospel runs:

God is reconciled, [525] accept that reconciliation, believe the gospel, above p. 383. Reconciliation, forgiveness, sanctification, etc., do not come about through our faith or our conversion, but they have been fully acquired by Christ; and he distributes them according to his will. 3o All the more must this be maintained, because there is no participation in the benefits of Christ except through participation in his person. The benefits of the covenant are not material goods that can be possessed and enjoyed without and outside the mediator of that covenant. But they are enclosed in him and never and nowhere exist independently of him. When it is said that Christ has acquired them, this indicates that God can bestow all those benefits, without violation of his justice, out of grace in the communion of Christ. 4o

In particular, among those benefits which Christ has acquired, also belongs the gift of the Holy Spirit. He himself has become Spirit, he has by his suffering and death also made the Spirit of the Father and of the Son into his Spirit, into the Spirit of Christ, and therefore distributes him, in whatever way he wills, while that Spirit himself takes everything from Christ. The gift of the Holy Spirit thus presupposes that God has already communicated and bestowed his Christ and that Christ has already communicated and bestowed himself. Even the very first benefit of salvation is a benefit of the covenant, which presupposes the unio mystica.

There is not only no resurrection but also no being crucified and buried, no mortification of the old man, except in the communion of Christ. 5o This imputation and bestowal of Christ and his benefits may now ideally, in the decree, already have taken place from eternity; it may objectively have been realized in Christ as head and mediator, when he became man, died, and was raised; it may also materially be the content of the word of the gospel; yet it is first individually applied and distributed in the vocatio interna, and

passively accepted on man's side in regeneration. 6o This real bestowal of Christ and his benefits in the vocatio interna is of such great significance that in the decree and in the satisfaction there is no objective imputation of Christ unless it also, even if it be before birth, individually realizes itself in the vocatio interna, and that conversely without regeneration there is no share in Christ and his benefits. Antinomianism volatilizes time; for God, however, what happens in [526] time has significance for eternity, because it itself has its foundation and principle in eternity. 7o For those who grow up, however, even regeneration is not enough. Because man is a rational being and the covenant of grace does not kill but rather restores and confirms his independence and freedom, regeneration must pass over into acts of faith. It is Christ himself who through the Holy Spirit brings man into his communion unto the free exercise of faith and conversion. And so much is antinomianism here again erring with its pantheistic volatilization of time, that Scripture precisely binds salvation to faith, which alone can be exercised here on this earth. 8o This faith itself has no conditions which man must first fulfill in order to be allowed to believe, for the freedom of faith is abundantly present for everyone in Scripture and in the offer of grace. Nor is sorrow over sin a condition, because as poenitentia it may only in a certain sense be called gratia praeparans, and as resipiscentia is precisely fruit and proof of faith. Nor is faith itself a condition unto the other benefits, at least not in the sense that these would in any way come about through it, but at most only thus, that faith is subjectively necessary in order to receive and enjoy the benefits present in Christ. 9o Because the bestowal of Christ and his benefits precedes faith and is in no way caused or effected by it, faith cannot be otherwise and is nothing other than the subjective, conscious, and active acceptance of the bestowed benefits. The

description of faith by taking refuge, hungering, thirsting, etc., does not hit the essence, because these are all expressions and activities of faith, and thus already presuppose it. The distinction of faith into refuge-taking and assured trust may, as a distinction, and with a view to practice, in which the believer is repeatedly brought to doubting, have some right of existence; as a separation it is to be rejected and works very harmfully for the growth of spiritual life. 10o Faith as acceptance of the benefits acquired and bestowed by Christ is not temporally separated from assurance of faith, but coincides with it immediately. Just as knowing as knowing of itself brings with it the consciousness of knowing, so faith also by its nature includes immediate certainty. It stands over against anxiety, Mt. 6:31, 8:26, 10:31, fear, Mk.

4:40, 5:36, doubt, Mt. 14:31, 21:21, Rom. 4:20, Jak. 1:6, agitation, Joh.

14:1, it is indefinite trust, Mt. 17:20, ὑποστασις and ἐλεγχος of the unseen things, Hebr. 11:1. From that assurance of faith speak and boast the pious of the O. and N. Covenant, Gen. 49:18, Ps. 16:8-10, 23:4-6, 31:2, 56:5, 10,

57:3 etc., Rom. 4:18, 21, 8:38, 2 Tim. 4:7, 8, Hebr. 11 etc. And when Rome rejected this assurance, Trid. VI c. 9 and can. 13-15, the Reformation, in particular Calvin, Inst. III 2, 14v. etc., again pointed out this assurance in faith according to Scripture. Fides numquam se ipsam ignorat, Sohnius, Op.

I 976. 11o The error of antinomianism therefore did not consist in that it defined faith as certainty, but it lay herein, that it erased the distinction of acquisition and application of salvation, of the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, considered regeneration, conversion, etc. unnecessary and unlawful, understood by faith nothing other than an intellectual accepting of the sentence: your sins are forgiven, and finally considered the whole forgiveness, just like sin itself, a delusion without objective reality. 12o As conscious and free acceptance of Christ with all his benefits, faith here on

earth cannot be otherwise than at the same time firmus assensus and certa fiducia. Christ namely is glorified and we know him and his benefits only from his Word. Yet he does not work on, like other historical persons, only through his example, word, and spirit, but, just as he is the only acquirer of the benefits, so he is also the only possessor and distributor of them. He himself has through his suffering and death become a life-giving Spirit and communicates himself with his benefits to believers. Through his Spirit he bestows himself upon them, as he is and as he, because he has been taken up into heaven and can no longer be seen, has had himself described by that same Spirit in his Word. Thereby he recreates our being and our consciousness, our doing and our thinking, our heart and understanding; he regenerates and he justifies us and thus delivers us from all sin, both from its stain and from its guilt and from all its consequences. Himself prophet and priest and king, he makes us into prophets, who proclaim God's thoughts, into priests, [528] who dedicate ourselves to God, into kings, who rule over world and death. And faith accepts Christ as he gives himself,

Christum evangelio suo vestitum, Calvin, Inst. III 2, 6. 13o Whether one in that connection defines faith by cognitio or by fiducia is not the main point; both do not form an antithesis. Calvin calls it, Inst. II 6, 7 a firma certaque divinae erga nos benevolentiae cognitio, but at the same time says that it is more cordis quam cerebri, affectus quam intelligentiae, ib. § 8, and speaks of it at Rom. 10:10 as a firma et efficax fiducia. Strictly speaking, in a logical sense a trust precedes faith. We believe someone's testimony because we place trust in his person. Believing as an act of the understanding already rests on a bending of the will; nemo credit nisi volens, Voetius, Disp. II 499. And a trust also follows; if I firmly believe something, then I trust in it and rest in it; fides antecedit, fides generat

fiduciam; Calvin says that the apostle Ef. 3:12 ex fide deducit fiduciam, Inst. III 2, 15, cf. Piscator, bij Heppe, Dogm. 387. Voetius, Disp. V 288-300.

Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III2 95 f. But however one determines it, faith is in its essence always certainty, excluding all doubt, fear, despair. In the believer, indeed, all manner of care and doubt repeatedly arises, and his whole life he has to struggle with it; but faith is in itself absolute certainty,

Calvin, Inst. III 2, 17v. Zanchius, Op. VIII 712 sq. Assurance does not come later from outside, added to faith, but is at once in it; the different acts of faith (actus fidei, such as knowledge, assent, trust, rest, peace etc., Voetius,

Disp. II 499-512. Witsius, Oec. foed. III c. 7. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIV qu.

8, to be distinguished from fructus fidei or bona opera) are not steps that temporally follow one another, but indeed there are in those acts themselves all manner of degrees: there is small and great, weak and strong faith, there are children and young men, men and fathers in the faith. But faith remains by its nature firm certainty, indefinite trust; it is today still the same as it was in Jesus' time, namely, that with God all things are possible, Mk. 10:27,

11:23, 24, that he who raised Christ from the dead, Rom. 4:24, 10:9, still makes the dead alive, makes sinners blessed, and calls the things that are not as though they were, Rom. 4:17. [529]

4. This character of faith comes out clearly where it appears as fides justificans. Justification is not the only fruit of faith, for faith accepts Christ and all his benefits; conversion also, sanctification, good works, perseverance, etc. become our portion only through faith; but justification is nevertheless one of the most glorious fruits of faith. Some disapproved of the word justification, justificatio, because by the composition with make, facere, it gave occasion for an ethical conception; but just as little as in the expression Deum glorificare, magnificare, to make God great, is a moral

change as such enclosed in the word to justify. If this were so, the word here in this place would be incorrect and would have to be exchanged for vindication. For Scripture places the forensic, juridical meaning of justification beyond all doubt. The Hebrew ‎‏‏הצדיק‎ denotes that act of the judge by which he declares a man innocent, and stands over against ‎‏‏הרשיע‎, to condemn, Deut. 25:1, Job 32:2, 33:32; of God it is used thus, Ex. 23:7, 1

Kon. 8:32, 2 Chron. 6:23, Jes. 50:8. The forgiveness of sins is not yet expressed in the O. T. by this word; this is made known by, or in any case is contained under, the words to redeem, Ps. 39:9, 51:16, not to impute, Ps.

32:2, to forget, not to remember, Jes. 43:25, Jer. 31:34, to cast behind the back, Jes. 38:17, to blot out or to wipe away, Ps. 51:3, 11, Jes. 43:25, to forgive, Ex. 34:9, Ps. 32:1. The Greek word δικαιουν means in general: to deem right and equitable, to judge what is right, and can thus be used both in malam partem, to do justice to the ungodly, i.e. to punish, and in bonam partem, to do justice to the righteous, to acknowledge him as such. In the N.

T., under the influence of the O. T., it has always acquired a juridical and a favorable meaning. Thus it occurs in general, Mt. 11:19, where Wisdom, naturally not in an ethical but in a juridical sense, is declared righteous with respect to, ἀπο, her children; likewise Luk. 7:29, where the tax collectors justify God, and further Mt. 12:37, Luk. 10:29, 16:15, 18:14. Also with Paul the forensic meaning is fixed; in Rom. 3:4 it can have no ethical meaning, because God is the subject, who is justified in his words; further it alternates [530] with λογιζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσυνην, 4:3, 5, stands over against κρινειν, ἐγκαλειν and κατακρινειν, 8:33, 34, just as δικαιωμα stands over against κατακριμα, 5:16. It means to acquit someone after judicial investigation of the guilt, to declare righteous, δικαιον καθισταναι, Rom.

5:19.

Now the word ‎‏‏הצדיק‎, δικαιουν, to make righteous, can indeed in itself have an ethical meaning. Thus it is used repeatedly by the church fathers,

Suicerus s. v.; in Luther and Melanchthon and in the older symbols of the Luth. church, especially the Apol. Conf. Aug., justificari is used in a twofold sense, as justos pronuntiari seu reputari and ex injustis justos effici seu regenerari, Symb. Bücher ed. Müller, p. 100. 108. From this it has wrongly been inferred by some, Loofs, Die Bedeutung der Rechtfertigungslehre der Apologie für die Symbolik der luth. Kirche, Stud. u. Krit. 1884 S. 613-688, Eichhorn, Die Rechtfertigungslehre der Apologie, ib. 1887 S. 415-490 and Zitzlaff, Die wahre Bedeutung der

Glaubensrechtfertigung, ib. 1898 S. 522 f., that the Lutheran Reformation originally conceived justification not in a juridical but in an ethical sense and regarded faith as ipsa justitia; but yet, on the other hand, the assertion of the Formula Concordiae, in Müller 528. 613, is not correct, that regeneratio in the Apol. Conf. is the same as justificatio. The contrast between Rome and the Reformation in justification was in the first period not formulated in the words ethical or juridical, but in justification by works

(love) or by faith, on account of our own works or on account of the righteousness of Christ accepted in faith. Yet this justificatio on the ground of Christ's righteousness by faith alone, which from the beginning was also conceived by Luther and Melanchthon and in the oldest Lutheran symbols as a declaration of righteousness, was not formally separated from but thought together with a regeneratio of man, consisting in this, that by that same faith he was comforted and uplifted and became pleasing to God; which the Form. Conc. also again acknowledges, when it says: cum enim homo justificatur, id ipsum revera est quaedam regeneratio, quia ex filio irae fit films Dei et hoc modo e morte in vitiam transfertur, ib. p. 614, cf.

further Heppe, Dogm. d. d. Prot. II 274 f. Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 447.

Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III 557. Nitzsch, Ev. Dogm. 583. The Reformed also sometimes said that the [531] word justification could have a broader sense and in Jes. 53:11, Dan. 12:3, 1 Cor. 6:11, Tit. 3:7, Op. 22:11 had to be understood thus, e.g. Synopsis pur. theol. 33, 3; while others also in all those places held fast to the narrower meaning of declaration of righteousness, Witsius, Oec. foed. III 8, 6 sq. 12, 14. Mastricht, Theol. VI 6,

19. Moor IV 550. Owen, On justification by faith, Amst. 1797 p. 140.

Indeed the word in itself allows one to understand under it the whole work of redemption. The re-creation, just as it as a whole can be called a regeneration, is also from the beginning to the end a justification, a restoration of the state and the condition of the fallen world and humanity over against God and with respect to itself. But even if this meaning of the word is not impossible, even if there is in itself also nothing against thinking that Scripture sometimes uses the word in the sense of sanctification or at least includes this under it, exegetically this is nevertheless not probable. Jes. 53:11 says that the servant of the Lord by his knowledge, i.e. per cognitionem sui or also per cognitionem suam, will justify many; the juridical meaning is here not only possible but is made probable by the addition: and their transgressions he shall bear. Likewise in Dan. 12:3 it is said of the leaders and teachers of the people of God that they justify many, i.e. by their righteousness, their faithfulness to the law, are for many an example, to follow them and thus also to be reckoned among the righteous. In 1 Cor. 6:11 the juridical meaning of δικαιουν is now almost generally recognized; Paul there reminds the Corinthians that they, formerly ἀδικοι, have been washed, sanctified, justified; in view of the first word P. thinks of baptism, and the three concepts do not indicate that

the Corinthians have received these benefits successively, temporally one after another, but in view of the repeated ἀλλα they contain a climax; then, in baptism, they have not only been washed negatively from the sins of their former walk and sanctified positively, but they have also been placed in a wholly different state, in the state of the δικαιοι, by a judicial judgment of God; and all those benefits have become their portion in the name of the Lord Jesus και ἐν τῳ πνευματι του θεου ἡμων; these last words also refer to justification, which has its objective [532] foundation in Christ and in the Spirit realizes itself to believers, Gloël, Der h. Geist 149 f. Gennrich, Stud. u. Krit. 1898 S. 402 f. Tit. 3:7 contains not a single reason to depart from the usual, juridical meaning of δικαιουν. In Op. 22:11 the reading δικαιωθητω deserves preference on account of the parallel forms and means that he who is righteous, by acting righteously, be recognized still more as righteous. Thus all stringent proof is lacking that the word δικαιουν in Scripture is ever used in an ethical sense; yet even if this were the case a single time, when there is mention of the justification of the sinner before God, it always has a juridical meaning. The Roman Catholics attempt in vain to overthrow this exegetical result, cf. e.g. B. Bartmann, St. Paulus und

St. Jacobus über die Rechtfertigung, Freiburg 1897 S. 67 f.

5. Now God says in his law, that the righteous must be declared righteous and the unrighteous must be condemned, Deut. 25:1, and every conscience and sense of justice agrees with that. God himself acts according to this rule; He by no means holds the guilty innocent and He does not condemn the innocent, Ex. 20:5v., 34:7, Num. 14:18. He who justifies the wicked and condemns the righteous, are an abomination to the Lord, yea both of them,

Spr. 17:15, cf. Ex. 23:7, Spr. 24:24, Jes. 5:23. And yet, apparently in direct opposition to that and as if in contradiction with himself, Rom. 1:18, 2:13,

Paul says that God justifies the wicked, 4:5. For man has no righteousness in himself, on the ground of which he could be acquitted by God. The Pelagian-minded, who find the ground of acquittal in faith, i.e. in the good disposition, the virtues and good works of man and regard these as perfect, because they carry the guarantee of perfection in themselves or also for Christ's sake are reckoned by God as perfect, come into conflict at all points with the doctrine of Scripture and the Christian confession. For Scripture testifies that from the works of the law no flesh can or will be justified, Jes. 64:6, Rom. 3:19, 20, 8:7, Ef. 2:2 etc. The works, accomplished after justification out of faith, cannot be taken into account for justification, because then the order of salvation [533] would be reversed and justification would be made dependent on sanctification, and also because those good works are still always imperfect and infected with sin, not answering to the full demand of the divine law, Mt. 22:37, Gal.

3:10, Jak. 2:10. God as the truthful one cannot hold for perfect what it is not; as the righteous and holy one He can neither relinquish the demand of the law nor be satisfied with a half-righteousness, which in the ground is none. Scripture therefore also sets one's own righteousness and the righteousness of faith or the righteousness of God over against each other,

Rom. 10:3, Phil. 3:9; they exclude each other as works and faith, Rom.

3:28, Gal. 2:16, as wage and grace, Rom. 4:4, 11:6. While the law thus condemns man on account of his sin and must condemn, it has pleased God to reveal another righteousness, which can be the ground of his acquittal.

This righteousness is called by Paul δικαιοσυνη θεου. The expression occurs, besides Jak. 1:20 and 2 Petr. 1:1, with Paul in Rom. 1:17, 3:5, 21,

22, 25, 26, 10:3, 2 Cor. 5:21, Phil. 3:9 and has with him a peculiar sense. In the O. T. the righteousness of God is that virtue by which He judges

righteously, does not hold the guilty for innocent and the innocent for guilty, and then subsequently especially helps and saves the poor, the wretched, who personally are indeed guilty but in the matter have the right on their side, and acknowledges them in their right, above p. 340. But this righteousness of God seemed at the end of the O. T. economy to have wholly disappeared and been lost; for the whole world was condemnable before God, Rom. 3:19, from the works of the law no one was justified before God, 3:20, the sins previously committed had in God's forbearance passed by unpunished, 3:25. It was therefore necessary that his righteousness should again be revealed. God now did that, not by condemning the whole world, but by giving in Christ an ἱλαστηριον, a means of atonement or atoning sacrifice, for sins. Thereby it appeared that God himself was righteous, but thereby it also became possible that He, without prejudice to, yea in agreement with, his righteousness, could justify him who is of the faith of Jesus, 3:25, 26. For—and thus Paul comes to the modification of the concept of the δικαιοσυνη θεου that is peculiar to him— in Christ, in the gospel, God has, [534] without the law, revealed a "righteousness of God" standing over against the ἰδια δικαιοσυνη. His righteousness as virtue has shown itself most gloriously in this, that He in the gospel has bestowed another righteousness, proceeding outside the works of the law, on the ground of which He can justify him who is of the faith of Jesus. This is called righteousness of God, not because it is a righteousness of man, which is indeed outside him but has been accepted by him in faith and really "before God" (gen. object., with appeal e.g. to Rom.

2:13, Gal. 3:11, παρα τῳ θεῳ, 3:20, ἐνωπιον αὐτου) counts as such, Luther, Calvin, Kantt., Philippi, Umbreit, Fritzsche; nor also because it is a righteousness of man, which has been infused into him and by which he can

stand before God, Osiander, Schleiermacher, Rothe, Martensen, Nitzsch, Beck etc.; but because it is a righteousness which is not of men but of God, which He possesses, which therefore He alone gives and can give, which is not from man but ἐκ θεου is, Rom. 10:3, 5, Phil. 3:9; thus most of the more recent exegetes, whether they take the genitive more as a gen. subjecti

(Haussleiter), possessivus (Fricke) or originis, auctoris, causae efficientis (Bengel, Rückert, van Hengel, Winer, Baur, Hofmann, Godet, Weiss,

Pfleiderer, Holtzmann etc.); cf. besides the literature already earlier in part II 198v. mentioned: Rauwenhoff, Disq. de loco Paulino, qui est de δικαιωσει, L. B. 1852. Lipsius, Die Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre, Leipzig,

1853. Ortloph, Zeits. f. luth. Theol. u. Kirche 1860. Schultz, Die Lehre v. d.

Gerecht, aus d. Glauben im A. u. N. B., Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1862 S. 510-572.

Cremer s. v. δικ. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. §82. Pfleiderer, Der Paulin.2 183.

Weiszäcker, Das apost. Zeitalter2 143. H. Beck, Die δικ. θεου bei Paulus, Neue Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1894 S. 249-261. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. II 127.

Häring, Δικ. θεου bei Paulus, Tübingen 1896 (takes δικ. θεου as act, justification of God, just as Kölbing, Stud. u. Krit. 1895 S. 7-17).

Although this righteousness is now a righteousness of God, it is nevertheless communicated to the human being, and the connection between it and the human being is established by Paul in faith. This righteousness of God exists; it is no more brought about by the human being, by faith, than the καταλλαγη, 2 Cor. 5:19, but lies objectively in Christ, Rom. 4:25, 1 Cor. 1:30; it is [535] revealed in the gospel, 1:17, 3:21; it is a gift, a gift of grace, 3:24, 5:15, 16, 17; nevertheless, or rather precisely therefore, 4:16, it is δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου, 3:22, Phil. 3:9, ἐκ πιστεως, 9:30, 10:6, a δικαιοσυνη πιστεως, 4:11, 13, in the possession of the human being ἐπι τῃ πιστει, Phil. 3:9; it is revealed in the gospel ἐκ

πιστεως and εἰς πιστιν, 1:17, εἰς παντας τους πιστευοντας, 3:22, cf. 10:4, 10; God justifies τον ἐκ πιστεως Ιησου, 3:26, ἐκ or δια πιστεως, 3:30, Gal.

3:8, and the human being is justified πιστει, 3:28. ἐκ πιστεως, 5:1, Gal.

3:24, δια πιστεως, Gal. 2:16; faith is reckoned εἰς δικαιοσυνην, Rom. 4:3, 5, 9, 11, 22, and the righteous lives ἐκ πιστεως, 1:17, Gal. 3:11. What place, then, according to these expressions, belongs to faith in justification? Apart from those who modernize Paul, conceive faith as a good disposition, and let God take the will for the deed, there are only two views possible. The first is that of Roman Catholics, Remonstrants, Mystics, Ethicists, and many newer Protest. theologians, who say that faith is indeed specifically faith in Christ, but nevertheless conceive it as the whole, or as a part, of that righteousness on the basis of which God acquits the sinner; that faith is indeed imperfect and not answering to the demand of the law; but God nevertheless holds it for a perfect righteousness and is satisfied with it, either for the sake of Christ, or because it is nevertheless an obedience to God's will in the gospel and makes the human being pleasing to God, or because it is in principle perfect and carries within itself the guarantee of future perfection. But this opinion is, for all sorts of reasons, in conflict with Scripture. 1o The righteousness that is the ground of justification is a righteousness of God and not of the human being; it comes to the human being only by a gift of grace; it therefore lies ready before his faith in Christ and has need of no supplementation at all. God, namely, has set forth Christ as a ἱλαστηριον, 3:24, and this Christ has been delivered up for our sins,

4:25, has died for us, 5:6-11, has become a curse, Gal. 3:13, has been made sin, 2 Cor. 5:21, and has thus also been raised for our justification, Rom.

4:25, i.e. because we were justified in Him; He is our righteousness, 1 Cor.

5:12v. Paul argues that with Christ it proceeds as with Adam. On the basis of one transgression all human beings have been condemned and subjected to death; but so also the gift of grace of righteousness in Christ has come to δικαιωμα, i.e. to an acquitting judgment for many, 5:16. For through one δικαιωμα, i.e. the acquitting judgment over Christ in His resurrection, 4:25, it comes for all human beings to δικαιωσις ζωης, i.e. the act of justification, which brings life with it, 5:18. Through the obedience of one the many are constituted righteous, δικαιοι κατασταθησονται, 5:19. Alongside the righteousness which God bestowed in Christ, and on the basis of which He justified Christ as mediator of the covenant for all His own in His resurrection, there is no place for a righteousness consisting in faith or love.

The latter would nullify the former. 2o Nowhere is faith, then, presented as the ground of justification. The righteousness, the justification, is ἐκ or δια πιστεως, but never δια πιστιν. Indeed Phil. 3:9 states that Paul possessed την δια Χριστου, την ἐκ θεου δικαιοσυνην ἐπι τῃ πιστει, on the basis of his faith, but the righteousness which Paul possessed is clearly described as δια πιστεως, ἐκ θεου; he only says that he possessed that righteousness of God for himself on the foundation of faith. Faith never appears as the righteousness itself or as a part of it; on the contrary, precisely because it is according to grace, it is out of faith. Grace and faith do not stand over against one another, but faith and works do, righteousness of faith and righteousness from works, Rom. 3:20-28, 4:4-6, 13, 14, 9:32, 10:5, 6, Gal.

2:16, 3:11, 12, 23, 25, 5:4, 5, Ef. 2:8, 9. Faith does not justify by its essence or act, because it itself is righteousness, but by its content, because faith is in Christ, our righteousness. If faith justified for its own sake, the object of that faith, namely Christ, would wholly lose its value. But the faith that

justifies is precisely that which has Christ as its object and content. If therefore righteousness were from the law, and faith were a work that had merit and value and made the human being pleasing to God, then Christ would have died in vain, Gal. 2:21. [537] So little does faith come into consideration in justification as ground that Paul can say that God justifies the ungodly, Rom. 4:5. Even when his doctrine provokes the accusation that it leads to carelessness and ungodliness, he never defends himself by saying that faith is wholly or in part the ground of justification, Rom. 3:5-8, 6:1, but he maintains that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, because Christ has died and been raised for them, Rom. 8:33, 34. 3o Since faith therefore is not a work but a renunciation of all work, an unqualified trust in God, who makes the dead alive, Rom. 4:17, who raised Christ, 4:24, who in Christ has given a δικαιοσυνη θεου, 3:22-26, therefore the expression that faith is imputed to righteousness cannot mean that it itself, as a work of righteousness, is accepted by God in place of or alongside the righteousness of God in Christ. The word λογιζεσθαι can indeed mean: to hold or reckon someone for what he is, 1 Cor. 4:1, 2 Cor. 12:6, but it can also have the sense of: to charge something to someone's account which he does not personally have. Thus sins are not imputed to the one who believes, although he does have them, Rom. 4:8, 2 Cor. 5:19, cf. 2 Tim.

4:16; thus they were indeed imputed to Christ, although He was without any sin, Jes. 53:4, 5, 6, Mt. 20:28, Rom. 3:25, 8:3, 2 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13, 1 Tim.

2:6; and thus in the same way righteousness is imputed to him who believes, which he does not have, Rom. 4:5, and therefore that imputing is κατα χαριν, 4:4, it is a λογιζεσθαι δικαιοσυνην χωρις ἐργων, 4:6. The words: faith is imputed to righteousness, are an abbreviated expression for this, that God imputes to someone, in faith, His righteousness revealed in

Christ and on that ground acquits him. This is confirmed by that other expression: ὁ δικαιος ἐκ πιστεως ζησεται. Faith is actually not principle and source of life, for Christ is the life and gives life, Rom. 5:17, 18, 6:4v., 2

Cor. 4:10, 11, Gal. 2:20, Col. 3:3, 4, 2 Tim. 1:10, cf. Joh. 1:4, 6:33v., 11:25,

1 Joh. 1:2, 5:11 etc. Whoever believes has life, precisely because he receives it from Christ; and so also, whoever believes has the δικαιοσυνη θεου, which God in Christ [538] bestows on him. 4o To this there finally comes still, that, if faith itself is ground of justification, God is satisfied with a lesser righteousness than that which He demands in His law. The gospel then does not confirm, as Rom. 3:31 says, but destroys the law. God renounces His own righteousness and denies Himself. Or else He reckons faith for something that it is not, for a complete and sufficient righteousness, and falls short of His truthfulness. The accusation that is brought by the advocates of the justitia infusa against the justitia imputata, that God holds someone for what he is not, returns upon themselves; they precisely let God reckon something for righteousness which it is not. And moreover they take away the comfort of believers. If our faith, which is often so small and so weak and often wholly hides away under doubt and fear, which according to the defenders of the justitia infusa can even be wholly lost, if that faith is the ground of our justification, the Christian life is a life of continual anxiety and uncertainty; instead of toward Christ, the eye of faith is continually turned inward, toward itself; a true, Christian life in the service of God becomes impossible, for first the fear of God as Judge must have been transformed into the consciousness of His fatherly love, before there can be any question of truly good works.

6. Yet the objection that is raised against the justitia imputata must be seriously considered. 1o Bellarmine, de justif. II c. 7 developed it in this

way: the righteousness of Christ, if only imputed to us and thus remaining outside us, cannot be the forma in which we are justified before God. For God's judgment is according to truth. He cannot declare someone righteous who is not; so long as the righteousness of Christ is only imputed and remains outside the human being, he is not righteous and cannot be declared righteous. One will say: but the sinner is nevertheless clothed with Christ's righteousness through faith! Yet, although that be so, if someone appears in a twofold guise, in a forma extrinseca and a forma inhaerens, then he is named not according to the former but according to the latter. Let an Ethiopian put on a white garment, he nevertheless remains black and is so called, even if he [539] is also white according to the forma extrinseca.

Indeed, even stronger: Christ too can be considered in a twofold forma; according to the forma intrinseca He was holy, according to the forma extrinseca He was burdened with our sins; yet He is named not according to this but according to that. And thus also in justification the justitia imputata cannot be our forma; we can be justified only on the ground of a righteousness dwelling in us. This objection of Bellarmine recurs among all opponents of the Reformation doctrine; everything that one has against the doctrine of the justitia imputata comes down to this. Now to begin with the last point, Christ is in Scripture indeed named and treated according to the forma extrinseca; He is even said to have been made sin for us and to have become a curse for us. In a legal, juridical sense Christ can be called a sinner, although, in order to avoid antinomian misunderstanding, the expression deserves no recommendation, above bl. 366. And thus it is said in Rom. 4:5 and 5:6 that God justifies the ungodly. Stronger expressions than these cannot be used. The opponents of the justitia imputata must bring their objection not against Luther and Calvin but against Paul. 2o The

image of the Moor is unhappily chosen. The twofold forma in which the human being appears in justification stand in an entirely different relation to one another than that of the black skin and the white garment in the Ethiopian. The human being is ungodly in an ethical sense, but he becomes, on account of the righteousness of Christ, a righteous person in a juridical sense; the putting on of a white garment, however, brings about absolutely no legal change in the Ethiopian. More accurate is the image of the child that, adopted in grace by a rich man, may already be called rich as a future heir, even though at the moment it still has nothing in its possession. God declares the sinner righteous, adopts him as His child, promises him Christ and all His benefits, and therefore he is righteous and will one day be placed in possession of all the treasures of grace. 3o The imputation of Christ's righteousness, however, is by Bellarmine c. s. conceived entirely wrongly. They imagine it as a fiction that is in conflict with reality; justitia imputata is, according to them, a righteousness that exists only in the imagination, and justitia infusa alone is true, essential righteousness. That, however, is an entirely wrong representation. Justification [540] is just as true as sanctification, the imputation just as real as the infusion. This is the only difference: in justification the righteousness is bestowed upon us in a juridical sense, in sanctification it becomes ours in an ethical sense. Both are equally essential and both equally necessary. First the judge must pronounce someone's right to a certain pledge before he can come into possession of it; the former is no fiction, no imagination that does not matter and conflicts with reality; no, first the imputatio justitiae is necessary, the recognition of the right, and only thereafter can the infusio justitiae follow, the taking possession of that to which one has a right. If all this is already true with the earthly judge, how much more with the

heavenly? If God justifies the ungodly, then that is no fiction, no imputatio putativa, but then it is and becomes so. As God speaks right, so it is and so it remains eternally, and so it will also one day be acknowledged by all in the day of judgment. For God, when He justifies the ungodly, does so on the ground of a δικαιοσυνη which He Himself has brought about in Christ; through Christ's offering He has, over against every hostile power, acquired the right of acquittal of the ungodly; and when He speaks right, He will also carry it out. The ungodly is righteous in a legal sense; he will therefore certainly also become so in an ethical sense. For God is the one who makes the dead alive and who calls the things that are not as though they were.

And justifying faith consists precisely in unwavering trust in that God of wonders, with whom all things are possible. 4o The righteousness on the ground of which the ungodly is justified is indeed not his own; it is a δικαιοσυνη θεου, standing over against the ἰδια δικαιοσυνη. But it is nevertheless not in the sense a foreign righteousness standing outside him, that it does not concern him and stands in not the least relation to him. On the contrary, already in the pactum salutis Christ has placed Himself in relation to His own and, as mediator, has taken their place. In the state of humiliation He died for their sins, and He was raised for their justification.

There exists a covenant of grace, a unio mystica between Christ and His church, long before the believers are personally incorporated into it; otherwise Christ also could not have made satisfaction for them. There takes place an imputation and bestowal of Christ and all [541] His benefits on God's side before the particular persons come to faith. Specifically, that imputation and bestowal takes place in the vocatio interna, and regeneration is the passive acceptance of this gift of grace. God must also first give, so that we might be able to receive. The very first grace that is bestowed upon

us already presupposes the imputation of Christ, for this is the only source of grace, the acquirer and distributor of the Spirit, who is His Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. A foreign righteousness, therefore, is the righteousness that is the ground of justification only in a certain sense. It is the righteousness of the head but therefore also of all the members, of the mediator but thus also of all the covenant partners.

7. But even by this the Reformed doctrine of justification has not yet been set in full light. Even if it may be true that an imputation and bestowal of Christ upon his own already takes place in the pactum salutis, in incarnation and satisfaction, in external and internal calling; this is nevertheless not yet enough, it is not yet justification proper. It is true that Reformed theology already soon began to distinguish between the justificatio activa, which took place before, and the justificatio passiva, which took place after faith, and began to set the former, as justification proper, over against the latter as a coming to consciousness of the justification already accomplished.

Scripture provides some ground for this in Rom. 4:25 and 2 Cor. 5:19, and also in more recent theology the correctness of this Reformed thought has often been acknowledged, even if for another reason and with another intention, cf. e.g. Schelling, Werke II 4 S. 217 f. Dorner, Chr. Gl. II 754 f.

Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III2 76 f. Kaftan, Dogm. 493 f. etc. There lies here such an important truth, that the denial of it inevitably leads to Remonstrant conceptions. God does not wait with the acquittal of the sinner until he, as it were apart from Him, has taken up the righteousness of Christ by faith; the imputation and bestowal of Christ and his benefits precedes faith, it has taken place in the decree of the Father, in the satisfaction of Christ, in the vocatio interna of the H. Spirit. But however true all this may be, it is nevertheless remarkable that Scripture never designates this imputation

with the name [542] of justification, but always understands by it that acquittal of God which takes place out of and through faith. At the very least, it is implied herein that justification out of faith occupies a weightier place in the order of salvation than those who lay the center of gravity in the justificatio activa can ascribe to it. Apart from the fact that this presentation of the doctrine of justification deviates from the continuous usage of speech of Holy Scripture, it also gives occasion for misunderstanding, finds itself compelled to exegetical acts of violence, and does not allow justification out of faith to come into its own sufficiently as an acquitting act of God.

One can indeed speak of eternal justification and intend and conceive it in a good sense; but the expression is nevertheless not without misgiving; the Reformed rejected it almost without exception, also Maccovius, L. C. 676,

Voetius, Disp. V 281, Westm. Syn. XI 4, and even Comrie, Brahe and others accepted it only in a limited and well-defined sense, Comrie, Brief over de regtv. Sneek 1858 bl. 91v. Brahe, Godg. Stellingen over de leer der rechtv.

Amst. 1833 bl. 26v. For in God not only justification, but whatever He thinks and does, is eternal. In that sense, as actus immanens, creation too is eternal, part II 411, but whoever therefore would begin to speak of eternal creation would create confusion and introduce a pantheistic terminology.

And so it is also with preservation, government, regeneration, calling, sanctification and glorification, and no less justification. One can also in a good sense speak of a justification in the resurrection of Christ and in the gospel; but nevertheless there is between these and that which takes place out of faith and which more particularly in Scripture bears the name of justification, a great difference. The former concerns Christ as surety of his own, but the latter concerns the believers themselves, and not only those believers as a whole, conceived as congregation, as Ritschl asserts, Rechtf.

u. Vers. III 103 f., but also all of them personally, as is incontrovertibly proved from Rom. 3:26, 4:3, 24, 5:19, 8:1, 30, 10:4, 10, 1 Cor. 6:11, Gal.

2:16, Phil. 3:9 etc. This latter justification, then, is not an accidental element that is added to the proper and essential justification in God's decree, in Christ's resurrection, or in the calling through [543] the gospel; but it forms, in justification, which as it were begins in eternity and only in the last judgment receives its full completion, an indispensable and most important moment. The application of salvation by the H. Spirit may in no respect be made into an acquisition of salvation, for the H. Spirit takes everything from Christ; but the application is nevertheless in its sphere just as necessary and of just as great significance as the acquisition. Therefore, of regeneration, faith, and conversion, Scripture makes entrance into the kingdom of heaven dependent. And acquisition and application stand thereby in so close a connection that the former is not thinkable or capable of existing without the latter, and conversely the latter not without the former. The acquisition necessarily brings the application with it; by his suffering and death Christ has also acquired that all his benefits, thus also the forgiveness of sins, would be applied to all his own personally and individually. It is Christ as Savior not only about objective satisfaction but also about subjective deliverance of his own from sin. This now does not come about through an objective justification in God's decree or in the resurrection of Christ, but it only then receives its completion when man is delivered from sin both as to being and as to consciousness, and thus is regenerated and justified. It is to this justification that Scripture ordinarily has regard when it uses this word or also speaks of forgiveness of sins etc.

Paul in particular does not think, with justification, of an eternal act in God, for he speaks of it as ἐκ, δια πιστεως. Nor does he by a single word indicate

that it consists in this, that God at a given moment, e.g. when man believes, quietly within himself, in foro coeli, in the heavenly court, acquits him of guilt and punishment and gives him a right to eternal life. For only the counsel of God is an actus immanens, but all other works of God, creation, preservation, government, redemption, justification etc., belong to the actus transeuntes; they are not ratio ordinis but executio ordinis, above p. 6. Nor does Paul, with justification out of faith, think of the so-called justificatio passiva, at least not if this is conceived as temporally separated from the justificatio activa and as a coming to consciousness of the justification that already long [544] beforehand took place; for he lays precisely all emphasis on it, that God justifies out of and through faith. We stand here, as so often, before the mystery of the relation of eternity and time. As Christians we confess that the eternal willing of God, without ceasing to be eternal, can bring forth operations in time, just as his eternal thinking can also have temporal things as its content, part II 413. In justification out of faith, it is not an acquittal pronounced by God centuries ago that finally comes to the consciousness of man; but God, who is unchangeable, is himself the acting one, when He acquits the sinner through faith. From Him there proceeds, without His ceasing to be the Eternal, that activity which is received and enjoyed by man as justification out of faith. The application, just as much as the acquisition of salvation, is from moment to moment an activity of God, of the Father, the Son, and the H. Spirit. Also in justification out of faith all three persons are involved. It is the Father, who through the Son and in the Spirit justifies the sinner, Rom. 8:33, 34, 1 Cor. 6:11. Paul does not think of making a division here and relocating justification by the Father into eternity, that of the Son into the resurrection, and that of the H. Spirit into the consciousness of man. But just as all three cooperated in the acquisition,

so they also cooperate in the application of salvation. In the former guilt and punishment were taken away and life acquired; in the latter man is also by God, on his side and subjectively, placed in that relation in which he objectively already stood in Christ as his surety and mediator. Just as regeneration in the subjective sense delivers from the stain of sin, so justification takes away the guilt of sin. Both are equally necessary, equally real, equally grounded in the offering of Christ, but also in the application of one and the same high significance.

This justification therefore does not take place apart from man but occurs out of and through faith. Scripture in that connection undoubtedly thinks for the most part of faith as actus. But of course thereby faith as habitus is not excluded; regenerated little children and adult believers have and retain in this habitus fidei the acquittal of God, the testimony of the H. [545] Spirit, that they are children of God, even though their spirit does not always testify together. But further Scripture sets this justification out of faith sharply and strictly over against that out of works. This antithesis, however, does not mean that faith is no work and no principle of good works. It does not compel us to keep searching until we find in the inner nature of faith something that is no work, no deed but only passivity. The antithesis which Scripture and especially Paul makes is this, that justification does not come about through the works of the law, i.e. does not have in such works its ground, its causa meritoria. For God in Christ has given another, better δικαιοσυνη than sinful works can offer; and that δικαιοσυνη, that is Christ, is the only and sufficient ground of our justification. In the antithesis οὐκ ἐξ ἐργων ἀλλ' εκ πιστεως the praepositie ἐκ thus has a different meaning both times. In the first member it indicates that works of the law cannot be the δικαιοσυνη on the ground of which God can acquit us; but in the second

member it indicates, not that faith itself can indeed be that righteousness, but that it seeks that righteousness which is necessary in order to be justified, precisely not with man in his works, but outside him in Christ. The antithesis therefore runs purely thus: not one's own righteousness of works, but the righteousness of God in Christ. Although this righteousness has now been perfectly acquired by Christ and lies ready in Him, although it is imputed and bestowed in the vocatio interna and thus in a logical sense before regeneration and faith, it is nevertheless on man's side first accepted in faith (habitus or actus fidei) and only then becomes the ground on which he himself personally is justified by God, in the above-mentioned sense.

Faith is therefore no causa materialis or formalis, it is not even a conditio or instrumentum (causa instrumentalis) of justification; for it does not stand to this as e.g. the eye to seeing or the ear to hearing; it is no condition on which and no instrument through which we receive justification, but it is the act of accepting Christ Himself, and indeed of Christ, as He gives Himself to us inwardly through the Spirit and outwardly through the Word, and thus the firm, certain consciousness that He is my Lord and I am his [546] property. Faith is no instrument with which man accepts Christ, but much more a means of the H. Spirit, through which He causes man to accept

Christ and causes his spirit to testify with Himself that he is a child of God, Calvijn, Inst. III 11, 5. Heid. Cat. vr. 61. Ned. Gel. art. 22. Witsius, Misc. S.

II 792. 797 sq. Trigland, Antapol. p. 515. Mastricht, VI 6, 28. Owen, De rechtv. uit het geloof c. 3. Moor IV 695. M. Vitringa III 295. Jon. Edwards bij Dorner II 752. Therefore faith does not in every respect stand over against all work. It stands over against the works of the law in a double sense, namely in that they can be neither the causa materialis nor the causa instrumentalis of justification. It also stands over against the works of faith

(justitia infusa, obedientia, caritas), as soon as these are even in any measure regarded as ground of justification, as wholly or in part forming that righteousness on the ground of which God justifies us; for that is Christ and Christ alone; faith itself is no ground of justification and thus neither are the good works that proceed from it. But faith does not stand over against the works of faith, insofar as these, as fruits of faith, are used by the H. Spirit as a means to assure the believer of the sincerity of his faith, and thus of his salvation, Heid. Cat. vr. 86. In this sense faith itself is a work,

Joh. 6:29, the best work and principle of all good works, the only work through which God can here on earth deliver us from our guilt and assure us of our righteousness in Christ. Therefore the Reformed also said that it is indeed fides sola, quae justificat, fides tamen, quae justificat non est sola,

Calvijn, C. R. 7, 477. Inst. III 11, 20, and after the justificatio peccatoris they also still spoke of a justificatio justi. In this sense Paul and James are also not in contradiction with one another. Indeed it is not correct to say that Paul speaks only of the justificatio peccatoris and James of the justificatio justi. But both deny that the ground of justification lies in the works of the law, and both acknowledge that faith, living faith, faith that includes and brings forth good works, is the means through which the H. Spirit assures us of our righteousness in Christ. In that connection there is only this difference, that Paul wages battle against dead works and James is zealous against a dead faith. [547] The faith that justifies is the certainty of our righteousness in Christ worked in our heart by the H. Spirit. And therefore, not the more passive, but the more living and the more powerful it is, the more it justifies us. Faith works together with the works and is perfected out of the works, Jak. 2:22. Cf. on James and Paul: Calvijn, Inst. III 17, 11 sq.

Comm. op Jac. 2. Turretinus, de concordia Pauli et Jacobi, de satisf. 384 sq.

Trigland, Antapol. c. 21. Witsius, Oec. foed. III 8, 21-26. M. Vitringa III 317. James Buchanan, The doctrine of justification, Edinb. 1867 p. 491.

Usteri, Stud. u. Krit. 1889, 2tes Heft. Schwarz ib. 1891, 4tes Heft. Böhmer, Neue kirchl. Zeits. 1898 S. 251-256.

8. Concerning the parts of justification there was, in the churches of the Reformation, from the beginning some difference. Those who, with Piscator, denied the obedientia activa, had to restrict justification to the forgiveness of sins and thus sooner or later to come to the inference that believers, after having been delivered by Christ from the guilt and punishment of sin, themselves had to fulfill the law, in order to obtain eternal life, above p. 350v. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers.2 I 271. II 61 f.

Therefore this opinion was also rather generally rejected; although the forgiveness of sins could also synecdochically, as pars pro toto, be taken for the whole of justification, this nevertheless still included more than forgiveness alone. For Christ has not merely restored us to the state of Adam before the fall, but also for us kept the law and obtained eternal life, cf. above 351v. 361. 373 and especially also Gomarus on Luk. 1:77, Op.

1664 I 175 sq. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVI 4. Moor IV 681. Hodge III 125.

127. But although one rather generally acknowledged that justification comprised more than the forgiveness of sins, there was nevertheless again difference as to wherein that more consisted. Older theologians often named, as the second part of justification, the imputation of Christ's righteousness, Luther, Chemniz, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Polanus, Wollebius,

Junius, Trelcatius, Rivetus, Ned. Gel. art. 23 etc., cf. M. Vitringa III 311.

Schneckenburger, Vergl. Darst. II 28. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III 61.

Although this is not precisely incorrect, when here under the imputed righteousness of Christ his active obedience is [548] understood, the parts

are nevertheless not purely coordinated and they also make too strong a separation between Christ's passive and active obedience, cf. Mastricht, VI 6, 17. Better is it therefore, to define justification by the imputation of Christ's entire obedience, just as with Paul the word δικαιουν alternates with λογιζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσυνην, cf. Heid. Cat. q. 60. Synopsis pur. theol.

33, 8; and still more correct is it, to let the two parts of justification consist in the forgiveness of sins and in the granting of the right to eternal life, since these benefits are built upon the imputation of Christ's entire obedience, Voetius, Disp. V 279 sq. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVI qu. 4. As a second part there was sometimes also named the adoption as children,

Turretinus, ib. XVI qu. 6. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III 90. Pfleiderer, Paulinismus 189. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. II 134; but others, such as Martyr, L. C. p. 354, preferred to regard this as a fruit of justification.

As regards the forgiveness of sins, this does not consist in the removal of the stain of sin, as Rome asserts, insofar as it makes justification consist in the infusio gratiae and makes the forgiveness of sanctification dependent.

Nor does it consist only in the removal of the reatus culpae, i.e. in fact in deliverance from eternal punishment, while the punishment for the peccata venialia, committed after the infusio gratiae, must be expiated by man himself here or hereafter in purgatory, for guilt and punishment are correlative concepts, above p. 162 cf. 98. But the forgiveness, which is a part of justification, is nothing less than the complete remission of all guilt and of all punishment of sin, and not only of past and present but also of future sins. Some had, out of fear of antinomianism, objections against this rich and broad conception of forgiveness, and therefore limited it to the remission of the guilt of past and each time confessed sins, with appeal also to Mt. 6:12, 1 Joh. 1:9, 2:1 etc., Rivetus, Op. III 1099. Pictet, Christ. Godg.

XI 11, 3. Brakel, Red. Godsd. 34, 53-62. 56, 6. 62, and furthermore also Claude, Vlak et al. Over against antinomianism they defended an important truth. The fact is that believers, after having received forgiveness, still stumble in many things, [549] sometimes even fall into gross sins, and continue to experience all kinds of adversities in life as punishment. Rome thinks it may infer from this that believers still have themselves to atone for their peccata venialia, and thus falls short of the richness and grace of forgiveness; antinomianism wants to honor the latter and therefore thinks that the sins which believers commit are not charged to the new man but only to the old man, and that believers even no longer have to pray for forgiveness of sins. Over against this all the Reformed maintained that forgiveness indeed removes the reatus actualis but not the reatus potentialis of sin; i.e. forgiveness indeed removes the punishment but not the punishableness of sin. The latter remains as long as sin remains. Sin brings, also and especially in believers, consciousness of guilt, sorrow, regret, estrangement from God, humiliation, etc.; it takes away the rest of conscience, the confidence and assurance of faith. It cannot be otherwise; the nature of sin is such that it necessarily includes consciousness of guilt and punishableness. Even when believers, after having already long received forgiveness, later learn to cast a deeper glance into the corruption of their own heart, they have need to make confession even of the sins of their youth and to trace their guilt back to their conception and birth, Ps.

25:6, 51:6, 7. This confession is then no condition of forgiveness; but whoever truly knows his sin confesses it of himself and feels, over against it, the stronger need for the comfort of forgiveness. Therefore the prayer for forgiveness remains daily necessary for the believer. But then he does not pray in doubt and despair, he does not pray as if he were now no longer a

child of God and had again to await eternal damnation, but he prays out of and in faith, as a child, to his Father who is in the heavens, and says amen to his prayer. And this praying is not only a need, but it is also necessary; for justification does not consist in a transcendent acquittal of the sinner with God in foro coeli, but it is an actus transiens, which is carried by the Holy Spirit into the consciousness of the believer, and in this unity in Scripture bears the name of justification. Confession and prayer is therefore the way by which God again awakens and strengthens this consciousness of forgiveness in the believer. [550] Under sin it lies hidden; faith as habitus indeed remains, but it can no longer express itself in deeds. In order that this faith may revive again, in order that the Spirit of God may again loudly and powerfully bear witness with our spirit that we are children of God; to that end, after sin, humiliation again, confession, petition for forgiveness is necessary. If we stood perfectly in faith, we would never doubt the forgiveness of our sins, our sonship, the future inheritance, and we would also never conceive or feel any disaster in this life as a punishment but only as a chastisement of the Lord. But to stand perfectly in faith would only be possible if we were also raised above sin. Because this is not so and sin always again brings doubt with it, therefore conversion and confession remain the means by which God brings us again into his fellowship and assures us of his favor. From this, however, it may not be inferred with Rivetus et al. that God each time forgives only the past and confessed sins.

For all the sins of the church have been transferred to Christ and he has reconciled them all in his blood. In the imputation of Christ to the elect in pactum salutis, incarnation and resurrection, in external and internal calling, he is bestowed upon them with all his benefits. As soon as they accept this gift of God, they are also on their side at once placed in a new relation to

God, which is unchangeable and unbreakable. And though the activities of faith may be lacking for a time, yet the gift of faith, by which they are incorporated into Christ and accept all his benefits, is inalienable, Joh. 3 vs.

36, Rom. 8:30, Gal. 3:27, Hebr. 9:12, 10:12, 14 etc. Therefore believers have the confidence, after every stumbling and after every fall, to go with trust to the throne of grace and to plead on the faithfulness of him whose gift of grace and calling are without repentance, Rom. 11:29, Hebr. 4:12, 1

Joh. 1:9, cf. Calvin, Inst. III 11, 11. 20, 19. Voetius, Disp. V 282. Alting, Theol. probl. nova XVII 10. Witsius, Misc. Sacr. II 806-820. M. Vitringa III 313.

This benefaction of the forgiveness of sin is so great, that it is incredible for the natural man. Heathens did not know it and thought that by all kinds of works they had to acquire the favor of the Gods; Celsus mocked it and considered it a folly, cf. Witsius, de theol. gentilium circa justificationem,

[551] Misc. Sacr. II 668-721. Even most Christians make it dependent on faith and good works. Everything also pleads against it, sin itself, which demands punishment, the conscience, which accuses, the law, which condemns, the world, which knows no mercy, Satan, who is an accuser of the whole human race, God himself, whose righteousness and holiness cannot tolerate sin. The forgiveness of sins is a gift, which can be accepted and enjoyed only by faith. It is not an object of sight but of faith. In order to confess it in truth, that same faith is necessary, which also alone makes one capable of accepting the divine authority of Holy Scripture, of the divinity of Christ, of his satisfaction and resurrection. The objections, brought in against all these dogmata, are in the essence of the matter no others than those which also apply against the forgiveness of sins. The appearance is against it. But faith is also a firm ground of the things which one hopes for

and a proof of the matters which one does not see. It is faith in a God, who works miracles, who makes the dead alive, who calls the things which are not as though they were, and who justifies the ungodly. So much does this forgiveness of sins stand in the foreground in Scripture, that it is sometimes identified with justification. Yet with it another benefaction is connected, which is equally rich and glorious and which, though it may not be separated from it, may nevertheless be distinguished. It is the granting of the right to eternal life, or the adoption as children, by Paul immediately named alongside the redemption from the law, Gal. 4:5, cf. Dan. 9:24, Hd.

26:18, Op. 1:5, 6. Already in the O. T. God is called the Father of his people and Israel his son, part II 113. But in the N. T. this fatherhood and sonship receives a much deeper sense. God is now, not in a theocratic but in an ethical sense, the Father of the believers, and these are his children, τεκνα, born of Him, and therefore through faith in Christ obtaining the ἐξουσια, to become it, γενεσθαι, until they will one day be it perfectly, when they will see God as He is, 1 Joh. 3:2. This ethical sonship, which occurs especially with John, however, does not belong here but is to be discussed with regeneration and sanctification. In contrast, Paul speaks of the υἱοθεσια in a juridical sense. Just as the believers on the ground of Christ's righteousness receive the [552] forgiveness of sins, so are they also adopted as children, υἱοι θεου (not τεκνα). This υἱοθεσια, which thus rests on a declaration of God, has been acquired by Christ, Gal. 4:5, and becomes our portion through faith, 3:26. He who has been acquitted of the guilt and punishment of sin is thereby at the same time adopted as a son and set as an object of God's fatherly love. The believers are thereby placed in the same status as Christ, who is the firstborn among many brethren, Rom. 8:29. He was the Son of God by nature, 8:32, and was so declared at his resurrection, 1:3; the

believers become ὑιοι θεου by adoption. And just as Christ at his resurrection has been declared Son of God in power κατα πνευμα ἁγιωσυνης, 1:3, and the believers have been justified ἐν τῳ πνευματι του θεου ἡμων, 1 Cor. 6:11, so are they also by the πνευμα υἱοθεσιας sons of God, Rom. 8:14-16, and thereafter also by that same Spirit assured of this their sonship, ib. Gal. 4:6. As sons they are then at the same time κατ' ἐπαγγελιαν κληρονομοι, Gal. 3:29, 4:7, Rom. 8:17; and because this inheritance still lies in the future, the υἱοθεσια in its full realization is also still an object of hope, Rom, 8:23. Justification, which has its beginning in eternity, realizes itself in the resurrection of Christ and the calling of the believers, receives its completion only when God in the last judgment repeats his sentence of acquittal in the hearing of the whole world and every tongue will have to confess that Christ is the Lord to the glory of God the Father. But even if the "Rechtsfolge der Adoption" still awaits, the believers have nevertheless already on earth been adopted as children; they are sealed by the Holy Spirit as guarantee and pledge unto the day of their redemption,

2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5, Ef. 1:13, 14, 4:30, and kept for the heavenly inheritance, as this is for them, 1 Petr. 1:4, 5. By that Spirit they are continually led

(ἀγονται, not φεγονται as 2 Petr. 1:21), Rom. 8:14, assured of the love which God has toward them, 5:5, cf. vs. 8, and of their sonship, 8:15, 16,

Gal. 4:6, and already now made partakers of peace, Rom. 5:1, Phil. 4:7, 9, 1 Thess. 5:23, and joy, Rom. 14:17, 15:13, 1 Thess. 1:6. [553]

↑ Back to top