Edwards on Justification by Faith Alone – part 1

In the introduction of this sermon preached during the Great Awakening, Edwards mentions the Solifidians, meaning those that hold to the doctrine that faith insures salvation, irrespective of good works. This is the cavil used most effectively against this doctrine…

‘Luther and Calvin teach that faith alone is sufficient for justification, and they define this faith to be an assured confidence that their sins are forgiven them wholly by Christ's passion. No text, however, in Scripture teaches that a man is justified by faith only. In Romans, Luther makes St. Paul say that a man is justified by faith only, without the works of the law: the authorized Protestant version has omitted the word only, foisted into the German translations.’ [Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition] http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id254.html

There it is; the doctrine of justification is perverted as being antinomian and the works righteousness folks take it as a straw man to make the Scriptures teach contradictory doctrines. Is justification of faith or works or a mix of faith and works? Let’s hear Edwards from a message used of the Spirit for the salvation of many.

“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” [John 6:27-29]

I had hoped that someone (perhaps Chiefest) would comment. This subject matter, as you know, is of great interest to me. And I'm wondering (TIC) if you didn't do this on purpose. But seriously, I realize it's part of a series of posts you have planned.

Before taking leave I would like to comment.

In fairness to Haydock : Dr. Hendriksen, in his commentary on Romans 3:28, states that Luther should not have inserted the word {alone}. And the critics should not have raised such a storm about it...

I think Dr. Hendriksen is correct on the first part. But I think Paul and Augustine would disagree with Hendriksen on the second part.

Paul certainly takes the Judaizers to task. And Augustine points out in his book "On Faith and Works" how the Scriptures were being misinterpreted during the time of the Apostles. He refers to Rom 3:8, Rom 5:20, 1 Cor 3:11-15.

Augustine states, "When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the obseverence of the law, he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification".

Augustine : "Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved."

I took another look at Calvin's commentary on Rom 3 :27-28. Calvin says :"This contrast between faith and works ought to be carefully noticed : works are here mentioned without any limitation, even works universally. Then he neither speaks of ceremonies only, nor specifically of any external work, but includes all the merits of works which can possibly be imagined. Calvin goes on v28 : and I have also proved that it is quite absurd to confine them (works) to ceremonies."

It would be dishonest to claim that Paul is referring to good-deeds in Romans, or that James is referring to ceremonial works in his letter. But even if Calvin is correct - that all these works are clumped together - they can still be distinguished one from another. James is clearly talking about food and clothing. And in Romans 4 - a couple verses after 3:28 - Paul uses the word 'work' 4 times in the first six verses. But then from v9 to v12 he refers to circumcision 9 times.

Valiant, when I read Matt. 25:31-46 it makes me fear and tremble. Why? Because those in this text were thrown into hell not because they raped or murdered or stole or were drunks or were adulterers. They may have had faith because they call Him, Lord. They were lost for not loving their neighbor.

Thanks for your inputs. Allow me to mull them over before replying.

There is a reason that Edwards preached this doctrine in the revival. That’s what I’m trying to get at. I hope you will bear with me for awhile longer.

Ed, you are more gracious with those who differ, and I commend you for it.

After Edwards defines the doctrine of justification, he will give us a working definition and then the gold of the right use of the doctrine, including what he calls ‘evangelical obedience’ which reminds me of Bolton in his True Bounds of Christian Freedom.

My problem with Haydock is that he intentionally blurs the distinction between justification and salvation, and then proceeds to undermine Paul’s doctrine of justification given to the churches in his letter to the Romans. The apostle makes a clear distinction in Romans 8…

‘And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.’

Justification is one of the graces essential for our salvation and purchased for us on that bloody cross. We must see it in this broader context of the whole plan of salvation, which the apostle calls God’s ‘purpose’.

No Reformed theologian ever taught that good works are not essential to salvation, rather they are an evidence of a work of grace in the heart they call regeneration. This is just another name of our Lord’s doctrine of being ‘born again’ of the Spirit.

Christianity is of the heart, because sin is of the heart. A good work must proceed from a renewed heart with a motive of love; love towards God for His infinite mercy in saving a wretch like me and love towards my fellow man because he is made in the image of God and worthy of every kindness I can show him. If the motive is earning favor with God, then how can it be a good work?

Regarding your TIC comment: As my forefathers in the faith might say, this is evidence of the good providence of God; let’s cooperate with it.

My friend, I will always hear you.

Please don't misunderstand the intent of my posts.

There is danger in both camps, Protestant and Catholic. My church does not teach that we get a higher place in heaven the more good deeds we do.................but some in my church think that. I'm fairly sure that Protestant Pastors are not teaching their people not to go to church, not to read the Bible, not to pray.....but some hear 'we are saved by faith alone' and they misunderstand what it means. 'I believe, so now I can do whatever I want' is not what Luther and Calvin had in mind.

Not being good with words I fear you take my posts as an attack, which they are not.

I call you gracious and you confirm it again by fearing that I might take your words in a way not intended. Your words are better than you think, my friend.

‘Such an assertion as this, I am sensible, many would be ready to call absurd, as betraying a great deal of ignorance, and containing much inconsistency, but I desire everyone’s patience till I have done.’ –Edwards

These are the words of Edwards immediately after he states the doctrine of justification as an imputed righteousness by faith alone.

Why in Protestant New England would Edwards make such a comment unless in the century since the Pilgrims came to America the old Protestant doctrine had been compromised?

The doctrines of justification and regeneration hang together. It follows then that Edwards was preaching justification because the doctrine of the new birth had been compromised. Protestant churches were admitting into membership those who made profession of the reformed doctrine, but gave little evidence of being born again.

So what is the evidence of the new birth? And who are you to judge another man’s faith?

Seriously, asked in a slightly different way, what was it that changed?

The problems that faced the church in Edwards’ day are the same problems that the church faces today: a moving away from Biblical authority towards autonomy, particularly the apostolic doctrine of church government and salvation. According to Edwards these problems are related and are detrimental, not only to the churches but to the culture. The colonial Reformation brought reform to the churches and ultimately influenced the culture towards a Biblical consensus of man and God and church and state.

At the time of the Awakening, Harvard seminary was already given to theological liberalism called Unitarianism. They turned away from the revival and criticized the great preachers of the revival like George Whitefield. They were the Pharisees of that day, like those who objected to John the Baptist even though men after hearing his message were repenting of their sins and believing in Messiah.

The influence of the Awakening and the preaching of men like Edwards and Whitefield are neglected today because the basic doctrine of depravity is denied. When depravity is denied, then the necessity of the new birth will also be denied.

This is what these articles are about. Reformation is associated with the preaching of these doctrines and cultural reform is the result of reformation in the churches. Edwards began by preaching these doctrines in the face of his critics, and the Spirit blessed the message with the salvation of many hundreds of souls in his church as the revival began to spread through out the colonies. [1 Corinthians 1:21]

How to say this in a way not to cause hurt or hard feelings.

As I look at the list of recent posts; of those who have posted; of the awesome subject matter - over which an ocean of ink and almost as much blood has been spent, - I think I've caused harm to your site, and that was not my intention. It can't be coincidence; it can't be that the subject matter isn't of interest. You've worked too long and hard at your site.......

Take care my good friend. My very best to you and yours.

You are always welcome here. The purpose of the site remains the same as stated under the bio…for those who love the Scriptures and desire to see a return to Biblical authority that is the foundation of constitutionalism.

I am struck again by your words. We agree that the recent subject matter is of great importance, but the reality is that justification is not of great interest. The culture is deceived by a false reality where a man’s standing before God is thought to be irrelevant. The churches, in general, have left off preaching the whole counsel of God. The doctrine of justification is not seen as important enough to cause contention. It is more accurate to say that unity is sought at the expense of truth and the gospel is modified to not offend the natural man, causing the churches to be filled with the unregenerate and the untaught. The entrance into the kingdom is by the way of justification.

The Scripture tells us that real unity is around the apostolic doctrine. And in the Providence of God you are out there expressing an interest in these things. I hope you will let me worry about the site. For what it’s worth, I value your input and your friendship.

Clarification.

I was trying to make a point without making the point, and, as I so often do, I did it in a poor way. (TIC - maybe the writing between the lines was not clear.

I have no problem with 'strife'. Well, I'd rather not be the cause of it. My point was that there was a very interesting topic on the board and no-one (well, three -including WWM) was posting.

I don't believe in coincidence.....and the postings picked-up. I hope this helps.