International Reformed Baptist Seminary
Justification by Faith in the Baptist Confessions
Submitted to Dr. James M. Renihan
in partial fulfillment of ST501: Symbolics LEGACY
By
John Carter
September 20, 2024
Introduction
“All theologies divide at one point—does God save men or do they save themselves?”[1] Justification is at the heart of this doctrinal divide. It is one of the unique features of the Christian religion. Truth contained in Christ, which is often mimicked but never replicated. As the Particular Baptists of the 1600’s were beginning to fully develop their doctrines, it was important that they disavowed false doctrine while also promoting their orthodoxy. They were neither inventors of new doctrines nor were they heretics destroying the precious tenants of the Christian religion. This necessitated carefully handling the doctrine of Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
This paper will interact with the doctrine of justification as taught in the First London Confession, the Second London Confession, as well as the Baptist Catechism. Due to its size, the Second London Baptist Confession will have the lion’s share of the paper. Within the section on the Second London Baptist Confession, particular attention will be given to the doctrine of Eternal Justification. Each head section title will be in all caps, each following sub-section will then be in bold, and finally, each portion of the confession being addressed will be provided in italics.
I. First London Baptist Confession (1646)[2]
The first confession addressed here is the First London Baptist Confession, specifically the 1646 printing (1LCF46.) Although significantly less comprehensive than the Second London Baptist Confession (2LCF), the 1LCF46 still demonstrates an orthodox view of justification. The two sections specifically addressing justification are XXVIII and XXX.
XXVIII
Those that have union with Christ, are justified from all their sins by the blood of Christ, which justification is a gracious and full acquittance of a guilty sinner from all sin, by God, through the satisfaction that Christ hath made by His death for all their sins, and this applied (in manifestation of it) through faith.
Here justification affirmed and defended as a work of Christ completed on the cross and then applied through the faith of the believer. As presented here, justification is a prerequisite for reconciliation to God, and union to Christ, where he graciously pardons sinners based solely on the work of Christ on the cross thereby negating and rebuffing any attempt to connect justification with the works of man.
XXX
All believers through the knowledge of that justification of life given by the Father and brought forth by the blood of Christ have as their great privilege of that new covenant, peace with God, reconciliation, whereby they that were afar off are made nigh by that blood, and have peace passing all understanding; yea, joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have received atonement.
The necessary theme of justification in the 1LCF46 is reconciliation. This is bolstered by the phrases “great privilege,” “peace,” “made nigh,” and “joy.” Both here and in section XIV the sinner is justified through the mediatorial work of Jesus as prophet, priest, and king. A theme that is greatly expanded on in the 2LCF. In both sections of the 1LCF46 that deal with justification directly, the doctrines are true but not well developed. This is in no way evidence that the signers of the 1LCF46 had an anemic view of justification. This can be seen in the fact that just a few years later the 2LCF has a more robust explanation of justification was adopted.
II. Second London Baptist Confession[3]
Chapter 11 of 2LCF is devoted to the topic of justification. However, before going to Chapter 11 it is necessary to look for early uses of justification to lay a foundation for chapter 11. This is because the 2LCF is a cohesive document that requires reading the whole while simultaneously reading the parts. Conversely reading the parts while reading the whole is just as important. So even though Chapter 11 of the 2LCF will require a greater deal of attention, those sections which address justification in name or in doctrine must also be considered. This requires looking at chapters 3, 8, 12, 14, and 19. Some of the paragraphs are broken down into more manageable parts.
3.6
As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
Here, in the 2LCF, is the first explicit reference to justification. In this particular case ‘justified’ is placed within in the larger context of God’s decree and his gracious election. This decree not only includes those called ‘elect’ but also excludes those not elect. In other words, the 2LCF marks justification as only possible though the special work of God according to his will. Twice, justified is placed at the top of the three-part list in this paragraph (justified, adopted, sanctified). The first list points to those being kept and the second to those being saved. This list forms a pattern which is followed in chapters 11, 12, and 13 of the 2LCF. This demonstrates to the reader that even though justification, adoption and sanctification are distinct, they are also related.
8.1
It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man; the prophet, priest, and king; head and saviour of the church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world; unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.
In chapter 3 of the 2LCF justification is the result of God’s eternal decree. The means of that decree, however, are not articulated. This is where Chapter 8: Christ the Mediator must be studied. God did not simply declare sinners justified. Instead God the Father sent God the Son to be the mediator between God and Man. Through this mediatorial work Christ acted in the offices of prophet, priest, and king. This shows that God both decrees Man’s justification and he also establishes the means and basis of justification. As will be seen in chapter 11 of the 2LCF, without God’s decree and his intervention as mediator, justification would be impossible. This theme of the mediatorial role is expanded in questions 23-29 of the Baptist Catechism.
11.1
In preparation for looking at justification it would be helpful to remember that justification has been understood in two different ways within church history. One view is that justification is medical and ethical. It holds that the application of righteousness is infused to a patient so that the patient can someday fully experience the benefits of justification. The other view of justification, made popular by St. Augustine, is that justification is forensic, judicial, or legal. Instead righteousness being infused, it is imputed to a criminal. In this case the full effects of justification are not experienced little by little, but are immediately experienced in full.[4] R.C. Sproul has said, “when the Reformers spoke of forensic justification, they mean a legal declaration made by God that was based on the imputation of Christ righteousness to the believer, not on Christ’s righteousness inherent in the believer.”[5] John Murray explains justification as, “a judicial or forensic term and refers to a judgement conceived, recognized, and declared with respect to judicial status.”[6] It is this forensic justification that is imputed to the believer that is clearly defended in the 2LCF.
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth,
This is the simple declaration; God justifies those he has effectually called. This theme is clearly present in the 1LCF46 as well as chapter 3 of the 2LCF. What is stated simply in this first clause is then clarified with three negations with each then followed by affirmations.
…not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons a righteous;
The first negation is addressing infused righteousness. In an exposition on the 2LCF Rob Ventura states that, “justification is not an infusion of holiness into one’s heart, but a judicial declaration concerning the believer’s standing before God. The 1689 Confession informs us that this judicial declaration includes two aspects: pardon and acceptance.”[7] This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching. Historian Roger Olson explain the Roman Catholic position as, “the gradual process by which a sinner is made actually righteous internally by having God’s own righteousness infused through the grace of baptism, faith, works of love and the entire penitential life.”[8] And continue later by saying that “justification comes gradually all through the salvation process, but ultimately and perfectly only at its end. For medieval Catholics it extended into purgatory.”[9]
This first negation is then followed by two affirmations (‘pardoning’ and ‘accepting and accounting’) which explain the means by which man is justified. This, of course, is not, as the Roman Catholic Church falsely teaches, by infusing righteousness. The doctrine of infusion teaches that righteousness is something internal, whereas the protestant doctrine of justification teaches that justification is something external. Infusion is a change of man’s nature whereas imputation is a change in man’s legal standing before God. The 2LCF clearly affirms that man’s sins are pardoned and God accounts and accepts those justified as righteous. This may seem insignificant but fundamentally this is an inversion of justification and sanctification. This is a reversal of grace and works.
…not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone;
Consider the second negation in 11.1, which address the agent of righteousness. Infusion falsely teaches that man is equipped to do good works meriting salvation, whereas the 2LCF asserts that there are no works on the part of man considered for his justification. In fact, justification is exclusively the works of Christ that are considered in the justification of sinful man. This demonstrates and emphasizes the eternal decree of God to justify a people for himself from eternity past.
…not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness,
The third negation further address works by clarify the active and passive obedience of Christ. Even faith itself is not a saving work. For faith did not cause God’s decree but simply savingly believes it to be true. Saving faith is belief that Christ’s active obedience and passive obedience alone merit the believer’s righteousness. Christ’s passive obedience was his death on the cross where his active obedience was his sinless life. Christ active obedience was his obeying the law. In his book Communion with God, John Owen writes, “Christ also obeyed the law which God required of us. Some believe this obedience was preparatory to his blood-shedding and oblation. His death, they consider, is the sole cause of our justification, the whole righteousness which imputed to us. His obedience is purely an act of obedience which is no cause of our justification. This is wrong.”[10] This is wrong because man needs both the penalty paid and the law obeyed on his behalf. Joel Beeke rightly summarizes, “For the Son to satisfy God’s justice, He must both pay the penalty for sin and fulfill the righteous requirements of the law.”[11]
Where infusion teaches that man is now equipped to obey and earn his righteousness, justification by imputation teaches that Christ obeyed on behalf of the elect and paid the penalty for sin. The 2LCF clearly teaches that justification is exclusively the work of God through the mediator, Jesus Christ in his office of prophet, priest, and king. A work that required both active and passive obedience.
…they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
This final point in 11.1 is that justification is a free gift. As the Apostle Paul says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9 – ESV). Any justification that depends on man’s works is not justification but self-righteousness. Having firmly established the means of justification, the 2LCF then address the agent by which these means are accomplished, Jesus Christ.
11.2
Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.
The Latin phrase sola fide is the theme of 11.2, which teaches that man is justified by faith in Christ alone. Beeke summarizes faith “nothing more than trusting Jesus Christ and His righteousness to be our righteousness.”[12] This saving faith resulting in justification is not a cooperative work between man and God but the monergistic work of God alone. Nevertheless, justification by faith alone is meant to invite all other saving graces upon the believer. This is where the infusion of righteousness and the imputation of Christ righteousness are at odds. Man is not made righteous enough to merit his own work of salvation. Instead, man, by faith alone, is counted as righteous and therefore he now lovingly seeks to do works that accord with righteousness. Justification by infusion tries to work for (merit) grace whereas justification by imputation does works fueled by grace. Works cannot save, but neither can they be ignored. Works, in fact, have a great use in the life of the believer. Beeke says it like this, “Faith in Christ alone justifies a sinner before God. But since faith is invisible good works justify us before men.”[13] To make the necessary distinction between grace and works the puritan John Bunyon says, “The best way both to provoke ourselves and others to good works, it is to be often affirming to others the doctrine of justification by grace, and to believe it ourselves.”[14]
11.3
Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified;
Justification is achieved entirely through the past historical event of Jesus’ death on the cross. The 2LCF accurately describes the biblical doctrine of justification was made complete, unlike the Roman Catholics and later Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses; who all deny in one way or another the full discharge of debt through Jesus’ obedience and death, a free and full justification.
…and did, by the sacrifice of himself in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in their behalf;
With the use of terms like ransom, paid, or penalty, the question often, and rightly, asked is, to whom did Christ pay the ransom or penalty? The penalty for sin was paid to God, not to man, Satan, or any other being. Although it was a real penalty paid it was paid to the one to whom the penalty was owed, God. It was God’s wrath and righteous requirements that needed to be satisfied.
…yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
Justification accomplished in this manner proved God to be both himself just and the justifier of sinners. God was just by expecting the penalty for sin to be paid. God is also the one who justified sinful man by imputing the righteousness of Christ to those elect. This act of justification was an act of grace. God does not justify based on any work accomplished by man in the past, present, or future. Rather, God chose to justify richly and freely by his grace. This results in the salvation of Man and the glorification of God. For if man could point to himself for his own salvation, then God would not be glorified. The 2LCF rightly describes God’s plan to receive all glory, praise, and honor.
11.4
God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect,
Having addressed the gracious declaration of justification, the 2LCF then moves to express when that justification was particularly applied. When considering that God is eternal and his decree was made in eternity, it might be asked, when did he actually accomplish for believers and apply justification to them? Justification was made known among the Godhead before the ages began but this does not mean justification was accomplished or applied at that time.
…and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification;
Justification was accomplished in real space and time 2000 years ago. His work was not theoretical but an act on the part of God. Just as the earth is not just an idea but the result of a real act of God, so too is his work of justification. Jesus the mediator really and actually stepped into real space and time to accomplish the real work of justification. His birth was real. His death was real. His resurrection is real. Justification is not the result of hypothesis or theory but of real act.
…nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time dueactually apply Christ unto them.
Even though the decree of God was from eternity, justification of the believer was not applied before time began, before Christ’s death on the cross, nor does it happen before one is born again. This portion of the 2LCF is a rejection of the false teaching known as eternal justification. Eternal justification is the teaching that the elect are justified in eternity past before Jesus even dies on the cross. Before progressing to the next paragraph in chapter 11 it would be better to further address the topic of eternal justification.
Eternal Justification
Due to the nature of eternal justification, or justification from eternity, it is worth taking an extended look at this doctrine. Justification teaches properly that Christ merits our justification, but that justification is not applied until we exercise saving faith. It is not faith itself which saves, but the one in whom the elect have faith. According to G.C. Berkouwer “the debate about justification from eternity is conditioned by the nature of the relation between faith and justification.”[15] And in addition to the relationship between faith and justification is also the relationship between justification, obedience, grace, and antinomianism. Joel Beeke says in A Puritan Theology that “If justification is from eternity, then justification precedes faith. But not all who hold that justification precedes faith agree with eternal justification.”[16] Further, Beeke spends some time addressing the topic of the connectedness of antinomians and eternal Justification.[17] He does this in his Chapter entitled “Thomas Goodwin and Johannes Maccovius on Justification from Eternity.”[18] He begins the chapter stating that “[it] will be shown, neither [Thomas] Goodwin nor [Johannes] Maccovius held this doctrine [eternal justification].”[19] Like many doctrines, eternal justification is not monolithic and has different nuances depending on who is espousing this doctrine. So although Goodwin and Maccovius did not affirm eternal justification they are not doing so in the same way.
The seeming reason for the connection between antinomianism and eternal justification is that some argue that the justified believer is not bound by any commands of God. Whereas the 2LCF argues rightly that grace must not be used as an excuse to sin or disobedience. It would seem that antinomianism would naturally affirm eternal justification. However, due to the variety of positions of those who hold to some form of eternal justification, care must be taken to understand those positions. That is why Beeke is able to conclude he assessment of Goodwin and Maccovius by stating that “there is no necessary connection between antinomianism and eternal justification.”[20]
Answering those who argue for eternal justification John Owen, in Communion with God makes a great argument. He starts with forming the objection and then answering the objection. His words are quoted at length:
‘If the elect have absolution, reconciliation and freedom by death, blood and cross of Christ, why is it, then, that they are not actually absolved at the death of Christ or, at least, as soon as they are born? Why do many of them live for a long time under the wrath of God in this world, as unbelievers, under the sentence and condemning power of the law?’[21]
To which he replies,
It was determined by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that they [believers] should be actually and personally delivered from the sentence and curse of the law, and in such a way as might lead to the praise of the glorious grace of God. God’s purpose was that we should be adopted as his children. We were to be brought to this state by Jesus Christ. The special way of bringing it about is by the redemption that is in his blood. The whole reason is for the praise of his glorious grace.
But until such time as they are actually delivered, a time determined by God in their several generations, they are personally under the curse of the law from which they shall be delivered.”[22]
Not only is this answer biblical, but it nicely accounts for chapters 14 and 19. Eternal justification effectively rejects adoption and the need to obey the moral law.
To complicate matters still, double justification, like eternal justification, must also be rejected. In double justification the first justification is for our failure to obey the law and the second justification is for our failure to “obey” grace, or to obey the gospel.[23] Double justification is simply a modified form of infusion. Future works, like past works, done in the name of Christ, cannot justify us. They only prove we still need Christ’s righteousness. The justification we receive from the work of Christ on the cross applies to both our past and future needs of grace, simultaneously. The believer is not pre-saved; eternal justification. He is not half-saved; double justification. Rather, the believer is fully justified at the moment of regeneration. This is why the doctrine of justification is connected to but must not be confused with sanctification.
11.5
God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified,
This of course, sets up the need to declare that those justified are Simul iustus et peccator, “at once righteous and a sinner.” Richard Muller, in his Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms furtherexplains this Latin phrase as, “The sinner is both righteous in God’s sight because of Christ and a sinner as measured according to one’s own merits.”[24] So although one is fully justified upon conversion, forgiveness is still needed and applied to those sins committed after conversion. This forgiveness is not contingent on the part of the believer, or else that forgiveness would no longer be by grace. John Murray goes even further to say that, “justification is an act, complete and irrevocable. It is not a progressive nor a comparative judgment, and so it must have respect to a righteousness that is undefiled and undefilable.”[25]
…and although they can never fall from the state of justification,
Those justified are permanently justified. This is the sure protection of the Father. This truth is clarified and expanded in Chapter 18 of the 2LCF. The various biblical warnings of falling away are meant to draw those justified near and to repel all others.
…yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure;
Even though justification is final, the elect will still sin until they are glorified and made perfect. A teaching expanded in Chapter 17 of the 2LCF. As seen here, those who are justified but return to sin will come under the discipline of the God so that their bodies might be destroyed yet their souls spared.
…and in that condition they have not usually the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
The Lord is ever gracious towards those who repent of their sins. This is still according to grace and free justification. Here and chapter 17 of the 2LCF make clear that the elect still sin. However, those sins never finally or fully remove them from the grace of God and their being justified. While some persist in certain sins, God’s grace promises that those who humble themselves, confess, plead forgiveness, and renew their profession of faith will ultimately experience the Heavenly Father’s pleasure. This is not a defense of antinomianism but an exhortation to rest in grace when the believer sins. Nor is this a defense of infusion where the saint is to earn or finish his justification. That is the work of sanctification, a synergistic work completed through the collaboration of the Holy Spirit and the saint.
11.6
The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.
The final paragraph in chapter 11 argues that the salvation of God’s people has always been the same. Where the New Testament believer looks back to the work of Christ on the cross in faith to be justified, in like manner, the Old Testament saints looked forward to that very same work, even if the particulars were not yet revealed. This is why the New Testament declares, “So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith” (Galatians 3:9 – ESV). The shadows and types of the Old Testament are all means of grace to point the Old Testament saints to Christ. If this were not the case then Jesus would not have had to pray, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39 – ESV). By the cup not passing evidenced that the only way to be saved is through Jesus Christ who is the only way, truth, and life (John 14:6).
12.1
All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption, by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God, have his name put upon them, receive the spirit of adoption, have access to the throne of grace with boldness, are enabled to cry “Abba, Father,” are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him as by a Father, yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption, and inherit the promises as heirs of everlasting salvation.
The chapter on adoption immediately follows the chapter on justification in the 2LCF. Here the argument is made that without justification no one can become a child of God, but through that justification, adoption into the family of God is certain. This must not be taken for granted. Assurance of salvation is uniquely a Christian teaching. Many false religions and distortions of Christianity assert one of two things: either everyone is a child of God (universalism) or that no one be personally assured of salvation. Yet, as the 2LCF articulates, only the believer is a child of God and because of this can therefore be assured of his salvation. This doctrine precedes sanctification enforcing the fact that justification is imputed and not infused. Justification is by grace, through faith, in Christ Jesus. As it relates to eternal justification, the doctrine of adoption also demonstrates the reality that eternal justification is out of step with biblical justification.
14.2
By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself, and also apprehendeth an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed; and also acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come; but the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
While saving faith acts, those acts are not works. Rather, faith is the act of believing the promises of God. Especially resting on those promises of justification, sanctification, and eternal life. This is all a trust in the grace of Christ and never as an effort to merit the grace of God. Beeke rightly states that, “While obedience is not the ground of our justification, it is the proper fruit of justification. Only after we receive the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ can we begin to live in a way that pleases the heavenly Father.”[26] Those who abide in the vine bear the fruit of faith (John 15:1-17).
19.5
The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
Expanding on 2LCF 11.2, this paragraph explains the relationship between the law and those justified. Even though the elect are no longer justified by means of the law, the believer is bound to obey the moral law. To repent from lawlessness necessitates lawful obedience to God’s moral law. For how can one repent of sin only to return to sin, or to repent of lying to continue to lie, or to repent of stealing to return to a life of thievery, or to repent of rebellion only to continue to rebel. The doctrine of justification is not a call to antinomianism any more than obeying Christ is a call to self-righteousness.
19.6
Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man’s doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace
The law can never justify man, but neither can it condemn him for he is counted righteous according the grace of God. Those in Christ exclusively and joyfully obey the moral law in response to salvation, but never to earn it.
III. Baptist Catechism[27]
Following in the spirit of the 2LCF, the Baptist Catechism serves to reinforce and further explain the doctrines affirmed in the 2LCF. Therefore, it is appropriate to review those three questions which explicitly teach on justification: questions 35, 36, and 39.
Question 35
Q. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification (Rom 8:30), adoption (Eph 1:5), sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them (1Co 1:30).
Question 35 serves to combine and teach what is contained in chapters 3 and 8. Chapter 8 talks about effectually calling yet without including the list of justification, adoption, and sanctification. This list, however, is from chapter 3, which teaches on God’s decree. This question again demonstrates the cohesive nature of the 1LCF46 and the 2LCF.
Question 36
Q. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace wherein He pardoneth all our sins (Rom 3:24-25; 4:6-8) and accepteth us as righteous in His sight (2Co 5:19, 21), only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us (Rom 5:17-19) and received by faith alone (Gal 2:16; Phi 3:9).25
A student of B.B Warfield summarized a thought from a lecture by Warfield saying that, “A pardoned man remains guilty. In justification the man is declared righteous.”[28] Justification is not simply being pardoned, but it is also being counted as righteous. It is not just a subtraction, but it is also an additive. Here again, in question 36 a succinct definition is provided, which is again a summary of various part of the 2LCF. Free grace is a call back to chapter 3 as well as chapter 11, specifically 11.3. Reaffirming the distinction between justification earned (works) and justification gifted (grace). The work of pardon ties together 6.5, 11.1, 11.5, 15.3, and 16.5. Pardon can be requested, but never earned. Next, the righteousness of Christ is always imputed and never infused (11.1). Finally, this question affirms that justification is by faith alone. Though we are saved by faith, we do not have faith in faith. Rather, it is faith with Christ as its object that saves.
Question 39
Q. What are the benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification?
A. The benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification are assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience (Rom 5:1-2, 5), joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5, 17), increase of grace (Pro 4:18), and perseverance therein to the end (1Jo 5:13; 1Pe 1:5).
Tying together the need for justification and its fruit, question 39 is the bow on the gift of grace. Drawing on the often-repeated list of justification, adoption, and sanctification, this question points the student of the catechism to the promised gifts of those justification by imputation, namely assurances of God’s love, peace, of conscience, joy in the Holy Spirit, increase of further grace, and perseverance to the end.
Conclusion
John Murray once wrote that, “The Westminster Confession is the last of the great reformation creeds.”[29] Perhaps he was so distracted with his studies in the Westminster Confession that he was unaware of the treasure and beauty of the 2LCF. Murray may have been biased, but the survey of justification alone demonstrates the strength of the 2LCF. Although limited to the doctrine of justification in the First and Second London Confession, as well as the Baptist catechism, it is easy to see that this doctrine rightly depends on and expands on other doctrines explained in these early Baptist documents. It is no wonder that the doctrines of grace and the gospel of Jesus Christ are “things into which angels long to look” (1 Peter 1:12 – ESV).
Bibliography
Beeke, Joel R. Puritan Reformed Theology: Historical, Experiential, and Practical Studies for the Whole of Life. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020.
Beeke, Joel R., and Mark Jones. A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids, Mich: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.
Berkouwer, Gerrit C. Faith and Justification. Studies in Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1954.
Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Chapel Library. https://www.chapellibrary.org/pdf/books/lbcw.pdf.
Chapel Library. Free Grace Broadcaster 187, Justification.
Fernandez, Steve. Free Justification: The Glorification of Christ in the Justification of a Sinner. The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2008.
Founders Ministries. https://founders.org/library-book/1689-confession/.
Grace Reformed Bible Church. https://www.grbc.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-1689-Baptist-Confession-of-Faith.pdf.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press [u.a.], 1994.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1997.
Kelley, Charles S., Richard D. Land, and R. Albert Mohler. The Baptist Faith & Message. Nashville, Tenn.: LifeWay Press, 2007.
Lightfoot, J. B., and J. R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers. Berkeley: Apocryphile Press, 2004.
Ligonier Ministries (Orlando, Florida), ed. We Believe: Creeds, Catechisms, and Confessions of Faith. First. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries, 2022.
Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25: Atonement and Justification. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1971.
Moody, Josh, ed. Jonathan Edwards and Justification. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012.
Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Second edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017.
Murray, John. Select Lectures in Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977.
———. The Claims of Truth. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.
Murray, John, and John Murray. Studies in Theology. Reviews. Collected Writings of John Murray 4. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.
Monergism. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/baptists/London%20Baptist%20 Confession.pdf.
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. https://www.nobts.edu/baptist-center-theology/ confessions/First_London_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith_1646.pdf.
Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Owen, John. Communion With God. Puritan Paperbacks. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2022.
Piper, John. The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2007.
Reeves, Stan, ed. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: In Modern English. Cape Coral, Florida: Founders Press, 2017.
Renihan, James M. For the Vindication of the Truth: A Brief Exposition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith. Cape Coral, Florida: Founders Ministries, 2021.
———. To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: A Contextual-Historical Exposition of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Baptist Symbolics 2. Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2022.
Sproul, R. C. Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Repackaged edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2017.
Ventura, Rob, ed. A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. Ross-shire: Mentor, 2022.
Zaspel, Fred G. The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010.
1689 Confession. https://www.the1689confession.com/
[1] Fred G. Zaspel, The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010), 508.
[2] https://www.nobts.edu/baptist-center-theology/confessions/First_London_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith_ 1646.pdf
[3] https://www.chapellibrary.org/pdf/books/lbcw.pdf
[4][4] Another example might be that infusion is like a father pushing off his child on a bike without training wheels. The child must finish what the father began. Whereas imputation is like a child in a bike trailer pulled by the father. In the first scenario the child is started off by the father, while in the second the child is carried by the feather the entire course.
[5] R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, Repackaged edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2017), 121.
[6] John Murray, Select Lectures in Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 204
[7] Rob Ventura, ed., A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (Ross-shire: Mentor, 2022), 198.
[8] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 389.
[9] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 389-390.
[10] John Owen, Communion With God, Puritan Paperbacks (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2022), p137.
[11] Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Theology: Historical, Experiential, and Practical Studies for the Whole of Life (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020), 176.
[12] Beeke, Puritan Reformed Theology, 179.
[13] Beeke, Puritan Reformed Theology, 180.
[14] Beeke, Puritan Reformed Theology, 180-181.
[15] Gerrit C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1954), 143.
[16] Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, Mich: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 135.
[17] Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 326.
[18] Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 133-148.
[19] Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 135.
[20] Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 148.
[21] Owen, Communion With God, 155.
[22] Owen, Communion With God, 158.
[23] Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 495-98, 800-801.
[24] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Second edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 337.
[25] Murray, Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, 210.
[26] Beeke, Puritan Reformed Theology, 186.
[27] https://www.chapellibrary.org/pdf/books/lbcw.pdf
[28] Zaspel, The Theology of B.B. Warfield, 441.
[29] John Murray, The Claims of Truth (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 317.
Musica Theologica 