Justification

[Ladodgers6]

Justification

Charles Hodge
​

It is one of the primary doctrines of the Bible, everywhere either asserted or assumed, that we are under the law of God. This is true of all classes of men, whether they enjoy aDivine revelation or not. Everything which God has revered as a rule of duty, enters into the constitution of the law which binds those to whom that revelation is given, and by which they are to be ultimately judged. Those who have not received any external revelation of the Divine will are a law unto themselves. The knowledge of right and wrong, written upon their hearts, is of the nature of a Divine law, having its authority and sanction, and by it the heathen are to be judged in the last day.

God has seen fit to annex the promise of life to obedience to his law. 'The man which doeth those things shall live by them' (Rom. 10.5), is the language of Scripture on this subject. To the lawyer who admitted that the law required love to God and man, our Savior said, 'Thou has answered right: this do, and thou shalt live' (Lk. 10.28). And to one who asked him, 'What good things shall I do, that I may have eternal life?' he said, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandment.'(Mt. 19.17). On the other hand, the law denounces death as the penalty of transgression: 'The wages of sin is death.' (Rom. 6.23).Such is the uniform declaration of Scripture on this subject.

The obedience which the law demands is called righteousness; and those who render that obedience are called righteous. To ascribe righteousness to anyone, or to pronounce him righteous, is the scriptural meaning of the word 'to justify.' The word never means, to make good in a moral sense, but always to pronounce just or righteous. Thus God says, 'I will not justify the wicked'(Ex.23.7). Judges are commanded to justify the righteous and to condemn the wicked (Deut. 25.1). Woe is pronounced on those who 'justify the wicked for reward' (Isa. 5.23). In the New Testament it is said, 'By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight' (Rom. 3.20) 'It is God that justifieth, Who is he that condemneth?' (Rom. 8.33,34). There is scarcely a word in the Bible the meaning of which is less open to doubt. There is no passage in the New Testament in which it is used out of its ordinary and obvious sense. When God justifies a man, he declares him to be righteous. To justify never means to render one holy. It is said to be sinful to justify the wicked; but it could never be sinful to render the wicked holy. And as the law demands righteousness, to impute or ascribe righteousness to anyone, is, in scriptural language, to justify. To make (or constitute) righteous, is another equivalent form of expression. Hence, to be righteous before God, and to be justified, mean the same thing: as in the following passage: ' Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.'(Rom. 2.13) The attentive, and especially the anxious reader of the Bible cannot fail to observe, that these various expressions, to be righteous in the sight of God, to impute righteousness, to constitute righteous, to justify, and others of similar import, are so interchanged as to explain each other, and to make it clear that to justify a man is to ascribe or impute to him righteousness. The great question then is, How is this righteousness to be obtained? We have reason to be thankful that the answer which theBible gives to this question is so perfectly plain.

In the first place, that the righteousness by which we are to be justified before God is not of works, is not only asserted, but proved. The apostle's first argument on this point is derived from the consideration that the law demands a perfect righteousness. If the law was satisfied by an imperfect obedience, or by a routine of external duties, or by any service which men are competent to render, then indeed justification would be by works. But since it demands perfect obedience, justification by works is, for sinners, absolutely impossible. It is thus the apostle reasons, 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal.3.10). As the law pronounces its curse upon every man who continues not to do all that it commands, and as no man can pretend to this perfect obedience, it follows that all who look to the law for justification must be condemned. To the same effect, in a following verse, he says, 'The law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.' That is, the law is not satisfied by any single grace, or imperfect obedience. It knows, and can know no other ground of justification than complete compliance with its demands. Hence, in the same chapter, Paul says, ' If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.' Could the law pronounce righteous, and thus give a title to the promised life to those who had broken its commands, there would have been no necessity of any other provision for the salvation of men; but as the law cannot thus lower its demands, justification by the law is impossible. The same truth is taught in a different form, when it is said, 'If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal. 2.21). There would have been no necessity for the death of Christ, if it had been possible to satisfy the law by the imperfect obedience which we can render. Paul therefore warns all those who look to works for justification, that they are debtors to do the whole law (Gal. 5.3). It knows no compromise; it cannot demand less than what is right, and perfect obedience is right, and therefore its only language is as before, ' Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law todo them' (Gal. 3.10); and, 'The man which doeth those things shall live by them' (Rom.10.5). Every man, therefore, who expects justification by works, must see to it, not that he is better than other men, or that he is very exact and does many things, or that he fasts twice in the week, and gives tithes of all he possesses, but that he is SINLESS.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

I would have you note that the faith which justified Abram was still an imperfect faith, although it perfectly justified him. It was imperfect beforehand, for he had lied as to his wife, and bid Sarai, “Say you are my sister.” It was imperfect after it had justified him, for in the next chapter we find him taking Hagar, his wife’s handmaid, in order to effect the divine purpose, and so showing a lack of confidence in the working of the Lord. It is a blessing for you and for me that we do not need perfect faith to save us!“If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say unto this mountain, Move to yonder place, and it shall move.” If you have but the faith of a little child, it shall save you. Though your faith is not always at the same pitch as the patriarch’s when he staggered not at the promise through unbelief, yet if it is simple and true, if it confides alone in the promise of God—it is an unhappy thing that it is not stronger, and you ought daily to pray, “Lord, increase my faith”—but still it shall justify you throughChrist Jesus! A trembling hand may grasp the cup which bears a healing draught to the lip; the weakness of the hand shall not lessen the power of the medicine.

So far, then, all is clear—Abram was not justified by works, nor by ceremonies, nor partly by works, and partly by faith, nor by the perfection of his faith—he is counted righteous simply because of his faith in the divine promise.

I must confess that looking more closely into it, this text is too deep for me, and therefore I decline, at this present moment, to enter into the controversy which rages around it. But one thing is clear to me—if faith is, as we are told, counted to us for righteousness; it is not because faith in itself has merit which may make it a fitting substitute for a perfect obedience to the law of God; nor can it be viewed as a substitute for such obedience, for, brothers and sisters, all good acts are a duty—to trust God is our duty, and he who has believed to his utmost has done no more than it was his duty to have done! He who should believe without imperfection, if this were possible, would even then have only given to God apart of the obedience due; and if he should have failed in love, or reverence, or anything beside, his faith, as a virtue and a work, could not stand.

Faith cannot be its own righteousness, for it is of the very nature of faith to look out of self to Christ. If any man should say, “My faith is my righteousness,” then it is evident that he is confiding in his faith, and this is just the thing of all others which it would be unsafe to do, for we must look altogether away from ourselves to Christ alone, or we have no true faith at all. Faith must look to the atonement and work of Jesus, or else she is not the faith of Scripture. Therefore to say that faith in and of itself becomes our righteousness is, it seems to me, to tear out the very heart of the gospel, and to deny the faith which has been once delivered to the saints. Paul declares, contrary to certain sects who rail against imputed righteousness, that we are justified and made righteous by the righteousness of Christ. On this he is plain and positive; he tells us (Rom 5:19) that, “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” The Old Testament verse before us as a text this morning gives us but, as it were, the outward aspect of justification—it is brought to us by faith and the fact that a man has faith entitles him to be set down as a righteous man. In this sense God accounts faith to a man as righteousness, but the underlying and secret truth of God which the Old Testament does not so clearly give us is found in the New Testament declaration that we are accepted in the Beloved, and justified because of the obedience of Christ. Faith justifies, but not in and by itself, but because it grasps the obedience of Christ. “As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” To the same effect is that verse in the second epistle of Peter (first chapter, first verse), which runs in our version as follows: “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God, and our Savior Jesus Christ.” Now, everybody who is at all familiar with the original knows that the correct translation is, “through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The righteousness which belongs to the Christian is the righteousness of our God and Savior, who is “made of God unto us righteousness,” and hence the beauty of the old prophetic title of the Messiah, “The Lord our righteousness.” (Spurgeon)

​

 

[EarlyActs]

I would have you note that the faith which justified Abram was still an imperfect faith, although it perfectly justified him. It was imperfect beforehand, for he had lied as to his wife, and bid Sarai, “Say you are my sister.” It was imperfect after it had justified him, for in the next chapter we find him taking Hagar, his wife’s handmaid, in order to effect the divine purpose, and so showing a lack of confidence in the working of the Lord. It is a blessing for you and for me that we do not need perfect faith to save us!“If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say unto this mountain, Move to yonder place, and it shall move.” If you have but the faith of a little child, it shall save you. Though your faith is not always at the same pitch as the patriarch’s when he staggered not at the promise through unbelief, yet if it is simple and true, if it confides alone in the promise of God—it is an unhappy thing that it is not stronger, and you ought daily to pray, “Lord, increase my faith”—but still it shall justify you throughChrist Jesus! A trembling hand may grasp the cup which bears a healing draught to the lip; the weakness of the hand shall not lessen the power of the medicine.

So far, then, all is clear—Abram was not justified by works, nor by ceremonies, nor partly by works, and partly by faith, nor by the perfection of his faith—he is counted righteous simply because of his faith in the divine promise.

I must confess that looking more closely into it, this text is too deep for me, and therefore I decline, at this present moment, to enter into the controversy which rages around it. But one thing is clear to me—if faith is, as we are told, counted to us for righteousness; it is not because faith in itself has merit which may make it a fitting substitute for a perfect obedience to the law of God; nor can it be viewed as a substitute for such obedience, for, brothers and sisters, all good acts are a duty—to trust God is our duty, and he who has believed to his utmost has done no more than it was his duty to have done! He who should believe without imperfection, if this were possible, would even then have only given to God apart of the obedience due; and if he should have failed in love, or reverence, or anything beside, his faith, as a virtue and a work, could not stand.

Faith cannot be its own righteousness, for it is of the very nature of faith to look out of self to Christ. If any man should say, “My faith is my righteousness,” then it is evident that he is confiding in his faith, and this is just the thing of all others which it would be unsafe to do, for we must look altogether away from ourselves to Christ alone, or we have no true faith at all. Faith must look to the atonement and work of Jesus, or else she is not the faith of Scripture. Therefore to say that faith in and of itself becomes our righteousness is, it seems to me, to tear out the very heart of the gospel, and to deny the faith which has been once delivered to the saints. Paul declares, contrary to certain sects who rail against imputed righteousness, that we are justified and made righteous by the righteousness of Christ. On this he is plain and positive; he tells us (Rom 5:19) that, “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” The Old Testament verse before us as a text this morning gives us but, as it were, the outward aspect of justification—it is brought to us by faith and the fact that a man has faith entitles him to be set down as a righteous man. In this sense God accounts faith to a man as righteousness, but the underlying and secret truth of God which the Old Testament does not so clearly give us is found in the New Testament declaration that we are accepted in the Beloved, and justified because of the obedience of Christ. Faith justifies, but not in and by itself, but because it grasps the obedience of Christ. “As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” To the same effect is that verse in the second epistle of Peter (first chapter, first verse), which runs in our version as follows: “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God, and our Savior Jesus Christ.” Now, everybody who is at all familiar with the original knows that the correct translation is, “through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The righteousness which belongs to the Christian is the righteousness of our God and Savior, who is “made of God unto us righteousness,” and hence the beauty of the old prophetic title of the Messiah, “The Lord our righteousness.” (Spurgeon)

​

Abraham saw Christ and that object is what justified him. It wasn't a perfection of faith. Faith may only be the size of a mustard seed and will justify. "The least in the kingdom of God is greater than John..."

 

[Ladodgers6]

Abraham saw Christ and that object is what justified him. It wasn't a perfection of faith. Faith may only be the size of a mustard seed and will justify. "The least in the kingdom of God is greater than John..."

Exactly, it's not subjective but objective that justifies us. "Extra Nos"!

 

[Soyeong]

​

In the first place, that the righteousness by which we are to be justified before God is not of works, is not only asserted, but proved. The apostle's first argument on this point is derived from the consideration that the law demands a perfect righteousness. If the law was satisfied by an imperfect obedience, or by a routine of external duties, or by any service which men are competent to render, then indeed justification would be by works. But since it demands perfect obedience, justification by works is, for sinners, absolutely impossible. It is thus the apostle reasons, 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal.3.10). As the law pronounces its curse upon every man who continues not to do all that it commands, and as no man can pretend to this perfect obedience, it follows that all who look to the law for justification must be condemned. To the same effect, in a following verse, he says, 'The law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.' That is, the law is not satisfied by any single grace, or imperfect obedience. It knows, and can know no other ground of justification than complete compliance with its demands. Hence, in the same chapter, Paul says, ' If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.' Could the law pronounce righteous, and thus give a title to the promised life to those who had broken its commands, there would have been no necessity of any other provision for the salvation of men; but as the law cannot thus lower its demands, justification by the law is impossible. The same truth is taught in a different form, when it is said, 'If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal. 2.21). There would have been no necessity for the death of Christ, if it had been possible to satisfy the law by the imperfect obedience which we can render. Paul therefore warns all those who look to works for justification, that they are debtors to do the whole law (Gal. 5.3). It knows no compromise; it cannot demand less than what is right, and perfect obedience is right, and therefore its only language is as before, ' Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law todo them' (Gal. 3.10); and, 'The man which doeth those things shall live by them' (Rom.10.5). Every man, therefore, who expects justification by works, must see to it, not that he is better than other men, or that he is very exact and does many things, or that he fasts twice in the week, and gives tithes of all he possesses, but that he is SINLESS.​

The fact that we can repent and be declared righteous through faith when we have not had perfect obedience means God's law does not demand perfect obedience. Even if someone managed to have perfect obedience to God's law, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so there is nothing about the law permitting imperfect obedience that means that righteousness is earned by our works. The reason why we do not earn our righteousness by obeying God's law is not because we can't have perfect obedience to it, but because it was never give as a way of earning our righteousness. In Romans 2:13, only the doers of God's law will be declared righteous, so while we do not earn our righteousness as the result of obeying it, there is nevertheless a reason for why our righteousness requires us to choose to be doers of the law. Our obedience to God's law is the way to have faith and it is by that faith that we are declared righteous, not through perfect obedience.

In Deuteronomy 11:26-32, the difference between being under God's blessing or His curse is not based on whether or not we have perfect obedience, but on whether we serve God or chase after other gods. While everyone in the OT fell short of perfect obedience, everyone being under God's curse does not reflect the reality of what is recorded about those who served God, just those who chased after other gods. According to Deuteronomy 27-28, the way to be blessed is by relying on God's law while the way to be cursed is by not relying on it, so you should not interpret Galatians 3:10 as Paul quoting from that passage in order to support a point that is arguing against it, but rather those who rely on works of the law instead of relying on God's law come under the curse of not relying on God's law. While we do not earn eternal life as the result of obeying God's law, the Bible is nevertheless abundantly clear that obedience to it is the way to have eternal life without needing perfect obedience.

 

[Ladodgers6]

The fact that we can repent and be declared righteous through faith when we have not had perfect obedience means God's law does not demand perfect obedience.

We are not perfect or obedient, but the One who came to redeem sinners is! This is the crucial point you are missing in your theology. Only in Christ can we be declared perfectly righteous and holy. How? Through Faith we receive or are imputed with Christ's righteous; clothed in his white robe of righteousness. And our sins are credited or imputed to Christ, who bears it's punishment in our place. This is the marvelous exchange.​

Even if someone managed to have perfect obedience to God's law, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so there is nothing about the law permitting imperfect obedience that means that righteousness is earned by our works. The reason why we do not earn our righteousness by obeying God's law is not because we can't have perfect obedience to it, but because it was never give as a way of earning our righteousness. In Romans 2:13, only the doers of God's law will be declared righteous, so while we do not earn our righteousness as the result of obeying it, there is nevertheless a reason for why our righteousness requires us to choose to be doers of the law. Our obedience to God's law is the way to have faith and it is by that faith that we are declared righteous, not through perfect obedience.

In Deuteronomy 11:26-32, the difference between being under God's blessing or His curse is not based on whether or not we have perfect obedience, but on whether we serve God or chase after other gods. While everyone in the OT fell short of perfect obedience, everyone being under God's curse does not reflect the reality of what is recorded about those who served God, just those who chased after other gods. According to Deuteronomy 27-28, the way to be blessed is by relying on God's law while the way to be cursed is by not relying on it, so you should not interpret Galatians 3:10 as Paul quoting from that passage in order to support a point that is arguing against it, but rather those who rely on works of the law instead of relying on God's law come under the curse of not relying on God's law. While we do not earn eternal life as the result of obeying God's law, the Bible is nevertheless abundantly clear that obedience to it is the way to have eternal life without needing perfect obedience.

Sinners cannot and will not achieve the standard of God's Holiness and Righteousness to enter heaven by any human efforts. That ship has sailed when Adam breached the Covenant of Works, understand? Will God lower his standard of holiness and righteousness to let us into heaven? Absolutely not! This is why Christ came to redeem us from the curse of the Law, by becoming a curse for us. To take our place and we take his, understand?

 

[EarlyActs]

We are not perfect or obedient, but the One who came to redeem sinners is! This is the crucial point you are missing in your theology. Only in Christ can we be declared perfectly righteous and holy. How? Through Faith we receive or are imputed with Christ's righteous; clothed in his white robe of righteousness. And our sins are credited or imputed to Christ, who bears it's punishment in our place. This is the marvelous exchange.​

Sinners cannot and will not achieve the standard of God's Holiness and Righteousness to enter heaven by any human efforts. That ship has sailed when Adam breached the Covenant of Works, understand? Will God lower his standard of holiness and righteousness to let us into heaven? Absolutely not! This is why Christ came to redeem us from the curse of the Law, by becoming a curse for us. To take our place and we take his, understand?

God made him to be sin (it was imputed to him) so that we might become the righteousness of God (have it imputed to us) in Him.

 

[Ladodgers6]

God made him to be sin (it was imputed to him) so that we might become the righteousness of God (have it imputed to us) in Him.

Amen and amen! Now isn't that good news for the ungodly? Amazing Grace!

 

[EarlyActs]

Amen and amen! Now isn't that good news for the ungodly? Amazing Grace!

Amazing indeed.

 

[EarlyActs]

One orib

Justification

Charles Hodge
​

It is one of the primary doctrines of the Bible, everywhere either asserted or assumed, that we are under the law of God. This is true of all classes of men, whether they enjoy aDivine revelation or not. Everything which God has revered as a rule of duty, enters into the constitution of the law which binds those to whom that revelation is given, and by which they are to be ultimately judged. Those who have not received any external revelation of the Divine will are a law unto themselves. The knowledge of right and wrong, written upon their hearts, is of the nature of a Divine law, having its authority and sanction, and by it the heathen are to be judged in the last day.

God has seen fit to annex the promise of life to obedience to his law. 'The man which doeth those things shall live by them' (Rom. 10.5), is the language of Scripture on this subject. To the lawyer who admitted that the law required love to God and man, our Savior said, 'Thou has answered right: this do, and thou shalt live' (Lk. 10.28). And to one who asked him, 'What good things shall I do, that I may have eternal life?' he said, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandment.'(Mt. 19.17). On the other hand, the law denounces death as the penalty of transgression: 'The wages of sin is death.' (Rom. 6.23).Such is the uniform declaration of Scripture on this subject.

The obedience which the law demands is called righteousness; and those who render that obedience are called righteous. To ascribe righteousness to anyone, or to pronounce him righteous, is the scriptural meaning of the word 'to justify.' The word never means, to make good in a moral sense, but always to pronounce just or righteous. Thus God says, 'I will not justify the wicked'(Ex.23.7). Judges are commanded to justify the righteous and to condemn the wicked (Deut. 25.1). Woe is pronounced on those who 'justify the wicked for reward' (Isa. 5.23). In the New Testament it is said, 'By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight' (Rom. 3.20) 'It is God that justifieth, Who is he that condemneth?' (Rom. 8.33,34). There is scarcely a word in the Bible the meaning of which is less open to doubt. There is no passage in the New Testament in which it is used out of its ordinary and obvious sense. When God justifies a man, he declares him to be righteous. To justify never means to render one holy. It is said to be sinful to justify the wicked; but it could never be sinful to render the wicked holy. And as the law demands righteousness, to impute or ascribe righteousness to anyone, is, in scriptural language, to justify. To make (or constitute) righteous, is another equivalent form of expression. Hence, to be righteous before God, and to be justified, mean the same thing: as in the following passage: ' Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.'(Rom. 2.13) The attentive, and especially the anxious reader of the Bible cannot fail to observe, that these various expressions, to be righteous in the sight of God, to impute righteousness, to constitute righteous, to justify, and others of similar import, are so interchanged as to explain each other, and to make it clear that to justify a man is to ascribe or impute to him righteousness. The great question then is, How is this righteousness to be obtained? We have reason to be thankful that the answer which theBible gives to this question is so perfectly plain.

In the first place, that the righteousness by which we are to be justified before God is not of works, is not only asserted, but proved. The apostle's first argument on this point is derived from the consideration that the law demands a perfect righteousness. If the law was satisfied by an imperfect obedience, or by a routine of external duties, or by any service which men are competent to render, then indeed justification would be by works. But since it demands perfect obedience, justification by works is, for sinners, absolutely impossible. It is thus the apostle reasons, 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal.3.10). As the law pronounces its curse upon every man who continues not to do all that it commands, and as no man can pretend to this perfect obedience, it follows that all who look to the law for justification must be condemned. To the same effect, in a following verse, he says, 'The law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.' That is, the law is not satisfied by any single grace, or imperfect obedience. It knows, and can know no other ground of justification than complete compliance with its demands. Hence, in the same chapter, Paul says, ' If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.' Could the law pronounce righteous, and thus give a title to the promised life to those who had broken its commands, there would have been no necessity of any other provision for the salvation of men; but as the law cannot thus lower its demands, justification by the law is impossible. The same truth is taught in a different form, when it is said, 'If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal. 2.21). There would have been no necessity for the death of Christ, if it had been possible to satisfy the law by the imperfect obedience which we can render. Paul therefore warns all those who look to works for justification, that they are debtors to do the whole law (Gal. 5.3). It knows no compromise; it cannot demand less than what is right, and perfect obedience is right, and therefore its only language is as before, ' Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law todo them' (Gal. 3.10); and, 'The man which doeth those things shall live by them' (Rom.10.5). Every man, therefore, who expects justification by works, must see to it, not that he is better than other men, or that he is very exact and does many things, or that he fasts twice in the week, and gives tithes of all he possesses, but that he is SINLESS.​

 

[EarlyActs]

One problem with Hodge is where he thinks imputation/ascribing is the same as making/constituting.

We must understand that there is a place for gaining the gift of Christ’s righteousness precisely when we have none, in the sense of His paying our debt.

 

[EarlyActs]

The fact that we can repent and be declared righteous through faith when we have not had perfect obedience means God's law does not demand perfect obedience. Even if someone managed to have perfect obedience to God's law, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so there is nothing about the law permitting imperfect obedience that means that righteousness is earned by our works. The reason why we do not earn our righteousness by obeying God's law is not because we can't have perfect obedience to it, but because it was never give as a way of earning our righteousness. In Romans 2:13, only the doers of God's law will be declared righteous, so while we do not earn our righteousness as the result of obeying it, there is nevertheless a reason for why our righteousness requires us to choose to be doers of the law. Our obedience to God's law is the way to have faith and it is by that faith that we are declared righteous, not through perfect obedience.

In Deuteronomy 11:26-32, the difference between being under God's blessing or His curse is not based on whether or not we have perfect obedience, but on whether we serve God or chase after other gods. While everyone in the OT fell short of perfect obedience, everyone being under God's curse does not reflect the reality of what is recorded about those who served God, just those who chased after other gods. According to Deuteronomy 27-28, the way to be blessed is by relying on God's law while the way to be cursed is by not relying on it, so you should not interpret Galatians 3:10 as Paul quoting from that passage in order to support a point that is arguing against it, but rather those who rely on works of the law instead of relying on God's law come under the curse of not relying on God's law. While we do not earn eternal life as the result of obeying God's law, the Bible is nevertheless abundantly clear that obedience to it is the way to have eternal life without needing perfect obedience.

But this not the argument of Rom 3’s critical paragraph, 3:21-31. He says specifically that the law always mattered , for Christ fulfilled all righteousness. The law is not abolished but fulfilled, repeated in ch 10:4.

 

[Ladodgers6]

One problem with Hodge is where he thinks imputation/ascribing is the same as making/constituting.

We must understand that there is a place for gaining the gift of Christ’s righteousness precisely when we have none, in the sense of His paying our debt.

I beg to differ, because Hodge is not taking infused righteousness, but imputed righteousness.

 

[Mr GLee]

So far, then, all is clear—Abram was not justified by works, nor by ceremonies, nor partly by works, and partly by faith, nor by the perfection of his faith—he is counted righteous simply because of his faith in the divine promise.

Abram was justified by a faith or labor of love that worked in him, The faith of Christ not of his own he had none that could please God, as it is written. It being the source or power to rise men to new life coming from his storeroom of faith. The gift faith .Previously having none that could please , again not little none, no faith.

 

[EarlyActs]

I beg to differ, because Hodge is not taking infused righteousness, but imputed righteousness.

I thought so too, but start into the paragraph that contains (below) and see what you think.


to impute or ascribe righteousness to anyone, is, in scriptural language, to justify. To make (or constitute) righteous, is another equivalent form of expression. Hence, to be righteous before God, and to be justified, mean the same thing: as in the following passage: ' Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.'(Rom. 2.13) The attentive, and especially the anxious reader of the Bible cannot fail to observe, that these various expressions, to be righteous in the sight of God, to impute righteousness, to constitute righteous, to justify, and others of similar import, are so interchanged as to explain each other, and to make it clear that to justify a man is to ascribe or impute to him righteousness.

The thing is, I don't come to the conclusion he does. It is not a matter of interchangeable words (they are not); it is the difference between self-accomplishment and 3rd party gift and the Gospel is the latter.

The result of this is Luther's 'simul justis et peccator' (the believer is justified and sinful at the same time.) Justification is always a third party's credit (we must assume for the moment that Christ is in the role of mediating between God and man), it is "alien" (--Luther), it is about the debt, not the doing, of sin, etc.

He mentions the attentive reader, but I don't think he was quite attentive enough! I just can't put the work 'make' there without feeling like I have totally fumbled the situation.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I thought so too, but start into the paragraph that contains (below) and see what you think.


to impute or ascribe righteousness to anyone, is, in scriptural language, to justify. To make (or constitute) righteous, is another equivalent form of expression. Hence, to be righteous before God, and to be justified, mean the same thing: as in the following passage: ' Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.'(Rom. 2.13) The attentive, and especially the anxious reader of the Bible cannot fail to observe, that these various expressions, to be righteous in the sight of God, to impute righteousness, to constitute righteous, to justify, and others of similar import, are so interchanged as to explain each other, and to make it clear that to justify a man is to ascribe or impute to him righteousness.

The thing is, I don't come to the conclusion he does. It is not a matter of interchangeable words (they are not); it is the difference between self-accomplishment and 3rd party gift and the Gospel is the latter.

The result of this is Luther's 'simul justis et peccator' (the believer is justified and sinful at the same time.) Justification is always a third party's credit (we must assume for the moment that Christ is in the role of mediating between God and man), it is "alien" (--Luther), it is about the debt, not the doing, of sin, etc.

He mentions the attentive reader, but I don't think he was quite attentive enough! I just can't put the work 'make' there without feeling like I have totally fumbled the situation.

So are you suggesting that Charles Hodge holds to a Catholic view of Justification?

 

[EarlyActs]

So are you suggesting that Charles Hodge holds to a Catholic view of Justification?

I believe in incrementalism. The same way that communism attacks the free market. It shifts a little thing, wins a little battle.

Check the perfectionist I debate over in another thread. His name is Ghada. He finds classic imputation to be ridiculous.

Have you read the Australian Forum essay “Pentecostalism, Protestant revivalism, and the drift back to Rome”? Mid 70s

 

[Ladodgers6]

I believe in incrementalism. The same way that communism attacks the free market. It shifts a little thing, wins a little battle.

Check the perfectionist I debate over in another thread. His name is Ghada. He finds classic imputation to be ridiculous.

Have you read the Australian Forum essay “Pentecostalism, Protestant revivalism, and the drift back to Rome”? Mid 70s

So does Hodge deny imputation in your opinion?

 

[EarlyActs]

The identified quote makes it confusing. It would have been better to avoid ‘make or constitute.’ It is hard to be clear without full word pictures.

 

[Ladodgers6]

The identified quote makes it confusing. It would have been better to avoid ‘make or constitute.’ It is hard to be clear without full word pictures.

Not for me, you have to read his essay on Justification. Not only does his holds to the imputed righteousness of Christ, he also holds to the imputation of Adam's sin (Double Imputation), as I do. Not a lot of people hold to Double Imputation.

"In the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to believers, the nature of imputation is the same, so that one case illustrates the other" (Hodge: Systematic Theology, 2:194).