|
CHAPTER VIII:
REASONS WHY FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF
CHRIST IS NECESSARY, IN ORDER THAT SINNERS MAY BE
JUSTIFIED.
THE Scriptures evidently teach, that
faith in the blood of Christ is necessary in order that
sinners may be justified through him. Christ is "set forth
to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood." He
suffered, that God "might be just, and the justifier of him
that believeth." Notwithstanding the all-sufficient
atonement he has made, "he that believeth not shall be
damned." This, too, is perfectly consistent. For it is
really as necessary that sinners should have. faith in the
blood of Christ, in order that God may be just in justifying
them, as it was that Christ should suffer. Indeed, the same
reasons which rendered the sufferings of Christ necessary,
rendered it equally necessary that sinners should believe;
because the same obstacles which stood in the way of the
pardon of sinners without an atonement, still stand in the
way of the pardon of those who have not faith. That this may
be clearly perceived, however, it will be necessary to keep
in mind the necessity and nature of the atonement
If the atonement consisted in the
literal payment of a debt, it is acknowledged the case would
be different. If sinners had, literally, owed divine justice
an infinite debt, and Christ had stepped into their place
and paid it by his sufferings and death, it is very evident,
that faith in his blood would not be necessary to their
justification. If the debt of sinners has been paid, it
cannot be again demanded whether they have faith or not. If
one person owe another, and a third person pay the debt, and
procure a discharge, it surely cannot be necessary that the
person discharged should have knowledge of the transaction,
in order to his being free from his creditor. Or, if he be
informed that his debt is paid, it can make no difference,
with respect to the demands of his creditor, whether he
believe the information or not. His not, believing, surely,
cannot prevent its being discharged. Just so, if the
atonement of Christ consisted literally in paying the debt
of sinners, it can make no difference with respect to their
discharge, whether they have any knowledge of, or belief in,
what has been done or, not. Whether they believe, or
disbelieve, the debt must be discharged.
But the truth is, the atonement of
Christ is not the literal payment of a debt. He has not
satisfied the demands of the law in this sense. The law as
much demands the punishment of sinners, and as loudly curses
every one who continueth not in all things written in it,
until he obtains forgiveness, as it would have done if
Christ had never died. All who have ever offended, even in
one point, are as much guilty of transgressing the whole
law, and actually owe as much to divine justice, until it is
freely forgiven, as they would if Christ had not tasted
death for them. Christ is not the end of the law in such a
sense as to have annulled its claims. He did not come to
destroy the law; but to fulfil. The law is not made void,
through faith; but it is established. The great design of
the atonement was not to pay the debt of sinners; but to
open a way in which they might consistently be forgiven.
Instead of paying a debt, therefore, it consisted in making
as full a manifestation of God's respect for his law, and
determination, to support it; of his abhorrence of sin, and
his love of holiness; and of his determination to promote
and secure the highest interest of his kingdom; as could
have been made by a literal execution of the penalty of his
law on transgressors; that so "he might be just, and the
justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."
If this view which has been given of
the atonement and of the grounds on which It was necessary
be correct, it will be easy to perceive that there is now
the same necessity that sinners should have faith in the
blood of Christ, which there was that Christ should be set
forth as a propitiation, in order that God may be just in
justifying them. Faith in the blood of Christ may be defined
as implying a cordial reception of the sufferings of Christ,
or a cordial satisfaction in them, as a necessary,
all-sufficient, and infinitely glorious atonement for sin.
The necessity of such a faith may appear, from the same
considerations which have been urged in showing the
necessity of atonement.
1. God could not be just to his law,
if he should pardon sinners who have no faith.
As there would have been great
impropriety in God's pardoning sinners, without manifesting
at the same time his regard for his law, so it must be
evidently improper, that any should be justified, unless
they respect the same law. Indeed, the same I respect for
his law which rendered it necessary that God should provide
an infinite atonement, in order that he might pardon sinners
consistently with his infinite perfections, must entirely
prevent his justifying any who remain opposed to his law.
For, should he justify any such persons, he would, in this
very act, greatly dishonor his law; he would countenance
sinners in dishonoring it; he would even justify them in
their unreasonable opposition to its demands. Hence, if God
does really respect his law, as we have seen, then it is
plain he can never justify any in their opposition to this
law. But all those who have not faith, in the blood of
Christ, are acting still in opposition to the law of
God.
As has been observed, faith in the
blood of Christ implies cordially receiving and approving of
Christ's sufferings as a necessary atonement. But if sin is
not an unreasonable and evil thing; if the law, of which sin
is a transgression, is not good; then the sufferings of
Christ could not be necessary as an atonement. The
sufferings of Christ could not be necessary unless it were,
in some way, to support the divine law. Faith in the blood
of Christ, implying a cordial satisfaction with what Christ
has suffered for the support of the divine law, as being
indispensably necessary for the pardon of sinners, therefore
implies respect for the law itself. While, on the other
hand, unbelief, as it is a rejection of the atonement of
Christ as being unnecessary and useless, dishonors the law
which the atonement was designed to support.
Hence faith is evidently necessary in
order to justification. For, if God should justify sinners
who are destitute of faith, he would act directly against
himself. While he testified that the atonement of Christ was
necessary to the pardon of sinners, he would justify those
who reject this testimony, and make him a liar. Indeed it is
impossible that he should justify any on the ground of the
atonement who have not faith; because both the atonement and
faith are equally necessary, and for the same reasons.
Notwithstanding the atonement, therefore, God cannot be just
in justifying sinners, unless they believe in Jesus. He did
not set Christ forth as a propitiation to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins in any other way,
than through faith in his blood. It was not that he might be
just, and the justifier of him who believeth not in Jesus;
but "that he might be just, and the justifier of him that
believeth."
2. God could not be just to his
kingdom if he should justify sinners who have no faith in
the blood of Christ.
Since the atonement was necessary
that, if sinners were pardoned, the subjects of God's
kingdom might yet be deterred from disobedience, and that
the interests of holiness might be promoted, it must be
evident that God cannot consistently justify sinners who
have not faith; because this would have a tendency to
promote unholiness. In this case, God would even justify
sinners in their wickedness. Faith in the blood of Christ
implies a cordial approbation of what he has done for the
salvation of sinners. Any thing short of this must be
rebellion against God. Sinners must either approve or
disapprove of what Christ has done. If they disapprove of
the atonement, they must disapprove of the divine law; and,
consequently, of the character of the Lawgiver, which is
there delineated. If they have faith, they acquiesce in
Christ's work of atonement, and approve of the law and
character of God; But if they have not faith, they remain in
opposition to God, and to the whole economy of grace. No
sinner, therefore, can have any true holiness, unless he has
faith in the blood of Christ,
Hence it follows, that if God should
justify any sinner who has not faith, instead of promoting,
he would destroy the interest of holiness. Instead of
punishing sinners who despise and reject Christ, he would
justify them. This could have no tendency to deter others
from disobedience, but would encourage them in it. Moral
beings, perceiving that God was not so opposed to sinners,
who opposed and slighted Christ, and thus manifested their
disrespect to the law which he died to honor, and their
disapprobation of the character of God which he died to
display, but that he would justify them, it is impossible
that they should either believe him an enemy to
transgression, or discover any consistency in his character.
They would conclude that Christ was set forth to be a
minister of sin; not to condemn sin in the flesh, but to
justify those who continue in the practice of this evil and
bitter thing. Hence it appears plain,
3. That God could not appear just to
his own character, if he should justify sinners who have no
faith.
Consistency is one thing which is
essential to the perfection of any character. But, it is
obvious, that should God justify sinners who are destitute
of faith, he would act very inconsistently. He would appear
at variance with himself, destroying at one time what he had
done at another. By the requirements and threatenings of his
law he manifested a regard for holiness and an abhorrence of
sin. In giving his beloved a regard for holiness and an
abhorrences of sin. In giving his beloved Son to die on the
cross to make an atonement, he manifested the same feelings,
and displayed the same glorious character. But should be now
justify those who have no faith in the atonement, no
acquiescence in it, and no approbation for it, he would
counteract and contradict what has thus been manifested in
his law, and in the sufferings and death of Christ. In doing
this, he would justify those who were opposed to Christ,
which would be an implicit acknowledgment that their
opposition was right; indeed, it would be taking part with
them in their opposition. Hence his character would appear
inconsistent and suspicious. Holy beings would be, at a loss
what opinion they might form respecting his real feelings.
They might fear him; but they would lose their confidence,
and would scarcely find it in their hearts to love him.
Since, therefore, all who are destitute of faith in the
blood of Christ are opposed to him, it is impossible that
any such can ever be justified. Faith in the blood of Christ
is, therefore, indispensably necessary to justification.
Christ is not the end of the law for righteousness to
unbelievers, or to them that have not faith; but he is the
end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth."
It may not be impertinent to observe
here, moreover, that if God should justify those who have no
faith, it could answer no very valuable purpose, even to
those who should be thus justified, as it could not avail to
secure their happiness. Sinners cannot be made happy without
being brought into a state of reconciliation with God, nor
can they be reconciled unless they have faith in Christ.
Reconciliation to God implies faith in Christ, and faith in
Christ implies reconciliation to God. They so include each
other, that where one, is wanting the other cannot subsist.
Every one who is truly reconciled must be pleased with what
God does, so far as it is made known to him. For so far as
any one is displeased with what God does, so far certainly
he is unreconciled. Hence, if sinners are not pleased with
what God has done, in causing an atonement to be made for
sin, they are in a state of unreconciliation. They remain at
variance, and at enmity with God. But if they are pleased
with the atonement of Christ and so reconciled, they have
faith in his blood. This is the very thing which is required
in order to justification. Faith in the blood of Christ
consists very much in being pleased and satisfied with what
God has done, in giving his Son to die to make atonement for
sin, and in cordially receiving the Son as an all-sufficient
Saviour as he is offered in the gospel. But nothing short of
this can be called reconciliation to God. Every thing short
of this involves opposition and enmity.
Since, therefore, sinners must be
reconciled to God, or they must be miserable; and since
reconciliation to God implies faith in the blood of
atonement, it is plain that faith in Christ is necessary to
the happiness of sinners. Hence it appears that if God
should justify sinners who have no faith, he would not only
justify opposition to Christ and opposition to himself, but
he would do that which would be altogether useless. For,
though they were thus justified, sinners could have no peace
in their opposition; they could not be happy. They would
still be like the troubled sea when it cannot rest. But,
certainly, the very idea of justifying one who is opposed to
God, is highly repugnant to reason as well as to Scripture.
There is, therefore, no possible way in which sinners can be
justified, excepting through Nth in the blood of Jesus
Christ. "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace
with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, that
he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in
Jesus."
|