|
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." |