The Importance of "Alone" in the Doctrine of Justification

"The Papists will well-enough confess that we be justified by faith, howbeit they add that it is but partly. But that gloss marreth all. For here it is proved that we cannot be found righteous before God, but by the means of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by resting upon the salvation which He hath purchased for us. The Papists see this well enough: and, therefore, for fashion's sake, they say we be justified by faith, but not by faith alone: they will [have] none of that. That is the thing that they fight against, and it is the chief point that is in controversy between them and us." 

- John Calvin, sermon on Galatians 2:16, emphasis added

Evangelicals will often describe the difference between themselves and Roman Catholics as that evangelicals believe in salvation by faith, while Catholics believe in salvation by works. And some Catholics will grant that assessment. However, those evangelicals will have a problem if they run into an educated Catholic and say that. The fact is that Rome is happy to talk about salvation by faith, and has always done so, even in the documents of the Council of Trent in response to the Reformers see, for example, Canons XX and XXIV of Session 6). 

The problem isn't "salvation by faith," but rather the inclusion or exclusion of another word, "alone." The biblical Protestant affirms salvation by faith alone, without works. Romanism denies the application of "alone," claiming instead that salvation is a process in which faith leads to works which then make the person worthy of salvation. The effect of that distinction is that the Protestant also affirms salvation is an instantaneous event, while the Romanist considers it to be a process. When does that process reach the point of a saved status? No one knows in this life, they claim. You can only know when you get there. Or don't.

One result of this error on the part of evangelicals is that Rome has had increasing success in ecumenism. For example, the organization Evangelicals and Catholics Together proclaimed that a unifying understanding had been reached in this statement: "We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ" (ECT statement, XVIII). Do you see the problem with that statement? It is exactly what Rome has always advocated, while the evangelicals in the group betrayed the Reformation by leaving out the key term "alone." The breakthrough was that professing evangelicals converted en masse to Rome's doctrine of justification.

This is the verse to which Calvin refers: "We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16). 

True Christianity and the Imputation of Works

"What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (1Cor. 4:7). 

All non-Christian religions advocate some form of salvation by works. They say, "Change your behavior, and then your deity will love you." And this isn't just professing non-Christian religions. Many pseudo-Christians say some variation of the same thing. For example, the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, in

Canon XX (1547), said, " If any one shall say, that a man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if, forsooth, the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema."  

Yet, in the verse above, the Apostle Paul denies the very thing asserted by Trent. Justification is by grace alone through faith alone, apart from any works.  That is one side of the double imputation that occurs at the moment of true belief: the judgment due to our sins is transferred to our Surety, who paid for them on the cross. The other side is the imputation of His perfect works to the believer: "O LORD, You will ordain peace for us, for You have indeed done for us all our works" (Isaiah 26:12; see also II Corinthians 5:21 and Hebrews 13:20-21). 

Thus it is true that without holiness, no man shall see God (Hebrews 12:14). But, as Paul says, it is not a holiness produced by the man but which is imputed to him from Jesus by grace alone through faith alone. So, that same Paul is cursed according to Trent.

Jesus the Cornerstone versus the Claims of Mormonism

Mormons refer to their organization as restored Christianity, because, they claim, the original Christianity of Christ and the Apostles was lost. Then they refer to the creeds of all other professing Christians as "abominations." 

There are many biblical reasons for saying that a general apostasy is impossible. The main Scriptural evidence of that is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says, "On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." The rock is Himself, the chief cornerstone and foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). If the true church disappeared, then it can only be said that the cornerstone had failed. 

But I want to turn to a different verse: "'And as for Me, this is My covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and My words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,' says the LORD, 'from this time forth and forevermore'" (Isaiah 59:21).

Here, Jehovah, the preincarnate Christ, includes among His covenant promises that His words will never completely disappear from among His people. Is that not exactly what an apostasy would be? 

The message of that verse is exactly the same as that in Matthew: Jesus makes it His personal guarantee that His Gospel, by which His church is gathered, will never depart completely from among men. That is exactly the opposite of the claims of the Mormon organization. "Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, 'That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged'" (Romans 3:4).

How Long Was There Darkness After the Crucifixion? The Bible Versus the Book of Mormon

In the "Book of Mormon Student Manual," chapter 40, "The three days of darkness symbolized the death of Jesus Christ, who is 'the light and life of the world' 3 Nephi 11:11. Mormon emphasized that the three days of darkness was 'a sign' given of the Savior’s death. After describing the damage caused by the 'great storm' that lasted for three hours, Mormon documented the complete darkness as one of the signs that was now fulfilled. The darkness was so intense that 'there could not be any light at all.' During this time of darkness, the body of Jesus Christ, the Light of the World, lay in the tomb. On the day of His Resurrection, after Christ had overcome death, light came again to the people in America, signifying Christ’s victory over death and darkness." 

This refers to the LDS claim that there was three days of darkness after the crucifixion of Jesus, as, they claim, was prophesied by their prophets. "And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death  unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel" (I Nephi 19:10). And, "But behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold, in that day that he shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead. And he said unto me that while the thunder and the lightning lasted, and the tempest, that these things should be, and that darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days" (Helaman14:20, 27). 

This is in contrast to the biblical account: "It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed" (Luke 23:44-45; see also Matthew 27:43). So, not three days, but three hours!

 Why the difference? Since I consider the Bible alone to be the Word of God, I necessarily believe that the error is in the Book of Mormon, not the Bible. My suspicion is that Joseph Smith, author of the Book of Mormon, confused the account of the crucifixion with the expectation of the resurrection on the third day. If one were hurried, it would be easy to gloss "days" for "hours." Acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the writers of the Gospels had no such risk. The supposed "prophecies" were then invented to cover Smith's error.

God Hates Sinners AND Sin

 "God did not hang sin on the cross, except as Jesus Himself bore the sins of all those in whose stead He died, by the imputation to Him of all those sins. God hanged Jesus on the cross. God cursed Jesus, so that Jesus Himself, not some impersonal entity, sin, became 'a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one [not sin] that hangeth on a tree' (Gal. 3:13). Jesus, not sin, cried out in the pain of His punishment in the stead of others, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' Jesus, not sin, died under the wrath of God about three o'clock on Good Friday afternoon."

- Rev. David Engelsma, "Gospel Truth of Justification," p. 165 (emphasis in the original)

It has become a common slogan among American Evangelicals that "God hates the sin, not the sinner." It is a proverb tossed around as a trump for any rebuke against the wicked. 

But is it biblical? 

Those evangelicals will turn purple if I quote Scripture in opposition to their proverb. "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; You [God] hate all evildoers" (Psalm 5:5). "The LORD tests the righteous,

but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence" (Psalm 11:5). Both of these verses tell us that God's hatred isn't just for sin, but for sinners. And, as Engelsma says in the quote above, it was a Person, Jesus of Nazareth, who was slain on the cross as the surety for elect sinners. It wasn't some amorphous substance called sin. 

The problem is that Christians have allowed the humanists to define the argument. To oppose the works of sinners is "judgmental" and "intolerant." And so it is. But the Scriptures require us to judge sin with God's judgment, whether in ourselves or in others. God's truth requires us to be intolerant of falsehood. If we get called names as a result, well, let us remember what was done to Jesus, and let us give thanks that we have been called to share in some fractional part of the shame that was heaped on Him.

When Men Turn the Name of God into Vanity

Do you know the third Commandment? It is the one that says, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain" (Exodus 20:7). In our modern understanding, this commandment means not to use "God" flippantly, such as, "Oh God, I love pizza!" And it certainly includes that. But isn't it in itself flippant to believe that one of the Big Ten would be about that? 

Our ancestors certainly gave it more weight: "What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment? Answer : The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it" (Question 113, Westminster Larger Catechism). There is little in our mental or social lives that the divines did not put under the Third Commandment. 

I want to especially consider one aspect of the abuse of God's name, and that is the claiming of it by members of pseudo-Christian cults. The worst ones are the ones that simply create a false Jesus, by depriving Him of His full and eternal deity. This would include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals. They abuse God's name by applying it to idolatrous inventions of their cult founders. In this sense, the commandment is equivalent to the warning given by Jesus Himself: "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" (Matthew 24:4-5, 24)

The followers of these manmade pseudo-Christs claim the name of Christ, and will even expect others to acknowledge them as Christians. However, they have claimed the name, not of the Jesus of the Bible, but of an idol, and are, therefore, using His name in vain. And, as Moses wrote, God will not hold them guiltless. They remain in their sins (John 8:24).