|
|
PART ONE: AUTHOR'S BACKGROUND & DEFENSE
About The Author
Very little personal information is readily available about Samuel
Richardson. According to the best information available to this reviewer,
his date of birth was 1602 and his death occurred in 1658. One source
indicates that his ministry flourished during 1643-1658.[2] Since 1647 is
the publication date for the article being reviewed[1], the dates appear
reliable. This places Richardson in a very interesting and historically
important era of English Particular Baptists. The fact that Richardson's
article carries an Introduction by the well-known William Kiffin [1616-1701]
indicates the respect his peers held for him. Additionally, Richardson's
name appears as one of the signatories on the 1644 London Confession. Had he
lived, it is likely that Richardson's name would also have appeared with
Kiffin, Knollys, Keach, and other venerables on the 1689 Confession.
The small amount of personal information about Richardson, and Particular
Baptists in general, is supplemented by their writings and an array of
historical facts regarding them. From such sources as these, we can learn
much about their character and conviction. If we reflect upon the political
and religious climate of their day, and consider the opposition these men
faced, it enables us to better appreciate both them and the faith they
publicly professed. Their lot was such that they were occasionally
subjected to fines and imprisonment, public ridicule and scorn in the
pillory, along with various other persecutions. Occasionally, some of these
Baptists had to temporarily flee into other areas or other countries for
relief. For a Particular Baptist during this period, a profession of faith
necessarily included a willingness to suffer for it. This may be difficult
for contemporary "feel good" Christians to comprehend. What did those
Particular Baptists have that enabled them to persevere in the face of such
adversity? Of course they had a good measure of God's grace, but also, they
had a good, ample measure of conviction. These men both knew and were
persuaded of the Doctrines of Grace.
For Samuel Richardson, and other Particular Baptists of his day, the
doctrines of grace were a necessary ingredient which enabled one to endure
hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. Regarding the truth "revealed
in these doctrines", he writes, "This encourages us to go to God for all
we need, Acts 26:18. This enables us to suffer for Christ."
For Richardson, Rejoicing in God was necessarily linked to suffering and
serving Him. He wrote:
"Rejoice in God and thy union with Him. Witness to His truth and suffer for
Him. Serve, love, live, and die with Him and His."
Richardson is persuaded, and rightly so, that they who know not the
doctrines of grace "cannot honor God nor love the truth, nor suffer for it."
Particular Baptists of that period did not have the luxury of abstracting
the joy of the gospel from the sufferings associated with its profession.
They identified with Paul, Bunyan, and a host of other faithful saints that
experientially understood the Apostle's words: "For as the sufferings of
Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ." 1 Cor.
1:5
Richardson's Purpose
Following the publication of an earlier work entitled _The Saint's Desire_,
Richardson received numerous objections to his proposition "that we are
justified by Christ alone and not by our believing." Richardson observes,
"Some affirm the contrary." His purpose then, is to respond to the
objections he received. He arranges these into three categories:
1. Chapters two through five address a volley of 26 objections. These
objections are prompted by those that "affirm the contrary", that is, that
we are justified by Christ on account of our believing.
Richardson argues, "Some place justification to be only in the conscience.
But we place it only in Christ where it is, and to Whom it belongs.
Justification consists in taking away of sin. None but Christ can do that."
Richardson backs up his claim by arguing that "The Saints Are Justified
Before They Believe."
He further explains with these words: "If I am to believe I am justified and
that all my sins are forgiven me, is it true or false? If it be true that I
am to believe, then I was a justified man and free from all sin before I
believed it. Therefore, I am to believe it because it's true. If it be not
true, and so is false, then it seems I am to believe a lie. For me to
believe I am justified when I am not, is to deceive my self in believing
that which is false."
2. Chapter six consists of Richardson's response to a treatise by a Mr. Huet
entitled, _Sins Suffered For But Not Remitted_. The objections presented
arise from the same premise as the above, namely, that there is no discharge
of sin until the act of faith by the sinner. The main difference in Mr Huet
's objections is his focus on the Punishment and Pardon of sinners. For Mr
Huet, the fact that sinners are punished for their sin and exhorted to pray
for Pardon is proof that Justification does not occur prior to the sinner
seeking for it by faith.
Richardson responds by making a keen distinction between "Chastisement For
Sins and Suffering the Wrath of God for Sins."
Regarding this distinction Richardson says, "You speak of judgments and
punishments of sin. We desire you to prove, if you can, that Christ has not
made satisfaction for the sins of the elect, or that God does inflict any
thing on His people for sin, in anger or revenge, for them to suffer by way
of satisfaction. If you say not this, you say nothing against us. We say
that which is in itself a great plague and judgment, is sent in love to
them, and is a mercy to them: as appears, Psal. 119:11; Rom. 8;28; Heb.
12:5-12."
For Mr Huet, exhorting the sinner to pray for Pardon proves Richardson's
claim for "Justification In Christ Alone" is an error. Huet says, "It's a
mocking of God to ask him to do that he has done already." Richardson is
undeterred and responds:
"The question is, what you mean by pardon. The manifestation of pardon,
which is the revealing and assuring the soul that his sins are pardoned,
this you call pardon. The taking away of sin, as Isa. 53, the destroying of
sin, we call pardon. In time we know it and enjoy it. Do you call the
manifestation of pardon, pardon? It shall be manifested to all the elect.
We place the substance of all to consist in what Christ did for us upon the
Cross. There is our pardon, rather than the revealing of it."
A final, but interesting objection by Mr Huet is taken from 1 John 3:9 and
5:18. Mr Huet states:
"They (the Particular Baptists) also allege, Whosoever is born of God
sinneth not."
Richardson aptly responds, "If we do, I hope we do but as the Apostle did,
and yet we say with the Apostle, we have sin, and do sin, etc."
3. Chapter seven is Richardson's answer to a Treatise by a Dr. Homes,
entitled _An Antidote Against Antinomianism_. Richardson says of Dr. Homes,
"So he crowns the truth we contend for with odious names of disgrace (which
is powerful to deceive the simple) calling it unjustifiable and
Antinomianism."
This section is of special interest because it reveals how others
occasionally characterized the doctrine of the Particular Baptists . Of
equal interest, the nature of the objections identify the source and
theology that foments such contempt for the doctrines of grace. It's
pertinent to note that Dr. Homes did not personally charge Richardson, nor
any other Particular Baptist, as practicing Antinomianism. However, Dr Homes
is clearly alarmed that Richardson's doctrine instills a propensity to
licentiousness. Undoubtedly, Homes could have gotten a lot of mileage from
just one documented account of Antinomianism being practiced among the
Particulars. The fact that such a case was not cited by Dr Homes greatly
weakens his objections. The same fact is also an unsolicited testimony by
Homes of the godly and blameless public witness maintained by the
Particular Baptists.
SUMMARY
We've briefly sampled the Objections Samuel Richardson received to his
proposition that sinners are "Justified By Christ Alone". Although the
Objections to Samuel Richardson were from different sources, they each share
the common premise: that the efficacy of Justification is a cooperative
effort of the sinner's faith and Christ's redemptive work. In this view, the
redemptive work of Christ is seen as providing a necessary condition which
makes Justification possible, but it is the sinners' faith that provides the
sufficient condition. This view is generally identified with Arminianism but
some have also linked the view to the German Reformer Martin Luther. His
banner was "Justification By Faith Alone".
In defence of Luther it should
be noted that his emphasis on "Faith Alone" was 1st, in the context of his
deep experience of grace and subsequent opposition to Popery with its
accompanying Penance and Works. 2ndly, Luther's "Faith Alone" was in a
context that opposed the Legalist's theory of Justification by the Works
of the Law; this contrast is vividly made by Luther in his _Epistle to the
Galatians_. Apparently, subsequent followers of Luther abstracted his
emphasis of "Faith Alone" from its context and then 'went to seed' with it.
This resulted in a synthesis which identifies nominally with Luther's view
while identifying substantially with the Arminian view of Faith.
Ironically, many contemporary "Reformed" denominations approximate this view
in their theology even as they endeavor to purge out Arminianism and return
to the Doctrines of Grace. Notwithstanding their objections, their view of
Justification rings of 'faith in the efficacy of the sinners faith' rather
than faith in the efficacy of Christ and his Redemptive work.
Richardson's view of the role of Faith is representative of the Particular
Baptists although there was a degree of diversity among them in their
explanations and descriptions. For these English Baptists, the Gospel is a
declaration of objective truth. Regarding the role of Faith, Richardson
says, "Now the work of faith is, to assent to the truth of this testimony,
and receive it." Although the article being reviewed was written over 350
years ago, Primitive Baptists of today have no difficulty identifying with
Richardson in his arguments against the Objectors.
PART TWO: COMPETING ISSUES CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION
Regarding Richardson's View of Justification Compared With Others
Without question Samuel Richardson was an able and respected defender of the
Doctrines of Grace. However, it would be a mistake to assume that all
details of his view of Justification were uniformly received among fellow
Particular Baptists. As might be expected they did have their differences.
Notwithstanding, there was sufficient agreement on major points so as to not
disrupt internal unity and fellowship among them.
Two points of difference among Particular Baptists are of special interest:
(1.) The time of Justification, and (2.) Infusion of righteousness versus
the Imputation of righteousness.
Discussion of these was not limited to the Particular Baptists. Interest
went well beyond the Particulars and included an array of Protestant
theologians, especially those following the reformed theology of Calvin and
Luther.
1. The Time Of Justification
Various opinions have been expressed regarding the time of Justification.
They are as follows: (a.) at the general judgment, (b.) at the time of
faith, (c.) at the resurrection, (d.) at the cross, (e.) in eternity.
John Gill maintains that the first three should be considered as "no other
than so many repetitions, or renewed declarations" of Justification. [3]
Indeed, these three appear more as differing points of emphasis rather than
different views. The last two are of more interest to the present discussion
because they closely approximate different views rather than merely that of
emphasis.
Samuel Richardson's view was that Justification took place at the cross. To
this I agree. He says, "We grant it to be so, and that we were justified in
time, viz.: when Christ was upon the Cross." I believe this was the most
prevalent view among the Particular Baptists, even as it is with Primitive
Baptists of today. However, there are signs that this may be gradually
shifting if we judge by the renewed interest in John Gill's writings, and
particularly, his view of "eternal justification". Also, the publication
of a book on "Justification" by a Primitive Baptist Minister [4] has kindled
new interest in the view. While the author devotes a relatively small
portion of the book to the theme of "time of justification", nevertheless,
in that section he follows Gill's view very closely. By contrast, many of
those in internet discussion forums that claim to believe in "eternal
justification" actually follow Gill's view very loosely, if at all. This
situation leads this reviewer to believe that, in its present form, current
interest in "eternal justification" is largely nominal and for utilitarian
purposes.
The view of Eternal Justification, as expounded by Gill, goes beyond simply
stating that "God purposed" in eternity to justify the Elect. Gill says, "I
mean more by justification from eternity than merely God's prescience, or
fore-knowledge of it; ..more that a mere resolution and purpose to justify
his elect in time..., more than a decretive justification: I say, I mean
more than this....; In a word, I apprehend, that.... God's will, decree, or
purpose, to justify his elect, is the eternal justification of them."[3]
In defence of Gill it must be noted that he carefully qualified the above so
as to "not think that they (the elect) had an actual personal existence from
eternity", nor did Gill render "Christ's bringing in an actual righteousness
in time unnecessary; or to make faith useless in our justification in our
own consciences." [3]
John Brine (d. 1765), a close friend of Gill, also held and vigorously
defended the doctrine of Eternal Justification. Like Gill, Brine was a
Supralapsarian, a fact which becomes quite apparent in his Defence of the
doctrine.[5] Brine argues:
"Now as God considers His elect in Christ, they are either objects of
condemnation, or Justification. The former must be denied, and therefore the
latter evidently follows; except, as God beholds the elect in Christ, they
are neither objects of condemnation, nor Justification; which is an
absurdity that none will admit."
Brine's "either/or" dilemma is only valid if one accepts his presupposition
of Supralapsarianism. Hence, his "absurdity" is also avoided if one discards
speculation and simply accepts the biblical view that God's elect in Christ
were considered as "objects of His love." (Jer. 31:3; Eph. 1:4)
Interestingly, in his defence of Eternal Justification Brine actually
complains that one of the objections to the doctrine reveals a prejudice
against the Supralapsarian scheme! He says, "I am inclined to believe that
the authors of this objection do not much favor the Supralapsarian notion."
I doubt the able and pious John Brine intended the humor this reviewer sees
in such a statement! One cannot help but observe that his comments suggest
that the doctrine of "Eternal Justification" is a logical extension of
Supralapsarianism.
Although Gill went to great length addressing a number of arguments against
Eternal Justification, there yet remains numerous and serious questions in
my mind that are troubling. For instance:
(a.) Justification, being a forensic process, must be according to facts
that exist, Not to facts that do not exist or exist only in prospect.
Eternal Justification therefore appears to confuse the "certainty" of a
future fact with its "actual" being or existence.
(b.) Gill's view appears to trivialize God's forbearance in Romans 3:25.
The passage states that Christ was a propitiation for sins formerly passed
over through God's forbearance. But how could it be said, really and
actually, that God exercised forbearance if such sins were really and
actually accounted for in eternity?
(c.) In Hebrews 9 Paul states that eternal redemption was procured by the
shedding of Christ's blood. He argues further that the substance of the
Covenant, like that of a Will, is not in force until the death of the
testator (v.17). The doctrine of Eternal Justification appears to greatly
weaken Paul's argument, if not rendering it void, by affirming that
Justification occurs prior to the death of the testator, even in eternity.
For myself, until these and other such questions are satisfactorily resolved
I prefer to avoid speculation and stand firm with the simple but clear
message Samuel Richardson advocated. Richardson plainly denies the "eternal
justification" view but does acknowledge God's prescience relative to
justification. He says, "We do not say, we were actually justified from all
eternity; we say we were in the knowledge and love of God from all eternity:
we say we were actually justified in time when Christ upon the Cross
presented us holy to God without spot, etc., Eph. 5:27."
With respect to eternity, Richardson safely takes Justification no further
than God's will and purpose; I suspect that most contemporary Primitive
Baptists only intend to say the same. If this be so, then why further
complicate an already difficult subject with terminology intended to convey
something entirely different? Rather, why not strive with Samuel Richardson
for consistency and clarity on this subject and simply call it
"Justification By Christ Alone".
2. Infusion Of Righteousness versus Imputation Of Righteousness
This heading reflects opposing views regarding how Righteousness is
transferred in Justification. English Particular Baptists did not always
agree on this issue and contemporary Primitive Baptists are no different.
Infused, or transfused righteousness as it is sometimes called, refers to
the transferal of righteousness in such a way so that the sinner is
constituted righteous in his very being. In other words, righteousness is
conveyed to him in such a way that he is actually given a righteous nature,
he is made righteous in a vital sense. Samuel Richardson held this view.
Listen to his description of "how" a person is justified:
"The word justify, properly signifies to make just, and men are made just.
By infusion, when the habit or virtue of justice is put into a person, so
God made man upright, or just: Eccl. 7:29."
For Richardson and those of his persuasion, infused righteousness is a
"vital" transfer of righteousness; it effects an internal change in the
sinner; in essence it is Regeneration-- a new creation in Christ. Hence,
those that hold the infusion view of righteousness, relative to the doctrine
of Justification, blur the distinction between it and Sanctification.
Consequently, for these the concept of a transferal of righteousness by
"imputation" is virtually lost and the word "impute" only retains a nominal
significance.
By contrast, theologians that held the view of "Imputation of
Righteousness", were usually more systematic in their theology and
therefore made a crisp distinction between Justification and Sanctification.
Consequently, these emphatically rejected the inclusion of an 'infused
righteousness' with the doctrine of Justification. For these, the concept of
"infused righteousness" belonged to the doctrine of Sanctification. John
Gill is one of these and makes this observation:
"Nor is it (justification) to be understood of making men righteous, by
infusing righteousness into them; for this is to confound justification and
sanctification together, which are two distinct things; ...the righteousness
by which men are justified is imputed to them; but the righteousness of
sanctification is inherent in them; that by which men are justified, are the
obedience and blood of Christ; but infused holiness is neither of these."
[6]
Likewise, John Brine clearly articulates imputation in a Sermon[7]:
"The Imputation of Sin to him, effected no internal Change in him: Nor does
the Imputation of his Righteousness to us, produce any internal Change in
us. A due Consideration of the Nature of the Act of Imputation, will enable
us to see this clearly. Imputation is an internal Act of the Mind, whether
it be of Sin or Righteousness, and, therefore, it cannot be productive of
any inherent Change in the Object upon whom it passes. As Christ was not
made sinful, by the Imputation of our Sins to him: so we are not made holy,
or internally righteous, by the Imputation of his Righteousness to us. For,
as the Imputation of Sin to him did not defile him: So the Imputation of
Righteousness to us does not sanctify us. The Reason of which is clear,
Imputation is not a Transfusion of that which is imputed, whether it be Sin
or Righteousness; but its a reckoning, accounting, or placing to Account,
and esteeming thereupon, as was before observed."
Unlike the "vital" transfer of righteousness of the 'infusion view',
imputation involves a "forensic" transfer; it is a legal reckoning or
accounting the sinner righteous. Hence, Imputed righteousness does Not make
a change in the sinners nature or give him a new or different one; rather,
it is a legal transfer of Christ's righteousness as the covenant head and
Surety, to the account of God's Elect who were represented in and by
Christ. The legal basis for Imputation is grounded in the nature of the
Covenant Relationship between Christ and the corporate body of the Elect.
For those having difficulty understanding this principle, a similar legal
basis is illustrated in the Covenant of Marriage (Ro. 7: 1-3; Eph. 5:
22-33). In a lawful marriage we observe that there are legal
responsibilities and privileges as well as emotional, physical, and moral
ones.
Conclusion:
Contemporary Primitive Baptists have a wealth of history in the writings and
labors of the English Particular Baptist. We can easily identify with the
doctrinal issues that confronted them. The Objections Samuel Richardson so
ably addressed 350 years ago must be responded to in succeeding generations.
We will do well if we acquaint ourselves with them and emulate their
example. These Particular Baptists were not content with merely enjoying the
doctrines of Grace for themselves, they stepped forward to confront error
where they found it. In this way they insured that successive generations
would be enriched by their labors in God's Kingdom. In their hands the
utility of the Doctrines of Grace was Not to make one "feel" godly about
themselves, but to enable one to "live" godly and endure hardship unto the
honor and glory of God.
------------------------------------------------------
References:
1. http://elbourne.org/baptist/ofbl_docs/Richardson's%20Justification.doc
2. http://home.sprynet.com/~receptus/partbapt.htm
3. The Doctrine Of Justification Stated And Maintained, John Gill; Sermons
And Tracts, Vol. 2
4. Justification, The Heart Of The Gospel; Elder Jimmy Barber; 1989 Veritas
Publications
5. A Defence Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Justification; John Brine; 1732;
http://users.aol.com/libcfl/
6. Of Justification; John Gill; Body Of Doctrinal And Practical Divinity;
Book VI, Ch. 8
7. The Doctrines of the Imputation of Sin to Christ, and the Imputation of
his Righteousness to his People; John Brine; 1756;
http://members.fortunecity.com/alawson/brine_doctrine.html
|