THE BELGIC CONFESSION OF FAITH
– A Commentary – By Dr. Chuck Baynard
The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXII
Our Justification Through Faith in Jesus Christ
We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the
Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ
with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more besides Him. For
it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our
salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in Him, that then those
who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him.
Therefore, for any to assert that Christ is not sufficient, but that something
more is required besides Him, would be too gross a blasphemy; for hence it would
follow that Christ was but half a Savior.
Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone,
or by faith apart from works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean
that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we
embrace Christ our righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His
merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our
righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in
all His benefits, which, when they become ours, are more than sufficient to
acquit us of our sins.
The answer to the so-called Shepherd controversy that is the foundation
and fuel for the so-called new theology of Paul contrasted to James is found in
the opening statement of this article. Either it is all of Christ or it is none
of Christ. This is the biblical and confessional answer. Any who take issue with
this must declare themselves out of accord with the standards of the confessions
and as an intruder lay the foundation for the exceptions solidly in the
infallible word of God. This has
not been done as none have stepped up to the plate and declared they are out of
accord, but rather the standard writers did not understand. Such arrogance is of
the will of man and is outside of both the Bible and the standards of the
reformed church.
The problem arises from a basic error that would say the Bible is not of
a unity and can have contradictory statements that require the addition of
extra-biblical commentary for the Bible to be understood. God’s word is one
and cannot be taken away from or added to. This is the heart of there being a
canon and the very essence of the Westminster Confessions’ first chapter.
The next error is to try and
apply the formulation of divide and then explain the doctrine used by systematic
theology to a practical application of theology. For example Shepherd and
company place justification and works in parallel and thus add a futuristic
element where man is justified and yet continues to justify himself in the good
works they insist must accompany justification.
The concept isn’t all error in that good works will flow from
justification of a necessity (by their fruits you shall know them). This is in
accord with the great saved by grace passage of Ephesians two that is the soul
of Reformed soteriology. The
election must stand or there is no eternal decree and election. Thus, there can
be no continuing justification nor chance involved whereby a person by lack of
personal action can lose their salvation. The detractors comment concerning
works then must be understood in the necessity of the whole of one part flowing
form another rather than distinct and parallel events. The five SOLAS of the
Reformed church are total confusion if we try to defend each as a complete
doctrine. Taken together it can be seen that one will flow from the other of
necessity and it doesn’t matter with which one a person begins, the other four
are present. This is also true with
the Reformed TULIP that developed out of the work of the Synod of Dort. Each
petal will flow from the others of necessity and mixing the order of
presentation will not remove the others from the flower. In soteriology however
there is an order for purposes of clarity.
The analogy I prefer at this point with respect to a complete theology is
that of the hot air balloon. As we develop one portion of a theology we must use
the utmost care not to poke holes in the opposite side of the balloon. As has
been said, “context, context, context.”
We must back away and consider the whole of the theology as we develop
and tweak individual points.
Another problem develops from decades of theologians that have been
trained in systematic theology whereby things are divided into orderly
sequences. In practical theology it can be seen that while things flow of
necessity one from another, it is also admitted there may not be a measurable
division of time as viewed from the perspective of man. Thus it can be said
justification and works appear to man to be parallel developments and to try and
divide them causes confusion and introduces tension to the biblical texts that
do not exist. The early church found the answer to this in dealing with the
Trinity and came to the formulation that it is proper for God to eternally exist
and for the Son to be eternally begotten of the Father and for the Holy Spirit
to eternally proceed from the father and the Son. The word eternally is key in
that eternity is not an infinitely long time line but the complete absence of
time as known by the mind of man. Finite minds have a hard time trying to
articulate infinite principles. This brings us back to the beginning and all is
of Christ or none is of Christ.
We are saved by grace through faith has been the biblical declaration of
the Reformed church from her beginning. The same passage continues that God
beforehand created good works for the elect to walk in and adds the separation
demanded by systematics but does not violate the timing being instantaneous from
the perspective of man.
The Bible does not contradict and there is no tension between Paul and
James because good works will flow of necessity from justification by faith in
Christ alone. Thus Paul can say we are justified by faith and James can point to
the necessity of works with faith or else it is a dead faith. This doesn’t
introduce another kind of faith, for a dead faith is no faith at all.
