TPW 95 Justification as Acquittal from à Brakel's Christian's Reasonable Service

Welcome to the Proselyte Witness, this is Pastor Patrick Hines doing a back porch edition today. On this beautiful Saturday afternoon, I have a little free time here which is kind.

Of unusual.

And I've been continuing on reading, just on my own personal reading, not for sermon preparation or anything, Wilhelmus Abrakel's great book, The Christian's Reasonable Service, which is a very large work, it's four big volumes.

And the section on justification has just been wonderful to read, and I wanted to pick up right where I left off in the last program, because Abrakel, even though this work is more than 300 years old, he addresses the key issues as clearly as I have ever read anyone address them, including Francis Turretin.

And I've mentioned before that Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elentic Theology, I think it was Presbyterian and Reformed Publishers, published just the section of that on justification as a single paperback volume, which is really great, and I highly recommend it.

But Turretin is wonderful, but Abrakel, I'd never read the section of The Christian's Reasonable Service on justification, and it has just been absolutely wonderful stuff to.

Read.

And I just want to pick up right where I left off, and it says, this is first of all evident from the essential meaning of the word itself, now he's talking about justification being contrasted directly in scripture with to condemn, the judicial act of condemnation.

This is first of all evident from the essential meaning of the word itself, which is to acquit, and has its antonym, to condemn. This is to be observed, for instance, in the following text, if there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked, Deuteronomy 25, verse 1.

There you have an exhortation from God to the people of Israel, that when people go to court, the righteous person, the person who's in the right, is to be justified. That means legally pronounced acquitted, or right in the eyes of the law, and they shall condemn the wicked, meaning to pronounce judicial condemnation over the wicked.

That's how the term justified is used, and so what he's contrasting here is the biblical terminology with the Roman Catholic concept, that justification is actually a moral transformation of the inward person.

It's not it at all. When the judge renders his verdict about someone, it doesn't change them subjectively in any.

Way at all.

It simply declares their status before the law of God, and the basic biblical truth is that God, as the creator and judge of all mankind, that the verdict is in over all of us, we are all guilty before God.

That's what that passage he cited earlier, Romans 3, 19. We know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may become guilty before God.

So that is the verdict, guilty, condemned before the law of God. But when a person repents and puts their faith in Christ alone, that verdict, that status, that legal status before the law of God is once and for all changed from condemned to justified, from guilty to acquitted, to innocent.

And so justification has that as its antonym, to condemn. Now he continues on, he quotes Proverbs 17, 15, he that justifies the wicked and he that condemns the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.

Here it can be observed that it is irrefutably true that to justify and to condemn are antonyms, they're opposites, pertaining to the act of a judge and not referring to either transforming or making godly.

You see what he's pointing out? He's pointing out something that is just as obvious and plain as it could be from the biblical text. And that is when God justifies a sinner, that has no reference of any kind to the inward righteousness or works of that person, because everything necessary for God to change that verdict was done by someone else.

Our covenant surety, our covenant representative, Jesus Christ, who has entered into the broken covenant of works and fulfilled and kept all of it perfectly. And that's given to us by imputation, but more on that is coming up here later.

Albrocco continues, this very contradistinction is used when the word to justify is used in reference to God, the judge of heaven and earth. The great text of scripture that I think about a lot, it's very special, it's wonderful, Romans 8, 33 and 34.

Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns?

See how clear it is there?

What does it mean to bring someone, to bring charges against someone? It means to bring accusations. It means to bring legal accusations against someone. Now without Christ, every human being in the world has all of their sins upon their own legal account before God, and all of those things will be charged against them when they die, if they die like that.

But when a person turns to Christ and forsakes all illusory attempts at keeping the law or being righteous enough or doing enough and trusts in Christ alone and believes in Jesus Christ and believes the gospel, they are justified.

God changes their verdict from condemned to justified because of Jesus Christ alone. So listen to that again. Paul says, who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? Who will bring a legal charge of lawbreaking against God's elect?

It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? And that is for all time. That's not referring to the initial justification or the initial step. That is referring to our permanent, once for all status in the sight of God.

Now I actually saw, Tim Shaughnessy sent me a screenshot of something. It looked like a Facebook comment or instant message or something. But someone was telling him, you guys are doing the exact same error as the 17th century antinomians, and that's why you don't understand Piper.

I just, if I could talk to that person, I would tell them, it is heartwarming and encouraging to me that you're accusing us of being an antinomian because Paul was accused of that constantly because he preached the freeness of divine grace.

He preached the freeness of our justification apart from works, et cetera, et cetera. And unlike you and unlike John Piper, when Paul was charged with antinomianism, he didn't say, oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Final salvation is by works and is by the fruits of our faith. Paul doesn't do that. Paul's answer is, how shall we who died to sin live in it any longer? His answer is the doctrine of regeneration, that God makes us alive in Christ.

God frees us from slavery to sin. Sin shall not have dominion over you, Romans 6, 18. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. Paul does not say, well, you have the initial point, action, justification, present process, future completion by works.

That's not Paul's answer. That's not our answer. That's not the Bible's answer. And so it's encouraging when people accuse me of being antinomian, and my answer to that charge is always exactly the same.

Actually, I can quote most of Romans 6 from memory anyway, is to just let Paul and let the word of God answer that charge for me. It's not, no, we hinge final salvation on the fruits of our faith. That's not it at all.

That's not the answer. The answer is, how shall we who died to sin live in it any longer? And that's a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer. It's impossible to live in sin any longer if you really are a Christian, if you really are freed from its enslaving power.

Okay.

And Abraho, after citing that wonderful passage, who shall lay anything to the charge of God's.

Elect?

It is God that justifies. Who is he that condemns? He continues, condemnation is associated with acquittal and not with sanctification. Isn't that a pretty obvious thing? To pronounce someone at their court hearing to be condemned does not change them subjectively.

At all.

It simply is an announcement of their legal status. Let's say the charges are in, the evidence is there, they have broken this law or that law, and the judge simply stands and says, okay, you are condemned, you're guilty.

But for the believing sinner, because Jesus Christ was judged and condemned by God the Father in our place instead, we are pronounced innocent because Christ was pronounced guilty of our sins. That's why he died on the cross.

He didn't die for his own sins. He died because he was legally held accountable as the covenant surety for our sins. And his righteousness is also imputed to our account, is transferred legally to our ledger in the sight of God.

Okay.

Abraho continues, to condemn, whoops, to condemn is the antonym of to acquit and not of to transform.

Isn't that so clear?

That's exactly right. That's exactly right. To condemn is simply to pronounce someone is guilty as charged and therefore their legal status is guilty. Saying someone's guilty doesn't change them subjectively and make them immoral, nor does God's act of justifying a sinner change them subjectively at all.

It doesn't change us at all. It simply is the pronouncement of our legal status before God. And when a person trusts in Christ and believes in Jesus Christ alone, that legal status before the law of God is permanently once for all changed from condemned by the law to justified before the law because of Christ alone.

And that is the full orb of salvation. That is the whole thing. Christ has achieved the whole of our salvation. Not the initial step and then the spirit does this work within us and then that's what finally.

Saves us.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the work of Christ. Okay, let's know a broccoli continues on here. Secondly, consider furthermore Romans three 19 to 28 and the entire fourth chapter. The apostle does not demonstrate here whether man either by the law or by faith is converted and has holiness infused into him.

Rather, he states how man will exist in the righteous judgment of God, how he will be acquitted and how he will obtain a right to eternal life. He speaks of man as subject to guilt and condemnation. Verse 19.

Romans three 19 and of those who do not work, but who believe that's Romans four, four and five and six. He shows that man cannot be delivered from condemnation by means of the law. Romans three 20 therefore by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his.

Sight.

Justification to any extent at all before the law of God by our works is not possible for us any longer. And I broccoli continues, he shows that man cannot be delivered from condemnation by means of the law, but that this transpires by way of the redemption, which is in Christ received.

By faith.

And there he's still quoting from Romans three 24, 25 and 28 and becomes man's portion by way of imputation. Since Christ has fully accomplished this as surety, and he quotes Romans four, um, six through eight, which says justice.

David also speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. Um, and then he quotes from Psalm 32. And in verses seven and eight, uh, Bronco continues one therefore neither receives forgiveness of sins nor a right to eternal life by way of sanctification.

But by way of acquittal and imputation of righteousness, whereby he is thus declared.

Righteous.

Boy, I'll tell you, I wish theologians and reformed folks today understood that because apparently they don't listen to that sentence again. One therefore neither receives forgiveness of sins nor a right to eternal life by way of sanctification, but by way of acquittal and imputation of righteousness, whereby he is thus declared righteous.

Therefore justification does not consist in being sanctified, but in being declared righteous. That is in being acquitted, you see what he is making sure he rules out. He is making sure that it's very clear to his readers that we do not get a, a right to eternal life by being sanctified.

Now, there are people who are saying that today, and that's what, that's essentially what Piper's saying. And of course, all the quotations that others have brought forward from various and sundry Puritan writers that are not as well known, um, and some of their not as clear moments talk about, you know, the way of works is, is what gives us the right to eternal life.

But that's, that's very sloppy thinking and that's not biblical. What a Bronco says here is right on. He says one therefore neither receives forgiveness of sins nor a right to eternal life by way of sanctification.

But on the other hand, instead, by way of acquittal and imputation of righteousness, whereby he is thus declared righteous. Therefore justification does not consist in being sanctified, but in being declared righteous.

That is in being acquitted. You see how he's using the terms justification. He's using it exactly the way the biblical writers themselves use it. That is referring to the verdict pronounced over us at the final judgment.

We get a right to eternal life, not because we've done works of sanctification, but solely because of the blood and righteousness of Christ whereby we are acquitted and which is legally accepted by God the father as if we had done it all ourselves.

Now a Bronco continues, add to this the texts which speak of sins not being imputed and being covered, Psalm 32, one and two, not being remembered, Isaiah 43, 25, and being forgiven, Jeremiah 31, 34. This manner of speech, which is so common in scripture, never refers to the infusion of holiness, but always conveys the removal of guilt and punishment.

Now, I would just interject here. That's what the Greek term helasterion refers to, propitiation, refers to the removal of both the cause of the wrath and the wrath itself. When it says Jesus Christ who was presented as a propitiation through faith in his blood, that term helasterion, removal of the guilt, which is the cause of the wrath, so the guilt of sin is taken away and its punishment is also taken away because the actual transgressions of the law itself are legally transferred to Christ.

They're not infused into him. People need to understand, at the cross, Jesus Christ did not become actually, inwardly immoral or sinful. Jesus remains, in himself, sinlessly perfect throughout his entire ordeal, but he was legally treated as though he had committed all the sins of his people.

He was legally treated by God the Father as if he had done those things because they were legally transferred to his account and he was dealt with by God the Father accordingly, punished accordingly. Okay, Abraha goes on, thirdly, this is also evident from all the texts in which a very clear distinction is made between justification and sanctification.

Here he quotes 1 Corinthians 6 11, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God. He says, there is no room here for the distinction between first and second justification, for aside from the fact that this distinction is fabricated and contrary to God's word, amen, the apostle mentions three matters, to be washed, to be justified, to be sanctified, and thus justification is something other than being washed and being sanctified.

You hear that?

Listen to that again, after quoting 1 Corinthians 6 11, which says, but, but you were washed, you were justified, you were sanctified. He says, there is no room here for the distinction between first and second justification.

He's exactly right.

There's no room anywhere in the Bible for a distinction between initial justification or first justification versus second justification or initial justification versus final justification. The doctrine of the justification of the sinner before God has to do with the way in which you view what Jesus did throughout his life, his death on the cross, his being taken down from that cross, dead, wrapped in burial clothes, laid in the tomb and resurrected the third day, ascending into heaven and interceding for us.

What do you think that accomplished? Christians confess what that accomplishes is our right to eternal life without any reference whatsoever to any subjective change or sanctification in myself whatsoever at all.

What gives me the right, the legal claim on eternal life is the justification that I received by faith alone in Christ alone, period, end of story, case closed. And what do people immediately say? You are an antinomian.

And what's my answer to that? What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? May it never be. How shall we who died to sin live in it any longer? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into.

His death.

Therefore, we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of.

Life.

What's the answer to the charge of antinomianism? It is the freeing of the sinner subjectively from the tyranny and dominion of sin. It is not to speak of future salvation or final salvation or future justification or salvation through sanctification at the last day.

And there's going to be a bringing of the sinner into the courtroom to be inspected to see if there was any subjective change. And therefore they have this right to eternal life. And God is therefore a vindicator, justifier.

There's none of that.

None of that is part of Paul's discussion. None of it. What gives the sinner the legal claim to eternal life and gives him that blessed assurance? It is his justification. It is his legal acquittal. It is the blood and righteousness of Christ alone.

That's what justification by faith alone is all about. And then our brachial continues. Add to this, but of him you are in Christ Jesus who of God has made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

And there he's quoting that to show that justification is not sanctification. Justification and sanctification are different things. And then our brachial continues on here.

I love this.

Fourthly, he says, it's just one sentence. Consider also that if justification consisted in the infusion of holiness, every person would be perfect, which is contrary to scripture. That's a good argument.

He's exactly right. Fifthly, if non-imputation of sin were the same as the infusion of righteousness, imputation of sin will be the same as the infusion of sin. This is an absurdity, for our sins were also imputed to Christ.

See what he's saying? If you deny that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us in our justification, then you also have to deny that his righteousness can be imputed to us. And if you think that justification consists in the infusion of righteousness, you would have to think that Jesus was infused with wickedness at the cross, which is absurd because Jesus remains sinless in himself as he is in himself throughout his ordeal on the cross.

God transfers the guilt to Christ and then the punishment falls upon him. That's what the crucifixion is. God legally treats Christ as though he was me. That's what 2 Corinthians 5 .21 means. God made him who knew no sin to be sin in behalf of us.

Did Jesus become a sinner? No, he did not. But he was legally reckoned as such, treated as such. Sin was imputed, charged to his legal account. That's why he died on the cross. It was to take the punishment, to remove the guilt and take the wrath away so that God could be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Now after this, Braco goes into several objections, which he does a really good job of answering, but I don't consider these three objections that are listed here to be overly good. I've actually heard all three of these made by Roman Catholics in debates over the years.

But let's see, let me get past this here in my Kindle. Okay, listen to this section here now. The Act of Justification Described and Clarified.

He says,.

Having dealt with the meaning of the word, we shall proceed to consider the matter itself. In order to perceive this, so to speak, in one glance, we shall in the first place give a brief description of this.

Now I will say, this definition of justification here is one of the best I have ever read from.

Anybody.

And I think this is one of the reasons that a Braco is so precious as a theologian in this work. The Christian's reasonable service is so excellent. Listen to his definition of justification and seriously ask yourself, is this what Piper and his defenders, do they believe this?

I don't think they do. I think they can't. Listen to what it says. Here's what justification is according to a Braco. Justification is a gracious work of God, whereby he as righteous judge acquits the elect from guilt and punishment and declares them to be heirs of eternal life because of the righteousness of Christ, the surety imputed to them by God and received by them through faith.

You see what he's connecting to eternal life here. What is it that declares the sinner to be an heir of eternal life, meaning they're going to heaven when they die. It is the righteousness of Christ, the surety imputed to them by God and received by them.

Through faith.

This trying, this attempt to break salvation into a two-stage affair where you have initial justification by faith alone, totally outside of yourself, it's imputed to your account, no works of law go into it at all.

But then you have this second category, this final salvation, this future justification, this future salvation, future grace, whatever terminology you want to use. And then our fruits and our good works and our sanctification enters into the rendering of that final verdict.

You need to understand that historic reformed theology has not held that because, very simply, because the Bible doesn't. What is it that gives the sinner a right to eternal life? What makes them an heir of eternal life is the righteousness of Christ, the surety imputed to them by God.

So it's that justification, it's that justification that alone gives them a right to eternal life.

Oh, you're an antinomian. No we're not.

Because every person who is justified is also sanctified, but that is a distinct theological category and it differs from justification in that in sanctification, God infuses righteousness into us and he frees us from the dominion of sin more and more and we are made more and more holy.

Remember the larger catechism? Where do justification and sanctification differ? How are they the same? Well, they differ. They differ in that in one, sin is pardoned. In the other, it's mortified subjectively.

So one is a legal transaction about our status permanently before the law of God. The other, the other is something that God works in us subjectively. We are enabled more and more to die unto sin and live unto righteousness.

So they are not the same thing. And it's not that our sanctification completes the process of salvation or of justification because those aren't processes. Those are not processes. Okay, Abraco continues here.

When we refer to this as a work of grace, we do so in reference to man. It is pure and sovereign grace alone that God has chosen his elect, has agreed to the mediation of assurity, has himself ordained and given assurity, and then calls them to Jesus, gives them faith, and without their merits acquits them and renders them a right unto salvation.

It is thus pure, sovereign grace alone. However, as far as the act itself is concerned, it completely conforms to justice in the fullest sense of the word. God does not justify as a merciful father by overlooking sin.

Rather, as a righteous judge, he in the surety, Christ, who has paid and done everything for them, finds them to be free from all guilt and punishment and as having a title to salvation. It is therefore righteous that God declares them to be thus.

Man, that is so good. Right on the money. I'll tell you, The Christian's Reasonable Service has just been promoted as being one of the few books I'm going to make sure all my children have in their possession as part of their personal library before they move out of my house and out of my home.

And it's just so excellent. Everything I've read, all the sections of it that I've read have just been so good. So, Wilhelmus, Abrakel, good stuff. I might even read through and do a few programs on his section on infant baptism.

I started reading that a couple of days ago, too, and it's just excellent. It's just right on the money. Very, very good stuff. So, I may do that as well. I think that might be helpful. But anyway, this has been Patrick Hines for The Protestant Witness.

Thank you for listening. This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, located at 108 Bridwell Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee. And you've been listening to The Protestant Witness podcast.

Please feel free to join us for worship any Sunday morning at 11 a .m. sharp, where we open the word of God together, sing his praises, and rejoice in the gospel of our risen Lord. You can find us on the web at www .bridwellheightspca .org.

May the Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.