What Is Justification?

One of the most important subjects of the Christian faith is the doctrine of justification. Martin Luther said this is “the article by which the church stands or falls,” and John Calvin said, “Justification is the main hinge on which salvation turns.”[1] To get this doctrine wrong is to get the Christian faith wrong. Therefore, enemies of the faith attack this doctrine regularly. What must one do in order to be saved by God? What role do faith and works play in salvation? What exactly did Christ do for guilty sinners on Calvary? These and other pivotal questions will be addressed in this paper.

An accurate explanation of the nature of justification can be found in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 11, paragraph 1. In this essay, the author will expound this paragraph to bring out its: historical context, addressing the issues of Roman Catholicism and their contrary doctrine; biblical basis, in order to justify the framers’ claims from God’s revelation; and practical applications, such as an apologetic against Catholicism, which would deny the gospel, and a foundation for witnessing to its adherents.

Chapter 11, paragraph 1 states:

Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.[2]


The paragraph begins by stating, “Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies.” The doctrine of justification is not to be a stand-alone doctrine, but is accompanied by many doctrines which come before, such as election and effectual calling, and which come after, such as sanctification and glorification. These doctrines together show the unity of God’s salvific work and must be seen in relation to one another as seen in the chain of salvation in Romans 8:29­­­­–30. Therefore, one should read this paragraph in light of the chapters before and after it – as the framers of the confession would have it.[3] ­

The paragraph consists of three negative and positive assertions given in light of the challenges from Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, and the Anabaptists, but the author will focus most on the challenges with Rome. The first of these assertions states, “not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous.” This is the great divide between Rome and the Reformers. Roman Catholics believe sinners are justified by a righteousness that is infused into them while the confession directly contradicts this.

The nature of the “righteousness” Catholics speak of is different from how the Reformers viewed it and needs to be rightly understood. James Akin, a Catholic apologist, says, “We do receive the righteousness of Christ—that is, the righteousness which comes from Christ and which Christ merited for us—but we do not receive his own personal level of righteousness and reward.”[4] To Catholics, it is impossible for one to receive Christ’s personal, sinless righteousness because “we would all have exactly the same level of glory as our Savior who went to the Cross for us.” Therefore, one is not given a perfect righteousness that makes him justified before God legally. Instead, the term is redefined, and means that one is inherently changed and becomes good and upright on the basis of their own personal righteousness, or “justification,” which God graciously infuses in man by means of faith or baptism.[5]

With this understanding of justification, Rome believes it is the process by which sinners are sanctified and made righteous, thus conflating the Biblical understanding of justification and sanctification. On the other hand, the 1689 Confession views these as two separate doctrines. Justification deals with an individual’s legal standing before God while sanctification has to do with the heart being changed and progressively conformed to the character of God.[6] Therefore, justification is not by infusion, but is a “pardoning of their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous.” These are legal terms related to a court of law. As Mark Sarver notes,

When Martin Luther rediscovered the biblical doctrine of justification, he abandoned the medical imagery of infusion for the legal concept of judicial declaration. Justification was returned from its medieval setting of a hospital bed to the biblical setting of a courtroom.[7]

The Bible is clear on the use of these terms. For one, the word “justification” in common usage is to declare or pronounce someone as righteous, not to make someone righteous or holy in themselves. This is prevalent throughout the Bible (Dt. 25:1, Prov. 17:15, Is. 5:23, Lk. 7:29, 18:14, Rom. 3:23–24, 4:3, 5:1). Within this same string of texts, also note, secondly, the difference between “justification” and “condemnation.” These are terms associated with judicial, courtroom pronouncements. Mark Sarver makes the point, “What is it to condemn the wicked? It is certainly not making someone wicked by infusing wickedness into them. Rather, it is to judicially declare or pronounce him guilty because of his transgression of the law.”[8]

Thirdly, the book of Romans, which speaks extensively on justification, has a context that is filled with courtroom language (Rom. 2:2, 2:15–16, 3:9–10, 19–20, 4:3, 7–9, 5:1, 8:34, 14:10).[9] Without a doubt, justification means what it says, and the Reformers got it right.

So why is this a crucial distinction to make? Because this is regarding how we are saved by God, it is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the gospel is at stake. There is only one gospel, as the Apostle Paul said, “if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). The significant difference of these two views is seen in the fact that one side views God as looking down and judging man to discern how righteous he is by his faith and obedience, while the other perceives God as declaring a particular people righteous on the basis of His Son’s righteous obedience.

This is, indeed, a gospel issue, and it is understandable that the Council of Trent (1545–1563) would anathematize the Protestants on this point and vice versa.[10] And with Catholics today working hard to bend Catholic and Protestant language closely together, it is important that Christians focus on this point of the gospel, making the appropriate distinctions between justification and sanctification in order to point them to Christ and what He accomplished for sinners as revealed in Scripture.

There is better news than Rome can offer, stated succinctly in the 1689 Confession, and clearly revealed in the Scriptures. There is a great God and Judge in heaven who “pardons their sins” completely and “freely” (Is. 55, Jn. 6:35–40), not counting any of their sins against them – past, present, and future (Ps. 103:12, Mic. 7:19) – and who forgives all who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus (Rom. 10:9, Acts 16:30–31), “accounting and accepting their persons as righteous” (Rom. 4:8, Eph. 1:6–7, Rom. 15:7). Sinners are granted the righteousness bestowed by Christ Himself in order to redeem us (2 Cor. 2:21). Therefore, all of our boasting is in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:28–31).

In light of Rome’s teaching, that being right with God comes by grace plus merit, faith plus the sacraments, and Christ plus the church, the framers said, “Not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone.” For one to believe that anything is worked in the individual by the means of baptism or other sacraments, furthering them in justification, is to again assume that justification is a progressive, inherent work within a person, and not a declaration from the heavenly Judge. As the Reformers taught, justification is declared to us by grace alone, through faith alone, in “Christ alone” (Rom. 3:28, Eph. 2:8–9, Phil. 3:3–9).

 The last negative assertion states, “Not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness.” Faith is not something that one conjures up in oneself and is rewarded for as one’s own righteousness. It is “the act of believing,” and a gift from God (Eph. 2:8). Faith is indeed a work or human activity, but it is a passive activity – not laboring, working, or doing, but receiving, resting, and trusting in Christ. This is why faith is the sole instrument of justification rather than repentance, baptism, or any other grace, because it clearly displays that justification is solely by grace, for God’s glory.

Rome is correct to believe saving faith should not be alone, apart from works. If it was, this would be considered by both Rome and the Reformers as a dead faith (Jam. 2:26). It is the teaching of Rome, however, that faith and evangelical obedience working together are what earn eternal life, through their righteousness. In other words, Faith + Works = Justification. The Confession strongly disagrees with this understanding, and rightly reformed the equation: Faith = Justification + Works. The Christian works in light of His justification, not for his justification. Rome’s error again stems from their redefinition and conflation of justification and sanctification. The Church must distinguish between the two, recognizing that man is justified by faith alone, but a faith that is not alone (Gal. 5:6, Jam. 2:17, 22, 26).[11] John Flavel provides a helpful distinction: “There is a twofold evil in sin, the guilt of it and the pollution of it. Justification properly cures the former, sanctification the latter; but both justification and sanctification flow unto sinners out of the death of Christ.”[12]

How do we see error being taught today? Mike Schmitz, on his popular Catholic YouTube channel, made the argument that Catholics do not believe they are saved “by works,” but instead, “it is by grace, through faith, working itself out in love” (Gal. 5:6).[13] How does one respond to this? Are sinners justified before God by faith working itself out in love? The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 would answer that question this way: “Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.”[14]

In other words, no, a sinner is not legally justified by grace, through faith working itself out in love. The sinner is only justified by his faith, which is resting and trusting in Christ’s work on the cross. In the sense of justification, the Confession states that there are no works which accompany faith, else they nullify the grace of God, and Christ died for no purpose (Gal. 2:21). But outside of the realm of justification, and moving into the realm of sanctification, saving faith is always a living faith. In Galatians 5:6, Paul is saying that a justified faith is not without works, but one must not read into this text that faith is not sufficient for justification. For Paul says elsewhere, “For we hold that we are justified apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). One would imagine Paul responding to the Catholic view of justification as he does earlier to the Galatians: “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:2–3).

The Confession now moves to the first of its three positive statements, “But by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death.” Imputation is a legal term which can mean “regard” or “transfer” and refers to Christ’s obedience, both active and passive, being credited to believers by faith (Ps. 32:2, Rom. 4:5, 7–8). Distinguishing between Christ’s active and passive obedience may seem like a division of His work, but it is not. It is simply looking at His perfect obedience from two different perspectives because they accomplish two different goals. The two-fold obedience is seen in 2 Corinthians 2:21: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin [passive] on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him [active].” For sinners to inherit eternal life, they need to be both forgiven of their sins by Christ’s passive obedience and given a righteousness not their own by Christ’s active obedience. This obedience is seen in the last Adam who would do what the first Adam could not do, and undo what he did (Rom. 5:12–19). This may come across as too scholarly for some, but when believers proclaim the gospel and say, “Christ died for sinners so that you can be forgiven and reconciled to God,” they are implying that Christ both suffered the penalty for sins that resulted from Adam’s sin (passive obedience), and perfectly kept God’s righteous law so that sinners can be counted as righteous (active obedience). Barry Cooper eloquently expresses the necessity of both,

It’s that double demand of God’s law that makes Christ’s active and passive obedience necessary. He both fulfills the law’s demands and pays its penalty. He perfectly obeyed His Father’s law as our previous representative, Adam, had failed to do, and—as our new representative, the final Adam—He took the penalty prescribed by God’s law for our disobedience.

If He had not done both, we would still be under condemnation. But because He did do both, we can say with joy and relief, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ.”

Thank God for both the passive and the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.[15]

Delving into this further, active obedience would be the perfect keeping of God’s law as Christ did every moment of His life, from infancy to death (Phil. 2:8, Jn. 14:31, 15:10). Though tempted at His weakest moments, such as in the wilderness and in Gethsemane, Christ never gave in to sin for the sake of His Father and sheep. And in Christ’s passive obedience, literally His “suffering” obedience, He drinks the whole cup of God’s wrath to the bottom. Therefore, having defeated death on the cross and broken the chains of sin, He has earned forgiveness for all who come to Christ Jesus in faith. This is the believer’s boast and joy.

The Confession finishes with, “For their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.” Roman Catholics would believe that sinners do not receive Christ’s personal, perfect righteousness – and how could they? If they do, then sinners would receive the same rewards as Christ, such as all authority in heaven and on earth. This is a poor misunderstanding. God commands us to be holy as He is holy (1 Pet. 1:15–16), and since man is not, he is under a curse (Gal. 3:10). Christ’s perfect, sinless obedience is solely and wholly credited to all who receive and rest in Him (2 Cor. 5:21, Lk. 15:22). This is how Christ justifies the believer and forgives them of their sin, and this is through the instrument of faith (Jn. 3:16, Rom. 5:1, 10:9). Of course, believers do not receive the same reward as Christ does for His obedience. Christ has received a people by His death (Rev. 5:9), authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18), and has been highly exalted above every name, at which every knee shall bow (Phil. 2:9–10). But because the believer does not personally earn or merit this righteousness as his own, he does not receive the same reward as Christ does, but instead, the believer is imputed Christ’s righteousness and is assured eternal life, peace with God, and adoption into His kingdom (Eph. 1:1–14, Rom. 5:1).

This perfect righteousness that is imputed to the believer is by faith, which is not of themselves. “It is the gift of God, not a result of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9). On the other hand, the Catholic has plenty of room to boast in his justification because it is progressive and up to him as to whether or not he will merit enough righteousness to enter into heaven. Rome’s understanding of justification is consistently contradicted by the words of Scripture. Christians have nothing to boast about in themselves, but like Paul, they count all of their works as loss (Phil. 3:7). Because they are in Christ Jesus through the righteousness that was imputed to them, they therefore boast in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:30). It is a dangerous game to look to one’s own righteousness and depend on God to see if he meets the standard of holiness required. James Renihan notes a Roman Cardinal, Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), who made one of the greatest concessions in his time on justification, saying, “By reason of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, it is the safest course to repose our whole trust in the mercy and kindness or grace of God alone.”[16] Bellarmine saw his inability and the need to trust in the Lord, who is thrice holy.

With the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, this humble step backwards will leave him lacking assurance in his salvation. Is this the fruit of the Spirit? By no means! “We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). The Christian is not left in despondency, but instead clings to Christ and His gospel in faith (Heb. 11:1). The Christian can know he is saved because he looks to Christ in faith (1 Jn. 5:13).

Sam Waldron makes a sobering point about Rome on this division over justification,

While Romans makes clear the centrality of this doctrine [of justification] in calm and measured theological statements, Galatians makes clear its essential nature through the white heat of apostolic indignation… Paul pronounces terrible curses on any who would turn the gospel into a system of salvation by works and ceremonies (Gal. 1:8–9, 3:10, 4:30, 5:12). The classic assertion of the centrality of the doctrine of justification is, however, found in Galatians 5:4: ‘You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.’ Here Paul makes clear that deviation on this subject constitutes apostasy from Christ and forfeiture of that grace without which men cannot be saved.[17]

Because of the fatal error of Rome, there is no way in which a Christian can agree to disagree with Catholics and work with them in ministry. The gospel is at stake, and this is why over 500 years ago, the Reformation had to happen. Out of love for the Christian’s Catholic neighbors, one must not affirm their religion on the basis of their sincerity but must share with them the gospel as revealed in the Bible.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is valuable in observing how the framers responded to heresy. Roman Catholicism, like many other heretical systems in Christendom, loves to sound like Christians and use their language to capture the ignorant (1 Tm. 4:1–3, 2 Pet. 2:1–3). This confession can be a helpful guide in responding to those who would deny central doctrines of the faith and will aid in defending against contrary beliefs. On the other hand, this paragraph on justification is glorious, and moves the believer into the state awe as he meditates on what took place at Calvaries cross . Come to Calvary and see for yourself Christ’s obedience, His sufferings, His love for the Father, and His love for His sheep. Glory! Glory! Glory! What a Savior we have in Jesus!

Written by Jeremy Johnson, a member of The Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville and M. Div student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akin, James. “Justification in Catholic Teaching.” EWTN (blog). Accessed April 24, 2024. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/justification-in-catholic-teaching-1063/.

Cooper, Barry. “Active and Passive Obedience to Christ.” Ligonier (blog). Last Accessed October 22, 2019. https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/active-and-passive-obedienceofchrist#:~:text=Both%20are%20essential%20parts%20of,failure%20to%20obey%20God's%20law/.

Phillips, Rick. “Through the Westminster Confession Chapter 11.2, Part Two.” Reformation21, accessed April 24, 2024, https://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/03/chapter-112-part-two.php/.

Reeves, Stan. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press.

Renihan, M. James. To The Judicious and Impartial Reader. vol. 2. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2022.

Sarver, Mark. A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. ed. Rob Ventura. Scotland: Mentor, 2022.

Schmitz, Mike. “What You Need to Be Saved (Faith vs. Works)” (YouTube Video). Accessed April 24, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixHGR2wL7_o/.

Smith, W. Dale. Ore From The Puritan’s Mine. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020.

“The Council of Trent Session 6, Canons 9 and 11.” Kansas State University. Last modified September 02, 1999. Accessed April 24, 2020. https://www.kstate.edu/english/baker/ english233/Council_of_T rent6.htm#:~:text=Canon %209.,will%2C%20let%20him %2 0be%20anathema/.

“The Council of Trent Sixth Session, cannons.” Traditional Catholic Net. Accessed April 24, 2024. http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Council/Trent/Sixth_Session,_Canons.html/.

Waldren, Samuel. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. England: Evangelical Press, 2016.

[1] Mark Sarver. “A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689,” ed. Rob Ventura (Scotland: Mentor, 2022), 194–195.  

 [2] Stan Reeves, “The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English” (Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2017), Chap. 11, par. 1.

[3] James M. Renihan, To The Judicious and Impartial Reader, vol. 2, (Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2022), 275.

 [4] James Akin, “Justification in Catholic Teaching,” EWTN (blog), accessed April 24, 2024, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/justification-in-catholic-teaching-1063/.

[5] “The Council of Trent Sixth Session, cannons,” Traditional Catholic Net, August 18, 2020, http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Council/Trent/Sixth_Session,_Canons.html/.

 [6] Mark Sarver. “A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689,” ed. Rob Ventura (Scotland: Mentor, 2022), 196.

 [7] Ibid., 197.

[8] Mark Sarver. “A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689,” ed. Rob Ventura, (Scotland: Mentor, 2022), 197.

 [9] Ibid, 198.

 [10] Council of Trent, Session 6, Canons 9 and 11, in Kansas State University, https://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english233/Council_of_Trent6.htm#:~:text=Canon%209.,will%2C%20let%20him%20be%20anathema/.

[11] Sam Waldren, “A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith,” (England: Evangelical Press, 2016), 189.

 [12] Dale W. Smith, “Ore From The Puritan’s Mine,” (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020), 294.

 [13] Mike Schmitz, “What You Need to Be Saved (Faith vs. Works),” YouTube, video, 11:46, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixHGR2wL7_o/.

 [14] Rick Phillips, “Through the Westminster Confession Chapter 11.2, Part Two,” Reformation21, accessed April 24, 2024, https://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/03/chapter-112-part-two.php/.

 [15] Barry Cooper, “Active and Passive Obedience to Christ,” Ligonier (blog), https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/active-and-passive-obedience-of-christ#:~:text=Both%20are%20essential%20parts%20of,failure%20to%20obey%20God's%20law/.

[16] James M. Renihan, To The Judicious and Impartial Reader, vol. 2, (Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2022), 279.

 [17] Sam Waldren, “A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith,” (England: Evangelical Press, 2016), 190.