MattPerman.com

Gallup Poll on Income Redistribution

by

Gallup has a helpful article on how Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy. “Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.”

This extends across parties and income levels:

Americans’ lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

Should the Government Raise Taxes on Those Making More Than $250,000?

by

It has been said on the campaign trail a couple of times now that those making over $250,000/year can “afford” to pay more in taxes. There are lots and lots of problems with this thinking. First among them is that the issue is not about what citizens can “afford,” but about what the government has a right to do with people’s money. Another issue is that this statement wrongly assumes that the government can utilize that money more effectively than the individual who earned it. We’ll talk about these things more in future posts on making good decisions in the economic and political realms. (In the meantime, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics 3rd Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy.)

But if we want to talk about fairness, Hugh Hewitt made an excellent point last Friday in his post on Obama’s plan to “share the wealth:”

What Obama doesn’t understand is that behind every small business that gets to the level he where he wants to slam new taxes on it, are years and sometimes decades of hard work and low, if any, profits, deferred dreams, and large debts that need to be paid from today’s success as well as tomorrow’s retirement plan to fund.

The Great Depression as we Know it Was Avoidable

by

Most of my life I’ve been wondering, far in the back of my mind, if another spell like the Great Depression or the misery index of the 1970s would hit. This probably stems in part from the media (they always seem to be talking about the dangers of a recession, whether the economy is doing well or struggling), and in part from thinking that events like the Great Depression are random or periodic necessities of the business cycle that are completely out of our control.

The recent financial crisis has motivated me to look into the causes of the Great Depression more fully. The chair of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, is actually an expert on it, and his book Essays on the Great Depression is very good. He points out that “to understand the Great Depression is the Holy Grail of macro-economics.” One accomplishment of the book is to show the very significant role that governmental monetary policy–rather than just the standard business cycle–played in causing and continuing the depression.

In fact, there is a good amount of literature out there making a good case that the actions of the federal government were responsible for making the Great Depression much deeper and longer than it would have been otherwise. This makes sense from an understanding of the basic principles of economics. Perhaps the best summary of this comes from Jim Powell’s book FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, which is also proving to be an excellent read.

Here is Powell’s summary:

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that the Great Depression as we know it was avoidable. Better policies could have prevented the bank failures which accelerated the contraction of the money supply and brought on the Great Depression. The Great Depression could have been over much more quickly–the United States recovered from the severe 1920 depression in about a year. Chronic high unemployment persisted during the 1930s because of a succession of misguided New Deal policies.

A principal lesson for us today is that if economic shocks are followed by sound policies, we can avoid another Great Depression. A government will best promote a speedy business recovery by making recovery the top priority [FDR’s administration made “reform of capitalism,” not recovery, its top priority], which means letting people keep more of their money, removing obstacles to productive enterprise, and providing stable money and a political climate where investors feel that it’s safe to invest for the future.”

Here we have a large example of the effect that making bad decisions can have on people.

Why Justification by Faith Alone is Necessary for Good Works

by

“Justification by faith alone frees me to love my neighbor disinterestedly, for his or her own sake, as my sister or brother, not as the calculated means to my own desired ends,” writes Timothy George of why the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone encourages rather than discourages good works.[1]  The freedom to love “disinterestedly” does not, of course, mean that we should not seek joy in loving others, but (as the rest of the sentence shows) that we do not have to love our neighbors in order to meet our own needs.  Rather, we are free to love them without ulterior motives and simply for the sake of the joy we find in their welfare, to the glory of God.

In other words, if we had to love our neighbor in order to be justified, then we could not genuinely love our neighbor because we would not be free to love him for his own sake.  Rather, we would have to “use” our neighbors as a means toward securing our own ultimate fulfillment (i.e., eternal salvation)—which would hardly be the love God calls forth from us in passages like Matthew 22:37-40.[2]   But if we are justified apart from good works (such as loving our neighbor), then “we are free ‘to be Christ’s unto one another,’ to expend ourselves on behalf of one another, even as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us.”[3]  Consequently, the only way to truly obey God’s command to love our neighbor, ironically, is to realize that our obedience is not necessary in order to be justified.[4]

The traditional Protestant doctrine of justification seems, therefore, to safeguard genuine love among the people of God.  And this is because, at its deepest level, the doctrine of justification is the foundation of our relationship to God.  John Calvin expressed this well when he wrote that “unless you first of all grasp what your relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.”

It is a very serious matter, therefore, that many modern scholars argue that the Reformers have misunderstood the doctrine of justification at a fundamental level. If these modern scholars are right, then traditional Protestants have built their love for neighbor and relationship with God on a false foundation.  But if these scholars are wrong, then their own work is serving to undermine and even destroy the foundation of genuine love for people and a secure relationship with God.


[1] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1988), 73.  George is speaking primarily of Luther’s doctrine in the immediate context; however, because of the fundamental continuity on the doctrine of justification among Luther, the other Reformers, and traditional Protestantism up to the present day, his statement applies to and concerns the traditional Protestant doctrine as well.

[2] To use Dr. Daniel Fuller’s helpful terminology, love for our neighbor would come perilously close to taking the form of need love rather than benevolent love if loving our neighbor was in fact necessary to be justified (i.e., to have a right to eternal satisfaction in God).

[3] George, 73.

[4] This might partially explain why Paul thinks that understanding justification by faith alone spurs us on to good deeds.  For example, after expounding justification by faith alone (along with some other doctrines) in Titus 3:1-7, he then writes, “concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God may be careful to engage in good deeds.”

What is the Doctrine of Justification?

by

John Calvin, the great Reformer, spoke for many when he declared that justification is “the main hinge on which religion turns.” Why is it so important? Because “unless you first of all grasp what your relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.”[1]

Such an important doctrine demands to be understood. This is an attempt to explain the essence of what Protestantism has traditionally taken to be the essence of the biblical doctrine of justification. The goal here is not defend that this understanding is correct, but rather to clarify the traditional Protestant view so that it can be more readily compared to the many divergent views in circulation today.

Charles Hodge captured the essence of the Protestant view of the biblical teaching on justification when he wrote that justification is “a sentence of life pronounced upon righteousness.”[2] There are two aspects of this definition that need unfolding if it is to be understood.

A title to eternal life

First, in justification we are accepted by God into the blessing of eternal life. He pronounces us to be in possession of His blessing of eternal life and, by this pronouncement, causes us to be in actual possession of this blessing. We are, in other words, given a title to eternal life. Just as I received a title to my car when I purchased it which made me a possessor of the car with a right to access it, so also having a title to eternal life means possessing the right to live forever in God’s blessing with access to His presence. Justification is not the experience of the blessing of life, but is rather our right to have the experience of life. In the same way, the title to my car does not consist in my driving of my car, but is that which gives me the right to drive my car.

To use another analogy, just as a key gives access to a locked door, so also justification is the granting of access to eternal life. The difference is that a key just gives you the ability to open a door, whereas justification actually brings the possession of eternal life.

The basis of basis of our title to life

Second, there is a basis upon which this title to eternal life is given. We are given a right to eternal life in justification, but why does God give us that right? That is the question answered here. The basis of our eternal life is the reason that we have a title to that life; it is the reason that we possess it.

This might appear ambiguous at first. Take the example of a courtroom. If an innocent man is on trial for murder and the court acquits him upon discovering that his fingerprints do not match those on the murder weapon, we might say that the reason he was acquitted is the coming to light of this knowledge.

That is not what we mean by basis.

For in the deepest sense, that man was not set free because his prints were not on the gun. He was set free because He did not commit the crime. The prints are simply the evidence that he was innocent, not the reason he was innocent. The fact that He was innocent, then, is the basis of his being set free (i.e., being given the right to freedom). The existence of somebody else’s prints on the murder weapon is the evidence which revealed the fact that he was innocent. It is in this sense that we are using the terms “basis” and “evidence” concerning justification.

In the same way, then, the perfect alien (i.e., outside of us as opposed to inherent in us) righteousness of Christ is the sole basis of our right to eternal life. Faith is the sole means of receiving this righteousness. A “means” is different from a “basis.” The paycheck a worker receives is given on the basis of the work he did, not on the basis of his accepting that paycheck. The acceptance of the check is the means to receiving it; the 40 hours of work he is getting paid for is the basis of the paycheck.

The faith that justifies necessarily results in an obedient life, but that obedience is in no way the means or basis of our justification. Our good works, rather, are the evidence that we have true faith and thus the evidence that we possess the righteousness of Christ—but not the basis of our title to eternal life. Just as the lack of fingerprints on the gun did not make the man innocent but revealed his innocence, so neither do our good works make us right with God but, rather, reveal that we are right with God.

Finally, a difference between the courtroom analogy and our justification should be mentioned. In the courtroom analogy, the basis of the man’s acquittal was his innocence. Our right to eternal life, however, is not based simply upon the removal of our sins in Christ but also on the positive obedience (righteousness) of Christ reckoned to our account. In justification, to use an analogy from the life of Joseph, we are not simply set free from prison, but are made rulers of Egypt. Innocence by itself would set us free from hell, but would not secure for us a title to heavenly and eternal glory. That is based upon the positive righteousness of Christ.

Concerning terms

To summarize in the words of John Calvin, a man “is said to be justified in God’s sight who is both reckoned righteous in God’s judgment and has been accepted on account of his righteousness.”[3] Justification is the reckoning of righteousness to our account and the consequent right to all the blessings that belong to perfect righteousness.

It may be disputed whether the Bible calls this “justification.” While I think it does, my greatest concern is not over the label given to the reality described above. My chief concern is that the reality itself be affirmed, whatever it is called.

For those who hold to views of justification different from that described above the question which needs to be raised is this: Are you denying that God gives us a title to eternal life on the basis (in the sense described above) of the righteousness of Christ alone, or are you simply saying that the term justification is not the best way to describe this reality? Are you using simply “justification” to refer to both the reality described above as well as our inner transformation, or are you saying that our title to eternal life is, in part, based upon (in the sense described above) the transformation that God works in us?

In a nutshell, do you affirm that our right to eternal life is based (in the sense described above) upon the alien righteousness of Christ alone received through faith alone and not at all on the moral transformation that God works in us?

Notes

1. John Calvin, Institutes, III, XI, 2.

2. Charles Hodge, Justification by Faith Alone, (Hobbs, NM: The Trinity Foundation, 1995), p. 27.

3. John Calvin, Institutes, III, XI, 2.

The Freedom of Sanctification

by

This is the Bible study mentioned in chapter 1 of Unstuck.

I. Throughout this study, the danger that comes from false views of sanctification will become evident to us. I think that most of us, myself included, have been suffering under much false (or, at least inadequate) teaching on sanctification. I hope that the truth will set us free.

A. “There is so much false teaching on sanctification today that it would take an entire volume just to record the various theories. And let [us not] think that false views of sanctification are harmless. One great problem in modern missions is the staggering number of missionaries who quit after or before their first term is completed on the mission field. A good number of those returning seek psychiatric help. Why is there such a large turnover of missionaries? Why do many zealous, sincere missionaries develop tremendous psychological problems? [Because of] inadequate and defective views of the Christian life, i.e., sanctification….And it should not be assumed that only missionaries can suffer mental and physical damage due to false teaching on sanctification. The same problems are evident in pastors, laymen and even in Seminary and Bible school teachers.”[1]

II. Definition: Sanctification is the gracious work of God by which He makes us holy that is, more and more like Christ. It is most specifically the work of the Holy Spirit, involving our participation, by which He delivers us as justified sinners from the pollution of sin, renews our entire nature according to the moral image of God, and enables us to live lives pleasing to Him.[2]

III. We are active, not passive, in sanctification.

A. I’m sure you’ve heard the common phrases, “Let Christ do it through you,” “Do it in God’s power,” and “Let go and let God.” I find these phrases extremely unhelpful and terribly vague if they are not defined biblically. What in the world does it mean to “Let Christ do it through you”? Does that mean that I am supposed to be inactive? Does leading a Bible study, for example, in Christ’s power mean that I just sit here and be silent so that Christ can do it instead of me? Or does it mean that I don’t use my mind to think about what I’m going to say, but just “empty my mind” and expect Christ to manipulate me like a puppet, causing me to speak and lead apart from the normal operations of my humanity? Does fighting lust in Christ’s power mean that I am supposed to “get out of the way” by ignoring the lust and expect Christ to take care of it automatically, apart from my own personal effort?

B. Absolutely not!!! It is common for people to use phrases such as “Let Christ do it through you” to mean that our role is simply to “give the task to Christ,” and then He will do everything else while we remain passive and watch on. In opposition to this, the Bible teaches that Christ’s power works through our efforts, not apart from our efforts. Christ empowers us to act!

    1. 1. We are to be zealous to take action in sanctification.

 

      1. a. We are to

run

      1. : 1 Corinthians 9:24, 26; Hebrews 12:1.

 

      1. b. We are to

labor

      1. : 1 Corinthians 15:10. What do you notice from this verse on the relationship between God’s power and our activity?

 

      1. c. We are to

press on

      1. : Philippians 3:14.

 

      1. d. We are to

work out

      1. our salvation: Philippians 2:12-13. According to these verses, what is the relationship between God’s activity and our activity? Does God stop working when we work? Are we to stop working when God works?

 

      1. e. We are to

strive

      1. : Colossians 1:29.

 

      1. f. We are to

pursue

    1. righteousness: 2 Timothy 2:21.

C. Thus, living in Christ’s power doesn’t mean that we stop acting so that He can start acting. It is not “Let go and let God” but “Trust God and get going.” Letting Christ live through you doesn’t mean that you aren’t the one who strives and acts, but that He empowers your efforts. It means:

    1. 1. Make sure that you are acting in response to His will revealed in Scripture. It is helpful to even claim specific promises.

 

    1. 2. Admit that apart from Him you can do nothing.

 

    1. 3. Ask Him for power and to reinforce in you motives of love (1 Cor. 16:14) and His glory (1 Cor. 10:31).

 

    1. 4. And then

act

    with joy, knowing that it is His grace empowering you as you do. 5. Thank Him for His grace.

D. “…by biblical standards [the] passivity frame if reference is altogether wrong, for the Holy Spirit’s ordinary way of working in us is through the working of our own minds and wills. He moves us to act by causing us to see reasons for moving ourselves to act. Thus our conscious, rational selfhood, so far from being annihilated, is strengthened, and in reverent, resolute obedience we work out our salvation, knowing that God is at work in us to make us “….both …will and …work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). This is holiness and in the process of perfecting it there is, properly speaking, no passivity at all.”[3]

E. “Souls that cultivate passivity do not thrive, but waste away….[passivity is] hostile to Christian maturity.”[4]

F. Does this mean that “God does half and we do half”? In other words, that God only does so much, and then the rest ultimately depends on me to make God’s efforts successful? No, of course not. God is sovereign and brings about all things. But He causes our holy actions, as Packer says, by causing us to move ourselves to act. God sovereignly acts so that it is certain that we will actively (not passively) do what He has determined.

    1. “God’s working in us is not suspended because we work, nor our working suspended because God works. Nor is the relationship strictly one of co-operation as if God did His part and we did ours….God works in us and we also work. But the relationship is that because God works, we work.”[5]

IV. An error related to the passivity described above is called Quietism.

A. This is the error that “you cannot do anything that pleases God till, over and above the directives of Scripture and common sense and the calls to action issued by knowledge of your neighbors’ needs, you have a specific inward urge from the Spirit to make a move. Without this, they [say], you should never attempt anything of spiritual significance at all; not read Scripture, not pray, not go to church, not give to God’s cause, not render service of any kind. Passive inaction is the only right course till the Spirit stirs you.”[6] This seems to be very close, if not identical, with what is taught by the authors of the popular series Experiencing God.

B. In contrast to this, we should follow John Wesley’s biblical guideline: “Do all the good you can,” guided by wisdom and done in prayer and Christ’s power.

    1. 1. The Scriptures we saw above which command us to be active also imply that we ought to take initiative.

 

    1. 2. Romans 1:8-15. Did Paul take initiate and make plans?

 

    1. 3. Romans 15:22-33. Did Paul base His plans on inward impressions and direct communication from God, or wisdom?

 

    1. 4. 1 Thessalonians 3:1. Why did Paul send Timothy to the Thessalonians?

 

    1. 5. Proverbs 3:13-20; 4:5-9; 7:4. How does it seem that God will guide our decisions?

 

    1. 6. Romans 12:2: Is it biblical to think that God bypasses our mind in sanctification? Is it unspiritual to use our minds in decision making?

 

    1. 7. Quietism seems to squash zeal and foster immature decision making. Rather than being guided by the wisdom of the Spirit of God for guidance, it seems to depend upon feelings for guidance.

 

    8. Refer to the study on God’s will for a further refutation of this view.

V. Sanctification is never perfect in this life. We will never become sinless before we die.

A. What would you say to someone who claimed that they have entered upon a higher life of Christianity where they no longer sin? Do you think that this is possible?

    1. 1. Ecclesiastes 7:20. Are there any

righteous

    1. people who never sin?

 

    1. 2. 1 Kings 8:46. Notice, again, that it is in the present tense and includes all people.

 

    1. 3. Proverbs 20:9. What is the implied answer?

 

    1. 4. Matthew 6:12. Do you think that a teaching which renders it unnecessary to pray for something that Jesus told us to pray for, is dangerous? “Just as the prayer for daily bread provides a model for a prayer that should be repeated each day, so the prayer for the forgiveness of sins is included in the type of prayer that should be said each day in a believer’s life.”[7]

 

    1. 5. James 3:2.

 

    1. 6. 1 John 1:8. What is the case if we think that we are sinless?

 

    1. 7. Philippians 3:12. Is Paul perfect?

 

    8. Colossians 3:13. Does Paul expect that Christians will be perfect?

B. Not only do all Christians sin, but all Christians have sin dwelling in them, in their hearts. That is the reason that we still sin.

    1. 1. 1 John 1:8.

 

    2. Romans 8:13.

C. Thus, we will never achieve total and perfect victory over sin in this life. However, that does not mean that we can be satisfied with having sin in our lives. We must continually fight sin and progress in holiness. Although we will never be perfect this side of heaven, God’s mandate is that we continually pursue holiness.

    1. 1. Hebrews 12:14. What does this verse say on the necessity of sanctification?

 

    2. 2 Peter 3:18. What would you say to someone who thought that God didn’t want them to grow, so they weren’t going to seek it?

VI. A paradox that is crucial to resolve: Paul says that Christians have died to sin (Romans 6:2) and that our body of sin has been done away with (Romans 6:2). Why then does he tell us that we must continually resist sin (Romans 6:12) and continually seek to put to death the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13)? How can we reconcile the fact that Paul says that we have died to sin, yet we must keep fighting sin?

A. The solution is in the distinction between definitive and progressive sanctification. In one sense sin is gone, in another sense it remains. When Paul says that we are dead to sin, He means that we have made a decisive break with sin. It no longer dominates us, but rather we are free to pursue righteousness. This is called definitive sanctification. But while definitive sanctification dethrones sin as the ruler of our lives, it does not totally eradicate sin. Thus, we must progressively continue to put it to death remaining sin. This is progressive sanctification. Definitive sanctification is the basis for our progressive sanctification we are able to progressively sanctify ourselves because we have already been definitively sanctified and thus broken with sin.

VII. Definitive sanctification: God’s action once for all, at our conversion, when He dethrones sin in us through Christ’s death, causing us to make a decisive break with it, and makes us become alive to righteousness, causing us to make a decisive turn towards it. This aspect of sanctification is not a process, but a once for all event that has continuing results.

A. This is why sanctification is sometimes spoken of in the past tense.

    1. 1. 1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:11. What tense is the word “sanctified” in?

 

    2. Acts 20:32; 26:18.

B. There are two aspects of definitive sanctification: God makes us die to sin, and makes us alive to righteousness.

    1. 1. We are made to die to sin.

 

      1. a. Romans 6:2, 6, 17-18.

 

      1. b. Colossians 3:3.

 

    1. 2. We are made alive to righteousness.

 

      1. a. Colossians 2:12; 3:1.

 

      1. b. Ephesians 2:4-6.

 

    1. c. Romans 6:18.

C. When we were crucified with Christ and raised to new life?

    1. 1. Because of our union with Christ, we were objectively crucified and raised, 2,00 years ago when He died. This secured the next element:

 

    1. 2. Subjectively, we died to sin and were raised to new life at the point of our conversion.

 

      1. a. Romans 6:1-3. Is definitive sanctification true of all Christians? This requires that it happens at conversion, for otherwise there would be some Christians of whom definitive sanctification is not true.

 

    1. b. The implication of this is that there is no such thing as a wholly defeated Christian. More on this later.

VIII. Progressive sanctification: the continual process of putting sin to death and bringing righteousness to life. It complements definitive sanctification and is based upon it.

A. This is evident from the fact that there is always remaining sin in the believer (see verses above).

B. There are two aspects of progressive sanctification: We must put to death the sin we find in ourselves, and bring righteousness to greater life in us.

    1. 1.

Mortification

    1. : our act of progressively putting sin to death.

 

      1. a. 1 John 3:3. How does the future certainty of being holy encourage our continual seeking after holiness now?

 

      1. b. Romans 6:12.

 

      1. c. Romans 8:13. Who is the one who kills sin?

 

      1. d. 1 Corinthians 15:34.

 

      1. e. Colossians 3:5.

 

    1. 2.

Vivification

    1. : our act of progressively bringing holiness to life.

 

      1. a. 2 Peter 1:5-11.

 

      1. b. 2 Peter 3:18.

 

      1. c. 2 Corinthians 3:18. Does this verse emphasize God’s role? What is the means, in this verse, by which we are transformed? What relevance does this have for learning about God?

 

    1. 3. Verses explicitly including both aspects:

 

      1. a. 1 Corinthians 7:1.

 

      1. b. Romans 6:11, 13, 19.

 

      1. c. Romans 12:2. What is the role of the mind in sanctification? How does this relate to the error of quietism (discussed above)?

 

      1. d. Romans 13:14.

 

    4. While we must distinguish vivification and mortification, we should not separate them in the sense of trying to do only one at a time. Rather, there are elements of both in all of our actions. Can you think of examples? How do you think this understanding can help us be more successful in fighting sin and doing righteousness?

IX. An analysis of Colossians 3:1-5 on the relationship between definitive and progressive.

A. Verses 1-2 describe vivification.

    1. 1. Definite: “If then you

have been raised up

    1. with Christ…” (v. 1).

 

    1. 2. Progressive: “…

keep seeking the things above

    1. , where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Set your mind on the things above

    , not on the things that are on earth” (vv. 1-2).

B. Verses 3 and 5 describe mortification.

    1. 1. Definitive: “For

you have died

    1. and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” (v. 3).

 

      1. a. This verse starts with “For,” indicating that it is a basis for what has gone before in verse two. How does it do this? How does this bring out the connection between vivification and mortification? Definitive and progressive?

 

    1. 2. Progressive: “…Therefore

consider the members of your earthly body as dead to

    1. immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry” (v. 5).

 

    1. a. This verse begins with therefore, indicating that it is a conclusion from what has gone before. What is Paul’s argument? How does this bring out the connection between definitive and progressive?

X. The teaching Colossians 3:9-10 on definitive and progressive sanctification.

A. Where do you see the definitive aspect of sanctification? The progressive?

XI. Can you make sense of 1 Cor. 5:7 without the distinction between definite and progressive?

XII. Summary of definitive and progressive:

A. “Sanctification, therefore, must be understood as both definitive and progressive. In its definitive sense, it means the work of the Spirit whereby He causes us to die to sin, to be raised with Christ, and to be made new creatures. In its progressive sense, it must be understood as the work of the Spirit whereby He continually renews us and transforms us into the likeness of Christ, enabling us to keep on growing in grace and to keep on perfecting in holiness. One could think of definite as the beginning of the process and of progressive as the continual maturing of the new person who was created by definitive sanctification. While sanctification in its entirety is the work of God from beginning to end, particularly in its progressive phase the active participation of the believer is required.”[8]

XIII. We are genuinely new, though not yet totally or perfectly new.

A. I used to wonder how it is possible for us to be new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17) and dead to sin (Romans 6), and yet still have sin indwelling us (1 John 1:8; Romans 7:20; 8:13) and thus have to battle with sin (Hebrews 12:4). But these verses and the biblical teaching we have seen above show us that while definitive sanctification creates a decisive break in our lives, it does not make us perfect. Definitive sanctification makes us genuinely new people, but not perfectly new. Thus, we have good hearts (because they have been made new) that nonetheless have a mixture of sin left in them (because they are not perfectly new yet). It is because definitive sanctification does not make us perfect that we continue battling indwelling sin but because of definitive sanctification sin no longer is master over us and we are able to defeat it and obey God. If we were made totally and perfectly new in definite sanctification, the Bible would not teach progressive sanctification.

B. Colossians 3:9 also teaches this. It says that our new self is being renewed. If it is being renewed, then it is not yet perfect.

C. I will restate this to make sure that it is fully clear. The fact that we are made genuinely new shows that we have made a decisive break with sin, that sanctification involves a once for all aspect (definitive sanctification). The fact that we are not yet totally new because sin remains in us, shows us that sanctification must also be a continuing process (progressive sanctification). We must keep fighting sin and bringing holiness to greater intensity.

XIV. This allows us to answer a difficult question: Does the Christian have two natures?

A. One view holds that at conversion the believer receives an entirely new nature that begins existing alongside his old nature. On this view, the old nature is not changed, but is replaced. It is said to be completely evil and thus never does good. While it is dethroned, it will never change but will exist alongside the new nature until death, when it is fully eradicated. The new nature, on the other hand, is said to be completely good. It never sins, but is perfect. Thus, there are two parts of the believer one is totally perfect, the other is totally evil. I do not believe that this view is true, for the following reasons.

    1. 1. As Robert Morey asks, is forgiveness ever received? The old man is the one who sins, but he never asks for forgiveness because he is wholly evil. The new man, though, never sins and so never seeks forgiveness either. Who, then, is forgiven?

 

    1. 2. Morey asks, “The old man will never be saved while the new man doesn’t need saving. Who then shall be saved?”

 

    3. The best refutation of this view comes from the biblical evidence for another view, described below.

B. The true view seems to be that the old nature is our whole person dominated by sin. In conversion, a new, perfect nature does not come along side this old nature. Rather, our whole selves are made to die to sin and be alive to God. Thus, it is our whole selves, the same thing that was enslaved to sin, that is transformed and made new. The new person is our whole self which is now dominated by righteousness. That is what we saw under definitive sanctification. But this transformation does not make us perfectly unresponsive to sin or perfectly responsive to God. For that reason, sin continues indwelling us–though it is dethroned. It is not that part of me is perfect and part of me is totally evil. Rather, my whole person, which is now directed towards God and away from sin, is a mixture of good and evil. There is more good than evil, and it is the good that rules, but nonetheless stains of sinfulness remain.

    1. 1. John 3:6: Regeneration is described as making us into something, not as just giving us something.

 

    1. 2. 1 Cor. 2:14, 15: The whole person is said to be spiritual.

 

    1. 3. 2 Cor. 5:17: The whole person is a new creation. It doesn’t say that we received a new nature, but that we become new creatures.

 

    1. 4. Colossians 3:10: Our new self is being renewed, and thus is not perfect.

 

    5. It is no more warranted to speak of us as having an old nature and a new nature in the sense above (point A) as it is to speak of us as being both regenerate and unregenerate.

C. In what sense can we speak of the believer as having two natures?

    1. 1. If that is meant is that within us we have both sinful tendencies and righteous tendencies, in that sense it can be said that we have two natures. It is not that part of us is perfect and the other part is totally evil, but that our whole selves have been transformed and made good, but not perfectly good. The sin that remains indwelling us in this sense may be considered the “old nature.” Sinfulness used to dominate us, but we have made a decisive break with it and it is therefore dethroned, yet still remains in some form.

 

    2. In other words, Christians have the continuance of sin in some form and the eradication of sin in some form. This corresponds to the two natures. It is best to understand the “old nature” as the continuing rebel forces of sin still fighting in us.

D. Thus, we are no longer old persons but new persons who are being progressively renewed.

    1. Application: “A believer deeply conscious of his or her shortcomings does not need to say, Because I am still a sinner, I cannot consider myself a new person. Rather, he or she should say, I am a new person, but I still have a lot of growing to do.”[9]

XV. An analogy.

A. In regards to the old nature and the new nature: consider a country that is overrun and ruled by evil communism. Another country invades and overthrows the evil government. The members of that evil government see the error of their ways and repent, becoming good. The country that invaded them doesn’t replace them, but says, “OK, we will leave you in you government, but now we want you to submit to our leadership, and follow our ways.” The previously evil government agrees. Before this invasion and change, it was the Old government. Afterwards, it became the new government. But this was not a change in substance, but in direction. We could not even think of it now as being both an old country and a new country any more than the believer is both an old person and a new person. It is a new country no longer the old. In the same way, believers are not both an old person and a new person, but are truly new people. But just as this government still contains errors and tendencies from its past, the believer is not perfectly new either. In fact, the New Government will still have to endure guerilla uprisings in its country trying to overthrow them, and the members of the government may still have to fight a tendency to live out communist ways to some degree, which they will sometimes give into. This corresponds to the believer’s continuing sins. . The old communist ways are defeated (i.e., “dead”), but haven’t completely left they still try to hang around and fight and thus are still a threat. Thus, the president may say to his people, “we are a new country and dead to the evil communism, therefore keep fighting the guerilla uprisings. Their full defeat is certain, and they are already dethroned.” That is what Paul says to Christians. We are new in the sense that the government is now good and directed towards righteousness. We are old in the sense that the tendencies from the old government still hang around to cause trouble. Though they have lost they aren’t totally removed yet. Finally, remember that we aren’t old and new to the same degree. We are more new than old.

XVI. There is no such thing as two class Christianity.

A. As we saw from definitive sanctification, all Christians, from the moment of conversion, have had sin dethroned in their lives and righteousness enthroned. Thus, we should not think that there are two levels of Christians the upper class who has “defeated sin and lives in victory” and the lower class who has “not yet defeated sin and lives in defeat.” Instead, all Christians have defeated sin, yet they live out this success in varying degrees. There is therefore only one class of Christians. Thus, a more appropriate model is that of a road. All Christians are on the same road. There is no place to jump to a “higher road” or to sprout wings and fly above the road in an airplane. But some Christians are farther along the road than others. But even though not everyone is at the same point, they are nonetheless all on the same road.

    1. 1. But then how do we understand it when people suddenly “submit fully to God” and receive great blessing in their lives? They are not jumping to a higher road, but rather experiencing a

large step of growth

    1. .

 

    2. Further, the error is in thinking that one is either fully surrendered to God, or not at all. But since sin always remains with us, we are never perfectly surrendered. And since all Christians have made a decisive break with sin, there are no Christians who are not at all surrendered. Thus, we must recognize that there are degrees of surrender. As Anthony Hoekem has said, “We have surrendered to Christ as Lord, but we need to surrender ourselves more fully. We live a life of victory, but it is a qualified victory.”

B. What about 1 Corinthians 3:1?

    1. The carnal Christian is not a “lower class” of believer but an immature, and even rebellious, believer. But they must outgrow, not “concentrate out of,” their carnality. A carnal Christian, if they are a true Christian, is one who is on the road and therefore traveling on it, but is for the most part acting as if he is not on the road at all.

C. What about Christians who are backsliden or walking like infants? Don’t they need a decisive change, and doesn’t that fit better with two stage Christianity? Yes, they do need a decisive change by repenting. But this is not an act of consecration that brings them tot he second level., but is a large step of growth on the one road of holiness that restores them to where they ought to be and once were. It helps to recognize that there are degrees of surrender. All Christians are genuinely surrendered (that is necessary for salvation), but none are totally or perfectly surrendered. Between genuine surrender and total surrender are many degrees. Growing in these degrees corresponds perfectly with progressive sanctification, while recognizing that in definitive sanctification was the decisive surrender. Following surrenders are not new surrenders, but growths of the initial one. The confusion comes in thinking that one is either not surrendered at all, or else is fully surrendered.

D. For more on this, see the upcoming article “Two Class Christianity?”.

XVII. Means of growth.

A. There are no quick fixes. Prayer, fellowship, mediating on God’s word, serving others, worship, evangelism are all things that help us grow as we pursue them in faith. Growth is a process, and is often gradual.

B. Faith in future grace.

    1. 1. The key is to not only pursue holiness, but to

prefer

    1. holiness. The power of sin is the lie that it will make us happier than God. Fight sin with God’s promise that He is more satisfying than sin, and that sin is ugly not alluring like it claims to be. As we come to prefer God over sin, we discover great power over sin the power of superior satisfaction in God. As John Piper has said, “You don’t settle for sandwich meet when you can smell the steak sizzling on the grill.”

 

      1. a. Can you think of verses which reveal the ugliness of sin?

 

      1. b. Can you think of verses that reveal the beauty of God?

 

    2. The point: God is better than sin. Use God’s promises day after day, and especially when you are tempted, to build in you this preference for God and hatred for sin.

XVIII. We have seen the first two phases of sanctification: the past phase is definitive sanctification and the present phase is progressive sanctification. The third future phase is entire sanctification, when we will be entirely free from the presence of sin.

A. Entire sanctification has two aspects.

    1. 1. When we die, our spirits are made sinless and to go be with Christ.

 

      1. a. Hebrews 12:23.

 

    1. 2. When Christ returns, our bodies are resurrected imperishable and entirely pure. Then our sanctification is finished and we will be perfect in body and soul forever.

 

      1. a. 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

 

    1. b. Philippians 3:21.

Notes
1. Roberty Morey, Studies in the Atonement (Shermans Dale, PA: Christian Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 214-215.
2. Mostly taken from Anthony Hoekema, “The Reformed Perspective [on Sanctification]” in Five Views on Sanctification (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1987), p. 61.
3. J.I. Packer, Keep in Step With the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1984), p. 156.
4. Packer, p. 157.
5. John Murray, quoted in Hoekema, pp. 71-72.
6. Packer, p. 125.
7. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 751.
8. Hoekema, p. 77.
9. Hoekema, p. 82.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, by the Lockman Foundation.

MP

Science and the Existence of God

by

Is it pseudo-science to claim that scientific evidence demonstrates the existence of God? Does science give good reasons to believe that God exists? The only way to answer this question is to examine the evidence. Too often people are willing to use science to criticize religion, but then are unwilling to honestly consider an attempt to use science to give evidence for religion. Such a double standard is simply inconsistent. We must give up any a priori presuppositions that science can have nothing to do with religious faith (other than “disprove” it), and let the evidence speak for itself.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

In this paper, we will examine an argument that has recently become very popular in answering the question I have posed with a yes—science does give us very good evidence for the existence of God. It is called the Kalam Cosmological argument. During the course of detailing the argument, we will also examine several objections to see if it can hold its weight. In the end, I hope it will be clear why I agree with the Christian apologists who find in the Cosmological argument a very strong case for God’s existence.

Before beginning, let me first remove a few possible misunderstandings. First, I am not out to deal with the red-herring religious disputes over the age of the earth–a belief in an old earth is perfectly consistent with an ordinary manner of interpreting the Bible.

Second, the Cosmological argument does not “propose some sort of creation science whereby God becomes a part of a scientific theory.”[1] The role of science in the argument is simply to show that the universe had a beginning–which is religiously neutral. The questions raised by this are logical and philosophical in character, not scientific. Science need not deal with the religious implications of a beginning of the universe, but as human beings we must surely examine the questions raised by the scientific evidence that the universe has not always been here. The Cosmological argument applies here by, after examining the scientific evidence, taking a look at its meaningful ramifications; but it does not try and mold science to fit into a specific world-view.

Third, this argument does not claim to offer absolute proof for God’s existence. It is simply attempting to show that His existence is abundantly pointed to by the evidence. With this in mind, let us begin our investigation.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is really very simple:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. Philosophical analysis reveals that this cause must be God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

If each premise is true, it is clear that the case for God’s existence has been established. So the task that we must place before ourselves is to answer the question, Are there good reasons to believe that each of these steps is true?

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

This premise does not require much defending. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig remarks that it is “so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false.”[2] He later asks, “Does anyone in his right mind really believe that, say, a raging tiger could suddenly come into existence uncaused, out of nothing, in this room right now? The same applies to the universe: if prior to the existence of the universe, there was absolutely nothing — no God, no space, no time — how could the universe possibly have come to exist?”[3]

The Universe Began to Exist

There are two sets of arguments that the universe had a beginning. One set is philosophical and one is scientific. The philosophical argument has two different branches, both arguing for the impossibility of a universe that has always existed and never had a beginning. The scientific argument has five prongs. We will first take a brief look at the philosophical argument and then take an in-depth look at the scientific argument.

The philosophical argument for a beginning of the universe
The first branch of the philosophical argument is as follows:

1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.

This is obvious, for “the past did not spring into being whole and entire but was formed sequentially, one event occurring after another,” as Craig puts it.

2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.

This is because you can always add ONE MORE, but as long as you can add one more, it is not infinity. One might say that this is true only in finite time, but if there was an infinite amount of time this task could be accomplished. However, the problem has to do with the nature of an actual infinite itself, not how much time one has. The objection does not work because it simply postulates “one actual infinite to resolve problems with another actual infinite…but this merely shifts those problems from one actual infinite to another,” which begs the question.[4] Even if one had been counting forever, it would still be impossible for him to finish writing down all of the negative numbers and ending at -1.

3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
4. Therefore the universe had a beginning.[5]

The second branch of the philosophical argument that the universe began to exist is that it is impossible for an actual infinity to exist in reality (potential infinities are possible, an example of which is simply being able to begin counting and then continue forever). However, if the universe had no beginning, then this would entail an actual infinity of past events. Since this is impossible, the universe must have had a beginning. Why can’t an actual infinity exist? This is because the existence of an actual infinity in reality would lead to irreconcilable contradictions. Mathematician David Hilbert has shown this very well in his thought experiment that came to be labeled “Hilbert’s Hotel.”[6]

These two independently established philosophical arguments in themselves give a strong case for the beginning of the universe. But the Cosmological argument is able to be made even stronger. We will now turn to the scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe.

Scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe
Agnostic and internationally known scientist Robert Jastrow, in his book God and the Astronomers, lists “five independent lines of evidence” that the universe had a beginning. They are, “the motions of the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the laws of thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the Universe and the life story of the stars.”[7] Those who argue for the Cosmological argument point to this evidence as well, but classify it somewhat differently. For our purposes, we will first look at the evidence for the Big Bang (supported by such things as the motions of galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, and the abundance of helium) and how it points to a beginning of the universe. Then, we will examine some of the alternatives to the Big Bang model. Third, we will examine the implications of thermodynamics, and then briefly look at “the life story of the stars.”

Evidence for a beginning from the Big Bang. In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered a red shift of light from distant galaxies, which meant that the galaxies were moving away from us. Furthermore, the speed at which the galaxies are moving away is proportional to their distance from us. This meant that the universe is expanding the same in all directions, which is what happens in an explosion.[8] Growing evidence served to confirm Hubble’s’s conclusions, and also showed that at an earlier time in the universe galaxies were traveling away from each other at greater speeds than they are now. This meant that the universal expansion is actually slowing down from an initial, powerful “surge.” Therefore, modern science had further confirmation that the universe is not simply expanding, it is exploding.

According to Craig, “the staggering implication of this is that some point in the past the entire known universe was contracted down to a single mathematical point, from which it has been expanding ever since” and which also marks the origin of the universe.[9]

Einstein’s general theory of relativity also gives good evidence for an expanding universe. His equations showed that if the universe’s density is lower than a certain amount (the critical density), the universe should be expanding with time. If the mass in the universe was greater than this amount, the universe would eventually stop expanding and fall together on itself. At first Einstein tried to avoid such conclusions about an expanding universe and added his famous “cosmological constant” for this purpose in his 1917 paper, “Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity.” But in 1922 mathematician Alexander Friedmann found an error in Einstein’s attempt to establish that the universe was static, and showed that the universe must either be expanding or contracting. Astronomer William de Sitter, who worked independently of Friedmann five years before, also found that on the basis of Einstein’s equations the universe must be expanding. Later, Einstein admitted his error and called his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.”[10]

George Lemaitre, the father of the Big Bang theory, and many other theorists such as George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, predicted that the heat from the big bang must still exist since it would have nowhere to escape (since there is nowhere “outside” the universe). Thus, if this radiation could be found, it would serve as overwhelming confirmation of the Big Bang.

In 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two physicists at the AT&T Bell laboratories, discovered microwave background radiation of approximately 3 degrees Kelvin from every point in the sky–indicating that its source was the universe itself, not any part of the universe.[11] This was the “primordial fireball”–the remnant of the Big Bang predicted by theorists. While critics dismissed Penzias and Wilson’s 1965 discovery as a failure because the measured temperature was lower than predicted (three degrees Kelvin as opposed to five), the significance of the discovery is that the radiation was there at all. And further analysis confirmed that the radiation was from the Big Bang, as it was found to match with “the pattern of intensities at different wavelengths and frequencies of radiation that matches the pattern of the radiation produced in an explosion.”[12] In fact, the radiation was eventually found to match perfectly with the spectrum predicted for the cosmic explosion of the Big Bang.[13] Additionally, the temperature was extremely even, evidencing a common origin. This is extraordinary evidence for the Big Bang–the evenness of the temperature, the conformity to blackbody radiation, and its emission from all parts of the universe.

But this background radiation also posed a big problem to theory. It appeared to be too smooth; it would have to be slightly rippled to account for a type of explosion that could produce galaxies. But a revolutionary discovery in 1992 solved this problem, when NASA’s COBE satellite team discovered the ripples in the cosmic background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory.

Finally, the Big Bang theory predicts that the universe should contain about three-quarters hydrogen and one-quarter helium (and a small amount of the other elements). Observation of the stars has confirmed this prediction.[14]

We have seen the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. This means that at, as we quoted Craig in saying earlier, at “some point in the past the entire known universe was contracted down to a single mathematical point [called a singularity’], from which it has been expanding ever since.” But the ramifications of this are not simply that the universe exploded a long time ago, but that the universe exploded into existence a finite time ago. Craig shows how this is drawn from the fact of the “single mathematical point” from which the universe exploded. He points out that as we trace the universe’s expansion back in time,

the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand…This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of `infinite density’ is synonymous to `nothing.’ [This is because] there can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle’s words, the universe was shrunk down to nothing at all.'[15]

In other words, the universe exploded from a mathematical point of infinite density. But since a state of infinite density is equivalent to nothing, this is equivalent to saying that the universe exploded into existence from nothing. But is it justified to say that a point of infinite density is “synonymous to nothing”? Secular physicist Barry Parker confirms that this singularity of infinite density would have zero dimensions.[16] As Craig points out, this is because if it did have size it would be capable of increasing in its density, and thus would not be infinitely dense. Physicist Harold Fritzsch also points out that time and matter both cease to exist in singularities.[17]

The implications of this are clear. Craig quotes “four of the world’s most famous astronomers” about how the Big Bang reveals a beginning to the universe: “The universe began from a state of infinite density….Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole.”[18]

So, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe did not simply start its expansion 15 billion years ago; space, time, and matter themselves sprang into existence at that time. British physicist P.C.W. Davies explains why this is so: “If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning or even the concept of space time, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space time itself.”[19]

Another pair of scientists has also concluded that “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, and, if the Universe originated in such a singularity, we would truly have creation ex nihilio [out of nothing].”[20]

Do alternative models disprove the Big Bang? Christopher Isham has said: “Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.”[21]

Those who argue for the Cosmological argument are aware of scientific models other than the big bang. But the alternative models are not convincing; the best explanation seems to be the Big Bang. Most scientists agree that the other models fail, including Robert Jastrow. We will now look at the reasons scientists reject these other theories so that we do not simply need to take the authority of others.

The Steady State Modeldenies that the universe had a beginning, instead claiming that the universe has always existed in the same state. The average density of the universe remains constant because new matter continually comes into existence to counterbalance the expansion and fill the voids left by the retreating galaxies. Jastrow describes it this way: “such a world exists in a state of perpetual balance, forever expanding, forever ageing, and yet forever renewed.”[22]

This theory, according to S.L. Jaki, never had “a single piece of experimental verification.” Jastrow points out that the steady state model was convincingly “refuted” by the 1965 discovery of the “cosmic fireball radiation” which points conclusively to an explosive beginning of the universe–a big bang.[23] In the steady state model, this cosmic fireball could never have existed because in it the universe is supposed to be from eternity.

Additionally, this theory cannot account for “the fact that a count of galaxies emitting radio waves indicates that there were once more radio sources than there are today. Therefore, the universe is not in a steady state after all.”[24] According to Jastrow, “adverse evidence has led to the abandonment of the Steady State theory by nearly everyone, leaving the Big Bang theory exposed as the only adequate explanation of the facts.”[25]

The next model is the oscillating model. This is the theory that the universe is continually expanding, collapsing again, then expanding again, and repeating this cycle eternally. Craig brings out two “very well-known difficulties” with this theory. The first problem is that the oscillating model contradicts the known laws of physics. The late Yale professor Tinsley reports that “even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seem to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end.”[26]

The second problem with the oscillating model is that the observational evidence contradicts it. Craig shows two pieces of this observation evidence which contradict the oscillating model. First, matter appears to be evenly distributed throughout the universe. There is no way for this to be on the oscillating model, because if the universe were to contract black holes would begin to suck everything up. “But when the universe (supposedly) rebounds from its contracting phase, there is no mechanism to `iron out’ these lumps and make the distribution smooth.”[27]

Secondly, it appears as if “the force of the expansion is greater than the force of gravity so that the expansion will never stop but will just go on and on forever.” Density is the main factor in determining the strength of gravity. If the universe is expanding at a speed beyond the “escape velocity” that will allow it to overcome the force of gravity, then it will keep expanding forever. In order for the universe to re-contract, it must be expanding at a speed slower than the escape velocity. Craig points out in one of his articles that “recent work on calculating the speed and deceleration of the expansion confirms that the universe is expanding at, so to speak, `escape velocity’ and will not therefore re-contract.” Measurements indicate that there is not enough density in the universe to provide the gravity necessary to re-contract the universe.

Jastrow elaborates on how calculation of the rate of expansion reveals that there is not enough density to provide the gravity necessary for re-contraction. If the universe has slowed down a lot over the eons, then it indicates a high density that would be able to make the universe re-contract. But if the universe has only slowed down a little, it indicates that there is not a significantly high density to bring about re-contraction. Jastrow relates that the rate of expansion of the universe has not slowed down very much over the billions of years–the “Hubble age” is only slightly more than the “true age,” revealing only a slight decrease. The implications of this are that “there is a relatively low density of matter in the Universe”–a density level that is “not sufficient to halt the expansion” and make the universe recontract. This yields “the result that the Universe will expand forever.”[28] This method seems to be highly accurate because it does not require the direct observation of matter, or even direct knowledge of the density of every form of matter (such as that of neutrinos), as it calculates the density from velocity instead.

Other forms of calculating the density of the universe confirm that there is not enough density to bring about re-contraction. Goldsmith points out that observational evidence indicates that the luminous matter in the universe amounts to less than 2 percent of the critical density needed for re-contraction.[29] In a frantic search to account for this extra matter needed to provide the density for re-contraction, there are two theories of extra-ordinary, non-luminous matter posed to account for it.

The first theory is hot dark matter. This theory holds that subatomic particles such as neutrinos, which are not thought to have any mass, may have mass after all. This mass could perhaps bring us to the critical density. However, Fritzsch makes it clear that there is no good evidence that neutrinos have mass, and they have always behaved as if they do not have any mass.[30] Further, if neutrinos had mass it would predict a large-scale structure of the universe that is inconsistent with observational evidence. Further, even if neutrinos did have mass, it would not be enough to bring the density up to the re-contraction point. According to Fritzsch, the mass of a neutrino would be between 1 and 30 eV,[31] but a mass of 50 eV is needed for re-contraction.[32]

The second theory is cold dark matter. This matter could only exist in intergalactic space, for otherwise it would “disrupt the measured motion of galaxies.” However, “the existence of vast amounts of exotic matter in intergalactic space is incompatible with the recent measurements by the COBE satellite of the primordial fluctuations in the microwave background radiation.”[33] No one can find where this cold dark matter could come from; appealing to its existence to solve the problem therefore has no more basis than saying that the dragon in my garage is immaterial and invisible. Perhaps more astonishingly, Goldsmith points out that even if we were to add the mass of luminous and the alleged dark matter (either cold or hot) together, we would still have only about 5 percent of the critical density needed to re-contract.[34] Craig quotes two scientists, Sandage and Tammann, as concluding: “Hence, we are forced to decide that…it seems inevitable that the universe will expand forever.”

Sandage and Tammann later relate their discovery that, based upon the observational evidence, it seems that even high density universes would be unable to re-contract. “Hence, the one certain conclusion is that in all models of either high or low density, …the Universe will not stop its expansion. This means it has happened only once. The creation event was unique.”[35]

Quantum models are the remaining significant alternatives. The first of these are vacuum fluctuation models, which state that our universe is simply a “mini-universe” which sprang into existence from within the steady state of a much larger universes; likewise, there are probably many such “mini-universes” beyond our own which have sprung into existence. However, such models do not have a very wide following and have been abandoned by many of their originators. Craig details many problems with such theories, but the problem which is easiest to explain is that the vacuum fluctuation models have been shown to be contrary to observational cosmology.[36] On the vacuum model, there is no way to tell exactly where a “fluctuation in the primordial vacuum will occur which will grow into a universe.”[37] Such fluctuations could occur simply anywhere in space. Thus, throughout an infinite past history of time a universe will spring into existence at every point and, as they expand, they will collide with one another. We simply do not observe anything of the sort in nature.

Another set of Quantum models are the quantum gravity models. Perhaps that advocated by Stephen Hawking has drawn the most attention. “Hawking’s theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. …This remaining universe has a certain probability very high–near a hundred percent–of coming into existence uncaused.”[38] Hawking’s theory is consistent with evidence such as the expansion of the universe, the evenly-distributed matter on a large scales, the inflation near the beginning of the universe, and the COBE satellites discoveries.

Hawking’s theory claims that the universe need not have a cause because “the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused.”[39] It doesn’t need a cause because it comes into existence due to its natural, mathematical properties, not a supernatural force.

Hawking says of his view, “The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time…There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time…The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE… What place, then, for a creator?”[40]

Craig and others give a complicated and many faceted critique of this theory, but I will try and put it into the most concise and simple language that I can. The main problem is that Hawking’s theory only works with imaginary numbers. While imaginary numbers are fine to work with in equations, one learns in any advanced math class (I myself learned this in High School) that it is always necessary to convert the imaginary numbers back to real numbers in order to have a meaningful result that corresponds to reality. The fatal problem with Hawking’s use of imaginary numbers is that he does not re-convert them back to real numbers. When Hawking’s equations are actually taken through the necessary step of converting back to real numbers, his theory evaporates. As Hawking himself admits, “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities…when one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities [and thus the need for a beginning].”[41] Hawking himself says that “in real time, the universe has a beginning.”[42]

Second, Hawking’s concept of “imaginary time” is unintelligible. It makes no more sense than an imaginary elephant in my garage, or an imaginary volume of liquid. “Thus, Hawking does not really eliminate the singularity [and thus beginning of the universe]. He conceals it behind the physically unintelligible artifice of imaginary time.”[43]

Third, Hawking’s use of imaginary numbers makes time a spatial dimension, “which is just bad metaphysics.”[44] Space and time are necessarily different things–space being defined by a relation of betweenness, and time by a relation of earlier/later than. Time made out to be a dimension of space, as Hawking makes it, would thus cease to be time. Because of the commonality between Hawking’s model and all other quantum gravitational models, the critique given to Hawking applies to the other models as well.

Now that we have seen the fatal flaws in the alternative models, it should be even more clear that the Big Bang is very likely an accurate account of the universe’s origin. While this in itself makes the Cosmological argument very convincing, the case is made even stronger by giving thermodynamic confirmation for the beginning of the universe. This line of evidence is independent of the Big Bang theory and thus serves to greatly strengthen our case–in other words, even if the Big Bang theory was wrong, the evidence from thermodynamics would still stand.

Thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that a closed system will tend toward a state of maximum entropy. When we apply this to the universe as a whole, it means that the universe will eventually run down, and come to a state of thermal equilibrium. This is called heat death, and there are two forms of it.

A hot death would occur if the universe were to re-contract. We have already seen the evidence against this, but even if it were possible, black holes would suck up everything around them as the universe contracted. As the universe got even smaller, the black holes themselves would have to merge with one another. Thus, everything in the universe would finally coalesce into one large black hole from which it would never be able to re-emerge (since nothing can escape a black hole).

If the universe continues to expand forever, however, it will experience a cold death. This means that it will simply keep expanding until everything finally cools off and all matter attains thermal equilibrium. No change would ever be possible from this condition.

In light of this, Craig asks a potent question: “if given enough time the universe will reach a heat death, then why is it not in a state of heat death now, if it has existed forever, from eternity? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium.”[45] In the words of theoretical physicist Paul Davies: “The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist.”[46]

The oscillating model is one attempt to escape this conclusion. However, we have already seen why it cannot work. Further, even if it were true, it would still point to a beginning of the universe. “For as several scientists have pointed out, each time the model universe expands it would expand farther than before. Therefore, if you traced the expansions back in time they would get smaller and smaller and smaller” which amounts to a time when it had to begin.[47] In fact, it is estimated that “on the basis of the current level of entropy in the universes that it could not have gone through more than 100 previous oscillations.”[48]

One objection to this is that there is a continuous creation of energy from nothingness. However, “there is no scientific evidence for continuous creation of matter or energy, even if such a notion could be squared with the highly rational principle that something cannot come from nothing without a cause.”[49] Craig brings out the ramifications of thermodynamics: “whether you choose a re-contracting model, an ever-expanding mode, or an oscillating model, thermodynamics implies that the universe had a beginning…Prior to the creation, the universe simply did not exist.”[50]

The life of stars. Jastrow points out that stars burn hydrogen and convert it to heavier elements, making it impossible for the hydrogen to be restored to its original state. Thus, the amount of hydrogen in the universe is continually decreasing and cannot be replenished. The further back in time we go, the more hydrogen there will be. Finally, “the astronomer comes to a time when the Universe contained nothing but hydrogen….This point in time must mark the beginning of the universe.”[51] Further, if the universe was eternal, it would have run out of hydrogen long ago.

Summary. Now let’s take a step back and summarize the arguments for the beginning of the universe. We have given five reasons to conclude that the universe had a beginning: the philosophical argument for the impossibility of an actual infinity resulting from adding one event after another, the philosophical argument for the impossibility of an actual infinity at all, the scientific arguments for the Big Bang theory, the unconvincing nature of theories other than the Big Bang, the scientific evidence from thermodynamics, and the scientific evidence from the life of stars.

It should be noted that an argument is stronger when it has more independent premises supporting it. In regards to our argument for the beginning of the universe, all five of our lines of evidence are independent–they do not depend on each other for their truth. This means, for example, that even if one could refute the Big Bang, the evidence from thermodynamics would still require a beginning of the universe. But even if one could also refute the evidence from thermodynamics, one would still have to refute both of his philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe and the evidence from the life of stars. Thus, the five independently established cords to this argument make it very, very strong.

It therefore seems clear that the universe must have had a beginning, and it therefore requires a cause. There is simply one last step to the argument: What is the nature of this first cause?

Philosophical analysis reveals that this cause must be God

Robert Jastrow writes: “Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the Universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the Universe? ….And science cannot answer these questions…”[52] Through philosophical analysis of the situation, we will attempt to discover the nature of this first cause so that we can go, as human beings, where science does not.

First, it is evident that this cause is supernatural. Having established that the physical universe came into existence a finite time ago means that the cause of this beginning could not itself be physical (i.e., natural)–because nothing physical existed yet. Thus, the cause must be supernatural–not part of the physical universe. From this it also follows that the cause is independent of its creation–it is self-existent, rather than dependant upon creation for existence.

This leads to the second thing–this cause must be infinite. For if it were not infinite, it would be limited by some other thing, and thus it would no longer be independent.

Third, this cause must be eternally existing outside of time and space. Many people object to the Cosmological argument asking, what caused God? It is unjustified to make Him the only exception to the rule, they say. However, this is to misunderstand the argument. The argument is not that everything that exists has a cause, but that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The reason God does not require a cause is because He never began to exist. It is the definition of God that He is the uncaused first cause of all things–for without this Being there would be an infinite regress of causes, a sure impossibility. It reminds me of the child who asked, “What holds up the earth?” The parent responded, “A giant elephant.” “But what holds up the elephant?” probed the child. “Why, another elephant,” the parent replied. “But what about that elephant–what holds it up?” The parent responded, “It is elephants all the way down.” Surely that is absurd! Likewise, there must be an immutable, eternal first cause in order to escape the contradictions of an infinite regress of causes, and this is included in what we mean by God.

Fourth, this cause must be personal. This is because bringing the universe into existence a finite time ago required a choice on the part of the cause. Once there was nothing, then suddenly there was something. An act of the will on the part of the cause is what made the difference between there being nothing and suddenly there being something. The capability of making willing choices is a property of persons. Therefore, the cause is personal. Furthermore, it is a commonly known fact that causes must be greater than their effects. Personality is greater than non-personality. Therefore, the Creator of this world must be personal because He is the cause of personality.

Fifth, the Creator must be omnipotent in order to bring the universe into existence from nothing.

Sixth, the anthropic principle indicates that the Creator is loving. Scientific discoveries have revealed the intricate “fine-tuning of the universe, which bespeaks intelligent design.” Stephen Hawking wrote “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present state.”[53] Slightly faster than the critical rate and matter would have dispersed too rapidly to allow stars and galaxies to form. Hugh Ross notes that “the universe, our galaxy, and our solar system exhibit more than sixty characteristics that require exquisite fine-tuning for their very existence, and also for the existence of life.”[54]

Seventh, “since he brought the universe into being without any antecedently determining conditions and fine-tuned it with a precession that literally defies comprehension, he must be both free and unimaginable intelligent.”[55] In other words, the Creator must be sovereignly free and omniscient.

It is these seven core properties which constitute the center of what we mean when we say “God.” Thus, it seems that philosophical analysis confirms what we had suspected–the universe was caused by God. As Craig says in his article “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe,” “On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial … Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time.”[56]

One may object that it is invalid to conclude from this all that there is only one cause of the universe–i.e., one God. However, the inference to one God as the only cause of the universe “seems justified in light of the principle, commonly accepted in science, that one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. One is justified in inferring only causes such as are necessary to explain the effect in question; positing any more would be gratuitous. Since the universe is a single effect originating in the Big Bang event, we have no grounds for inferring a plurality of causes.”[57]

A Few Remaining Objections

In objection to the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause, some point to the quantum phenomenon of particle pair production where it appears as if particles come into existence uncaused. However, this would provide “no analogy to something’s coming into being out of nothing. …all that actually occurs is conversion of energy into matter or vice versa. It is not the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of already existing energy into material form.”[58]

Second, it may simply be that there really is an ultimate cause behind the apparent indeterminacy, but we are simply unaware of what the cause is. Third, even if quantum mechanics shows that there are events at the subatomic level that do not have causes, it does not follow from this that “events above the subatomic level do not have causes…When an apple falls something caused it. When an event as massive as the big bang occurred, something caused it. It is an unwarranted extrapolation to argue from the microlevel to the macrolevel.”[59]

But what if one argues that the origin of the universe was at the microlevel? First, it should be pointed out again that our knowledge of the quantum level may be incomplete such that there really are causes, we are just not aware of what they are. Second, “not all philosophers and physicists are agreed as to how to interpret quantum mechanics….in the absence of a clear consensus on quantum interpretation, it seems reasonable to hold to the well-established law of cause and effect.”[60] Third, we have already seen that it is false to claim that quantum effects occur from nothing because they space (which is something) in order to occur. Said Fred Hoyle, “The physical properties of the vacuum would still be needed, and this would be something.”[61] The universe, on the other hand, came into existence from absolutely nothing–space-time itself was created at its beginning.

The other main objection to the need for the Big Bang to have a cause is that, if there was no time before it, it could not therefore have a prior cause. The answer to this, however, is what is called simultaneous causation–the case then cause A and effect B occur together, at the same time, instead of the effect being before the cause. An everyday example of this is a heavy item resting on a cushion being the cause of a depression in the cushion. “We should therefore say that the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not temporally prior to the Big Bang.”[62]

So when we speak of God existing “prior” to the first moment of time, “we do not mean temporally prior to time, but outside time altogether….[we are] not treating God as a thing existing at a temporal location.”[63]

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have seen the overwhelming scientific and philosophical evidence that the universe had a beginning, and that it therefore required a cause–a Cause who fits the basic core of what we mean by God. The words of Robert Jastrow are a fitting conclusion to our investigation: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”[64]

Notes
1. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 124.
2. Craig, p. 93.
3. Craig, p. 93.
4. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), p. 31.
5. The first three steps of this argument are reproduced from Craig, p. 98.
6. Craig, pp. 95-97.
7. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (W.W. Norton & Company, INC, 2nd edition, 1992), p. 103.
8. Donald Goldsmith, Einstein’s Greatest Blunder?, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 53-55.
9. Craig, p. 101.
10. Fred Heeren, Show Me God, (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications, 1995).
11. Heeren, p. 109; Goldsmith, pp. 66-75.
12. Jastrow, p. 70.
13. Jastrow gives a chart on page 73 which illustrates how amazingly precise the match actually is.
14. Jastrow, p. 81.
15. Craig, “The Existance of God and the Beginning of the Universe,” p. 7. See also Jastrow, p. 70.
16. Barry Parker, The Vindication of the Big Bang, (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1993), p. 259.
17. Harold Fritzsch, The Creation of Matter, (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1984), p. 250.
18. Craig, p. 101, quoting J. Richard Gott, et al., “Will the Universe Expand Forever?” Scientific American (March 1976): 65. Emphasis added.
19. Craig, pp. 101-102, quoting P.C.W. Davies, “Space-time Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, eds. J.T. Frase, N. Lawrence, and D. Park (Berlin: Springer, 1978), pp. 78-79. Emphasis added.
20. Craig, p. 102, quoting John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxrford University Press, 1986), p. 442. Emphasis added.
21. Christopher Isham, “Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process” in Physics, Philosophy and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R.J. Russell, W.R. Stoeger, and G.V. Coyne, p. 378.
22. Jastrow, p. 68.
23. Jastrow, p. 89.
24. Craig, p. 102.
25. Jastrow, p. 14.
26. Craig, p. 103.
27. Craig, p. 104.
28. Jastrow, p. 25.
29. Goldsmith, p. 120. See also Jastrow, p. 102.
30. Fritzsch, p. 241.
31. Fritzsch, p. 244.
32. Fritzsch, p. 243.
33. Craig, p. 105, citing Joseph Sil, “Cosmology Back to the Beginning,” Nature 356 (1992): 742.
34. Goldsmith, p. 123.
35. Craig, p. 106, quoting “Dynamical Parameters,” p. 144.
36. See Isham, “Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process,” pp. 385-387.
37. Craig, p. 107.
38. Quentin Smith, “Two Ways to Prove Atheism,” p. 2.
39. Smith, p. 3.
40. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 136.
41. Hawking, pp. 138-139.
42. Hawking, p. 139.
43. Craig, “Cosmos and Creator,” Origins & Design: 17:2, p. 4.
44. “Cosmos and Creator,” p. 4.
45. Craig, p. 115.
46. Moreland, p. 35.
47. Craig, p. 115.
48. Craig, p. 116, citing Silk, Big Bang, pp. 311-312.
49. Moreland, p. 36.
50. Craig, p. 116.
51. Jastrow, p. 85.
52. Jastrow, p. 106.
53. Hawking, cited in Heeren, p. 328.
54. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, p. 127.
55. Craig, p. 119.
56. “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe,” p. 10.
57. Craig, p. 120.
58. Craig, “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe,” p. 9.
59. Moreland, p. 38.
60. Moreland, p. 39.
61. Hereen, p. 93.
62. Craig, “Creation and Big Bang Cosmology,” p. 2.
63. Moreland, p. 34.
64. Jastrow, p. 107.

MP

Understanding the Gospel: Justification

by

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). At the heart of the biblical gospel is the amazing truth of justification. Without this truth there would be no gospel at all. It is, in fact, very difficult to overestimate its importance because it is an absolutely essential element of true Christianity (see Galatians 1:8; 5:4). The Protestant Reformation was mainly over the nature of justification, and still today it is a dividing line between true and false gospels. As Christians, a better and more complete understanding of justification will help us to properly understand the gospel and our relationship with God.

Justification may be defined as a legal act of God, at the instant we believe in Christ, in which He 1) forgives our sins, 2) imputes to us the righteousness of Christ (this means that He thinks of it as belonging to us), and 3) declares us to be righteous in his sight, thereby 4) delivering us from all condemnation.

Forgiveness
The first aspect of justification is forgiveness of sins. This means that God stops holding our sins against us and that they will never again be grounds for condemnation. In order for God to remain just in forgiving, however, He cannot just overlook our sin. He must judge it. Therefore, this element of justification is only possible because of the atoning death of Christ. On the cross, God punished Jesus for our sins in our place. God is now able to forgive our sins without compromising His justice because Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins: “…being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation [the sacrifice for sins that took away God’s wrath] in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness…so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:23-26). Justification is therefore closely tied to the atonement of Christ (His paying the penalty for our sins)–the atonement is not part of our justification but it makes possible our justification.

Imputed righteousness
If we are to be accepted by God, however, it is not enough just to have our sins forgiven. This would only make us neutral in the sight of God, whereas God requires that we actually have a positive righteousness in order to be accepted by Him. This is where the second aspect of justification comes in: God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ. In this context, to have something imputed to you means being given credit for something that you did not do. So having Christ’s righteousness imputed to you means that God gives you credit for the righteousness of Christ–the perfect obedience that He accomplished in your place while He was on earth. “For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:17; see also Romans 4:6). Another way to define imputed righteousness is that God thinks of Christ’s righteousness as belonging to you. God is then able to declare us righteous (or, just) in His sight (the third aspect justification) because He has given to us the perfect righteousness of Christ.

Declared righteous
If God did not impute the righteousness of Christ to us, He could not declare us righteous. This is because we are sinners, and there is nothing in us that makes us worthy of being declared righteous before God. But God will not declare a person righteous unless there is some righteousness to base this declaration upon. The perfect righteousness of Christ solves this dilemma. God declares us righteous on the basis of what Christ did in our place. As Paul says, Christ became for us righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30; see also Isaiah 61:10; Jeremiah 23:6). Because God first imputes to us Christ’s righteousness (which He accomplished through His perfect obedience to the Father in our place while He was on earth), He can justly declare us righteous.

Imputed versus infused righteousness
The distinction between imputed righteousness and infused righteousness serves to further clarify this point. Justification does not mean that God infuses righteousness into our hearts and declares us righteous on the basis of that. He does not transform us into righteous creatures and on that basis declare us righteous. Instead, God imputes to us someone else’s righteousness–Christ’s–and declares us righteous on that basis. Thus, we are declared righteous before God on the basis of who Christ is and what He did, not on the basis of anything inherently good in us or anything that we have done. Justification involves a change in our standing before God but not a change in our character. Again, God does not declare us righteous on the basis of a change that He brings about in us or on the basis of good deeds that we do for Him (i.e., infused righteousness), but He declares us righteous on the basis of what Christ did for us and we are given the credit for (i.e., imputed righteousness).

This is how we can be both justified and sinners at the same time–because justification does not involve anything that we inherently are, but involves having credit for what Christ did. Paul makes this clear: “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Romans 4:5). “…and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Philippians 3:9). “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23-24).

The concept of imputation is thus central to justification. It is the basis of both our forgiveness and our being declared just. God is able to forgive us our sins because He imputed them to Christ on the cross and then justly punished Him in our place. And He is able to declare us righteous because He took Christ’s righteousness and imputed it to us. What a deal! Christ gets the blame (and thus the punishment) for our unrighteousness and we get the credit (and thus salvation) for His righteousness. Paul brings out both of these aspects in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” This is a truly wonderful and marvelous thing that should bring about great praise to God from our hearts.

Deliverance from all condemnation
Finally, because justification involves forgiveness, being given Christ’s righteousness, and being declared righteous, we are thereby delivered from all condemnation because there is no reason left for us to be condemned. If we are justified, we will never be sent to hell: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns?” (Romans 8:33-34).

How justification relates to sanctification
I have tried to make it clear that justification does not have anything at all to do with something that God does in us; it is what He does about us. But do not take this to mean that a justified person will not begin a changed life. Justification is always accompanied by sanctification–the process by which God makes us holy in our character, not just our standing before Him. But it must be kept clear that justification and sanctification are not the same thing. They are simply two different things that occur together. Further, whereas justification occurs in an instant the moment one believes, sanctification is a process that continues throughout life. God begins this process of sanctification at conversion when we are justified, but it does not end until we die.

John MacArthur makes this distinction between justification and sanctification clear: “This is a crucial point on which Protestants have historically been in full agreement: sinners are not justified because of some good thing in them; God can declare them righteous because he first imputes to them the perfect righteousness of Christ….Again, this is owing to no good thing in us–not even God’s sanctifying or regenerating work in our hearts” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 199).

Justification is by faith alone
Perhaps the central truth of justification that must be understood is that it is by faith alone. We do not earn justification and salvation by good works–God does not give it to us because we are good enough. He gives it to us because we believe in Christ, period. It is not faith plus works, but faith alone through which we are saved. Many Scriptures make this clear: “By the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Romans 3:20). “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift” (Romans 3:23-24). “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28). “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy…” (Titus 3:5). “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Romans 4:5). “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Romans 11:6). “…nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus…” (Galatians 2:16).

Good works will always follow in the life of a justified person, but they are the result of our salvation, not the cause of it. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

But how does justification by faith alone square with the words of James: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24)? Is this in contradiction to the verses we saw above? No, it is not. As Dr. Wayne Grudem has said, “Here we must realize that James is using the word justified in a different sense from the way Paul uses it” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 731). Paul uses the word justify to mean “declare to be righteous,” but the word can also mean “to demonstrate to be righteous.” For example, the word is used this way in Luke 16:15. That James is using it this way is supported by the fact that the instance that he uses to show that Abraham was “justified by works” (2:21)–which is recorded in Genesis 22–came many years after Genesis 15:6 where Abraham believed God and “[God] reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Further, James is concerned in this section with showing that mere intellectual assent to the gospel is not true faith (2:18, 26). Grudem summarizes: “James is saying here that `faith’ that has no results or `works’ is not real faith at all; it is`dead’ faith. He is not denying Paul’s clear teaching that justification (in the sense of a declaration of right legal standing before God) is by faith alone apart from works of the law; he is simply affirming a different truth, namely, that `justification’ in the sense of an outward showing that one is righteous only occurs as we see evidence in a person’s life. To paraphrase, James is saying that a person is `shown to be righteous by his works, and not by his faith alone.’ This is something with which Paul also would certainly agree (2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 5:19-24)” (Grudem, pp. 731-732).

Faith does not earn salvation
It should also be kept clear that faith is not regarded by God as a good act that we do which He “rewards” by giving us justification. God does not see an individual believe and say, “Now that he has believed, I will repay His good choice by justifying him.” Instead, faith is the means through which we are justified. Faith is what connects us with the righteousness of Christ, not something that earns us the righteousness of Christ. For example, let’s say that a friend works a whole summer so that He can give to me the money he earns. He would have earned the credit in my place, just like Christ earned righteousness to God, through His obedience, in my place. Once my friend has all of the money that he earned, he then writes a check and offers it to me. In order to receive the check, I reach out my hand and grab it. Reaching out my hand was not something I did to earn the check, but it was instead the means through which I received it. So it is with justification. We do not earn it by our faith, but instead receive it through our faith.

Applications
In closing, what are the applications of this doctrine? First, if we believe in Christ we can be confident that we have peace with God (Romans 5:1). Second, a proper understanding that we are justified by faith alone through Christ alone is necessary to being a Christian (Galatians 5:4). Third, it gives us deep comfort, security, and confidence before God to know that even though I will never be perfect in this life, I am nonetheless considered perfectly righteous in His sight. This has huge ramifications for the way we relate to God. Fourth, knowing this truth gives us a fuller–and more accurate–understanding of our God and the gospel we preach, and keeps us from preaching a false gospel. Fifth, true humility is only possible by recognizing that we cannot earn salvation, but instead must admit our horribly sinful condition and accept salvation as a gift (Romans 4:2; Ephesians 2:8, 9). Sixth, knowing this truth gives us a greater delight in God and deeper worship of Him, for it reveals to us more of His ways that we may know Him more fully (Exodus 33:11). Finally, we need to know about justification in order to fully appreciate our salvation.

Summary
1. In justification we are forgiven of our sins.
2. God is able to do this because He imputed them to Christ and punished Him in our place.
3. In justification God imputes to us Christ’s righteousness.
4. God then declares us righteous on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness, not on the basis of anything good in us.
5. Through this we have a right standing before God and are forever delivered from all condemnation because the basis of our condemnation has been entirely removed.
6. Justification is by faith alone, but this faith will always produce obedience. It is not like this: faith + obedience = justification. Instead, it is like this: faith = justification + obedience.
7. Faith does not earn justification, but is the means through which we receive it.
8. Knowing the doctrine of justification by faith alone has many wonderful applications.

All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, by the Lockman Foundation.