Why Justification by Faith Is Not the Gospel (And nor Is Penal Substitution)

The Third Discourseman

A bold title, I know. So to avoid unnecessary offense to my fellow Reformed brothers and sisters reading this blog, I want to stress that I believe in both justification by faith alone and penal substitution. Both are true and wonderful and vital to our salvation. This blog is not calling either into question, nor is it questioning either’s central importance in systematic theology, orthodox Christian faith or pastoral care.

What I am calling into question is the notion that justification by faith is the gospel. That what Jesus (and subsequently the apostles) means by ‘the gospel’ is ‘the truth that justification is by faith alone’. Or perhaps even ‘the truth that Christ died in your place’, though this I think hits closer to the mark, and must be part of the gospel.

As a clarification, having read a response to this article by the fourth discourseman (which I am in total agreement with, and can be found here), I am not suggesting that the above incorrect notions are inherently Reformed, or that Reformation theology is to blame. (I am, it shames me to say, rather uninformed in terms of reading the works of Luther, Calvin etc. Though as far as I am aware, I would label myself as Reformed, and do in general agree with Calvinist theology and Calvin’s commentaries on the Bible). Rather, I think that there are some among modern evangelicals, who would call themselves Reformed, who have over-emphasised certain Reformed doctrines at the expense of others, or have become muddled over the intersection of true doctrine and the definition of the gospel.

So the rest of this blog will consist of three parts: I shall make my case for what the Bible actually says the gospel is; I shall explain why I think there are significant logical and philosophical issues with saying ‘justification by faith is the gospel’; and I shall explain why I think there are significant pastoral dangers of getting muddled on this.

The Gospel

If I had three words to write the gospel, I would probably say ‘Jesus is Lord’ (or perhaps ‘Jesus is LORD, Yahweh’, though that may be a blog for another time). If I had a few more words I might say something like ‘Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God’. Obviously you can’t really explain the gospel in three words, and so most of the rest of my explanation, if I had more words available, would be explaining what the terms ‘Christ’, ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God’ mean, and explaining how it is we know that he is Lord (his death, resurrection and ascension), why it is that this is good news (there is forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit for all who call upon his name, Jesus is a great king etc.) and what the appropriate response is (change your mind about Jesus – believe that he really is risen from the dead and that he is Lord and judge of all, and switch your allegiance to him, trusting him to forgive your sins).

There are some pretty good reasons to think this. I’ll briefly run through 7 of them.

1. This is a fairly common use of the word ‘gospel’ at the time, declaring (for example) the birth of a new emperor or king.
2. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is precisely the thing that John wants people to believe (John 20:31). So when we quote John 3:16 as a gospel summary, this is what ‘believing in him’ means.
3. Mark starts with ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’.
4. 3 out of the 4 uses of the word ‘gospel’ in Matthew come in the phrase ‘the gospel of the kingdom’. Likewise Luke uses the verb form to talk about ‘preaching the good news about the kingdom of God’.
5. In Acts, the conclusion of Peter’s first sermon is that Jesus has been made Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).
6. In Romans, as Paul introduces the letter, he defines the gospel as being promised in the scriptures, being all about God’s Son Jesus and his declaration to be Son of David (Christ), Son of God and Lord. Later in the letter, he writes that the key salvation conditions to be met are confessing that Jesus is Lord and believing that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9).
7. In 1 Corinthians, when reminding them of the gospel in chapter 15, Paul says that what is of first importance is that Christ died for sins (so yes, part of the gospel, part of what it means for Jesus to be Lord, is that he is a servant-king who dies for his people) and was raised. In 2 Corinthians, Paul talks about his preaching ‘Christ as Lord’ (2 Cor 4:5) right after talking about his gospel in verse 3.

So the key ‘gospel ideas’ seem to be kingdom/kingship, lordship, as announced through Jesus’ life and miracles, his death for sins, his resurrection, ascension and future return to judge the world.

Faith in What?

As a mathematician I am trained to sniff circular definitions out from a mile away. That, I think, is the main problem with saying ‘the gospel is that justification is by faith alone’. Once you establish that what people are called to believe is the gospel (i.e. ‘repent and believe the gospel’, Mark 1:15), this could be rephrased as ‘the gospel is that those who believe the gospel are declared innocent and escape God’s judgement’. This is highly problematic, because it is circular. And we know what the gospel is, so we can say ‘the gospel is that those who believe that those who believe the gospel are declared innocent are declared innocent’, and so on.

This is not just word games. Once you start interrogating the definition, you realise it’s increasingly hard to say what you’re actually asking people to believe. This is because you’re asking people to believe something about believing something.

There’s a similar issue with asking people to believe that Jesus died for them – namely that, if (as I do) you believe in limited atonement, he may not have done. You’re asking them to believe something that could be a lie! And even if you don’t believe in limited atonement, you’re not giving them anything concrete to believe in or do. Did Christ die for everyone? If he did, does it matter whether or not I believe that he did? Is it that Christ dies for all those who believe that Christ died for them? If so, does that mean Christ didn’t (yet?) die for me if I don’t yet believe he did? So are you asking me now to believe something that won’t be true until I believe it?

The point of this is not reductio ad absurdum to prove my point. I think the biblical evidence has already proved my point. Rather, it is for the purpose of my next task, to demonstrate the very real pastoral dangers lurking within this muddle.

Assurance and Evangelism

The outcome of all the above is the loss of objectivity. It should be a simple question whether or not I believe the gospel, that has nothing to do with how I’m feeling or the strength of my faith. It is: do you believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead? Deciding this is a simple matter of looking at his life, death, resurrection and ascension – do you believe that these historical events actually happened? Are you willing to change your mind about them and live with the implications?

So when we find ourselves doubting, we can come back to the person of Jesus, his life and teaching. But if we think that the gospel is ‘those who believe are saved’, then when we doubt we have little place to go, as this is a statement with little comfort or hope for those who don’t know if they believe.

Likewise in evangelism, we can present those we meet with the simple facts about Jesus’ life, interpret the facts for them theologically, and ask them whether they agree. It gives them something clear to investigate and think about, a clear yes/no decision to make, and a clear impetus to do so – Jesus is Lord and judge, and if you are not right with him when he returns you are in big trouble.

But tell people ‘Christ died for you’, and there’s little impetus. Some might think, ‘Great, I’m forgiven regardless of what I believe’ and move on. Some might think that believing in forgiveness is sufficient, and that so long as they hold on to that one bit of Christianity they can ditch any ethical issues that get in the way of their lifestyle. Either way, there’s nothing present in the message ‘Christ died for you’ that gives the sense of an impending deadline and urgent need to repent.

Tell people ‘all who believe will be saved’ and you’ll just leave them confused – believe in what?

The Scale of the Problem

This problem is not critical – fortunately we are saved by believing the gospel, not by having a correct definition of the gospel. No doubt many Christians who are unsure what the word ‘gospel’ really means nonetheless still believe it. And I am not suggesting that we should drop our talk of Jesus’ death for sins (which I think is part of the gospel message) or justification by faith (which itself isn’t the gospel we believe in, but is a glorious doctrine that assures all who do believe the gospel of their righteousness before God). However I do think we benefit from being clear on what biblical authors mean by ‘the gospel’ – partly just as a basic principle of understanding the Bible properly, but also because, as whenever we get muddled regarding God’s message to us, there are real negative implications of getting it wrong. So keep believing that Jesus died for you and that justification is by faith alone. But what is the gospel message, the message we are to have faith in? Jesus is Lord.