from its root. If our churches desire once more to be strong in the doctrine and bold in
witness-bearing, they must not repose in lethargy on the mere form of the doctrine, but
must heartily embrace the doctrine; for it presents this cardinal point in a superior and ex-
cellent manner. He only who heroically dares accept justification of the ungodly becomes
actual partaker of salvation. He only can confess heartily and unreservedly redemption
which is sovereign, unmerited, and free in all its parts and workings.
The last question that remains to be discussed is: How can the justification of the ungodly
be reconciled with the divine Omniscience and Holiness?
It must be acknowledged that, in one respect, this whole representation seems to fail.
It mustbe objected:
“Your argument is wittily thought out, but it does not stand the test. When an earthly
sovereign decides that a man’s state shall be otherwise than it actually is, he acts from ignor-
ance, mistake, or arbitrariness. And since these things can not be ascribed to God, these il-
lustrations can not be applied to Him.”
And again: “That an earthly judge sometimes condemns the innocent and acquits the
guilty, and makes the former to occupy the status of the latter, and vice versa, is possible
only because the judge is a fallible creature. If he had been infallible, if he could have weighed
guilt and innocence with perfect accuracy, the wrong could not have been committed. Hence
if sin had not come in, that judge could not have acted arbitrarily, but he would have acted
374according to the right, and decided for the right because it is right. And, since the Lord God
is a judge who trieth the reins and who is acquainted with all our ways, in whom there can
be no failure or mistake or ignorance, it is not thinkable, it is impossible, it is inconsistent
with God’s Being, that as the just Judge He ever could pronounce a judgment that is not
perfectly in accordance with the conditions actually existing in man.”
Without the slightest hesitation we submit to this criticism. It is well taken. The mistake
whereby a boy can be registered as a girl; the peasant’s child for that of a nobleman; whereby
a law-abiding citizen can be judged as a law-breaker, and vice versa, is out of the question
with God. And, therefore, when He justifies the ungodly, as the earthly judge declares the
dishonorable to be honorable, then these two acts, which are apparently similar, are utterly
dissimilar and may not be interpreted in the same way.
And yet the correctness of the objection does not in itself invalidate the comparison.
Scripture itself often compares men’s acts, which are necessarily sinful, to the acts of God.
When the unjust judge, weary of the widow’s tears and importunity, finally said, “I will
avenge her, lest she come at last and break my head” (Luke xviii. 5 Dutch Translation), the
Lord Jesus does not for a moment hesitate to apply this action, tho it sprang from an unholy
motive, to the Lord God, saying: “And shall not God avenge His own elect, who cry night
and day unto Him?” (Luke xviii. 7)
XXXIII. Certainty of Our Justification.