Way of Acceptance with God

Driving home: Though the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork, the heavens never declare how guilty sinners can find acceptance with God.

Martin uses the analogy of looking through a telescope into the cosmos or a microscope into a cell to illustrate that natural revelation, while showing God's power and wisdom, cannot reveal how a guilty sinner finds peace with God; only special revelation (the gospel) can.

Speaking of the Gentiles in chapter 1 in verse 32, he says who knowing the judgment of God that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only do them but take pleasure in those that do them. So then, the matter of knowing that God is a God of power, the God who has stamped evidences of His power and His wisdom in His creation, that I have sinned against this God, no special revelation is needed to know that. Now man takes that revelation and puts it down and suppresses it, but it is there. But as to how my guilty conscience may find peace with that God, natural or general revelation is...

12:21 - 13:46 Read in full sermon

The point: Do not trust your unaided human reason to answer the question of how to find acceptance with God; it is an abuse of your mind's purpose.

He uses the analogy of trying to feed oneself with one's feet to show the foolishness of trying to use human reason unaided to discover God's way of acceptance, as the mind was not made for that purpose.

Because his native ignorance was aided and increased by his false religious teaching. And let me say by way of application, if I'm speaking tonight to anyone who thinks he can trust his unaided human reason, to answer this profound question, how can I, a guilty sinner, find acceptance with God? My friend, God never gave you your mind to discover that question unaided by the light of His special revelation, the Word of God. And if you try to use your mind to that end, you're abusing the very purpose for which it was given.

19:50 - 20:31 Read in full sermon

Driving home: The righteousness of God is the righteousness which His righteousness requires Him to require.

Martin quotes Scottish theologian Cunningham's definition of 'the righteousness of God' as 'the righteousness which His righteousness requires Him to require,' to explain the absolute perfection of God's standard.

Well, let me suggest at least three aspects of the answer to that question. It is a righteousness of which His perfection is the standard. It is a righteousness in which the perfection of His own character is the standard. Cunningham, the great Scottish theologian and church historian, one time in a personal conversation with Hugh Martin, another great Scots divine, in discussing this phrase, the righteousness of God, Cunningham said to Hugh Martin, he said, The righteousness of God is the righteousness which His righteousness requires Him to require.

27:44 - 28:26 Read in full sermon

Driving home: The righteousness of God is the righteousness which His righteousness requires Him to require.

He uses the metaphor of weaving a fabric of righteousness on the loom of one's own efforts versus taking the one God has woven, to illustrate the contrast between self-righteousness and God-provided righteousness.

They are going to go out and make their own provision. They are going to weave a fabric of righteousness on the loom of their own efforts, rather than take the one that God has woven and offers as a free gift. That is the emphasis in that passage. And in the third place, it is the righteousness of God in the sense that it is a righteousness in which His Son, Jesus Christ, in His obedience in death, is the ground.

29:37 - 30:02 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin outlines God's one way of acceptance in three statements, each qualified by 'alone': the righteousness of God alone, the righteousness of grace alone, and the righteousness…

The story of God clothing Adam and Eve with coats of skins after they sewed fig leaves is used as an analogy for God providing a covering of righteousness wholly and completely, requiring them to own their nakedness and plead nothing before Him.

When David pleads his own Christian integrity for various reasons, and we may in the presence of God, but never with reference to the basis of our being accepted before God. No, no. To use the analogy, and I don't say it's a type, but I think it is a beautiful analogy. There in the garden when God came to guilty Adam and Eve, conscious of their nakedness, they sewed together their fig leaves.

35:59 - 36:27 Read in full sermon

The point: Examine what you plead before God in the deep inner sanctuary of your soul as the ground of your acceptance.

The analogy of the father placing the best robe on the prodigal son, without mixing it with the son's rags, further illustrates that God's covering of righteousness is wholly provided by Him, not a mixture of human and divine effort.

And instead of bragging about our attainments of character and religious performance, and even glossing over that subtle spirit of self-confidence by saying, Lord, you did this in me and for me. When it comes to the basis of our acceptance before Him, we stand with naked Adam and Eve, saying we have nothing to commend ourselves. Lord, Thou must clothe us or we die. We have the same analogy, and again I say it's only analogy with the prodigal.

37:27 - 37:59 Read in full sermon

The point: Examine what you plead before God in the deep inner sanctuary of your soul as the ground of your acceptance.

He quotes Count Zinzendorf's hymn, 'Jesus, thy blood and righteousness my beauty are, my glorious dress,' as an example of glorying in the Lord's righteousness alone.

You must submit to the righteousness of God. He set out the terms upon which that righteousness is to be embraced, and we do not alter them. And so of God He has made unto us righteousness, just as much as it was of God that Adam and Eve were clothed, so it is as much of God that we are clothed in the robes of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. So that the end result will be, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1.30, if God makes Christ unto us righteousness, then the natural consequence, the next verse, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. That's what Dav...

39:21 - 40:25 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: The second aspect is the 'righteousness of grace alone,' which means unmerited favor to those who deserve the opposite, freely given without any cause in us. This stands in stark…

Describing grace as 'trite' because it's like 'trying to describe Mount Everest in a paragraph' emphasizes the profound and inexpressible nature of grace.

If we mix anything other than grace into the concept of the basis of our acceptance, we nullify the grace of God. Now what does grace mean? Well if you want to be frustrated, try to stand here and tell people in a few sentences what grace means. The trite, the common definition, and it's trite because it's like trying to describe Mount Everest in a paragraph.

44:17 - 44:45 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: The third aspect is the 'righteousness of faith alone.' Martin explains why faith, uniquely among the graces, is singled out for justification: it is a receptive grace that looks…

Martin quotes Andrew Fuller's explanation that faith is uniquely suited for justification because it is a receptive grace that looks out of self and receives God's free gift, unlike active graces like repentance or love which might imply merit.

Well, an answer to that I want to quote from one who is quickly becoming one of the inner circle of my own patron saints, Andrew Fuller. I'm so deeply indebted to one of the congregation who gave me this three-volume set, and I've been extracting much honey from many of the flowers in these three volumes in the past couple of weeks. But in his lecture, his sermon on justification, Fuller is wrestling with this very question that I've set before your mind. Why faith? Why faith? And his answer is this. There must, therefore, be something in the nature of faith which peculiarly responds or corres...

53:10 - 54:18 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: The third aspect is the 'righteousness of faith alone.' Martin explains why faith, uniquely among the graces, is singled out for justification: it is a receptive grace that looks…

Fuller's analogy of a magnet guiding a mariner by pointing north, regardless of its other properties, illustrates that faith justifies not by its inherent holiness, but by its peculiar function of receiving Christ and uniting us to Him.

righteousness. Whatever other properties the magnet may possess, it is as pointing invariably to the north that it guides the mariner. And whatever other properties faith may possess, true faith always has in it, law of obedience, etc., but it is faith as receiving Christ and bringing us into union with Him that the Scripture says we are justified by faith.

54:18 - 54:50 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: The third aspect is the 'righteousness of faith alone.' Martin explains why faith, uniquely among the graces, is singled out for justification: it is a receptive grace that looks…

Fuller's analogy that 'a beggar lives by begging' clarifies that justification by faith means living on what is freely given, not by the act of begging itself, but by the benevolence it accesses, thus emphasizing the receptive nature of faith.

Were we said to be justified by repentance or love or any other grace, it would convey the idea of something good in us being the consideration on which the blessing was bestowed. Repentance is an active grace. In the words of the Shorter Catechism, you are turning from sin unto God. Repentance is an active grace. In the words of the Shorter Catechism, you are turning from sin unto God. And so, the idea of having a full purpose of and endeavor after new obedience, faith in that sense, you see, is an active grace. So, we are not said to be justified by repentance because the peculiar capacity o...

54:50 - 55:59 Read in full sermon