The question is not concerning any secret persuasions in the mind of man, or any secret purpose in the mind of God; but simply this, Do the Holy Scriptures, which form the statute-book of heaven, and fully express the mind of God, pronounce any man pardoned or justified in his sight, while his heart is in a state of enmity against him?

“It is plainly implied,” says J. J., “in the Lord’s justifying the ungodly, that they are ungodly until justified.” But, before any conclusion can be drawn from these words, it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of them, particularly of the term “ungodly.” This term, I apprehend, is not designed, in the passage under consideration, to express the actual state of mind which the party at the time possesses, but the character under which God considers him in bestowing the blessing of justification upon him. Whatever be the present state of a sinner’s mind—whether he be a haughty Pharisee or a humble publican—if he possess nothing which can in any degree balance the curse which stands against him, or at all operate as a ground of acceptance with God, he must be justified, if at all, as unworthy, ungodly, and wholly out of regard to the righteousness of the Mediator. He that is justified must be justified as “ungodly,” in like manner as he that is saved must be saved among the “chief of sinners,” 1 Tim. 1:15. But as Paul’s using the latter expression of himself does not prove that at the time he uttered it he was one of the worst of characters, so neither does his using the former concerning others prove that they are at the time of their justification the enemies of God. If it be objected that the term “ungodly” is no where else used but to express a state of enmity to God, it may be answered that God is no where else said to “justify the ungodly.” The interpretation put upon this term, therefore, is no more singular than the phraseology of the text itself. Both the one and the other ought no doubt to be interpreted by the general tenor of Scripture, and the particular scope of the writer. If the sense here given clash with either of them, let it be rejected. To me it appears in harmony with both. When the reader has considered the following observations, let him judge whether it be so or not.

1. It is the uniform language of the Scriptures that “without repentance there is no forgiveness,” Psal. 32:5; Prov. 28:13; Mark 1:4; 4:12; Luke 3:5: 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 1 John 1:9. The very passage to which the apostle in the context refers, (Psal. 32,) as affording an example of the imputation on which he was treating, clearly holds up the idea of forgiveness as preceded by repentance. It is of no account to allege the difference between pardon and justification; for, whatever difference there is between these blessings, there is none which affects the argument. They are not so distinct as that the one can in any instance exist without the other. He that is justified is pardoned. If, therefore, repentance precede the one, it must precede the other. But if justification be preceded by repentance, it cannot be said that a person is an enemy to God “until he is justified,” for enmity and repentance are inconsistent.

2. It is the uniform language of the New Testament, that those whom God justifieth are believers, John 3:18, 36; 5:24; Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:26, 28; 4:24; 5:1; 10:4; Gal. 2:16; 3:24; Phil. 3:9. The very persons referred to in the text under consideration are supposed to “believe in him who justifieth the ungodly.” But faith “worketh by love,” and is therefore inconsistent with a state of enmity to God. If the uniform language of Scripture had been, we believe by or through being justified, we should certainly have concluded that justification in the order of things preceded believing, and consequently that those who are justified were at the same time enemies to God. And as it is the reverse, or that we are justified by or through believing, why should we not equally conclude that faith in the order of things precedes justification, and consequently that they who are justified were at the time not the enemies but the friends of God?

3. The apostle, in the same Epistle as that which contains the passage in question, speaks of justification as preceded by vocation or calling. “Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate: whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified,” Rom. 8:29, 30. It cannot be pleaded that the order of things is not here preserved. It is allowed on all hands that predestination is preceded in the order of nature by foreknowledge, calling by predestination, and glorification by justification. What good reason then can be given why justification should not from hence be concluded to be preceded by vocation? But the vocation here spoken of is a holy one, the same with that mentioned in 2 Tim. 1:9, “He hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling;” which must therefore be inconsistent with enmity to God.

4. The design of the apostle in the context was to establish the doctrine of free justification by faith in Jesus Christ, without the works of the law—a justification that should exclude boasting, or glorying. Now this design is equally accomplished by the interpretation here defended as by the contrary. I am aware that this ground will be disputed, and let it be disputed. The principle on which I rest my defence, on this part of the subject, is the following:—whatever be the state of a person’s mind at the time, it makes no difference as to the ground of justifcation. J. J. will not deny this; he has acknowledged as much himself. “In this case,” he says, “all works, good and bad, are out of the question;” and, if so, doubtless all dispositions are the same. None of them, be they what they may, can avail any thing towards justifying one who has not continued in all things written in the book of the law to do them. But, if so, of what account is it to the doctrine of justification by grace, to maintain their nonexistence at the time? The existence or nonexistence of things that are “out of the question” can signify nothing to the argument, and afford no ground of glorying.—Moreover, if the existence of a holy disposition at the time of our being first made partakers of the blessing of justification detract from the grace of it, why should it not operate in the same way afterwards? Justification is not of so transient a nature as to be begun and ended in an instant. Though not progressive, like sanctification, yet it is a permanent privilege, or state of blessedness bestowed on believers. As condemnation is a state of exposedness to the curse, under which every unbeliever, remaining such, continues; so justification is a state of exemption from it, in which every believer in Jesus abides. It is true we are introduced to this blessed state at the moment of believing; from that instant we are no more under the law, but under grace; the curses of the former stand no longer against us, and the blessings of the latter become our portion. But though our introduction to the blessing be transient, yet the blessing itself continues as long as we continue believers in Christ, and united to him, which is to the end. Hence justification and condemnation are each described in language expressive of their continuity. “It is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth? He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Hence also believers, in every stage of life, deal with Christ for justification, desiring nothing more than that they may be found in him, not having their own righteousness, which is of the law; but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. And this accounts for Abraham’s believing for righteousness, as we shall see presently, not merely when he first believed in God, but after he had loved and served him a number of years; and for David’s having righteousness imputed to him without works on his recovery from a state of backsliding. Now do the holy dispositions of Christians detract from the freeness of their continued acceptance with God? If not, why should the existence of any such dispositions detract from the freeness of their first acceptance? If it be necessary that the mind be at enmity with God “until” we are first introduced to this blessing, in order to its being merely of grace, why should it not be equally necessary that it should remain so through life, in order to its continuing to be merely of grace?

5. Neither Abraham nor David, whose cases the apostle selects for the illustration of his argument, was, at the time referred to, the enemy of God. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness;” and it is concerning his justification that the following reflection is made. “Now to him that worketh is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt.” It is here plainly supposed of Abraham, that if he had “worked,” and so obtained the reward, it had been a matter of debt, and he had had whereof to glory. And did not Abraham work prior to the period to which this refers? He certainly should not have performed a single good work, but have been an enemy to God, according to J. J.’s hypothesis. But the truth is, he had been a believer in God and a true worshipper of him for many years, at the time when he is said to have believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, Gen. 15:6; 12:1–3; Heb. 11:8. Here then is an account of one who had walked with God for a series of years “working not, but believing on him that justifieth the ungodly;” a clear proof that by “working not” the apostle did not mean a wicked inaction, but a renunciation of works as the ground of acceptance with God.

“David also,” continues the apostle, “describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” Of whom speaketh the psalmist, in this thirty-second Psalm; of himself, or of some other man? Of himself, as is manifest from the whole Psalm. It is one of those penitential songs which he penned after his fall and recovery. The third and fourth verses describe the state of his mind after he had sinned, and before he had repented. The “blessedness” of which he speaks is a blessedness arising from free forgiveness. Hence the apostle, in the text under consideration, very properly puts this gloss upon his words: “David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” David did not say it was “without works;” he said nothing about works; but he described the blessedness of him who possessed a free forgiveness, which was the same thing. Paul supposed that David “worked not;” but had he never performed a “good work” at the period referred to? Was he at that time an enemy to God? J. J.’s hypothesis requires that it should have been so; but it was not so. Let the reader judge whether the cases of Abraham and David be not decisive, and whether they ought not to decide the controversy, as to the meaning of the passage in question.

I had supposed that when a sinner is justified he is not an enemy of God, seeing he is a believer. J. J. attempts, it should seem, to invalidate this argument by so explaining faith as that it shall include in it nothing inconsistent with enmity to God. I cannot but remark the unpleasant situation of the writer in this part of his work. With him it seems a very difficult thing to determine what the apostle means by that faith which is counted for righteousness. “If it were to be considered as a work, he supposes it would overturn the whole reasoning of the verse.” If it were considered as a work performed to furnish a ground of justification it would; but not else. That faith is a work we are expressly taught by one who perfectly understood its nature, John 6:28, 29. But that we are justified by it as a work, or as a part of moral obedience, J. J. knows I utterly deny. But if it be not counted for righteousness as a work, “it must mean either Christ the object of faith, or a spiritual illumination of the understanding, in which the mind is totally passive.” That it does not mean the former, one should think, is evident, in that it is called believing. “He that believeth, his faith, or believing, is counted for righteousness.” And if it mean the latter, it will go to confound what the Scriptures elsewhere distinguish. Spiritual blindness is represented as an obstacle to believing, and spiritual illumination as that which precedes it, 2 Cor. 4:4; John 6:40. But faith in this passage “must” mean this or that. Perhaps it must, in order to comport with J. J.’s hypothesis; and this spiritual light or discernment must also be supposed to have nothing spiritual in it, or it will be equally inconsistent with a state of enmity to God as believing. But let him seriously consider whether that hypothesis which requires such forced and far-fetched interpretations of Scripture to support it can be any part of “evangelical truth.”

To me it appears a plain and easy matter to ascertain the meaning of faith in the passage referred to. It is believing; and this believing is counted for righteousness; not as a work, but as the prescribed means of interesting us in the righteousness of Christ. Thus it was common for Christ to say to diseased people, whom he had healed, “Thy faith hath saved thee.” Did he mean by this to make a saviour of faith? No: faith did not cause, nor so much as co-operate, in these cures, which were accomplished only by his own power; but it was the prescribed means by which they became interested in the exercise of that power. I use the term interest as I do that of justification, not for what we may have in the secret purpose of God, but for that part or portion which we have in spiritual blessings according to the revealed will or promise of God in the Scriptures. The healing efficacy proceeded from Christ, and not from faith, yet without faith they would not have been healed; and the same may be said of justification.

Fuller, A. G. (1988). “Remarks on God Justifying the Ungodly,” The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller: Expositions—Miscellaneous (J. Belcher, Ed.; Vol. 3, pp. 715–719). Sprinkle Publications.