Refutation of his arguments found in his book, the Roman Catholic Controversy
I know that you accept most vehemently that there is a huge
difference between an atheist and a justified individual. One person
has a faith in Jesus as Lord, and the other person does not have this
faith. You would also agree with Catholics that the only means that
this person does have Jesus is Lord is that it is God's sovereign grace
at work. One person has faith as an instrument (p. 144) to appropriate
that justification. Once that is admitted, then the statement in the
above paragraph is shown to be false. God's grace produces faith
within the individual, which is the very means of justification. If
God's grace is what produces faith, it also is the means to produce
works, right in line with the Catholic view of justification. If you
admit that it is God's grace that produces faith in the individual,
then you must admit that his grace produces works. This radical
separation that you create between what God does as opposed to what we
do, is therefore not rational.
You misrepresent the Catholic position when you write about your
own viewpoint (as opposed to Roman Catholic). "This viewpoint is
God-centered, not man-centered. This is not merely a plan that we work
to gain something from God. It is God's work and when God does
something He does it well (p. 143)." Somehow you imply that
Catholicism teaches that man is the cause of his own salvation and
works to get something from God. On the contrary, we teach that God
does justification so well that he makes man righteous (Rom. 5:19).
God works through man so well that "It is no longer I who live, but
Christ who lives in me." (Gal. 2:20) (Phil. 2:13). From start to
finish it is God who does everything. He even uses man to do this. He
does not do some legal fiction, and then just turn his eyes away from
the filthiness of man.
Your view of Titus 3:5-7 (p. 145) not only distorts the actual
verses themselves, but ignores a description of grace that Paul had
spelled out in the previous chapter. Yes grace is an obvious free gift
from God, but Paul's definition of grace in (Tit. 2:11-14) belies the
external, imputational assessment of grace that you spelled out. "The
grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men. It
teaches us that denying ungodliness and worldly lust, so that we can
live righteously, piously and godly lives in the present age, looking
for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and
Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all
iniquity and to purify for himself a special people, zealous for good
works." According to Paul, why did Jesus send his son? To impute
righteousness in a purely forensic manner? Apparently not. His
definition of grace is that not only does it teach us to live
righteously but the purpose of sending his Son was to purify (internal,
subjective change in the individual) his people and redeem them from
all iniquity. Paul does not say that this is a byproduct of his grace,
but is grace. God's very purpose for sending Jesus thus includes this
intrinsic change in the individuals. How can this vital description of
grace be left out of your discussion of Titus 3:5-7?
When you actually get to Titus 3:5-7 itself, even leaving aside
this description of grace already elaborated by Paul, there are
definite problems. You are obviously well versed in church fathers.
You well know that the church fathers used these verses to support
baptismal regeneration, as a companion verse to John 3:5. Not one that
I know of used these verses to even hint at salvation by faith alone.
Does Paul contradict his earlier definition of grace (Tit. 2:11-14) and
here state some extrinsic means of grace which produces no internal
change in the individual, but becomes the basis for justification? The
washing of regeneration (cf. Acts 22:16, baptism) is shown to be a
renewal by the Holy Spirit. Paul is saying that that this grace from
beginning to end is from God. No man can do anything good by his own
power. The Holy Spirit through this washing renews the individual who
produces the works as previously mentioned (Tit. 2:11-14). In Titus
3:5-6 Paul writes that "through the washing of rebirth and renewal by
the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus
Christ our Savior.." In other words, at the time of justification God
infuses (that is what pours out means) his Holy Spirit into the
individual. It is amazing that you use Titus 3:5 to show salvation by
faith alone with an external imputation. The words themselves show
that there is an objective change in the individual. The context shows
Paul means grace which is active, cleanses and purifies, and applies
what he did on the cross to one's life.
You say that justification is a once for all action, referring to
Romans 5:1, "having been justified by faith." The context, and even
the following verses you quote (Tit. 3:7; Rom. 3:24) show that to be
incorrect. In regards to Romans 5:1-5 (why ignore the context?) we see
at justification, faith, hope, and love are all a part of it. If you
notice, v. 5 says "hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured
out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us."
This does two things that belie your interpretation. First it shows
that when the Holy Spirit comes, it is poured out in the individual.
That is intrinsic, an objective change. Second, we see that God "has
poured out his love". That is the exact same past tense as was used in
regards to justification. Using your hermeneutic principal you must
say that love is only a past tense experience that was a once for all
act. You know that is not correct, and that love is a process, just as
justification is. If you try to say that love has no part in
justification tell that to Paul who wrote (1 Cor. 13) that if you have
all the faith (and you notice he does not write "said faith", as Hank
Hannegraph puts it) in the world you have nothing. Third, Rom. 3:24
shows justification in the present tense. Tit. 3:7 says "being
justified" (present tense) so that we have the hope of eternal life
(future). Paul does not write that this faith give us an absolute
guarantee. Elsewhere, in Rom. 8:24-25 Paul writes about this hope:
"For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at
all. who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do
not yet have, we wait for it patiently." Paul shows that hope,
patience and waiting, all are part of justification, not merely one
time past events. This necessarily leads to Paul's agreement with
Jesus that he who endures to the end will be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 4:16;
Mt. 10:22; 24:13). This is future as well.
You next misrepresent the Catholic position by stating that we
believe that God's grace is insufficient, and that we need to add human
merit to grace (p. 146). As a scholar, you know that Catholicism
teaches that the human merit that is necessary for justification is not
added to grace, but part of it. The way you phrased it makes
Catholicism Pelagian, which you know has been condemned by the church.
God empowers us to obey him. We do not do it on our own. You set up a
false and unbiblical antithesis between grace, works, and obedience.
As we have seen, Paul's explains grace by writing that by it we learn
to stay away from ungodliness, makes us live righteously, and is the
means for God to purify his people (Tit. 2:11-14). That is Paul's
definition of grace, not something in addition to it.
I next agree with your statement that "many times people build an
entire theology on the minority of references to a subject while
ignoring the majority (p. 146)." I also agree with you that Jesus did
not address in detail some things about how the church exactly is to be
run. But to state that Jesus did not show in detail how one is made
right before God as well as how God judges individuals is false. Maybe
it is because there is not even any way where you can foist your merely
forensic interpretation of justification. For example Jesus speaks in
detail about what it means to be born again in John 3. He says you
must do this to enter the kingdom of heaven. Of course as a church
historian you know that for 15 centuries every single Church Father
believed that John 3 taught baptismal regeneration. Not even heretics
questioned baptismal regeneration. In addition, Jesus is specifically
asked (Mt. 19:16-30) by the rich young ruler how one gets to heaven.
Jesus gives a detailed explanation. He says in order to enter heaven
one must keep the commandments. He does not say that it is impossible
to keep the commandments as the Reformers taught. As he is asked
specifically what one must do in order to get to heaven, it is obvious
that Jesus did answer that question. In John 15:1-17 Jesus talks about
how God's grace works and what is needed to be his disciples (which by
the way includes keeping the commandments). After talking about how
one must believe in order to have eternal life (John 5:24), Jesus shows
that those who do good will be judged fit to enter eternal life, and
those who do evil will be condemned (Jn 5:29). On the Sermon on the
Mount Jesus gives much teaching about how to attain eternal life (Mt.
5:1-7:23). For example he teaches that your righteousness must exceed
that of the Pharisees (Mt. 5:19-20) in order to attain eternal life.
He gives no hint that the only way to achieve salvation is a mere
forensic imputation. He concludes the section with declaring that
those who do the will of the Father are the ones who go to heaven.
Just this small section of Matthew (5:1-7:23) is as detailed as Paul on
justification.
Matthew shows us Jesus' teaching on how he
separates the sheeps and the goats (Mt. 25:31-46). What is the basis
for Jesus sending some to heaven, and the rest to hell? Those who fed
the hungry, clothed the naked, etc. are the ones who received an
eternal reward (vv. 34-40). Those who ignored these people were sent
to hell (vv. 41-46). In fact those who were sent to hell called Jesus
Lord, Lord. Apparently , these people believed in salvation by faith
alone. You will notice that Jesus did not say "Those of you who really
believed in me and really meant it, come join to your inheritance in
heaven. Those of you who did not believe in me, you go to hell." On
the contrary, the judgment on going to heaven and hell is based on how
they lived their life. There are many passages that talk of the
importance of belief for salvation, but those ones are not at issue, as
you know that we believe that faith is the ground of justification.
There are many other passages which Jesus speaks specifically in how to
achieve eternal life, but this is a limited response to your chapter on
justification. It is amazing that you write that Jesus only
peripherally touches on how to be right before God. I guess the
problem that you have is that the forensic, legal imputation
interpretation is nowhere to be found in Jesus. In order to hold to
your view of justification, Jesus must be ignored. In actual judgment
scenes where the actual separation is made between heaven and hell, the
judgment is based on works (Mt. 25:31-46; Mt. 7:15-23; Jn 5:29). No
wonder you do not want to write about it. To say that Jesus did not
teach on how one is made right before God, or the basis for
justification ignores scripture and is a tradition of man.
James, John, and Peter also wrote fairly extensively on
justification, but the problem that you had with Jesus is the same
problem with them. They teach on justification (In regards to James 2,
even John MacArthur writes that James is talking about justification
before God.) It is amazing that you relegate James 2 to the end notes.
Peter teaches that judgment is based on works (1 Pet. 1:13-17) with
baptism being its basis (1 Pet. 3:21). John's first epistle ties
specifically keeping the commandments to eternal life. John separates
the children of the devil by the children by God by those who practice
righteousness (1 Jn. 3:10). A mere extrinsic, alien righteousness is
nowhere to be found. To say that these apostolic authors only in
passing touch on how to be justified before God falsely represents
scripture.
In fact you exactly do what you write one should not do: "Many
times people build an entire theology on the minority of references to
a subject while ignoring the majority." (p. 146) You totally ignore
the mentioned scriptures which taught explicitly how one must get into
heaven. The scriptures I mentioned are only a small fraction of the
passages which explicitly teach by the non-Pauline authors how to
attain eternal life. Then you focus really only on Rom. 4, and within
that chapter only on vv. 2-8. All the other scriptures that you use
(such as Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, other parts of
Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) are basically used to support your
analysis of this small section of one chapter. You totally ignore
Romans 2 which state that good works are necessary for salvation. You
ignore a vital part of Romans 5 (5:17-19), Romans 6, and Rom 8:1-33.
These all have to do with salvation, and justification before God. Why
are they ignored? Apparently because they stress the inseparability of
justification from good works and obedience. They do not fit your
forensic scheme.
You make an unbiblical, and radical distinction between works,
obedience, and grace (p. 150). You make a big thing about Rom. 11:6,
(p. 150) which states "If it is grace, it is not of works, if it is
works it is not of grace." What works are Paul writing about? If he
is writing in regards to good works done by God's grace, he would be
contradicting what he wrote in Rom. 2, 6, and 8 (I will get to that
later). If we read the whole earlier section we see that circumcision
are the works of the law that will not justify (I will get to that
later as well) in Romans 2 through 8. Is Paul actually contradicting
himself when he writes that grace is separate from good works, as you
allege? Or is he writing specifically of Israel, and how relying on
their ritual works, and works done by their own power are the works
that are opposed to grace? If you examine the whole 11th chapter of
Romans we indeed see that Paul is specifically writing about Israel,
and how God has been faithful to Israel, even though most rejected
Jesus. He is not writing anywhere in this chapter about good works
being opposed to grace. What scriptures do Paul quote? He quotes
(11:3-4) a scripture that shows how most of the Jews during Elijah's
time rejected God, and followed after Baal (1 Kgs 19:10-18). All of
the Jews were circumcised (works of the law), but that did not make
them automatically follow after God. The works of the law did not save
these circumcised Jews. God shows that he was faithful and there were
7000 that he preserved from such idolatry. It was not about people of
the Old Testament who tried to do good works and were condemned by
God. The unfaithful were circumcised Jews who turned their backs on
God. His people were those who stayed faithful to God, were obedient
and preserved by God's grace. This background shows that the analysis
that you made on Rom 11:6 makes Paul totally nonsensical. In fact the
following verses after v. 6 show Paul specifically writing of Israel,
and how they became hardened to God in the Old Testament. He likewise
preserved a remnant in the new covenant. He quotes no verses showing
people who relied on God's grace to empower them to obey him, failed to
meet with God's approval. You took a verse out of context to prove
something totally at odds with Paul's intentions.
You then write that Paul writes strongly that faith is contrasted
to works in the letter to the Galatians (p. 150). You are correct in
stating that Paul's emphasizes that one can not combine works of the
law with faith in Christ. That is exactly what the Catholic church
teaches. However, nowhere does Paul write that good works done by the
power of God's grace avails nothing before God. In fact chapters 5
and 6 of Galatians exactly show the opposite. Elsewhere you admit that
Paul is writing against those who are trying to impose circumcision.
That is exactly the works of the law that he is condemning relying
upon. You then quote Gal. 2:21 as a proof text for contrasting faith
and works (p. 151). The church exactly agrees with Paul that
righteousness does not come through the law! In fact the point that
the church makes is in full agreement with the prior verse,which lays
the foundation for v. 21. "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no
longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the Son of
God, who loved me and gave himself for me." The grace of God which
prevails is when Christ lives in me! The law provides guidelines but
not the grace necessary. When Christ lives in me, he through the power
of the Holy Spirit gives the grace necessary. The whole context as you
know is about circumcision, and to impose your meaning on this one
verse is unfortunate eisegesis.
What do Gal. 5 and 6 show us? Those who rely upon works of the
law, circumcision, cut themselves off from Christ. Not only that, but
in writing upon not only sanctification, but eternal life, good works
are necessary.
The only thing that counts is faith working through love (Gal. 5:6).
You unfortunately separate faith from love. He writes in v. 16 "Live
by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful
nature". The context shows that he is addressing salvation, for he goes
on to write about what is the result of living by this sinful nature in
vv. 19-21. Those who live by this sinful nature will not inherit the
kingdom of heaven.
He then shows the fruit of the Spirit (vv. 22-23), which by direct
inference shows that those who have this fruit will inherit the
kingdom. Then in v. 24 he shows that those who belong to Christ have
crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. So both
before and after writing about those who will or will not inherit the
kingdom, he writes that it is necessary to put to death the deeds of
the flesh, thus linking that with salvation. Paul shows that one can
not do this on one's own power, but one must have the Holy Spirit to do
this. Works and obedience are inextricably linked here by Paul to
salvation yet you write that faith and works are mutually exclusive (p.
150).
Gal. 6 states the same thing in another way. Look at vv. 8-11,
and tell me that good works are not a part of justification.. Here
specifically v. 8 reveals "The one who sows to please his sinful
nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to
please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." After that
Paul continues in the same vain. Paul is specifically writing here not
of sanctification, but eternal life! If one sows good deeds by God's
Spirit what will be the reward? According to Paul eternal life. He
concludes his epistle by stating that circumcision counts for nothing,
but what counts is a new creation (v. 15).
This new creation has no hint of a merely alien righteousness but one
that is Christ living in him enabling him to perform these deeds from
which he will get rewarded eternally. External imputation can not even
be hinted at here. How can you look at these passages and in good
conscience write that Paul in Galatians writes of faith and works in
regards to grace and justification as mutually exclusive (pp. 150-151)?
The rest of your statements in those pages ignore what Paul wrote
about justification in Gal. 5 and 6.
We can not read Greek, are not Greek scholars and so we can not
deal with you on Greek terms. I will leave that to Bob Sungenis on his
forthcoming book (By the way, have you found any specific Church Father
citations before 400 AD that the rock in Matt. 16:18 is Jesus? I hear
Bob is still waiting).. But leaving aside the Greek, there are multiple
problems with your analysis of Abraham and his justification in Romans
4. Most of the rest of your chapter deals with this forensic and
external imputation of God's grace and Abraham. Your analysis of
Abraham makes many assumptions that all must be held before for your
analysis can be held to be true. In fact you assert some of these
assumptions within your book. 1) In Genesis 15, here is where Abraham
first comes to be a believer in God who trusts him for salvation. As
scripture can not contradict scripture, as it is God breathed, your
interpretation of Romans 4 must agree with Genesis 12-22, James, and
Hebrews. This Pauline interpretation must be consistent with these
scriptures. 2) When Paul writes about works that won't save, he is
writing about good works done in a state of grace. He is not writing
about circumcision in 4:2-8 (p. 149). 3) When the term credited for
righteousness is used, it means that Christ's righteousness is
imputed. It does not mean that the person is morally righteous, as
this righteousness is not infused (pp. 154-156). This is not a case
of an actual just man being rewarded by God. Any Old Testament
references that deal with specifically deal with being righteous before
God, must fit this interpretation. 4) Abraham himself is actually
unrighteous, but only credited as righteous. Therefore your appeal to
(pp. 154-155) Rom. 4:6-8 only speaks of covering, and the scripture
quoted in the Psalm refers to an unrighteous person who is covered with
an alien righteous. 5) This interpretation must be consistent with the
rest of Romans.
1) Was Abraham indeed an unbeliever, and not right before God
before this event in Genesis 15? A) Genesis 12 through 14 - God makes
the call to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. An unbeliever would not respond
positively. What does Abraham do? He departs as the Lord had said,
took all his possessions to the land of Canaan. Abraham next builds an
altar dedicated to the Lord (12:7). Abram calls on the name of the
Lord (13:4). After separating himself from Lot Abraham is reminded by
God of his promise (13:14-17) and tells him to what land to go to. In
response, the supposed unbelieving Abram moved his tent, and built an
altar there to the Lord (13:18). Next Abram rescues his brother Lot.
Melchizedek king of Salem then blesses Abram and said (14:19) "Blessed
be Abram of God most high, Possessor heaven and earth;.." Abram
responds by proclaiming that he had lifted his hand to the Lord, God
most high, the Possessor of heaven and earth (14:22). If you can put
away your tradition for just a second, please analyze these scriptures
in Genesis 12 through 14. Any honest reader will see that Abraham was
already a believer. Any attempt to say that Abram was not a believer
is contrary to the facts shown. Paul knows well this background to
Genesis 15. B) Hebrews confirms that Abraham already was a believer
years before Genesis 15. Hebrews 11:8 reads "By faith Abraham, when
called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance,
obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going." This
is consistent with what Moses wrote in Genesis 12 through 14. The
author of Hebrews is writing about the heroes of the faith. He is not
writing about unbelievers. According to Hebrews, Abraham was already
of the faith years before Genesis 15. C) James 2:14-26 - It is
unbelievable that you relegate James 2 to an end note in your book.
James clearly writes of justification before God, as the question in
the beginning of the section is about salvation (v. 14). In vv. 20-24
he shows through Abraham that he was not justified by faith alone, but
by works. There is no record of James demonstrating his faith before
anyone but God. God is the one who recognizes this demonstration of
faith (Gen. 22:16-18). Abraham was three days away from anybody else,
and had sent away the two people who came with them. Therefore Abraham
is justified three times according to the various authors of scripture.
If justification is a process, this makes perfect sense. If it is a
one for all act, scripture contradicts scripture.
In order for your interpretation to be correct, you must make
Paul distort Abraham's life. As scripture is inerrant it is not
possible to do so. When a caller on the Bible Answer Man (when you
were on with James Akin) asked you how Hebrews 11 does not contradict
your analysis of Romans 4, you shrugged it off and said that Hebrews 11
did not relate to Romans 4. The Catholic view of justification makes
Hebrews 11 fit smoothly with not only Romans 4, but James 2:20-24, and
Genesis 12 through 14. Hebrews 11 by itself contradicts your
interpretation of Romans 4. However, when we add both James 2 and
Genesis 12 through 14 it shows that your interpretation can not even be
within the realm of possibility.
2) In focusing exclusively on Rom. 4:2-8, you ignore both the
introduction to this section on Abraham (3:28-4:1), and Paul's
conclusion of Abraham's experience (Rom. 4:9-12). You then conclude
that when Paul writes about works that won't save, he is specifically
writing of good works, and even state that circumcision is nowhere
mentioned (p. 149). The background shows that it is the works of the
law which Paul writes are of no use. Paul begins chapter three by
writing about circumcision. He ends that chapter by writing that one
is not justified by works of the law (Rom. 3:28). Upon stating this he
writes that God is of both Jews and Gentiles (v. 29)
. Circumcision is part of what set apart the Jews from Gentiles.
However, as soon as he writes that these works do not justify, he
writes that what justifies is faith, for both the circumcised and
uncircumcised (v. 30), exactly as the church teaches. Paul is writing
that the mere work of circumcision does not justify. That is Paul's
point that lays the foundation for Rom. 4:2-8. After Paul's analysis
in Rom. 4:2-8, what does he conclude? That those who rely on good
works empowered by the Holy Spirit done in a state of grace to achieve
salvation are condemned to hell, as you imply? I'm sorry, you don't
imply it, you state it (p. 149). On the contrary, Paul writes in 4:9
"Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the
uncircumcised? ...4:10- under what circumstances was it credited? Was
it after he was circumcised, or before? And he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he
was still uncircumcised." Read through v. 12, and you see that Paul is
specifically mentioning only circumcision as not being the grounds of
Abraham's justification. There is absolutely no mention of good works
being of no relation to justification before God. How can you ignore
this conclusion of what Paul stated?
The surrounding passages help us understand what Paul means is
Rom. 4:2-8. The Judaizers were telling people you need to supplement
faith with circumcision.. They were making it seem that God owed it to
them if they did this act. That is how Paul could write "Now when a
man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an
obligation." Circumcision does not lead to God's kindness, but God's
mercy. This is right in line with Rom. 2:4 "Or do you shows contempt
for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing
that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?" We agree that God's
grace is not earned. His mercy is indeed his action.
You ignored the context of Rom. 4:2-8 and made your conclusions
based on this. You saw the word works, and automatically thought he
was condemning good works done in the state of grace in relation to
justification. Is that not eisegesis? Also, by the way you mentioned
that modern Catholic scholars came up with this novel idea that works
of the law meant circumcision. Specifically, Jerome thought that the
works of the law exclusively meant circumcision.
Augustine wrote that Jerome was incorrect in limiting Paul's
description of works of the law to circumcision, but that Paul was also
condemning trying to live up to the law by one's own strength. His
supplemental interpretation of the phrase works of the law also fits
Catholic interpretation of grace, and belies the merely declarative
righteousness interpretation. According to Augustine, God provided the
grace necessary through not an external, but internal grace.. I refer
you to Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter. When Augustine
compared the law of Moses to the new law he wrote "There it was on
tables of stone that the finger of God operated; here it was on the
hearts of men. There the law was given outwardly, so that the
unrighteous might be terrified; here it was given inwardly, so that
they might be justified. (Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, ch.
29, Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 95). Augustine sees
Paul condemning those "because they were working it out as it were by
themselves, not believing that it is God who works within them... Then
are we still in doubt what are those works of the law by which a man is
not justified, if he believes them to be his own works, as it were,
without the help and gift of God, which is by the faith of Jesus
Christ?" . (Augustine, On th
e Spirit and the Letter, ch. 50, Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, p. 105). Augustine also clearly refutes your attempt to use
2 Cor 5:21-"That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.
This is not the righteousness whereby God is himself righteous, but
that whereby we are made righteous by him" (Augustine, On the Spirit
and the Letter, ch. 31, Schaff, NPNF, p. 97).
3) I listened to a debate that you had with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and
he mentioned that the Hebrew term for righteousness was used 80-90% of
the time was used for moral righteousness, not in a legal way. You
responded that the 10-20% that had a forensic manner was your point of
focus because that was specifically in being right before God. I saw
that as quite a leap to relegate such a huge percentage of
righteousness to the back. The examples that you gave in the book
(154-156) to prove the forensic character of imputation do not show
these people being right specifically before God. There is one vital
Old Testament passage that uses the exact same language of Paul in
relation to justification before God. I'm sure as a scholar you are
aware of it, but somehow you forgot to mention it. Ps. 106:31 : "Then
Phinehas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed, and that
has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation
forever." Reckoned to him as righteousness, the exact language that
Paul uses. Is this an external imputation? No! This shows that
Phinehas was a righteous man who did an action, (actually killing
fornicators, cf. Num. 25:25-30).. As a result of this action, God
reckoned him as righteous and stopped the plague. He recognized a
righteous action by a righteous man. There is no hint of a merely
external righteousness. The forensic examples that you gave in Genesis
and Leviticus had to do with being reckoned righteous before man.. You
ignored the only Old Testament example that used Pauline language in
regards to being reckoned righteous before God. Why? Maybe because it
destroys your argument.
4) Do the scriptures quoted show a covenant context or a
forensic one? Does Paul quote Roman law, like Cicero? He quotes all
through the book of Romans figures such as Moses, David, Elijah,
Abraham, etc. He does not quote one text of Roman, legal precedent.
Instead he examines the Old Testament and compares the Old covenant to
the new one. It is a covenantal context, familial. He calls those
who walk by his spirit children who are heirs (Rom. 8:14).
Is the quoting of Psalm 32 in Rom. 4:6-8, a quoting of one who is
actually unrighteous, but declared righteous, solely through God's
imputation just as you claimed Abraham was (though we've disproved).?
Or does it quote David as though recognizing himself to be a sinner,
who through God's grace and forgiveness becomes a righteous person. As
you would agree Paul would not wrench scripture out of context, the
best way to figure this out is looking at Psalm 32 itself. Paul quotes
32:1-2. David thanks God for his forgiveness and acknowledges himself
to be a sinner. He shows his utter reliance on God's grace, no
question. We both agree on that. The question is whether now that
David is forgiven, is he an actually righteous person, or is only
declared such.
You declare that there is no subjective change in the individual
(pp. 154-155). He is only righteous in the sense of being declared so.
Let us look at the context of Psalm 32, which Paul uses. David writes
that his sin is covered, and not imputed (vv. 1-2a). When David was a
sinner outside of God's grace he admits that his spirit was wasted
away. However, David acknowledged his sin and confessed them to God.
The question - "Is David and God's people unrighteous sinners who are
only declared righteous?" Not only does he have no deceit (v. 2b), but
every one who is godly offers prayer to God (v.6). God preserves David
from trouble and is the means of deliverance (v. 7), not merely a
covering.
David next contrasts the wicked from the righteous (vv. 10-11).
He uses absolutely no courtroom language. Your theory holds that there
are none intrinsically righteous before God. According to David
"Steadfast love surrounds him who trusts in the Lord. Be glad in the
Lord, and rejoice, o righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in
heart." God's people are actually righteous, godly, and have no
deceit. God's people are actually upright in heart! Apparently when
God imputes his righteousness, it is not external. He imparts his own
life into the individual. You asked in your book (p. 155) "Where is
the subjective change taught by Roman Catholic theology?" In the very
text that Paul quotes from! We see in this very psalm a man who is not
only declared, but actually upright in heart. That is Catholic
theology at heart. God's grace transforms, makes this change in the
individual, and is part of justification. Your reading of Paul in
Romans 4 makes him not only distort Abraham, but twists David's psalm
to say something totally at odds with the context.
5) Does the rest of Romans show a radical distinction from faith
and works (p. 155)? According to your interpretation, though works are
part of sanctification, and will necessarily follow, they are not part
of keeping oneself right before God.
You left out much in the book of Romans that deals specifically
with justification that show works as part of justification. In an
honest analysis of Roman, how can you leave out Romans 2, where verses
show good works are shown to be essential for salvation? "He will
render to each man according to his work (v. 6)." "To those who by
patience and well-ding seek for glory and honor and immortality, he
will give eternal life (v. 7)..." Here after stating that it is only
God's graciousness that causes people to repent (v.4), he specifically
writes that God will judge for eternal life based on works. Man must
have well-doing to be rewarded with eternal life, in contrast to those
who disobey (v. 8) who are sent to hell. Next Paul writes "Glory and
honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the
Greek (v. 10)." One must do good for glory, honor, and salvation.
"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but
the doers of the law (v.13)." Paul explicates even further (vv. 14-15)
that the doers of the law only will be justified. That is the purpose.
Paul does not write that people can not do the law, or that this is
only an ideal that can not be met.
In commenting on v. 13 Augustine even refers to Rom. 11:6 in
exegeting this scripture. "For in another passage he expressly says,
"If by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no longer
grace. But the statement that the "doers of the law shall be justified
must be so understood, as that we may know that they are not otherwise
doers of the law, unless they be justified, so that justification does
not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law, but justification
precedes them as doers of the law. For what else does the phrase
"being justified" signify than "being MADE RIGHTEOUS," -- by him of
course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one
instead?...but when the allegation is "the doers of the law shall be
justified," what else does it mean that that the just shall be
justified? for of course the doers of the law are just persons. And
thus it amounts to the same thing as if it were said, The doers of the
law shall be created, -not those who were so already, but that they may
become such; in order that the Jews who were hearers of the law might
hereby understand that they wanted of the grace of the justifier, in
order to be able to become its doers also" (Augustine, On the Spirit
and the Letter., chapter 45, Schaff, NPNF, p. 102).
In vv. 17-29 we see Paul specifically writing of circumcision,
but stresses that obedience is necessary for justification. For
example, v. 25 reveals that one must obey the law. "Those who are
physically uncircumcised but keep the law (v. 27)." He is a Jew who is
one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of heart, spiritual (v.
29)." All this has to do with justification. There is no hint
anywhere in all of this chapter that it is impossible to keep the law.
He takes it for granted that it can be done, states that it can be
done, but can be done only based on God's beneficence (v. 4). Contrast
these verses quoted with "Justification is an act undertaken by God and
it is not bases on anything done in or by us as believers (p. 143)."
Extensive commentary on chapter 2 is not needed. A mere reading of the
chapter shows that it specifically contradicts your analysis of
justification. However, it fits in perfectly with the Catholic view.
Chapter 5:17-19 - After declaring that Adam brought on original
sin, Paul writes something that we all agree to. Through Adam, sin
came to all. Notice that through Adam, sin was not only imputed, but
infused into all of mankind. In 5:19 Paul writes that through Adam's
trespasses all were made sinners. The question is does Paul state that
Jesus really undid what Adam did? According to you Jesus' death on the
cross really did not, as his death on the cross only declares one
righteous. This righteousness is really imputed, but the fact is that
according to the reformers, it is an alien righteousness. Thus his
death is in fact insufficient to undo what Adam did. After all ,
according to the reformers our righteousness is as "filthy rags." (A
misreading of Isaiah). Is that what Paul writes? On the contrary,
Paul declares that by one man's obedience, many will be ma
de righteous (5:19). How is it possible? "By those who receive the
abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life
through the one man Jesus Christ (v. 17)." In other words, this grace
is not a passive one, but an abundant one that transforms one's life
enough to make one righteous. So when Jesus' righteousness is imputed,
it is imparted to his believers. God is not in the habit of making
filthy rags.
Chapter 6 - How does this grace come to his followers? According
to Paul, baptism is the means to make us die to sin (6:2). Paul shows
us that faith can not be pitted against baptism. Baptism makes one
crucified with him to destroy the sinful body (v. 6). According to
you, this sinful body still overpowers us, as we are still actually
unrighteous. What did Christ do but set his followers free from sin
(John 8:32, 36)? This is what Paul declares (v. 7). Paul maintains
that sin does not have control over believers any more under Christ
(vv. 1-15). However, is Paul only talking of sanctification? He is
writing about justification because he tells us that baptism is the
means to make us die to sin. Paul next writes "whereas sin leads to
death, obedience (not mere forensic imputation) leads to righteousness
(v. 16)." Again, obedience leads to righteousness!
Chapter 8 - It is amazing that you quoted 8:33-34 to try to prove
a merely forensic view of justification, when you ignored what Paul
wrote prior to that. Your theory holds that no one can meet the
righteous requirement of the law, even if one leads a grace empowered
life, except Jesus Christ. All of Chapter 8 deals with justification
and here I can only quote a few of the verses that undermine the merely
forensic view of justification.
Paul shows that the law did not give the power to meet the
righteous requirement of the law. What does? "The just requirement of
the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk according to the flesh, but
according to the spirit (v. 4)." God's spirit makes us fulfill the
just requirement of the law. "If Christ is in you although your
bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of
righteousness" (v. 10). Sounds like a subjective change in the
individual. Next Paul writes "If you live according to the flesh you
will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body
you will live (v. 13)." He is writing about eternal death and life
based on how you live in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Sins lead
to death, cooperation leads to life. We are heirs of God "Provided we
suffer with him, in order that we may also be glorified with him (v
. 17)." We are given the spirit of sonship (v. 15) as adopted children
of God. In using 8:33-34, you forget that the prior section lists
these necessary ingredients for salvation. No courtroom scene prior to 8:33-34.
Familial concepts, the necessity of putting to death the deeds of the flesh, necessity of suffering, and the Spirit enabling people to do such things all are tied in to justification in this chapter, before we even get to 8:33-34. Indeed for those who cooperate with the Spirit no one can bring a charge against them.
I await your thoughtful response, Mr.White.
Sincerely,
Matt
© An open Letter to James White... Matt1618... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.