The reason why I am a Protestant and not an Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic is because of the Gospel. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches rejects the Gospel of Justification by faith alone. I have given many reasons in this blog why all Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics arguments are unsuccessful, but this blog post will be a positive reason for rejecting the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective and for embracing the Protestant perspective. In this post I will argue that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of justification is incorrect according to our earliest Christian Testimony: The Bible. Thus, we should have a strong reason to doubt these two Churches and embrace the Protestant position.
The fundamental difference between the Protestant understanding of justification and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective is the role of works in justification. The Protestant position is that no type of work can contribute to ones justification, only faith can, whereas in the Eastern and Roman view it affirms that certain works can contribute to your justification. Here are my four arguments for the Protestant position:
1) The Bible teaches that Grace is only compatible with faith and not works:
In order to have a clear understanding of justification we have to have a biblical conception of Grace. This is Grace as Paul defines it:
Romans 11:6 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Works here are generalized and there is no reason in the context at all to limit these works to types of works rather than all works in general. Thus, we see that grace is such that it is incompatible with works. Another reason for thinking that grace excludes all works is Romans 6:1-2 because Paul could not ask this rhetorical question if the concept of grace were such that works could be mixed in with it:
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Romans 4:16 tells us that the promise has to rest on faith because that is the only thing that is compatible with Grace. All this is really interesting, but how does it relate to the doctrine of justification? Well Paul makes it clear that we are justified by grace, which means not by works, but only faith:
Romans 3:23-24 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his *grace* as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Thus, justification is by grace and by the definition of grace: by faith alone.
2) Justification by faith apart from works:
The Bible out rightly claims that justification is by faith apart from works of law:
Romans 3:27-31 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Now many objectors to justification by faith alone are quick to point out that they do not see the phrase “works of law” as all works in general and thus this cannot be an argument for sola fide so they say. But the problem is that Paul connects his thoughts in this context from the exclusion of boasting and if any works could contribute to our justification then we would have grounds for boasting, but clearly Paul here would rule out types of boasting and therefore we have good reason to think this is referring to all types of works.
An even stronger argument for “works of law” meaning all works in general is that it fits Paul's argument and context better than any non-Protestant interpretation. The part of Paul's argument that I am referring here to is 3:31 where Paul asks the rhetorical question about whether we even need to follow the law in the first place if Paul's understanding of justification were to be correct. Paul’s view of justification is such that it leads one to ask this rhetorical question: If we really are justified by faith alone then do we need to follow the law? Paul answers that just because we are justified by faith alone we still need to follow the law, but that the following the law does not justify us. The Sola Fide understanding of this text is the most preferable than the alternative for this reason. For if the Roman or Eastern understanding were being taught here then Paul would have no reason to anticipate this question because Paul could have always said “well you need to follow other works and other laws for justification”. And clearly this is lacking from his teaching on works and justification.
3) The Justification of the ungodly:
The Bible clearly teaches that God justifies the ungodly:
Romans 4:5 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Obviously someone who is ungodly is not actually righteous and has not done a sufficient amount of works to be right before God. But God legally counts him as righteous when he has faith. Now the East and Rome will be quick to point out that what justify here means is that God spiritually transforms the believer to make him pleasing to God, but the problem is that the Greek word for justify or “dikaioo” never means that. It either can mean to declare righteous someone that is actual righteous or not actually righteous, but legally so. It seems that given this passage that this is a declaration of righteousness on the ungodly thereby suggesting that the latter meaning (legal) is being used here rather than the former (actual). Thus, this word is being used here as a legal declaration in the context of a court room before God (Rom. 4:2).
4) Salvation is by Grace through Faith:
One of those most popular passages for proving sola fide has been Ephesians 2:8-9, it reads:
Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Christians have been saved, a past reality, by grace through faith and not by works. It could not be any clearer than this. The East and Rome have a hard time arguing that this is referring to only certain works here because salvation as a whole is by faith and grace which is not your own doing, but if we could achieve salvation by any works then it would be our own doing and therefore any works ought to be excluded. Paul in the end seals his argument with saying that because of all this no one can boast, but if this did not rule out all works then someone could boast, but Paul clearly would never intend for us to think that.
Concluding thoughts:
Therefore, since the earliest Christian testimony is clear that justification is by faith alone we should reject any works based systems like Mormonism, the Watch Tower, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, and Roman Catholicism. All of these views reject the Gospel of justification by faith alone. We have to remember that all false religions and Gospels are man centered and are not centered on the person and perfect work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the refutation of all the positive arguments that the East and Rome gives for believing their positions see the following blog posts:
Canon Argument:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/refutation-of-canon-argument.html
Perspicuity:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/refutation-of-roman-catholic-and.html
Infallible Interpretations:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/do-we-need-infallible-interpretation-of.html
Scripture Alone:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/02/sola-scriptura.html
You write, "For the refutation of all the positive arguments that the East and Rome gives for believing their positions see the following blog posts: ..."
ReplyDeleteOh, come now. : )
I think Robert Sungenis adresses your arguments sufficiently by noting Paul's principle of obligation.
ReplyDeleteThat is, Paul condemns any and all works which attempt to obligate God to pay the individual for salvation.
Paul argues this for several reasons.
1.) If our relationship with God is based on justice (legal obligation) and not mercy (grace), God will be legally obligated to condemn all of us, since no one can work perfectly.
2.) Abraham and David were justified by saving faith reckoned as righteousness, not on the basis of their own works.
3.) God doesn't owe anyone anything.
Keeping these in mind, the 'works' that Paul condemns are anything, whether cerimonial or moral, which attempt to obligate God.
However, to extend this condemnation to works that do not attempt to obligate God is eisegesis.
The basis for this is Paul's other teachings about works especially in Rom. 2:5-10.
James also mentions in chapter 1, that the works done in the law of perfect freedom are 'blessed,' and argues that works 'completed' Abraham's faith for justification.
Further, the Catholic position is very clear that the 'merit' for good works is not the works themselves but the unmerited grace that initiates, and sustains them.
God bless
Hello There,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful response. I am aware of Sungensis responses to sola fide because I saw the white-sungensis debate. I have to say I think that sungensis is the best Roman Catholic apologist around and I think his responses are the best generally especially on this matter of sola fide. However, I find his responses to be still deficient, but not nearly as deficient as say the other apologist for Rome. I hope to explain why in this response as to why I that is the case.
I think Robert Sungenis adresses your arguments sufficiently by noting Paul's principle of obligation. That is, Paul condemns any and all works which attempt to obligate God to pay the individual for salvation.
Response: Paul uses the term works of law and works with respect men being right before God according to Roman Catholics, including Sungensis himself (Rom. 2:6, 13). So clearly we cannot say in every instance that Paul uses this term that he necessarily always means works with respect obligation rather than works that he rewards out of kindness. This response is not sufficient because it only seems to be responding to argument 2 that I made. The reason why it only addresses 2 is because that is the context where Paul lays out this principle of works as Sungensis describes it (Rom. 4). Although argument 3 is in Romans 4 the fact still remains that God justifies the ungodly which would rule out any good works because the person is entirely ungodly.
Paul argues this for several reasons.
1.) If our relationship with God is based on justice (legal obligation) and not mercy (grace), God will be legally obligated to condemn all of us, since no one can work perfectly.
Where does Paul ever say that any works are compatible with grace? It seems to me that does the opposite in Romans 11. In Romans 4 he says that is why the Promise had to rest on faith because it is the only thing that is accordance with grace because it if were by works then grace would no longer be grace.
2.) Abraham and David were justified by saving faith reckoned as righteousness, not on the basis of their own works.
Response: I agree.
3.) God doesn't owe anyone anything.
Response: You are right, but it is true that God as the greatest possible being necessarily will reward those who are perfectly just. Why doubt this?
Keeping these in mind, the 'works' that Paul condemns are anything, whether cerimonial or moral, which attempt to obligate God.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I know where you and others might get that Paul is condemning these types of works (Rom. 4:4). But does Paul actually say that he condemns them in scripture? Where does he say this? It is true that Paul teaches that all works cannot justify, but why think that only these works of obligation are being included here? It still seems that your view also faces two other problems from argument 2: Namely I think one can still boast before God because the reason lies within the individual for why some go to heaven and others go to hell on your view. Even though it is through Catholic view of grace the reason why one goes to hell and the other not is by ones response to grace by which they can boast about it. Lastly, if this view was really being taught Paul still could not have asked that question at the end of Romans 3 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?
However, to extend this condemnation to works that do not attempt to obligate God is eisegesis.
Response: I do not think so for all the reasons above and for arguments 1, 3, and 4. Arguments 1 and 4 do not even seem to have works of obligation in mind in their context so it seems that one who rejects sola fide in these instances is guilty of eisegesis.
The basis for this is Paul's other teachings about works especially in Rom. 2:5-10.
Response: So you would admit that not all instances of works in Romans and in Paul’s literature are works of obligation then? By the way just for the record Protestants do believe that justification is by works because when we die and go to heaven we are rendered by Christ’s perfect work’s that are legally imputed to us so Romans 2 is perfectly compatible with Sola fide.
James also mentions in chapter 1, that the works done in the law of perfect freedom are 'blessed,' and argues that works 'completed' Abraham's faith for justification.
Response: Yes, good works are blessed, but they do not justify. Before men our works do complete our faith Protestants have never denied that. So I do not see these verses as being an issue for the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Further, the Catholic position is very clear that the 'merit' for good works is not the works themselves but the unmerited grace that initiates, and sustains them.
Response: I know that, I do not see how this helps the Catholic position.
God Bless,
NPT
“So clearly we cannot say in every instance that Paul uses this term that he necessarily always means works with respect obligation rather than works that he rewards out of kindness.”
ReplyDelete“Where does Paul ever say that any works are compatible with grace? It seems to me that does the opposite in Romans 11. In Romans 4 he says that is why the Promise had to rest on faith because it is the only thing that is accordance with grace because it if were by works then grace would no longer be grace.”
Response 1:
This is precisely the distinction Scripture seems to indicate! The ‘works’ that are incapable of justifying us are those which try to obligate God for legal payment. However, as you mentioned Rom. 2:6; 13 speak of another type of work that is “rewarded” with eternal life.
These works or this type of work does not obligate God, but is apparently rewarded freely. Further, this same ‘type’ of work is mentioned in James 1:25. It is performed in the ‘perfect law of freedom’ and is ‘blessed.’ Scripture seems to teach, then, that works intended to obligate God for payment, are incapable of justification, but works done out of love, not legal expectation, are rewarded with salvation.
God bless
Response 2:
ReplyDeleteRom. 11:5-6, “So also at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”
Paul states that God has not rejected His people, appealing to the fact that Paul himself is a Jew and is saved by Christ. (v.1)
As an example that God doesn’t reject those He foreknew, Paul appeals to Elijah’s pleading with God against Israel. (v. 2)
Elijah describes his situation and the sins of Israel. (v. 3)
However, despite the sins of Israel, God still preserves 7,000 men who haven’t knelt to Ball. (v. 4)
Paul then states, just as these 7,000 were saved, there is now a select group saved, and it’s because of God’s grace not because of their works. (v. 5)
Paul then says, if it is true that this remnant be saved by grace, it cannot be by works, because grace is incompatible with works. (v. 6)
It seems from the context and text that the works under discussion are those, which would attempt to obligate God to pay salvation. In Elijah’s time, the 7,000 were not spared because they refused to kneel before Baal, but because of God’s grace. That is to say, abstaining from kneeling to Baal didn’t obligate God to save them. The works being spoken of appear to be the same as Rom. 4:4.
God bless
“But does Paul actually say that he condemns them in scripture? Where does he say this? It is true that Paul teaches that all works cannot justify, but why think that only these works of obligation are being included here?”
ReplyDeleteBy condemnation I simply meant Paul taught they are incapable of attaining justification before God. I apologize for the ambiguity.
Romans 4 states only works intending to obligate God are incapable of justifying the individual. Other texts might suggest a broader understanding of ‘works’ but Rom. 4:4 is very clear that the works under discussion attempt to obligate God.
“Namely I think one can still boast before God because the reason lies within the individual for why some go to heaven and others go to hell on your view.”
But as the 2nd Council of Orange stated, “The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.”
If the basis for the reward is God’s own goodness, the only thing to boast about is God’s goodness, which without the good work itself, and its reward could not exist.
Ludwig Ott lists the following as criteria for ‘good works’,
1.) Be morally good, that is with the moral law in its object, intention and circumstances.
2.) The individual must be free from external coercion and internal necessity.
3.) Supernatural, accompanied by actual grace, and proceeding from a supernatural motive.
“Lastly, if this view was really being taught Paul still could not have asked that question at the end of Romans 3 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?”
I do not believe this is a necessary conclusion. Rom. 3:29-30 indicate that God justifies a man despite strict adherence to the law, rather than because of it. Again though, my position agrees most forcefully. God doesn’t justify an individual simply because he followed the law and therefore God must give him his due. Rather, only good works can complete faith, and only complete faith justifies us.
I believe faith and good works are initiated, sustained, accomplished, and rewarded by the same grace.
God bless
P.S. My responses to your arguments 1 and 4 are contained in these posts, sorry they're not organized well.
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteThis is precisely the distinction Scripture seems to indicate! The ‘works’ that are incapable of justifying us are those which try to obligate God for legal payment. However, as you mentioned Rom. 2:6; 13 speak of another type of work that is “rewarded” with eternal life.
Response: So then clearly the term “works of law” and “works” do not always mean works of obligation in your view. How then does one deal with Romans 3:19-31? Or Ephesians 2:8-10? What reason do we have for thinking that this is referring to works of obligation or that is even something that Paul is mentioning here? Why not take it on its face value and say that it means any works?
These works or this type of work does not obligate God, but is apparently rewarded freely. Further, this same ‘type’ of work is mentioned in James 1:25. It is performed in the ‘perfect law of freedom’ and is ‘blessed.’ Scripture seems to teach, then, that works intended to obligate God for payment, are incapable of justification, but works done out of love, not legal expectation, are rewarded with salvation.
Response: James 1:25 is talking about works to believers who have already been justified by faith and thus he is talking about the value of works that sanctify the believer, but no where does he say that these works justify someone *before God*. Actually scripture does not teach that works intended to obligate God for payment are incapable of justification, but rather it says:
Romans 4:4 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Paul here is just making a statement of fact. He is not talking about any sort of intentions being wrong or anything like that. And Paul does not suppose that these works are not done out of love, why would you think that? Loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength would have been part of the law and thus a work, why would you not include this from works and works of law when Paul discusses justification?
It seems from the context and text that the works under discussion are those, which would attempt to obligate God to pay salvation. In Elijah’s time, the 7,000 were not spared because they refused to kneel before Baal, but because of God’s grace. That is to say, abstaining from kneeling to Baal didn’t obligate God to save them. The works being spoken of appear to be the same as Rom. 4:4.
Response: Where in the context here does it say that these works are the sort of works that would obligate God to pay for salvation? No where does the verse say that you simply assumed that to be the case. Where do you get the idea that abstaining from kneeling was the sort of work that did not obligate God to save them? Why think that any of these considerations limit the term works from some rather than any and all works?
By condemnation I simply meant Paul taught they are incapable of attaining justification before God. I apologize for the ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Well it is interesting to me that even the verse you use in Romans 4:4 does not say that it is incapable to justify. It just merely states that those who work their wages are counted as their due.
Romans 4 states only works intending to obligate God are incapable of justifying the individual. Other texts might suggest a broader understanding of ‘works’ but Rom. 4:4 is very clear that the works under discussion attempt to obligate God.
Response: The thing is Romans 4:4 does not say that works that intending to obligate God are incapable of justifying the individual. So I know what Catholics argue but in terms of the text I do not see good reason here for thinking that.
But as the 2nd Council of Orange stated, “The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.”
If the basis for the reward is God’s own goodness, the only thing to boast about is God’s goodness, which without the good work itself, and its reward could not exist.
Response: As I have said previously it is hard to see why this helps your position any. Would you agree that the reason why an individual x goes to heaven and an individual y goes to hell is because the individual x responded to grace and cooperated with it in a way that was sufficient to earn his salvation, whereas y failed to do this sufficiently? If the answer is yes then the fact that made it sufficient why x went to heaven rather to hell was intrinsic to x and thus x has reason to boast that he is not in the same circumstance as y. If it is no then it seems like you are going to hold to some extrinsic monergistic view held by the Protestant Reformers and myself.
Ludwig Ott lists the following as criteria for ‘good works’,
ReplyDelete1.) Be morally good, that is with the moral law in its object, intention and circumstances.
2.) The individual must be free from external coercion and internal necessity.
3.) Supernatural, accompanied by actual grace, and proceeding from a supernatural motive.
Response: I think 2 is utterly unbiblical for the following reason:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
-Ephesians 2: 8,9
Believe it or not this is one of the strongest forms of positive argumentation for causal determination in salvation from scripture, but it involves a little understanding of Greek to flush this out. The Greek word for “this” which in Greek is “touto” is neuter, so it refers to the entire statement: “For by grace you have been saved through faith”. In Ephesians 2:8 when it says “this (or “touto”) is not your own doing", it is referring to the entire statement which includes both the grace and the faith. This is because the words "grace" and "faith" in the Greek are in the feminine gender. The only way that one could ever argue that "this" is referring to one or the other (either grace or faith, rather than both) is if "this" was also in the feminine. But as the statement stands neither grace nor faith agree in gender with "this", so it must be referring to the statement as a whole.
In light of these exegetical considerations the argument for this passage leading to causal determinism in salvation would go something like this:
P1: Either agents are causally determined or they are libertarianly free with respect to salvation
P2: If faith and grace are not of you but of God then agents are not libertarianly free with respect to salvation
P3: Grace and Faith are jointly sufficient conditions for salvation
P4: Grace and Faith are not of you
CP5: Therefore, agents are not libertarianly free with respect to salvation (P2, P4)
C: Therefore, agents are causally determined with respect to salvation (P1, CP5).
And as for 3: Where does the Bible teach that grace and works can be mixed in this fashion? It seems to me by the teaching of Romans 11 that this cannot be so of faith and works.
I do not believe this is a necessary conclusion. Rom. 3:29-30 indicate that God justifies a man despite strict adherence to the law, rather than because of it. Again though, my position agrees most forcefully. God doesn’t justify an individual simply because he followed the law and therefore God must give him his due. Rather, only good works can complete faith, and only complete faith justifies us.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I think that this is a necessary conclusion because if your view entails that one need not have strict adherence to the law in order to be saved but rather general adherence then you still cannot account for the fact that Paul asks these questions:
Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Romans 3:31 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Thus, I think these questions to necessitate the Protestant position. However you seem to think that the law cannot justify. God does and can justify an individual if he does follow the law perfectly:
Galatians 3:10 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."
Galatians 3:12 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."
Romans 2:13 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
The Bible does teach that one can be justified by the law the problem is no one is because all have fallen and are in sin (Rom. 3:20, 23). This is why one must be justified by faith and not by works because we are under sin and cannot redeem ourselves by any works. If the Apostle knew of a half way position between faith and works both justifying the individual I really think he would have spelled that out, but he did not.
I believe faith and good works are initiated, sustained, accomplished, and rewarded by the same grace.
Response: Again, you have not shown how this fact helps your position at all.
P.S. My responses to your arguments 1 and 4 are contained in these posts, sorry they're not organized well.
Response: There was no response to Eph. 2:8-10 in any of these posts.
God Bless you,
NPT
Quote: "The fundamental difference between the Protestant understanding of justification and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective is the role of works in justification."
ReplyDeleteNick: I'm sad that I'm so late to this discussion, but I'll have to say this is quite wrong. The fundamental difference is in issues like the "anthropology" of Adam's original state. The issue of "works" versus "faith" is really a red herring in light of the core differences between the camps.
See this helpful article:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/eph2
A few quick but solid points which disprove Sola Fide:
Nowhere does the Bible say:
1) Christ received the punishment we deserved in the Penal Substitution sense.
2) Christ kept the Law in our place.
3) Equate "righteousness of God" with the "righteousness of Christ."
Lastly, The Protestant notion of imputation hangs on isolating a few verses of Romans 4, as well as assuming a rare usage of "impute."
Quote: "Works here are generalized and there is no reason in the context at all to limit these works..."
Two problems here. First of all, Paul is sharing a thought from Rom 9 thru ch 11, so "context" here extends 3 chapters. Further, the terms "grace" and "works" can take on different meanings, so using any given passage as an all embracing proof is not enough. Anyway, the "context" here should easily include stuff like Rom 9:30-32, but upon reading this you see it's a "Gentiles versus Jews" theme, which is doubtful if the Gentiles are just as susceptible to "works in general" righteousness.
Quote: "... 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,..."
This is a "Gentiles versus Jews" context again, and it clearly makes no sense if "works in general" is Paul's argument because "works in general applies equally to the G's. Paul's killer proof here is pointing out Abraham was justified before circumcision even existed, not that Abraham had the option of trying to choose faith over circumcision.
Quote: "An even stronger argument for “works of law” meaning all works in general is that it fits Paul's argument and context better than any non-Protestant interpretation."
Nick: I strongly disagree here, and I'd be willing to have a debate with you on it. Galatians 3B is a more detailed case of Romans and clearly points to Mosaic Law only.
Quote: "If we really are justified by faith alone then do we need to follow the law? Paul answers that just because we are justified by faith alone we still need to follow the law, but that the following the law does not justify us."
Nick: Paul's point is not that we don't need to follow any rules/commandments, his point is that we don't trample over the Law (mosaic) as something garbage or unsacred. If your argument was correct, the context would mean we still would need to be circumcised but just be sure we don't figure that into the justification equation, and that's obviously problematic.
Quote: "The Bible clearly teaches that God justifies the ungodly:
4:5trusts him who justifies the ungodly"
Nick: Yes, the Bible does explicitly say that...but does it mean what YOU think it means? What is ironic about this passage is that it actually contradicts the very thing Protestantism seeks to prove. Protestantism flatly denies God calls a UNrighteous thing to be righteous....that's the WHOLE POINT of imputing righteousness, so that the account is no longer unrighteous legally.
Quote: "Obviously someone who is ungodly is not actually righteous and has not done a sufficient amount of works to be right before God. But God legally counts him as righteous when he has faith."
Nick: If it means merely to declare, then this is literally what the passage is saying: "I declare that you unrighteous man are righteous."
Hello Nick,
ReplyDeleteNick: I'm sad that I'm so late to this discussion, but I'll have to say this is quite wrong. The fundamental difference is in issues like the "anthropology" of Adam's original state. The issue of "works" versus "faith" is really a red herring in light of the core differences between the camps.
See this helpful article:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/eph2
Response: I disagree. I think the issues you point out in your paper are differences but I would say what I draw out is probably the biggest issue on the disagreement. I do not see how your paper helps much with that point.
A few quick but solid points which disprove Sola Fide:
Nowhere does the Bible say:
1) Christ received the punishment we deserved in the Penal Substitution sense.
2) Christ kept the Law in our place.
3) Equate "righteousness of God" with the "righteousness of Christ."
Response: All of these seem pretty biblical and I will provide evidence for each.
1)
Galatians 3:13 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us- for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-
Isaiah 53:12 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53:6 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
1 John 2:2 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
John 11:50-52 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Romans 3:25 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Romans 5:9-10 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
2 Corinthians 5:21 - 6:1 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Colossians 2:13-14 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
These verses make it clear that for us and not for himself he became sin and he turned aside the wrath of God not just for any reason, but for us. He forgave all of our sins on the legal basis for what Christ has done for us by bearing our sin.
2)
ReplyDeleteRomans 5:19 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Philippians 2:8 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Galatians 4:4-5 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Jesus came under the law to redeem those under the law he did this by being perfectly obedient and by this obedience the many will be legally righteous. The under law and law language especially from 3:13 suggests the idea of a substitute.
3)
Philippians 3:8-9 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-
The righteous from God need not be necessarily equated in order to be Reformed. I take these genitives as a genitive of source, that is simply to say God is the one that declares you righteous and thus it is the righteousness from God in that sense. But he does so on the basis of his son being perfectly righteous and dying for us.
Lastly, The Protestant notion of imputation hangs on isolating a few verses of Romans 4, as well as assuming a rare usage of "impute."
Response: impute can have that meaning (Lev. 7:18; Num. 25; 18:27, 30; 2 Sam. 19:20; Gen. 31:15; Ps. 32:2) and I will show below that it bests fits the context and thus ought to have that meaning.
Two problems here. First of all, Paul is sharing a thought from Rom 9 thru ch 11, so "context" here extends 3 chapters. Further, the terms "grace" and "works" can take on different meanings, so using any given passage as an all embracing proof is not enough. Anyway, the "context" here should easily include stuff like Rom 9:30-32, but upon reading this you see it's a "Gentiles versus Jews" theme, which is doubtful if the Gentiles are just as susceptible to "works in general" righteousness.
Response: I believe the entire book of Romans is a argument and connected so to say that we have to look into the bigger context is of course needed, however, in this specific and immediate context I see no good reason for limiting works only to Mosaic works especially since how Paul uses Grace 4:16 and 6:1-2. All this really supports Paul’s definition in Romans 11. Grace and works can take on different meanings but in Paul’s usage of grace you will be hard pressed to find any other definition especially since he tends to use it the same way in 4:16 and 6:1-2. The Gentiles must have been susceptible because Paul feels the need to condemn both Jew and Gentile with respect to works in general (Rom. 3:9-20).
This is a "Gentiles versus Jews" context again, and it clearly makes no sense if "works in general" is Paul's argument because "works in general applies equally to the G's. Paul's killer proof here is pointing out Abraham was justified before circumcision even existed, not that Abraham had the option of trying to choose faith over circumcision.
Response: The problem is if we isolate works of law here and Paul is condemning a certain type of work of law then you make Paul contradict himself because in the end of chapter 3 he tells us to continue to keep this law (Rom. 3:31). Clearly, Paul is thinking of all works in general and just because he points out that God will justify ever type of person by faith does not negate this. Paul is simply grounding his theology in the Old Testament and showing that the Gentiles can also be justified by faith and none of this suggests that this somehow limits the types of works that Paul is speaking of here.
Nick: I strongly disagree here, and I'd be willing to have a debate with you on it. Galatians 3B is a more detailed case of Romans and clearly points to Mosaic Law only.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I was only referring to the argument here in Romans in that quote you pulled up and we have had discussions about this in the past and you stopped responding to me. So we can just continue that here.
Nick: Paul's point is not that we don't need to follow any rules/commandments, his point is that we don't trample over the Law (mosaic) as something garbage or unsacred. If your argument was correct, the context would mean we still would need to be circumcised but just be sure we don't figure that into the justification equation, and that's obviously problematic.
Response: I actually hold this is referring to the laws that we ought to be following in the New Covenant and that this is not the Mosaic Law at all, so I have no problem here at all. Your position entails: Do we overthrow the Mosaic law by faith? On the contrary, we uphold the Mosaic Law. Yet you believe that Paul is condemning Mosaic Law as works for the Christian life. The Greek words do not imply being unsacred or treating it as unholy but rather simply not following it. On your view: why would Paul teaching that one can be justified by faith and by works cause Paul to ask this question?
Nick: Yes, the Bible does explicitly say that...but does it mean what YOU think it means? What is ironic about this passage is that it actually contradicts the very thing Protestantism seeks to prove. Protestantism flatly denies God calls a UNrighteous thing to be righteous....that's the WHOLE POINT of imputing righteousness, so that the account is no longer unrighteous legally.
Response: Actually, as a Protestant we are taught at Westminster seminary California that God calls an actually unrighteous thing legally righteous, so I do not see how this contradicts anything at all.
Nick: If it means merely to declare, then this is literally what the passage is saying: "I declare that you unrighteous man are righteous.
Response: Yep, that is right. This is what the Bible teaches. Do you have any linguistic evidence that “dikiaoo” means to subjectively transform the believer through sanctifying grace so that he is pleasing to God?
God Bless,
NPT
NPT: I disagree. I think the issues you point out in your paper are differences but I would say what I draw out is probably the biggest issue on the disagreement. I do not see how your paper helps much with that point.
ReplyDeleteNick: Anthropology is key in this discussion, because if we don't have the same diagnosis, we certainly cannot come to the same cure.
NPT: All of these seem pretty biblical and I will provide evidence for each. [Penal Substitution]
1)Gal 3:13; Is 53:12; Is 53:6; 1 Jn 2:2; Jn 11:50-52; Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9-10; 2 Cor 5:21; Col 2:13f
These verses make it clear that for us and not for himself he became sin and he turned aside the wrath of God not just for any reason, but for us. He forgave all of our sins on the legal basis for what Christ has done for us by bearing our sin.
Nick: Catholics agree Christ died not for His sins but ours, however that's not exactly what Penal Substitution is. Penal Substitution teaches that whatever punishment our sins deserved, the Father dumped on Christ instead, and the Bible nowhere teaches this. I go over most of the passages you mention in my Psub debate:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/01/penal-substitution-debate-negative.html
NPT: [Christ keeping the Law in our place] 2) Rom 5:19; Phil 2:8; Gal 4:4-5
Jesus came under the law to redeem those under the law he did this by being perfectly obedient and by this obedience the many will be legally righteous. The under law and law language especially from 3:13 suggests the idea of a substitute.
Nick: The main texts Protestants turn to in support of the so called "active obedience" of Christ are Rom 5:19; 8:4 and Gal 4:4f. However, upon careful and fair reading of them, nowhere do they say Christ kept the Law in our place. Christ's obedience is important in our salvation, but nowhere is this obedience said to be in the form of keeping of the Law in our place. Phil 2:8 and Heb 5:8f clearly show His obedience was of the "passive" variety, but not of the 'active'.
See this article for more info:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/05/calvinists-who-deny-imputation-of.html
NPT: [Equate "righteousness of God" with "righteousness of Christ"] 3)
Philippians 3:8-9
The righteous from God need not be necessarily equated in order to be Reformed. I take these genitives as a genitive of source, that is simply to say God is the one that declares you righteous and thus it is the righteousness from God in that sense. But he does so on the basis of his son being perfectly righteous and dying for us.
Nick: Well, if Phil 3:8f is the only thing you have, I'd say this one is clearly questionable as far as Scriptural support goes.
Anyway, the terms need to be equated or else you have nothing to "impute" to the sinner's account, and Romans uses "righteousness of God" in places like 1:17 (though not in Rom 4). Thus there really isn't a clear proof text, which to me points to my original claim that it's not Biblical at all.
NPT: impute can have that meaning (Lev. 7:18; Num. 25; 18:27, 30; 2 Sam. 19:20; Gen. 31:15; Ps. 32:2) and I will show below that it bests fits the context and thus ought to have that meaning.
Nick: First of all, some of the texts you gave actually contradict your argument.
But the few (i.e. rare times) that operate on the "X reckoned as Y" format STILL don't support the Reformed interpretation of "faith reckoned as righteousness."
Why? Because "X reckoned as Y" (as in 'apple reckoned as orange') is not how the Reformed interpret "faith reckoned as righteousness." The reformed don't see faith ITSELF as what is given the status of righteous, though that is how the text reads. Instead the Reformed read it as "faith grabs onto righteousness," and there are no such examples of "impute" being used like that!
(1 of 2)
NPT: I believe the entire book of Romans is a argument and connected...however, in this specific and immediate context I see no good reason for limiting works only to Mosaic works especially since how Paul uses Grace 4:16 and 6:1-2.
ReplyDeleteNick: Then you're picking and choosing how you want to consider the data. You deny Rom 9:32 is valid immediate context yet quickly turn to 4:16 and 6:2; that is unfair. As for 4:16, the context is clearly talking about the Mosaic Law, and that's the only way the argument of appealing to Abraham makes sense (cf Gal 3:15-18 for an even clearer picture).
NPT: The problem is if we isolate works of law here and Paul is condemning a certain type of work of law then you make Paul contradict himself because in the end of chapter 3 he tells us to continue to keep this law (Rom. 3:31). Clearly, Paul is thinking of all works in general and just because he points out that God will justify ever type of person by faith does not negate this.
Nick: I believe you are misreading 3:31, and I believe 3:29 makes no sense in your reading. Paul has no reason at all to bring up a Jew vs Gentile dichotomy if "works in general" are what is being discussed. And just to note, I'm not talking about certain types of works of the law in the "ceremonial" vs "moral" sense, but instead the whole Torah taken as a Legal Code. All 3:31 is saying is that the Law has it's place and is not refuse, he is not saying we are to go ahead and keep it.
NPT: I actually hold this is referring to the laws that we ought to be following in the New Covenant and that this is not the Mosaic Law at all, so I have no problem here at all. Your position entails: Do we overthrow the Mosaic law by faith? On the contrary, we uphold the Mosaic Law. Yet you believe that Paul is condemning Mosaic Law as works for the Christian life. The Greek words do not imply being unsacred or treating it as unholy but rather simply not following it. On your view: why would Paul teaching that one can be justified by faith and by works cause Paul to ask this question?
Nick: Your argument runs into a serious difficulty by the simple fact that circumcision is explicitly mentioned in many of these contexts, which means "works of the law in general" include "circumcision" ... and that's something clearly false.
In short, you have no explanation why "circumcision" is even mentioned in this and similar contexts when it's clearly exclusive to the Jew and not the gentile. This is especially problematic in Romans 4 where the key "work versus faith" in question is Abraham being circumcised.
NPT: Actually, as a Protestant we are taught at Westminster seminary California that God calls an actually unrighteous thing legally righteous, so I do not see how this contradicts anything at all.
Nick: What you say here is not so much a contradiction as it is a category mistake fallacy. You have Paul mixing 'actual' and 'legal' righteousness in places Rom 4:5, which is doubtful. The 'actual' and 'legal' categories do not overlap in Reformed theology, hence the justification then sanctification ordo salutis. In Rom 4:5 you have Paul mentioning sanctification with justification such that "God justifies the unsanctified." But that is a non-sequitor because the only relevant righteousness is legal in this discussion (according to Reformed thought).
Previously by Nick: I declare that you unrighteous man are righteous.
NPT: Yep, that is right. This is what the Bible teaches. Do you have any linguistic evidence that “dikiaoo” means to subjectively transform the believer through sanctifying grace so that he is pleasing to God?
Nick: I would say Titus 3:4-7 is a good start, but we've been down that path before. That is obviously disputed by us. My point here however is to show that your interpratation is improbable:
-"you legally unrighteous man are legally righteous" is obviously false.
-"you morally unrighteous man are legally righteous" is a category mistake and non-sequitor in a justification context.
Hello Nick,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful interaction! I really look forward to our discussions.
Nick: Anthropology is key in this discussion, because if we don't have the same diagnosis, we certainly cannot come to the same cure.
Response: This is true Nick. But at the same time I would say the precise nature of diagnosis is not as clear as the cure from the perspective of the Bible. So I think it is more reasonable to infer from the clear to the unclear rather than unclear to the clear.
Nick: Catholics agree Christ died not for His sins but ours, however that's not exactly what Penal Substitution is. Penal Substitution teaches that whatever punishment our sins deserved, the Father dumped on Christ instead, and the Bible nowhere teaches this. I go over most of the passages you mention in my Psub debate:
Response: You can use any of the arguments you want from your writings here, so feel free. But I think that it is clear that Christ was given our sin and he turned aside the wrath of God (Is 53:12; Is 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:21; Col. 2:13; Rom. 3:25).
Nick: The main texts Protestants turn to in support of the so called "active obedience" of Christ are Rom 5:19; 8:4 and Gal 4:4f. However, upon careful and fair reading of them, nowhere do they say Christ kept the Law in our place. Christ's obedience is important in our salvation, but nowhere is this obedience said to be in the form of keeping of the Law in our place. Phil 2:8 and Heb 5:8f clearly show His obedience was of the "passive" variety, but not of the 'active'.
Response: The words active obedience and that Christ kept the Law in our place are not found in the Bible but the concept is taught much like how the concept of the trinity is taught but the words “God is one substance in which three persons subsist” are not in the Bible, only the concept. I suppose I would argue for the concept and inference of this view in the following way.
In order for one to obtain heaven one has to be perfectly, perpetually, obedient (Rom. 2:6, 13; Rom. 10:5; Luke 10:25-28; Matt. 5:48; John 8:34; James 2:10). Thus, one has to have perfect law-keeping righteousness to enter heaven. And since God is perfectly just he cannot relax this requirement and he has to punish all sins. We are no longer in a position to earn salvation because we cannot keep the law because we sin (Rom. 3:9-20, 23). However, the Bible teaches that God can take away sins on the basis of a legal transaction (Col. 2:13; 2 Cor. 5:18-21). Furthermore, it teaches us that Jesus did not come of his own accord but to fulfill the will of the Father and to fulfill all righteousness (John 5:19; Matt. 3:15). Jesus came to do the work of the Father and the work of the Father was to give us eternal life (John 4:34; John 3:16). We now receive righteousness legally by faith alone (Rom. 4:3-5; 2 Cor. 5:18-21). God cannot just give us righteousness for no reason because he is just so he has to have a legal basis for this and that basis if Christ. Because Christ is the object of our faith and his righteousness make us righteous (Rom. 5:19; Rom. 3:22). Since the context of Romans uses legal language throughout then we ought to believe the way Christ makes us righteous is through a legal transaction (Rom. 4:5-8; Rom. 8:33; Rom. 5:19). Now of course you will object to this line of thinking because you do not believe justification is legal and that it requires works, but if one were to believe my view of justification then active obedience is clearly biblical and unavoidable. But of course this disagreement hinges on justification by faith alone in the legal context so we should concentrate on that and once that is accomplished or not then we can ask whether or not this entails the active obedience of Christ.
Nick: Well, if Phil 3:8f is the only thing you have, I'd say this one is clearly questionable as far as Scriptural support goes.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the terms need to be equated or else you have nothing to "impute" to the sinner's account, and Romans uses "righteousness of God" in places like 1:17 (though not in Rom 4). Thus there really isn't a clear proof text, which to me points to my original claim that it's not Biblical at all.
Response: As I said earlier I do not think that point 3 is something a Protestant need be committed to in order to hold that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to your account. For the rest of this explanation see my last response.
Nick: First of all, some of the texts you gave actually contradict your argument.
But the few (i.e. rare times) that operate on the "X reckoned as Y" format STILL don't support the Reformed interpretation of "faith reckoned as righteousness."
Why? Because "X reckoned as Y" (as in 'apple reckoned as orange') is not how the Reformed interpret "faith reckoned as righteousness." The reformed don't see faith ITSELF as what is given the status of righteous, though that is how the text reads. Instead the Reformed read it as "faith grabs onto righteousness," and there are no such examples of "impute" being used like that!
Response: So it is lexically possible that it can mean that now we have to go to the context and determine that this is so which I have done by the suggestion of the phrase “justify the ungodly”. The whole grabs onto issue is just a metaphor we use to explain the Biblical teaching that faith in Christ is what makes you righteous. We know the object of our faith is Christ and this is sufficient to make us righteous legally before God (Rom. 3:22). The instance in Romans 4 ought to be applied to Romans 3 because Paul tells us that the way Abraham was justified is the way we are as well (Rom. 4:22-23). So combining the theology of both chapters one ought to conclude that we are justified by faith in Christ apart from any works at all.
Nick: Then you're picking and choosing how you want to consider the data. You deny Rom 9:32 is valid immediate context yet quickly turn to 4:16 and 6:2; that is unfair. As for 4:16, the context is clearly talking about the Mosaic Law, and that's the only way the argument of appealing to Abraham makes sense (cf Gal 3:15-18 for an even clearer picture).
Response: I would say the immediate context of Romans 11 does not restrict it to any type of work because it simply says works. The immediate context in 11 supports this and the general context of Romans and its use of grace support this, I wouldn’t say it is unfair at all. 4:16 only shows that grace is compatible with faith and then 6:2 would show that given the nature of Paul’s question it could not be of any works whatsoever. I think the argument that Paul makes in Romans 4 can make sense without reference to the Mosaic Law. One could simply say that Paul is trying to show that both Jew and non-Jew alike can be in fact justified by faith. I also would see a general moral sense here because Paul uses general moral terminology that applies to the old and new covenant phrases such as sin in Romans 3 and ungodly in Romans 4 would point to this. I also do not see how Romans 9:32 would not strengthen my understanding of Romans 11. Perhaps you can explain this to me. And I do not deny it as valid so much as I do not think Paul references or relates that part of Romans 9 to Romans 11.
Nick: I believe you are misreading 3:31, and I believe 3:29 makes no sense in your reading. Paul has no reason at all to bring up a Jew vs Gentile dichotomy if "works in general" are what is being discussed. And just to note, I'm not talking about certain types of works of the law in the "ceremonial" vs "moral" sense, but instead the whole Torah taken as a Legal Code. All 3:31 is saying is that the Law has it's place and is not refuse, he is not saying we are to go ahead and keep it.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I think Paul has good reason to bring up the Jew/Gentile issue that is compatible with my understanding of this text. All Paul is doing here is reminding his audience that both Jews and Gentiles can be saved by faith. This needs to be done because he condemned both parties generally in Romans 3:9-20 and thus he needs to show in chapter 3 that both of them generally can be saved by faith apart from works of law. Paul asks the question in 3:21 because it would appear as if one would not need to follow the law if his position where correct and the same question is asked in Romans 5:1-2 for the same reason. Paul does not say that the Law has its place and it is not to refuse. First, I am not even sure what it means. Secondly, where does Paul says what you say? Because the text I read does seems not to say that. Thirdly, what evidence do you have that the Greek words can mean what you have just described? Fourthly, if he is not saying keep the law in verse 31, then how would you understand the phrase “we uphold the law” in 31? Lastly, why does Paul need to ask this question in the first place and how are you deriving his reason from the immediate preceding context?
Nick: Your argument runs into a serious difficulty by the simple fact that circumcision is explicitly mentioned in many of these contexts, which means "works of the law in general" include "circumcision" ... and that's something clearly false.
In short, you have no explanation why "circumcision" is even mentioned in this and similar contexts when it's clearly exclusive to the Jew and not the gentile. This is especially problematic in Romans 4 where the key "work versus faith" in question is Abraham being circumcised.
Response: Circumcision is used at the end of Romans 2 as merely something synonymous with being Jewish as Paul does elsewhere (Phil. 3:3). He uses the term to try to show that Jews are under the same condemnation as Gentiles as the argument flow in Romans clearly suggests (Rom. 3:9-20). In the preceding context of Romans 3 Paul is using circumcision as something to designate Jew and Gentile and is letting his readers know that both can be saved. Paul has already shown in Romans 2 that circumcision has nothing to do with being a doer of the law or keeping the law. So circumcision cannot be included in this law that Paul is speaking of here in Romans 3:31. It still seems that you have not answered my question about your interpretation making sense.
Nick: What you say here is not so much a contradiction as it is a category mistake fallacy. You have Paul mixing 'actual' and 'legal' righteousness in places Rom 4:5, which is doubtful. The 'actual' and 'legal' categories do not overlap in Reformed theology, hence the justification then sanctification ordo salutis. In Rom 4:5 you have Paul mentioning sanctification with justification such that "God justifies the unsanctified." But that is a non-sequitor because the only relevant righteousness is legal in this discussion (according to Reformed thought).
Response: I think that perhaps you have misunderstood Reformed theology. In Romans 4 we say that the actual ungodly person is legally guilty until God pronounces him righteous and at which point the sinner is still a sinner declared righteous legally who was previously guilty legally. There is a mixing of actual and legal language with respect to our distinctions between original and actual sin and when we are fully in accordance with our righteous verdict in heaven.
Nick: I would say Titus 3:4-7 is a good start, but we've been down that path before. That is obviously disputed by us. My point here however is to show that your interpratation is improbable:
ReplyDelete-"you legally unrighteous man are legally righteous" is obviously false.
-"you morally unrighteous man are legally righteous" is a category mistake and non-sequitor in a justification context.
Response: I do not think we have ever discussed Titus 3:4-7. I do not know why Titus would be a good start since we are justified by grace (not of works only faith) and not by works of righteousness (works in general). So we really have no reason to think that “dikaioo” means what Rome says it means which is why I am a Protestant. The first understanding does not seem false and second seems to follow that at one point a man was actually unrighteous and legally and the legal status was changed. How are these false and a non-sequitor?
Thanks again Nick. I hope you are well.
God Bless,
Nate
NPT: I think that it is clear that Christ was given our sin and he turned aside the wrath of God
ReplyDeleteNick: This is more meaty than a combox can handle, and contains nuances which in fact the whole issue hangs. For example, you say Christ "turned aside the wrath of God," and Catholics would agree with that. The problem is Penal Substitution denies that, and in stead teaches Christ did not turn away God's wrath, but in fact became the object of that wrath. If this distinction isnt recognized, then we'd be talking in circles.
NPT: The words active obedience and that Christ kept the Law in our place are not found in the Bible but the concept is taught...
Nick: I am saying I don't believe it's Biblical even in concept.
NPT: In order for one to obtain heaven one has to be perfectly, perpetually, obedient.
Nick: I do not believe any of those passages suggest "perfect perpetual" obedience in the Protestant sense of "one sin and you permanently fail".
NPT: And since God is perfectly just he cannot relax this requirement and he has to punish all sins.
Nick: This is a gratuitous assertion. The fact the notions of forgiveness and mercy exist directly disprove this notion. The so called "passive obedience" is sufficient (and clearest Biblically) to answer for God saving apart from perfect perpetual obedience.
NPT: We are no longer in a position to earn salvation because we cannot keep the law because we sin.
Nick: This is an incorrect claim. Not being in a position at a given point of time is not equivalent to permanently being removed from that position. So, as an example, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not in a position to earn Heaven, but after we receive it we are now enabled to (eg Gal 6:7-9).
NPT: However, the Bible teaches that God can take away sins on the basis of a legal transaction.
Nick: Notions of "faith," "mercy," "forgiveness," etc, have no place in a strictly legal context. Further, this still only falls into the "passive obedience" category.
NPT: Furthermore, it teaches us that Jesus did not come of his own accord but to fulfill the will of the Father and to fulfill all righteousness.
Nick: Sure, and this simply indicates Christ's "obedience unto death," not the keeping of the Law in our place.
NPT: Jesus came to do the work of the Father and the work of the Father was to give us eternal life.
Nick: This falls into the passive category, nothing suggesting "active."
NPT: We now receive righteousness legally by faith alone.
Nick: Passive obedience at most is indicated by 2 Cor 5:18-21 and Rom 3:24-26.
NPT: God cannot just give us righteousness for no reason because he is just so he has to have a legal basis for this and that basis if Christ. Because Christ is the object of our faith and his righteousness make us righteous.
Nick: You're still lacking Scriptural proof for active obedience. The above description is merely a restating of Protestant assertions.
NPT: Since the context of Romans uses legal language throughout...
Nick: The term "legal language" is subjective. Catholics agree that "legal language" is used, but we deny that justification is or can be forced into strictly legal categories. But even that is a side issue, the real issue is proving the existence of 'active obedience', and that hasn't been done by any stretch.
NPT: Now of course you will object to this line of thinking because you do not believe justification is legal and that it requires works, but if one were to believe my view of justification then active obedience is clearly biblical and unavoidable.
Nick: That is a wholly fallacious argument; the denial of active obedience is not related to justification being legal or requiring works.
I would like to reaffirm that nowhere in the above paragraphs did you come close to proving Active, especially not from Scripture. This realization should not sit well with you.
NPT: As I said earlier I do not think that point 3 is something a Protestant need be committed to in order to hold that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to your account. For the rest of this explanation see my last response.
ReplyDeleteNick: By “last response” I assume you meant your talk on active obedience. I responded to that in the post directly above this. My point doesn't seem to be addressed here, regarding the invalid equating of “righteousness of God” with the concept of “righteousness of Christ.”
NPT: So it is lexically possible that it can mean that now we have to go to the context and determine that this is so which I have done by the suggestion of the phrase “justify the ungodly”. The whole grabs onto issue is just a metaphor we use to explain the Biblical teaching that faith in Christ is what makes you righteous.
Nick: This is missing the point. I never said it was lexically possible to have the definition the Reformed side is asserting! I said the rare usage of “X reckoned as Y” was NOT even what the Reformed were asserting. The phrase “faith reckoned as righteousness” does NOT mean TO the Reformed that faith itself is seen as righteousness, but RATHER that faith acts like a “empty hand” that grabs onto an alien righteousness. Big difference. There is no lexical evidence of “impute” being used in the Reformed manner.
Response: I would say the immediate context of Romans 11 does not restrict it to any type of work because it simply says works.
Nick: That's a bogus argument in my opinion. The immediate context, immediate chapters, and book as a whole must all be taken into account when determining terms. To isolate a passage and say it just says “works” so it's “works in general” is fallacious (special pleading). There are bigger and more decisive issues than going back and forth on “faith” versus “works,” so there is no sense in repeating ourselves.
NPT: I think the argument that Paul makes in Romans 4 can make sense without reference to the Mosaic Law.
Nick: That's just it though, the context is the ML. Whether it could make sense otherwise is irrelevant. The J vs G distinction has it's heart in the Mosaic Covenant, and it's the only reason to bring up the distinction at all.
NPT: I also do not see how Romans 9:32 would not strengthen my understanding of Romans 11.
Nick: I think I originally said Rm 9:30-32. Paul is contrasting J to G along the lines of faith versus works, which only makes sense if it's the Mosaic Law. This theme is even more pronounced in the following verses. If the issue was “works in general,” then all men would be in the same boat. That's why I believe the Judaizer heresy was based on Jewish Racism/Superiority rather than broad Pelagianism.
NPT: I think Paul has good reason to bring up the Jew/Gentile issue that is compatible with my understanding of this text. All Paul is doing here is reminding his audience that both Jews and Gentiles can be saved by faith. This needs to be done because he condemned both parties generally in Romans 3:9-20
Nick: He's contrasting faith to works of the law, specifically circumcision, which is a blatant Jew versus Gentile distinction (3:28f). Also, I don't believe both parties were condemned generally in 3:9-20, but rather the Jews directly and the Gentiles indirectly (see Rom 2:17-24; 3:1-8).
NPT: Paul asks the question in 3:21 because it would appear as if one would not need to follow the law if his position where correct and the same question is asked in Romans 5:1-2 for the same reason. ...where does Paul says what you say?...
Nick: You're asking a ton of questions in a row here. Paul's point is that the Mosaic Law served it's purpose, but now that Christ has come it's become obsolete: this is what Rom 10:4 and Gal 3:23-25 are explicitly saying, and thus how Rom 3:31 is to be read. I'm exegeting based on the historical principle of “let clearer passages interpret less clear passages.”
NPT: Circumcision is used at the end of Romans 2 as merely something synonymous with being Jewish...Paul has already shown in Romans 2 that circumcision has nothing to do with being a doer of the law or keeping the law. So circumcision cannot be included in this law that Paul is speaking of here in Romans 3:31. It still seems that you have not answered my question about your interpretation making sense.
ReplyDeleteNick: It is not simply synonymous with being Jewish, but rather expands to embracing Jews life (the Torah, eg Gal 5:3). The Judaizer heresy was explicitly stated in that manner: Acts 15:5.
And Paul says circumcision does have something to do with being a doer of the law; what you said makes circumcision worthless (contrary to Rom 3:1-8 and 4:9ff). To say “circumcision cannot be included” in the 3:31 law is dubious considering the circumcision/uncircumcision and jewish/gentile distinction is clearly made in the preceding verses.
What was your question about my interpretation?
Response: I think that perhaps you have misunderstood Reformed theology. In Romans 4 we say that the actual ungodly person is legally guilty until God pronounces him righteous and at which point the sinner is still a sinner declared righteous legally who was previously guilty legally. There is a mixing of actual and legal language with respect to our distinctions between original and actual sin and when we are fully in accordance with our righteous verdict in heaven.
Nick: I have not misunderstood Reformed theology: Justification relates to Legal Righteousness while Sanctification relates to Moral Righteousness. The two categories don't overlap, which is what the Catholics are condemned for doing.
My point is that you have Romans 4:5 talking about Moral and Legal Righteousness at the SAME TIME. I call this dubious and problematic as far as a coherent argument goes for Paul. For what you have Paul doing is using 'righteousness' in two manners in the same reading, which is equivocation. Since there is no overlap between justification and sanctification, saying “God declares legally righteous the morally unrighteous,” is as non-sequitor as “God declares legally righteous the man with a red shirt.” That means the issue of legal UNrighteousness isn't even the issue in Rom 4:5.
To the Reformed, Romans 4 is discussing justification only, so why Paul is using sanctification terminology is an issue you have to answer. Further, you'd have to then prove that “ungodly” is a moral rather than legal term, otherwise you're begging the question.
Response: The first understanding ["you legally unrighteous man are legally righteous"] does not seem false and second ["you morally unrighteous man are legally righteous"] seems to follow that at one point a man was actually unrighteous and legally and the legal status was changed. How are these false and a non-sequitor?
Nick: The first understanding is a blatant contradiction and lie; calling ~X to be X. The second understanding is begging the question and category mistake, as I noted above.
Hello Nick,
ReplyDeleteNick: This is more meaty than a combox can handle, and contains nuances which in fact the whole issue hangs. For example, you say Christ "turned aside the wrath of God," and Catholics would agree with that. The problem is Penal Substitution denies that, and in stead teaches Christ did not turn away God's wrath, but in fact became the object of that wrath. If this distinction isnt recognized, then we'd be talking in circles.
Response: I understand the distinction I think that Penal substation is made reasonable by this argument:
The Traditional Protestant position teaches that Christ was legally imputed our sins and that we are legally imputed his righteousness. But is there any basis for this teaching in the Bible? I believe that there is a strong basis for this in 2 Corinthians 5:21, it reads:
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
How should we understand this passage? Did Jesus actually sin or was it merely legal?
From this scripture verse we can develop the following argument
P1: Jesus becoming sin is either actual or legal
P2: It is not actual
C: Hence, it is legal
There are two reasons for supposing the truth of Premise 2. The first reason is biblical: the bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that Christ did not actually sin (Heb. 4:15). The second reason is philosophical: God being the greatest possible being it is rather impossible that such a being would be united with a sinful human nature. For if God could be united to such a sinful nature then we could think of a greater being, a being that was not united to a sinful nature. And then God would no longer be God, a clear contradiction. Thus, we are forced to conclude that the transaction is legal.
There is further Biblical evidence that the redemption event was legal in Colossians 2:13-14:
"13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."
Given that the sin that Christ recieved was only legal in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and not actual then it is only reasonable to suppose that the righteousness spoken of in this context is legal as well. Thus, what we have here is a glorious transaction between sinner and a righteous man. A transaction that is only compatible with Protestant theology and not with Rome and Orthodoxy. We as sinners are as piles of dung covered in the snow of the glorious righteousness of Christ.
Nick: I do not believe any of those passages suggest "perfect perpetual" obedience in the Protestant sense of "one sin and you permanently fail".
ReplyDeleteResponse: But this is what precisely these verses say:
James 2:10 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
John 8:34 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Matthew 5:48 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Nick: This is a gratuitous assertion. The fact the notions of forgiveness and mercy exist directly disprove this notion. The so called "passive obedience" is sufficient (and clearest Biblically) to answer for God saving apart from perfect perpetual obedience.
Response: Is it really? So God as the greatest possible being would have the greatest possible justice would not punish any instance of sin? This seems to be a necessary truth of reason. Now I believe God’s forgiveness and Mercy are compatible with his maximal justice and they are only compatible through the God-man Jesus Christ who was the only one to satisfy God’s perfect justice. What you seem to be doing is letting his mercy and forgiveness compromise his maximal justice. The Bible also teaches that God is perfectly just (Jer. 11:20; Zep. 3:5; Jer. 11:20; Exo. 34:6-7)
Nick: This is an incorrect claim. Not being in a position at a given point of time is not equivalent to permanently being removed from that position. So, as an example, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not in a position to earn Heaven, but after we receive it we are now enabled to (eg Gal 6:7-9).
Response: Well then how do you make sense of the argument in Romans? Paul shows that both Jew and Gentile are condemned and sinful in chapter 1 and 2 and 3 he shows the only way we can have righteousness is by the condition of faith. All Galatains is saying that those who have the Spirit will obtain eternal life, but this is not incompatible with us being justified by faith alone. So what biblical reason would you have for all arguments I gave for not being able to be justified by good work only applies some of the time?
Nick: Notions of "faith," "mercy," "forgiveness," etc, have no place in a strictly legal context. Further, this still only falls into the "passive obedience" category.
Response: But this is the way Paul uses this legal language (Rom. 4:5 8:1; 8:33-34). So obviously your assessment must not be true. And aside from that what positive evidence do you have that they have no place in a strictly legal context?
Nick: Sure, and this simply indicates Christ's "obedience unto death," not the keeping of the Law in our place.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Here it suggests that Christ’s righteousness is ours:
1 Corinthians 1:29-31 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
Romans 5:19 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Nick: This falls into the passive category, nothing suggesting "active."
Response: Yes it is because Jesus did work for us and for the Father so that God can make Christ righteousness our own (1 Cor. 1:29-31; Rom. 5:19).
Nick: Passive obedience at most is indicated by 2 Cor 5:18-21 and Rom 3:24-26.
Response: No, because righteousness that God gives us is paralleled to the sin that Christ takes on for us so textually this suggests a legal transaction.
Nick: You're still lacking Scriptural proof for active obedience. The above description is merely a restating of Protestant assertions.
Response: Taken in the entire paragraph I wrote it is a conclusion I was drawing from the entirety of the biblical passages I gave.
Nick: The term "legal language" is subjective. Catholics agree that "legal language" is used, but we deny that justification is or can be forced into strictly legal categories. But even that is a side issue, the real issue is proving the existence of 'active obedience', and that hasn't been done by any stretch.
Response: I disagree. If you do not hold to strictly legal language then it is difficult to see how you get around Romans 4:5, 8:1, and 8:33-34.
Nick: That is a wholly fallacious argument; the denial of active obedience is not related to justification being legal or requiring works.
Response: Yes it does since God is just and he requires that we follow his law perfectly.
Nick: By “last response” I assume you meant your talk on active obedience. I responded to that in the post directly above this. My point doesn't seem to be addressed here, regarding the invalid equating of “righteousness of God” with the concept of “righteousness of Christ.”
Response: Yeah, it is not addressed here because as I have said before I do not think that righteousness of God is the same thing as saying the righteousness of Christ. I do think however, what is being emphasized here is that God declares the ungodly righteous and in this sense this is the righteousness declared by God the Father. Douglas Moo a Reformed Christian takes this same view as me in his commentary on Romans so again Protestant need not think these terms are synonymous.
Nick: This is missing the point. I never said it was lexically possible to have the definition the Reformed side is asserting! I said the rare usage of “X reckoned as Y” was NOT even what the Reformed were asserting. The phrase “faith reckoned as righteousness” does NOT mean TO the Reformed that faith itself is seen as righteousness, but RATHER that faith acts like a “empty hand” that grabs onto an alien righteousness. Big difference. There is no lexical evidence of “impute” being used in the Reformed manner.
ReplyDeleteResponse: All the Reformed mean by those metaphors is that faith in Christ is the thing that makes you legally reckoned righteous. Those empty hand metaphors are merely an illustration of what it means for faith to make you legally righteous before God even thought you are ungodly (hence the term alien righteousness).
Nick: That's a bogus argument in my opinion. The immediate context, immediate chapters, and book as a whole must all be taken into account when determining terms. To isolate a passage and say it just says “works” so it's “works in general” is fallacious (special pleading). There are bigger and more decisive issues than going back and forth on “faith” versus “works,” so there is no sense in repeating ourselves.
Response: Why is it fallacious? I am just taking works as the Greek word suggests “actions” and “deeds”. But you want to only limit this to Jewish works. Why do this? The burden of proof is on you to show that this word has this meaning that the Greek word intrinsically lacks by itself. This is all the more obvious because Romans 9:11 includes works in a general moral category of good and bad rather than the particular works of Moses. So you have to show then this is referring to that here. On top of all this Grace is used in such a way in Romans 6:1 that Paul can ask the question that because of grace can we just sin all we want? But if he were just condemning the works of the Mosaic law as not being compatible with grace then he could never ask this question in Romans 6:1. So it seems in the end if we were to consider the entire book of Romans and Paul’s teaching on grace it would not seem to be favorable for what you are advocating.
Nick: That's just it though, the context is the ML. Whether it could make sense otherwise is irrelevant. The J vs G distinction has it's heart in the Mosaic Covenant, and it's the only reason to bring up the distinction at all.
Response: Actually it starts in the Abrahamic covenant; the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Paul is showing in Romans 4 that one can be justified even if they are not included in the promise covenant of Abraham.
Nick: I think I originally said Rm 9:30-32. Paul is contrasting J to G along the lines of faith versus works, which only makes sense if it's the Mosaic Law. This theme is even more pronounced in the following verses. If the issue was “works in general,” then all men would be in the same boat. That's why I believe the Judaizer heresy was based on Jewish Racism/Superiority rather than broad Pelagianism.
Response: Then why does Paul emphasize works in general when he discussing who is elect and who is not (Rom. 9:11)? Clearly by this Paul has much larger reasons for condemning works than just ethnic superiority when he includes good and bad with reference to works. The most difficult part for your contention is that Paul says outright that the Problem with the Jews was not so much the racial superiority but that they tried to establish the righteousness on their own, this seems like broad Pelagianism to me (Rom. 10:3).
Nick: He's contrasting faith to works of the law, specifically circumcision, which is a blatant Jew versus Gentile distinction (3:28f). Also, I don't believe both parties were condemned generally in 3:9-20, but rather the Jews directly and the Gentiles indirectly (see Rom 2:17-24; 3:1-8).
ReplyDeleteResponse: Actually the condemnation of the Gentile directly is found in chapter 1:18-32 and then indirectly as you mentioned in the other verses. The problem is that in chapters 1-3 in Romans seems largely to do with sin and not with the problem of circumcision. Chapter 3:9-20 speak of sin and how no Jew or Gentile can be right before God by works so clearly the problem here transcends the issue of circumcision but rather the general sinfulness of humanity. The term circumcision is brought in Romans 3 and 4 only to talk about how Jew and Gentile can be saved faith alone, but this does not negate the fact that both are justified by faith because their sins and the inability to have perfect works condemn them, not circumcision at all.
Nick: You're asking a ton of questions in a row here. Paul's point is that the Mosaic Law served it's purpose, but now that Christ has come it's become obsolete: this is what Rom 10:4 and Gal 3:23-25 are explicitly saying, and thus how Rom 3:31 is to be read. I'm exegeting based on the historical principle of “let clearer passages interpret less clear passages.”
Response: It is good to ask questions. I would encourage you to think critically and ask questions as well. It is good for understanding my arguments and my position and how I would deal with arguments. Because the issue is not about debates or who is better at rhetoric, but the most important thing is the truth. I think the context you have pulled from Gal 3 and Roman 10 are not even discussing the same issue as Romans 3:31. The Greek words there cannot mean it has served its purpose but now it is obsolete. The strange thing is I am not even sure how even get that from the English even. The principle is let scripture interpret scripture, but that does not entail that you make verse mean what they could never mean by other unrelated scriptures.
Nick: It is not simply synonymous with being Jewish, but rather expands to embracing Jews life (the Torah, eg Gal 5:3). The Judaizer heresy was explicitly stated in that manner: Acts 15:5.
And Paul says circumcision does have something to do with being a doer of the law; what you said makes circumcision worthless (contrary to Rom 3:1-8 and 4:9ff). To say “circumcision cannot be included” in the 3:31 law is dubious considering the circumcision/uncircumcision and jewish/gentile distinction is clearly made in the preceding verses.
Response: Gal. 5:3 is attacking the notion of circumcision entailing doing all the law because the Judaizers thought you could add the circumcision to justification but the only thing you can have as a condition for justification is faith, the context is clearly about justification here in Galatians 5 and this is evident by the next verse 4. The heresy was that they were trying to add circumcision to justification. In Romans 3:1-8 Paul uses circumcision synonymous with being Jewish and this evident from verse 1. The rest of the verse just deals with the sinfulness of the Jews and it’s relation to them being Jewish. Paul is using 3:31 with reference to letting the Jews and Gentiles that they can be both justified by faith alone. The issue at Galatia is different because Paul is attacking a certain manifestion of Mosaic works righteousness by trying to add circumcision as a condition for justification, but this is not Paul’s point in Romans.
Nick: I have not misunderstood Reformed theology: Justification relates to Legal Righteousness while Sanctification relates to Moral Righteousness. The two categories don't overlap, which is what the Catholics are condemned for doing.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Catholics are condemned for saying the overlap on the last day which makes worthy to have eternal life. But after you already have had eternal life by faith alone you will no longer able to sin which means the legal and actual do overlap in the eternal state. Which is what I said above but you have failed to respond to it.
My point is that you have Romans 4:5 talking about Moral and Legal Righteousness at the SAME TIME. I call this dubious and problematic as far as a coherent argument goes for Paul. For what you have Paul doing is using 'righteousness' in two manners in the same reading, which is equivocation. Since there is no overlap between justification and sanctification, saying “God declares legally righteous the morally unrighteous,” is as non-sequitor as “God declares legally righteous the man with a red shirt.” That means the issue of legal UNrighteousness isn't even the issue in Rom 4:5.
To the Reformed, Romans 4 is discussing justification only, so why Paul is using sanctification terminology is an issue you have to answer. Further, you'd have to then prove that “ungodly” is a moral rather than legal term, otherwise you're begging the question.
Response: The term “Righteousness” is not used in two different ways once In Romans 4 and I have not suggested this entire time. The Reformed position in Romans 4 is that Abraham was actually ungodly because of Paul’s obvious argument in Romans 1-3 that all people are ungodly. And then prior to him having faith the basis for his legal declaration of ungodliness was his actual ungodliness that all people have according to Paul in Romans 1-3. Romans 4 then is talking about Abraham’s legal ungodliness being changed to legal godliness. Romans 4 has clearly a legal view, but the basis for the legality can be inferred from Paul’s argument in the book of Romans.
Nick: The first understanding is a blatant contradiction and lie; calling ~X to be X. The second understanding is begging the question and category mistake, as I noted above.
Response: Why is it a contradiction for God to change my legal basis for guilty to innocent? Could not God have a morally sufficient reason for legally declaring someone something they are not because his justice has been satisfied in another way to bring about the greater good?
God Bless,
NPT
For your thoughtful consideration:
ReplyDeletehttp://thoughtsfromdrt.blogspot.com/