Why I am a Protestant: Justification by Faith Alone

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

The Legal Exchange of Redemption

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.

An Argument For Original Guilt

Original Guilt is the doctrine that all of humanity is legally imputed the sin of Adam in the garden, even infants. But is there any good reason to believe in this doctrine? Some have objected that it simply is not fair because an agent s has no control over sin x, but yet agent s is held morally responsible for sin x. But perhaps there are good biblical reasons for thinking it is true. Here is two such scriptures that might suggest this:

Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

and

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

This is how Romans 5:12 and 8:10 might entail original sin:

P1: When people die it is only because of their sin (original or actual)

P2: Infants die

C3: Hence, infants have sin

P4: The sin that infants have is either actual or original

P5: The sin is not actual.

C6: Hence, the sin is original that infants have.


Most People tend to think that infants in the womb and one day old infants do not have the mental capacity to actually sin, but it seems clear that one day old infants and infants in the womb do die. The sin they die for is therefore, original rather than actual. This argument seems valid and sound to me. What do you think?

Problems with the Eastern Orthodox Distinction of Person/Nature?

In Eastern Orthodox theology there is a distinction between a person and a nature. A nature in this view would be a thing that has instantiated properties. A person is not a nature nor is it an instantiation of a nature. The reason this is so is to avoid Christological heresies such as Nestorianism. For if a person is an instantiation of a nature or is a nature itself then you have two persons in the incarnation which would be Nestorianism. I do not think one has to buy this distinction to avoid Christological Heresies, but nonetheless their motivation is a good one. The problem with this position is that it leads to pure nominalism:

P1: Nominalism is the view that general predications of individual things are merely names and not instances of universals.

P2: The Person is not a instantiation of a universal

C: All predications of a person are nominalistic

If a person does not instantiate any universals then what is predicated of the person is merely a fictional title or a title based on names alone. This is significant because the Eastern Orthodox often accuse Protestants of being nominalists because of their view of legal justification by faith alone (as if nominalism in all respects were irrational or theoretically deficient). But here it seems that the Eastern Orthodox reasoning on this point is inconsistent and arbitrary since with regards to persons they have no problem with being nominalistic. Thus, this shows two things 1) the eastern view of person is nominalistic, 2) Eastern Orthodox no longer has a philosophical critique about the Protestant view of Justification on the basis that it is nominalistic.


***Note: This is inconsistent with my last post on Divine Simplicity but I was merely giving that post for those who thought perhaps the person/nature distinction is reasonable.