N.T. Wright - Challenging his theology
- Thread starter mkgal1
- Start date
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,592
- 18,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think where Wright muddies things up there by shifting the emphasis to transformation.
Lutherans, for instance, don't deny that people are changed ontologically, we just insist that isn't the grounds for the forgiveness of sins.
Upvote
0
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2,123
- 743
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The place to start is the plight of the 'UNGODLY' before a Holy Righteous God! For this is the predicament all mankind is facing! The first Representative Adam was the Head of mankind. He failed to keep the Covenant of Works with God. With ONE ACT of disobedience he breached the Covenant and bought condemnation and death upon all his progeny. Now, all mankind is under the curse of the Law, that condemns sinners!
Is this what you are missing in your theology. Nobody can obtain righteousness through (Mosaic) Law! Which is why God made a Promise to Adam & Eve, and Abraham; a Covenant of Grace.
What is the Covenant of Grace? God Promise of sending a Redeemer, to save His people, and reverse the curse of Law, through His birth, Life, death, and resurrection; through Christ's Active/Passive Obedience that merits righteousness through the Law, which is imputed to those who believe.
Something just stuck me. Your theology annuls or discontinues the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant, because of the New Covenant. Yes, it's all coming back to me. This theology of ours is (Medieval Theology) meaning that Salvation and Justification is depended upon the obedience of the believer to receive a 'Final Justification'! Now correct here, where have we read or heard of such a thing before? That's right the Council of Trent. Conflating Law & Gospel into one perverts and distorts the distinction between Law & Gospel in relation to Justification by Faith Alone apart from works of the Law! Which in turn perverts the 'FREE GIFT' of Christ's righteousness! Your theology is called "Covenantal Nomism". Meaning ONE Covenant.
Yes, I am very aware of D.G. Dunn and his theology (New Perspective). Which he also got from E.P. Sanders. I will have to reply in 2-3 part posts, because I want to be clear and provide the errors of E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright, and D.G. Dunn. So please bear with me. I will
provide
an article from one of my favorite theologians on the topic, Michael Horton on Justification.
ALTHOUGH THE NEW PERSPECTIVE OFTEN defines itself against the Reformation, Professor Dunn identifies a more specific (and quite different!) target: namely, the narrowing of the Gospel to "individual peace with God": "In NT scholarship, particularly Bultmann, in popular evangelism, typically it rallies Billy Graham."
Although I read Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism years ago, prepared to be properly chastened, I became even more convinced of the striking parallels with medieval theology--and Sanders' own theology implied agreement with both on key points, summarized as "Covenantal Nomism" (Refer: Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders pp. 75, 543-56). Sanders' own theological convictions were everywhere apparent in his assumption that any element of leniency or divine assistance militated against any attribution of "works-righteousness." By the end of the book , I was convinced that at least the streams of Judaism he described (election based on foreseen obedience, the "merits of the fathers," the "weighting of merits," even repentance--resembling the elements of penance---making up for sins, etc.) bore striking resemblances to the "Covenantal Nomism" of the late Medieval (especially Nominalist) theology. (Note: The merits of the fathers/weighting of merits/repentance was taught that people can make up for sins, by tilting the scale, by doing more GOOD WORKS that it out weighed the sins committed. It was a scoreboard, keeping score of sins and good works. And on this was decided that a person can receive a 'Final Justification' to merit Salvation; though they deny such a thing can merit Salvation; It's just another attempt to dress up the Self-Righteousness (Law) in fancy clothes of Grace!) Yet where Sanders saw in Paul a different "pattern of religion" (participationist vs. covenantal nomism), James Dunn and N.T. Wright see these more as integrated tensions in Paul.
Of course, we must avoid anachronism, not to mention caricature. Nevertheless, whatever one calls it---synergism, covenantal nomism, future justification based on an entire life lived, or congruent merit, the basic problem from a classic Reformed perspective is a confusion of Law and Gospel.
Given the prominence of Abraham in the Covenant of Grace, Reformed theology has never drawn a sharp distinction between Old and New testaments or Israel and the church. In this respect, its emphasis is Promise and Fulfillment. At the time, it has recognized a distinction between two different kinds of Covenantal arrangements---namely Law and Promise (Gospel). However, in its zeal to overcome ancient and more recent Christian caricatures of Judaism, the New Perspective elides (omit)important considerations of the distinction within the Hebrew Scriptures themselves between different types of covenants. From Moshe Weinfeld to Jon Leveson, Jewish scholars have recognized parallels between biblical covenants and political treaties of the ancient Near East. The New Perspective has found a rich quarry in Second Temple Judaism, but surprising little attention has been drawn to these sources, which I engage elsewhere especially in relation to the New Perspective.
In Second Temple Judaism, it seems that these distinct covenants had become assimilated into general tendency that Sanders' properly identifies as covenantal nomism. I couldn't agree more with Sanders' evaluation: "No document better expresses the double character of 'covenantal nomism' than the book of Deuteronomy." It is certainly true also that there was "a provision for sin and atonement within Israel's cultic system." The whole purpose of the Covenant of Law (Sinai) was to direct Israel to its Savior (Promise); in that sense, it was in service to the Covenant of Grace. However, the terms laid down especially in Deuteronomy make it clear enough that the Sinai Covenant itself is not the same in form or consent as the Abrahamic Covenant, or the New Covenant that Jeremiah prophesies, which is "not like the covenant" at Sinai (Jer. 31:32). Paul especially labors to draw out the differences between Sinai and Zion, earthly and heavenly Jerusalem, Law and Gospel, and even designates them explicitly as "two Covenants" (Gal 4:24). The earlier (Abraham) Covenant cannot be annulled by a later (Sinaitic) Covenant (Gal. 3:15-18). Like Adam, they transgressed the Covenant (Hos. 6:7). "In Adam," Israel stands condemned along with the Gentiles (Rom. 3:9-20, 5:12-14), yet "in Christ", Jew and Gentile are justified together through Faith (Rom. 3:21-26,5:15-21).
So while covenantal nomism is a good way of capturing the dynamics of Sinai, the Abrahamic-Davidic-New Covenant (i.e., the Covenant of Grace) is qualitatively distinct. Assimilating (conflating) Law and Promise into a single Covenant leads to attempts (strained, in my view) to reconcile the obvious conditionality of Sinai to the New Covenant (Turns Law into Gospel; and Gospel into Law). For example, Dunn writes, "So Israel's righteousness was not so much something to be achieved by their self-effort; rather it was understood and measured in terms of obedience to the Law of the Covenant, faithfulness to the terms of the Covenant." "Achieved by their self-effort" may be the wrong way of putting it, but "measured in terms of obedience to the law of the covenant" barely softens that idea!
Dunn allows that Sanders may have "overreacted," focusing "too closely on the Covenant dimension and underplayed the nomistic dimension (covenantal nomism). Second Temple and rabbinic writings may well be less consistent than Sanders argued." Nevertheless, I suggest that we need something more than a mere tinkering with the definition of "covenantal nomism." In short, where the New Perspective sees "Covenantal" as a gracious modifier of "nomism" (with a dynamic tension between Law and Grace), classic Reformed theology sees two distinct types of Covenants. After the Fall, every divine-human relationship is predicated on Grace in some sense, so not even the Sinai Covenant is "Pelagian." The land grant is a gift, based on the Abrahamic Promise (Deut.7:6; 8:17-18; 9:4-12), but a gift, based keep or lose. "Get in by Grace, stay in by Obedience" is good way of summarizing the Sinai treaty, but not the Covenant of Grace. There is indeed "Law" in the New Covenant as well. However, it functions as the "reasonable service" in view of God's mercies, not as the basis for Covenantal blessings. Only in Christ do we have "every spiritual blessing in heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3). So I am closer to Sanders in seeing Paul as advancing not only a different emphasis, but a different paradigm from covenantal nomism.
(Part One)
ALTHOUGH THE NEW PERSPECTIVE OFTEN defines itself against the Reformation, Professor Dunn identifies a more specific (and quite different!) target: namely, the narrowing of the Gospel to "individual peace with God": "In NT scholarship, particularly Bultmann, in popular evangelism, typically it rallies Billy Graham."
Although I read Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism years ago, prepared to be properly chastened, I became even more convinced of the striking parallels with medieval theology--and Sanders' own theology implied agreement with both on key points, summarized as "Covenantal Nomism" (Refer: Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders pp. 75, 543-56). Sanders' own theological convictions were everywhere apparent in his assumption that any element of leniency or divine assistance militated against any attribution of "works-righteousness." By the end of the book , I was convinced that at least the streams of Judaism he described (election based on foreseen obedience, the "merits of the fathers," the "weighting of merits," even repentance--resembling the elements of penance---making up for sins, etc.) bore striking resemblances to the "Covenantal Nomism" of the late Medieval (especially Nominalist) theology. (Note: The merits of the fathers/weighting of merits/repentance was taught that people can make up for sins, by tilting the scale, by doing more GOOD WORKS that it out weighed the sins committed. It was a scoreboard, keeping score of sins and good works. And on this was decided that a person can receive a 'Final Justification' to merit Salvation; though they deny such a thing can merit Salvation; It's just another attempt to dress up the Self-Righteousness (Law) in fancy clothes of Grace!) Yet where Sanders saw in Paul a different "pattern of religion" (participationist vs. covenantal nomism), James Dunn and N.T. Wright see these more as integrated tensions in Paul.
Of course, we must avoid anachronism, not to mention caricature. Nevertheless, whatever one calls it---synergism, covenantal nomism, future justification based on an entire life lived, or congruent merit, the basic problem from a classic Reformed perspective is a confusion of Law and Gospel.
Given the prominence of Abraham in the Covenant of Grace, Reformed theology has never drawn a sharp distinction between Old and New testaments or Israel and the church. In this respect, its emphasis is Promise and Fulfillment. At the time, it has recognized a distinction between two different kinds of Covenantal arrangements---namely Law and Promise (Gospel). However, in its zeal to overcome ancient and more recent Christian caricatures of Judaism, the New Perspective elides (omit)important considerations of the distinction within the Hebrew Scriptures themselves between different types of covenants. From Moshe Weinfeld to Jon Leveson, Jewish scholars have recognized parallels between biblical covenants and political treaties of the ancient Near East. The New Perspective has found a rich quarry in Second Temple Judaism, but surprising little attention has been drawn to these sources, which I engage elsewhere especially in relation to the New Perspective.
In Second Temple Judaism, it seems that these distinct covenants had become assimilated into general tendency that Sanders' properly identifies as covenantal nomism. I couldn't agree more with Sanders' evaluation: "No document better expresses the double character of 'covenantal nomism' than the book of Deuteronomy." It is certainly true also that there was "a provision for sin and atonement within Israel's cultic system." The whole purpose of the Covenant of Law (Sinai) was to direct Israel to its Savior (Promise); in that sense, it was in service to the Covenant of Grace. However, the terms laid down especially in Deuteronomy make it clear enough that the Sinai Covenant itself is not the same in form or consent as the Abrahamic Covenant, or the New Covenant that Jeremiah prophesies, which is "not like the covenant" at Sinai (Jer. 31:32). Paul especially labors to draw out the differences between Sinai and Zion, earthly and heavenly Jerusalem, Law and Gospel, and even designates them explicitly as "two Covenants" (Gal 4:24). The earlier (Abraham) Covenant cannot be annulled by a later (Sinaitic) Covenant (Gal. 3:15-18). Like Adam, they transgressed the Covenant (Hos. 6:7). "In Adam," Israel stands condemned along with the Gentiles (Rom. 3:9-20, 5:12-14), yet "in Christ", Jew and Gentile are justified together through Faith (Rom. 3:21-26,5:15-21).
So while covenantal nomism is a good way of capturing the dynamics of Sinai, the Abrahamic-Davidic-New Covenant (i.e., the Covenant of Grace) is qualitatively distinct. Assimilating (conflating) Law and Promise into a single Covenant leads to attempts (strained, in my view) to reconcile the obvious conditionality of Sinai to the New Covenant (Turns Law into Gospel; and Gospel into Law). For example, Dunn writes, "So Israel's righteousness was not so much something to be achieved by their self-effort; rather it was understood and measured in terms of obedience to the Law of the Covenant, faithfulness to the terms of the Covenant." "Achieved by their self-effort" may be the wrong way of putting it, but "measured in terms of obedience to the law of the covenant" barely softens that idea!
Dunn allows that Sanders may have "overreacted," focusing "too closely on the Covenant dimension and underplayed the nomistic dimension (covenantal nomism). Second Temple and rabbinic writings may well be less consistent than Sanders argued." Nevertheless, I suggest that we need something more than a mere tinkering with the definition of "covenantal nomism." In short, where the New Perspective sees "Covenantal" as a gracious modifier of "nomism" (with a dynamic tension between Law and Grace), classic Reformed theology sees two distinct types of Covenants. After the Fall, every divine-human relationship is predicated on Grace in some sense, so not even the Sinai Covenant is "Pelagian." The land grant is a gift, based on the Abrahamic Promise (Deut.7:6; 8:17-18; 9:4-12), but a gift, based keep or lose. "Get in by Grace, stay in by Obedience" is good way of summarizing the Sinai treaty, but not the Covenant of Grace. There is indeed "Law" in the New Covenant as well. However, it functions as the "reasonable service" in view of God's mercies, not as the basis for Covenantal blessings. Only in Christ do we have "every spiritual blessing in heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3). So I am closer to Sanders in seeing Paul as advancing not only a different emphasis, but a different paradigm from covenantal nomism.
(Part One)
Upvote
0
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2,123
- 743
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
(Part Two)
Dunn helpfully highlights the significance of boundary markers like circumcision, but in my view the New Perspective fails to account adequately for the deeper problem. In the Abrahamic Covenant, circumcision was a sign and seal of a gracious Covenant. As G.E. Mendenhall observes,
"It is not often enough seen that no obligation are imposed upon Abraham. Circumcision is not originally an obligation, but a sign of the Covenant, like the rainbow in Gem 9. It serves to identify the recipients of the Covenant, as well as to give a concrete indication that s Covenant exists. It is for the protection of the Promise, perhaps, like the mark on Cain of Gen 4. The Covenant of Moses, on the other hand is almost the exact opposite. It imposes specific obligations upon the tribes or clans without binding Yahweh to specific obligations, though is goes without saying that the Covenant relationship itself presupposed the protection and support of Yahweh to Israel."
However, interpreted as the sign and seal of the Sinai Covenant, circumcision could only render one personally liable to the Law's sanctions rather than identify heirs of Promise. By itself, circumcision is now indifferent (Gal. 5:6), but not if one requires (or undergoes) circumcision in order to be a rightful heir of the Promise. In that case, one is "cut off" from Christ (Gal. 5:2-4). Why? Because "every man who accepts circumcision is obligated to keep the whole Law" (Gal. 5:3). The "circumcision party" is faulted not merely for ethnic exclusion: "For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law" (Gal. 6:13). Circumcision has become for them a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, as it was for Abraham (Rom. 4:11), but as a sign and seal of their "All this we will do" in the Sinai Covenant that was never intended to yield participation in the everlasting inheritance. Paul's agitators had collapsed Zion into Sinai (making the Gospel into Law, which removes all Grace, then places the person back under the Law to meet requirements to be justified in the future!), the Promise-Covenant into Law-Covenant. As "a Pharisee of Pharisees," Paul says that he had trusted in the Law for righteousness, and the problem he addresses in the Galatian church is not merely ethnocentricity but Legalism (Gal. 2:21, etc.). The contrast is between Covenants of Law and Gospel, not between some works and others (Gal. 3:10-29; 4:21-31). Consequently, I disagree with Dunn's conclusion that Paul sees "Israel's status before God" and "Christians' status before God" as equivalent. Not even he individual Jew's status before God in the OT was equivalent to the nation's status in the typological land.
I found important areas if agreement as well, especially on the controversial pistis Christou question, his concern to "hold Paul together" on Justification and participation, and his critique of Baur's contrast between Judaism and Christianity in terms of "universalism vs. particularism." I also agree with his concern that law-gospel distinction can be turned into an abstract antithesis, as if the law itself were intrinsically opposed to the promise. After all, Justification provides the legal basis on which the new creation can finally dawn, with the law written on the heart rather than merely on stone tablets. This is why Paul can observe the irony that "Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by Faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that Law" (Rom. 6; 12:1-2; 13:8-14; Gal. 5:16-26). I also appreciate Dunn's emphasis on Paul's Gospel answering the horizontal as well as vertical relationships. However, the question remains: What is the content of the inheritance that creates one family, which is made up of people “from every tribe and language and people and nation” ? Covenant of Grace: (Union with Christ; election, redemption, effectual calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification in Christ Alone through Faith Alone apart from our works!) is the back-page rather than FRONT PAGE NEWS!
Romans 4:5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
"It is not often enough seen that no obligation are imposed upon Abraham. Circumcision is not originally an obligation, but a sign of the Covenant, like the rainbow in Gem 9. It serves to identify the recipients of the Covenant, as well as to give a concrete indication that s Covenant exists. It is for the protection of the Promise, perhaps, like the mark on Cain of Gen 4. The Covenant of Moses, on the other hand is almost the exact opposite. It imposes specific obligations upon the tribes or clans without binding Yahweh to specific obligations, though is goes without saying that the Covenant relationship itself presupposed the protection and support of Yahweh to Israel."
However, interpreted as the sign and seal of the Sinai Covenant, circumcision could only render one personally liable to the Law's sanctions rather than identify heirs of Promise. By itself, circumcision is now indifferent (Gal. 5:6), but not if one requires (or undergoes) circumcision in order to be a rightful heir of the Promise. In that case, one is "cut off" from Christ (Gal. 5:2-4). Why? Because "every man who accepts circumcision is obligated to keep the whole Law" (Gal. 5:3). The "circumcision party" is faulted not merely for ethnic exclusion: "For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law" (Gal. 6:13). Circumcision has become for them a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, as it was for Abraham (Rom. 4:11), but as a sign and seal of their "All this we will do" in the Sinai Covenant that was never intended to yield participation in the everlasting inheritance. Paul's agitators had collapsed Zion into Sinai (making the Gospel into Law, which removes all Grace, then places the person back under the Law to meet requirements to be justified in the future!), the Promise-Covenant into Law-Covenant. As "a Pharisee of Pharisees," Paul says that he had trusted in the Law for righteousness, and the problem he addresses in the Galatian church is not merely ethnocentricity but Legalism (Gal. 2:21, etc.). The contrast is between Covenants of Law and Gospel, not between some works and others (Gal. 3:10-29; 4:21-31). Consequently, I disagree with Dunn's conclusion that Paul sees "Israel's status before God" and "Christians' status before God" as equivalent. Not even he individual Jew's status before God in the OT was equivalent to the nation's status in the typological land.
I found important areas if agreement as well, especially on the controversial pistis Christou question, his concern to "hold Paul together" on Justification and participation, and his critique of Baur's contrast between Judaism and Christianity in terms of "universalism vs. particularism." I also agree with his concern that law-gospel distinction can be turned into an abstract antithesis, as if the law itself were intrinsically opposed to the promise. After all, Justification provides the legal basis on which the new creation can finally dawn, with the law written on the heart rather than merely on stone tablets. This is why Paul can observe the irony that "Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by Faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that Law" (Rom. 6; 12:1-2; 13:8-14; Gal. 5:16-26). I also appreciate Dunn's emphasis on Paul's Gospel answering the horizontal as well as vertical relationships. However, the question remains: What is the content of the inheritance that creates one family, which is made up of people “from every tribe and language and people and nation” ? Covenant of Grace: (Union with Christ; election, redemption, effectual calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification in Christ Alone through Faith Alone apart from our works!) is the back-page rather than FRONT PAGE NEWS!
Romans 4:5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Let me start by saying that I think there are lots of odd things in Wright's book on justification. I'm not defending Wright as a whole, but just his understanding of the righteousness of God.
There’s change and there’s change. In the Catholic model, particularly before Trent, justification was a process, which included both what we call justification and sanctification. Thus justification depended upon (indeed was) continued moral success. That’s not what I mean by change in this context.
Paul says we are justified by faith. Why? He doesn’t give an explicit ordo salutis, but what I understand is that by faith we grasp Christ, and thus die and rise to new life. It only makes sense to think of faith as justifying if it connects us to Christ, on whose action justification is ultimately based.
I think dying and rising with Christ is a change. It’s what Jesus often called repentance, a change in our allegiance and the direction of our lives. But it is not moral achievement, though moral achievement should follow.
I think Paul means that we are justified by faith because it unites us to Christ, and his death and resurrection for us.
In this analysis, righteousness is purely imputed, based on the fact that, in faith, we are Christ's people.
As far as I can tell, Calvin agrees with the previous sentence. However he would say that this happens because God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, and I would say that this happens because God forgives all of Christ’s people. (I note by the way that Calvin considers justification and forgiveness pretty close to synonymous.)
The difference is that traditional Protestantism thinks God can’t forgive without punishment and can only accept moral perfection (even if it’s not ours), which I think this contradicts both the prophets and Jesus. God is happy to forgive anyone who is repentant, which (with a proper definition of repent) means anyone who is a follower of Christ.
The difference seems to come down to Luther. While he understood that the righteousness of God aimed to save us rather than condemn us, he still didn’t understand that this was based on the fact that God is shown to be righteous in carrying out his covenant commitment to save his people. Hence we have a kind of compromise that combines a proper understanding of God's goal with the idea that God can only accept moral perfection, even in forgiveness.
ladodgers6 says
Of course no one can obtain righteousness through the Law. I agree completely. Indeed I think it’s you who are requiring legal righteousness. You’re just requiring it from Jesus, to be imputed to us. I’m rejecting the whole thing. I don’t think God requires legal righteousness in the first place. He requires humility and repentance when we sin, and is perfectly willing to forgive. I think the idea that Christ’s righteousness is imputed is based on a misunderstanding of the character of God, as taught by Jesus.
Upvote
0
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2,123
- 743
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
But Wright's understanding of the Righteousness of God, is the same as Saul understanding when he was a Great Pharisee! Its wasn't until Christ taught him Law & Gospel on the road to Damascus, that he understood the plight of everyone under the Law. The only way for the 'UNGODLY' to obtain the righteousness of God. Is by God giving it to us in Christ; 'FREELY as a GIFT'. A GIFT is not earned, or owed, or merited, Paul says in Romans 4. This is the Gospel of Christ that He has done for us, what we could never do!
I will admit I am the dumbest Christian laity in Christendom, without a doubt! But Praise and Glory be to God for His deep rich Mercy, to save a wretched sinner like me! I am with Luther here, saying, " Here I Stand, I Can Do No Other". Praise be to God for showing me the Gospel of Christ preached through the Reformers, and modern teachers of Reformed Theology. Thank God who shows Mercy and Justifies the 'UNGODLY' who can do no other; through Faith Alone apart works of the Law.
One thing that I have always found ironic. Is how people caricature our position as lawlessness theology. Even though we preach Law that demands and requires Perfect Flawless Obedience! And the opposing side who rise such false caricatures, water down the Law into Gospel, so that believers do not have to be perfect; but in close proximity to the target, to receive their 'Final Justification'. They will deny this, but using the Cross as a crutch when sins arise or weighting of merits to make up for sins. Is just another medieval attempt to place sinners/believers back under the bondage of the Law and sin.
That does not sound like Freedom to me! Christ said He is the end of the Law for Righteousness for everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4). I am denying good works of the believer here? You just place works in the wrong category. Throughout my discussion on Justification in this forum, I have never denied that Believers perform good works! All I said was that these works are NOT the CAUSE of my Salvation, but the result of it in Christ Alone!
I will leave you with this: Jeremiah 33
The Lord’s Eternal Covenant with David
14“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’
17“For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”
19The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 20“Thus says the Lord: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.”
23The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 24“Have you not observed that these people are saying, ‘The Lord has rejected the two clans that he chose’? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. 25Thus says the Lord: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, 26then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.”
Hope this helps???
I hope one day you will address, how the sins are imputed to Christ, who knew no sin? Or why Christ had to come in the likeness of sinful flesh? Why Christ had to condemned sin in the flesh? Why Christ had to be born under the Law? Why Christ had to fulfill the Law, and not abolish it? And finally, how did Adam's sin in the Garden Temple was imputed to his progeny?
These are very crucial questions that need to be asked and answered.
God Bless, In Christ My Righteousness!
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,592
- 18,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I don't think the point is that God can't accept less than perfection (suggesting an inability or unwillingness to forgive), but that it is not fitting his justice to do so. It's a question of dignity rather than strict necessity. 17th century legal metaphors might obscure this reality, of course.
Upvote
0
Sure I understand that. But this is a non-Christian concept of dignity. It's the Muslim view that it's beneath God's dignity to become human, or Peter's that Jesus shouldn't wash feet. In the NT the cross is God's glory.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I'm not going to give you a whole theology in one post, so let me deal with one question. What did Paul mean by
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
First, it's clear both from the passage and the context that Paul is speaking of sin as a power that attacks us. God is condemning sin, not sinners. So sin is viewed as a kind of power.
By flesh, Paul normally doesn't mean simply our physical bodies, but that part of us that is subject to sin. That's why Jesus is in the "likeness" of flesh. It's not that his body is only a likeness of a human body, but that he isn't really flesh in the sense Paul normally uses it.
In Rom 6, Paul says that we die with Christ to sin and rise to new life. That's not the language of imputation, but of incorporation. That is, we are "in Christ" and die with him and are raised with him. Paul surely means that sin is condemned through Christ's death and resurrection.
Dunn comments on this passage: "That could suggest a divine strategy whereby the enticingness of the flesh’s weakness was used to draw sin to the flesh and so to engage sin’s power that the destruction of the flesh became also the destruction of that power. In the most dramatic reversal of all time (quite literally), death is transformed from sin’s ally and final triumph (5:21) into sin’s own defeat and destruction."
This is close to the early church's understanding of the atonement, though it's a bit anthropomorphic for me. But I would agree that sin is condemned by being defeated. It is defeated because its greatest act is killing Christ, and that fails. Christ is risen again, and in union with him not just Christ but the rest of sin's victims are raised to new life, being snatched away from the power of sin. (This is certainly what Paul says in Rom 6. However it has to be qualified by his understanding that while we are no longer fully controlled by sin, in this life its influence remains. That's why our righteousness is imputed.)
I should clear that the connection with Rom 6 is mine. Dunn's interpretation is based on the translation "God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering" (NIV), and ends up very close to Calvin's (see below). I'm basing my interpretation in KJV/NRSV. The Greek is literally "concerning sin." KJV says simply "for sin," NRSV "to deal with sin." The NIV translation is based on the fact that the two Greek words for "concerning sin" are used in OT passages about sacrifice. That seems pretty weak to me. KJV, NRSV, ESV, CEB doin't accept that. NIV, Holman and NASB do, though NASB puts "as an offering for" in italics, indicating that the translator added them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Incidentally, Calvin understands Rom 8:3 in a way very close to what I said above,. That is, he understands that sin is condemned by being defeated through Christ's death.
"For using a metaphor, he says that it was condemned, like those who fail in their cause; for God no longer deals with those as guilty who have obtained absolution through the sacrifice of Christ. If we say that the kingdom of sin, in which it held us, was demolished, the meaning would be the same."
However there is a difference in how he refers to Christ's death and how I do though. He speaks of an expiatory sacrifice. Hence he says "On account of that sacrifice, or through the burden of sin being laid on Christ, sin was cast down from its power, so that it does not hold us now subject to itself." I would say that sin was cast down because of the fact that death didn't hold him, and through our union with him his followers are no longer under its power (in principle).
"For using a metaphor, he says that it was condemned, like those who fail in their cause; for God no longer deals with those as guilty who have obtained absolution through the sacrifice of Christ. If we say that the kingdom of sin, in which it held us, was demolished, the meaning would be the same."
However there is a difference in how he refers to Christ's death and how I do though. He speaks of an expiatory sacrifice. Hence he says "On account of that sacrifice, or through the burden of sin being laid on Christ, sin was cast down from its power, so that it does not hold us now subject to itself." I would say that sin was cast down because of the fact that death didn't hold him, and through our union with him his followers are no longer under its power (in principle).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In case you're interested in how a conservative Reformed interpreter understands Rom 8:3, I checked Moo's commentary. He rejects the view that both Calvin and I share, that sin is condemned in the sense of defeated. The reader I'm using doesn't allow copying, unfortunately, but i'll say that he sees the condemnation as being God's judgement on Christ, as our substitute. This may well be the only understanding you've heard, but it's certainly not the only one, as Moo acknowledges.
Upvote
0
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2,123
- 743
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Yes God condemns sin, but God also condemned and exiled Adam & Eve and all their progeny. Which is why God sent a Second Adam who will redeem them. Through sin brings knowledge of sin, which rings condemnation & death! Death being the punishment for sinners! Romans 8, is Paul explaining why sinners are not justified through the Law; that is still in effect. Which is why God does what the Law , weakened by sinful flesh could not do; which is meet the legal requirements to merit the Tree of Life! So God sends His Son to do exactly what the Law requires for the ungodly! Christ came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill in the flesh, born under its requirements, to merit Eternal Life for God's elect! This is the Covenant of Redemption.
I just love Romans 6, God makes us alive in Christ, and now being made alive we can live to God. We have not deny this aspect, at all! Here the believer is saved and now walks in holiness performing good works, expressed through love. But this believer does not keep a scoreboard, but willingly does them not expecting anything in return. Because they are performed through Love.
But HOW does Christ do this???
Huh??? So are you saying that their is no propitiation of sin before God by our sins being imputed to Christ? Who is the sacrificial Paschal Lamb, who takes away the sins of the world? I have no idea what you mean by, "That's why our righteousness is imputed". Do you mean, that's why Christ's righteousness is imputed?
Why is there even a concern, about the language? No matter how it starts the rest of the run of passages, makes it clear. That sinful flesh cannot meet the legal requirements of the Law! Which is why God has done what the Law could not. Which is what?
I leave you with this, by Michael Horton
Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, one scholar observes, 'For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obedience that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation.'
I hope that the credibility of this historical assessment will not be called into question, as it comes to us from the pen of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, current head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).
As the gavel came down to close the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563, Rome had officially and, according to her own commitment down to the present moment, irreversibly, declared that the Gospel announced by the prophets, revealed in and by Christ, and proclaimed by the apostles, was actually heretical. The most relevant Canons are the following:
Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone..., let him be anathema.
Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins,... let him be anathema.
Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9),which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit an increase of grace and eternal life... let him be anathema.
It was, therefore, not the evangelicals who were condemned in 1564, but the evangel itself. The 'good news,' which alone is 'the power of God unto salvation' was judged by Rome to be so erroneous that anyone who embraced it was to be regarded as condemned. Let us now consider the key questions and passages relating to this doctrine.
Notice anything in the Council of Trent and you guys Theology? Very Familiar aren't they?
Upvote
0
FYI, I reject the canons of Trent you've quoted. I agree that justification is unmerited, and imputed for those with faith. The real issue here isn't justification but atonement. Obviously Christ's death was a sacrifice, but I don't believe it was a propitiation, because God doesn't need to be propitiated. The Greek word translated propitiation in three passages in the KJV NT is not a specific term for that, but is a more general term better translated atonement.
FYI, the KJV uses propitiation 3 times in the NT and 3 in the Apocrypha, but none in the OT. It uses atonement 82 times in the OT and 3 in the Apocrypha, but none in the NT.
It's worth noting that this has gone beyond the topic of this thread, since Wright accepts penal substitution (despite what you often hear about him from conservatives).
FYI, the KJV uses propitiation 3 times in the NT and 3 in the Apocrypha, but none in the OT. It uses atonement 82 times in the OT and 3 in the Apocrypha, but none in the NT.
It's worth noting that this has gone beyond the topic of this thread, since Wright accepts penal substitution (despite what you often hear about him from conservatives).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2,123
- 743
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Thanks for sharing. I do hold that Christ's sacrifice did in fact propitiate God's righteous wrath against sin. Christ received the rendered sanction of punishment that the first Adam was sentenced with. In the Reformed Faith we hold that Christ's Active & Passive Obedience is essential in Justification by Faith Alone! So Christ did pay the penalty for us on the Cross. We cannot be found guilty because of Christ. Or this is will be double Jeopardy.
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,592
- 18,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The Muslim view of things doesn't have a strong a sense of sin- they see no need for incarnation in the first place. Living by religious edicts is how one finds justification.
In traditional Christian spirituality, condescension is implied in the Incarnation, along with a corresponding sacrifice of dignity. Being born in a stable is not exactly dignified.
Obviously, dignity is not the most important aspect of God's nature but I think it would be premature to disregard it altogether.
Upvote
0
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2,123
- 743
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I know you will disagree with this, but I'll share with you anyway. Because I love sharing the Gospel of Christ, and I like discussing Theology with you. Hope you enjoy, and gain some knowledge from it? God Bless! Sorry for the length of it, but its a must read. (Its a two parts) again I'm sorry for that.
Part I
'always has a certain forensic flavour which prevents its becoming a mere synonym of regeneration or re-creation. In later theology, however, this sense is often lost, and justification comes to mean nothing more than the infusion of grace (D 799). Now when St. Paul applies the juridical terminology to the new Christian reality, it acquires an entirely new meaning. It refers now not to the future but to the past (Rom.5:9), not to the just man but the sinner (Rom.4:5). And so the basis of justification must also be different. It can no longer be observance of the law. It must be Christ, whom God has made our righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1 Cor.1:30), which is the same thing as saying that we are justified by faith in Christ (Rom.3:28).' [ by Ricardo Franco, pp. 239-240]
Part I
What Is Justification? Infusion or Imputation, Process or Declaration?
In the Roman system, as we have seen, justification is sanctification. Through baptism, we are renewed and by cooperating with grace infused we merit final justification.
The long and short of this was that on the eve of the Reformation itself, there were many different interpretations of this doctrine, but the decisive moment occurred not with Luther, but with the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, to whose criticism of the Latin text of Scripture we have already briefly alluded.
The Latin Vulgate, Jerome's 4th century translation of the Scriptures, had been the official translation throughout the middle ages, and its integrity was generally assumed. But then came the Renaissance, a recovery of classical learning that included a return to the original Greek text of Scripture. As Oxford theologian Alister McGrath observes, the best example of the errors in the Latin Vulgate, corrected in tail end of the Renaissance, concerns its translation of the Greek word 'dikaiosune,' which means 'to declare righteous.' It is a legal term, a verdict. But the Latin Vulgate had translated 'dikaiosune' with the Latin word iustificare, which means 'to make righteous.' Erasmus and a host of classical scholars recognized that the Greek text required an understanding of justification that referred to a change in status rather than to a change in behavior or mode of being. Again, Erasmus had no doctrinal stake in this matter. He was not only a loyal son of the Roman church; he had engaged in heated polemics with Luther over free will. Nevertheless, he was Europe's leading authority on the classical languages and could not overlook the glaring mistranslations. For this reason it has been said that Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.
It is quite remarkable that the Roman Church would continue to embrace its erroneous view of justification, given the advances in scholarship by their own best minds.
This is true not only of the 16th century; many Roman Catholic biblical scholars of our own day recognize that the Roman position is untenable in the light of the biblical text. I am not only referring to such controversial theologians as Hans Kung, but to the accepted interpretations of Roman doctrine.
Bearing the nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Church, Sacramentum Mundi is a modern encyclopedia of Roman doctrine. In its article on Justification we read that justification 'implies a relation with a judgment rather than a mode of being.' The term for Paul,
In the Roman system, as we have seen, justification is sanctification. Through baptism, we are renewed and by cooperating with grace infused we merit final justification.
The long and short of this was that on the eve of the Reformation itself, there were many different interpretations of this doctrine, but the decisive moment occurred not with Luther, but with the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, to whose criticism of the Latin text of Scripture we have already briefly alluded.
The Latin Vulgate, Jerome's 4th century translation of the Scriptures, had been the official translation throughout the middle ages, and its integrity was generally assumed. But then came the Renaissance, a recovery of classical learning that included a return to the original Greek text of Scripture. As Oxford theologian Alister McGrath observes, the best example of the errors in the Latin Vulgate, corrected in tail end of the Renaissance, concerns its translation of the Greek word 'dikaiosune,' which means 'to declare righteous.' It is a legal term, a verdict. But the Latin Vulgate had translated 'dikaiosune' with the Latin word iustificare, which means 'to make righteous.' Erasmus and a host of classical scholars recognized that the Greek text required an understanding of justification that referred to a change in status rather than to a change in behavior or mode of being. Again, Erasmus had no doctrinal stake in this matter. He was not only a loyal son of the Roman church; he had engaged in heated polemics with Luther over free will. Nevertheless, he was Europe's leading authority on the classical languages and could not overlook the glaring mistranslations. For this reason it has been said that Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.
It is quite remarkable that the Roman Church would continue to embrace its erroneous view of justification, given the advances in scholarship by their own best minds.
This is true not only of the 16th century; many Roman Catholic biblical scholars of our own day recognize that the Roman position is untenable in the light of the biblical text. I am not only referring to such controversial theologians as Hans Kung, but to the accepted interpretations of Roman doctrine.
Bearing the nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Church, Sacramentum Mundi is a modern encyclopedia of Roman doctrine. In its article on Justification we read that justification 'implies a relation with a judgment rather than a mode of being.' The term for Paul,
'always has a certain forensic flavour which prevents its becoming a mere synonym of regeneration or re-creation. In later theology, however, this sense is often lost, and justification comes to mean nothing more than the infusion of grace (D 799). Now when St. Paul applies the juridical terminology to the new Christian reality, it acquires an entirely new meaning. It refers now not to the future but to the past (Rom.5:9), not to the just man but the sinner (Rom.4:5). And so the basis of justification must also be different. It can no longer be observance of the law. It must be Christ, whom God has made our righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1 Cor.1:30), which is the same thing as saying that we are justified by faith in Christ (Rom.3:28).' [ by Ricardo Franco, pp. 239-240]
Furthermore, arguably the two most widely respected Roman Catholic biblical scholars, J. A. Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown, have recognized that justification is understood in the biblical text to mean legal acquittal and not a process of growth in inherent righteousness. 'Justification in the Old Testament,' writes Fitzmyer, 'denotes one who stood acquitted or vindicated before a judge's tribunal...This uprightness (righteousness) does not belong to human beings (Rom. 10:3), and is not something that they produced or merited; it is an alien uprightness, one belonging to another (Christ) and attributed to them because of what that other had done for them...This justification comes about by grace and through faith' (Romans, AB 33, pp.116-19).
But we can even go a step beyond Sacramentum Mundi and Fitzmyer, citing an article that our opponents will no doubt respect, since it is published in their magazine, This Rock (April 1995). After attacking the Protestant doctrine of 'faith alone,' Leslie Rumble concedes, 'Now it is quite true that Paul made use of a word which in the Greek language had the technical meaning of legal acquittal. And if the word can have no other meaning than that, one could scarcely dispute the interpretation of justification as implying no more than to be accounted as righteous or not guilty in the sight of God.' But alas, 'Luther had not the advantages of modern scholarship.' 'He belonged to an age when it was thought that the real meaning of the New Testament could be best ascertained by discovering the exact sense of the Greek language in which its books were originally written.' Rumble evidently thinks that the meaning of the biblical text cannot be discerned in the same manner as Homer or Aristotle.
Having conceded that the New Testament Greek text agrees with Luther, Rumble nevertheless rejects this view on the basis that 'the whole religious outlook' takes precedence over the fine print. Although he admits that this interpretation is at odds with the Scriptures in their original language, we are supposed to take Rumble's word for it that 'the whole religious outlook' of the Bible endorses the Roman position, even though its actual words contradict it.
The verbal ending of dikaiow is declarative; if the biblical writers intended by 'justification' a process of moral transformation, there is a perfectly good verbal ending for that sort of thing in Greek: adzo rather than ow. For instance, 'to make holy' is translated from the Greek verb, 'hagiodzo,' and this word is never rendered 'to justify.' When the biblical writers refer to justification, they use the declarative ending; when they refer to sanctification, they use the progressive ending. If it is good enough of a distinction for the biblical writers themselves, surely we should have not trouble with the Bible's own language.
Furthermore, it is an imputation of an 'alien righteousness' rather than an infusion of righteous into the soul. It is not, as it has been caricatured, a 'legal fiction,' as if God could judge contrary to the facts. We maintain that God's judgment is strictly according to the facts, but that it is Christ's righteousness imputed to our account that allows God to be both 'just and the justifier of those who believe.' It is not a legal fiction because Christ's righteousness is real and perfect and it has been truly credited to the account of the believing sinner. Let me illustrate the point: 11 yrs. ago now, I went to Europe with a group of college friends. It will come as no surprise to parents everywhere that by the last week, I had run out of money and had to phone home. My parents graciously transferred funds from their account to mine and I was saved from disaster. Was that my money? In the sense that it was in my account, surely it was my money. But had I earned it? Certainly not. The only reason that my account showed a full credit instead of a deficit was because my parents, who had earned that money, had transferred it to my account. Was this a 'banking fiction'?
In the same way, God's judgment that we are righteous before him even though we are not inherently righteous in ourselves is not a 'legal fiction.' The perfect righteousness of Christ is credited to the believer's account as though the believer had never sinned and had perfectly loved God and his neighbor with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength. The account not only lacks any debt; it shows a balance of perfect righteousness. Luther's phrase was 'simul iustus et peccator,' 'simultaneously justified and sinful.' God judges a believing sinner righteous not because the individual is actually righteous, but because Christ is actually righteous and the believer is covered in his righteousness. That is not to say that the believer is not being made righteous, but it is to say that this process is sanctification rather than justification; it is the effect of justification rather than its cause.
How Is One Justified? Faith Alone or Faith And Works?
Our opponents will argue that there is no single text that explicitly bears the words, justification by faith alone. They are correct, but I am certain that they would regard as simplistic the suggestion that the Scriptures do not teach the doctrine of the Trinity simply because the term is not used. The Scriptures are hardly ambiguous in excluding all human activity from being the instrument of justification with the exception of faith. This is the same as saying 'faith alone.' Or, to put it another way, if the Scriptures teach that we are justified by faith and not by works, then they teach 'faith alone.'
The Gospel is announced first in Genesis, after the Fall, where God finds Adam and Eve in their guilt and self-righteousness. Their fig leaves cannot hide their shame from God, but the Redeemer God sacrifices an animal and clothes them in its skins, anticipating 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' Already the Gospel is announced not as divine assistance in producing an inherent righteousness, but as God's covering of the believer with the righteousness of another. It is external to the believing sinner.
In God's covenant with Abraham (Gen.15), we learn again that sinners can only be justified through faith in God's gracious promise: 'Abram believed the LORD, and he credit it to him as righteousness.' In Habakuk 2:4, we read that while the unbelievers are 'puffed up' with their own righteousness, the believer 'by his faith shall live.' The impossibility of being justified by an inherent righteousness--that is, by works, runs throughout Scripture. As the writer to the Hebrews insists (Hebrews 11), all of the great Old Testament saints were justified by faith, not by their own deeds. But why is it impossible for works to play any part in justification? The Scriptures declare that it is because even our best works are sinful--in fact 'as filthy rags' (Is. 64:6), and the Psalmist declares, 'no one living is righteous before you' (Ps.143:2). Thus, our only hope is the good news that we find in Psalm 103:10: 'He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities.' Isaiah foretold the day when the Messiah would 'justify many and he shall bear their iniquities' (53:11).
In his earthly ministry, therefore, our Lord was regularly confronting the religious leaders with their confidence in their own works. While he offered the Gospel to the prostitutes who knew their sinfulness, he first offered the Law to those who did not. He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it and he held up to the self-righteous Pharisees the standard of divine perfection: 'For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.' Now imagine the force of that. The Pharisees were so concerned to follow God's Law in every detail that they even set up elaborate rules to avoid the slightest transgression. Were Jesus to have said that our righteousness must surpass that of the prostitutes, we could have understood his point, but how could the common and rather vulgar fisherman like Peter attain a purity that exceeded that of the most righteous men in Israel? The Apostle Paul answered that question in Philippians 3. He says that if anyone had any reason to boast about his own inherent righteousness, it was he: circumcised on the 8th day, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; 'as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness of the Law, blameless.' And what is Paul's response? 'Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ...I regard these as dung, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith' (Phil.3:5-9). Notice the Apostle's placement of 'the righteousness from God based on faith' and the 'righteousness of my own' in opposition. Justification by an inherent, internal righteousness is deemed absolutely contrary to a justification that comes through faith.
This is why Jesus threatened the religious leaders with the Law itself. Although they thought that their inherent righteousness--their obedience to God's commands, was justifying them before God, they could only maintain this charade so long as they did not really know what the Law required. Therefore, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells them what it really means to fulfill the Law, that is, to love God and neighbor perfectly. Anyone who hates his neighbor is a murderer; adultery is committed not only in the physical act, but in lust. The young Pharisee who thought he had fulfilled the Law since he was a child was told by Jesus to sell everything he had and to give it to the poor, but the man went away sad. He had not truly loved his neighbor as himself after all. When Jesus told his disciples how perfect their righteousness had to be in order to merit eternal life, they replied, 'Who then can be saved'? 'Jesus replied, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible'' (Mt.19:24).
Echoing these words, St. Anselm in the 11th century wisely counseled, 'You have not yet considered how great your sin is,' and to those who trust in their own inherent righteousness, the realization of God's purity sends them away sad, angry, or more determined to try even harder to attain righteousness by their own works. Some, however, like the disciples, will relinquish their own works and, like Paul, place them in the 'debit' rather than 'credit' column and their despair will turn to joy in the all-sufficient merit of Christ.
Jesus taught justification by faith alone throughout his earthly ministry. First he would preach the Law so powerfully that his hearers despaired of being able to be saved by their own obedience. But then he offered the Gospel of free justification. When he healed the paralytic, for instance, forgiveness stand out as even greater than the healing itself. 'When Jesus saw their faith,' we read--not when he saw their love or their works or the direction of the hearts, but 'when Jesus saw their faith, he said, 'Friend, your sins are forgiven.'' The Pharisees were incensed at Jesus for presuming to have the right to forgive sins. In the presence of the Pharisees, Jesus forgave a prostitute, telling her, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace' (Lk.7:50).
In Luke 18:9, we find another one of those situations in which Jesus antagonized the religious leaders: 'To some who were confident in their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 'Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax-collector. I fast twice a day and give a tenth of all I get.' 'But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'''
But we can even go a step beyond Sacramentum Mundi and Fitzmyer, citing an article that our opponents will no doubt respect, since it is published in their magazine, This Rock (April 1995). After attacking the Protestant doctrine of 'faith alone,' Leslie Rumble concedes, 'Now it is quite true that Paul made use of a word which in the Greek language had the technical meaning of legal acquittal. And if the word can have no other meaning than that, one could scarcely dispute the interpretation of justification as implying no more than to be accounted as righteous or not guilty in the sight of God.' But alas, 'Luther had not the advantages of modern scholarship.' 'He belonged to an age when it was thought that the real meaning of the New Testament could be best ascertained by discovering the exact sense of the Greek language in which its books were originally written.' Rumble evidently thinks that the meaning of the biblical text cannot be discerned in the same manner as Homer or Aristotle.
Having conceded that the New Testament Greek text agrees with Luther, Rumble nevertheless rejects this view on the basis that 'the whole religious outlook' takes precedence over the fine print. Although he admits that this interpretation is at odds with the Scriptures in their original language, we are supposed to take Rumble's word for it that 'the whole religious outlook' of the Bible endorses the Roman position, even though its actual words contradict it.
The verbal ending of dikaiow is declarative; if the biblical writers intended by 'justification' a process of moral transformation, there is a perfectly good verbal ending for that sort of thing in Greek: adzo rather than ow. For instance, 'to make holy' is translated from the Greek verb, 'hagiodzo,' and this word is never rendered 'to justify.' When the biblical writers refer to justification, they use the declarative ending; when they refer to sanctification, they use the progressive ending. If it is good enough of a distinction for the biblical writers themselves, surely we should have not trouble with the Bible's own language.
Furthermore, it is an imputation of an 'alien righteousness' rather than an infusion of righteous into the soul. It is not, as it has been caricatured, a 'legal fiction,' as if God could judge contrary to the facts. We maintain that God's judgment is strictly according to the facts, but that it is Christ's righteousness imputed to our account that allows God to be both 'just and the justifier of those who believe.' It is not a legal fiction because Christ's righteousness is real and perfect and it has been truly credited to the account of the believing sinner. Let me illustrate the point: 11 yrs. ago now, I went to Europe with a group of college friends. It will come as no surprise to parents everywhere that by the last week, I had run out of money and had to phone home. My parents graciously transferred funds from their account to mine and I was saved from disaster. Was that my money? In the sense that it was in my account, surely it was my money. But had I earned it? Certainly not. The only reason that my account showed a full credit instead of a deficit was because my parents, who had earned that money, had transferred it to my account. Was this a 'banking fiction'?
In the same way, God's judgment that we are righteous before him even though we are not inherently righteous in ourselves is not a 'legal fiction.' The perfect righteousness of Christ is credited to the believer's account as though the believer had never sinned and had perfectly loved God and his neighbor with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength. The account not only lacks any debt; it shows a balance of perfect righteousness. Luther's phrase was 'simul iustus et peccator,' 'simultaneously justified and sinful.' God judges a believing sinner righteous not because the individual is actually righteous, but because Christ is actually righteous and the believer is covered in his righteousness. That is not to say that the believer is not being made righteous, but it is to say that this process is sanctification rather than justification; it is the effect of justification rather than its cause.
How Is One Justified? Faith Alone or Faith And Works?
Our opponents will argue that there is no single text that explicitly bears the words, justification by faith alone. They are correct, but I am certain that they would regard as simplistic the suggestion that the Scriptures do not teach the doctrine of the Trinity simply because the term is not used. The Scriptures are hardly ambiguous in excluding all human activity from being the instrument of justification with the exception of faith. This is the same as saying 'faith alone.' Or, to put it another way, if the Scriptures teach that we are justified by faith and not by works, then they teach 'faith alone.'
The Gospel is announced first in Genesis, after the Fall, where God finds Adam and Eve in their guilt and self-righteousness. Their fig leaves cannot hide their shame from God, but the Redeemer God sacrifices an animal and clothes them in its skins, anticipating 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' Already the Gospel is announced not as divine assistance in producing an inherent righteousness, but as God's covering of the believer with the righteousness of another. It is external to the believing sinner.
In God's covenant with Abraham (Gen.15), we learn again that sinners can only be justified through faith in God's gracious promise: 'Abram believed the LORD, and he credit it to him as righteousness.' In Habakuk 2:4, we read that while the unbelievers are 'puffed up' with their own righteousness, the believer 'by his faith shall live.' The impossibility of being justified by an inherent righteousness--that is, by works, runs throughout Scripture. As the writer to the Hebrews insists (Hebrews 11), all of the great Old Testament saints were justified by faith, not by their own deeds. But why is it impossible for works to play any part in justification? The Scriptures declare that it is because even our best works are sinful--in fact 'as filthy rags' (Is. 64:6), and the Psalmist declares, 'no one living is righteous before you' (Ps.143:2). Thus, our only hope is the good news that we find in Psalm 103:10: 'He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities.' Isaiah foretold the day when the Messiah would 'justify many and he shall bear their iniquities' (53:11).
In his earthly ministry, therefore, our Lord was regularly confronting the religious leaders with their confidence in their own works. While he offered the Gospel to the prostitutes who knew their sinfulness, he first offered the Law to those who did not. He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it and he held up to the self-righteous Pharisees the standard of divine perfection: 'For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.' Now imagine the force of that. The Pharisees were so concerned to follow God's Law in every detail that they even set up elaborate rules to avoid the slightest transgression. Were Jesus to have said that our righteousness must surpass that of the prostitutes, we could have understood his point, but how could the common and rather vulgar fisherman like Peter attain a purity that exceeded that of the most righteous men in Israel? The Apostle Paul answered that question in Philippians 3. He says that if anyone had any reason to boast about his own inherent righteousness, it was he: circumcised on the 8th day, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; 'as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness of the Law, blameless.' And what is Paul's response? 'Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ...I regard these as dung, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith' (Phil.3:5-9). Notice the Apostle's placement of 'the righteousness from God based on faith' and the 'righteousness of my own' in opposition. Justification by an inherent, internal righteousness is deemed absolutely contrary to a justification that comes through faith.
This is why Jesus threatened the religious leaders with the Law itself. Although they thought that their inherent righteousness--their obedience to God's commands, was justifying them before God, they could only maintain this charade so long as they did not really know what the Law required. Therefore, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells them what it really means to fulfill the Law, that is, to love God and neighbor perfectly. Anyone who hates his neighbor is a murderer; adultery is committed not only in the physical act, but in lust. The young Pharisee who thought he had fulfilled the Law since he was a child was told by Jesus to sell everything he had and to give it to the poor, but the man went away sad. He had not truly loved his neighbor as himself after all. When Jesus told his disciples how perfect their righteousness had to be in order to merit eternal life, they replied, 'Who then can be saved'? 'Jesus replied, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible'' (Mt.19:24).
Echoing these words, St. Anselm in the 11th century wisely counseled, 'You have not yet considered how great your sin is,' and to those who trust in their own inherent righteousness, the realization of God's purity sends them away sad, angry, or more determined to try even harder to attain righteousness by their own works. Some, however, like the disciples, will relinquish their own works and, like Paul, place them in the 'debit' rather than 'credit' column and their despair will turn to joy in the all-sufficient merit of Christ.
Jesus taught justification by faith alone throughout his earthly ministry. First he would preach the Law so powerfully that his hearers despaired of being able to be saved by their own obedience. But then he offered the Gospel of free justification. When he healed the paralytic, for instance, forgiveness stand out as even greater than the healing itself. 'When Jesus saw their faith,' we read--not when he saw their love or their works or the direction of the hearts, but 'when Jesus saw their faith, he said, 'Friend, your sins are forgiven.'' The Pharisees were incensed at Jesus for presuming to have the right to forgive sins. In the presence of the Pharisees, Jesus forgave a prostitute, telling her, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace' (Lk.7:50).
In Luke 18:9, we find another one of those situations in which Jesus antagonized the religious leaders: 'To some who were confident in their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 'Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax-collector. I fast twice a day and give a tenth of all I get.' 'But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'''
Upvote
0
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2,123
- 743
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Part II
What Is Justification? Infusion or Imputation, Process or Declaration?
In the Roman system, as we have seen, justification is sanctification. Through baptism, we are renewed and by cooperating with grace infused we merit final justification.
The long and short of this was that on the eve of the Reformation itself, there were many different interpretations of this doctrine, but the decisive moment occurred not with Luther, but with the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, to whose criticism of the Latin text of Scripture we have already briefly alluded.
The Latin Vulgate, Jerome's 4th century translation of the Scriptures, had been the official translation throughout the middle ages, and its integrity was generally assumed. But then came the Renaissance, a recovery of classical learning that included a return to the original Greek text of Scripture. As Oxford theologian Alister McGrath observes, the best example of the errors in the Latin Vulgate, corrected in tail end of the Renaissance, concerns its translation of the Greek word 'dikaiosune,' which means 'to declare righteous.' It is a legal term, a verdict. But the Latin Vulgate had translated 'dikaiosune' with the Latin word iustificare, which means 'to make righteous.' Erasmus and a host of classical scholars recognized that the Greek text required an understanding of justification that referred to a change in status rather than to a change in behavior or mode of being. Again, Erasmus had no doctrinal stake in this matter. He was not only a loyal son of the Roman church; he had engaged in heated polemics with Luther over free will. Nevertheless, he was Europe's leading authority on the classical languages and could not overlook the glaring mistranslations. For this reason it has been said that Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.
It is quite remarkable that the Roman Church would continue to embrace its erroneous view of justification, given the advances in scholarship by their own best minds.
This is true not only of the 16th century; many Roman Catholic biblical scholars of our own day recognize that the Roman position is untenable in the light of the biblical text. I am not only referring to such controversial theologians as Hans Kung, but to the accepted interpretations of Roman doctrine.
Bearing the nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Church, Sacramentum Mundi is a modern encyclopedia of Roman doctrine. In its article on Justification we read that justification 'implies a relation with a judgment rather than a mode of being.' The term for Paul,
'always has a certain forensic flavour which prevents its becoming a mere synonym of regeneration or re-creation. In later theology, however, this sense is often lost, and justification comes to mean nothing more than the infusion of grace (D 799). Now when St. Paul applies the juridical terminology to the new Christian reality, it acquires an entirely new meaning. It refers now not to the future but to the past (Rom.5:9), not to the just man but the sinner (Rom.4:5). And so the basis of justification must also be different. It can no longer be observance of the law. It must be Christ, whom God has made our righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1 Cor.1:30), which is the same thing as saying that we are justified by faith in Christ (Rom.3:28).' [ by Ricardo Franco, pp. 239-240]
Furthermore, arguably the two most widely respected Roman Catholic biblical scholars, J. A. Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown, have recognized that justification is understood in the biblical text to mean legal acquittal and not a process of growth in inherent righteousness. 'Justification in the Old Testament,' writes Fitzmyer, 'denotes one who stood acquitted or vindicated before a judge's tribunal...This uprightness (righteousness) does not belong to human beings (Rom. 10:3), and is not something that they produced or merited; it is an alien uprightness, one belonging to another (Christ) and attributed to them because of what that other had done for them...This justification comes about by grace and through faith' (Romans, AB 33, pp.116-19).
But we can even go a step beyond Sacramentum Mundi and Fitzmyer, citing an article that our opponents will no doubt respect, since it is published in their magazine, This Rock (April 1995). After attacking the Protestant doctrine of 'faith alone,' Leslie Rumble concedes, 'Now it is quite true that Paul made use of a word which in the Greek language had the technical meaning of legal acquittal. And if the word can have no other meaning than that, one could scarcely dispute the interpretation of justification as implying no more than to be accounted as righteous or not guilty in the sight of God.' But alas, 'Luther had not the advantages of modern scholarship.' 'He belonged to an age when it was thought that the real meaning of the New Testament could be best ascertained by discovering the exact sense of the Greek language in which its books were originally written.' Rumble evidently thinks that the meaning of the biblical text cannot be discerned in the same manner as Homer or Aristotle.
Having conceded that the New Testament Greek text agrees with Luther, Rumble nevertheless rejects this view on the basis that 'the whole religious outlook' takes precedence over the fine print. Although he admits that this interpretation is at odds with the Scriptures in their original language, we are supposed to take Rumble's word for it that 'the whole religious outlook' of the Bible endorses the Roman position, even though its actual words contradict it.
The verbal ending of dikaiow is declarative; if the biblical writers intended by 'justification' a process of moral transformation, there is a perfectly good verbal ending for that sort of thing in Greek: adzo rather than ow. For instance, 'to make holy' is translated from the Greek verb, 'hagiodzo,' and this word is never rendered 'to justify.' When the biblical writers refer to justification, they use the declarative ending; when they refer to sanctification, they use the progressive ending. If it is good enough of a distinction for the biblical writers themselves, surely we should have not trouble with the Bible's own language.
Furthermore, it is an imputation of an 'alien righteousness' rather than an infusion of righteous into the soul. It is not, as it has been caricatured, a 'legal fiction,' as if God could judge contrary to the facts. We maintain that God's judgment is strictly according to the facts, but that it is Christ's righteousness imputed to our account that allows God to be both 'just and the justifier of those who believe.' It is not a legal fiction because Christ's righteousness is real and perfect and it has been truly credited to the account of the believing sinner. Let me illustrate the point: 11 yrs. ago now, I went to Europe with a group of college friends. It will come as no surprise to parents everywhere that by the last week, I had run out of money and had to phone home. My parents graciously transferred funds from their account to mine and I was saved from disaster. Was that my money? In the sense that it was in my account, surely it was my money. But had I earned it? Certainly not. The only reason that my account showed a full credit instead of a deficit was because my parents, who had earned that money, had transferred it to my account. Was this a 'banking fiction'?
In the same way, God's judgment that we are righteous before him even though we are not inherently righteous in ourselves is not a 'legal fiction.' The perfect righteousness of Christ is credited to the believer's account as though the believer had never sinned and had perfectly loved God and his neighbor with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength. The account not only lacks any debt; it shows a balance of perfect righteousness. Luther's phrase was 'simul iustus et peccator,' 'simultaneously justified and sinful.' God judges a believing sinner righteous not because the individual is actually righteous, but because Christ is actually righteous and the believer is covered in his righteousness. That is not to say that the believer is not being made righteous, but it is to say that this process is sanctification rather than justification; it is the effect of justification rather than its cause.
How Is One Justified? Faith Alone or Faith And Works?
Our opponents will argue that there is no single text that explicitly bears the words, justification by faith alone. They are correct, but I am certain that they would regard as simplistic the suggestion that the Scriptures do not teach the doctrine of the Trinity simply because the term is not used. The Scriptures are hardly ambiguous in excluding all human activity from being the instrument of justification with the exception of faith. This is the same as saying 'faith alone.' Or, to put it another way, if the Scriptures teach that we are justified by faith and not by works, then they teach 'faith alone.'
The Gospel is announced first in Genesis, after the Fall, where God finds Adam and Eve in their guilt and self-righteousness. Their fig leaves cannot hide their shame from God, but the Redeemer God sacrifices an animal and clothes them in its skins, anticipating 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' Already the Gospel is announced not as divine assistance in producing an inherent righteousness, but as God's covering of the believer with the righteousness of another. It is external to the believing sinner.
In God's covenant with Abraham (Gen.15), we learn again that sinners can only be justified through faith in God's gracious promise: 'Abram believed the LORD, and he credit it to him as righteousness.' In Habakuk 2:4, we read that while the unbelievers are 'puffed up' with their own righteousness, the believer 'by his faith shall live.' The impossibility of being justified by an inherent righteousness--that is, by works, runs throughout Scripture. As the writer to the Hebrews insists (Hebrews 11), all of the great Old Testament saints were justified by faith, not by their own deeds. But why is it impossible for works to play any part in justification? The Scriptures declare that it is because even our best works are sinful--in fact 'as filthy rags' (Is. 64:6), and the Psalmist declares, 'no one living is righteous before you' (Ps.143:2). Thus, our only hope is the good news that we find in Psalm 103:10: 'He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities.' Isaiah foretold the day when the Messiah would 'justify many and he shall bear their iniquities' (53:11).
In his earthly ministry, therefore, our Lord was regularly confronting the religious leaders with their confidence in their own works. While he offered the Gospel to the prostitutes who knew their sinfulness, he first offered the Law to those who did not. He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it and he held up to the self-righteous Pharisees the standard of divine perfection: 'For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.' Now imagine the force of that. The Pharisees were so concerned to follow God's Law in every detail that they even set up elaborate rules to avoid the slightest transgression. Were Jesus to have said that our righteousness must surpass that of the prostitutes, we could have understood his point, but how could the common and rather vulgar fisherman like Peter attain a purity that exceeded that of the most righteous men in Israel? The Apostle Paul answered that question in Philippians 3. He says that if anyone had any reason to boast about his own inherent righteousness, it was he: circumcised on the 8th day, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; 'as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness of the Law, blameless.' And what is Paul's response? 'Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ...I regard these as dung, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith' (Phil.3:5-9). Notice the Apostle's placement of 'the righteousness from God based on faith' and the 'righteousness of my own' in opposition. Justification by an inherent, internal righteousness is deemed absolutely contrary to a justification that comes through faith.
This is why Jesus threatened the religious leaders with the Law itself. Although they thought that their inherent righteousness--their obedience to God's commands, was justifying them before God, they could only maintain this charade so long as they did not really know what the Law required. Therefore, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells them what it really means to fulfill the Law, that is, to love God and neighbor perfectly. Anyone who hates his neighbor is a murderer; adultery is committed not only in the physical act, but in lust. The young Pharisee who thought he had fulfilled the Law since he was a child was told by Jesus to sell everything he had and to give it to the poor, but the man went away sad. He had not truly loved his neighbor as himself after all. When Jesus told his disciples how perfect their righteousness had to be in order to merit eternal life, they replied, 'Who then can be saved'? 'Jesus replied, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible'' (Mt.19:24).
Echoing these words, St. Anselm in the 11th century wisely counseled, 'You have not yet considered how great your sin is,' and to those who trust in their own inherent righteousness, the realization of God's purity sends them away sad, angry, or more determined to try even harder to attain righteousness by their own works. Some, however, like the disciples, will relinquish their own works and, like Paul, place them in the 'debit' rather than 'credit' column and their despair will turn to joy in the all-sufficient merit of Christ.
Jesus taught justification by faith alone throughout his earthly ministry. First he would preach the Law so powerfully that his hearers despaired of being able to be saved by their own obedience. But then he offered the Gospel of free justification. When he healed the paralytic, for instance, forgiveness stand out as even greater than the healing itself. 'When Jesus saw their faith,' we read--not when he saw their love or their works or the direction of the hearts, but 'when Jesus saw their faith, he said, 'Friend, your sins are forgiven.'' The Pharisees were incensed at Jesus for presuming to have the right to forgive sins. In the presence of the Pharisees, Jesus forgave a prostitute, telling her, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace' (Lk.7:50).
To be Continued....
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2,123
- 743
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Part 3
In Luke 18:9, we find another one of those situations in which Jesus antagonized the religious leaders: 'To some who were confident in their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 'Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax-collector. I fast twice a day and give a tenth of all I get.' 'But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'''
Notice the contrast Jesus makes here between these two people. First, the parable is told, says Luke, to 'some who were confident in their own righteousness.' To the extent that Rome even speaks of meriting justification, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the Pharisee in this parable and our friends in this debate. 'But,' our friends will protest, 'we attribute our inherent righteousness to God. It is his work in us.' But the Pharisee, too, thanked God for this inherent righteousness. He pointed to his own spiritual disciplines--fasting, tithing, and so on, but he thanked God for it all. This, however, seems to have meant nothing, as Jesus sets his example beside that of a notorious sinner. Even before this tax-collector could have begun to fast, tithe, or engage in spiritual duties, he was already declared righteous. And how? He simply acknowledged his own helplessness and cried out for God's mercy. Mercy, not merit, was this man's plea. And what is the point of Jesus' story? He concludes, 'I tell you that his man [the tax-collector] rather than the other, went home justified before God.'
Jesus even insisted that the faith itself with which we claim the righteousness of Christ is a gift of God, since 'no one can even come to Me unless it is given by the Father' (Jn.6:44). He declared repeatedly that he did not come to save the righteous, but sinners. In his High Priestly Prayer, with the Crucifixion just over the horizon, Jesus prayed concerning his people, 'For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.' He fulfilled all righteousness, not in order to save himself--for he was sinless, but in order to merit for us salvation by his obedience to the Law. He sanctified himself--he perfectly obeyed the Law and satisfied God's righteous requirements, so that we too may be acceptable to God in him.
This is why, especially in John's writings, we are told, 'I write these things to you who believe in he name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life' (1 Jn.5:13). And Jesus stated, 'Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life' (Jn. 5:24). It is just this confidence that is denied by the Roman system and by all gospels of works-righteousness. Ask our friends today if they can know that they have eternal life, and they will answer that they can only know that they are now in a state of grace, but cannot be certain about whether they will be condemned in the end. Jesus declared, speaking of himself in the third person, 'Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.' It is Jesus himself who employs the legal language of justification and condemnation, acquittal and judgment. In fact, he adds, 'This is the verdict.' From our Lord's own mouth, we are repeatedly told that everyone who believes is justified and everyone who does not believe is condemned. Works flow from faith, but it is faith alone that leads to acquittal.
In Acts 13:39, we read, 'Through Christ everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.' In Acts 15:9, we are told that 'he purified their hearts by faith.'
But we have not even yet given our attention to the teaching of St. Paul, whose letters were written especially to oppose false gospels and confirm believers in the Gospel of free grace. Where is the addition of 'alone' necessary when Paul so clearly declares, 'For in the Gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The just by faith shall live''? If it is by faith 'from first to last,' it is by faith alone. Like Jesus, Paul first confronts his readers with the Law's demands and concludes that Jew and Gentile alike are unrighteous and helpless. 'No one is righteous, no not even one,' he declares, not even the person who is attempting to obey God. This is especially interesting in the light of Vatican II's pronouncement that all who seek to obey God, even apart from Christ, will be saved. Furthermore, like Jesus, Paul contrasts a righteousness that is by faith and a righteousness that is by works: 'But now a righteousness from God, apart from Law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. The righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe' (Rom.3:21). Notice what Paul says: It is a righteousness that comes to us as a gift, not as an infused disposition; further, it is a righteousness that is received by faith, apart from Law. The two ideas are diametrically opposed.
In Romans 4, Paul reaches the heart of his argument, appealing to the example of Abraham. 'What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' In other words, a salary isn't a gift; the company owes it to you. Rome actually argues that we merit (de congruo) justification by cooperating with grace. But merit is precisely what Paul is excluding here. 'However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.' In one fell swoop, Paul destroys every plank in the Roman doctrine of justification. Rome says that justification is merited; Paul says it is a gift. Rome says that it is given to those who work for it; Paul says it is given to those who do not work for it. Rome says that God only justifies those who are truly holy inherently; Paul says that God only justifies those who are truly wicked inherently. Rome says that justification is a process of attaining righteousness; Paul says that justification is a declaration of imputed or 'credited' righteousness.
Furthermore, Paul cites David's example. 'Blessed is the man to whom God will not impute sin.' Justification for Paul therefore has nothing whatever to do with a process of moral improvement; it is concerned with imputation. Then he goes back to Abraham: 'Under what circumstances was [righteousness] credited [to Abraham]?' Paul asks. 'Was it after he was circumcised or before?' This is the heart of our question today. 'Under what circumstances does God justify?' Is it before or after we begin in holiness? Rome answers that this justification is declared on the basis that the sinner is no longer a sinner, but has already begun in holiness. But Paul answers that it is before the new obedience begins. Abraham, Paul observes, was justified before he obeyed God in offering Isaac. 'So then he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them...It was not through the Law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise..., but through the righteousness that comes by faith.' And why is the righteousness that comes by Law opposed to the righteousness that comes by faith? Paul says it is 'because the law brings wrath,' since it can only render a 'guilty' verdict in our case.
If we are justified by a process of cooperating with grace, we can only have peace with God when we no longer sin. But Paul writes, 'Since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand' (Rom.5:1-2). Paul drives this point home further in verse 9: 'Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!'
In the latter half of Romans 5, Paul unpacks the legal, forensic character of justification he has defended. Adam's sin was imputed to the entire human race. We were made guilty before God not by a process of sin being infused into us, but by a declaration of our solidarity with Adam as our representative head. In exactly the same way, Paul says, Christ's righteousness is imputed to all believers by virtue of their union with him. The imputation of righteousness is just as forensic or legal as the imputation of sin: 'The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.' Are our opponents really willing to argue that condemnation is a moral process? Jesus said that he who does not believe stands condemned already, just as the one who believes 'has passed from death unto life.' Where is the process that leads to acquittal? From the mouth of our Lord and his apostles, the justification is as declarative as the condemnation. As a result, Paul confidently announces, 'Therefore, there is now'--not at the end, if one cooperates with grace, but 'there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus' (Rom.8:1).
To be Continued....
Upvote
0
Similar threads
