Questions of epistemic certainty and episcopal authority aside, the question of how we are right with God is still the issue that divides Protestants and Roman Catholics. And, surprise, it is not exactly one of the sharpest knives in Jason and the Callers arsenal. As a reminder of those differences, here is a sampling of Roman Catholic answers to this question:
“Yes, I believe in Jesus and received his justifying (sanctifying) grace when I was baptized into his Church. Jesus saved me. And at those times when I have sinned gravely and lost this grace, I returned to the Lord to be cleansed again by him in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) where I again received his justifying grace. I am strengthened in my personal relationship with him by my worship of him and receiving him in Holy Communion at Mass; through my prayer, devotion and reading of the Scriptures; by my study of the teachings of the faith; through my good works prepared beforehand by him for me to perform while in his grace. I have been saved, am being saved, and have supernatural hope that I will be saved. I believe this because the Church, established by Jesus, through which this grace flows to me, teaches me that this is so.”
*I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood).
* I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21
* I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others.
* I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others.
* I must be a member of God’s true church. Acts 2:46-47.
* I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23
* I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.
* I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30.
* I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God” Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged by them.
*I must strive to be holy. “Strive for peace with everyone and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Hebrews 12:14
*I must endure (persevere) to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.
112. The salvation which God offers us is the work of his mercy. No human efforts, howev- er good they may be, can enable us to merit so great a gift. God, by his sheer grace, draws us to himself and makes us one with him.79 He sends his Spirit into our hearts to make us his children, transforming us and enabling us to respond to his love by our lives. The Church is sent by Jesus Christ as the sacrament of the salvation offered by God.80 Through her evangelizing activity, she cooperates as an instrument of that divine grace which works unceasingly and inscrutably. . . .
113. The salvation which God has wrought, and the Church joyfully proclaims, is for every- one.82 God has found a way to unite himself to every human being in every age. He has chosen to call them together as a people and not as iso- lated individuals.83 No one is saved by himself or herself, individually, or by his or her own ef- forts. God attracts us by taking into account the complex interweaving of personal relationships entailed in the life of a human community. This people which God has chosen and called is the Church. Jesus did not tell the apostles to form an exclusive and elite group. He said: “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19).
Old Life 
Stick in the mud over here is happy with believing that He loved me and gave himself for me.
But, yeah yeah, I’m biased. Sue me (emoticon).
LikeLike
Acts 16:31. But I’m just a Baptist, I probably missed something
LikeLike
Darryl,
Do you think those citations are irreconciable? Remember, RCs don’t play the zero-sum game, and distinguish between initial and additional/further justification.
LikeLike
“What Must I Do to be Saved?”
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
This is the best sermon I ever heard on the subject:
[audio src="http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/i-believe-that-i-cannot-believe.mp3" /]
Give it 5 or 6 min., at least.
LikeLike
One thing I don’t understand is how or if political turmoil influences the development of doctrine. For example did the crisis the Donatists wrought force an understanding of original sin and total depravity or did it just reveal the truth of these doctrines?
RC has always indulged the sinner and punished the heretic. CtC activity is of this foul sort of spirit. Look, Chrysostom may have had harsher treatment in mind for heresiarchs but his advice regarding heretics was to stay clear of them not this endless pursuit “in the peaceless-ness of Christ.”
My troubles in the faith do not begin with my lack of assurance, they begin with my inability to know the truth of the attributes of God. The life and teachings of Jesus hold contradictions that make it near impossible for me extrapolate God’s attributes from them. I don’t mean mercy and wrath, the OT gives me plenty of ways to know that they are indispensable. I mean the ability to know what attribute I could count on to know why God ordains from the foundation of the world the damnation of those he has created and thrown away. I don’t think it’s that I judge Him, it’s that I can’t ever really come to know a God like that.
Bellarmine said that Assurance was the greatest heresy of the Reformation. But without it and in the apt and beautiful phrasing of Doug Woukon what you’re left with is the ruthless metricality of indulgences, torporific sacramentology and Lewis’ fear of embracing and promulgating error that takes us further and further from Jesus the Apostles knew and loved.
LikeLike
Funny, someone was just asking me the other day, “What must I do to be saved?”
Rather than open up the Bible, I of course said, “Well, someone once asked that question of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, and he said…”
The Romans Road is so passe when Fulgentius is in your toolkit.
LikeLike
Heidelberg Catechims Q. 60: How are thou righteous before God?
A: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; (a)
so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, (b)
and am still inclined to all evil; (c)
notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, (d)
but only of mere grace, (e)
grants and imputes to me, (f)
the perfect satisfaction, (g)
righteousness and holiness of Christ; (h)
even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; (i)
inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart. (j)
(a) Rom.3:21-25,28; Rom.5:1,2; Gal.2:16; Eph.2:8,9; Philip.3:9.
(b) Rom.3:9.
(c) Rom.7:23.
(d) Tit.3:5; Deut.9:6; Ezek.36:22.
(e) Rom.3:24; Eph.2:8.
(f) Rom.4:4,5; 2 Cor.5:19.
(g) 1 John 2:2.
(h) 1 John 2:1.
(i) 2 Cor.5:21.
(j) Rom.3:22; John 3:18.
LikeLike
OliviaC, I’m gonna shoot from the hip and tell you I think the problem is trying to encounter the God behind the decrees through the decrees rather than how He’s ordained for us to come to Him; through His Son. I think it matters how you encounter the ‘decretal God’. Any approaching of God apart from Christ is to encounter Him as Judge(Rom1-3) That always ends badly for us. But it’s a different engagement, when we encounter the sovereign God in Christ. Particularly, after having received the spirit of adoption and tasted of the ‘goodness of God’ that leads to repentance. And it’s not that apart from Christ, that the Father is an Ogre, it’s that apart from Christ the ‘naked’ God uncovers our guilt, and uncovers it in a way in which there is no mercy. And it’s not an OT God of judgement and a NT God of mercy, rather it’s an encounter with God in His mercy(in Christ) that allows us to be able to bear with the truth of all of God’s perfection, that otherwise, is a threat to us as dissidents. Anyway, just 2 cents
LikeLike
Dan, I was born Baptist, so maybe not. When the OPC interviewed me to become a member, they asked when I had been saved, and my Calvinism led me to answer that I wasn’t sure exactly when. Anyway, I wasn’t saved when I became presby. But I felt it was a step in the right direction, needless to say.
Nice chatting with you today. Take care.
LikeLike
Many Protestants agree with the Roman Catholics that water is the means by which sinners become justified, and many Protestants agree with the Roman Catholics that Spirit-enabled works is the means by which sinners “stay saved”.
Many Protestant “experimentalists” have simply moved “purgatory” into this life. Max Weber called the puritan devotion to the “practical syllogism” a work-ethic that Protestants use to confirm to themselves that they are elect.
In The Persistence of Purgatory, Richard K Fenn traces captialist attitudes about “using time” back to the myth of Purgatory. A. Fenn demonstrates the impact of Purgatory on the preaching of neonomians like Richard Baxter.
Roman Catholics like Sungenis will always talk about a “difference” between a paradigm with quid pro quo conditions and the “in the family now” paradigm. But I would shift the comparison to that between those who teach that Christians are imparted with the divine nature and enabled to meet “conditions in the covenant” and those who refuse any notion of salvation conditioned on the Christian, who is still a sinner.
Those “in the family of Rome” tend to let you by faith alone, or even without faith if you are an infant, but then after a while, they will let you out the back door if your faith is still alone. In addition to faith, they ask—what have you done lately?
Norman Shepherd and John Frame are not denying that Christians go on sinning. They are warning that an “unbalanced” focus only on imputation and justification will get in the way of fixing the culture. Their message depends on the situation of the person to whom they are talking— a person on their deathbed is not in the same position to work as some new Christian. Thus their “perspectives in tension” which together make up their “worldview”. Neonomian warnings threaten us, but do not make perfectionist claims.
LikeLike
Sean, thank you.
LikeLike
“The Lord will save whom He will save.”
Not because of our help…but in spite of it.
LikeLike
Andrew: When the OPC interviewed me to become a member, they asked when I had been saved, and my Calvinism led me to answer that I wasn’t sure exactly when.
After the interview, was there something like a road test?
Actually, the when part has always been kind of hard for me to answer, too. I guess I’m credulous, but the stories my mother and father read to me from the illustrated story bible, the lessons in the children’s department of Sunday School, etc. always struck me as saying something important about a God who loved me enough to send Jesus. I know roughly when I was Baptized, but I honestly can’t remember any great moment of decision nor do I recall any great pressure to make a decision. I do recall the usual undergraduate arguments about religion, but I had read enough history by then to believe that no one in the ancient near east would dare to invent a religion that claimed a crucified Jewish peasant was God.
Yet, I know others who were raised with the same background as I was who are not at all religious today. I guess I might be reformed enough to admit that faith is a purely gracious gift of a sovereign God. But enough about me.
Take care
LikeLike
Dan,
Well, I was going to cite the profession of faith part and deep link it using opc.org, but I should be honest – marrying into the OPC has provided me an interesting life. Maybe remaining married for 11 years now and becoming a deacon in our church means the road test is going well..
Later.
LikeLike
Clete, not incompatible, but the first two are much more straightforward than the guy whose job it is to straighten things out. When was the last time you heard a bishop tell the wider listening world what they must do to be saved? Saying that you said it one time back in the day doesn’t cut it.
LikeLike
Salvation Roman style –
I must…
I must…
I must…
I must…
I must…
I must…
I must…
I must…
I must…
I must…
I must…
Jesus – “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
Such is the comfort of the gospel.
LikeLike
Sean,
I was reading from the sidelines: “He’s ordained for us to come to Him; through His Son. I think it matters how you encounter the ‘decretal God’. Any approaching of God apart from Christ is to encounter Him as Judge(Rom1-3) That always ends badly for us. But it’s a different engagement, when we encounter the sovereign God in Christ.”
First of allsince the incarnation of the second person of theTrinity and His sacrifice for the world,no one approaches the one true God any other way( when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law).
You are mistaken to make God the Father the angry person of the Trinity( even though you aren’t trying to depict God the Father as a ogre) because the Trinity is not at odds according to the purpose of the Godhead. God the Father wants to save people just as much as the Son wants people saved.
“it’s that apart from Christ the ‘naked’ God uncovers our guilt, and uncovers it in a way in which there is no mercy.”
I think what you are describing to Olivia is imputation,because in the Catholic paradigm God actually takes away our sin when we confess our sins and we become a new creation. And our sins aren’t covered like when a date picks up the dinner tab;we are really made righteous. Jesus is our way because He is the One who made reconcilliation( Rom 5:17-19; Col.1:22),and so no one can come to the Father except through the Son, but we have to be sorrowful for our sins and truly seek to sin no more.This is possible only by grace and through all the gracious sacraments of The Church.
LikeLike
Susan,
God actually takes away our sin when we confess our sins and we become a new creation
Where do Protestants deny this?
And our sins aren’t covered like when a date picks up the dinner tab;
Last I checked, Anselm’s satisfaction theory wherein Christ pays our debt was orthodox RC theology.
We are really made righteous.
But are you perfect? God makes us righteous in Protestantism as well, but we can’t rely on it because it is mixed with our sin, at least until our glorification. Even then, we will always have had sin at some point and thus can never meet the standard of perfection God requires.
God isn’t just looking for “good enough.”
LikeLike
Jack,
We know that the moral law isn’t only for pagans to uphold, right? So yes,as long as we live in this body of death with our concupiscence http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm and all, it is hard to avoid sinning,but with grace perfecting nature we are being conformed to Christ the more we grow in love for God,avoid sin,and recieve the sacraments.
It’s hard like a race,but he who overcomes to the end will be saved(. Rom13:2; 1 Cor. 9: 24)
“Many are called few are chosen” is a warning to us all.
LikeLike
Susan, I wasn’t giving a theological treatise on the persons of the trinity. I was thinking of a pastoral way to explain or understand or engage the idea of God’s decretal election. Moving from the judgement of God to the mercy or ‘fatherhood’ of God is a very Pauline way of talking about our knowledge of God or better our condition before a holy God apart from Christ and then in Christ. Jesus Himself will return in Judgement when He returns and varyingly exercised judgement during his ministry on earth. So, there is no pitting of an attribute of one person of the Godhead against an attribute of another member.
I wasn’t thinking of imputation in what I wrote, though I certainly embrace imputation, particularly as regards the first and second Adam motif. But yes, you are correct, that in the catholic paradigm, the justice of God is never reckoned as the scriptures reckon with the requirements of the creature before His creator. That lack of reckoning within the RC paradigm, precludes the need of a perfect righteousness imputed and fails to reconcile to the federal headship portrayed in the adamic motif. Thomism, as a system, relies too heavily on aristotelian metaphysics at crucial points, and as a result misses the scriptural and pauline crisis of righteous need and deficit(rom 3) that only Christ can satisfy as the second adam(rom 5). The RC conflating of sanctification with justification is indicative of that missed emphasis.
LikeLike
Robert,
God actually takes away our sin when we confess our sins and we become a new creation
“Where do Protestants deny this?”
You do it if you deny participation in the Trinity and infusion of grace. Under imputation we don’t actually become a new creation we have Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to us. You have read about the differences between the Protestant doctrine and the Cathlolic haven’t you?
“And our sins aren’t covered like when a date picks up the dinner tab;
Last I checked, Anselm’s satisfaction theory wherein Christ pays our debt was orthodox RC theology.”
I don’t actually know how it works, it’s difficult to understand, so since there seems to be a Protestant version and a Catholic version I will pick the Catholic one just to be safe.
From Dorothy Sayers, “Q: What is meant by the atonement?A: God wanted to damn everybody, but his vindictive sadism was sated by the crucifixion of his own Son, who was quite innocent, and therefore, a particularly attractive victim. He now only damns people who don’t follow Christ or who never heard of him.”
“But are you perfect? God makes us righteous in Protestantism as well, but we can’t rely on it because it is mixed with our sin, at least until our glorification. Even then, we will always have had sin at some point and thus can never meet the standard of perfection God requires.
God isn’t just looking for “good enough.”
No, I agree, God isn’t looking for good enough but He has given us His commandments and His standard, so somehow He must accomplish perfecting us now or in eternity but it has to be before we behold the beatific vision. Perfect for us, unless we think we become the Creator, is perfect according to what human persons can be as perfected by Grace. IOW, I’m sure God isn’t expecting us to be exaclty like Him….as in being divine.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume1/sermon1.html
:
LikeLike
Robert,
Maybe the confusion is in the word, “reckon”. I’m orginally from the south and down there it means to see as it exists. As in, “Is that daisy’s mule in your mamma’s garden?” ” Well I’ll be, I reckon it is!” 🙂 Maybe we are only “reckoned”righteous when we are are without mortal sin. How does the RCC understand this word?
LikeLike
I meant that for Sean. Sorry Robert.
LikeLike
Susan,
Did I miss something? As a Roman Catholic, you are coming to read a reformed blogger and combox section, and are asking us to tell you what your church believes?
I must be missing something.
Peace.
LikeLike
The guy who thinks he is a TV show character for The Shield (never seen it, but then again, I don’t get out much..) tells us the RC position means he is on land, where as we Reformed Protestants are on a boat being tossed around. I mean, really. Well, I never..
But my thoughts are this: I would love for Roman Catholics (especially those converting from our religion) here to give us their first hand experience of what this moving from the boat to the island (their positing) really looks like. As a proteatant, the WCF speaks about one coming to have an infallible assurance of faith. And I am told my assurance is considered to the RC to be the great heresy of my position.
Interested for anyone’s thoughts here, who will take a stab. Take care, visitors from the other side of the pond.
LikeLike
Full citation from under What we believe:
LikeLike
Exhibit 1:
LikeLike
“Under imputation we don’t actually become a new creation we have Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to us.”
Maybe I misunderstand you here, but to clarify, we make a distinction between justification and sanctification, we don’t separate them. One can’t be justified without also being sanctified and vice versa. As Hodge explains it: http://www.reformedliterature.com/hodge-sanctification.php
LikeLike
The question is how Catholics have any time to post here when they have such a long list of things they have to do to be saved. Not a lot of youth getting employed or lonely old people being visited on a blog. Get busy, Catholics.
LikeLike
Daily mass might be a good idea for starters. You need all the infused grace through the sacrament that you can get. It’s like an AA meeting for the sinner. Maybe even two per day. Tom Van Dyke needs at least three. He’s got a lot of catching up to do.
LikeLike
Susan,
RCs confuse law and gospel and conflate justification and sanctification.
Rom. 10:
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
LikeLike
I am sure that Sean would agree with me that denying the confusion of justification with sanctification is not enough to ensure that anybody is Prostestant (or biblical) on the gospel. Indeed, any idea that we can define sanctification by putting the word in a “structure of difference” with justification can and should be deconstructed.
Protestants till need to define the word “sanctification”, because biblically it has more to do with either or status (standing) than it does with process or progress. I would recommend Peterson’s Possessed by God on this, but in brief we need to always remember the teaching of Hebrews 10;10-14 that those individuals being sanctified in time are thus sanctified by the blood of Christ. It is election that first sets us apart. Christ died only for the elect, and it is Christ’s death which sets the elect apart when God imputes the death of Christ to them.
We need to define sanctification. Even when we say “definitive sanctification”, we need to make it clear if we are talking about the work of the Holy Spirit in initially causing us to understand and believe the gospel (II Thess 2:13) or if we are talking about a claim that Christians cannot sin as much or in the same ways as we did before conversion (John Murray)
But most importantly, we need to question any assumption that says that justification is not by synergism and works, but that sanctification IS by synergism and works. Let me quote from one Protestant who teaches “sanctification by works”— “When the preponderance of my thoughts about my daily life with God are only seen from the perspective of Christ’s substitution and my unworthiness to merit his favor, not only do I miss the joy and motivation of knowing my deeds today can actually please God, but I can be left with a distant, abstract, academic view of my relationship with him.”
Like the Galatian false teachers, the sanctification by works teacher does not deny justification by imputation. But like the Romanists who speak of love perfecting faith and grace perfecting nature, this “sanctification by works” Protestant still minimizes justification as only one “perspective”.
We live in a day when there is little antitheses between law and gospel. We are even being told that such a distinction is ‘antinomian” Even many Protestants are teaching that law and gospel are the same in some ways. In this way, John Frame can say one thing, and then say another thing that contradicts the first thing, and then put the two things together as different “perspectives” in “tension”. Does this mean that “we are all catholic now”?
LikeLike
Susan, in short, the RC would most likely tell you that protestants believe in a legal fiction. God can’t render/reckon someone as righteous apart from them actually becoming righteous. This is why you talk about ‘becoming’ and the necessity of infused grace via the sacraments as necessary to this ‘becoming’ and the subsequent need of purgatory to ‘purge’ remaining dross so that the process of ‘becoming’ can be complete. From a prot perspective, amongst many things, this is a failure to deal with the absolute moral standard God prescribes for His creatures now and how he satisfies that forensically now through the federal representation of Jesus for His elect and the imputation of an alien righteousness to them for His sake. Lots more could be said, but that’s the gist of it.
LikeLike
Erik, you’re too kind to Tom — just three masses a day? He needs the male equivalent of “get thee to a nunnery” with shaved head, hairshirt, sandals, and. of course, no internet connection.
LikeLike
I may have missed it but I did not find anything particularly unbiblical about Fulgentius’ statement. It was simply an elaboration and exegesis of the promises found in Revelation 21, that those who are justified on earth will be glorified. And that those who are justified here are indeed changed. That is pretty much all he said. One has to read it through the lens of Trent (which is what the CTCers did) to see justification by sanctification. This is one reason why Calvin frequently quotes the early fathers against Rome, and that the Reformation of the Church was just that. It was Trent which was the novelty in that it finally indoctrinated the errors which had crept in over the centuries. Trent is the schism, not the other way around.
LikeLike
Absolutely nothing.
sock it to me
LikeLike
“What must I do to be saved?”
No one can do enough (James 2:10). Game over for “I”.
LikeLike
Nicely put, fellas. As for me, it turns out I find myself in a works-righteousness based system as a presby.
Are you surprised? Well, it ain’t my works I’m relying on..
LikeLike
Andrew B.,
Well, it ain’t my works I’m relying on..
Which jives nicely with this posed by Monsieur Cauvin,
“For the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous.” (Bk. 3.19)
LikeLike
Cheers, Jack.
LikeLike
plead the blood
LikeLike
Pope Francis is right about two things (so far) 🙂
1) God isn’t Catholic, He’s Hebrew. That’s an important thing not to forget.
2) After all have shared their understanding of the Faith once delivered, what currently stands in the World is “an ecumenism of blood.”
I don’t know how to relinquish my need for understanding the honest use of the pronoun I. I don’t know how to unconvince myself that private judgement is one of God’s gifts to all, especially the weak and the vulnerable so that they may know when to flee.
If one finds no place to flee to, well that may be evidence of unbelief and the worst thing to do is to run from it or overturn it in frantic fit of pretense.
LikeLike
Anybody want to read a great debate between michael Horton and Robert Sungenis on the topic?
http://www.faithfulanswers.com/is-justification-by-faith-alone/
Not the sharpest tool in our shed Daryl? Hardly.
LikeLike
Jack,
“RCs confuse law and gospel and conflate justification and sanctification.”
Lutherans say Calvinists confuse law and gospel. I wonder whose got it right.
Mark at least comes out and goes after the progressive sanctification is synergistic Calvinists (which historically and currently has had some big names adhere to it). You guys claim Rome messed up with justification and sanctification, and yet there’s no unified voice on what exactly sanctification (which is a pretty important part of the gospel – at least according to criticisms of Rome) even is in your circles.
Btw we do not conflate initial justification with additional justification/sanctification.
Sean is right though any “reckoning” cannot happen without it effecting what it says. RCs can hold to reckoning language, if such reckoning simultaneously does what it says and renews us interiorally (God’s word does not return void).
LikeLike
Cletus,
You guys claim Rome messed up with justification and sanctification, and yet there’s no unified voice on what exactly sanctification (which is a pretty important part of the gospel – at least according to criticisms of Rome) even is in your circles.
You overstate this when you claim there is no unified voice. There are many who do not want to speak of synergism, and I understand their fear given how you all have mucked it all up.
We all agree at least on the following that:
1. All who are truly justified will most certainly be sanctified.
2. Sanctification doesn’t merit eternal life.
3. Sanctification is undergirded and guaranteed by God’s monergistic work of regeneration and that God doesn’t regenerate everyone who claims to have faith.
4. Nobody’s sanctification is so overflowing that it can be put in a bank for withdrawal by the papal keys.
Sean is right though any “reckoning” cannot happen without it effecting what it says. RCs can hold to reckoning language, if such reckoning simultaneously does what it says and renews us interiorally (God’s word does not return void).
Actually, God’s word returns void all the time in RC. John 3:16 comes to mind. Nobody has eternal life when they believe if it can be lost.
And we believe God renews us interior ally, he just doesn’t make us perfect immediately, and perfection is what is required for justification and heavenly citizenship. Moreover, once we are perfected and all sin is removed, there is still always going to be a point at time at which we were not perfect, and God requires perfection from start to finish. That’s why we need the perfection fo the life of Christ, who was perfect from start to finish.
Heck, perfection is even required by Rome in a sense, else there’s no reason for purgatory. You guys just water things down severely on the one hand, and make them onerous on the other. It’s an ingenious way to keep people bound to the sacraments, though.
LikeLike
Cletus,
The Magisterial Reformers (Lutheran & Reformed) were all agreed on the law/gospel distinction.
The Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg, Belgic, Dort) and the Westminster Standards (Confession and Larger and Shorter Cat.) are the confessions of the Reformed churches. They all agree on sanctification as well as the law/gospel distinction.
Jack: “RCs confuse law and gospel and conflate justification and sanctification.”
Cletus: Btw we do not conflate [initial justification with] additional justification/sanctification.
Looking at the last part or your sentence, you just did…
LikeLike
Robert,
Mark said:
“Like the Galatian false teachers, the sanctification by works teacher does not deny justification by imputation.”
If progressive sanctification by (grace-sourced) works is a “false teaching” opposed to the gospel as RCism is because they both affirm synergism, it seems like it’s pretty significant – either critique both equally or neither. The fact that Calvinism is unclear on this strikes at the issue of defining what the gospel actually is.
“Sanctification is undergirded and guaranteed by God’s monergistic work of regeneration and that God doesn’t regenerate everyone who claims to have faith.”
I understand many distinguish between definitive and progressive sanctification. But if progressive sanctification is cooperative, and grace is resistible in it (resulting in sin if resisted, increased holiness/grace and heavenly reward if cooperated with) and you just say “well it’s somehow still monergistic” you cannot fault synergists for saying the same about how any of their cooperation is all of grace and does not detract from God’s glory and due to God alone as well.
If you go the Mark route and claim synergistic progressive sanctification is heretical, then the fact that Calvinists do not agree on that shows either they are not sure what the gospel is (which impacts perspicuity), or should not have criticized Rome along those same lines.
Jack,
“The Magisterial Reformers (Lutheran & Reformed) were all agreed on the law/gospel distinction.”
Uh, Lutherans are pretty adamant you guys mess up on your view of the 3rd use of the law and so you end up confusing the two. Ask Steve Martin here – he’ll quote Forde and Walther and set you guys straight.
LikeLike
Favorite comment:
The question is how Catholics have any time to post here when they have such a long list of things they have to do to be saved. Not a lot of youth getting employed or lonely old people being visited on a blog. Get busy, Catholics.
LikeLike
Andrew,
And why do you think you have that question? Could it be you actually misunderstand RCism at this point, if its adherents aren’t behaving like you expect them to?
Here’s a clue – baptized infants and deathbed conversions still go to heaven in RCism. And they didn’t help employ youth or visit old people.
Here’s another clue – infused righteousness/agape is a virtue – not an ongoing set of discrete acts.
A person can not grow in righteousness, but also not commit mortal sin at the same time.
Let’s take your question’s logic – why are RCs sleeping 8 hours? Shouldn’t they just take caffeine pills 24/7 to stay up as long as possible to keep doing stuff?
LikeLike
No, I just personally find a out here in theology chatrooms as silly. I’m not the one who thinks he is a TV show character (at least not in this thread, check on today’s about Bishop Keller for a sense of my proclivities).
Let’s take your logic, and wonder why I dont continue to argue with the Priest who frequents Bryan Cross’ website. It’s because golf is simply more fun, and I’m told I don’t get out enough as it is. Time’s a tickin’ friend, and have you shaved any strokes off our handicap lately?
It’s a presby blog, what did you expect?
As you were, friend James. Have a nice weekend. Until next time,
Andrew
LikeLike
Cletus,
Uh, Lutherans are pretty adamant you guys mess up on your view of the 3rd use of the law and so you end up confusing the two. Ask Steve Martin here – he’ll quote Forde and Walther and set you guys straight.
Forde, Walther, and certainly Steve Martin are not Magisterial Reformers. Philipp Melanchthon, the primary author of the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, was the originator of the phrase “third use of the law!”
See R. Scott Clark’s article:
http://heidelblog.net/2013/07/law-gospel-and-the-three-uses-of-the-law-2/
LikeLike
PS Cletus,
The easier answer is that Christians must be good stewards of their time. If you believe you are doing the Lord’s work with Darryl and the rest of is chumps, then by all means, just gloss over whether words show up here from Andrew B. Kenneth is at least up front about his trying to harvest mine or Darryl’s soul. I don’t get you yet, and what you are after. I’ve heard it said that h e double hockey stick is the combix section of a theology blog. Maybe that’s going too far. But the fact is, you aren’t here just to chat. We’re all doing what we think is best with our time, I just wonder about your endgame. If you blogged, I’d probably visit you, and post a comment on occasion..
Later.
LikeLike
Jack,
You’re aware many Lutherans think Melanchthon strayed from Luther and compromised right? Here’s a Lutheran scholar studying the issue – note how he points out that Erasmus and Aristotelianism probably influenced Melanchthon away from Luther’s insistence on the proper understanding of law in crafting Concord:
Click to access nesti.pdf
I said before “Lutherans say Calvinists confuse law and gospel. I wonder whose got it right.”
You did not dispute that but jumped to saying the Magisterial Reformers were in agreement. So what? The Magisterial Reformers were not infallible by everyone’s admission – semper reformanda. I’m talking about what’s what after 500 years of reflection/development.
Another Lutheran scholar on third use contra the Reformed:
Click to access scaerthirduseresolvetension.pdf
LikeLike
CVD, it’s ok to poke holes in protestant BT or even systematics, but you can’t do it as if you have none of your own. From devotional practices DEVOID of an ounce of sacred text support, to your best BT guys borrowing from protestantism, liberal and conservative, to advance their studies. As passing as Erik’s or Andrew’s comments may have been to you, it’s not without significant precedent within RC, particularly as regards the monastics and/or ascetics. There’s a whole swath of RC practitioners who’ve RIGHTLY understood the impetus of RC dogma and taken to the sequestered, cloistered, and monastic life in pursuit of the ideal, 24/7 no less. So, take your shots, some of them are deserved, but own your communion whole cloth.
LikeLike
Sean,
RCism does not hold to salvation as a binary affair – there are degrees – one grows from perfect righteousness to still greater capacity/perfection in righteousness (Therese of Lisieux’s analogy of varying sizes of cups of water each perfectly filled to the brim) and this will vary amongst the saints. So yes the “pursuit of perfection” which can be reflected in monastic/ascetic life has been and continues to be a real aspect of RCism. Practices are used to fight the flesh and nurture holiness and grace – and lay people often choose to become lay members of third orders and undertake their spirituality/vows. It doesn’t mean a wife caring for her family in suburbia or an infant who died isn’t going to be saved, nor has RCism ever taught that only monks get to heaven. So none of it affects what I said to Andrew/Erik’s swipe that RCs “gotta get busy” to be saved.
Jack,
My reply is in moderation.
LikeLike
Instead of talking about the “mcculley route”, we could check the concordance for the word “sanctification” in the NT.
For the record, I have no problem with the “third use” of the law, provided that the law in question is the law of Christ, and not that given in the Mosaic covenant. But I would caution all of us who think to “use” the law that the law kills. When we are effectually called to fear God, we learn that the only way that the law can be satisfied for the elect is by Christ’s death for them. Our hope is not that there is a different covenant now, but in the satisfaction of law by Christ’s death.
Tullian T today— Leviticus 18:5 (both in Gal. 3 and Rom. 10) is a summary of the salvation-structure of the law: “if you keep the commandments, then you will live.” Here there is a promise of life linked to the condition of doing the commandments and a corresponding threat for not doing them: “cursed is everyone who does not abide in all the things written in the Book of the Law, to do them” (Gal 3.10 citing Deut 27.26). When this conditional word encounters the sinful human, the outcome is inevitable: “the whole world is guilty before God” (Rom 3.19). It is the condition that does the work of condemnation.
Galatians 5 “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore stand firm (imperative) and do not be subject (imperative) again to the yoke of slavery.” Are these imperatives equal to Paul’s description of the law? No! The command here is precisely to not return to the law
LikeLike
Mike Horton: “It is inappropriate to import the monergism-synergism antithesis (typically belonging to the debate over the new birth and justification) into sanctification. It is better simply to say that we are working out that salvation that has Christ has already won for us and given to us by his Spirit through the gospel.”
Tullian again–
John 8.11. Once the accusers of the adulterous women left, Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you. Depart. From now on, sin no more.” Does this final imperative disqualify the words of mercy? Is this a commandment with a condition? No! Otherwise Jesus would have instead said, “If you go and sin no more, then neither will I condemn you.” But Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” The command is not a condition.
“Neither do I condemn you” is categorical, it comes with no strings attached. “Neither do I condemn you” creates an unconditional context within which “go and sin no more” is not an “if.” The only “if” the gospel knows is this: “if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous” (1 John 2.1).
The reason Paul says that Christ is the end of this law is that in the gospel God unconditionally gives the righteousness that the law demands conditionally. So Christ kicks the law out of the conscience by overcoming the voice of condemnation produced by the condition of the law. The unconditional voice of the gospel says “It is finished.”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2014/01/10/antinomianism-legalism-and-the-relationship-between-law-and-gospel/
LikeLike
Clete, are you able to explain what it is your looking for here at OLTS? I’m cool if it’s just sticking up for your church. I do that with Bry and Jase, and am fortunate when they let my comments through. Peace.
LikeLike
mark,
Indeed and amen! This must be going around right now as the points you bring up are the very ones I’ve been blogging about. Thanks!
LikeLike
Andrew,
I’m here to discuss and analyze things. Some reformed blogs are quite annoying – you guys are more level-headed and interesting (I even enjoy Bob’s prose). It’s always good to sharpen one’s thoughts based on other perspectives or learn new things. And since Darryl has a soft spot for Rome, if I run into things I perceive as inaccurate, I offer my thoughts – maybe they’ll resonate, maybe they’ll won’t – whatevs. I’m not here to “SAVE THE INTERNET”.
LikeLike
Mark,
“It is better simply to say that we are working out that salvation that has Christ has already won for us and given to us by his Spirit through the gospel.”
So no synergism in progressive sanctification. Does that also mean no cooperation? If no cooperation what do you characterize “working out” as? Is one active or passive in “working out”?
LikeLike
Good deal, Cletus (your preferred moniker). Machen set an example for us OPC folk. Maybe that’s why this place feels different. But never forget, we’re looking out for your with every post.
Later.
LikeLike
*your soul
LikeLike
Cletus,
I understand many distinguish between definitive and progressive sanctification. But if progressive sanctification is cooperative, and grace is resistible in it (resulting in sin if resisted, increased holiness/grace and heavenly reward if cooperated with) and you just say “well it’s somehow still monergistic” you cannot fault synergists for saying the same about how any of their cooperation is all of grace and does not detract from God’s glory and due to God alone as well.
I sure can when Paul specifically denies synergism in justification. Paul sure thought grace-motivated works detract from God’s glory, and he definitely doesn’t talk about initial justification vs. final justification, and he says that all who are justified are also glorified, which destroys this idea of Rome’s that one can lose justification by mortal sin. Square the Roman gospel with the New Testament and we’ll stop criticizing Rome. And, to boot, don’t posit tradition as a source until you can tell us where it is so we can verify your claims.
LikeLike
Actually CVD, it has direct application to the need of ‘getting busy to be saved’. Degrees of perfection, distinguished only by calling, does not mitigate against, but instead reinforces the explicit works righteousness expression. So, it’s not a matter of only the monastics being saved but instead, according to vocation, the application of oneself to her ongoing justification considered both from the perspective of omission and commission. It’s a fair charge, backhanded as it may across, to throw at the feet of RC’s, the charge of a religion of works-righteousness, and the need to pursue it wholeheartedly even to the point of valuing the salvific merit of time spent(a monastic staple) here(blog) at the expense of time spent elsewhere.
LikeLike
Sean,
“Degrees of perfection, distinguished only by calling, does not mitigate against, but instead reinforces the explicit works righteousness expression.”
RCism does hold to merit/reward returned to acts of agape (that reward being greater participation) and that there will be differing degrees of glory in heaven (not exclusively an RC notion – Jonathan Edwards and others write on the same thing). That does not nullify that agape/infused righteousness is a virtue and disposition, not some aggregation of discrete acts, and it is that virtue that forms the foundation for our salvation. Perhaps a saint who toils 30 years in charity in the middle of nowhere will have a greater union and degree of agape and more heavenly reward than some guy who converted with his last breath – but they both were saved and are perfectly content/fulfilled according to their capacity.
“the application of oneself to her ongoing justification considered both from the perspective of omission and commission.”
Ongoing justification is imperiled by mortal sin (either omission/commission). As I said before one does not have to “get busy 24/7” to avoid mortal sin. It’s a false dichotomy – either “get busy 24/7” or lose your salvation. I don’t “get busy” when I’m asleep or in the shower.
“the charge of a religion of works-righteousness, and the need to pursue it wholeheartedly even to the point of valuing the salvific merit of time spent(a monastic staple) here(blog) at the expense of time spent elsewhere.”
It’s not works-righteousness just as sanctification is not works-righteousness. We make choices all the time that God presents. Our cooperation with those choices impact how we may merit and grow in holiness (or demerit if we resist and sin). A person who prays while doing dishes (Brother Lawrence’s spirituality) or does the smallest thing for love of God (Therese) can experience just as or even deeper union than the missionary with lepers across the world – external acts are not the basis for the deepening of union/participation – it’s the internal disposition behind those acts.
LikeLike
CvD, Here is some comments that made it through, and one of my several interactions with Fr. Bryan Ochs, if interested.
Peace.
LikeLike
Cletus,
I know your comments are directed to sean, but I found this phrase of yours quite telling…
how we may merit and grow in holiness (or demerit if we resist and sin).
The bruised reeds won’t find much comfort there…
LikeLike
Clete, “there’s no unified voice on what exactly sanctification.” Knock it off. Are we allowed to point to any Roman Catholic on Roman teaching and say that’s what Roman Catholicism stands for. The Reformed Confessions are clear and concise on sanctification.
If you keep this up — misrepresenting Protestantism — I’ll cut you off unless you come out from behind your moniker. I’ve let that go a long time here because I generally appreciate the lively interaction. But you really should use a real name.
LikeLike
Clete, I’ll bypass listing out the works of mercy, for example. Suffice to say, the acts are discrete enough to receive classification. The same is true for sins that receive categorization of mortal and venial and come with requisite lists. If you prefer meriting to works-righteousness, I’ll capitulate. Growth in holiness(meriting) works both through internal disposition and employment of external means(think ascetics) to bring holy compliance in the RC paradigm. The ‘believe that I might understand’ has application for the taming of the body. If it helps, I’ll classify your time here as a spiritual work of mercy-informing the ignorant. But, this whole discussion does help to highlight the difference in understanding the nature of the fall, the depth of corruption, the demands of the law and the work of Christ that separate RC’s from Prots.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Jack,
My reply is in moderation.
As it well should be… 😉
LikeLike
Jack,
Harsh! But it’s now up this page with a couple of links from Lutheran scholars on law.
Darryl,
I’m not sure how I am misrepresenting Calvinism. Mark cited a fellow Reformed believer pushing synergistic progressive sanctification and criticizing him for it. I’ve seen online discussions in many Reformed circles about it (Kevin DeYoung’s article, puritanboard, etc). But whatever I won’t press it if you don’t want to discuss it or whether there’s intramural controversy over it.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Harsh!
No, not harsh. Just a bit levity. As the CtC One says… In the peace…
LikeLike
Sean,
“Suffice to say, the acts are discrete enough to receive classification.”
Why do Reformed define and hold to the third use of the law?
LikeLike
Cletus,
Harsh!
No, not harsh. Just a bit levity. As the CtC One says… In the peace…
LikeLike
Jack,
Of course. My harsh was in jest as well – i forget tone doesn’t convey well over the interwebz.
LikeLike
A. Toplady weighs in –
From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged on thee?
Complete atonement thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
What e’re thy people owed;
How then can wrath on me take place
If sheltered in thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with thy blood?
If thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand–
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.
Turn, then, my soul, unto thy rest
The merits of thy great High Priest
Have bought thy liberty;
Trust in his efficacious blood
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.
LikeLike
Uh oh, once the pack isolates its victim, it dies the death of a 1000 nibbles.
It was far more interesting when the pack had to deal with multiple targets, Ms. Susan and the one they mockingly named “kenloses.”
Good luck “Clete.” Nobody ever beats the pirahna. Well, actually they do, but the piranha never know it. They just chomp away at whatever passes by.
LikeLike
But Tom, you’re still here.
What gives?
And you like think this is SeaWorld or something?
But for crying out loud, how about some compassion for your fellow creatures in misery.
You don’t think piranhas got to eat too?
So what if it’s Kibbles?
LikeLike
I’m ready to play ball Tom. But first….
What’s up with DGHART demanding real names, getting all touchy about misrepresentation and threatening excommunication if poor clete doesn’t change his ways?! You off your meds again?
LikeLike
I want to pick up the debate of sanctification and justification. Consider the following three biblical arguments that both describe the same process. An argument from Adam, an argument from Abraham and an argument from David.
Lets start with Adam then.
Impitation of alien righteousness doesnt seem to fit. Any thoughts? We should also consider Abraham since he stars all over the new testament.
Another odd fit for the reformed paradigm. Finally… David
Any takers? Btw the above quotes are the work of Dr Sungenis in his response to Horton. The link was posted earlier on this thread. Horton never got around to responding…. anyone else want to give it a crack?
LikeLike
Sure, kenny. Take a stab. Why don’t you show us where we are wrong. What am I missing as a subscriber to the WCF (OPC style)? You must feel those 17C guys simply had their heads in the sand, or something. Read the thing yet?
LikeLike
PS or try this: We created a new religion on account of yours’ failure. Of course, a religion doesn’t save, but a Person does.
Catch me if you can..
LikeLike
Where’s M&M? I need more high fives!!
LikeLike
I certainly would agree that it would do Protestants some good to read the books by Sugensis. That combination of Westminster Seminary (Norman Shepherd), Campbellite water regeneration and Harold Camping is interesting, especially when it exposes differences among those who call themselves Reformed. I recommend a reading not only of his Not By Faith Alone but also of his Not By Bread Alone.
The imputation of Adam’s guilt to us is not based on anything that is in us, but is something legally applied to us by God from the outside and not based on any sinful thought or action on our part. Not all Reformed are agreed on this. Calvin himself followed Augustine in putting the emphasis on inherited corruption as the prelude to guilt.. But I myself would stand with the “federal theology” of John Murray, Hodge, Turretin, which talks about “original sin” in terms of legal representation. (as for contemporaries, both Mike Horton and Robert Reymond speak of legal representation from Adam, but there are “realists” who are more in the tradition of Jonathan Edwards and Shedd–people like Schreiner and Blocher and Bill Evans)
This imputation from Adam to humans, is about the legal transfer of the guilt of Adam’s one action,–his first sin. The guilt of Adam is “external” to Adam–it’s the value, the demerit of his action, as judged by God, and that guilt is transferred to every human (Christ, the God human, the second Adam, excepted). This guilt is not only the liability or punishment for sin, but is first the guilt itself.
That which is transferred from Adam to us is first of all EXTERNAL.
1. When Christ “bears sins” or is “made sin”, this does NOT mean that Christ himself ever became corrupt. Christ had no need of regeneration, which is why neither Romans 5 or 6 are about regeneration, not about water, but about legal placing into the death of Christ. Why was the legal death of Christ necessary—because guilt was imputed to Christ, and this guilt demanded his death, and his death demanded the remission of this guilt. Justice has been done, and those in Christ legally must have their guilt forgiven. This is good news indeed!
2. The guilt of the elect imputed by God to Christ is not the same as the guilt of Adam imputed by God to all humans, but the nature of the imputation of guilt is the same in both cases. We must teach an external (judicial) imputation. To reverse the sneer of Sungensis at “mere” imputation, the death of Christ would not be needed if all we needed was “merely” a reverse of corruption and that done by the Holy Spirit. The basic problem is guilt, and the solution is Christ “made” sin by imputation. And it is only a philosophical prejudice that insists that “made sin” is not legal. Christ was not “made sin” in any other way but legally!
3. Emphasis on the external is very important when we consider II Corinthians 5:21. I won’t extend the discussion here to talk about who died with Christ (5:14-15) or to whom the appeal to be reconciled is made (II Cor 6;1), but I will point out that “become the righteousness of God in Christ” is about having an external righteousness imputed to us. Because that is so, the “made sin” of the first part of the verse must be seen as about external guilt being imputed to Christ.
LikeLike
Clete, so if I cite Garry Will or Michael Sean Winters, am I representing Roman Catholicism? You’re not that stupid. Quit it.
You may not be impressed by our churches in your Corinthian way, but an on-line discussion board is hardly representative (or a frigging system). What would Tom VD say? Naughty.
LikeLike
Kenloses, the policy here is to use a real name. I have shown mercy to Clete and to you (though I assume you are actually Ken, like the doll).
LikeLike
Darryl, M&M’s billing rate is too high, duh. You’re stuck with us understudies, you know, TV show impersonators, TV game show stars of yesteryear, and the rest of us just plain old miscreants (i.e. those looking for an escape of raising small children).
It’s a tortured life you lead. But for what it’s worth, high five.
LikeLike
PS as for me? I’m just a megalomaniac king trying to find a decent melody. The lyrics to this one belie it’s only 11 views so far (click and you’ll make it 12!).
Lates.
LikeLike
Darryl, I think he’s still in Hawaii hanging ten (which leaves little time for lending high fives).
LikeLike
Cletus (and Jack), the way Fesko writes, sounds like Reformed and Lutheran remain the closest of theological relatives when it comes to justification and the third use of the law (even if the latter don’t sometimes return the favor):
In turning to the second half of our investigation, we must explore the question of whether the Lutheran commitment to sola fide is such that they make absolutely no place for the necessity of good works, in some sense, in the broader category of their soteriology. In other words, is Lutheran soteriology antinomian? There have been those in both the distant and recent past who have argued that Luther and Lutheranism only hold to two uses of the law: the political or civil, in retraining evil, and the elenctic or pedagogic, in leading people to knowledge of sin and the need of redemption. Yet, at the same time a perusal of primary sources, including Luther’s writings, Lutheran confessions, and other Lutheran theologians evidences that Luther and Lutheranism hold to the third use of the law in some form, the didactic or normative use, regulating the life of the regenerate. One may begin with Luther’s own writings, as his writings are incorporated in the confessional corpus of the Lutheran church.
While Luther certainly divided the scriptures into the categories of law and gospel, commands and promise, just because a person became a Christian did not mean that he was now suddenly free from the demands of the law. Luther, for example, writes that
“…as long as we live in a flesh that is not free of sin, so long as the Law keeps coming back and performing its function, more on one person and less in another, not to harm but to save. This discipline of the Law is the daily mortification of the flesh, the reason, an dour powers and the renewal of our mind (2 Cor 4:16)…There is still need for a custodian to discipline and torment the flesh, that powerful jackass, so that by this discipline sins may be diminished and the way prepared for Christ.”
So long as the Christian is simil iustus et peccator, there is always a need for the law in the life of the believer. Luther’s use of the law in the life of the believer is further evidenced from his catechisms.
Luther’s Small Catechism begins with an exposition of the Decalogue. At the close of the exposition of the Decalogue in Luther’s Large catechism, Luther explains the importance of the law in the life of the believer:
“Thus, we have the Ten Commandments, a compend of divine doctrine, as to what we are to do in order that our whole life may be pleasing to God, and the true fountain and channel from and in which everything must arise and flow that is to be a good work, so that outside the Ten Commandments, no work or thing can be good or pleasing to God, however great or precious it be in the yes of the world.”
Luther saw a need for good works, but was careful, like the Reformed tradition, to teach about the proper relationship between good works and justification. Luther addresses the proper place of the law as it relates to justification when he writes:
“The matter of the Law must be considered carefully, both as to what and as how we ought to think about the Law; otherwise we shall either reject it altogether, after the fashion of the fanatical spirits who prompted the peasant’s revolt a decade ago by saying that the freedom of the Gospel absolves men from all laws, or we shall attribute to the law the power to justify. Both groups sin against the Law: those on the right, who want to be justified through the Law, and those on the left, who want to be altogether free of the Law. Therefore we must travel the royal road, so that we neither reject the law altogether not attribute more to it than we should.”
Luther saw a place for the law in the life of the believer. When he was explaining the doctrine of justification he said that there was no place for works or the law. In relationship, though, to one’s sanctification and the knowledge of what is pleasing to God, the Decalogue served as guide as well as a tool in the hand of God to confront the remaining sin in the believer. This careful fencing of justification from works, yet at the same time connecting justification to sanctification, is especially evident in the Lutheran confessions.
The Augsburg Confession is the first official Lutheran confession, and was largely written by Luther’s lieutenant, Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560). The Augsburg Confession carefully explains that justification is by faith alone: “Our works can not reconcile God, or deserve remission of sins, grace, and justification at his hands, but that these we obtain by faith only, when we believe that we are received into favor for Christ’s sake, who alone is appointed the Mediator and Propitiatory, by whom the Father is reconciled.” Yet, at the same time the confession gives an apology against antinomianism: “Ours are falsely accused of forbidding good works. For their writings extant upon the Ten Commandments, and others of the like argument, do bear witness that they have to good purpose taught concerning every kind of life, and its duties; what kinds of life, and what works in every calling, do please God.”
The confession even goes so far as to say that Lutherans “teach that it is necessary to do good works,” but it specifies that “not that we may trust that we deserve grace by them, but because it is the will of God that we should do them. By faith alone is apprehended remission of sins and grace. And because the Holy Spirit is received by faith, our hearts are now renewed, and so put on new affections, so that they are able to bring forth good works” (Augsburg Conf., ¶ 20, in Schaff, Creeds, 3.24-25). So, here, in this Lutheran confession we see the emphasis upon justification by faith alone but also the need for good works, informed by the law. While this is not precisely the same nomenclature that one finds in the Westminster Standards [it] is nonetheless parallel to the Standards’ emphasis on the third use of the law (WLC qq. 95-97; WCF 19.6; cf. Belgic Conf., ¶ 25; Heidelberg Cat., q. 93). What we find in inchoate forms in the Augsburg Confessions, however, emerges quite clearly in the formula of Concord.
…It is in the Formula of Concord that the Lutherans, legendary for their insistence upon justification by faith alone, also state that “good works must certainly and without all doubt follow a true faith (provided only it be not a dead faith but a living faith), as fruits of a good tree” (Formula of Concord, ¶ 4, in Schaff, Creeds, 3.122.). It is in article six, “Of the third use of the law,” where the document makes its most pronounced statement about the importance of the law and good works: “We believe, teach, and confess that although they who truly believe in Christ, and are sincerely converted to God, are through Christ set free from the curse and constraint of the Law, they are not, nevertheless, on that account without the Law (Formula of Concord, ¶6, in Schaff, Creeds, 3.131.). The document goes on to state that “the preaching of the Law should be urged not only upon those who have not faith in Christ, and do not yet repent, but also upon those who truly believe in Christ, are truly converted to God, and regenerated and are justified by faith” (Formula of Concord, ¶6, in Schaff, Creeds, 3.132.). So, then, it appears from primary sources such as Luther, the Augsburg Confession, and the Formula [of] Concord that Luther and Lutheranism places a heavy emphasis upon justification by faith alone but not to the exclusion of the importance and necessity of good works or the third use of the law. This is not a unique conclusion.
J.V. Fesko in “The Confessional Presbyterian,” Volume 3, 2007, pgs. 22-24.
LikeLike
Clete, I don’t have an issue with a third use of the law. As with anything it can be misunderstood and misapplied. Not by me, of course.
LikeLike
Zrim, that was for Tom, the piranha whisperer’s benefit.
LikeLike
Thanks, Zrim! More on Luther and the third use of the law:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/09/luther-maintained-third-use-of-law-even.html
LikeLike
Andrew,
I just presented three arguments from scripture why your view of justification is wrong. Pick one. Whichever you are most comfortable with. I’m especially interested in the argument from king David and Adam.
Mark,
If Adams guilt and original sin is forensic why then total depravity? It was my understanding that the fall of man in the reformed view made us incapable of obeying the law and completely mired in sin (unlike Adam who supposedly had a choice). Does this imputation of guilt somehow have an ontological effect on our decision making capacities? It seems to me that Adams guilt must be passed on to us in a very real way if you are to hold to the T of TULIP. As David says
Psalm 51:5: “Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” to know the real effects of Original Sin on the soul.
LikeLike
Kenneth, you have to hold in your mind the idea of perfection, or without flaw, to be distinguished from creaturely finiteness. Also, total doesn’t mean to imply as ‘bad as one can be’. Finally, it’s not as if we don’t believe in a renovative aspect to our salvation(holistically considered)-sanctification, but that is the working of the Spirit in our lives. Thus, the metaphor of the fruit of the Spirit against which there is no law. Still, these ‘fruits’ don’t ontologically merit us justification or recommend us to God as deserving.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Your mistake is in assuming I’m a reformed scholar. I’m a church officer, but you are going beyond what I believe these forums are intended for. Our church has a committee for ecumenism and inter church relations, and the means to reach them online.
I did check Fesko’s book Justification just now, pulling off my shelf. He fleshes out Psalms 32 and 51. My two year old soon, is asking me to read him a book. And I need to stop escaping my very real duties away from my smartphone.
More later.
LikeLike
The writing from Horton analyzed by a Catholic scholar is at least 5 years older than the analysis. Your church sure moves slowly. Ours meets annually, just FYI. Glad they take notice, eventually..
My Fesko is more up to date. Peace to you on your journey, Kenneth.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Cool man, take it easy.
Sean,
The issue is not that we are as bad as we could be. The issue is that Adam (prefall) had the ability to obey the law and please God and now we dont without irresistible grace. How then can the effects of original sin be merely forensic? But if not forensic how then are we to hold Romans 5:19 in equilibrium?
“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One [Christ] the many will be made righteous.”
Do you contend that this verse is speaking of “sanctification”? Because in the previous thread you said this was talking about how we are made righteous before God.
I thought you guys were supposed to be good at talking bible. Youve got some splaining to do friend
LikeLike
Darryl,
If I cite some online Calvinist in-name-only denying imputation or sola scriptura, I’m not going to say the Reformed aren’t unified on those issues. The question as to whether progressive sanct is synergistic/cooperative or not seems to be an open issue amongst conservative Reformed – the discussions I’ve seen online amongst sincere Calvinists on both sides aren’t immediately condemning each other for violating the confessions or tradition as they would with some guy breezing along saying Christ wasn’t divine or something.
Maybe I’m wrong – if a member of your congregation said he believed progressive sanctification was synergistic – would you guys discipline him? Even excommunicate him?
Sean,
I understand you endorse the third use. My only point was that classifying the law in such a manner does not lead you to believing in “works-righteousness” or such, nor does the mere existence of the classification of spiritual/corporal works of mercy mean such in RCism.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I’m not sure what you’re taking issue with exactly. Corruption isn’t suddenly held in abeyance (systematically) because we are discussing the forensic, and sanctification is a necessary consequence of God’s saving work(holistically). He accomplishes both. If you want to just focus on Rom 5 and what Paul is specifically discussing here, I’m comfortable with the interpretation that what is in play is the federal and forensic aspect, the exchange if you will, but that doesn’t then eliminate either corruption in Adam nor subsequent(logically considered) renovative realities by the Spirit.
LikeLike
Clete, you can’t go from no discrete acts to ‘ok, but just because discrete acts doesn’t equal works-righteousness’. If the disposition is never acted upon then there is no foundation, even if it’s just your faith(belief)-guy on death bed- that’s meritorious toward God. Your discrete acts are being considered from the ontological perspective and God can’t declare what isn’t there. Thus, your(RC) legal fiction charge. This doesn’t even begin to address; capacity/ability or requirement but that’s always available for ongoing discussion.
LikeLike
Sean,
“If the disposition is never acted upon then there is no foundation”
The foundation is the disposition. Because someone may act against it and kill it, does not mean the foundation did not exist beforehand. Yes, the assent of faith is meritorious – the will is not excluded in cooperating or resisting (I pass over Thomist/Molinist and intrinsically efficacious vs sufficient questions here – I side with Thomists though) – though one cannot merit justifying/first actual grace, only sanctifying grace.
Correct – God can’t declare what isn’t there – but my discrete acts didn’t make it exist or non-exist – my acts may help grow (or stunt my growth in – not destroy – i.e. venial not mortal sin) my degree of participation/union in agape, but they didn’t create the foundation. Man cannot merit initial justification, restoration, or final perseverance – no works righteousness (and of course even with sanctifying grace it’s not works righteousness – that God crowns his own gifts when crowning our merits thing – cooperation does not nullify grace).
LikeLike
Kenneth,
How then can the effects of original sin be merely forensic?
Well, the “effects” of Adam’s sin aren’t merely forensic. The guilt is passed on to his descendants by imputation. But in the fall, there is also a corruption of the nature going on as well.
Rom. 5:19 isn’t talking about sanctification but about the imputation of righteousness and unrighteousness. “Made” is a misleading translation. Read John Murray’s commentary on Romans.
LikeLike
Robert, ha! You went right to Murray, like Fesko did.
Thanks for the time and energy you expend out here for us little guys. Your masters thesis is something I would enjoy reading.
Take care, bro.
LikeLike
Clete your real name please, yes, we would discipline him.
Does your church discipline anyone? Think of all those theologians and biblical scholars.
LikeLike
Clete, I think we hit our impasse. We can’t have this discussion apart from shared understandings of merit and grace, and without a shared belief in the possibility of strict justice, there’s no way to have it. Treasury of merits or no, it’s works-righteousness by the biblical and prot understanding. Btw, I wasn’t thinking that the discrete acts brought the foundation into being but I could’ve been more clear about it. I might be up to a merit discussion, but probably not tonight.
LikeLike
Kenneth, Imputation of guilt is not a denial of the corruption which is a result of that. Nor is imputation of Christ’s righteousness a denial of the resulting work of the Holy Spirit in giving regeneration and faith. The problem is that you continue to beg the question by assuming that the legal is not “actual” or “ontologically real”.
Christ was “made” sin. Christ did not “become” corrupt. Christ became guilty by God’s imputation.
I am not saying anything here that John Murray has not carefully explained in his book on The Imputation of Adam’s Sin.
Christ was justified by His death and resurrection, but Christ was not born again, because Christ did not need to be regenerated. By His death Christ satisfied the perfect law of God for the guilt of the elect and purchased for them the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. The guilt of the elect imputed to Christ did not cause Christ to become “really” depraved.
The Cross
John Donne (1573–1631)
SINCE Christ embraced the Cross itself, dare I,
His image, th’ image of His Cross deny?
Would I have profit by the sacrifice,
And dare the chosen altar to despise?
It bore all other sins, but is it fit
That it should bear the sin of scorning it?
Who from the picture would avert his eye,
How would he fly His pains who there did die?
From me no pulpit, nor misgrounded law,
Nor scandal taken, shall this cross withdraw.
LikeLike
Robert and Sean,
Well, the “effects” of Adam’s sin aren’t merely forensic. The guilt is passed on to his descendants by imputation. But in the fall, there is also a corruption of the nature going on as well.
A corruption of mans nature is taking place due to……SIN. The nature is corrupt because of sin. How can imputation cause a totally depraved nature? Does Christs imputation cause a “totally holy nature”? If not, the verse is still not held in equilibrium and your theology is not consistent.
As far as “made” being a bad translation….katestathesan is an aorist verb indicating a completed past action; meaning “to constitute” or “to cause to be”. Its a spot on translation.
LikeLike
Mark,
Kenneth, Imputation of guilt is not a denial of the corruption which is a result of that. Nor is imputation of Christ’s righteousness a denial of the resulting work of the Holy Spirit in giving regeneration and faith. The problem is that you continue to beg the question by assuming that the legal is not “actual” or “ontologically real”.
Christs imputation does not “result” in sanctification. The work of the HS does. This is a separate process all together that you are conflating. Apparently Adams sin that was imputed directly resulted in total depravity ( a radical consequence) yet Christs imputation does not bring an equal effect. Why? It seems to me that the better translation is that of our souls actually being made sinful through Adam and then actually made righteous through Christ.
Christ was “made” sin. Christ did not “become” corrupt. Christ became guilty by God’s imputation.
Christ was never found guilty with the Father. According to the rite of atoning sacrifices (cf. Lev 4:24; 5:9; Num19:9; Mic 6:7; Ps 40:7) the word “sin”, corresponding to the Hebrew “asam”, refers to the actual act of sacrifice or to the victim being offered. Therefore, this phrase means “he made him a victim for sin” or “a sacrifice for sin”.
Christ was justified by His death and resurrection, but Christ was not born again, because Christ did not need to be regenerated. By His death Christ satisfied the perfect law of God for the guilt of the elect and purchased for them the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. The guilt of the elect imputed to Christ did not cause Christ to become “really” depraved.
Why did the sins imputed to Christ not cause him to be totally depraved but DID cause this to man? Apparently imputation comes with all kinds of wacky effects to the reformed. Sometimes it results in radical consequences (total depravity) sometimes meager consequences through a separate process (sanctification) brought on by the HS and still other times nothing at all (guilt imputed to Christ). All these mental gymnastics just to avoid the simple and straight forward reading that suggests that Christ sacrifice really does make us righteous and Adams sin really did make us sinners.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
As far as “made” being a bad translation….katestathesan is an aorist verb indicating a completed past action; meaning “to constitute” or “to cause to be”. Its a spot on translation.
“Made” is not a bad translation, just a potentially misleading one. And that is evident in your reading Roman metaphysics into it. The fact that it is in the aorist has nothing to do with it. Yeah, its a past action, but what is the action?. The question is what is the best English word to render the Greek term. There is not a one-to-one word that fits, which is why you have to read whatever translation in light of the surrounding context. And in the surrounding context, God declares a person righteous. He justifies the ungodly, He does not justify the godly. There’s no such thing as an “initial justification,” or at least one that does not guarantee “final justification.” These are Romanist interpolations put into Paul’s mouth in order to justify a sacramental and penitental system that neither Paul nor the rest of the NT knows anything about.
In the context the justification of Abraham at the beginning of his walk is equated with the justification of David in the middle of his walk via the non-imputation of sin. The point is not that David lost justification and then regained it or something like that. The point is that the non-imputation of sin that takes place upon conversion or the exercise of saving faith continues on forever. You don’t lose it. Abraham was justified the moment he placed faith in Christ, and that consisted of, in part, the non-imputation of sin. This continued on until his death. He didn’t commit a mortal sin with Hagar and was then re-justified. David didn’t commit a mortal sin with Bathsheba and was then re-justified. There is nothing of that going on. That is pure eisegesis. Where is the penance assigned to David? Where is the penance assigned to Abraham? It ain’t there.
It seems to me that the better translation is that of our souls actually being made sinful through Adam and then actually made righteous through Christ.
The simple answer is that all that Christ has purchased has not been made a present reality in the lives of believers. Already and not yet. And the simple fact is that Christians are no longer totally depraved. They can choose the good. Nonbelievers cannot, at least they cannot do anything that is in any way fully pleasing to God. The best they can hope for is a relative good. The Dalai Lama is good relative to the rest of sinful humanity. He seems to be a genuinely kind and loving fellow. That ain’t gonna help him on judgment day because his motives aren’t to glorify God. That is what it takes for an act to be more than just relatively good.
Christ was never found guilty with the Father. According to the rite of atoning sacrifices (cf. Lev 4:24; 5:9; Num19:9; Mic 6:7; Ps 40:7) the word “sin”, corresponding to the Hebrew “asam”, refers to the actual act of sacrifice or to the victim being offered. Therefore, this phrase means “he made him a victim for sin” or “a sacrifice for sin”.
You are making distinctions that in the final analysis make no difference. How much Hebrew and Greek have you had? This just isn’t good exegesis. Sounds like you’ve been reading too much of Nick’s Catholic Blog. I’m not trying to insult you, but the most dangerous thing in the world theologically is to be exposed to an inkling of the original languages. You have to take into account syntax, the context of the words in the immediate passages and the whole canon, and much more. This takes years and years and years to become adept at.
Go read Isaiah 53. Our sin and iniquity was laid upon Christ. You don’t make something or someone a sacrifice for sin without laying sin—imputing sin and guilt—to that person or thing. There is an identification that takes place.
Christ sacrifice really does make us righteous and Adams sin really did make us sinners.
Yes it does, but you are reading Romanist conceptions of reality into “really.” We really are righteous before God because the righteousness of Christ really exists and it really belongs to our account. Adam’s sin made us legally sinners. A newborn baby has not made any decisions himself to disobey God. He has no guilt that results from what he has in himself done. He is guilty because of Adam, because Adam’s sin is his. Adam did what that baby would have done had the baby been in Eden instead of Adam. When we say that we sinned in Adam, that is what we mean. The mere possession of a corrupt nature is not what made us sinners. It is the imputation of Adam’s guilt, which is why a baby is guilty.
The effects of sin upon Adam and Christ and upon those in them are parallel but they are not exact. Adam by sinning did what we would have done in that situation. Christ by never sinning did what we never would have done were we in that situation. The gift of Christ far surpasses the disobedience of Adam in its effects for all sorts of reasons.
The imputation of guilt to Christ made his body susceptible to death but the ontological effects are not parallel because Christ did not actually sin himself. He doesn’t get a corrupt nature. His body didn’t decay at all over the three days he was in the grave. Adam’s sin really gave him a corrupt nature because he actually sinned.
All this is to say is that while there are parallels between imputation and its effects, they are not exact. There are all sorts of reasons for this, not the least of them have to do with the fact that Christ never actually sinned. This is partly why the results of what Christ did are not exactly parallel with what we enjoy. Christ was given the name above all names because of His obedience. We are not, and had Adam obeyed perfectly, he still wouldn’t have been given the name above all names.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
If you are looking for something to noodle on for a Sunday morning, check this out, the blog post by Darryl, and the combox that preceeded me making that specific post I have just directed you to. Doing this is easier than you buying Fesko’s book, so it’s free, enjoy it. But seriously, Fesko deals with the stuff you are writing about in great detail (462 pages) and it’s a fantastic reference. I met Fesko when in 2009 he was a memeber of a 4 person panel discussing issues with our presbytery over matters of science v. religion. I got to ask questions of the panel in that conference, and I have all the transcripts. There’s interesting stuff to listen to and read on the internet, if you know where to look. You obviously do a fair amount of internet scouring. So when we point you elsewhere, we really are trying to help.
Later.
LikeLike
…. but a potentially misleading one. And that is evident in your reading Roman metaphysics into it.
So what you meant to say wasnt it was a bad translation… but that it was a poor choice of words by Paul. It would be better for reformed theology if he hadnt put it that way. Got it.
The fact that it is in the aorist has nothing to do with it. Yeah, its a past action, but what is the action?. The question is what is the best English word to render the Greek term. There is not a one-to-one word that fits, which is why you have to read whatever translation in light of the surrounding context.
We dont need a perfect one to one word that fits to understand perfectly well the concept behind the Greek. There would not be a different word than “made” used even if I grant your debatable context. You just dont want to allow the word to speak for itself.
And in the surrounding context, God declares a person righteous. He justifies the ungodly, He does not justify the godly.
Yes He does. Just like He still does today through baptism and confession.
There’s no such thing as an “initial justification,” or at least one that does not guarantee “final justification.” These are Romanist interpolations put into Paul’s mouth in order to justify a sacramental and penitental system that neither Paul nor the rest of the NT knows anything about.
Bare assertion. Ill stand with the vast majority of all Christians in history who have read the same words as you and come to a different conclusion. So much for perspecuity right?
In the context the justification of Abraham at the beginning of his walk is equated with the justification of David in the middle of his walk via the non-imputation of sin. The point is not that David lost justification and then regained it or something like that. The point is that the non-imputation of sin that takes place upon conversion or the exercise of saving faith continues on forever. You don’t lose it. Abraham was justified the moment he placed faith in Christ, and that consisted of, in part, the non-imputation of sin. This continued on until his death. He didn’t commit a mortal sin with Hagar and was then re-justified. David didn’t commit a mortal sin with Bathsheba and was then re-justified. There is nothing of that going on. That is pure eisegesis. Where is the penance assigned to David? Where is the penance assigned to Abraham? It ain’t there.
How is this not pure eisegesis? There is nothing in the text that suggests we are exclusively talking about nonimputation of sin that lasts forever. David is used in the text as an example of how one is justified. Unfortunately for you, the example takes us to a time much later on in his life after he had already been a righteous man of God. There doesn’t need to be a penance assigned (obviously) for this to fit like a glove in Catholic theology and stand out like a stick in the mud for the reformed. Further, the new testament names four different times that Abraham was justified and one of those is ascribedto his works! New testament reference to old testament saints just doesnt bode well for you theologically.
The simple answer is that all that Christ has purchased has not been made a present reality in the lives of believers. Already and not yet. And the simple fact is that Christians are no longer totally depraved. They can choose the good. Nonbelievers cannot, at least they cannot do anything that is in any way fully pleasing to God.
Yes but that isn’t the simple answer that’s the problem. Why is it that when we were “made” sinners through Adam the present reality was immediately manifested but when we are “made” righteous through Christ the same isn’t true? I submit that the obvious answer is that in this verse “made” isn’t referring to imputation.
You are making distinctions that in the final analysis make no difference.
Mark was trying to make the point that “made” doesnt always mean “made” because in this verse obviously Christ wasn’t “made” sin. My distinction actually does make a huge difference because it negates his point entirely. If the passage in question is stating that Christ was “made” a sacrifice for sin then “made” still means “made” and he is still stuck with romans 5:19.
How much Hebrew and Greek have you had? This just isn’t good exegesis. Sounds like you’ve been reading too much of Nick’s Catholic Blog. I’m not trying to insult you, but the most dangerous thing in the world theologically is to be exposed to an inkling of the original languages. You have to take into account syntax, the context of the words in the immediate passages and the whole canon, and much more. This takes years and years and years to become adept at.
What I wrote is found in numerous biblical commentaries and has been expounded upon by Scott Hahn as well. Perhaps you should lay down the Adhoms and deal with the arguments presented.
All this is to say is that while there are parallels between imputation and its effects, they are not exact. There are all sorts of reasons for this, not the least of them have to do with the fact that Christ never actually sinned. This is partly why the results of what Christ did are not exactly parallel with what we enjoy. Christ was given the name above all names because of His obedience. We are not, and had Adam obeyed perfectly, he still wouldn’t have been given the name above all names.
So are all children who have not actually sinned enjoying a different effect of imputation of sin than adults? It seems to me that Adams imputation of guilt has produced an effect on the soul and nature of man and yet the same isn’t true about Christ’s “making” us righteous.
LikeLike
Robert,
You didn’t respond to one particular part of my previous post addressed to you. What makes mans nature corrupt? You said earlier that Adams imputation of sin was one thing but that there was ALSO a corrupt nature. What is it that “made” our nature so corrupt.
LikeLike
Andy buck,
Thank you for the link I enjoyed it
LikeLike
Robert,
“You have to take into account syntax, the context of the words in the immediate passages and the whole canon, and much more. This takes years and years and years to become adept at.”
Are only scholars who agree with your exegesis adept at these things?
LikeLike
CvD, I’ll let Robert answer, of course. Just butting in here to say all the time and education in the world, Truth does not make.
These are weighty matters, hardly ones where we should hide behind an anonymous name if we truly care about how such things are handled. Unless there is some good reason to. The world should see Christians discussing their differences in manner that pleases the Lord whom they claim is Lord of Lords. People posting as a TV Character indicates something, immaturity if nothing else. But I don’t care about that too much, just sharing my two sense.
Later.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
So what you meant to say wasnt it was a bad translation… but that it was a poor choice of words by Paul. It would be better for reformed theology if he hadnt put it that way. Got it.
Are you purposefully being obtuse? It’s not a poor choice of words by Paul. The limitations is on the English translation of the verse. Pay attention.
We dont need a perfect one to one word that fits to understand perfectly well the concept behind the Greek. There would not be a different word than “made” used even if I grant your debatable context. You just dont want to allow the word to speak for itself.
Pure speculation. I’m not looking for one “perfect” word. All I’m saying is that you are reading the term made and importing ontological Romanist assumptions. Can you even read the original Greek?
Bare assertion. Ill stand with the vast majority of all Christians in history who have read the same words as you and come to a different conclusion. So much for perspecuity right?
The “vast majority” didn’t have access to the New Testament in Greek, couldn’t read, and suffered through services and sermons that weren’t in their mother tongue and that they couldn’t understand. So this is irrelevant. And when the papacy was given the chance to change its interpretation based on the text God actually inspired, it doubled down and infallibly defined the Vulgate—that has additional passages that modern Roman exegetes don’t admit are part of the original text the apostles wrote—as the official text, once again proving that it doesn’t matter to Rome what the Bible says. Considering that a huge number of medieval priests at least in Scotland thought that the New Testament was a book written by Martin Luther, well, tell me again how your point is relevant?
How is this not pure eisegesis? There is nothing in the text that suggests we are exclusively talking about nonimputation of sin that lasts forever. David is used in the text as an example of how one is justified. Unfortunately for you, the example takes us to a time much later on in his life after he had already been a righteous man of God. There doesn’t need to be a penance assigned (obviously) for this to fit like a glove in Catholic theology and stand out like a stick in the mud for the reformed. Further, the new testament names four different times that Abraham was justified and one of those is ascribedto his works! New testament reference to old testament saints just doesnt bode well for you theologically.
Paul’s point is that those who are justified are justified the same way whether they live before or after the law was given. Abraham and David are both justified by faith but they lived at different points in salvation history. And, as one of your top Roman exegetes—and leading NT scholar in the world—has noted, Luther was quite right to insert “alone” in his translation of Romans (Fitzmeyer). The James reference is cute, but as another one of your exegetes—Luke Timothy Johnson—has noted, James is not dealing with the same issue as Paul, so it can’t be used the way you want it to be used. The fact that you are bringing it up just shows the surface-level exegesis that Rome used to establish its doctrine but that modern RC biblical scholars are largely abandoning. If you want to believe we’re justified by faith plus works, you’re certainly free to, but it ain’t established in Scripture.
Yes but that isn’t the simple answer that’s the problem. Why is it that when we were “made” sinners through Adam the present reality was immediately manifested but when we are “made” righteous through Christ the same isn’t true? I submit that the obvious answer is that in this verse “made” isn’t referring to imputation.
First, when we are declared righteous we are also united to Christ, so there is a sense in which there is an immediate manifestation, but that isn’t justification. Romans 5:12–20 is talking about justification. Second and more important, why is it when we are saved God doesn’t snatch us out of the world immediately into heaven? Not all of the benefits of salvation are immediately manifested upon conversion, even Rome believes that, unless you want to tell me Rome believes that you are walking around in a resurrected body. Why is this manifestation not made immediately? Why don’t you ask God?
Mark was trying to make the point that “made” doesnt always mean “made” because in this verse obviously Christ wasn’t “made” sin. My distinction actually does make a huge difference because it negates his point entirely. If the passage in question is stating that Christ was “made” a sacrifice for sin then “made” still means “made” and he is still stuck with romans 5:19.
Made means made, but made doesn’t have to mean “ontologically made.” That is what you are assuming and you haven’t proved it. Sound exegetes on both sides have shown this. Your infallible V2 allows Roman exegetes to do this now.
What I wrote is found in numerous biblical commentaries and has been expounded upon by Scott Hahn as well. Perhaps you should lay down the Adhoms and deal with the arguments presented.
Which commentaries? Scott Hahn? Scott Hahn is a coward who won’t debate the actual exegetical merits of RC with Protestants who can work with the text in the original languages. Go ask Luke T. Johnson or Joseph A. Fitzmeyer if Hahn’s exegesis of the OT to find Mary is a legitimate application of GHM.
It seems to me that Adams imputation of guilt has produced an effect on the soul and nature of man and yet the same isn’t true about Christ’s “making” us righteous.
The imputation of guilt makes us guilty. The actual act of sinning on Adam’s part corrupts the soul of man, and this corruption is handed down. The imputation of righteousness makes us legally righteous. Christ’s actual obedience will make us righteous in actions. It begins fittingly in this life but is perfected at our deaths. But that is a different process/matter/act than justification. Why that is, well, that’s a matter for God to know and not us. I wish he’d remove the presence of sin entirely from me right now. But he hasn’t.
LikeLike
Cletus/James,
Are only scholars who agree with your exegesis adept at these things?
Are only scholars who agree with your interpretation of Rome’s interpretation of itself good theologians?
LikeLike
Oh please. Since when has anyone at oldlife cared about discussing the faith in a winsome and sanctified manner?! Y’all are the crass obnoxious bunch not the lights go the world. One other frequent blogger called it “spending to much time suffering the arrows of the few and the proud.” The last card y’all ha e to play is the old “we just want to have dignified conversation”. I think the fact that I have to constantly click “load site anyways despite no security license” is reason enough to be hesitant giving real names.
LikeLike
speak of the devil… there it goes again….
“this websites certificate is invalid your personal information may be at risk”
LikeLike
Kenny, I appreciate your call to limit OLTS sanctimony.
No one is forcing you to come to our insecure sight. It likely reflects our combined psychological deficiencies. The website simply ain’t on its meds..it happens…
LikeLike
Robert — would you mind to drop me an email? johnbugay [at] gmail
LikeLike
John,
Just sent you an email.
LikeLike
Kenloses, in the memorable words of Jason Stellman, “This is blogdom, people, it’s no fun when we all agree on everything!”
LikeLike
Andrew,
You’re a nice guy, but the passive aggressive stuff is starting to get tiresome. “You’re dishonoring the lord and probably immature, but I don’t really care that much even though I just wrote a comment devoted to it.” – let your no mean no and your yes mean yes. I’ve been to Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic blogs that all allow anonymity – I suppose they are dishonoring the lord by allowing it as well.
Here’s my bio – it’s been a bit intense at times.
Robert,
I say that adept erudite honest scholars can come to conflicting conclusions on the data. Do you agree with that?
LikeLike
James as Cletus, not clicking on links from people who think they are TV show characters. It’s not my blog, nor is it yours. It’s your choice to stay. I just find your actions here odd.
Peace.
LikeLike
Robert,
I can always tell when you’re back on your heels because you always revert to adhoms and the infamous acme box of anti-catholic arguments and sound bites. Lets look at your most recent comments and strike out all adhoms/insults and acme box red hearings that do nothing to refute the arguments presented.
Are you purposefully being obtuse?It’s not a poor choice of words by Paul. The limitations is on the English translation of the verse.Pay attention.You haven’t offered any evidence what so ever to suggest there is any problem with the translation other than the “context” which is completely debatable and under dispute. Offer something up and we can take a look at it.
Pure speculation. I’m not looking for one “perfect” word. All I’m saying is that you are reading the term made and importing ontological Romanist assumptions.
Can you even read the original Greek?As Mark stated earlier numerous reformed theologians hold to the idea that there is an actual ontological effect on the soul from original sin rather than the mere “imputation” theory. If i remember he said this line of thought was a bonafied tradition in the reformed church. I am arguing that they are correct and that you are wrong. Im also arguing that once your error is established that entails a RC view of atonement and infused righteousness. The charge of me “importing Romanist ontological assumptions” is invalid.
The “vast majority” didn’t have access to the New Testament in Greek, couldn’t read, and suffered through services and sermons that weren’t in their mother tongue and that they couldn’t understand. So this is irrelevant. And when the papacy was given the chance to change its interpretation based on the text God actually inspired, it doubled down and infallibly defined the Vulgate—
that has additional passages that modern Roman exegetes don’t admit are part of the original text the apostles wrote—as the official text, once again proving that it doesn’t matter to Rome what the Bible says. Considering that a huge number of medieval priests at least in Scotland thought that the New Testament was a book written by Martin Luther, well, tell me again how your point is relevant?Yes but out of all those that could read, understood the latin and had access to the greek text…. the vast majority still disagree with your personal interpretation. I would have thought that as a protestant you would be used to not having history on your side by now. Further, what were these poor souls who read from jeromes vulgate missing from lack of original greek? What groundbreaking earth shatterimg mistakes were waiting to be discovered?
Paul’s point is that those who are justified are justified the same way whether they live before or after the law was given. Abraham and David are both justified by faith but they lived at different points in salvation history.
And, as one of your top Roman exegetes—and leading NT scholar in the world—has noted, Luther was quite right to insert “alone” in his translation of Romans (Fitzmeyer). The James reference is cute, but as another one of your exegetes—Luke Timothy Johnson—has noted, James is not dealing with the same issue as Paul, so it can’t be used the way you want it to be used. The fact that you are bringing it up just shows the surface-level exegesis that Rome used to establish its doctrine but that modern RC biblical scholars are largely abandoning.If you want to believe we’re justified by faith plus works, you’re certainly free to, but it ain’t established in Scripture.I think that you are mistaken and that it is established by scripture quite clearly. How would you contend that James is not dealing with the same issue as Paul? Again, no argument is introduced. Just hand waving and an appeal to the fact that there exist many liberal Catholic Scholars whose work does not align with official Church teaching. Lets take a look at the evidence for Abraham, “imputation” and James 2
So much for Abraham and imputed righteousness…. but what about James?
The imputation of guilt makes us guilty. The actual act of sinning on Adam’s part corrupts the soul of man, and this corruption is handed down. The imputation of righteousness makes us legally righteous. Christ’s actual obedience will make us righteous in actions. It begins fittingly in this life but is perfected at our deaths. But that is a different process/matter/act than justification. Why that is, well, that’s a matter for God to know and not us. I wish he’d remove the presence of sin entirely from me right now. But he hasn’t.
You are just playing with words again Robert. This is the same thing you do with your doctrine of predestination to hide the monster that your theology makes our Lord. Does Adams sin ontologically make us actual sinners or not? Is it imputed or is it handed down? Pick one.
Was Adams imputed sin on man real or not? Did it ACTUALLY make us sinner or no? You are trying to ride the fence and im going to have to ask you to pick a side and hop down
LikeLike
Robert,
“Luther was quite right to insert “alone” in his translation of Romans (Fitzmeyer).”
You need to qualify this. Because Fitzmyer points out others before Luther used the word alone, does not mean the Protestant definition of “faith alone” is justified, or that Fitzmyer thinks that. That’s the word-concept fallacy. It would mean Aquinas held to Protestant faith alone which is absurd.
Further, in the Jerome Biblical Commentary authored in part by Fitzmyer and Brown the following is said for Romans:
“This justification as a divine act implies a declaration that sinful man is upright before God. Does this mean that he is merely declared to be so—when he is really a sinner—by some legal fiction? We might expect that dikaioô, like other Gk verbs ending in -oô, would have a causative, factitive meaning: “to make someone dikaios”… But in the LXX, dikaioôseems normally to have a declarative, forensic meaning. *At times* this seems to be the only sense intended in Paul’s letters (cf. Rom 8:33); but many instances are ambiguous. *One can certainly not appeal to this forensic sense to exclude a more radical transformation of man* through the Christ-event, making it the essence of the Christian experience, as it were. For justification is really the placing of man in a status of uprightness in the sight of God through the association of him with the salvific activity of Christ Jesus—through the incorporation of him in Christ and his Church through faith and baptism. The result of this justification is that the Christian becomes dikaios(upright); he is not just declared to be so but is actually constituted such (katastathçsontai, Rom 5:19). Paul recognizes that as a Christian he no longer has an uprightness of his own, based on the Law, but one acquired through faith in Christ, an “uprightness from God” (Phil 3:8-9). And the Christian in union with Christ is even said to become “the uprightness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).”
Elsewhere:
“It would be false to Paul’s whole theology to understand his use of Gn 15:6 to mean a mere legal fiction, that uprightness was imputed to Abraham, although he was not really upright. Theoretically, the words could mean no more than this. But there is not the slightest hint either in the Gn story or in Paul’s treatment that Abraham was not previously upright. Again, Paul’s ideas about faith and uprightness otherwise indicate that in the sight of God, who sees things as they are, Abraham’s faith counted as uprightness; it was formally recognized to be just what it was. The manifestation of his faith was de se justifying.”
“Scott Hahn is a coward who won’t debate the actual exegetical merits of RC with Protestants who can work with the text in the original languages.”
Awesome. Because someone doesn’t debate they’re cowards. I guess all those Protestant biblical scholars who also think debate is a waste of their time are cowards.
“a legitimate application of GHM.”
Yep once again all proper exegesis is that from GHM alone. And those that disagree with me who say they are using GHM are just not applying it legitimately. Sensational.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I’ve read through your posts a couple of times, and while there is a realist tradition, there is no necessity in the realist tradition to assume the RC ontological scheme. Beyond that consideration, the RC ontological scheme is particularly ill-fitting in Rom 5 where the terms used are centered around forensic definitions. Just taking a look at the summation verses in 18 and 19, the context is the one man’s offense(federal headship-legal connotation) resulting in condemnation(judgement-ruling followed by sentence-death, includes everlasting death) paralleled with one man’s righteous act(federal headship-righteous here is not an ethical consideration, though it’s ethical, but a matter of accomplishment, satisfaction that fulfills the requirement-think covenant/contractual) resulting in justification(legal standing contrasted with condemnation-a contrary legal standing) of life-eternal consideration here, just like death in condemnation has an ultimate eternal context.
The contrast in 19 is still tracking along this forensic context but here Paul introduces a more
ethical consideration ‘made sinners’ past tense to highlight the contrasting ‘will be made righteous’ future tense which is denoting the acquittal status in the future at eternal judgement in spite of the earned(ethical) status of sinner whether considered solely in solidarity with Adam or in terms of corruption. This is entirely consistent with the idea already put forth in 5:9-10; “…that in being justified by His blood we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life”.-again the ‘shall be’ pointing to the future event of acquittal at the eschatological judgement, in spite of our earned status as guilty and therefore enemies, while also pointing to an imputed righteousness through the parallel in V.9 of; ‘saved from wrath through Him’ (which is in distinction from justification by His blood) with the; “we shall be saved by His life” in V.10
The forensic context is even more intense in V 12-17 and certainly serves as the proper courtroom or legal context for the whole consideration, but it is possible to just pull out V 18 and 19 and simply get it done there in isolation.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I can always tell when you are on your heels because you whine again and again about Reformed theology making God into a monster without really making an argument.
Do nothing to refute the arguments presented.
You haven’t made an argument. All you are doing is looking at the word “made” in the English and assuming that it has an ontological meaning. And when I point out that that is not necessarily the case, you accuse me of saying that Paul should have used a different Greek word. Yeah, that’s serious interaction.
How would you contend that James is not dealing with the same issue as Paul?
First, the lengthy quotes from Sungenis that follow this are disingenuous on Sungenis’ part because he quotes selectively from the contexts of these authors. He is being dishonest. If you want to know what Murray, Beeke, Hodge, et al think about the grammar, you need to read them in context. You need to go beyond reading the pat answers of RC apologists, and I see no evidence that you’ve done that.
Second, it is rather clear from the context and James’ actual wording that he is not addressing the same kind of problem as Paul. The whole passage starts with “Can that faith save him?”, referring back to the question as to what do do with the person who says he has faith but no works. James is very clearly talking about the kind of faith that saves, and the kind of faith that saves is the kind of faith that issues forth in works. This, of course, is exactly what Paul teaches. The issue always is whether the works that faith produces play a role in increasing or completing justification. This Paul most strenuously denies, using the example of Abraham and David in particular. These were men of faith. These men had works. These men had faith that issued forth in works. These men yet were not justified by their works.
Sungenis’ point about James quoting Genesis 15:6 is cute, and thanks for bolding it, but it’s also making a big to do about nothing. The term fulfill in Scripture has a manifold sense, as is evident from the NT authors use it to show how Jesus brings prophecy to pass. Fulfill often means something like “show the truth of” or “reveal the fullest manifestation of.” When James’ act of offering Isaac is said to fulfill Gen. 15:6, all James is saying is that his profession of faith is being shown to be true based on the context of James’ passage. He’s also saying that Abraham’s faith has grown stronger since Gen. 15:6. What he is not saying is that Abraham’s works serve as the meritorious basis of justification.
I could go on. I would recommend you read the treatment by Douglas Moo in his commentary on James or even RC scholar Luke Timothy Johnson in his treatment.
You are just playing with words again Robert. This is the same thing you do with your doctrine of predestination to hide the monster that your theology makes our Lord. Does Adams sin ontologically make us actual sinners or not? Is it imputed or is it handed down? Pick one.
Would you knock it off? I said that the guilt of Adam is imputed and that Adam’s sin also has the ontological effect of giving us a fallen nature. The imputation is logically prior to being made a sinner. The same thing happens to the believer in Christ. Imputation of righteousness is logically prior to inward transformation. All we are saying is that inward transformation is not what grants us heavenly citizenship and avails before the perfect judgment of God. Same time justified and sinner doesn’t mean there’s been no inward change wrought in the soul. What it means is that when God considers our works done as saved people before our glorification and the removal of the presence of sin, the best we can hope for is a relative righteousness that is still not a perfect righteousness, and perfect righteousness alone avails before the judgment seat of God.
And as far as the “monster” charge, I notice you didn’t answer my last post on the issue, which is fine. But I’ll just repeat the conclusion: If God ordains to permit Adam to sin knowing that Adam will certainly sin, he is no less a “moral monster” than in Calvinism.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Well, some have argued that Aquinas taught, in essential form, JBFA. I’m not sure I’m convinced by their arugments, but there it is.
As for your quotes from the commentary:
For justification is really the placing of man in a status of uprightness in the sight of God through the association of him with the salvific activity of Christ Jesus—through the incorporation of him in Christ and his Church through faith and baptism.
Well, this is essentially what Protestantism believes. Justification gives us a status of uprightness in the sight of God on account of our incorporation into Christ via faith.
The result of this justification is that the Christian becomes dikaios(upright); he is not just declared to be so but is actually constituted such (katastathçsontai, Rom 5:19).
This point is actually not contra Protestantism either except that the ontological transformation is viewed as effected by justification. The result of justification is that we are inwardly transformed, but it is a logical relationship. Justification logically precedes sanctification, which is the inward transformation. Justification is not the inward transformation. This is where the commentary errs, as it fails to note the full forensic context of Romans 5.
Awesome. Because someone doesn’t debate they’re cowards. I guess all those Protestant biblical scholars who also think debate is a waste of their time are cowards.
From James White:
Dr. Scott Hahn’s challenge to debate was delivered personally by James White following a debate in San Diego in January of 1991. James White had first met Scott Hahn at a debate between White and Gerry Matatics in Phoenix, Arizona. Hahn then moderated a debate on the Papacy the next evening. The next month White debated Dr. Mitchell Pacwa on justification and the Mass. Following one of these debates, White challenged Hahn, in front of a number of witnesses, to a public debate. That was in January of 1991—over six years ago now. So far, Hahn has been unwilling to debate.
In late 1996, James White received an invitation to participate in a Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogue/debate in Dallas, Texas, scheduled for April of 1997. White gladly accepted the invitation, and sent out a number of books and debate tapes to those who invited him. However, the very next day, White received a phone call, dis-inviting him. He was told that when Dr. Hahn was told he (White) had been invited, he became quite upset, and indicated that if White was going to attend, he would not. Since they already had a contract with Hahn, White’s invitation was rescinded.
Is Dr. White lying?
Yep once again all proper exegesis is that from GHM alone. And those that disagree with me who say they are using GHM are just not applying it legitimately. Sensational.
Proper exegesis will not contradict what we learn from reading the authors in their context. When Rome stops believing things that contradict what the authors are saying in their context (let’s start with the veneration of images, for example, which would be absolutely anathema to a first-century Jew like Paul or Peter), I’ll start believing those who toe the RC party line are employing the method accurately.
I say that adept erudite honest scholars can come to conflicting conclusions on the data. Do you agree with that?
More or less, the answer is yes. But if they don’t agree with my conclusion, most of the time I’m going to think they are wrong. Just like you. Scholars come to conflicting conclusions on whether or not Rome’s claims are true. Surely you think that those who conclude that Rome is a false church are wrong.
You are doing nothing different than anyone else that looks at the evidence.
LikeLike
Kenneth: apparently Adams sin that was imputed directly resulted in total depravity ( a radical consequence) yet Christs imputation does not bring an equal effect
mark–First, depravity is not only corruption but the guilt which causes that corruption. You continue to beg the question. Second, God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness DOES RESULT in the new birth and faith in the gospel, which is what I said in my last post above. Third, the elect have “much more” in the last Adam.
Romans 5:17 much more they who receive the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Christ Jesus.
The elect receive the righteousness by imputation before they receive it by faith.
Romans 8:10 the Spirit is life because of righteousness
John 16: 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Romans 5:19. “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were appointed sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be appointed righteous.”
.Like I Corinthians 15, Romans 5 is not talking about the non-elect who are also constituted sinners by Adam’s disobedience. The same exact number who are chosen in Christ were also all born legally dead in Adam and appointed sinners. Even though they are elect in Christ, they are born into this world needing Christ and needing life.
Trying to understand these imputation events in Romans 5 without talking about election is impossible, but almost everybody tries to do it. They end up changing God’s freely GIVEN salvation into something caused by sinners actively “receiving”, even though “receive” in Romans 5:17 is passive and does not refer to the consent of sinners.
Man does not become a sinner by consenting to Adam’s sin, and the elect in Christ do not become appointed righteous by consenting to Christ’s obedience. The elect in Christ become righteous by imputation. This legal event results in new birth, but it does not include new birth.
Why does this distinction matter? Even if you agree with me that sinners are made guilty in Adam by legal imputation,why does it matter when we agree that the moral corruption of sinners is the immediate result of the imputation of guilt?
If the only problem elect sinners have is corruption and inability to believe, then the only need they have is for the Holy Spirit and the new birth. Then it finally does not matter what Christ did, and it certainly makes no sense to argue about for whom Christ did it.
If “life” in the Bible is ONLY about the ability to believe God’s testimony about the Son, then the good news is no longer what the Son did or did not do, but the good news instead becomes our believing. But we need more than the new birth. We need forgiveness and eternal life by God’s judicial declaration based on God’s judicial sharing to the elect of what Christ did for the elect alone.
The new birth is necessary, but it is a logical result and not a condition of justification in Christ. The elect don’t become united to Christ by believing. Nor do the elect become united to Christ by water baptism.
The new birth does not unite the elect to Christ. The Holy Spirit does not unite the elect to Christ. God unites the elect to Christ by judicial declaration. Romans 4:17, “God gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things which do not exist.”
The Bible gives first place to Christ and what Christ got done judicially. To look to Christ in us and to life in us (given by the Holy Spirit) is to look away from the testimony about what Christ has done at the cross and in His resurrection.
I Corinthians 1:28-30, “God chose even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no flesh can boast in the presence of God. God is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”
It is not faith that made God the source of life. It is not the Holy Spirit who made God a source of life. God not only chose the elect in Christ; in time God also judicially declares the elect to have life in Christ.
If the elect could have life and Christ before God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness, it would be too late for God’s imputation and there would be no need for the imputation of Christ’s death. If the elect could receive the Spirit and life without the righteousness, they would not ever need the righteousness. Romans 8:10, “the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”
LikeLike
Robert’s post on God being a monster either way is not responded to because it’s not an argument easily refuted.
All appeal to Scripture as the guide and there can be absolutely no running from that even for one who may come to realize, “my God, He hated me first!”
While we were not taught either to read or not read the Bible, Paul Johnson the Brit Historian states that in the 14th and 15th centuries, being caught reading the Scriptures was first and foremost an heresy alert.
Those formed in the Vatican I faith (mid-later 20th C) were not taught that Protestants were damned. And while participating (as opposed to attending Funeral Service, Wedding) in Protestant Liturgy was a mortal sin, it was a mortal sin for the Catholic. The Prot Liturgy itself was not proclaimed sinful as later Protestants were not necessarily held culpable for what were considered sins of the fathers of the Reformation. Even PBXVI would not proclaim Luther a Heretic.
EENS cannot be explained without first commenting on the understanding that one sins against the RC faith when one knows or deeply suspects that the RCC is the true church and then refuses to acknowledge and submit to that fact and destiny.
LikeLike
Kenneth quoting Sungenis (Kenneth might be Sungenis) In brief, the dilemma is this: Romans 4:5; 4:9; and 4:22, by strict use of Greek grammar, show that it is precisely Abraham’s faith which is counted for righteousness, not an “alien” righteousness from Christ. Joel Beeke recognized it, but he tried to twist the meaning of the Greek word eis (“for”) in order to escape the problem.Esteemed Reformed theologian John Murray recognized it, but rather than twist the meaning of eis as Beeke did, Murray said, “It may not be possible to answer this question with any decisiveness” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 1965, p. 358). Esteemed Reformed theologian Charles Hodge admitted the grammatical meaning of Romans 4:5, 9, 22, but says that it is “inconsistent” with other things we know about Scripture, which means that Hodge puts Scripture in the dubious position of being at odds with itself
mark mcculley: I have no need to ignore differences between Protestants on this matter. Way too many of think think that God imputes faith “as if” it were something else. But God does not impute faith but the object of faith. There’s no point in saying that other persons who disagree with us are “admitting” anything.
To begin to understand Genesis 15:6, we need to know that “as righteousness” should be translated “unto righteousness”. (See Robert Haldane’s commentary, Banner of Truth). That’s important to see, but at the end of the day, it does not explain the imputation in Genesis 15..
Whether we see imputation as the legal transfer of something, or if we see imputation as the declaration of something (without a transfer, or after a transfer), what is the “it” which is being imputed? No matter if we have gone to great lengths to say that it is not credited as righteousness but only unto righteousness, what is “it” and why is God imputing “it”?
The “new perspective” (NT Wright, many federal visionists) tells us the imputation is without a transfer, and that imputation only means declaring that certain folks are in the covenant. In this way of thinking, “it is imputed” simply means that God declares people just without talking about how and why they got that way.
“It” has an antecedent, but the antecedent is not faith alone. God imputes the righteousness revealed in the gospel to a person justified by the gospel.
“Faith” in Galatians 3:5-8 is defined in two ways: not by works of the law, and the gospel preached to Abraham.
God did establish a conditional covenant with Abraham. In Genesis 17, he warned that anybody not circumcised would be cut off from the covenant. But that conditional covenant with Abraham is not the gospel God preached to Abraham.
God did not say to Abraham: if you believe, then I will bless you. God said, I will bless you without cause, not only so that you will believe but also so that in your offspring there will be one who will bring in the righteousness for the elect alone required by the law.
The “it” which is imputed by God to Abraham is the obedient bloody death of Abraham’s seed Jesus Christ for the elect alone.
Galatians 3:5-8, which also quotes Genesis 15:6, tells us that Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness. Everybody from Martin Luther to John Murray reads this as saying that faith alone is imputed as the righteousness.
Of course there are different explanations. Luther reminds us that to have faith is to have Christ indwelling, and tells us that God really is pleased with the faith God has given us, and this faith is really righteous in God’s sight. But Luther does not explain how this righteous faith (produced by God in the water of regeneration) satisfies the law of God .
Luther also taught that, if you were a sinner, Christ had died for you. This means that Luther’s message cannot be that the elect were saved by Christ’s death alone.
But John Murray not only taught that Christ died only for the elect, but also taught that faith alone for nine reasons could NOT be the righteousness imputed. I like his reasons, and you can look them up in his commentary on Romans. But still, at the end of the day, Murray claimed that every honest exegete would have to agree with him that Genesis 15 does teach that the faith alone is what God imputes.
Romans 4:24-25 “IT will be counted to us who believe in Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised up for our justification.”
1. Christ and His death are the IT. Faith is not the IT. Christ and His death are the object of faith. Christ and His death are the IT credited by God.
2. We can distinguish but never separate Christ’s person and work. Also we can distinguish but never separate his death and his resurrection.
3. God counts according to truth. God counts righteousness as righteousness! a. The righteousness counted as righteousness is not our righteousness (not our works of faith) but legally “transferred” to us when Christ marries us, so that what is Christ’s is still His but now ours also. b. Justification is not simply the righteousness, but the righteousness imputed by God to the elect.
4. Imputation means two different things. One, the transfer, the legal sharing of what belongs to another. Two, the declaration of justification based on that transfer of Christ’s righteousness. Justification is about being moved from the headship of Adam (guilty) to the headship of Christ (justified).
LikeLike
Olivia,
Robert’s post on God being a monster either way is not responded to because it’s not an argument easily refuted.
Thank you very much.
I just want to clarify that it is not my contention that God is a moral monster. He is most certainly not a moral monster. But the only way one can see that is if one allows God and his revelation to define what is moral and immoral for man and for God. The “question” about God’s fairness in such matters is answered rather succinctly by Paul: “Who are you, O man?” Any theodicy that does not begin and end with that is destined to fall far short of Scripture.
But if people are going to fault Calvinism even though they teach basically the same thing, I’m going to call them on it.
LikeLike
I do not pretend that this is a debate in which all the Protestants are on the same side of the issue. Thus my interaction with the most recent book on justification published by Presbyterian and Reformed (by the Southern Baptist Brian Vickers, Justification by Grace through Faith, 2013)
Does God count faith as the righteousness? Does God credit our faith (a gift from God to us) as the righteousness which saves us? In chapter 4, Vickers describes Romans 4: “Paul contrasts two kinds of counting. In the first, wages are counted as the reward for works; in the second, faith is counted as righteousness. This immediately raises the important question: is faith in Christ a replacement for works? Just as works are rewarded with what is due, is faith rewarded with righteousness? This is not the way Paul describes it. God is contrasting two things, not simply swapping one thing for another thing.”
Mark: I agree so far. The works are not rewarded with more works. The works are rewarded with wages. The faith is not rewarded with more faith. Nor is the faith is not rewarded by God counting the faith as works. But then comes the problem…. Vickers: “God counts one thing for what it is, but the other thing is received by grace AND IS COUNTED FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
Mark: I agree with the contrast between works and grace, between works and faith. But I disagree that God counts faith as the righteousness. You could say that God “swaps” wages for works, or that God rewards for works, but you should NOT say that God “swaps” faith for righteousness.
Remember the question by Vickers— Is faith a replacement for works. Vickers wants to say no to that. But he can’t stay consistent in saying it. Vickers ends up agreeing that God counts the gift of faith as the righteousness when he says that (p 76) ‘faith is counted for something else”
The Second London Confession (1689) addresses this question: “Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting them as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone. THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE GOD RECKONS AS THEIR RIGHTEOUSNESS EITHER THEIR FAITH M THEIR BELIEVING, OR ANY OTHER ACT OF EVANGELICAL OBEDIENCE. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ’s righteousness. “
Vickers on one hand seems to know that God does not count faith as the righteousness. Thus he makes important qualifications. “Faith must not be thought of apart from its object.” Good. “Justification is not because of faith but by faith.” Correct. And then Vickers uses some more confessional language about “instrumental means” of righteousness instead of faith being the righteousness, or being counted as a substitute or an equivalent for the righteousness. And he concludes, “if faith is the righteousness in question, then faith is a work.” (p 77).
I agree with all these qualifications, but they won’t help much because the Arminians and the Neo-nomians (Baxter, new law for righteousness) will all simply explain that faith however is NOT a work, and therefore they will argue that it’s just for God to count faith as the righteousness, and then they will begin to try to describe this faith (in very similar terms to what Vickers himself does).
Faith is a work. No, it’s not a work. The debate won’t take us very far. Even if the debate is about if faith comes from fallen man’s freewill contribution, the Calvinist accusation that says “well then it’s a work” does not do much because the Arminians will quickly explain that they never say it’s a work and that they know it’s not a work.
In the concern that Vickers has about God accepting faith as the righteousness would make faith a work, he’s right to contrast faith and works, but he won’t get far as long as HE ALSO AGREES THAT GOD COUNTS SOMETHING (faith) FOR SOMETHING ELSE (righteousness). And Vickers’ understanding of “imputation” in chapter 3 has falsely brought in the idea of God counting something for what it is not.
LikeLike
The word “imputation” is not the issue with me.. Use count, credit, reckon, declare, as you like, but the meaning comes down to two ideas. One, a simple analytic (forensic) declaration. We count God as just because God is just. God counts what Phinehas did as righteous because it was righteous. So all “imputing” has this “declaring what it is” idea to it. But two, in some cases, there is the idea of God ‘s sharing what belongs to one person or persons with another person or persons.
Notice, I say, in some cases. In all cases, there is forensic declaring. But in some cases, God creates (appoints, constitutes, MAKES) a legal solidarity between two persons, so that what one person has also gets used to arrive at a declaring about the second person. So it’s not only judge and defendant, but a third party.
In the case of Christ’s righteousness, the righteousness is the wages due to Christ for his work. The righteousness of Christ is God’s analytic declaration about what was accomplished in Christ’s death and resurrection. I don’t care if you call this metaphorically Christ’s treasury of wages. The “merits of Christ” metaphor does not bother me. Salvation is by work, not our works, but by Christ’s work. I don’t care if you accuse this of being “contract talk” and “legalism” (as the Torrances do).
It’s not only two parties, but a third party. God imputes sin to all humans when they are born (Christ the God-man excepted). God. Humans. The third party is Adam. And also there are not only two parties (God and the elect) but Christ the God-man, the third party, when His righteousness is imputed to the elect.
Romans 4:6 “just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works” Even though this verse does not say it is Christ’s righteousness, that which God imputes is Christ’s righteousness. It is not faith. Faith is not something imputed. Faith is not something God imputes “as if” it were something else.
.
LikeLike
Robert,
I just want to clarify that it is not my contention that God is a moral monster. He is most certainly not a moral monster.
There was never any doubt in my mind of that, and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear regarding that.
But the only way one can see that is if one allows God and his revelation to define what is moral and immoral for man and for God. The “question” about God’s fairness in such matters is answered rather succinctly by Paul: “Who are you, O man?
I agree without qualification. I would only add that St. Paul’s “Who are you, O Man” is answered, I think, by the Old Testament Scripture: “what is Man, that Thou Art mindful of him?”
P.S. I have no electronic “in the peace of Christ signature” but I hope that you are always blessed with it.
LikeLike
Olivia,
There was never any doubt in my mind of that, and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear regarding that.
No worries. I didn’t think you had a doubt, I just wanted to clarify for the benefits of anyone else who may not be following what I’ve said to Kenneth. But thank you anyway.
I agree without qualification. I would only add that St. Paul’s “Who are you, O Man” is answered, I think, by the Old Testament Scripture: “what is Man, that Thou Art mindful of him?”
P.S. I have no electronic “in the peace of Christ signature” but I hope that you are always blessed with it.
Indeed, and the same to you.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Well, some have argued that Aquinas taught, in essential form, JBFA. I’m not sure I’m convinced by their arugments, but there it is.”
Yep, absurd. He taught it just like Benedict taught it.
I appreciate you interacting with the commentary and offering your perspective. I don’t have much desire to jump into your and Kenneth’s debate. My point was just showing that the commentary was edited by Brown, Fitzmyer, and Murphy so to just say Fitzmyer said Luther was right in adding the word alone to Paul’s statement – implying that he would also agree Paul taught Protestant jbfa – was not giving the full story.
“Is Dr. White lying?”
Probably not. But I do take the way White spins things and his opponents with a grain of salt – he’s cool and all but a lot of it is “look how great i was and idiotic my opponent was” blah blah. Anyways to take something that happened over 15 years ago and lord it over someone’s reputation (Hahn has progressed quite a bit in his scholarly career since then) seems petty.
“Proper exegesis will not contradict what we learn from reading the authors in their context.”
Can how we read the authors in their context change over time with GHM as scholarly/historical analysis and evidence grows and develops? John earlier mentioned a “cache of documents” might alter understanding, so seems like the answer is yes. Did the NT writers use GHM in interpreting the OT? Does GHM apply to the NT canonical hermeneutic when different authors/writings are used to interpret others or does such an application violate authorial intent? Did the ecfs all use GHM exclusively and no other techniques when battling heresies?
“But if they don’t agree with my conclusion, most of the time I’m going to think they are wrong. Just like you. Scholars come to conflicting conclusions on whether or not Rome’s claims are true. Surely you think that those who conclude that Rome is a false church are wrong.”
GHM is neutral is my point and you say GHM alone is the only proper way to yield truth. Why do not honest erudite scholars come to the same conclusions applying a neutral hermeneutic to the biblical data? Switch to secular disciplines – why do honest erudite scholars come to differing, sometimes opposing conclusions when applying GHM to historical non-religious documents? Backing up a step, why is the thought that we must use GHM and only GHM to yield divine truth even justified in your view?
LikeLike
Cletus,
My point was just showing that the commentary was edited by Brown, Fitzmyer, and Murphy so to just say Fitzmyer said Luther was right in adding the word alone to Paul’s statement – implying that he would also agree Paul taught Protestant jbfa – was not giving the full story.
My only real point is to counter the line that “well faith alone isn’t in the Bible so it must not be true.” Besides, it’s rather clear that these commenters don’t understand the Protestant doctrine anyway, nor does Benedict when they say things such as “well, faith alone as long as we understand love as well,” as if Protestants have ever said that saving faith does not show itself immediately in love for God and neighbor. The point is that Christ alone justifies, not our love for Him. Justification by faith alone means justification by Christ plus nothing else. Why that should be objectionable to anyone who professes to love Jesus and exalt him as Lord of all continues to be beyond my ability to comprehend.
Can how we read the authors in their context change over time with GHM as scholarly/historical analysis and evidence grows and develops? John earlier mentioned a “cache of documents” might alter understanding, so seems like the answer is yes. Did the NT writers use GHM in interpreting the OT? Does GHM apply to the NT canonical hermeneutic when different authors/writings are used to interpret others or does such an application violate authorial intent? Did the ecfs all use GHM exclusively and no other techniques when battling heresies?
The point is that the text should be interpreted in the first instance according to the intent of the original author just as you expect your words to be interpreted according to your intent and that the GHM is the best method yet devised to discern the original author’s intent. If you have a better method, feel free to propose it.
I wouldn’t say that our reading of authors in their context changes over time as much as it develops. There are cases where changes are made, but they’re actually quite rare. As far as a cache of documents changing something, well I don’t remember exactly what John was referencing originally. I suppose I should answer you this way: It is theoretically possible in some scenario that one day a cache of evidence will be discovered that we’re all in the matrix, but does that mean we should take that theory seriously?
The NT authors did not violate the OT authors’ original intent even if at times they typologically saw a fuller fulfillment to what came before. This is what typology does at its best. (The whole concept of fulfillment is actually somewhat complicated). No one is saying that the church doesn’t grow in its understanding. What we are contending is that the way to measure whether that growth is in line with what the apostles taught is to look at what they specifically taught, and the only place we have that is the New Testament. Again I ask, where has Rome defined a single word of what the apostles taught or what Jesus said outside of Scripture? Your control on determining whether development contradicts what came before is not the intent of the authors—be they biblical or non biblical. You are bound to believe that what Rome says Irenaeus meant, that is what Irenaeus meant, even if the only one who sees this is the Magisterium. Irenaeus intent is irrelevant. The intent of all authors are irrelevant. This is the only way we get such doctrines as Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, the papacy, etc.
Did the ECFS all use GHM when battling heresy? No. They often make very powerful rhetorical points using other methods. So did the Reformers, and so do modern preachers. But their power is in rhetoric only. One would never, and should never, establish the truth of the argument itself based on them.
GHM is neutral is my point and you say GHM alone is the only proper way to yield truth. Why do not honest erudite scholars come to the same conclusions applying a neutral hermeneutic to the biblical data? Switch to secular disciplines – why do honest erudite scholars come to differing, sometimes opposing conclusions when applying GHM to historical non-religious documents? Backing up a step, why is the thought that we must use GHM and only GHM to yield divine truth even justified in your view?
Existing in and of itself, GHM is neutral. But GHM doesn’t exist in and of itself. The reason why people come to different conclusions using it has to do with the fact that we all have our biases. No one reads Scripture in a neutral manner. No one reads anything in a neutral manner. Methods such as GHM are the best we can do to help discern and minimize biases, and even then there is no such thing as an unbiased use of the GHM. This is true in all thought. People either seek to glorify Christ in the exercise of their minds or they don’t, and Christ must define what it means to glorify Christ in the exercise of our minds.
We possess revelation in the form of a written text. We don’t have Jesus standing next to us like Peter did. We have to use literary methods to interpret what is written. I’m not saying necessarily that GHM is the only method to discern divine truth. I’m saying that GHM is the only method to discern the original intent of the biblical authors and that their intent must control what we do in liturgy, prayer, systematic theology, and other disciplines in order to discover and define dogma. Rome takes the intent of the biblical authors away and replaces it with the infallible declarations of the Magisterium, a Magisterium that has demonstrably been clueless about Scripture at several parts in its history.
At the end of the day doctrine—or better yet, doctrinal understanding—grows. But there has to be a control or we get post V2 liberal RC theology and liberal Protestantism. And the control has to be the ones who gave us the doctrine in the first place, not those who want to claim their authority but only halfheartedly claim their inspiration.
LikeLike
Robert,
“The point is that Christ alone justifies”
That is not incompatible with RCism.
“Justification by faith alone means justification by Christ plus nothing else.”
Progressive sanctification by grace alone means sanctification by grace plus nothing else. Even though you cooperate.
“If you have a better method, feel free to propose it.”
A method that yields something more than human opinion. GHM neither claims nor has the ability to produce anything more than human opinion. I am not saying GHM is useless – I am saying it is limited, and whether it should be the primary method, or not combined with other techniques/methods to yield exegetical theological truth, is not answered by it.
“It is theoretically possible in some scenario that one day a cache of evidence will be discovered that we’re all in the matrix, but does that mean we should take that theory seriously?”
The point is the conclusions generated by GHM are subject to revision dependent upon the presently best available evidence (and associated analysis by fallible, often opposing, scholars unless you claim to be competent in all fields required to exegete at a scholarly level yourself). If evidence of the right sorts turns up, you will alter your long-held conclusions, and freely do so according to your principles.
“This is what typology does at its best. (The whole concept of fulfillment is actually somewhat complicated).”
No doubt you understand this whole somewhat complicated concept of fulfillment based on your analysis of a subset of scholars who have based their conclusions on the current state of evidence.
“What we are contending is that the way to measure whether that growth is in line with what the apostles taught is to look at what they specifically taught, and the only place we have that is the New Testament.”
The point is you analyze “what they taught” based on a canonical hermeneutic. Where does GHM allow for you to interpret authors/texts according to other authors/texts (some of whom are completely anonymous or lived in different centuries) in order to extract their authorial intent/meaning? This applies to OT and other OT writers, NT writers and OT writers, and NT writers and other NT writers.
“Did the ECFS all use GHM when battling heresy? No. They often make very powerful rhetorical points using other methods.”
I meant exegetically. They were not wedded to GHM when exegeting core doctrines in rebuttal to heresy. And obviously they did not apply GHM in discerning the canon.
“The reason why people come to different conclusions using it has to do with the fact that we all have our biases. No one reads Scripture in a neutral manner. No one reads anything in a neutral manner. Methods such as GHM are the best we can do to help discern and minimize biases, and even then there is no such thing as an unbiased use of the GHM.”
Bingo.
“I’m not saying necessarily that GHM is the only method to discern divine truth.”
Great. What are the other ways? Why do you force RC doctrine to GHM exegesis alone to examine whether they hold to divine truth?
“I’m saying that GHM is the only method to discern the original intent of the biblical authors and that their intent must control what we do in liturgy, prayer, systematic theology, and other disciplines in order to discover and define dogma.”
Hmm, well now this seems to say that GHM is the only method to discern divine truth after all. What divine truth is there outside of liturgy, prayer, theology, dogma?
“Rome takes the intent of the biblical authors away and replaces it with the infallible declarations of the Magisterium, a Magisterium that has demonstrably been clueless about Scripture at several parts in its history.”
Clueless according to your use of GHM exegesis alone. Which you have just said (or maybe didn’t) isn’t the only valid way to discern divine truth. And which you just said is biased (no such thing as an unbiased use of GHM).
“At the end of the day doctrine—or better yet, doctrinal understanding—grows. But there has to be a control”
Agreed. You know what RCism holds to be that control.
LikeLike
Mark McCulley: somewhere, I think in this thread, you quoted some things from Tullian Tchividjian. I think you might be interested in this interview, of which part 2 is forthcoming
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=34871
LikeLike