Catholic Church No Longer Swears By The Truth of the Bible….THIS is news ?!?!??
THIS is news ??!?!?!???
Rome ain’t been on the truth of the Bible consciously since 1564 when it rejected justification by faith alone.
This latest announcement is only the outworking of a group that rejects sola scriptura. Rome is travelling the same path that some of its’ heretical counterparts in evangelicalism have followed (i.e.- PCUSA, ELCA, UCC, and other liberal denominations) – reject sola scriptura, reject inerrancy, and everything becomes fair game.
SteveJ [Visitor]
The Roman Church was correct to deny justification by faith alone. Jesus denied it (Matt. 19:16, 17), Peter denied it (Acts 10: 34, 35), Paul denied it (Rom. 2:6-10), John denied it (1 John 3:7, 8), James denied it (James 2:24), the author of Hebrews denied it (Heb. 5:9).
Machaira [Visitor]
Matthew 19:23-26.
Acts 10:43, 11:17; Acts 15:9.
Context: Romans 2:6-15. Paul talks about how there is no respect of persons with God, which he uses in his thesis to lead into the themes found in Romans 3:9-26 and the rest of the book.
John was differentiating between those who were truly born of God (believers who have truly been regenerated and justified BY FAITH–1 John 3:14, a statement of assurance: BECAUSE we love the brethren, WE KNOW we have passed from death to life) and those who are children of the devil (those who profess to be believers yet act otherwise–1 John 3:12, 15). That’s why 1 John 3:1-3 talks about the hope Christians have in Christ and why those who truly have this hope purify themselves just as Jesus is.
James was talking about how faith that doesn’t manifest itself in works is a dead faith (James 2:14, 17-18, 26).
Hebrews 10:19-22, the entire chapter of 11. I could also point you to several themes in John’s gospel involving those who have been justified by faith being the ones who obey Christ, while those who aren’t don’t. Taken from my article, contrast:
believers: Jn. 1:12-13; 3:21; 5:24-25; 6:37-40, 54-57; 8:31-32, 39, 47; 10:4-5, 8, 14, 27-30; 13:10, 34-35; 14:21-24; 15:14; 17:6-8; 21:15-17.
Unbelievers: Jn. 1:5, 10-11; 3:19-20, 36b; 5:18, 37-42, 46-47; 6:41-42, 52, 60, 66; 7:18-24, 30, 32-36, 44; 8:13, 28, 37-59; 9:16a, 18-41; 10:20, 24-26, 31-39; 11:46-57; 12:10-11, 37-43; 14:24; 15:18-25; 16:1-3, 20.
Steve, with all due respect, please check the contexts of your verses before attempting to use them as prooftexts.
SteveJ [Visitor]
I appreciate your emphasis on context, but I believe the various contexts uphold my rejection of justification by faith alone.
The context in which the Reformation doctrine gets defended (and how its “problem passages” are resolved) is a purely theological one. In other words, “We know (based on our theological presuppositions) that this saying of Jesus must not mean what it appears to mean, so it must mean such and such instead.”
I spent years defending justification by faith alone, but became suspicious when I found that I was having to work so hard at my explanations. There’s something to be said for Occam’s Razor.
BlackCalvinist [Member]
Not ‘hard’ work at all, Steve.
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
Not a hard concept to understand at all and clear as day. In context, Paul is talking about justification in Romans 3. In context, James is NOT talking about salvation in James 2. And there are a ton of exegetical considerations that require more than just a ‘surface reading’ of a poor translation of James 2 to get ‘works+faith’ out of it.
Come back when you have a better explanation than Romans 3-4.
SteveJ [Visitor]
I don’t have anything “better” than Romans 3-4, but I think the following has much greater clarity and contradicts the Reformation doctrine as much as anything could:
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
BlackCalvinist [Member]
That doesn’t say anything about the GROUND of justification. It speaks of the actions of the righteous vs the acts of the unrighteous.
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Simple concept. Simple teaching.
Now I have no idea what your previous standing/church affiliation prior to embracing Rome’s position is/was, so why don’t you enlighten us ?
SteveJ [Visitor]
I was a Coptic Quaker.
BlackCalvinist [Member]
What is your understanding of justification by faith alone ? I have this feeling that you don’t understand what justification is (at least from the reformed view) so what you’ve been refuting in your mind has been something else.
SteveJ [Visitor]
My understanding is this: The instant I rest by faith on the merits of Christ, God imputes the righteousness of Christ to my account. From the divine perspective, I’m perfectly righteous and without sin.
Do I understand it correctly?
BlackCalvinist [Member]
You got half of it. 🙂 You got the imputation part right, but you got the ‘perfectly righteous and without sin’ part wrong.
C. Matthew McMahon at A Puritan’s Mind wrote a nice article on this point:
Just As If I’d Never Sinned ? Not Really!
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Justification/McMahonJustAsIfIdNeverSinned.htm
That being said, I’m curious why you reject the imputed righteousness of Christ when it’s clearly taught in Romans 4-5, Phil. 3:8-10 and other passages (but specifically those two).
SteveJ [Visitor]
I simply don’t believe that “impute” should be understood as “to legally declare of something that which it is not in reality.” We impute righteousness to God, for example, because He really is righteous.
The person who has believed in Christ has undertaken the living of a righteous life and, accordingly, is declared righteous. Paul’s whole point in mentioning faith as the deciding factor was to discourage the idea that circumcision and kosher laws were also necessary to make one Christian.
BlackCalvinist [Member]
Then the problem is that your understanding of the word ‘impute’ is faulty. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Righteousness was not intrinsically his, but his believing God was credited to his account as such. In Romans 4, this is what Paul takes time to contrast – any ‘working’ as the ground for justification makes salvation an obligation, not a gift. It would simply be God giving humans what they have earned. But Abraham didn’t ‘earn’ anything. Remember – when God approached him in Genesis 12, he was a practicing PAGAN – an idolater. Before he’d been circumcised (a ‘work’) and before he’d done anything else, he was already credited with being righteous. Not by works, but by faith. He, as a pagan, had nothing to bring to the table in terms of salvation! Hence, it was credited to him as righteousness.
Likewise, Paul speaks of having an alien righteousness in Phil. 3 and calls any righteousness of his own ‘from the law’. But we know, according to Galatians, that the law does NOT make one holy – it only makes one GUILTY.
What’s your lexical basis for redefining what ‘impute’ means ?
SteveJ [Visitor]
The problem here is that you and I disagree on the question that Paul is here answering. I’m assuming (correct me if this is wrong) that you see Paul’s theology essentially answering the question, “How can a sinful man be made right with a holy God?” But I believe that he was answering a much more cultural question: “Must a person be circumcised and keep kosher in order to be recognized as part of the church?”
Because we look at Paul’s teaching through two different lenses, we’re probably not going to agree on the conclusion of the matter.
SteveJ [Visitor]
I realized I didn’t answer your question about the lexical basis of “impute.” I’ll try to furnish one later.
BlackCalvinist [Member]
Well again, context determines what question Paul is trying to answer. In Romans 1-5, the issue is NOT how does one become a member of the church, but rather how is one made right in the eyes of God. Chapter 1 deals with it from verses 16 onward – the gospel is the power of God for salvation. And in the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed – For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” – Rom. 1:17, NIV.
Indeed. By faith – otherwise salvation is not a gift, but an obligation owed us by God for keeping the law.
The lexical question aside, how do you deal with the question of context ?
SteveJ [Visitor]
I agree that “the righteousness of God” and “salvation” are issues that Paul is addressing here (although for Paul, I suspect that entering the Church and salvation were pretty tightly intertwined). But I still believe that he’s dealing with these concepts within the controversy of Jew-Gentile issues. Salvation and the righteousness of God are not dependent upon being circumcised and obeying food laws. The Gentiles should be considered participants in these things based on their faith (without all of the Jewish religious trappings).
But we can argue all day about contextual and lexical considerations. For me the bottom line is this: I can’t imagine a person coming up to Jesus and asking, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” and getting the historic Calvinist-style answer. It seems strange to me that Jesus would ever say, “You can do nothing; in fact, you must turn utterly from your ‘doing,’ recognize the futility of your goodness and works, resting by faith alone on my merits.”
As long as that scenario presents itself to me as preposterous for me, no amount of Pauline exegesis can make the Calvinist doctrine plausible.
Kerry (too lazy to log in) [Visitor]
Actually, that’s EXACTLY what Jesus told folks who came up to Him asking ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life’.
I go into that very point in an extended discussion of John 6 I wrote up located here. He tells the Pharisees they ‘do not believe’ because they are NOT his sheep. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Goats don’t. Just as He told Nicodemus in John 3 that he must be ‘born from above’ in order to even SEE the kingdom of God, this theme is repeated.
It’s the same picture in the Old Testament:
Ezekiel 36 reads:
22″Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
It’s all of God, my friend. That’s why He’s the author and finisher of my salvation. Until you realize that, stop resting on your own works, interpret scripture in context and stop resting upon your presuppositions, it will continue to sound preposterous to you.
SteveJ [Visitor]
Actually, that’s not why it sounds preposterous to me. The reason it does is that I have two examples of men who asked Jesus this very question (Matt. 19:16-22; Luke 10:25-37). In neither case did Jesus say anything remotely like “stop trusting your works and trust in my merits only and you’ll be saved.” In fact, both cases seem to flatly contradict the idea.
Redeemed [Visitor]
OK in the Matt 19:16-22 the gentleman leaves grieved instead of encouraged about his works. If the Lord was validating his works he should have been encouraged or empowered. The Luke 10:25-37 challenges the hypocritical attitude of the religious leaders. Neither passage give grounds for trusting works for salvation.
SteveJ [Visitor]
I’m not advocating “trusting works for salvation” any more than you’re advocating “trusting faith for salvation.” But to say that Jesus never connected what a person does to his ultimate redemption seems to ignore a lot of evidence in the gospels.
It’s interesting that you and I draw such opposite conclusions about the rich young man. It seems clear to me that he went away sad because he wasn’t willing to do what Jesus called him to do, not because he was unwilling to forsake confidence in his works. That sounds to me like an interpretation of theological necessity, not a candid assessment of the text.
But one question: Why on earth did Jesus respond to, “What must I do to inherit eternal life,” by telling the story of the Good Samaritan? Wouldn’t you pointedly correct someone who answered in such a fashion?
Redeemed [Visitor]
The question in verse 29 of the Luke passage is: who is my neighbor?
The parable addresses that question. Its interesting that you missed the question.
SteveJ [Visitor]
I’m belaboring the point here, but Jesus was still answering the original question about eternal life. Conspicuously, he did not respond by teaching justification by faith alone (as a right-thinking Protestant would).
On a different note: I can’t help but wonder what you think about the Christlike saints who didn’t subscribe to this teaching. Where do you place Francis of Assisi, Mother Theresa, Thomas a Kempis or the early Church Fathers? Are they in hell because they didn’t have this justification thing figured out? What about the martyrs and missionaries of the early Catholic Church who sacrificed all to follow Jesus? Or the Eastern Orthodox saints through the centuries?
Do you expect to see them all cast out at the judgment, while today’s comfortable Christians who happen to agree with “sola fide” enter heavenly bliss?
Redeemed [Visitor]
I don’t have the ability to place anyone anywhere with respect to their eternal standing before the LORD. The issue is where did the righteous Judge of all creation place them.
SteveJ [Visitor]
I’ll wrap up my comments here. The last word is yours.
My friend Mark Mattison, whose Paul Page (www.thepaulpage.com) refutes several prevailing Protestant ideas, wrote this about “impute”:
A few other points:
My question about the individuals who don’t believe in “sole fide” was a valid point in this discussion. If the logical application of what you are saying would lead to an absurd conclusion, then it certainly calls your view into question. To deny Christian status (as many do) to “sole fide” dissenters would be ridiculous. Especially when their lives display “good fruit,” love for the brethren, selfless servanthood and devotion to Jesus Christ — all things that the NT highlights as marks of true believers.
One problem, as I see it, is that you guys begin with Paul and make Jesus fit your assumptions about Paul’s intent. Better to do the opposite and begin with the Lord — Paul probably would have wanted it that way.
Furthermore, it’s a mischaracterization to brand any view but yours as “works salvation.” Redemption is not a debt owed by God by someone who is “good enough.” But neither is it a proposition with no strings attached. “A man is justified by what he does and not by faith only.”
Redeemed [Visitor]
So if you’re a really nice person and you do really good things you must be a Christian despite denying salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, on the basis of the person and work of Christ alone to the glory of God alone…
Human logical & reason is useful; however when it comes to a point of tension with the suprarational grace of God, it must submit to HIM and HIS unrivaled sovereignty.
Man is justified by the doing and dying of another (the Lord Jesus Christ)…works are the evidence of the transformed life, not the cause of it.
Matt Gumm [Visitor]
Before we use Jesus’ words to correct our misinterpretation of Paul, let’s take a look at what Paul says in Galatians about where he got his teaching.
Gal 1:11-12 (all quotes from ESV) “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Woah! Paul got his teaching from Christ. That is why he can claim Apostleship (the others, you’ll remember, were directly taught by Jesus during his earthly ministry).
Now, what is it that Paul teaches? Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone (Gal 3:10-11, 24; also Rom 4:4-5).
This message was so important to him, and he was so sure of it, that he did the following:
And lest he be unclear on this point–lest his hearers misunderstand him–he says this: If you accept circumcision, that is, if you fall back on your works, Christ will be of no benefit, no advantage–no value to you at all. Instead, you’ll be obligated once again to keep the whole law.
I don’t think there’s any “assumptions about what Paul meant” here. It seems quite clear. Paul says that it’s faith, not works. Period.
This isn’t some misunderstanding about church membership–that wouldn’t require the kind of language that Paul uses in Galatians 1. If this is all just a quiet squabble about membership, why does Paul curse anyone who teaches a different gospel? For that matter, if he’s writing against the Judaizers, why does he tell the Galatians they will be subject to the whole law?
Finally, since you brought it up, I must say I find it ironic and unfortunate that you would appeal to Jesus’ teaching to understand Paul, and yet you (as part of the New Perspective) are deaf to Jesus’ clear testimony regarding the legalism of Judaism in the first century. But perhaps, if I have misunderstood Paul in statements above, and in a statement such as by the works of the law no one will be justified, perhaps I have also misunderstood what Jesus meant when he pronounces woes on the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23). Maybe words like “hypocrites,” “serpents,” and “brood of vipers” just don’t mean the same thing today as they did back then.
SteveJ [Visitor]
I’m going back on my word here. I said I was done commenting, but I’m easily drawn into such debates.
Some comments:
To Redeemed: I don’t believe that “being a really nice person” is ever set forth in the Bible as the way of redemption. That’s a straw man.
Matt Gumm: Your comments only strengthened my assertion that Paul was only against imposing Jewish identity markers (like circumcision), not “good works” in the broadest sense of the term. Circumcision is the “work” that keeps coming up in Paul’s writings as a negative example, not, for instance, caring for the poor or loving one’s neighbor.
Besides, circumcision can hardly be considered much of a “work,” because the recipient doesn’t do the work himself (thank God). In most cases he’s too young to be aware of what’s going on. It is only a religious rite, and this kind of thing is that Paul was battling. He never says anything like, “If you feed the poor and clothe the naked, then Christ is of no use to you.” But he does say that about circumcision.
And concerning “legalism,” which gets tossed around a lot — this term does not apply to the Christian obligation to do good to his neighbor, love others and imitate Christ. It applies to stupid, superficial things like tithing mints out of one’s garden while neglecting the weightier matters of justice, mercy and truth.
Jesus was not being legalistic when he told the rich young man to forsake the world’s wealth. He wasn’t a legalist when he said that only those who forgive others will themselves be forgiven. The real legalists of his day certainly didn’t emphasize such things.
Jesus never said to the Pharisees, “Woe unto you hypocrites, for you help the poor and love your neighbor instead of teaching salvation through faith alone. You brood of vipers, you visit the sick and show mercy instead of resting on my merits alone.”
The Lutherish doctrine of “faith plus nothing” is a sacred cow that distorts our perception of Christian discipleship. The sooner Christendom dispenses with it, the better.
Redeemed [Visitor]
Steve: “A man is justified by what he does and not by faith only.” (I guess this is a self imposed straw man)
Man is justified by the doing and dying of another (the Lord Jesus Christ)…works are the evidence of the transformed life, not the cause of it.
Matt Gumm [Visitor]
Steve, I’m glad you came out of retirement. I’m interested in what you have to say, though I doubt when all is said and done that either of us will have changed our minds. (And Kerry, I’m taking up your real estate, so feel free to boot me whenever).
That said, I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that when Paul is talking about “work” here in Galatians, he’s not referring to work? That he is talking about signs?
In Rom 4:4-5, the one who works and is owed a wage is contrasted with the one who does not work, but believes, and his faith is credited as righteousness. How do you interpret this, if not that Abraham was justified by faith, apart from works?
You say that circumcision is a small thing. Indeed it is. But that is precisely the point–there is nothing required besides faith, not even a single small act. If Paul was talking merely about external symbols, wouldn’t it have been easier to say “you are not saved by circumcision,” or “You don’t have to be circumcised?” It makes no sense for Paul to say that Jesus is of no benefit & you’re required to keep the whole law unless his point is that no works will save you–not circumcision, not giving to the poor, not baptism, nor any other work.
You mentioned most would be too young, but Paul isn’t writing to those when he says “You foolish Galatians.” Read Gal 3 again. He is speaking to those who started in the Spirit, but would perfect the work in the flesh, not babies receiving signs, but adults eager to do whatever is necessary for salvation. And Paul is saying, nothing.
For what it’s worth, I think Luther was wrong when he called the book of James an “epistle of straw.” James was written in part to refute the type of easy-believism that you are concerned about (and frankly, me too). There is a difference between saying “man isn’t justified by his works” and “God doesn’t require any works from the justified man.” Christ said take up your cross & follow me, he offered rewards for deeds done, but all of this comes after we’ve received Christ’s righteousness.
Even Paul, right there in Galatians, says that the Jerusalem church asked them to take care of the poor, the very thing he was eager to do. Why? So he could be saved? No way. Because he was saved. Good works are the fruit of repentance, not the source of justification.
SteveJ [Visitor]
Matt,
I appreciate a lot of what you say here and I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I will say that Paul does as much as write, “Circumcision will not save you.” In fact, he told the Galatians that if they submitted to it, Christ would be of no avail to them. But the subject of Paul’s opposition to “works of the law” goes beyond circumcision to everything that typifies a distinctively Jewish person: food laws, sabbaths, new moons. (All works, as well as symbolic, Jewish identity markers.)
You make a good point about Abraham and Romans 4. The language there does favor your interpretation.
Machaira [Visitor]
How so? This is a pretty strong statement, and I would like to ask you to give an elaborate defense of your position. As far as context goes, the passages I presented only serve to discredit your prooftexting, so the burden falls squarely on your shoulders to explain why the contexts I provided–wherein the verses you cited are found–only serve to uphold your rejection of the doctrine.
It appears that you have also rejected the hermeneutical principle of interepreting the unclear passages in the light of the clear. For instance, in the passage from James which you cited, the author goes on to tell a hypothetical adversary to “Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith BY MY works.”
Besides, in hindsight doesn’t Rome do what you charged us of in regards to Scripture, especially in lght of the fact that they hold church authority and “sacred tradition” as being in equal standing to the authority of the Word of God?
Pardon the harsh tone, but since when did ease become a criteria for soundness of doctrine? A doctrine and its defense is sound when there is internal (presuppositional) and external (evidential) consistency and if it displays logical coherence–in other words, if it makes good and absolute SENSE.
The deity of Christ is a tough doctrine to defend, especially against scholastic (or “scholastic”, if we’re talking about people like Dan Brown) scoffers, but does that mean we would just give up on defending it and reject it altogether? Yet Scripture states that Christ is God (e.g. Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:5-11, the entireity of John’s Gospel, etc.), and the Scripture cannot be broken. Occam’s razor, but in a completely different application than the one you intended. This only proves that you hold to your own set of presuppositions, and thus you are not exempt from the same criteria for the charge you leveled against Protestants.
SteveJ [Visitor]
Machaira wrote:
This is a pretty strong statement, and I would like to ask you to give an elaborate defense of your position. As far as context goes, the passages I presented only serve to discredit your prooftexting, so the burden falls squarely on your shoulders to explain why the contexts I provided–wherein the verses you cited are found–only serve to uphold your rejection of the doctrine.
SteveJ: I’ll take my lumps for resorting to quick-and-easy prooftexting. I object when others do it and I ended up doing it myself. Point taken.
To answer your question about context (though not elaborately), I don’t think there’s anything in those contexts that disallows my main point: the active imitation of Christ is as much a requirement of final redemption as faith.
What I think disallows my conclusion for you is that Paul, in your opinion, plainly contradicts it elsewhere. But that’s a matter of harmonizing theology, not examining contexts.
About Occam’s Razor: All I’m saying is that when a simple explanation will do, elaborate systems full of hair-breadth distinctions look dubious to me, no matter how revered they are by fellow Christians.
BlackCalvinist [Member]
Simple explanation….
1 John 2:2-6 – God’s Spirit in the believer causes Him to move in ways which please God. See Exodus 36:22-26. Good works are the fruit of salvation, not the root. And the good works we do are ‘prepared by God for us beforehand, so that we should walk in them’ (Eph. 2:10) They are not of us anymore than the faith which God grants is of us (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8).
SteveJ [Visitor]
The New Testament states multiple times that God will judge us “according to our works” or “according to what we have done.” I realize that this question gets into the whole area of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, but if good works are merely bestowed upon us, how can they be a criterion for judgment?
BlackCalvinist [Member]
Wise observation.
First, I’d like to note that Romans 5:1 (which immediately follows the entire section in Romans 3:28-4:17), Paul uses one of his famous ‘therefores’ – therefore (built off the entire past argument from the preceding verses) being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Christ Jesus. Prior to justification, we are at war (Romans 8:6-8, 3:8-18, John 3:18, 35-36) with God. Faith in Christ apart from works (Romans 3:28 again) bring PEACE with God. Not ‘truce’ with God and at the end of the age, we’ll resume hostilities. Paul builds another whole argument from 5:1-8:1 as well, where he starts 8:1 with another ‘therefore’ – this one being that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Paul digs into the ‘in Christ Jesus’ thought, first discussing the nature of the atonement in chapter 5, the result of the new life in chapter 6, the struggles the believer will still face in chapter 7 before talking about the future hope of the beleiver in chapter 8.
Second, 1 Corinthians 3 talks about exactly WHAT is being judged in the life of a Christian. The works of the believer will be judged – wood, hay and stuble, precious stones, silver and gold. The dross of imperfections in our works will be burned away while the man himself will be saved.
Third, if one truly believes that Christ is the propitiation (1 John 2) for sins of believers, then there is no contradiction. God has judged the sins of all believers…. in Christ. Those sins deserved death – God has punished those sins in Christ. How can he, being just, punish those same sins again in the believer at the end of the age ?
Fourth, I answer your question with a question:
This son was our ancestor Isaac. When he grew up, he married Rebekah, who gave birth to twins. But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message proves that God chooses according to his own plan, not according to our good or bad works.) She was told, “The descendants of your older son will serve the descendants of your younger son.” In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.”
What can we say? Was God being unfair? Of course not! For God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.”
So receiving God’s promise is not up to us. We can’t get it by choosing it or working hard for it. God will show mercy to anyone he chooses.
For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you, and so that my fame might spread throughout the earth.” So you see, God shows mercy to some just because he wants to, and he chooses to make some people refuse to listen.
Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven’t they simply done what he made them do?”
What’s the answer to this hypothetical question ?
SteveJ [Visitor]
Thanks, Kerry. That was well put. I still think there are some texts about the judgment that simply won’t fit that thesis, though. The judgment depicted in John 5:28-30 is more than just the burning away of a believer’s wood, hay and stubble. “Those who have done good” are raised to life and “those who have done evil” are condemned. That seems to parallel the Sheep and Goats of Matt. 25, which I mentioned earlier.
Both of us have our “problem passages” to contend with.
As for your statements about divine election, I can’t dispute that at all. Paul evidently did teach such a thing, despite how unpalatable it may be to so many Christians.
BlackCalvinist [Member]
Actually, we don’t. 🙂 YOU do. 🙂 I’m not being arrogant by that statement either:
1. Who “does good” ? Romans 3:10-12 say NO ONE.
2. Who will be justified by doing good deeds ? The answer again is NO ONE (Romans 3:20).
Those who do good WILL inherit eternal life. But since none do good, no one is deserving of eternal life and all are condemned equally and justly (John 3:18).
Christ, who is rich in mercy, gave Himself so that His perfect righteousness (Phil. 3:8-10) is given on behalf of the believer by grace through faith. God counts Christ’s perfect righteousness as the believer’s righteousness (Romans 4 again).
God deals with man according to responsibility – both in the Romans passage I quoted earlier and the ones you quote. It is man’s responsibility before God to “be holy as He is Holy” (Matthew 5:46-48). His holiness is perfect – ours is imperfect. But by faith in Christ apart from works, God treats the believer as if he lived a perfect life, fulfilled the law perfectly and always walked in obedience. And God, on the cross, treated Christ as though He did NOT walk perfectly, broke the law constantly and rebelled against God – which is what the BELIEVER has done. This is imputation. Christ who knew no sin, became sin for the believer so that we, through His death, might become the righteousness of God.
So as you continue to reject the truth of the gospel in favor of working your way to God, you continue to abide under the curse of the law…. and its’ condemnation, since you cannot keep it perfectly.
Repent, my friend. Repent.
SteveJ [Visitor]
Kerry wrote: Actually, we don’t. 🙂 YOU do. 🙂 I’m not being arrogant by that statement either.
Steve wrote: I’m assuming you’re talking about problem passages. I don’t think the statement is arrogant, but I also don’t believe there’s an airtight system anywhere among Christendom’s creeds. Anyone who affirms anything has to deal with, “Yeah, but what about …?” The Reformation doctrine of justification is no exception. If it were, we would be hard-pressed to explain how a doctrine so clear and free of contrary evidence went undiscovered so long before Luther.
The texts you cited certainly give weight to your position. But I could as easily cite contrary texts. Who does good? Well, for starters, how about Zechariah and Elizabeth? Luke 1:6 says that “both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.”
Concerning Romans 3:20: Your reference reveals the huge impasse that we’re at. Every time you see “law” in Paul’s writings, you tend to drop in “good deeds” as an equivalent. I, on the other hand, believe that Paul was speaking literally about the Jewish law and confining his discussion to it. For that reason, we can’t help but differ going forward.
Also, I think that there’s a tendency among staunch Reformation Protestants to paint sole fide dissenters as proudly “working their way to God” or “trusting their works.” On the contrary, many of us simply recognize a Christian obligation to walk in love and goodness, and esteem it as binding as faith. In the end, we confess that God’s grace and mercy are the foundation of our redemption. We don’t walk around preening ourselves that we are not as other men are, or bragging about God’s indebtedness to us. We don’t see works as the ultimate foundation of our redemption any more than you see faith as the foundation of yours.
Regarding the curse you say I’m under: Unless you can point out how I’m pressing kosher requirements, circumcision and sabbath-keeping upon Gentile believers and excluding them from the community for noncompliance, I have to respectfully disagree.
SteveJ [Visitor]
P.S. — One other trivial complaint, if you’ll indulge me. To disagree with someone’s doctrine of justification isn’t the same thing as denying “the truth of the gospel,” as many claim. Some of us believe — I think with good reason — that the “glad tidings” refers to the proclamation that the Messiah has come (consistent with the Old Testament “glad tidings” language). I don’t deny that.
BlackCalvinist [Member]
In passing (and I’ll be back with the detailed later):
Citing Luke 1:6 proves too much for your position. Are you saying that Zechariah and Elizabeth observed God’s law PERFECTLY and were (therefore) sinless ?
Remember God’s standard is perfection, not just relative goodness.
Which one is it ?
Secondly, I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you on the issue of justification. Paul said that if someone came preaching another gospel (and by ‘gospel’ I mean the same good news the angel preached to Mary – that His name would be Immanuel and that He would save His people from their sins) let him be ANATHEMA. I don’t think Paul included folks considered ‘anathema’ to be in the faith. 🙂 To deny sola fide IS to deny the gospel. Right now, as it stands, we have two different answers to the question of ‘how is a man made right with God ?’ Theoretically, both can be wrong, but both can’t be treated as equally valid ways to God. ONE of these ways definitely DOES deny the faith.
SteveJ [Visitor]
Kerry wrote: Remember God’s standard is perfection, not just relative goodness.
I don’t share this “zero tolerance” view of God. According to Paul, God overlooked the idolatry of the heathen for a time (Acts 17:30), which would be impossible under the Reformed theology. Also, the Psalmist said that God has pity on us because “he knows our frame and remembers that we are dust” — in other words, He acknowledges our imperfections and is accordingly merciful. This doesn’t fit with the thesis of an unwavering standard of absolute perfection.
God did not demand such an impossible standard from the Israelites under the law. After the giving of the law, we read, “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.” (Deut. 20:10) That would seem to contradict the Calvinist thesis as directly as anything ever could.
BlackCalvinist [Member]
It’s my birthday, so again….short post.
Acts 17:30 refers to temporal punishment (i.e.- destruction of a particular nation for idolatry, as in the OT). You dabble in universalism here or at least with having an unjust God who decides to punish some sins of idolatry, yet let others go free for their idolatry with your thesis.
Remember James 2:10-11 – For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,”also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. So your thesis doesn’t hold up here.
Remember – Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 says that at the end of the age, God will judge every man according to his works.
Remember Romans 2:14-15 – non-Jews did some of the things contained in the law by nature, their conscience either accusing them (when they failed to do right) or excusing them (when they kept the law), showing that God’s standard of righteousness is plain to them, as Romans 1:18-22 clearly states.
Remember Romans 3:8-20 – none seek after God, none do good, none fear God – therefore, by the works of the law shall NO flesh be justified. Knowledge of the law = knowledge of sin.
Remember Galatians – the law was a school teacher – to teach us about our need for salvation and lead us to Christ. Justification was never acheived by the law because no one but Christ was able to keep it perfectly.
Deut. 20:10 doesn’t present a problem, either. Folks don’t keep the law because they don’t want to. It’s called moral inability. Check out Jonathan Edwards’ writings on the issue.
Again…. No flesh will be justified by the law. You who continue to look toward works to be justified alienate yourself from life – and the Life is Christ.
SteveJ [Visitor]
Happy birthday, Kerry. (Mine is a week from Monday.)
If you’re getting sick of this (after 44 posts), we can call this discussion to a halt any time. But I’ve enjoyed the exchange.
A few points:
1. Acts 17:30 — Your explanation of this text (temporal punishments) only works if the repentance to which Paul was calling his hearers was for the same end. But I doubt that he was calling the Gentiles to repent so they could avoid temporal punishments on a national scale.
2. I agree with you about James 2:10ff meaning that breaking any point of the law renders one a lawbreaker. But that doesn’t mean that God demanded and expected perfect, perpetual obedience under the Old Covenant. After all, He built sacrifices into the law to address sin. Part of keeping the law was to offer sacrifice for sin, so the expectation of perfection was evidently not there from the start.
3. We’re still having a semantics problem in our discussion. When I say “law” I mean the Jewish law as given by Moses. You apparently mean “good deeds” in any form, which is unwarranted. I think that difference has caused us to talk past on another.
4. About Deut. 30:10 — If man is possessed with the kind of moral inability that Edwards preached, the law would have been too hard for the Israelites to keep. But the text distinctly states that the law was not beyond their abilities. Isn’t that fatal to the idea that the law demanded perfect, perpetual righteousness?
BlackCalvinist [Member]
Happy early birthday, Steve. Thanks. 🙂
Not getting sick of this at all. Keepin’ my answers short due to time constraints, though.
1. God left pagan nations around the world uninterrupted in idolatry for thousands of years, not wiping them off the face of the planet as He did with other nations immediately surrounding Israel. Your thesis still proves too much – because now you have a God who violates His own standard of justice and lets sin go on unpunished, though the OT scriptures (i.e.- Eccl. 12:13-14) says that He will do so.
2. The sacrifices were used as a sign of the covering of sin. Remember – Abraham believed God and it was credited to Him as righteousness. The rituals NEVER saved – they pointed to the One who would be the final sacrifice for sin because (as Hebrews 10 points out), the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER atone for sin. Perfect obedience was impossible/is impossible because of sin and the OT sacrifices were not efficacious in the sense that they were a permanent solution to the problem of sin. The *only* thing spoken of consistently in scripture as making one ‘right’ before God is when one places faith in Christ (again Abraham and see all of Romans 4).
So, as Matthew 5 points out, God DOES demand perfect obedience. Lawbreakers don’t make it into the kingdom unless their sins are paid for.
3. I extend ‘law’ to mean good deeds done with the intention of making oneself pleasing to God, based on Romans 2:14-15:
Those without the law still show their knowledge of God revealed in creation (Romans 1:18-22, Psalm 19:1-6) and carry themselves in some way that shows this – either by organizing a society with similar rules (like Hammurabi’s moral code) or by organizing religious practice with some principles that are similar to the Judeo-Christian ethic, recognizing good and evil and recognizing that ‘what goes around comes around’ (i.e.- the concept of karma). So by the ‘works of the law’ – which have their root in Judaism but are mimiced by other human religions in part – no flesh can be justified.
4. Again, as pointed out above (and demonstrated in point 2), God deals with men according to [i]responsibility[/i]. I quoted Romans 9 for a reason: the very argument you raise with Deut. 30 is the same one that Paul anticipates when he says ‘If we are simply doing His will, why does He still find fault ?’ (9:17).
Further, you neglect Deut. 30:6, where God says that He will circumcise the heart of the person so that they CAN obey His law and walk in His statues. This is the ‘key’ to being able to do what is spoken of in verse 10.
SteveJ [Visitor]
You make a lot of good points. Obviously, you’ve done a great deal of homework on these issues. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.