Justification: the forensic declaration of the Father that a sinner is pardoned of any charge of sin and is righteous in His sight on the basis of a double imputation: our sin to Christ [on the cross] and His righteousness to us. We access this double imputation only by grace through faith in the expiatory and propitiatory power of Christ’s active obedience [to the law] in life, passive obedience in [vicariously substituting Himself in our place for our penalty by His] death, and vindication [in His victory over the charges against us] in resurrection. This declaration is evidence that the double imputation has caused our sins to have been forgiven and the wrath of the Father appeased. The result of the declaration is reconciliation to the Father – having peace with Him through our Lord Jesus Christ – and zealousness for good works.
Proof:
1. That salvifically, justification is a forensic declaration in that we are “declared” right[eous] over against “made” righteous:
a. Justification and its infinitive form – justify – is often written in a courtroom context. In His role as our Judge, we would expect the Father’s purpose in relating Himself to us as such would be to compare His function in such a role to that of a human judge, a person who does not “make” absolved but rather “declares” absolved. (cf. Deut 25:1; Job 9:2-3; Rom. 3:19-20, 26)
b. Condemnation, being set opposed to justification, is not a process of being made guilty; rather, it is a declaration of guilt. For there to be an analogy, therefore, in forensic passages which set justification opposed to condemnation, justification must refer to a polar declaration of acquittal. (cf. Deut 25:1; Prov. 17:15; Rom. 5:16, 8:33-34)
c. Substituting the alternative (“make righteous”) reduces Scripture to absurdity, as “making righteous” oneself or one who is guilty would be apparently condemnable offenses. (cf. Job 32:2; Prov. 17:15)
2. That we are justified only by grace through faith [in Christ]:
a. The only means and ground by which we are soteriologically (i.e. not James 2:14-26) justified are grace, faith, and Christ’s blood. (cf. Titus 3:7; Rom 4:5, 5:9)
b. Faith and grace are antithetical to works. If we are saved by grace through faith, works cannot play a causal role in our salvation or justification. (cf. Eph. 2:8-10,
c. That we are unconditionally elected, established by Romans 8:29-33 and proven below, establishes that justification is by grace alone:
1) We for whom Christ died are eternally secure, as all who are justified are glorified. (cf. verse 30; also read #2)
2) We for whom Christ died (the elect) will freely be given all things. Would this not include regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification, and various spiritual blessings? [Notice this also establishes a particular redemption, as we can show, by a modus tollens, that because not all are freely given all things, Christ was not delivered for all without exception] (cf. verse 32-33)
3) That faith is contingent on whether or not one has been predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus, demonstrable by the fact that the ability to come to faith is contingent on God’s call (Rom. 10:14-17; John 6:44, 65) which is itself contingent on whether or not we have been predestined. (cf. verse 29-30)
d. Faith is the only instrumental cause of justification, which is proved by the fact we are justified in His sight apart from works [of the law]. That “works of the law” is synonymous with “good works,” an assertion some have objected to, is proven thusly:
1) Works of the law are “good” and are also demanded of the believer upon justification. Works of the law do not refer to “non-good” works, as though there is such a thing as a work of the law which is bad. (cf. Rom. 7:12, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8-9)
2) The modifier “of the law” is often dropped altogether in the relevant passages, showing an all-encompassing scope and symmetry between works “of the law” and works “in general.” (cf. Rom. 3:27-28, 4:2-6, 9:32)
3) Works of the law are, in fact, explicitly said to be the same works referred to by objectors who wish to distinguish between “good works” and “works of the law,” as we are said to be prepared for both [upon justification]. (cf. Rom. 8:3-4, 13:8-10; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 2:14)
4) The absurdity that arises if we try to formalize a definition of “works of the law” distinct from “general” or “good” works. Asserting that only the need to perform “certain” works (those of the law) is a curse, that only by “certain” works do we know that we sin, that only by performing “certain” works [of the law] (done by Gentiles, those without the law!) can it be ascertained that the “work of the Law” is written on one’s heart, etc. are self-evidently vacuous arguments. (cf. Rom. 2:15, 3:20; Gal. 3:10)
3. That there exists a double imputation – namely, our sins to Christ [on the cross] and His righteousness to us [upon faith] – which is the ground of our justification over against an infused righteousness (analytic justification):
a. The numerous parallels that point to a double imputation:
1) Our sin to Christ – since He was not a sinner, He likewise was not “infused” with sin – is parallel to His righteousness being imputed to our account. (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21)
2) The wage that is credited to our account is parallel to the righteousness that is credited to our account. (both are external imputations, cf. Rom. 4:3-5)
3) Adam is a type of Christ, so that Adam’s original sin was imputed to us establishes a parallel by which we know Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. (cf. Rom. 5:12-21)
b. OT precedence and typology:
1) The consideration of one as something he is intrinsically not lays the groundwork for the possibility we can be reckoned to be that which we are intrinsically not: righteous. (cf. Gen 31:14-15; Lev. 25:31)
2) The foreshadowing of Christ as sin-bearer. If our sin is not imputed to us, it has to be imputed to Him. (cf. Gen. 22, 50:20-21; Lev. 16:21-22; Rom. 3:25-26, 4:6-13; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Heb. 9:22)
3) The necessity of a perfect Priest, Sacrifice, Mediator, Advocate, etc. such that our sin could actually be expiated and the Father’s wrath propitiated. (cf. Heb. 9-10; 1 John 2:1-2)
c. The impossibility to the contrary (elenctic argumentation):
1) We cannot be saved by practicing righteousness; therefore, only the righteousness of another will do. (cf. Titus 3:4-7; Phil. 3:7-9; Rom. 9:30-10:4)
2) If the ground of justification were a process culminating in infused righteousness – that is, sanctification (being “made” righteous) – no one in this lifetime would be justified. Christians would by necessity be required to live perfectly according to the law following “initial” justification. (cf. Heb 10:10-14; Gen 15:16; Rom 5:1)
3) It is absurd that one who is analytically justified should proceed to increase in righteousness. One is righteous or is not. (cf. Acts 13:38-39;
4) God justifies the ungodly. (cf. Rom. 4:5)
“…to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”
Conclusion: “to him who does not pursue righteousness through any work(s) but believes on Him who declares righteous the one who is inherently ungodly, his faith, which alone is the instrumental means, caused by grace, by which he is accounted righteous, accesses the ground of justification, the double imputation of our sin to Christ [on the cross] and His righteousness to us, the believer.”
Suggested reading:
John Piper: Counted Righteous in Christ
Louis Berkhof: Systematic Theology
13 comments:
Hi,
I'd like to comment on some of what you have said:
Quote: "Justification and its infinitive form – justify – is often written in a courtroom context."
Nick: I'd like to see the Biblical evidence behind this. Sure it can be used in a "courtroom context," but to say it is "often" used in such a context is something I don't believe is supported by Biblical evidence.
Quote: Condemnation, being set opposed to justification, is not a process of being made guilty; rather, it is a declaration of guilt.
Nick: I'd say this is a bit oversimplified; or better yet a one dimentional look at how Paul understands justification. For example, Paul says in Rom 8:1-2, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."
Notice why there is "no condemnation," it's because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has set the soul free from bondage to sin. If that's not transformational, then I don't know what is. That's Paul's central theme in all his writings, especially in Rom 8!
Quote: "Substituting the alternative (“make righteous”) reduces Scripture to absurdity, as “making righteous” oneself or one who is guilty would be apparently condemnable offenses. (cf. Job 32:2; Prov. 17:15)"
Nick: This is fallacious because it assumes a word is (or can be) only used in one sense. From my study, virtually all the times Paul uses 'justify' in relation to salvation, the meaning of "make righteous" can indeed fit as a coherent meaning. In fact, it's the only meaning that can fit passages like Romans 4:5 without contradicting passages like Prov 17:15.
Quote: "The only means and ground by which we are soteriologically (i.e. not James 2:14-26) justified are grace, faith, and Christ’s blood. (cf. Titus 3:7; Rom 4:5, 5:9)"
Nick: I'm not sure how you can say James 2:14ff is non-soteriological when the very term "save" appears in the passage! As for the rest of this comment, I broadly agree, and I'm especially pleased that Christ's Blood is mentioned without any mention of His "Active Obedience" (which has no Scriptural warrant that I can see).
Quote: "Faith and grace are antithetical to works. If we are saved by grace through faith, works cannot play a causal role in our salvation or justification. (cf. Eph. 2:8-10, Rom. 4:3-5, 11:6)"
Nick: This comment runs directly contrary to the teaching of Scripture (eg Phil 2:12f; Gal 6:7-9; Mat 12:36f). I think the problem with your reasoning is twofold: It fails to differentiate between type and timing of the "works" being opposed.
Quote: "That we are unconditionally elected, established by Romans 8:29-33 and proven below, establishes that justification is by grace alone"
Nick: Unconditional election guarantees nothing either way about the nature of justification. For example, Rom 8:29f defines "conformed to His image" as "called, justified, glorified," which strongly suggests justification is transformative (else there is no 'conforming to image' going on).
Quote: We for whom Christ died are eternally secure, as all who are justified are glorified. (cf. verse 30; also read #2)
Nick: This 'conclusion' is built upon presupposed principles, rather than proven ones. As for Rom 8:30, it can be argued "all predestined are glorified" but that is not automatically equivalent to "all justified are glorified." Also, the "glorified" state in this case can be in reference to a present new life in the Spirit rather than escatological.
Quote: "We for whom Christ died (the elect) will freely be given all things. Would this not include regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification, and various spiritual blessings?"
Nick: This is an assumption rather than hard proof. The Bible plainly states those "for whom Christ died" can be lost (1 Cor 8:11; also 1 Tim 3:6; etc)
(cont 1 of 3)
Quote: "That faith is contingent on whether or not one has been predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus..."
Nick: Quite a bit of reading into one verse. Again, such comments betray the whole of Scripture, especially places specifically touching the subject of faith (eg Lk 8:13; 1 Tim 1:19).
Quote: "Faith is the only instrumental cause of justification, which is proved by the fact we are justified in His sight apart from works [of the law]."
Nick: This assumes "apart from works of the law" is indeed synonymous with "apart from any act." It also betrays the plain reading of other texts (eg Mat 12:36f).
Quote: "That “works of the law” is synonymous with “good works,” an assertion some have objected to, is proven thusly:
1) Works of the law are “good” and are also demanded of the believer upon justification. Works of the law do not refer to “non-good” works, as though there is such a thing as a work of the law which is bad. (cf. Rom. 7:12, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8-9)"
Nick: Just because a 'work' is good does not mean that it is ideal, salvific, or eternal. Case in point: 'earthly circumcision.' This "good work" is not binding outside of the Jewish nation, is not salvific, and only a sign. Point #1 is thus refuted.
Quote: "2) The modifier “of the law” is often dropped altogether in the relevant passages, showing an all-encompassing scope"
Nick: A fallacious claim, for 'dropping the modifier' simply is due to the fact the 'type' of works is thus previously established using the modifier in the context.
Quote: "3) Works of the law are, in fact, explicitly said to be the same works referred to by objectors who wish to distinguish between “good works” and “works of the law,” as we are said to be prepared for both [upon justification]. (cf. Rom. 8:3-4, 13:8-10; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 2:14)"
Nick: False, nowhere is such a notion "explicitly" stated. Further, Rom 8:4 and 13:8ff include the key modifier "fulfilled," while "good works" are clearly distinguished in texts like Eph 2 (note the 'works/law' of Eph 2:11-16 cannot apply to Christians).
Quote: "4) The absurdity that arises if we try to formalize a definition of “works of the law” distinct from “general” or “good” works."
Nick: On the contrary, such a key definition is the only way Paul's message makes sense. See Gal 3 (esp 3:17), where the 'Mosaic Law' is the only definition that fits.
Quote: Asserting that only the need to perform “certain” works (those of the law) is a curse, that only by “certain” works do we know that we sin, that only by performing “certain” works [of the law] (done by Gentiles, those without the law!) can it be ascertained that the “work of the Law” is written on one’s heart, etc. are self-evidently vacuous arguments. (cf. Rom. 2:15, 3:20; Gal. 3:10)"
Nick: This is a bad argument, esp considering you reference Gal 3:10 which is a direct quote from the Mosaic Law. Further the "Gentiles" are precisely such because they lack the "Mosaic Law" and are not part of the Mosaic Covenant!
In conclusion, you've got it exactly backwards: It's absurd not to see 'works/law' as specifically the Mosaic Law, and especially in light of Paul's contrasting Gentiles to Jews.
Quote: "3. That there exists a double imputation – namely, our sins to Christ [on the cross] and His righteousness to us [upon faith] – which is the ground of our justification over against an infused righteousness (analytic justification):"
Nick: The most astonishing thing about this claim is that there is no Biblical backing for it. While the Bible uses the term 'impute,' it is never used in the 'double impute' manner described. (Contrast this to the inner righteousness and transformation described in Rom 5-8).
Quote: "a. The numerous parallels that point to a double imputation:"
Nick: For something so foundational, esp when the Bible is aware of the term "impute," it should raise red flags that 'point to' (ie implicit evidence) rather than explicit texts is all you can offer.
Quote: "1) Our sin to Christ – since He was not a sinner, He likewise was not “infused” with sin – is parallel to His righteousness being imputed to our account. (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21)"
Nick: Not only does the term 'impute' not appear here, but you're assuming there is a parallel as well as only an impute/infuse meaning for "made sin" (which is in fact simply using the Levitical figurative expression for 'made sin offering', cf. how the Hebrew word for "sin" is used in Lev 4:28-29).
Quote: "2) The wage that is credited to our account is parallel to the righteousness that is credited to our account. (both are external imputations, cf. Rom. 4:3-5)"
Nick: Careful, it doesn't say "wage credited to account," but rather "wage credited as debt/gift" (as in 'cash given to you either as a birthday gift versus a paycheck'). Further, Rom 4:4 obliterates the Protestant definition of 'impute' in this context (not to mention the Greek term for impute is never used in the Reformed 'faith is instrumental' sense in Scripture).
Quote: "3) Adam is a type of Christ, so that Adam’s original sin was imputed to us establishes a parallel by which we know Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. (cf. Rom. 5:12-21)"
Nick: The term impute (used about 16 times in Romans) nowhere appears in this chapter. Quite ironic for a concept so critical.
Quote: "b. OT precedence and typology:
1) The consideration of one as something he is intrinsically not lays the groundwork for the possibility we can be reckoned to be that which we are intrinsically not: righteous. "
Nick: Ah, but what about the NT precedence? How come Protestant scholars never look to that evidence, especially give that 'impute' is used over 40 times in the NT? The answer is because the evidence is quite damning to the Protestant position: the overwhelming usage of 'impute' in the NT says the exact opposite of what Protestants assume. Further, the overwhelming OT usage of 'impute' points away from the Protestant usage.
Also, NEVER is the term used in the Reformed sense. The phrase "FAITH is CREDITED as righteousness" read plainly states FAITH ITSELF is given the value of righteousness. At MOST you'd be saying Faith ITSELF is not actually intrinsically righteous but is credited as such. BUT Reformed explicitly reject this "faith itself is righteous" reading, instead stating faith like an empty hand merely "carries" the righteousness. HOWEVER the term 'credit' is NEVER used in the sense of 'carry'.
Quote: "2) The foreshadowing of Christ as sin-bearer. If our sin is not imputed to us, it has to be imputed to Him. (cf. Gen. 22, 50:20-21; Lev. 16:21-22; Rom. 3:25-26, 4:6-13; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Heb. 9:22)"
Nick: Totally fallacious: The proposition, "sin not imputed to X," does NOT necessitate, "sin must then be imputed to Y." Again, such critical concepts should not have to rely on special pleading and implicit evidence.
Quote: "3) The necessity of a perfect Priest, Sacrifice, Mediator, Advocate, etc."
Nick: No argument here.
Quote: "1) We cannot be saved by practicing righteousness; therefore, only the righteousness of another will do. (cf. Titus 3:4-7; Phil. 3:7-9; Rom. 9:30-10:4)"
Nick: This is true in various senses, but EXCLUDES the unbiblical notion of 'active obedience of Christ.'
Quote: "2) If the ground of justification were a process culminating in infused righteousness – that is, sanctification (being “made” righteous) – no one in this lifetime would be justified. Christians would by necessity be required to live perfectly according to the law following “initial” justification. (cf. Heb 10:10-14; Gen 15:16; Rom 5:1)"
Nick: This is incorrect. The epitome of righteousness is God dwelling within your soul, this comes in the form of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit of Adoption (Rom 8:9-10). You can't be anything BUT righteous if the Spirit lives in you! That is why Adoption is Paul's overwhelming theme in everything he writes. Further, the Bible plainly calls people 'righteous,'.
Quote: "3) It is absurd that one who is analytically justified should proceed to increase in righteousness. One is righteous or is not. (cf. Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 6:6-7, 15-16; 1 Cor. 1:30-31)"
Nick: It is absurd yet you quote Rom 6 (which speaks of growing and continuing in righteousness)? Hebrews 12:23 plainly says "righteous men made perfect," further contradicting your claim. Who says someone righteous cannot become more so? That's like saying someone with a PhD cannot continue to learn.
Quote: "4) God justifies the ungodly. (cf. Rom. 4:5)"
Nick: Yes, God 'makes righteous' the ungodly, precisely how Scripture describes it (eg 1 Cor 6:11; Acts 15:9; Rom 6:6-7; etc).
To interpret 4:5 as "declares legally righteous the legally unrighteous" is a blatant contradiction and impossible.
To interpret 4:5 as "declares legally righteous the internally unrighteous" is a category mistake and equivocation (mixing legal and moral righteousness).
Nick: “I'd like to see the Biblical evidence behind this. Sure it can be used in a "courtroom context," but to say it is "often" used in such a context is something I don't believe is supported by Biblical evidence.”
I cited several passages under point #1, and I’m sure you have a reference Bible. You also would have done well to have checked out some of those links I cited at the bottom. For instance, Francis Turretin writes:
//The word Justification is forensic
VI. The reasons are: 1) Because the passages, which treat of Justification, admit no other than a forensic sense, Job 9:3. Ps. 143:2, Rom. 3:28 and 4:1-3, Acts 13:39, and elsewhere, where a judicial process is set forth, and mention is made of an accusing law, of accused persons, who are guilty, Rom. 3:19, of a handwriting contrary to us, Col. 2:14, of divine justice demanding punishment, Rom. 3:24, 26, of an advocate pleading the cause, 1 John 2:1, of satisfaction and imputed righteousness, Rom. 4 and 5; of a throne of grace before which we are absolved, Heb. 4:16, of a Judge pronouncing sentence, Rom. 3:20, and absolving sinners, Rom. 4:5.//
Cf. Berkhof, pgs. 510-511; Buchanan, pgs. 226-232.
How many times must “justify” be used in a forensic context in order for it to be properly said that it is “often” used in a forensic context? On what grounds do you base your answer? If you want to play semantics, I’m game.
Nick: I'd say this is a bit oversimplified; or better yet a one dimentional (sic) look at how Paul understands justification. For example, Paul says in Rom 8:1-2, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."
Notice why there is "no condemnation," it's because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has set the soul free from bondage to sin. If that's not transformational, then I don't know what is. That's Paul's central theme in all his writings, especially in Rom 8!
Firstly, the idea that the “law of the Spirit of life” refers to regeneration is contextually untenable. You should have kept reading, as the “for” in the next verse denotes in what way Paul’s reason for asserting through Christ the law of the Spirit of life sets one free from the law of death:
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
The foundation of justification is Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. That is what the law of the Spirit of life refers to: as He alone met the requirements, He alone could and did bear sin, so it is said that through Him one is condemned no more. The righteous requirements of the law are so said to be met through Christ, not ourselves.
Nick: This is fallacious because it assumes a word is (or can be) only used in one sense. From my study, virtually all the times Paul uses 'justify' in relation to salvation, the meaning of "make righteous" can indeed fit as a coherent meaning.
The burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate that the semantic domain of “justify” includes “make righteous.” To do that, you have to demonstrate that in at least one instance “justify” cannot be understood forensically. I can’t disprove a negative, obviously, but I can show through a modus tollens that if we understood “justify” to mean “make righteous” in passages like Romans 5:18 or 8:33, that the import of the analogy would be lost implies the Pauline concept of justification is, as one familiar with Paul would expect – given his frequent Old Testament citations – the same as the normative Old Testament definition.
Nick: In fact, it's the only meaning that can fit passages like Romans 4:5 without contradicting passages like Prov 17:15.
I anticipated this response when I wrote that Roman 4:5 means “to him who does not pursue righteousness through any work(s) but believes on Him who declares righteous the one who is inherently ungodly, his faith, which alone is the instrumental means, caused by grace, by which he is accounted righteous, accesses the ground of justification, the double imputation of our sin to Christ [on the cross] and His righteousness to us, the believer.”
In Proverbs 17:15, the author is not chiefly concerned with expounding upon the way in which one comes to be soterically justified; unlike Romans, this passage is not an aspect of a soteric exposition – it is not God who is doing the justifying. Proverbs 17:15 is germane to Romans 4:5 insofar as it shows in what sense we are to interpret the meaning of “justify.” Moreover, in both contexts, to be just in justifying an individual one’s declaration must necessarily be grounded in an objective obedience to the law. The difference between the texts is that in Proverbs 17:15, the justifier is man and the ground is in self, whereas in Romans 3:25-4:5, the justifier is the Father and the ground is in Christ.
So, when you later write ”To interpret 4:5 as "declares legally righteous the internally unrighteous" is a category mistake and equivocation (mixing legal and moral righteousness),” you’re short-changing the Protestant doctrine of unity with Christ and assuming the semantic domain of justification including the idea we are “made righteous.” Plus, you’re still ignoring the passages which identify justification as analogous to condemnation.
Nick: I'm not sure how you can say James 2:14ff is non-soteriological when the very term "save" appears in the passage! As for the rest of this comment, I broadly agree, and I'm especially pleased that Christ's Blood is mentioned without any mention of His "Active Obedience" (which has no Scriptural warrant that I can see).
I didn’t say the passage itself wasn’t soteric. If you had read carefully, I said justification is not soteric. Surely you notice that it is men – not God – who are vindicating the sincerity of a profession of faith when James writes? Who is the question in verse 14 to? Men. To whom is one showing and vindicating his faith in verse 18? Men. In verse 22 and 24, who is doing the judging? Who sees? Men.
As an aside, Romans 9 and 3:25-26 most certainly supports the necessity of the active obedience of Christ, as you can see here. Briefly, Piper exegetes the righteousness of God as His “unswerving commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory.” The validation of Piper’s thesis is exemplified in Romans 3:25-26:
“One example is found in Romans 3:25-26, in which the point is made that God’s forbearance of sin is only justified due to the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Sin, the breaking of God’s law, is a scorn of God’s glory, so only through Christ’s sacrifice can the Father be said to actually uphold the infinite worth of His glory – that is, act righteously – simultaneous to seemingly allowing sin to be performed with impunity.”
Christ’s fulfillment of the Adamic covenant was indeed necessary for the Father to be the just as well as the justified in forbearing our breaking of that covenant, and the fulfillment of the Adamic covenant consists in obedience to God’s law.
Nick: This comment runs directly contrary to the teaching of Scripture (eg Phil 2:12f; Gal 6:7-9; Mat 12:36f). I think the problem with your reasoning is twofold: It fails to differentiate between type and timing of the "works" being opposed.
Exactly which of those passages teach works cause our salvation? That works are necessarily consequents to justification does not mean they cause us to be saved. I deal with Matthew 12 in particular here, but the point applies to the other passages also. And what exactly are you referring to when you purport a distinction between “types” and
”timing” of works?
Nick: Unconditional election guarantees nothing either way about the nature of justification. For example, Rom 8:29f defines "conformed to His image" as "called, justified, glorified," which strongly suggests justification is transformative (else there is no 'conforming to image' going on).
We’re predestined to adoption. Does that mean adoption is redemption and forgiveness of sins? God’s call doesn’t in itself transform us. That we are predestined to sanctification and predestined to be called, justified, and glorified doesn’t mean sanctification is calling, justification, and glorification any more than adoption means sanctification, redemption, or forgiveness. That’s simply a non sequitur.
Also, that election is unconditional indeed proves justification is effected by grace alone, for we are chosen unto repentance, belief, and sanctification rather than chosen because we are or are foreseen to repent, believe, and become sanctified. Hence, we are also chosen to be justification apart from any merits of our own.
Nick: This 'conclusion' is built upon presupposed principles, rather than proven ones. As for Rom 8:30, it can be argued "all predestined are glorified" but that is not automatically equivalent to "all justified are glorified." Also, the "glorified" state in this case can be in reference to a present new life in the Spirit rather than escatological.
To what presupposed principles do you refer? The idea that not all justified can be glorified implicitly assumes that those who are not regenerated can, contrary to 8:7-9, believe. Also, that the glorification is eschatological requires a simple reading of the prior dozen verses. Present sufferings are worth future glory with God. To seriously suggest that Romans 8:30 does not refer to the final realization of salvation is incompetent.
Nick: This is an assumption rather than hard proof. The Bible plainly states those "for whom Christ died" can be lost (1 Cor 8:11; also 1 Tim 3:6; etc)
A believer’s falling away does not denote a loss of salvation (Matthew 26:31). Paul still refers to the weak individual as among the brethren in 1 Corinthians 8:11, and with regards to 1 Timothy 3:6, one can be a new convert or a “novice” without being saved.
You seem to like to off-handedly use the word “assumption,” as though it is a magic word that automatically rebuts an argument. But I have yet to hear you offer one counter-exegesis to any of the texts that I have cited. Does “all things” not include perseverance? Of what does it specifically consist, then? What things are we not given, and how would that be compatible with the fact Paul writes those for whom Christ died will, in fact, receive all things?
Nick: Quite a bit of reading into one verse. Again, such comments betray the whole of Scripture, especially places specifically touching the subject of faith (eg Lk 8:13; 1 Tim 1:19).
Are you suggesting one can have faith without having heard God’s word? Are you suggesting one can have faith apart from the drawing of the Father? What would the point of John 6:63-65 be if people do not believe “for this reason” – that is, enablement to believe is not given to all, but rather those who have been drawn and will be raised the last day (cf. Romans 8:29-30)?
Luke 8:13 does not describe one who has been regenerated. The object of such a person’s faith is not the gospel; hence, it is written that no root exists in the true vine. 1 Timothy 1:19 refers to excommunication, similar to the case of the incestuous Corinthian. Thus, they would learn not blaspheme through the severest of punishments, until in good conscience they could return to the faith they had shipwrecked. Again, anyone can proof-text as you do. Real exegesis involves interacting with one’s opponents arguments as well as expounding upon one’s own.
Nick: This assumes "apart from works of the law" is indeed synonymous with "apart from any act." It also betrays the plain reading of other texts (eg Mat 12:36f).
Matthew 12:36 has nothing to do with justification. I address the synonymy of works of the law with good works below, so your one-trick argument is again inappropriate.
Nick: Just because a 'work' is good does not mean that it is ideal, salvific, or eternal. Case in point: 'earthly circumcision.' This "good work" is not binding outside of the Jewish nation, is not salvific, and only a sign. Point #1 is thus refuted.
Circumcision is not binding, period. Exactly what do you imagine you are refuting? Are any works of the law not-good? Are works of the law not demanded upon justification? What, then, is the difference between a work of the law and a good work? The burden of proof is on you to show a distinction exists.
Nick: A fallacious claim, for 'dropping the modifier' simply is due to the fact the 'type' of works is thus previously established using the modifier in the context.
Really? Where in Romans 9 does Paul establish beforehand that he is referring specifically to works of the law (assuming, for the sake of argument, a distinction exists between works of the law and good works)? 5? 6? 7? 8? 10? In fact, the closest passages in which Paul discusses works are found in Romans 11:6 and 13:8-10, both of which clearly refer to good works or works in general.
Nick: False, nowhere is such a notion "explicitly" stated. Further, Rom 8:4 and 13:8ff include the key modifier "fulfilled," while "good works" are clearly distinguished in texts like Eph 2 (note the 'works/law' of Eph 2:11-16 cannot apply to Christians).
What does the fact Romans 8:4 and 13:8 use the word “fulfilled” have to do with anything? Those commandments which are described in 13:9-10 describe those works which fulfill the law – that is, works of love or good works. If these are not works of the law, what are they? Why would they fulfill the law if they are not works of the law? Or if works of the law are not good, why would God command them? What does Ephesians 2:11-16 have to do with anything? The Gentiles who did not possess the law were not sinners for being uncircumcised, sin is not imputed where there is no law. Circumcision was, however, both a work of the law and a good work in the old testament because it typified regeneration. How does this bear any relevance to the symmetry between works of the law and good works?
Nick: On the contrary, such a key definition is the only way Paul's message makes sense. See Gal 3 (esp 3:17), where the 'Mosaic Law' is the only definition that fits.
Of course Paul is referring to the Mosaic law in Galatians 3:17. That has no bearing on whether or not said following said law is what is meant when elsewhere it is said that we are to do good works or are not saved by good works. Do you understand Romans 2:15 as teaching something other than those to whom Paul refers are workers of good?
Nick: This is a bad argument, esp considering you reference Gal 3:10 which is a direct quote from the Mosaic Law. Further the "Gentiles" are precisely such because they lack the "Mosaic Law" and are not part of the Mosaic Covenant!
That they lack possession of the law does not mean they do not follow the law, which is evident by their conscience. I addressed this very point in the part you responded to: the idea “that only by performing “certain” works [of the law] (done by Gentiles, those without the law!) can it be ascertained that the “work of the Law” is written on one’s heart” is nonsensical.
If there are works other than those entailed in the Mosaic Covenant – either explicitly or implicitly – by all means, share them. The two greatest commandments hang on the Mosaic law; if you can name a good work that is not a derivative of one of these commandments, I should like to hear it.
Nick: In conclusion, you've got it exactly backwards: It's absurd not to see 'works/law' as specifically the Mosaic Law, and especially in light of Paul's contrasting Gentiles to Jews.
Such a contrast is only with regards to knowledge.
Nick: The most astonishing thing about this claim is that there is no Biblical backing for it. While the Bible uses the term 'impute,' it is never used in the 'double impute' manner described. (Contrast this to the inner righteousness and transformation described in Rom 5-8).
Anyone who reads 2 Corinthians 5:21 can see the plain fact that a parallel exists between our sin being imputed to Jesus (Jesus didn’t become a sinner, did He?) and His righteousness being imputed to us. To deny the one side of the parallel is to destroy the entire point.
Nick: For something so foundational, esp when the Bible is aware of the term "impute," it should raise red flags that 'point to' (ie implicit evidence) rather than explicit texts is all you can offer.
The Bible never uses the term Trinity either, so we instead “point to” the concept. So what?
Nick: Not only does the term 'impute' not appear here, but you're assuming there is a parallel as well as only an impute/infuse meaning for "made sin" (which is in fact simply using the Levitical figurative expression for 'made sin offering', cf. how the Hebrew word for "sin" is used in Lev 4:28-29).
There is no parallel? He was made sin by one means, but we were made righteous in another? The attempt to explain away the plain phraseology is without merit. Also, that Christ was a sin offering does not conflict with the fact our sin was imputed to Him. That’s the whole purpose of the sacrifice. Christ had to die as a sinner would in order for God to be just in His forbearance of sin (Romans 3:25-26). Thus, we say He was made to be a curse for us, that the atonement is vicarious, and that God condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3, Galatians 3:13, Isaiah 53).
Nick: Careful, it doesn't say "wage credited to account," but rather "wage credited as debt/gift" (as in 'cash given to you either as a birthday gift versus a paycheck').
A distinction without a difference. To where would the debt or gift be credited except to our account? I am not here dealing with whether or not that which is being credited is deserved or not. I am specifically addressing the parallel between the external nature of the debt and the gift. Both are something credited to us rather than produced by us. Similarly, righteousness is credited to us rather than produced by us. Imputed, not infused. Synthetic, not analytic.
Nick: Further, Rom 4:4 obliterates the Protestant definition of 'impute' in this context (not to mention the Greek term for impute is never used in the Reformed 'faith is instrumental' sense in Scripture).
I recommend reading Piper’s book, because you have no idea what you are talking about and I’m not going to give a long reply to someone who constantly confuses assertions with argumentation.
Nick: The term impute (used about 16 times in Romans) nowhere appears in this chapter. Quite ironic for a concept so critical.
What’s ironic is that you completely missed the point. Adam’s guilt is imputed to us. Adam is said to be a type of Christ in that our condemnation due to his sin is analogous to our righteous due to Christ. Why wouldn’t Christ’s righteousness likewise be imputed, if the analogy has any merit?
Nick: Ah, but what about the NT precedence? How come Protestant scholars never look to that evidence, especially give that 'impute' is used over 40 times in the NT?
Why don’t you address what I have written?
Nick: The answer is because the evidence is quite damning to the Protestant position: the overwhelming usage of 'impute' in the NT says the exact opposite of what Protestants assume. Further, the overwhelming OT usage of 'impute' points away from the Protestant usage.
No examples? Yawn.
Nick: Also, NEVER is the term used in the Reformed sense. The phrase "FAITH is CREDITED as righteousness" read plainly states FAITH ITSELF is given the value of righteousness.
Piper destroys this in Chapter 3 of the book I cited. Faith cannot be credited when what is being credited is an external wage/righteousness.
Nick: At MOST you'd be saying Faith ITSELF is not actually intrinsically righteous but is credited as such. BUT Reformed explicitly reject this "faith itself is righteous" reading, instead stating faith like an empty hand merely "carries" the righteousness. HOWEVER the term 'credit' is NEVER used in the sense of 'carry'.
You realize that using CAPPED WORDS does not make the assertion any more logically valid, right?
Nick: Totally fallacious: The proposition, "sin not imputed to X," does NOT necessitate, "sin must then be imputed to Y." Again, such critical concepts should not have to rely on special pleading and implicit evidence.
If Christ did not bear our sin, why did He have to die? Why would it please the Father to bruise Him? Why would the Father be unjust in the forbearance of sin if Christ didn’t become a propitiation for our sin? How was Christ made sin? The reason sin must be imputed to someone is because otherwise, the Father is unrighteous. Thus: if not us, Christ.
Nick: This is true in various senses, but EXCLUDES the unbiblical notion of 'active obedience of Christ.'
I’ve already addressed why Christ’s active obedience was necessary, but do you have a representation of your view of the nature of the atonement and justification written somewhere that I can read? Your beliefs sound weird.
Nick: This is incorrect. The epitome of righteousness is God dwelling within your soul, this comes in the form of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit of Adoption (Rom 8:9-10).
Regeneration is the means by which Christ is united with us and thus the means by which we are righteous before God, but to say that the “epitome of righteousness is God dwelling within your soul” is a groundless leap. It could as easily refer to the means by which we come to faith, by which we access the double imputation. Christ’s righteousness is alien to us, credited to our account but not intrinsically our own.
Nick: You can't be anything BUT righteous if the Spirit lives in you!
True. That is because Christ’s righteousness came to us through the Spirit, not because Christ’s righteousness became ours and we somehow progress in righteousness through sanctification a la Catholicism.
Nick: That is why Adoption is Paul's overwhelming theme in everything he writes.
Adoption is mentioned in Romans 8, Galatians 4, and Ephesians 1. It’s hardly an “overwhelming theme” in the Pauline corpus.
Nick: Further, the Bible plainly calls people 'righteous,'.
Sure. They’re righteous because they’re united with Christ, whose righteousness is accounted as their own.
Nick: It is absurd yet you quote Rom 6 (which speaks of growing and continuing in righteousness)?
Where? Our righteousness is not the ground of our justification, Christ’s is. You’re not addressing the argument at all.
Nick: Hebrews 12:23 plainly says "righteous men made perfect," further contradicting your claim.
Howso? The righteous men were made perfect. So?
Nick: Who says someone righteous cannot become more so? That's like saying someone with a PhD cannot continue to learn.
How do you measure how righteous one is? If God declares us to be righteous because we are allegedly inherently righteous, and we proceed to commit a “venial sin,” how can it be that we can still be declared righteous?
Nick: Yes, God 'makes righteous' the ungodly, precisely how Scripture describes it (eg 1 Cor 6:11; Acts 15:9; Rom 6:6-7; etc).
Your conflation of justification with regeneration and sanctification is unfounded. Sanctification is distinguished from justification in 1 Corinthians 6:11, so to cite it as a support is quite ironic. Romans 6:6-7 does say that those who are regenerated are justified, reason being that regeneration produces the faith by which we are instrumentally justified. Acts 15:9 does not refer to justification.
Thank you for your comments. I'm working on a response and hope to have it done in a day or two.
Because it will have to be multiple posts long, I suggest we move it to email, but either way is fine with me. My email is listed on my profile.
That's fine. You can send it to:
rhedrich3@mail.gatech.edu
Post a Comment