Faith - Our Righteousness?

I was recently made aware of that [some] Roman Catholics think that faith itself is what is reckoned for righteousness in justification. Sometimes I get so caught up in wanting what Protestants believe about justification to be the center of discussion - doctrine is fortified or exposed when tested by the best counters an opponent has to offer - that I don't press enough to understand what others believe.

After hearing this contention made by more than one RC, all of whom I would consider to know well more than the average layman, I've decided to address it. I remembered reading a book by Piper called Counted Righteous in Christ some time ago which I thought dealt well with this notion of reckoned righteousness as consisting in belief in the gospel, so I thought to select a few arguments from Piper's book which I think illustrate its problematic nature:

1. In Romans 4:4-5, in which Paul contrasts two alternative views of the means by which righteousness could be reckoned to an individual, that which is reckoned in the first example, wages, is external to the individual['s works]. For Paul's "conceptual framework" to be consistent, then, must not the "gift [of righteousness]" (4:4; cf. 5:15-17) be received by means of faith (over against works) as something external to the individual['s faith]?

…So God’s imputation, in Gundry’s view, is not crediting an external, divine righteousness to Abraham, but counting something that he has, namely faith, to be his righteousness.

What seems out of sync with this interpretation is that Paul’s exposition of imputation, which immediately follows verse 3, gives us a conceptual framework for imputation very different from the one Gundry sees in verse 3. Paul speaks immediately in terms of something external (a wage) being credited to our account, rather than something internal (faith) being treated as righteousness. “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited according to grace, but according to debt.” If Paul’s conceptual framework were the same as Gundry’s, and verse 3 implied to Paul that the credited righteousness consists of faith, then why would it enter Paul’s mind to illustrate this with the words, “To the one who works, his wage is not credited according to grace, but according to debt”? Why would he speak in terms of a wage (or a gift) from outside ourselves being credited to us by debt (or by grace)?

Would he not rather say something like, “Now to him who works, his works are credited as (= treated as) his righteousness according to debt (κατα όφείλημα, kata opheilēma)”? This would correspond nicely with verse 5 (“his faith is credited for righteousness”) if faith-credited-for-righteousness in fact means faith-treated-as-righteousness (which, I will try to show, it doesn’t). Thus Paul would accomplish what Gundry seems to think he wants: to show that our righteousness consists not of our works but does consist of our faith. But this is not the conceptual framework that Paul develops.

2. Piper cites several passages designed to show faith as the instrument to that by which we are reckoned righteous rather than that which is itself reckoned for righteousness (Romans 4:11, 10:10), and the points he makes in respect to each of these passages are worthy of consideration and more so when taken cumulatively, which is why I recommend the reader look at his analysis (pgs. 53-64 in particular in relation to this blog post). For the sake of brevity, however, I think that his best support for the general argument that Scripture teaches faith to be the instrument rather than the ground of justification is found in Philippians 3:9.

Another evidence that Paul does not intend for the phrase “faith is credited for righteousness” (4:5) to mean that our righteousness “consists of faith” (I, 8) is found in Philippians 3:8b-9.

I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish in order that I might gain Christ, (9) and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.

When Paul says that he aims to be found “in [Christ], not having a righteousness of my own,” does he mean that the righteousness he hopes to have in Christ is the righteousness that consists in his own faith? That is highly unlikely, because therighteousness that he aims to have is his by virtue of being “in Christ” (ἐν αὐτῷ, en autō) and is said to be “through faith” (διὰ πίστεως, dia pisteōs) and “based on faith” (ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει, epi tē pistei). The conceptual framework here is not that faith is our righteousness, but that, because of faith, we are united to Christ in whom we have a righteousness “from God” (τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ, tēn ek theou). This too supports our earlier conclusion that imputed righteousness is not “righteousness that consists in our faith,” but rather an external “righteousness credited to us because of our faith.”

More on the NPP

A while ago, I posted a link to Daniel Wallace's excellent article on the New Perspective on Paul, a review of N. T. Wright's understanding of justification in the context of Paul's epistle to the Romans. Maybe I'm a little behind the curve on this next one, but I just stumbled across Ligonier Ministries' February 2010 Tabletalk, a collection of articles written by [who I consider to be] some of the the most respected Protestants against the NPP. Sproul, Piper, Fesko, Carson, Ferguson, Horton, Schreiner, and more on justification and in one location? Yes, please. You can read the articles here.

John Piper on Romans 9

John Piper's exegesis of Romans 9 exemplifies the Reformed understanding of God's Sovereignty, and his concluding chapter superbly summarizes his thesis. The question upon which the whole of his reflections on the chapter were predicated he expresses thusly:

"The roots of this study go back to my perplexity about how Rom 9:15 (“For God says to Moses: I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy and I will be gracious to whomever I will be gracious”) could be an argument (γαρ) for Rom 9:14 (“There is no unrighteousness with God, is there? No indeed!”). How could this quote from Ex 33:19 support Paul’s assertion of God’s righteousness? What is Paul’s justification of God?” [1]

Before he proceeds in detailing precisely how Paul’s argument follows, Piper examines the contextual background which prompted Paul to consider an imaginary objection to God’s righteousness. In Romans 9:1-5, Paul acknowledges that his kinsmen have – by and large – rejected the gospel. In 9:6-8, he anticipates an objection to the truthfulness of the gospel on the grounds that it has failed to procure Old Testament promises by purporting a distinction between the nation of Israel and the children of promise. That Paul is clearly speaking of individual salvation, then, is indisputable (cf. 9:24-10:4).

To support this contention, Paul is prompted to cite an Old Testament example of God’s freedom to distribute soteric grace in whatever manner He sees fit; that is, His election of men is unconditioned. That in its original context the prophet Malachi used Esau and Jacob to represent nations is in nowise an insuperable objection to the argument that Paul is, in the context of Romans 9, referring to a salvific election of the twins, for Paul regularly uses Old Testament passages to suit his purposes (Romans 3:9-12, cf. Psalm 14) and, as was mentioned, in the context of Romans 9 Paul is chiefly concerned with addressing the eternal destiny of the Jews.

Upon consideration of these things, Piper then phrases as follows an objection to which we may imagine Paul replies in 9:14:

“Between Rom 9:13 and 14 we may imagine an objection being raised. It apparently sounded like this: if God, in determining who will be the beneficiaries of his mercy, does not base his decisions on any human distinctives that a person may claim by birth or effort, then he is unrighteous. The assumption seems to be that divine righteousness would require that God elect persons on the basis of their real and valuable distinctives, whether racial (Jewishness) or moral (keepers of the law).” [2]

Of course, Paul denied God is unrighteous, so, upon quoting Exodus 33:19 as his premise for such a conclusion, Piper begs the question: how does this passage function as a evidence that God is righteous? The thesis of Piper’s book begins to form as he examines the context of the Old Testament citation. He notes that God’s glory is connected to His name and goodness such that, in reply to Abraham’s appeal to God to show His glory, one sees:

“…God’s glory and his name consist fundamentally in his propensity to show mercy and his sovereign freedom in its distribution. Or to put it more precisely, it is the glory of God and his essential nature mainly to dispense mercy (but also wrath, Ex 34:7) on whomever he pleases, apart from any constraint originating outside his own will. This is the essence of what it means to be God. This is his name.” [3]

Hence, the question of God’s justification in unconditional election shifts to relating in what sense God’s righteousness is connected to His glory and name. Piper’s thesis, revealed halfway through his book, is that “the righteousness of God must be his unswerving commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory.” [4] In other words, by citing Exodus 33:19 to vindicate God’s right to love Jacob and hate Esau prior to either having done any work, Paul argues that such a sovereign display of power is in accordance with God’s eternal purpose, which is to manifest the riches of His glory to those who are His vessels of mercy by means of mercy, a display only possible against a backdrop of execution of justice on vessels of wrath (cf. 9:22-23). God’s righteousness, then, consists in His upholding that which infinitely worthy (viz. His glory).

In order to assess the validity of such a thesis, Piper examines whether or not Paul indicates such an understanding of God’s righteousness elsewhere in Romans, and concluded that there is indeed precedent for this belief. 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.

Concluding the witness to the veracity of his thesis is Piper’s study of the following verses of Romans 9. He particularly notes verses 16-18, in which Paul again references Exodus:

“Here the scope of God’s freedom to show mercy and to harden was described in more detail and the reference in Rom 9:17 to God’s purposes in dealing with Pharaoh was found to cohere remarkably with our interpretation of Ex 33:19. In 9:17 Paul cites Ex 9:16: “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: For this very thing I raised you up, that I might show in you my power and that I might proclaim my name in all the earth.” It can scarcely be overemphasized, for the sake of Paul’s justification of God, that in Rom 9:15 and 17 Paul employs Old Testament texts in which the exercise of God’s sovereign freedom, in mercy (33:19) and in hardening (Ex 9:16), is the means by which he declares the glory of his name! This is the heart of Paul’s defense: in choosing unconditionally those on whom he will have mercy and those whom he will harden God is not unrighteous, for in the “electing purpose” he is acting out of a full allegiance to his name and esteem for his glory.” [5]

1. John Piper, The Justification of God, (Baker Academic, 1993), pg. 217.

2. Ibid., pg. 218.

3. Ibid., pgs. 218-219.

4. Ibid., pg. 219.

5. Ibid., pg. 219.