Dec
23
2009
Justification – Declared Righteous (Romans 5:1)
[Editor's Note: Pastor Colin Smith continues his Christmas season devotional to help you reflect on Jesus’ glory by taking a broad look at all that God has promised and accomplished in Him. The readings follow the pattern of his current sermon series, “The Plan: God’s Design For the Universe and Your Place In It.” You can read, hear or watch these sermons as they are posted at Unlocking the Bible.]
***
Take a moment to savor the blessing of justification that is yours in Jesus Christ. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God (Romans 5:1).
Justified is a legal word. Rather like “sentenced” or “condemned,” it describes a verdict. When God justifies, He declares or pronounces a person to be righteous. When He condemns, He pronounces a person guilty.
Justification and condemnation are about declaring, or recognizing something that is already true. When justice prevails, an innocent man will be acquitted and a guilty man will be sentenced.
Being acquitted does not make a man innocent; it is the man’s innocence that leads to him being acquitted. Being sentenced does not make a man a criminal, it is the man’s crime that leads to him being sentenced.
As a matter of simple justice, we should expect God to condemn sinners and justify the righteous. But here is something truly amazing: God justifies sinners.
Try to let that massive contradiction sink into your mind. God justifies sinners! How can God do that?
God presented Jesus as a propitiation for our sins (Romans 3:25). That means that when Jesus died, all the anger and hostility that God rightly has towards sin, wickedness, and evil was poured out on Him. God’s judgment was like a cup poured out, and Jesus drank all of it. At the cross Christ absorbed the judgment of God that was due to us because of our sin.
Faith unites you to Christ, and when you are “in Christ” God counts all your sin as His, and all His righteousness as yours. He bore your condemnation, and you are justified in Him. Through the cross, God demonstrated His justice so as to be just and, at the same time, the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus (Roman 3:26).
If God only justified godly people, how could we have any hope? But God justifies sinners. Through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we are forgiven and declared righteous by faith in His blood.
Thomas Chalmers used to say, “What would I do if God did not justify the ungodly?” Thank God for that amazing grace that is yours in Christ today.
26 Comments
Whether you publish or not, there is neither faith nor justification without identifying ourselves with Christ in Spirit-baptism at His death on the cross. No way! (Rom. 6: 1-5)
James 2 (you are justified by what you do, not by faith alone) seems to many people to contradict Paul (you are justified by faith, apart from works). Actually, they both agree with each other… though perhaps not in the way you think.
There are many today who preach Romans 3:28 hard and fast (“man is justified by faith apart from works”), but they forget to mention that the passage continues with “of the law.” The context of Romans 3 and 4 is “works of the law”, the Old Testament law. Paul so often spoke of how the works of the law will not justify us because he so often ministered to Jews. For instance, see Acts 13:39 where Paul preached, “Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.” Just like the context of James shows he is talking about saving justification (“can such faith save him”), the context of Paul shows he is talking about specific works (“works of the law”). Paul is not saying that no works at all are necessary! By no means!
Paul’s works (the law) and James’ works (love) are two types of works that are very different. Although the command to love is in the law (Lev. 19:18, Deut. 6:5), love also exists outside of the law. Unlike any other command in the law, love is what the law “hangs on” (Matthew 22:40). Love exists outside of the law. Christ came and ended the law (Romans 10:4), providing salvation through faith and the opportunity for righteousness and eternal life to those who were trying to be justified through the law. However, don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that Christ also ended love! We are indeed justified in God by loving God and each other. Faith that doesn’t love will save no one.
The idea that works of love do not justify us is an invention of man. That is not what Scripture teaches. It is a distortion of Paul. Click on my name to see my website. Then click doctrine to read more about justification.
No, Paul doesn’t just exclude works of the Jewish law. He primarily addresses works of the Jewish law, since Christianity came from Judaism and since his opponents were focused on those works. But he also excluded other works.
In Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25, for example, Paul comments that there isn’t any system of works whereby we can be justified. In Romans 9:11-13, he defines works so broadly as to include anything good or bad that a person does. That passage is addressing Jacob and Esau, who lived prior to the Mosaic law. And when Paul offers an alternative to works, whether works of the Jewish law or others, the alternative is faith, not faith combined with some other type of work. It wouldn’t make sense to assume that works are included when Paul and other Biblical authors mention faith without mentioning anything else. Paul cites Genesis 15:6 to illustrate his view, and all that Abraham does there is believe (sola fide). Not only does Abraham not do any works of the Jewish law in that passage, but he doesn’t do works of any other type there either. That’s why scripture repeatedly refers to people as forgiven, attaining peace, etc. as soon as they believe, before baptism or any other work is added to their faith (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, Acts 10:44-46, Galatians 3:2, etc.). People are justified through a means within the heart (Acts 15:7-11, Romans 10:10), which excludes every system of works, not just works of the Jewish law.
Interesting comments Jason. I agree with what you said but, along with different works, I think they might also have a different justification in mind.
Paul it seems is the only NT writer to use ‘justify’ as a technical term for God’s act of accepting sinners when they believe. When James speaks of ‘being justified’, he appears to be suing the word in its more general sense of being vindicated, or proved genuine and right before God and men, in face of possible doubt as to whether one was all that one professed, or was said, to be. For someone to be justified in this sense, is for him to be shown a genuine believer, one who will demonstrate his faith by action. This justification is, in effect, a manifesting of the justification that concerns Paul. James quotes Genesis 15:6 for the same purpose as Paul does – to show that it was faith that secured Abraham’s acceptance. But now, he argues, this statement was ‘fulfilled’ (confirmed, shown to be true, and brought to its appointed completion by events) 30 years later, when ‘Abraham was justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the alter’ (v.21). By this his faith was ‘made perfect’, i.e. brought o due expression in appropriate actions; thus he was shown to be a true believer. The case of Rahab is parallel (v. 25). James’ point in this paragraph is simply that ‘faith’, i.e. a bare orthodoxy, such as devils have (v.19), unaccompanied by good works, provides no sufficient grounds for inferring that a man is saved.
It is like two men walking through a gate, up a driveway, to the front door. They both get to the door and ask one another, “How did you get here? One guy answers, “Through the gate,” the other guy says, “I came up the driveway.” You see they both entered the gate (Paul’s Justification) and both came up the driveway (James’ Justification), yet both had different explanation on how they got to the door. This makes perfect sense when we remember what the author’s (Paul and James) are arguing for. Paul is arguing for Christian faith, against Jewish works. James is arguing against Jewish faith (cf. 2:19), for Christian works. Justification never ceases to be true throughout a Christian’s life; if you were justified yesterday, you will be justified in the future, and will be justified now in the present. This present Justification will bear fruit if it is true. The authors should be seen to complement each other, not contradict.
Just a thought. Im willing to be wrong on this. I have struggled with this one for a while.
Jason Engwer,
God’s peace to you. Romans 9:11-13 is about election, not about justification. You can read the context and see this as obviously as night and day. As far as election is concerned, read the end of chapter 8 (because Paul’s letter had no chapter breaks). You will see that God’s predestination precedes God’s calling, but also God’s foreknowledge precedes His predestination. The election and predestination of people based on God’s foreknowledge has nothing to do with whether or not we are justified by works. God’s election cannot be based on what people do, because God fornew everyone’s works before they ever did them. Nonetheless, justification can be based on what people do… and indeed it is based on what people do because James said it is. Election is a different baby. If you want to discuss what Paul thinks about justification, stick to passages where Paul talks about justification.
When Paul talks about “justification” and works, he always talks about works of the law of Moses. Works like circumcision. Always. Without fail. When James talks “justification” and works, he specifically talks about love and lists works that are not in the law of Moses. Paul and James are talking about justification by different works.
You are wrong. We are indeed justified by what we do. One of the most ironic things about Western Christianity is that it teaches people to not depend on works for eternal life, but instead to just believe. This is so dangerous (and terribly ironic) because even Jesus Christ Himself told people who believed in Him the same thing his brother James did. Read John 8:30-35. Jesus told new believers that they had to follow his teachings in the future to truly be set free from sin. He said if they sinned, they would not be God’s family forever. If they kept away from sin, they would be in God’s family forever. Read it. Believe it.
Paul Johnson,
God’s peace to you. You said, “if you were justified yesterday, you will be justified in the future, and will be justified now in the present.” The Bible does not teach that anywhere. Instead it says, “Anyone born of God does not continue to sin.” (1 John 5:18) Some people say you are “born again” when you believe. That is not what the bible says. That is what their tradition taught them. We, however, should cast aside tradition and believe Scripture when it tells us the way to truly know know who is born again and who is not. More on my website if you click my name above.
Jason
I have read some of your posts and web stuff and am frankly not very impressed with it (I say that with much love my friend). Your view of God is strikingly similar to Open Theism. Also you view of man is nothing short of Perfectionism. Two heresies that have been refuted in the past. It seems you are using an Alexandrian School hermeneutic and overemphasizing it; and forgetting to do Canonical hermeneutics. It seems you are trying to isolate Paul from James. Its ok to do that but sooner or later you are going to have to juxtapose the two. If they don’t add up something is wrong (i.e. they can’t be trusted). None of these post so far have been advocating Antinomianism but you seem to be taking it a step further; John also says, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8) So how can we be ‘Justified by our works’ and ‘not continue to sin’, when John says we are fools to say we have no sin and yes I understand the proto-Gnostic context of the passage. You often seem to be advocating a ‘works plus’ justification, something both James and Paul refute. I wish I could comment further on your stance about regeneration but don’t have time.
Grace.
Paul,
Grace and peace to you also my brother. If my views are ‘strikingly similar’ to something, it would be Eastern Christianity, the general group of faith that broke off from Roman Catholicism 500-600 years before Protestants got around to it. The thoughts I’m relating to you are nearly identical to what millions of Orthodox Christians have believed since their churches were first planted. They were planted (and still exist) in places like Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Galatia, Colossae, and Thessalonica… hopefully you’re getting the picture.
I am not isolating Paul from James. Paul isolates himself from James by always talking about different types of works from James when he talks about justification. This is clear from the text. Paul speaks of works of the law, written in the law; James speaks of works of love, which are outside the law, which Christ said the law hangs on. This is how Christianity understood the issue from the beginning. Luther and Calvin erred and tossed out the Orthodox baby with the Roman Catholic bathwater.
As far as 1 John 1:8, yes, it says we “have” (present tense) sin. You need to understand that present tense “have” does not always mean “you now literally possess it.” As Strong’s Concordance rightly says, present tense “have” can also mean “possession of the mind.” This is the same reason “sacrifice” in 1 John 2:2 is present tense. Read the letter with no chapter breaks, as it was written, and you’ll see this is how “present tense have” is being used in context.
Sacrifice is present tense in 2:2 not because He is always being sacrificed, but because we presently know of the sacrifice that occurred in the past. Likewise “have sin” is present tense, but that isn’t because we are always sinning… it is because we presently know of the sin that has occurred. If you look at 1 John 1:8 alone, it is unclear what it means. “Have” (present tense) can mean a few different things in Scripture. It could mean that we all possess sin in our minds, knowing now the sins we have done before. It could also mean that we all literally possess sin, and are sinning now. You have to look at the context.
Of course John knew the language better than any of us, and John of course knew of this potential source of confusion in construction. That is why John says virtually the same thing (only with past tense) in the very next verse (v9). He says this to clarify exactly what he is getting at. Then, just to overkill the point and drive it home with a jackhammer, he immediately he tells us the *entire point* he is writing all this in the very next verse (2:1): so we will not sin.
Paul. Seriously. He is writing this to us so we will not sin. Do you hear him? Believe him. If you miss that, you miss the entire point of why he is writing! He is writing *so we will not sin*. To take 1 John 1 and 2, twist it, and teach people with it that they *have* to be sinning regularly in order to be a Christian is a complete perversion of the Scriptures and of the Truth. Nonetheless, that false doctrine is the sickening reality in much of Western Christianity today.
The point I was making regarding Romans 9 is that a term like “works” can’t be assumed to be referring only to works of the Jewish law. You keep asserting that Paul only excludes works of the Jewish law, but you don’t demonstrate that assertion. And I cited much more evidence for my position than Romans 9.
My point was that *in the context of justification* Paul speaks of “works” as “works of the Jewish law.” My point was never that whenever Paul says the word “works” he is always speaking of the law and is never speaking of works of love. Paul speaks of “works” meaning “works of love” many times, and indeed likely does so in Romans 9.
My point has always been that, if you look at the surrounding context, the surrounding text, of the passages where Paul talks about *justification*, and where Paul talks about that justification being apart from works, he always is talking about the Jewish law. Also, any examples of works he lists *in those contexts* are always specific works from the Jewish law (especially circumcision).
You say I haven’t demonstrated this, but I have already listed more then ample evidence to show exactly what I’m talking about. Read it above or on my website http://www.acts420.com There is no need for me to re-type it here.
Election is a different topic. Romans 9 is not about justification, it is about election, and it is safe to say there is a lot of debate in Christianity about whether or not God’s election can be based on what he foreknew about our lives (before we did anything good or bad, but nonetheless based on what he foreknew about what we would do in response to His grace). Let’s just stick to the topic of justification and the passages where justification is in the specific context. Election is a different baby all together.
Again, I cited far more than Romans 9 in my earlier post, including passages that are specifically about justification. Your assumption that works are always defined as works of the Jewish law in justificatory contexts is unproven and dubious. And the Jewish law includes love and a recognition of dependence on God’s grace. The New Testament authors often repeat Old Testament commandments, such as the laws against coveting and dishonoring our parents, and apply them to Christians. Saying that love is above the law doesn’t change the fact that it’s part of the law, meaning that trying to be justified through works of love is a form of trying to be justified through the law. Replacing one system of works with another system of works as a means of justification fails to explain what the Bible teaches about how people are justified.
Grace and peace to you, Jason Engwer,
You cited Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25. See the surrounding verses of Romans 3 and you’ll see it is all about the works of the law, and examples are circumcision. Paul is talking about works of the Old law. You also cited Galatians 3:21:025. See the surrounding verses and you’ll see it is all about the old law also.
James plainly says works justify us… “we *are* justified by what we do. The context of James is works of love, with him citing works not listed in the law. His contextual question is, “can faith without works save?” He is talking about saving justification in the context. The context of Paul is works of the law of Moses. That is all throughout the context of any place Paul says we are not justified by works. Paul is talking about different works, works of the law… not works of love!
You say, “the Jewish law includes love.” Although the command to love is in the law, unlike *any* other command in the law, love is outside of the law. Love is outside of the law, being what the law “hangs on” (Matthew 22:40). When Christ came and ended the law (Romans 10:4), that does not mean he ended love. Love is outside the law.
You say, “Saying that love is above the law doesn’t change the fact that it’s part of the law, meaning that trying to be justified through works of love is a form of trying to be justified through the law.” Love being outside the law *certainly* does mean that justification through love is different from justification through the law. Christ said love was outside of the law for a reason. Also, Christ and all Apostles repeated the commands to love in the New Testament…. obviously signifying that we *do* have to love even though we *don’t* have to follow the law. We are indeed justified in God by loving God and each other. That is the entire point of James. You are ignoring the obvious and instead following vain traditions of men invented over a hundred generations after Christ. You have to strongly consider if the respect you know you would lose from your traditional peers is keeping you from acknowledging the obvious.
You say these truths are “unproven and dubious.” Well, there is no way to “proove” that you are right either. The evidence lies strongly in favor of my position. It is by no means dubious, but it has the most support in the text. It also is what millions of Orthodox Christians have believed since their churches were first planted. They were planted (and still exist) in places like Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Galatia, Colossae, and Thessalonica… hopefully you’re getting the picture. As far as “justification” is concerned, the reformers threw out the orthodox baby (justification) with the Roman Catholic bathwater (corruption, papal doctrine, etc.)
May God richly bless you.
Jason Davis
Acts420.com
Jason Davis,
You’re still ignoring much of the evidence I cited in my original post. Scripture gives us many descriptions of how individuals were justified, and we’re repeatedly told that they were justified as soon as they believed, through faith alone, not at the time when they later added works to their faith. I cited some examples in my original post, and many more could be cited. I also mentioned that justification is referred to as occurring through a means in the heart, which excludes outward works.
Your latest post mentions some of the evidence I cited, such as Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25, but without addressing the relevant information. I don’t deny that Paul refers to the Jewish law in the surrounding context. Christianity came out of Judaism, and Paul’s primary opponents were arguing for justification through the Jewish law. But the fact that Paul discusses the Jewish law in the surrounding context doesn’t prove that he’s only referring to that law in the passages I cited. You have to address the text, not just the context. In Romans 3:27, Paul is addressing laws in general. He’s asking what kind of law justifies. He isn’t limiting himself to the Jewish law. He denies that we’re justified through any law of works. You, on the other hand, claim that we’re justified through a law of works other than the Jewish law. Similarly, Galatians 3:21-25 tells us that there isn’t any law of works whereby we could be justified. Paul isn’t limiting himself to the Jewish law in that context. The alternative he discusses in both contexts, in both Romans and Galatians, is faith, not faith combined with works of love. To read your concept of works of love into every such reference to faith is a highly unlikely way to interpret Paul, and it makes no sense of the primary Old Testament passage Paul uses to illustrate what he’s saying (Genesis 15:6). All that Abraham does there is believe. Not only are works of the Jewish law absent, but so are your works of love.
You keep telling us that love is outside of the law, but that fact doesn’t change the fact that love is also within the law. Caring for the poor and other such works of love, like those James refers to in his epistle, are commanded or implied by the Jewish law.
You write:
“The evidence lies strongly in favor of my position. It is by no means dubious, but it has the most support in the text. It also is what millions of Orthodox Christians have believed since their churches were first planted. They were planted (and still exist) in places like Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Galatia, Colossae, and Thessalonica… hopefully you’re getting the picture. As far as ‘justification’ is concerned, the reformers threw out the orthodox baby (justification) with the Roman Catholic bathwater (corruption, papal doctrine, etc.)”
Actually, justification through faith alone was advocated by many sources between the apostles and the Reformation. See here.
And modern groups that claim a succession from the apostles widely contradict each other and contradict their own alleged predecessors. A Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox will agree with some portions of your false gospel of works, but he’ll also disagree with other portions of it. A Catholic will argue that the works we must do are determined by the Catholic hierarchy, for example, so that obedience to the Pope, attending mass, and other such works you reject are part of the means by which people are justified. Your gospel of works differs from the works gospels of other individuals and groups.
Jason Engwer, may God richly bless you.
You said, “You have to address the text, not just the context.” I agree. That is why I’m addressing the text *in the context*. You are addressing the text outside of the context.
For instance, you say, “Paul is addressing laws in general,” even though the context shows he is only talking about the Jewish law for nearly all of Romans 3 and 4. He talks about “the law”, not “the laws.” “The law” was a common way to refer to the law of Moses. Also, the works of the law he lists are all from the Jewish law. I would have to ignore the context to agree with your claim.
The same goes for Paul’s citation of Genesis 15:6 (Romans 4:9). For me to agree with you’re understanding of that quote, I would have to strip it out of its context. In its context it is clear that he is talking about faith apart from works of the law of Moses… again, see the work he says came not before but after (v9).
Also, you said, “…Eastern Orthodox will agree with some portions of your false gospel of works, but he’ll also disagree with other portions of it.” Then you only showed how a Roman Catholic would disagree with me. What Roman Catholics believe is irrelevant. I didn’t say Roman Catholics would agree with me. I said Eastern Orthodox would. The Eastern Orthodox have a somewhat different understanding of justification than Catholics, and their understanding is exactly as I am explaining to you and exactly as Scripture teaches… in context.
Scripture teaches what I beleive if you are willing to rely on the context of Scripture instead of your religious tradition.
God’s peace to you,
Jason Davis,
It’s not enough for you to argue that Paul “ is only talking about the Jewish law for nearly all of Romans 3 and 4”, since “nearly all” wouldn’t refute my argument or establish yours. I’ve agreed that Paul is primarily addressing the Jewish law, but addressing one type of work primarily isn’t inconsistent with addressing other types of work as well.
You still haven’t reconciled your view with Genesis 15:6. Since your works of love are absent from the passage, it doesn’t accomplish much for you to point out that works of the Jewish law are absent as well.
Regarding Eastern Orthodoxy, you haven’t offered any evidence that they define justifying works as you do. I don’t deny that there’s some overlap, as I said above. But that overlap doesn’t prove that your view and theirs (assuming you’re not Eastern Orthodox) are identical. Since Eastern Orthodoxy holds particular views of ecumenical councils, the veneration of images, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and other issues, they would consider acting in adherence to such beliefs to be part of what it means to act in love, in obedience to God. Do you agree with them? From what little I’ve seen of your web site, it doesn’t seem that you would. To the contrary, you seem to take positions on some moral issues that are different from what the large majority of professing Christians, including Eastern Orthodox, have traditionally believed.
Jason Engwer,
Peace to you. Actually, “the law” in Romans 3 and 4 always refers to the common name for the law of moses (“the law”) and not “the laws”. And again, Paul only cites works from the law of moses as examples. You are ignoring context in order to bolster your traditional interpretation.
The only place that “law” refers to a more general law of conscience is when Paul says (in ch. 2) “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.” There, again, “the law” refers to the law of moses. “A law” refers to the Gentile’s ethical consciences. Paul clarifies this by saying “a law” and contrasting it with “the law.” “The law” is what is written about in Romans 3 and 4.
Your point about Genesis 15:6 does not lend you any support to your position either. If works of love are absent from the passage that would be because Paul’s entire point is that we are *not* justified by works of the law. It is the same point he made in Acts 13:39.
You seem to be asking for evidence that Eastern Orthodoxy believes in justification by actions, not merely by faith. That is sort of like asking someone to “prove” that Protestants believe in salvation by faith apart from works. Local orthodoxy has a lot of independance. Anyway, See http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catechism_ext.htm for example. “Justification is a word used in the Scriptures to mean that in Christ we are forgiven and actually made righteous in our living. Justification is not a once-for-all, instantaneous pronouncement guaranteeing eternal salvation… neither is it merely a legal declaration that an unrighteous person is righteous. Rather, justification is a living, dynamic, day-to-day reality … the Christian actively pursues a righteous life.”
There is not much emphasis at all on justification in orthodoxy because they see salvation and justification as all part of the same thing… being made like Christ. It is something that occured, is occuring, and will continually occur. We do it by faith and by works, and of course all by the grace of God. As far as beliefs about Mary, different local bodies of orthodox Christians have differing beliefs. None of them see those beliefs as essential to salvation nor do they judge one another over them. The same goes for my positions on some moral issues.
I’ve had orthodox priests (both where I live and online) look over my website and they have approved of the essential matters. Even if a priest disagrees with me on something like illegal alcohol use during the 1920′s prohibition, moderate marijuana eating today, or premarital sexual intimacy in courtship (none of which I could call sin with a clear conscience), he wouldn’t judge me since I have support from Scripture and since I am sincere. He may or may not disagree with me. Nonetheless, the orthodox generally understand the fact that the conscience plays a huge role in disputable matters of Christianity. Paul teaches this in Romans 14, “But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean… the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and *everything* that does not come from faith is sin.” The Orthodoxy understand this and practice it in disputable matters.
The gospel of faith alone, without mention of salvation and justification by works, is not in line with orthodox Christianity. More importantly, it is not biblical. It is a creation and tradition of men. It poses the same danger posed by the Pharisees’ teachings (it can shut the door to the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces, Matthew 23:13). It risks convincing believers who continually sin that they are fine as long as they keep fighting sin. That is a lie that will send you to hell. See James 2. We are made righteous by works. To say otherwise is a distortion of Paul, who taught that we are justified apart from works *of the law of Moses* (Acts 13:39).
In 15 years as a Southern Baptist, I never once heard Romans 2:7-11 explained in any sermon, much less in any gospel presentation, even though it specifically mentions “eternal life”. They always read Romans 10:9, which doesn’t even mention “eternal life” specifically! This is a distortion of the truth. It leads many continually sinful believers to think they are going to heaven, effectively shutting the real door to heaven on them.
Jason Davis,
You keep citing verses other than the one I cited in Romans. You aren’t addressing the verses I cited in Galatians. You haven’t reconciled Genesis 15:6 with your belief in justification through works of love. And you’re still ignoring the passages I cited in my first response to you, in which people are referred to as having been justified when they believed, not when works were later added to their faith.
Concerning Romans 2, have you consulted any Evangelical commentaries on the subject, such as Douglas Moo’s (The Epistle To The Romans [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996])? Romans 2 is leading up to Romans 3, where Paul tells us that all of us have fallen short of the standard set out in chapter 2 (Romans 3:9-23). Our failure to be justified through works doesn’t lead us to a gospel of justification through works of love. Rather, it leads us to a gospel of justification through faith (Romans 3:27, Galatians 3:21-25).
You write:
“To say otherwise is a distortion of Paul, who taught that we are justified apart from works *of the law of Moses* (Acts 13:39).”
And the law of Moses included works of love. Paul also excluded Abraham’s circumcision from being a means of justification, and that circumcision came before the Mosaic law.
Furthermore, you keep misrepresenting the alternative Paul offers to justification through the Jewish law. The alternative, including in Acts 13:39 (the passage you cited) is faith, not faith and works of love.
Regarding Eastern Orthodoxy, you wrote:
“I’ve had orthodox priests (both where I live and online) look over my website and they have approved of the essential matters. Even if a priest disagrees with me on something like illegal alcohol use during the 1920’s prohibition, moderate marijuana eating today, or premarital sexual intimacy in courtship (none of which I could call sin with a clear conscience), he wouldn’t judge me since I have support from Scripture and since I am sincere. He may or may not disagree with me.”
I doubt you’d find many Eastern Orthodox clergy who would agree with your system of morality. And that means they don’t agree with your system of justification through works.
You didn’t address my specific citation of the perpetual virginity of Mary, but instead referred to “beliefs about Mary”. You ignored what I said about ecumenical councils and the veneration of images.
And I doubt that “Orthodox priests” (plural) have been taking the time to examine your web site in much detail and give you an assessment of it. If you’ve found some willing to take the time to do that, and they approved of “the essentials”, then I doubt they gave your site much attention, and I doubt they were including much in “the essentials”. Different people will define the essentials in different ways, but your rejection of popular Eastern Orthodox beliefs related to justification and your untraditional view of morality lessen the significance of your claim to agree with Orthodoxy on justification.
Dear Jason Engwer,
May God bless you with peace and wisdom. I have indeed addressed the verses you cited in Galatians. I already told you that the context surrounding them (and even *in* some of them) is “the law.” So why do you accuse me of “not even addressing them”? Just because you disagree with my take on the passages does not mean you can accuse me of “not even addressing” them.
As far as reconciling Genesis 15:6 with the fact that we are justified by what we do and not by faith alone, that is actually quite simple. Believing God is an act of love like anything else. We are commanded to believe God (1 John 3:23). Faith is one of God’s commands, and “this is love for God: to obey his commands.” (1 John 5:3). Believing is itself a work of love.
Nonetheless, Paul’s point in quoting Gen. 15 where he did, if you look at the context, was to show that Abraham was justified through faith, itself a work of love, before he ever did any works of the law (specifically circumcision). I am not ignoring any of your points. I have responded to all of them. I have even responded to your point that “love is a work of the law.” If you are in Christ, one day you will realize that love is also outside the law. Jesus himself said this, that the law hangs on love. Unlike any other command in the law, love is not only a work of the law but is also a work outside the law. Love is commanded even if the law never existed. God is love. Christ ended the law, He did not end love. We’ve been through this already. We don’t have to obey the law. We *do* have to love, because it is outside the law too.
I don’t have to sit here and listen to you tell me, ” I doubt that Orthodox priests have been taking the time to examine your web site in much detail and give you an assessment of it.” If you don’t believe me, what is the point in even talking to me? I’m telling you what I’ve done. I have had a local orthodox priest I worship with look at it, and I’ve also had other priests I know online look at it. They have been more than happy to comment to me *in detail*.
Since you doubt my word about the priests, that means you not believe me to be an honest person. Given that fact, there is no point in further discussion. Trust is essential to communication. So I’ll just leave you with a couple of very true verses for your reading pleasure.
“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right… What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?… You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?… A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
– The Apostle James, James 2:8,14,20,24
You cannot be justified by works of the law of Moses.
– Paul, Acts 13:39.
Jason Davis wrote:
“I have indeed addressed the verses you cited in Galatians. I already told you that the context surrounding them (and even *in* some of them) is ‘the law.’ So why do you accuse me of ‘not even addressing them’?”
For reasons I explained earlier. Paul can primarily address the Jewish law, yet address other systems of work as well. When I cite passages like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25 (“a law”, “a tutor”), which aren’t limited to the Jewish law, you aren’t addressing those passages by pointing us to other passages nearby that mention the Jewish law.
You write:
“As far as reconciling Genesis 15:6 with the fact that we are justified by what we do and not by faith alone, that is actually quite simple. Believing God is an act of love like anything else. We are commanded to believe God (1 John 3:23). Faith is one of God’s commands, and ‘this is love for God: to obey his commands.’ (1 John 5:3). Believing is itself a work of love.”
You’re contradicting yourself. Earlier, you contrasted faith with works of love:
“The idea that works of love do not justify us is an invention of man. That is not what Scripture teaches. It is a distortion of Paul.”
If faith is a work of love, and Protestants teach justification through that work of love, then why would you accuse them of believing that “works of love do not justify us”?
You also wrote:
“One of the most ironic things about Western Christianity is that it teaches people to not depend on works for eternal life, but instead to just believe.”
Again, you were contrasting works and faith.
You wrote:
“You seem to be asking for evidence that Eastern Orthodoxy believes in justification by actions, not merely by faith.”
You also claimed that James has your works of love in view when he writes about works and distinguishes them from faith. Again, you were distinguishing between faith and works of love. Yet, now you tell us that your position is that faith is itself a work of love.
Whatever you call faith, whether you call it a work of love or something else, the fact remains that we’re justified through faith, not through faith combined with something else.
You write:
“I am not ignoring any of your points. I have responded to all of them.”
No, you’ve repeatedly ignored multiple points I’ve made. I’ve already explained how you’ve ignored the relevant passages I cited in Romans 3 and Galatians 3. You’ve also ignored some of the points I made in my first post in the thread. See the closing sentences of my closing paragraph in that post.
Jason Engwer, may God grant you peace and mercy.
You wrote, “When I cite passages like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25 (”a law”, “a tutor”), which aren’t limited to the Jewish law, you aren’t addressing those passages by pointing us to other passages nearby that mention the Jewish law.”
Here again you boldy admit that you are ignoring the context of those passages in order to interpret them according to the tradition you were raised in. The context shows what “the law” is that Paul is talking about, and the context shows what “works” he is referring to. Ignoring the context in order to understand the passages is the most fundamental mistake anyone can make in rightly dividing the Word. That is how cults operate around the world. I’m not trying to insult you. Please understand that I have love for you. All I am saying is that anyone who is willing to ignore the context can make the Bible say whatever he wants it to say, given how many individual passages there are in the book.
For instance, take John 6:56. “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” Ignoring the context of hat passage could lead us to some very strange doctrines indeed! Instead, we must understand it in context to know that he is talking about spiritual eating… see verse 63 for that contextual interpretation.
I could name thousands of other similar examples. Nonetheless, here you are accusing me of “not addressing” your passages simply because I am putting them in context in order to properly understand them! I have addressed your passages. You simply don’t agree with my view of the context.
You wrote, “You’re contradicting yourself. Earlier, you contrasted faith with works of love.”
That is a straw man. I have never said faith is not a work of love. I have always maintained here that faith justifies us apart from works of the law of Moses, and I said, at the same time, that ultimately we are justified by works of love. Now you are falsely accusing me of “contradicting myself”, but those two statements are not in contradiction. This straw man has allowed you to ignore the entire point I made: the Bible teaches that faith is a work of love.
We are commanded to believe God (1 John 3:23). To love is to obey his commands. (1 John 5:3). Therefore, faith is itself an act of love. If you say we are justified by “faith alone” (apart from acts of love), you are the one that is contradicting yourself!
So do you believe me now that I’ve had orthodox priests look at my website? Or, instead, are you going to stand by your other false accusation against me? Earlier you said you “doubt” that I am being honest about getting comments from priests (even though you yourself have probably never gone to an orthodox church and talked to a priest yourself!)?
Here’s some advice. Before you make such an accusation of dishonesty toward someone who strives to have a name characterized by honesty and integrity, how about you verify it first. It would not be hard for you to take my website to a local orthodox priest in your area and ask him about what I’ve said here.
Proverbs 17:15 – Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both.
peace to you,
Jason
Jason Davis wrote:
“The context shows what ‘the law’ is that Paul is talking about, and the context shows what “works” he is referring to.”
You’re assuming that if Paul discusses the Jewish law, then he can’t refer to other systems of work elsewhere. That’s a ridiculous assumption. Let’s say a Republican is discussing the faults of the Democratic party. Then he makes a comment about how the Libertarian party and others have some similar faults. It would be irrational to claim that the fact that he’s primarily addressing the Democratic party proves that he couldn’t have referred to any other party.
The fact that you keep trying to avoid addressing the passages I cited in Romans 3 and Galatians 3 is revealing.
You write:
“I have never said faith is not a work of love.”
Then explain the comments I cited from your earlier posts.
You write:
“If you say we are justified by ‘faith alone’ (apart from acts of love), you are the one that is contradicting yourself!”
I’m not the one who’s been contradicting himself. You are. I haven’t denied that faith is an act and can be called a work in some contexts. See my discussion of the subject here, especially in the comments section of the thread. As I explained in my last post, categorizing faith as an act of love doesn’t change the fact that we’re justified through faith, not through faith combined with outward manifestations of that faith, whether you want to call them works of love or something else.
You write:
“So do you believe me now that I’ve had orthodox priests look at my website? Or, instead, are you going to stand by your other false accusation against me? Earlier you said you ‘doubt’ that I am being honest about getting comments from priests (even though you yourself have probably never gone to an orthodox church and talked to a priest yourself!)?”
You’re misrepresenting what I said. I said that I doubt that Orthodox priests “have been taking the time to examine your web site in much detail and give you an assessment of it”. I didn’t say that I doubt that priests have commented on your site, especially if they think you’re a potential convert. But I doubt that their examination of the site was deep enough to have much significance.
You write:
“Here’s some advice. Before you make such an accusation of dishonesty toward someone who strives to have a name characterized by honesty and integrity, how about you verify it first. It would not be hard for you to take my website to a local orthodox priest in your area and ask him about what I’ve said here.”
Actually, you’ve just sinned by misrepresenting what I said.
Dear Jason Engwer, may God grant you peace.
I’m perfectly willing to agree to disagree with you. You, on the other hand, continually tell me that I’m not “addressing” the passages you cited. However, I’ve already addressed them many times.
I keep telling you over and over again that I beleive the context shows that Paul is talking about works of the law, works of the law of Moses. You think Paul is talking about all works when he says we are justified apart from works. That is where we disagree. We have both “addressed” the passages. There is no sense in accusing one another of “not addressing” the passages. We’ve both addressed them. We just disagree on the contextual interpretation. That is all.
Once again, you have asked me to explain how I can say we are justified by works of love (James 2:24) while also believing faith justifies us (Gen. 15:6). As I said above, “I have never said faith is not a work of love.” Still, again, you again ask me to explain how this fits in with what I’ve said above.
So here, again, is the explaination. I have always maintained here that faith justifies us apart from works of the law of Moses. At the same time, I maintain that we are justified by works of love. You are accusing me of “contradicting myself”, but those two statements are not in contradiction. They do not contradict because faith is a work of love. We are commanded to believe God (1 John 3:23). To love is to obey his commands. (1 John 5:3). Therefore, faith is itself an act of love.
Faith justifies us just like the works that James lists in James 2 justify us. Just because Paul says faith justifies us apart from the law of Moses does not mean that nothing else also justifies us. James clearly says there are other works of love (besides faith) that justify us (read James 2:24).
You have simply chosen not to believe James. This is the same error Martin Luther made. You make the same error, probably because you were brought up in the tradition that follows Luther and his ilk (Protestantism). The truth is that Paul focuses on the work of faith because faith is what saves us from the law, that is Paul’s narrowed in focus. When we believe Christ, we beleive the law is ended. That is because Christ ended the law. That is Paul’s focus in those passages. James focuses, instead, on faith and other works of love because James is speaking more broadly. All works of love justify us, faith included.
I have not contradicted myself, nor have I misrepresented what you said. I am saying orthodox priests looked at and commented on my website in detail. I have spoken to them personally. You haven’t spoken to them at all, and yet you have told me you doubt that they have taken “the time to examine your web site in much detail and give you an assessment of it.” I’m telling you that they commented to me about it in detail. I had detailed conversations with them about it. By saying you doubt they examined it in much detail, you are doubting my word.
All that is a side issue though. Here is the truth:
“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right… What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?… You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?… A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
– The Apostle James, James 2:8,14,20,24
You cannot be justified by works of the law of Moses.
– Paul, Acts 13:39.
May God richly bless you,
Jason Davis,
No, you haven’t addressed what I cited in Romans 3 and Galatians 3. Instead, you’ve addressed nearby verses and have asserted, without argument, that the verses I cited must be referring to the same system of works. You’ve also ignored some of my other arguments, including ones I mentioned as early as my first post in this thread.
Your claim that faith is a work of love is inconsistent with your earlier arguments. That may explain why you aren’t attempting to reconcile your recent comments with the ones I quoted from your earlier posts.
In addition to being inconsistent with your earlier arguments, your latest comments are often ambiguous, such as when you say that “faith is what saves us from the law”. Do you believe that a person is justified (is forgiven of his sins, receives the Holy Spirit, etc.) at the time he believes? Or only when outward manifestations of that faith, such as the ones James refers to, have been added to faith later?
Have you read any Protestant scholarship on James? Or read any Protestant’s explanation of how he reconciles Paul with James?
Jason Engwer, may god richly bless you.
You wrote, “you haven’t addressed what I cited in Romans 3 and Galatians 3. Instead, you’ve addressed nearby verses…“.
My brother, to say I haven’t addressed those passages is the same as saying I “haven’t addressed” John 6:56. Your logical basis for saying I “have not addressed” the passages is that I used nearby verses to interpret them. One could argue, on that same logical basis you are arguing with, that because I interpret John 6:56 according to John 6:63, I have not addressed John 6:56.
For instance, again, take John 6:56. “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” Ignoring the context of that passage could lead us to some very strange doctrines indeed! Instead, we must understand it in context to know that he is talking about spiritual eating… see verse 63 for that contextual interpretation. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit.” (so Christ’s words are spiritual, not physical… he is talking about spiritual flesh)
Using the same logical basis you are using to accuse me of “not addressing” the passages, you could also say I am “not addressing” John 6:56. Most likely, the only reason you believe I have addressed John 6:56 is because you tend to agree with my interpretation of that verse. Most likely, the only reason you say I have not addressed your Romans/Galatians passages is because you tend to disagree with my interpretation. I have addressed your passages. You just disagree with my contextual interpretation. That is all.
You are accusing me of “not addressing” your passages simply because I am putting them in context in order to properly understand them! I have addressed your passages. You simply don’t agree with my view of the context. And you don’t believe James.
“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right… What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?… You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?… A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
– The Apostle James, James 2:8,14,20,24
You cannot be justified by works of the law of Moses.
– Paul, Acts 13:39.
You wrote, “Your claim that faith is a work of love is inconsistent with your earlier arguments.” In my last post just above this one, I addressed this alleged “inconsistency.” Unless you actually respond to my counter argument, this will simply turn into a childish “you did not” / “yes I did” argument. That is pointless.
You wrote, “Do you believe that a person is justified (is forgiven of his sins, receives the Holy Spirit, etc.) at the time he believes? Or only when outward manifestations of that faith, such as the ones James refers to, have been added to faith later? “[sic] My belief about justification is very similar to the orthodox christian belief about it. Justification is an aspect of theosis in orthodox Christianity. In other words, it is just another part of the process by which the individual is united to Christ and the life of Christ is reproduced within him. Thus, in one sense, justification is very much like salvation itself. Salvation is something that happened in the past, in the present, and the future. Salvation itself is a process that cannot be said to be entirely contained in a certain point of time. Ephesians 2:8-9 refers to Christians having been saved in the past, initial salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:18 refers to Christians presently being saved, present salvation. Romans 5:9 tells Christians that they will be saved, future salvation. James says we are justified by what we do. It is a continual process.
So yes, faith justifies us (just like any other work of love). But once it justifies us, our justification is not complete. It is a process. The only way to know if someone has been born again is if they stop *intentionally* sinning. If you don’t believe me because your tradition taught you otherwise, than read these two verses apart from your tradition.
- 1) “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire.” (Hebrews 10:26) Also, more importantly,
- 2) “No one who is born of God will continue to sin… This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are…” (1 John 3:9,10)
You wrote, “Have you read any Protestant scholarship on James? Or read any Protestant’s explanation of how he reconciles Paul with James?” Yes, my dear brother, of course I have. The only reason I didn’t answer this question of yours earlier is because of space. And I won’t answer it completely here because if I listed all the protestant authors and scholars I’ve read on that subject it would make this thread much longer. To see how I treat the most common arguments the people you are referring to make, go to my website acts420.com, click on the link to doctrine, and then read the entire piece I wrote on “justification.” There is no sense in me re-producing it here.
May God richly bless you,
Jason Davis wrote:
“Using the same logical basis you are using to accuse me of ‘not addressing’ the passages, you could also say I am ‘not addressing’ John 6:56….You are accusing me of ‘not addressing’ your passages simply because I am putting them in context in order to properly understand them!”
If you interpreted John 6:56 only by means of other verses nearby, then that would be an unreasonable approach to take. What we do, instead, is combine the text and context. If Jesus is addressing spiritual hunger and thirst and spiritual means of satisfying that hunger and thirst in the nearby context and John 6:56 itself doesn’t suggest a change in subject, then it’s reasonable to interpret verse 56 as discussing the same issue. It wouldn’t be enough to just point to the nearby context. The verse in question would have to be examined as well, to judge whether it’s continuing the discussion in the nearby context or addressing something else. When John 6:1-26 refers to physical hunger and physical bread, we don’t conclude that Jesus had to be referring to the same later in the chapter. Rather, we allow for the possibility of a shift in the discussion. And when a verse like John 6:27 suggests such a change, we don’t take verses 1-26 as some sort of controlling context that overturns anything the text itself might suggest later in the chapter. Similarly, when Romans 3:27 refers to kinds of law, the text of the passage tells us that Paul is addressing multiple laws at that point, not just the Jewish law. To use the earlier context to justify ignoring what the text of verse 27 suggests wouldn’t make sense. The same is true of Galatians 3:21-25. If you were consistent in your method of interpretation, you should let the opening verses of John 6 define every reference to food later in the chapter. But you aren’t consistent.
You write:
“The only way to know if someone has been born again is if they stop *intentionally* sinning.”
When we’re impatient or proud, when we lust or are careless or sin in some other way, it’s not as though we don’t know that such behavior is sinful. Jesus often rebuked His disciples for not believing what He had told them, not trusting Him when they should have known that He was trustworthy, etc. Yet, He still refers to them as though they’re justified. Similarly, when Paul rebukes the Corinthians for sins such as strife and jealousy, yet refers to them as “in Christ” at the same time (1 Corinthians 3:1-3), it’s not as though they weren’t aware of the fact that behavior such as strife and jealousy are wrong. The author of Hebrews rebukes his audience for needing to be reminded of what they were already taught (Hebrews 5:11-6:3), so they weren’t ignorant of what he was addressing. Yet, he allows for their justified status. Similarly, Paul had already taught the Galatians the true gospel, yet he rebukes them for being unfaithful to that gospel. They weren’t sinning in ignorance, yet he allows for their ongoing status as justified Christians. Etc. The Bible explicitly and frequently contradicts your position. And if you’re going to refer me to your web site for further evidence of your position, then I’ll refer you to the many Protestant commentaries and other sources that address passages like the ones you’ve cited from Hebrews and 1 John.
Dear Jason Engwer,
May God richly bless you with all peace and wisdom.
You said, “ If you interpreted John 6:56 only by means of other verses nearby, then that would be an unreasonable approach to take.” I agree. The closer verses are the first ones you should look at, and then you should (indeed you must) look at other verses also, and then, finally, you must take Scripture as a whole into count. You and I agree here. Proximity and context are both things to take into account as you balance all the factors that go into the interpretation of a passage.
You said, “when Romans 3:27 refers to kinds of law, the text of the passage tells us that Paul is addressing multiple laws at that point, not just the Jewish law.” Paul says in Romans 3:27, “By what law? of works? No: by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” The problem with your logic here (in my view) is that Paul answers what law he is referring to, and you are ignoring his answer. In other words, he doesn’t just ask “what law” and let his readers assume he is referring to various general laws. Rather, Paul answers the question with: “the law”. Paul answers that he is talking about “the law.” The common short-hand term he and his audience used to refer to “the law of Moses” was “the law.” Therefore, even here, Paul was ultimately talking about the law of Moses.
You said, “When we’re impatient or proud, when we lust or are careless or sin in some other way, it’s not as though we don’t know that such behavior is sinful.” Wrong. Sometimes it is as though we don’t know, sometimes it isn’t. In other words, whenever a man sins he either knows what he is doing is wrong or he doesn’t know. That is the difference between willful or “deliberate” sin and non-willful or “unintentional” sin. “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire.” (Hebrews 10:26) If we sin unintentionally, we are forgiven. For Christ asked His Father, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,” and Christ and the Father are one.
The hard part is determining when a sin is intentional and when it isn’t. The only way to judge that is if we confront a brother multiple times with his sin to correct him, if he acknowledges the sinfulness, and then if he refuses to correct himself. In Matthew 18:14-16, Christ says to go to a brother with his sin more than once before treating him like an unbeliever.
As for me, I do not anything I know to be sin. I do not sin deliberately. That is how we must live. I live my life that way because “Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” (1 John 2:6).
When Jesus rebuked his disciples, he never said if they were doing it intentionally or not. Also, we do not know when each of them were each born again. It was probably a different time for each of them. The same goes for Paul. He wrote to the Corinthians as a whole, and he rebuked the one’s who were sinning. They were not all necessarily sinning, he just rebuked them as a whole since he was writing as a whole. Even if there wasn’t a single one of them that living righteously, Paul still does not say if he believed they were intentionally sinning. Paul was correcting them.
As far as the Galatians, you do not know whether or not they were sinning intentionally. Paul doesn’t say. He calls them “fools”, which implies they may have been fooled by someone (unintentional, mistaken, foolish sin). What would imply that he knew they intended sin would be if he had called them “hypocrites”. That is what Christ called the Pharisees, for they knew what they should do, they preached it to others, then they did differently. That is intentional sin.
As far as Hebrews, the writer rebuked them for still being “babies” and for being “dull.” That is like being a “foolish child” without understanding. All this also implies unintentional sin. Even if warned about something, someone may not understand it at first. There is no way for us to know for sure. However, babies tend to be viewed as innocent. God is a loving Father, He is so merciful toward our non-willful, unintentional sins. Think of what even you, a mere man, would do if someone gave your infant child a loaded pistol and he shot someone. Death penalty for the unintentional sin? No! And that is also so often how God views us when we don’t understand something.
You said, “if you’re going to refer me to your web site for further evidence of your position” I referred you to my website because you asked me if I had read Protestant commentaries. The short answer is “Yes”. I have spent 15 years as deeply involved as a Protestant, and I spent 3 years of my life debating Catholics to “prove” to them that justification was by “faith alone”. You don’t have to read my website if you don’t want to. You didn’t ask me why I reject the Protestant position now. You asked me if I had read it.
God’s peace and love to you,
Jason Davis,
Earlier, you wrote:
“The only place that ‘law’ refers to a more general law of conscience is when Paul says (in ch. 2) ‘when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.’ There, again, ‘the law’ refers to the law of moses. ‘A law’ refers to the Gentile’s ethical consciences. Paul clarifies this by saying ‘a law’ and contrasting it with ‘the law.’ ‘The law’ is what is written about in Romans 3 and 4.”
Paul is addressing more than one type of law in Romans 3:27. Similarly, he refers to “a law” in Galatians 3:21 and “a tutor” in Galatians 3:25. He’s asking what system, principle, law, means, etc. results in justification. In Romans 3:27, he asks whether we’re justified through a system of works. Your answer to that question is “Yes.” Paul’s answer is “No.” The alternative Paul goes on to affirm is faith, not works of love. Your contrast is between works of the Jewish law and works of love. Paul’s contrast is between works and faith. Similarly, Paul tells us in Galatians 3:21-25 that we’ve been shut up to faith, not shut up to works of love. In both letters, Paul uses Abraham in Genesis 15:6 to illustrate his point, and all that Abraham does there is believe, the sort of faith alone that you condemn in Protestantism. He excludes Abraham’s works, even though Abraham lived before the Mosaic law, and he refers to work done by an employee (Romans 4:4), once again demonstrating that he didn’t just have works of the Jewish law in mind. Even though the Jewish law was highly relevant to early Christianity, because Christianity came out of Judaism and many of Paul’s opponents argued for justification through the Jewish law, Paul also excludes other types of work in the process of writing about justification. Just as Paul can use a term like “law” to refer to more than the Jewish law in Romans 2, as you’ve acknowledged, he does the same in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3.
As I explained in my first post in this thread, the correctness of my reading of Paul is illustrated by the many Biblical examples of people being justified as soon as they believe, before there are any outward manifestations of that inner faith. See the examples I cited in my first post and the other examples discussed in the articles I’ve linked in this thread. If you want to argue that there’s some second form of justification that involves justification through those outward manifestations of faith, then you’ll have to argue for that position. Works are vindicatory, much as wisdom is vindicated (justified) by her children (Luke 7:35), and James speaks of justification through works in that sense, distinguishing between true and false faith. But as James reminds us (a point also made by Paul), Abraham’s works of faith were only a vindication of the right relationship with God he already had through faith (James 2:23).
Concerning intentional sin, you wrote:
“As far as the Galatians, you do not know whether or not they were sinning intentionally. Paul doesn’t say. He calls them ‘fools’, which implies they may have been fooled by someone (unintentional, mistaken, foolish sin). What would imply that he knew they intended sin would be if he had called them ‘hypocrites’. That is what Christ called the Pharisees, for they knew what they should do, they preached it to others, then they did differently. That is intentional sin. As far as Hebrews, the writer rebuked them for still being ‘babies’ and for being ‘dull.’ That is like being a ‘foolish child’ without understanding.”
The Pharisees, the example you’ve cited, are also referred to as fools, blind, not having ears to hear, etc. (Matthew 15:14, 23:17, Luke 11:40, etc.). It doesn’t follow that they’re comparable to the infant in your gun analogy.
In the examples of sin in the Christian life that I cited in my last post, people are being addressed as Christians, and they’re being rebuked. They were erring on matters that would have been common knowledge in the early Christian communities (the sinfulness of jealousy and strife, unfaithfulness to the gospel after having been instructed about the gospel by Paul, etc.). To use your analogy of an infant with a gun, we wouldn’t rebuke such an infant the way Paul rebukes the Corinthians, the way the author of Hebrews rebukes his audience, etc.
Since you mention hypocrisy, Paul refers to Peter and other Christians as acting hypocritically in Galatians 2:13-14. Unlike your interpretations of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and other Biblical documents, Paul doesn’t assume that Peter and those other Christians sinned in some sort of unintentional way. Rather, he publicly rebukes them, suggesting that they knew better than to do what they did, and he assumes that Peter has been justified (Galatians 2:16) and doesn’t question his status as a Christian.
Your point about the audiences of the New Testament letters doesn’t address the passages I cited. Even if only a minority of the members of the community receiving a letter were involved in a particular sin, the fact remains that those involved in the sin are referred to as Christians. And when Paul or some other author seems to be addressing his audience in general when he refers to their sin, it’s probably because a majority was involved in the sin. Individuals and minority groups can be distinguished from the majority of a community (1 Corinthians 5:1-3, etc.). When Paul addresses a group like the Galatians as if they were sinning in general, that’s probably because the sin in question was committed by a majority of them, not a minority.
Regarding the justification of the apostles, see Matthew 19:28, John 13:10, and the many other passages in which Jesus speaks of the apostles as redeemed, refers to their future in Heaven, etc. Yet, the same men, sometimes even in the nearby context, would be rebuked for unbelief, were arguing among themselves about who was the greatest among them, would abandon Jesus at the time of His arrest, denied knowing Him multiple times, etc.
To defend your claim that you “do not sin deliberately”, you would have to qualify that assessment so much as to make it insignificant. James writes that we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2), and he makes that comment in the context of discussing the stricter judgment that will be faced by teachers (James 3:1). The implication is that the stumbling he refers to includes erring on matters we’re knowledgeable about, even matters we teach to other people.
You refer to how the Pharisees “preached it to others”, but a person doesn’t have to be a teacher in order to be highly knowledgeable. You’re literate, you have easy access to the Bible, you participate in online forums related to Biblical matters, etc. Much the same is true of many other people, regardless of whether they’ve had a leadership role like that of the Pharisees. Early Christians like the Corinthians and the Galatians had been taught by the apostles themselves. They had access to the Old Testament and, sometimes, at least some portions of the New Testament. The idea that they were ignorant of the commandments against sins like jealousy and strife, or were ignorant of every other sin for which they’re publicly rebuked, is ridiculous. In the Hebrews example I cited, we’re told that these people “ought” to have done better (Hebrews 5:12) and that they’re neglecting things they’re being told about “again” (Hebrews 6:1), meaning that they had already been taught what they were neglecting.
The “go on sinning willfully” phrase in Hebrews 10:26 seems to be addressing a rejection of Christ, not any sin that’s committed or even a series of sins within the Christian life. Thus, the verse goes on to refer to no sacrifice being available, and verse 29 refers to “trampling under foot the Son of God”. A Christian who is impatient or unkind, for example, still has a sacrifice available to him. But rejection of Christ is a rejection of the only sacrifice available.