PROSPECTUS

Purpose

This course is designed to give the student a clear perspective of the Reformed view of justification. This in turn should have practical consequences in the student's life by understanding better the grounds of his relationship with God.

Course materials

A.The Bible. This course uses the New International Version, although the student may use other translations as well.
B.The book, Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul.
C.The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), available from various internet sites. However, Great Commission Publications has printed a small and inexpensive parallel version in which the original 1648 English is on one page and the Modern English Study Version on the other.

Note: Students may use the London Baptist Confession of 1689 or the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1823 since these are identical with the WCF on the doctrines under consideration.

Course content

The course will examine seven specific aspects of justification. The last lesson will deal with the Roman Catholic view of justification. The appendices touch on various aspects which are of some importance but do not fit well within the lessons.

Benefits

Upon completion of the course, students will enjoy a fresh perspective of the grandeur of justification and its centrality in salvation. This should effect their entire world view, self-concept, manner of prayer, evangelism and relationship to other Christians.

Students will be better prepared to defend related biblical teachings dealing with salvation and refute objections, as the Bible requires. Tit.1:9, ...that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

Important note: This manual supplements the chapter on justification in Unlocking Grace, so theology students may augment their comprehension of it. I avoid repeating material contained in the book although some overlapping is inevitable.

Requirements for MINTS and VISIÓN R.E.A. L. students

1. 50% Final exam
2. 25% Thesis
3. 25% Study Questions. There is a series of questions at the end of each lesson for the student to answer. As proof the student has read all the reading assignments, he must answer these questions in legible writing. He may do this by hand and then send in the pages. Or, he may photocopy them and send the copies. Or, he may type the questions on separate sheets, answer them and turn them in. He should turn these in at the same time he submits his thesis. The thesis will not be accepted without the accompanying answers to the reading assignments.
4. Bachelor level students must read a total of 300 pages of material by the end of the course. Master level students must read 500 pages. The class textbook, Faith Alone may count as 190 pages of this requirement. The bibliography must consist of at least five other books.

Thesis requirements

A ten page paper is required. The subject may be an elaboration on a theme in one of the lessons. Or, the student may chose to explain the views of justification from another movement other than Reformed or Catholic.

Do not pad the manuscript with scripture verses. (Brief verse citations within a paragraph are acceptable.) The text should be in Times format or Times Roman, spaced 1.5. Argumentation must consist in proper exegesis of scripture, respecting the rules of Hermeneutics, along with logical and concise theological evidence. The paper need not agree with the viewpoint of the teacher. However, if it is not in agreement, it will be the responsibility of the student to address the points of evidence the teacher has proposed to show why they appear defective.

Evaluation of the thesis is based on the following criteria:

Does the appearance and quality of writing reflect good academic standards?

Are the arguments presented in a logical and systematic manner?

Is the exegesis of the biblical texts in agreement with the general rules of hermeneutics?

Does it have an adequate bibliography?

Study questions

The student must answer all of the Study Questions at the end of each lesson. These must be turned in along with the thesis. However, these do not count as part of the thesis. The Study Questions prove the student has read the manual and done the reading requirements.

Endnotes

Students should read the endnotes. Some exam questions may be based on them because the endnotes contain useful comments.

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom.5:1.

How fitting Paul mentions peace first. The war is over. God is no longer angry. A sense of safety results, knowing God will never change his verdict of not-guilty.

Gone is performance-based hope. Gone is conduct-based acceptance.

One way to enjoy our justification is to dwell on its permanence. This is our "state of grace." Paul said,

...we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Rom.5:2.

Furthermore, we stand in grace. This is true of weak and new believers, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Rom.14:4.

No wonder Martin Luther said justification is the article on which the church stands or falls.

While other key doctrines illuminate the grace which saves us, justification by faith alone IS the gospel. This justifies, (excuse the pun), why we devote an entire manual to justification.

Justification is high on the list of truths worth living and dying for. After all, it answers the question, "How can sinners be reconciled to a holy God and avoid his judgment?"

In Unlocking Grace, we learned that "justification by faith" was the battle cry of the Reformation. Rightly so. The reformers, as faithful ministers, wanted people to be saved, including themselves. What a shock it must have been to discover that for centuries Rome had deceived millions into believing a message of salvation that never saved anybody.

The reformers' zeal and unwavering convictions were well justified. To our present age, known for it's tolerance of everything including sin, they may seem to have overreacted. Not so. Their passion was modeled by a predecessor: The Apostle Paul.

Paul was usually congenial. His letters contain warm expressions of affection. From his parental tenderness toward the Thessalonians, to his willingness to live or die with the wayward Corinthians, we see Paul's genuine sensitivity. Yet we hear him calling down anathemas thick and fast, on those who are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ (Gal.1:7).

When Paul uses the term "gospel" in Romans and Galatians, he means justification by faith. He declared any other description of the gospel as really no gospel at all (Gal.1:7). Any alteration of his teaching was not a mere difference in perspective. It was apostasy.

For Paul, the term justified is virtually synonymous with saved.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! Rom.5:9

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.Rom.10:10

Does saving faith require a trust in the righteousness of Christ alone as the grounds of our Justification? Or may a person have a different view of the gospel and still be a Christian?

Even among Evangelicals, misunderstandings occur about justification. These rarely jeopardize the gospel itself, though they always affect one's view of God, one's self, and principles of Christian living.

In this study, therefore, we will examine justification more intricately than we did in my book Unlocking Grace. We will explore its two key elements: Forgiveness of sin and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Some questions we will consider:

A. Exactly what does the term "justify" mean?
B. What is the difference between saving faith and any other kind?
C. What is meant by the righteousness of Christ? Is there a spiritual essence infused into our soul?
D. What is imputation?
E. What are the objective and subjective benefits?

Afterwards, we will compare the biblical teaching on justification to Catholicism. Doing this is not meant to be unkind. It is intended show the devastating consequences of errors involving this doctrine.

To define these errors is not theological hairsplitting. Like the doors of history, theology also turns on small hinges. Just as little events can generate huge impact over time, so minor errors can produce heresies.

Calvin calls this doctrine the "principal ground" on which the Christian stands:

The doctrine of justification...is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God,...you have no foundation on which your salvation can laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared.

That, in fact, is the doctrine of justification in its simplest form. We are preaching justification by faith when we say, "If you trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, God will forgive you all your sins and give you eternal life." Paul used the term justify when preaching to people who understood the concept, such as in the synagogue in Antioch. (Acts 13:39)

Through this study we will see why Paul was passionate enough to write two large Epistles on justification: Romans and Galatians. We also will discover why the reformers were willing to be burned at the stake for it. We will be challenged to preach the gospel with greater conviction, knowing that the outcome is inevitably, ...whom he justified, he also glorified (Romans 8:30).

Conclusion

Justification by faith alone deserves special focus because it defines the gospel. Distortions of the gospel throughout history have made it necessary to distinguish the true gospel from false ones.

From this lesson we learn:

1. Justification by faith alone is the biblical gospel.

2. Various movements have distorted it into something unrecognizable as the gospel of Christ.
3. We must be uncompromising on this doctrine precisely because it is the gospel. The Apostle Paul and the reformers exemplified unwavering commitment to this doctrine.

---

STUDY QUESTIONS FOR LESSON ONE

Explain why Paul, in Galatians Chapter One, felt it appropriate to pronounce anathemas on those who disagreed with the correct definition of the gospel.

Sproul's Faith Alone,

In the foreword, what is the primary concern for Evangelicals today? p.12 13

During the Reformation, what was the primary distinction between Rome's view of faith and that of the reformers? p.36

Why does Sproul think the Evangelical-Catholic Accord is a betrayal of the gospel? p.42-44

Homework: Read Westminster Confession Chapters 11 & 19, and Faith Alone, Chapter 4.

Justification is a legal declaration by God that a person is righteous compared with his Law. The grounds for this is the perfect righteousness of Christ, imputed by faith alone, in Christ alone.

This definition contains key words: Justify, impute, righteousness and faith. By showing how the Bible uses these, we will prove the above definition to be the only correct one. We will also show how errors in defining them leads to a corresponding distortion of the gospel.

The first word we will analyze is justify. Before this, we will do a brief review of the elements and principles already studied in Unlocking Grace. (The student should have read the chapter on justification in Unlocking Grace. If not, he must do so now.)

Elements of justification

Romans Chapter 4 portrays the two key elements involved with justification:
1. Forgiveness of sins, (Rom.4:7).
2. Imputation of the righteousness of Christ, (Rom.4:4).

Packer clarifies these two elements:

Justification has two sides. On the one hand, it means the pardon, remission, and non-imputation of all sins, reconciliation to God, and the end of his enmity and wrath (Acts 13:39; Rom.4:6-7; 2Cor.5:19; Rom.5:9). On the other hand, it means the bestowal of a righteous man's status and a title to all the blessings promised to the just: a thought which Paul amplifies by linking justification with the adoption of believers as God's sons and heirs (Rom.8:14; Ga.4:4).

B. God requires the righteousness of the law to be fulfilled in the believer (Rom.8:4).

C. Christ is our substitute before the law of God (Gal.4:4-5).

D. The righteousness Christ earned under the law is imputed to the believer through faith (Rom.4:22).

E. Justification is permanent (Rom.8:30).

WORD STUDY: "To justify"

In teaching the doctrines of grace, I have notice many Christians define the word justification as, "to be made righteous."

Incorrect. It means "to declare righteous," or, "be vindicated."

In a theology class, a student remarked, "That seems like hairsplitting. There isn't really much difference."

Wrong again. It makes the difference between Catholic and Protestant. It also distinguishes between Reformed and Arminian. Those are pretty big hairs to split.

The Greek verb for "justify" is dikaioo. It is associated with the nouns for righteousness or justice (dikaiosyne) and a just person (dikaios). The word "righteousness" and "justice" are the same in New Testament Greek.

In biblical studies, a word takes its meaning from the context or its habitual usage throughout the Bible. As a rule, the context takes priority. If there is doubt about the context, we proceed to the habitual usage to determine the meaning in a specific verse. That is how we go about word studies in doctrinal research.

By the time we finish this word study on dikaioo, we will see why we use the phrase "declare righteous" in the definition above, rather than "make righteous."

The verb dikaioo has a rich history in the Bible. Paul used it 27 times. It occurs 49 times in the Septuagint. By comparing usages, we will see why we cannot add the term "made righteous" to its definition.

In the following examples, we will highlight those words which translate the verb dikaioo:

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, 1Tim.3:16

For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. Matt.12:37

Here, dikaioo is contrasted with condemnation, meaning, acquitted.

Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." Rom.3:4.

The verse refutes the accusation that God did not fulfill his promises. Paul clarifies that man violated the conditions God laid down, thus forfeiting the benefits. God is not "made righteous" by his own words. He is righteous already. The corruption of man "proves" his judgments are right.

All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, Luke 7:29.

The King James renders it as "justified God." The people did not "make" God righteous. They only acknowledged that God IS righteous by the actions of Christ.

But wisdom is proved right by all her children. Luke 7:35.

Wisdom is not "made" righteous, but shown to be so by its results.

 

...he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Rom.3:26.

Here the noun form of dikaioo is used, dikaios, a righteous or just person, or righteous one. The word "he" refers to God who accomplished redemption in a righteous manner. Nothing God did "made" him righteous.

When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. Deut.25:1.

Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. Ex.23:7.

Declare the innocent not guilty, and so establish his innocence. 1Kings 8:32.

From these verses, we see why lexicons define dikaioo as:

Louw&Nida: the act of clearing someone of transgression ‹ 'to acquit, to set free, to remove guilt, acquittal.'

Thayer: To declare guiltless one accused; to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous.

Gingrich: justify, vindicate, treat as just; to be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous.

United Bible Societies New Testament, Lexicon: put into a right relation; acquit, declare and treat as righteous;

It is thus a forensic term, denoting a judicial act of administering the law- in this case, by declaring a verdict of acquittal, and so excluding all possibility of condemnation. Justification thus settles the legal status of the person justified.

Picture God declaring, "You have not broken the Ten Commandments." In the next chapter, we will explore how God could say such a thing without contradicting his holy standard or telling a lie.

By itself, justification has nothing to do with spiritual experiences. Important experiences accompany it, like adoption as his children and imparting of the Holy Spirit, with the joy, peace and power he brings. Justification however, deals with our legal status before God's law without which none of the other spiritual experiences would be possible.

Legal jargon may seem cold. For Paul, justification was a stirring issue because it involves forgiveness of sins.

Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. (8)Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him. Rom.4:7

...we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Romans 5:11

From the scriptural evidence, we see "justify" as a forensic (legal) term with the idea of acquittal or pronouncement of innocence. This involves forgiveness of sins through which we are reconciled to God.
From this lesson we learn:

1. The word "justify," in justification, means "declare righteous, acquit, pronounce innocent."
2. "Justify" does not mean "make righteous."
3. Justification is a forensic issue, not an experiential one.
4. Justification has to do with the forgiveness of our sins.

What are the five general principles involved in the doctrine of justification? Express them in your own words.

Find another verse, other than those in the lesson, to support "justify" as a forensic term. Explain thoroughly.

Explain why justification is not an 'experiential' issue in and of itself.

Questions on the Westminster Confession:

What three things are NOT imputed to the believer, according to Article 1?

How does Article 2 define the word "faith"?

What two things did Christ do to satisfy the justice of the Father, according to Article 3?

What two attributes of God are glorified in the justification of sinners, according to Article 3?

Whom did God decree to justify, according to Article 4?

According to Article 5, name one thing that can happen to those who are justified, and one thing that cannot happen.

Explain the relationship of believers under the Old Testament to justification according to Article 6.

Homework: Read Chapter 5 in Faith Alone.

Theology students are often astonished to hear that faith is not the basis of our salvation. It sounds heretical until we explain the basis is the righteousness of Christ. Faith is simply the means by which this righteousness is accredited to us.

To assume faith is the grounds of our acceptance with God is like saying a cement truck is the foundation of our house because the truck brought the cement. This is not to downplay faith. Without it, we cannot be justified. Our intent is to underscore the importance of imputation.

The Centrality of Imputation

A. Imputation is the central concept in Justification.

Ignoring imputation leads to confusion about our status before God. Though a Christian possesses the benefits of justification, he may fail to enjoy them all if he is unaware they exist.

Romans Chapter 4 is devoted to imputation. It forms the logical bridge between the depravity of man, explained in Romans 3, and reconciliation with God in Romans 5.

Catholics, some Arminians and certain extreme Charismatic groups hold to errors on imputation. Some of these are benign, while others open the door to damaging heresies. We will deal with these errors in later lessons.

C. Imputation shuts the door on legalism.

The moment we grasp the essence of imputation we can easily detect legalism. Works-righteousness mentality has a harder time surviving. The book of Galatians comes alive for us like never before. D. Imputation allows us to grow with confidence.

Calvin expressed it this way:

For unless you first of all grasp what our relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.

Definition

Imputation involves two aspects: Negatively, not counting our sins against us. Positively, counting the righteousness of Christ to us as ours.

It does not mean to remove something. Nor does it mean to infuse or inject anything. The idea of infusion is foreign to the meaning of the Greek word involved, logizomai. Other Greek words exist for those ideas.

The theological term imputation is derived from the King James usage in Romans 4, which translates the Greek verb logizomai and the Hebrew, hashab Modern translations use words like credit to, reckon or account. Though such terms are adequate, the original Greek term requires careful defining so we can see later what it does not mean.

The righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt.5:20.

He looked askance and said, "Well, that sure sounds arrogant!" I answered, "It would be if it were really my own righteousness. I borrowed it, though, from Someone else, Jesus. I own no other righteousness but His."

Usage in Greek

Note these lexicons on logizomai:

United Bible Societies Greek New Testament & Lexicon: count, reckon, calculate, take into account; credit, place to one's account;

Louw and Nida: to keep records of commercial accounts, involving both debits and credits ‹ 'to put into one's account, to charge one's account, to regard as an account.' [Greek: Rom.4:4-"to de ergazomeno ho misthos ou logizetai kata charin alla kata opheilema"]- "to a person who has worked, the wage is not regarded (or 'not credited to his account') as a gift but as a debt to be paid' (or 'a debt owed to him')"

Thayer's Lexicon: to take into account; to pass to one's account; impute.

If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. Philemon 1:18.

...that man shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; [Literally, have guilt imputed.]Lev.17:4.

...if any meat of the fellowship offering is eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted. It will not be credited to the one who offered it, for it is impure; the person who eats any of it will be held responsible. Lev.7:18.

(Logizomai occasionally translates as suppose, consider, think, in contexts having nothing to do with debt or guilt.)

 

The Evangelical Dictionary summarizes:

'to charge to one's account'...is an adequate rendering of the Greek term logizomai. This forensic notion of imputation has its partial roots in the commercial and legal language of the Greco-Roman world; one who has something imputed to him is accountable under the law.

We see that logizomai is another legal term like "justify." It refers to crediting something to an account. We are the debtors to God and that "something" is the righteousness of Christ.

When an accountant credits funds to your bank account, he does not literally infuse money into a box belonging to you. It is 'on the books.' Likewise, the righteousness of Christ is not a thing or substance injected into us. Imputation is a legal transaction only, not an experiential one.

A Possible Misunderstanding

Does this mean our souls are left empty when we are justified? By no means! The Holy Spirit enters our heart. He confers all the benefits of our salvation.

God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. Rom.5:5.

When we are saved, dramatic changes take place. We experience a new nature, the power of the Spirit and the very real sense of being clean for the first time.

Imputation, however, does not refer to any of these experiences nor to any inward change in and of itself. It merely makes it "legal" for God to do them for us. We have a new legal status before God as righteous people.

A common saying among Reformed Bible teachers to show the difference between legal and experiential righteousness is this: Justification is what God does for us. Sanctification is what God does in us.

Justification makes it perfectly logically for God to do all sorts of nice things to and for us. After all, he is doing them for people he now considers righteous.

This is why Hodge, in his excellent Systematic Theology, says:

Imputation never changes the inward subjective state of the person to whom the imputation is made. When you impute theft to a man you do not make him a thief. When you impute goodness to a man, you do not make him good. So when righteousness is imputed to the believer, he does not thereby become subjectively righteousness.

Hodge clarifies:

The Bible makes quite as prominent what Christ does for us, [in justification] as what He does in us [In our union with Christ].... Protestants do not depreciate the value and necessity of the new life derived from Christ, because, in obedience to the Scriptures, they insist so strenuously upon the satisfaction which He has rendered by his perfect righteousness to the justice of God. Without the latter, the former is impossible.

Sometimes writers use the word "commutation," in discussing imputation. This obscure word has the idea of an exchange between two people of one thing for another. (Not in the sense of bartering.) In this sense, our sins were imputed to Christ and his righteousness was imputed to us. An exchange took place between him and us.

The Puritan writer John Owen, commenting on Romans 4:6, expresses it as:

There is in the Scripture represented unto us a commutation between Christ and believers, as unto sin and righteousness; that is, in the imputation of their sins unto him, and of his righteousness unto them. In the improvement and application hereof unto our own souls, no small part of the life and exercise of faith does consist.

While the sacrifice of Christ is illustrated in the Old Testament via animals, Paul makes it explicit in Romans 3. Here we see the inseparable connection between justification and the sacrifice of Christ...a good example of why we should view biblical theology as an inseparable unit.

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,...(26) He did this...so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Rom.3:25.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, [Adam] death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Rom.5:17.

...as Adam's actual sin is imputed unto us unto condemnation, so is the obedience of Christ imputed unto us to the justification of life.

This illustrates the importance of system in our theology. A denial of Original Sin is a denial of imputation. After all, if it is impossible for Adam's sin to be attributed to us, neither can Christ's righteousness be accounted to us.

Reconciliation

...that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. [Word in bold indicates 'logizomai.'] 2Cor.5:19.

Conclusion

Imputation refers to God's dual act of not counting our sins against us and crediting to us the righteousness of Christ. As a forensic act, it does not mean the infusion or injection of anything. Imputation provides the basis for reconciliation. In turn, this allows him to bless us with the Holy Spirit and all the Spirit brings us.

From This Lesson we learn:

1. Faith is the not the grounds of our justification but the means by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed.
2. A good understanding of imputation helps us avoid serious doctrinal errors. Understanding imputation also helps us detect and avoid legalism.
3. The Greek term logizomai means credit to, reckon, attribute to the account of. It does not carry the connotation of infusion, injection or a quality inherent in the person.
4. One argument Paul uses to show the rationality of imputation is the doctrine of Original Sin expressed in Romans 5.
5. Commutation expresses mutual imputation. In this case, the imputing of ours sins to Christ and his imputation of righteousness to us.
6. Reconciliation to God is the immediate consequence of the imputed righteousness of Christ. It provides the common ground on which God and man meet.

What is the meaning of the Greek term, logizomai?

What is "commutation?"

Explain the connection between the doctrine of original sin and its relationship to imputation.

What is the relationship between imputation and reconciliation with God?

Questions from Faith Alone:

What does Sproul say is the key difference in the concept of imputation between Rome and the gospel? p.107-108.

Why does Sproul say the active obedience of Christ under the law was necessary? p.103.

What is the connection between atonement and imputation? p.104.

According to Sproul, what is the relationship between regeneration and justification? p.111.

Homework: Read Faith Alone, Chapter 6.

Osiander held a view of justification radically different from the forensic (legal) concept taught by Luther. For Osiander, justification meant the infusion into the soul of a divine righteousness. This was similar to a Catholic error against which Luther had struggled so valiantly. Osiander therefore caused enormous controversy until his views were rejected at the Formula of Concord in 1577.

One of the reasons his views were rejected should be obvious to the student by now. Osiander rejected imputation in favor of an infusion of righteousness. For him, justification was more of an experience than a legal declaration.

Osiander believed correctly in the believer's mystical union with Christ. his wrongly based it on an essence emanating from God Himself. For him, divinity was infused, as though God took an syringe, injecting righteousness from his person into us.

These views alarmed the reformers because they lead to serious heresies. If we have the same essence as God, then it must follow we are a part of God's being. Perhaps we are gods ourselves. The distinction between God and man becomes blurred.

Though Osiander did not carry his teachings to such extremes, he could have logically. As a little leaven leavens the whole lump so a little error leads to great heresies. Fortunately, the Formula of Concord stopped him in his tracks.

Osiander's errors forced scholars to refine their thinking about the nature of the righteousness we receive. Among the reformers, no one disputed the question of whose righteousness is involved in justification. All agreed it is Christ's righteousness alone by which God accepts us. The question was, "What is meant by the righteousness of Christ? Is it human righteousness, divine, or mixed? Is it mere absence of sin or a positive quality of its own?"

Does it matter? Yes. It is one of the differences between Catholic and Protestant, as well as between Evangelical and certain cults. Our security of salvation is involved in these questions.

What does the Bible mean by righteousness?

The Bible always defines moralistic terms in reference to God's Law. These include righteousness, sin, wicked, justice, etc.

... sin is the transgression of the law. (KJV) 1Jn.3:4.

Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. (NIV) Rom.7:7.

Those who devise wicked schemes are near, but they are far from your law. Ps.119:150.

Does God therefore require of us the righteousness of the law? Absolutely!

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. Rom.8:3.

What was lacking in the law as a means of obtaining righteousness? Nothing. The problem is our own weakness, not a deficiency in the law.

Does God accept people who do not fulfill the law's requirements? Never. Perfect obedience is the only grounds on which God has ever accepted anyone.

Two kinds of righteousness?

Some teach there are two kinds of righteousness, that of the law and that of Christ. This is a mistake. The salvation Christ gained for us did not consist in removing the righteousness of the law and replacing it with his own. He fulfilled it, not replaced it. The written law simply describes how God would act were he to become man. And that is exactly what happened in Christ.

Christ's obedience

One asks, "Is the imputed righteousness of Christ human, divine, or a mixture?" The answer is clear: The righteousness imputed to us is a perfect human righteousness...the product of obedience to the law by a perfect Man, Jesus Christ. It is not, therefore, a divine essence infused into our souls.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man [Christ] the many will be made righteous. Rom.5:19.

Notice the word man is repeated. It was a human being who fell into sin (Adam) and a human being who paid the price for it (Christ). Righteousness, then, is based on the obedience of Christ as the perfect Man, representing humanity.

This evidence alone refutes Osiander. But there is more. Theologians place the obedience of Christ into two categories: Active obedience and passive obedience.

By active obedience, they mean the life Christ led as a man under the law. By passive obedience they mean his death on the cross. The Bible presents both of these aspects as fulfilling the requirements of the law in his humanity.

Christ's active obedience: his life under the law

Was it really necessary for Christ to fulfill the requirements of the law during his life and not just by his death? Yes. His role as mediator required it.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Heb.4:15.

In refuting Osiander, Calvin aptly points out how all of Christ's acts as mediator, insofar as gaining our righteousness under the law, were according to his human nature.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1Tim.2:5.

Notice how Paul adds the clause, the man Christ Jesus when it comes to his mediatorial role.

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, (5) to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Gal.4:4

By emphasizing "born of a woman," Paul focuses on the humanity of Christ in his work of obtaining our salvation.

...but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. (8) And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death ‹ even death on a cross! Phil.1:7.

At his baptism, Christ acknowledges his relationship to the law and its requirements:

...it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Mt.3:15.

Fulfilling righteousness means to satisfy the demands of the law. A form of baptism was necessary at the inauguration of a priest. Jesus was fulfilling this requirement (Numbers 8:7).

Matthew Henry agrees Jesus did this:

...to own every divine institution, and to show his readiness to comply with all God's righteous precepts... Thus Christ filled up the righteousness of the ceremonial law, which consisted of various washings...

Berkhof gives another reason why Christ's active obedience was crucial. If the righteousness imputed to us were forgiveness of sins alone, through the cross, this would have left man in the same position as Adam before the fall...innocent but without a positive attribute of real righteousness.

Christ's passive obedience: the Cross

Wherever the Bible talks about the sacrifice of Christ, it is his body under consideration...his humanity, not his deity.

A. The cross and the law

According to Colossians, Christ dealt with our condemnation under the law by his body on the Cross.

Once you were alienated from God...22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body...Col.1:21 This reconciliation took place because a barrier was removed. That barrier was the law.

having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. Col.2:14

Peter expresses the idea as:

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,... 1Pet.2:24.

B. The reconciliation of Jew and Gentile

Paul declares the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile took place at the cross, in Christ's body.

For he himself is our peace,... (15) by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations... (16) and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross,... Eph.2:14.

The veil of the temple represented the barrier separating God and man. The writer of Hebrews explains this veil represented the flesh of Christ through which we enter into fellowship with God.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, (20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;... Heb.10:19.

The communion service is a memorial of the bodily nature of Christ's sacrifice. Calvin expresses this point:

...when Christ would seal the righteousness and salvation that he has brought us, he sets forth a sure pledge of it in his own flesh. Now he calls himself "the bread of Life (Jn.6:48), but, in explaining how, he adds that "his flesh is truly meat, and his blood truly drink" (Jn.6:55). This method of teaching is perceived in the sacraments; even though they direct our faith to the whole Christ and not to a half-Christ, they teach that the matter both of righteousness and of salvation resides in his flesh... Institutes, Book III, Ch.XI.

After Osiander, another teacher by the name Stancarus swung the pendulum to the opposite extreme. Stancarus claimed that the divine side of Christ played no role whatsoever in redemption. Supposedly, Christ suppressed his divine nature to focus entirely on the human task of earning righteousness for us.

Lutheran churches, at the Formula of Concord, rejected this view as did all Reformed councils since. The Westminster Confession says correctly that Christ acts according to both of his natures in all he does, not necessarily in the same way.

Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; Chapter 8, Article 7.

Christ is our high priest according to both his natures. The Book of Hebrews reveals his sacrifice earned him the right to be the mediator of his people, interceding for them before God and applying the benefits he gained for us. Only deity, with the attributes of eternity and omnipotence, could fulfill the function of applying his righteousness to us. Moreover, it is precisely because of his deity that his righteousness is of infinite value.

How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (15 ) For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance... Heb.9:14

Conclusion

The scriptures clearly define the nature of the righteousness imputed to us through faith in Christ. It is a perfect human righteousness, earned for us by Christ through his life and through his death as our representative. This means no divine essence is infused into us, nor is there any change in our essence as humans. We are not deified in any sense by the righteousness of Christ, nor exalted above what God originally made us to be as human beings.

Christ's life and death under the law earned him the right to mediate as our High Priest. In this role, he acts according to both natures, God and man.

From this lesson we learn:

1. The righteousness Christ imputed to us is that which he earned under the law, both by his life and by his death, as representative man.
2. This righteousness is not a divine essence infused into us.
3. Though the righteousness imputed to us is not an infused divine essence, nevertheless Christ is our righteousness according to both natures.
4. Christ, as our mediator and High Priest, acts according to both natures and is Himself our righteousness

How does the Bible define the term righteousness?

What were the two kinds of obedience of Christ?

Why was it necessary for Christ to fulfill the law by living under it and not merely dying under it? Give three reasons with scriptural proofs.

Explain the rational for the emphasis in scripture on the humanity of Christ, rather than on his deity, in earning righteousness for us.

Show how Christ's office of High Priest and Mediator involve both of his natures, human and divine.

Homework: Read Chapter 14 and 15, Westminster Confession.

I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it. Mark 10:15.

If faith were entirely simple, the Apostle James would not distinguish one kind leading to justification from the other ending in condemnation (James 2). Nor would we see the Apostle Paul in Romans 4 giving a break-down of faith's essential components, using Abraham as the example.

We need to exercise faith with the simple trust of children, yet not remain childish in our understanding of it. Though we avoid complicating faith beyond biblical limits, neither do we simplify it any further. Besides, some of the complexities result in delightful surprises.

The next surprise

No sooner do students recover from the surprise that faith is not the basis of our salvation, the righteousness of Christ is, then we hit them with another: Justifying faith, by itself, has no intrinsic value, possesses no merit, is not a good work and deserves no reward.

As with the first surprise, this one loses its radical tone with a little explanation. Faith is like an empty box. It takes its value from its contents. If the box contains Christ, then its value is immeasurable. What if the box contains the devil? What value does it have then?

Faith therefore, is morally neutral, taking its value from the object to which it is associated. Looking at it this way, faith may not even be a virtue, unless it is directed toward Christ. In fact, it can even become an evil thing, such as faith in a false god, or faith in one's own righteousness.

What about 1Cor.13:13? Paul classifies faith as one of the three great virtues along with hope and love. The context assumes our affections are directed toward Christ. Paul does not imply faith in anything is a virtue, any more than he would consider love a virtue if it were directed toward a neighbor's wife. In the secular world people use the term faith when they really mean hope, self-confidence or a mystical religious feeling.

The reformers were adamant that faith is not meritorious. They stood in sharp contrast to Catholicism, which views faith like a good work, deserving of a reward. Such a view undermines salvation by grace alone because of the subtle way merit enters the picture.

Why is faith not meritorious?

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? Romans 4:1.

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. (V.3)

However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (V.5)

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace... (V.16)

By concluding that faith is the only possible vehicle of grace, Paul reveals a paradox:

Faith would be an unworthy vehicle of grace if it were a work, a merit or possessing inherent righteousness. It would become a rival of the righteousness of Christ, and that is unthinkable.

Instrumental cause

A minor squabble broke out during the Reformation period, particularly in Poland, because of the heretical teachings of an eccentric Italian named Socius, born in 1539.

Among these was the notion that our faith itself is the righteousness we receive in justification and the only righteousness we need. Not only did this amount to an implicit denial of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ but it also meant that faith itself did the work of saving us.

This amounted to a subtle and dangerous re-defining of sola fide (by faith alone). Those who embraced this idea would affirm that we are saved by faith alone. This would mean we save ourselves by our faith, which is a form of righteousness. This was a radical departure from what the reformers meant.

Socinianism died out even before the death of Socius. Yet this particular teaching persists today in Arminianism.

Millions of Christians today believe their own faith is their righteousness, or that it was faith itself which saved them. They miss the beauty of Christ's own imputed righteousness and the security that comes from understanding it.

Socius missed the point in Eph.2:8-9:

...by grace you have been saved, through faith...

From this comes another surprise: Faith itself does not save us. It simply makes it possible to receive something that does the saving...grace.

A subtle logic trap lays here. To say it is impossible to be saved without faith, does not mean faith is the cause of the saving. Christ Himself is the cause.

Reformers, then and now, quickly saw that if faith itself were our righteousness, and if the faith came from us, then it follows that we save ourselves by our own righteousness. Any need for the imputed righteousness of Christ goes out the window, which in turns makes the active obedience of Christ, his life under the law, meaningless.

The reformers attacked this error by showing a distinction between efficient cause and instrumental cause. A good example is the difference between a sculptor and a chisel. The sculptor is the efficient cause because he is the one doing the work. The chisel is the instrumental cause because it is the instrument, or means, by which the sculptor labors.

In salvation, God's grace is the efficient cause. It involves the divine favor of forgiveness of sins with the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This righteousness becomes the basis for our acceptance. Faith is merely the instrumental cause which brings to us the efficient cause.

This phrase Instrumental Cause has became standard theological terminology for contrasting the biblical view of the relationship of faith to salvation with the errors of Catholicism, Arminianism and related movements. Calvin compares:

For scripture everywhere proclaims that the efficient cause of our obtaining eternal life is the mercy of the Heavenly Father...the formal or instrumental cause is faith.

Berkhof mentions, The name instrumental cause is used regularly in Protestant confessions. An example is the Heidelberg Catechism:

63. Why do you say that you are righteous by faith alone?

It is not that faith has any worth or merit to God, for it is not a work or meriting condition, but it is God's instrument through which He gives me the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ (1Cor. 1:30; 2:2), and it is the only way that He does this (1John 5:10).

The Westminster Confession concurs:

A. The Scriptures teach that Christ himself is our righteousness.

...he has been made unto us righteousness. 1Cor.1:30.

Turretin comments, Scripture nowhere says that God willed to count our faith righteousness, but that He made Christ unto us righteousness. He then points that if Christ himself is the righteousness, then nothing that proceeds from us, faith included, could be that righteousness. ...it is evident that a man cannot be justified by two righteousnesses (one in himself, the other in Christ.)

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. Jn.1:12.

 

How do we become the children of God? By receiving Christ. How is Christ received? By believing in him. The point: Believing itself does not grant the right to be called God's children. Receiving Christ does. Faith is the instrument.

B. The Scriptures consistently distinguish between the righteousness which is imputed and the faith which receives it.

 

...and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ ‹ the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. Phil.3:9.

This is probably the most important verse in the Bible on the relationship between righteousness and faith. Paul first distinguishes between the righteousness by which he is "found" in Christ, from any righteousness of his own. This righteousness has a source outside himself, namely God, and comes through faith. This refutes doctrine that equates faith with righteousness.

Nevertheless, Paul does not denigrate the necessity of faith. He hastens to add a phrase which at first seems repetitive: ‹ the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Notice the change in prepositions from "through faith" (día pisteos) in the first part of the verse, to "by faith" (epi te pistei). This clause literally reads "upon the faith." Notice the article "the" and the preposition upon are in the second clause and not first. This makes the Greek grammar strong, and implies something like, "upon condition of that sort of faith, period." Paul means, this kind of faith is the sole condition and is so essential, we never receive any righteousness without it.

Like a skier avoiding barriers, Paul skillfully navigates between two errors. He wants it clear that faith is absolutely indispensable, even though being found in Christ is based on something outside of us, a righteousness which comes from God.

If Paul were a philosopher today, he might say the righteousness of Christ is the efficient cause of our acceptance, while faith is the instrumental cause.

Turretin comments,

...we are not justified except by a perfect righteousness. For we have to deal with the strict righteousness of God... Now no faith here is perfect.

 

Hodge adds indignantly,

 

What comparison is there between the absolutely perfect...righteousness of Christ, and our own imperfect Evangelical obedience as a ground of confidence and peace!?

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. Rom.3:22.

The Greek phrase here for through faith is día pisteos, which can only mean "by" or "through" faith." This is the genitive case in Greek and denotes instrument. If Paul meant faith itself is righteousness, he would have used the accusative case which would read "día pistin," ("because of faith," or "on account of faith.") This construction does not exist in the New Testament.

 

Theologians for the past four hundred years have pointed out this important grammatical point, yet the notion persists widely that faith itself is our righteousness.

 

Owen notes:

...día is nowhere used in the whole New Testament with a genitive case, but that it denotes an instrumental efficiency.

Turretin, in refuting the Catholic notion that faith justifies meritoriously, said:

The scripture never says this, but always either "by faith" or "through faith" (dia pisteos) as by an instrument.

Berkhof states:

...according to the Bible we are justified by faith, dia pisteos, and that this dia can only be understood in an instrumental sense.

What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Rom.4:3.

For faith is said to justify because it receives and embraces the righteousness offered in the gospel.

A. In the context of Romans 3:22, Paul is contrasting faith with works, not faith with righteousness.

 

This is important to keep in mind as we look at the Greek grammar: The phrase, as righteousness, is eis dikaiosune. The preposition eis, translated here as, is often translated in the Old King James as unto. It implies the idea of "movement toward." The nuance is something like "with a view to obtaining righteousness."

This supports the idea of instrumental cause and certainly does not convey substitution, with the idea of faith being the righteousness itself. If this were Paul's intent, he would have used other Greek prepositions, such as anti ("instead of") or even hyper ("on behalf of").

Faith is the sole "instrumental" cause of salvation, but not the "efficient" cause. The scriptures always talk about salvation as by faith or through faith but never because of faith. This means faith alone, apart from works, conveys the Christ who does the saving. It is not therefore righteousness itself, but the means to that end.

From this lesson we learn:

1. Faith is simple and profound at the same time, with surprising ramifications.
2. Faith takes its value from the object to which it is directed. In scripture, this is always Christ alone.
3. Faith is not inherently meritorious or deserving of reward.
4. If faith were meritorious, it would be excluded as a means of conveying grace, because grace itself is unmerited.
5. It is helpful to distinguish between instrumental cause and efficient cause when discussing the relationship between faith and righteousness.
6. Salvation is always "by faith" or "through faith" but never "because of faith."
7. It is a serious error to assume faith itself is our righteousness. This would make faith meritorious, like a work. It would also mean we are saved by our own righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ.

What is the difference between instrumental cause and efficient cause?

Give reasons why justifying faith is instrumental and not efficient.

Explain why Gen.15:6, quoted in Rom.4:3, does not teach that faith itself is our righteousness.

Homework: None

Romans Chapter 4 contains all three elements. Using Abraham as the example, Paul not only proves faith is the only means of justification, he also reveals its components.

As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed ‹ the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. (18) Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." (19) Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead ‹ since he was about a hundred years old ‹ and that Sarah's womb was also dead. (20) Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God (21) being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. (22) This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." Rom.4:17-22

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Heb.11:6

We cannot believe in something unless we know it exists. Nor can we trust it if we are ignorant of its purpose. A primitive native, unfamiliar with automobiles, is unlikely to hitchhike. Even if he knows they exist, he must know what they can do.

Likewise, workable knowledge of anything must contain two elements: Knowledge of its existence and a minimal knowledge of its attributes.

To trust in God, we must know he exists. Even this knowledge, however, is insufficient to trust him. We need information about his character and abilities. Abraham had this minimal knowledge....God, in whom he believed (V.17)

Paul does not bother to explain how Abraham knew of God's existence or his key attributes. Perhaps this came through natural revelation, or some religious tradition. Regardless, Abraham confronted two opposing facts:

A. A material impossibility.

...he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead ‹ since he was about a hundred years old ‹ and that Sarah's womb was also dead. (V.19)

 

B. The promise, along with knowledge of God's attributes:

I have made you a father of many nations. (V.17)

The promise was solid data to work with. Faith, based on a promise, gives substance to hope. So says the writer of Hebrews:

"...faith is the substance of things hoped for... Heb.11:1

This happens when we mix a divine promise with our hopes. The promise is the indispensable catalyst which engages our reason. The result is faith.

Abraham correlated his physical limitations with the power of God to overcome them. He correctly deduced that impediments like dead, are irrelevant to God. So is the time frame.

...the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. (V.17)

Abraham engaged his reason when he chose the promise of God over the material impossibilities (his advanced age and Sarah's infertility.) It made sense (assensus) to trust God to keep his promise because Abraham knew (noticia) that God has the power to overcome all hindrances. The ability to connect these dots is what we call reason.

I have met mystics who tend to trivialize knowledge and reason as secondary or inconsequential. They appear annoyed to hear that these are vital ingredients of faith. They seem to feel their personal religious experiences are more substantial and spiritual. They are not.

Knowledge and reason are non-negotiable to biblical faith. It cannot operate without them any more than a computer without software.

Third element: Trust (fiducia)

...being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. (V.21)

James got at this when he wrote: "You believe that God is one; you do well, even the demons believe this and tremble" (2:19). Here sarcasm drips from the apostolic pen. James was making the point that meeting the first two necessary conditions of saving faith does not guarantee salvation. It merely qualifies one to be a demon.

This kind of commitment is fiducia, which we call "simple trust," or perhaps, "personal commitment." However, "simple" does not mean "superficial." Figuratively speaking, he threw himself headlong onto the promise of God with complete disregard of every other factor, whether circumstances outside himself or abilities within. This is justifying faith. No other kind justifies.

Where do works come in?

The Bible contrasts faith with works when discussing salvation, but links them inseparably for Christian living. A superb example of this is Eph.2:8 10.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith ‹ and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God ‹ (9) not by works, so that no one can boast. (10) For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

This lead the reformers to form a motto...BY FAITH ALONE, BUT NOT BY FAITH THAT IS ALONE.

When a ship plows through the water, it leaves a wake. This wake is not a part of the ship, but the unavoidable result of its movement. So is the relationship between faith and good works.

It makes no sense to ask, "What if a Christian produces no good works?" That is like asking, "What if a moving ship produces no wake?" The answer to this second question is, "There is no such ship." Likewise with the first question, "There is no such Christian."

Reformed confessions acknowledge the inevitable connection between faith and works. The Lutheran Formula of Concord, 1577, states:

That good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith, if it is not a dead, but a living faith, as fruits of a good tree. Chapter IV, Art.1

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1648, concurs:

67. But does not this teaching make people careless and sinful?

No, for it is utterly impossible for one who is in union with Christ by true faith, and renewed by the Holy Spirit, not to bring forth the fruits of gratitude (Matt.7:18; John 15:5).

As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. James 2:26.

In Acts 15, the Jerusalem council confronts a doctrinal controversy. Certain converted Pharisees were teaching, The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses. (V.5) The debate records refutations from two apostles, Peter and James.

Peter's observations came first. He declares he personally witnessed Gentiles being saved by faith alone. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. (V.9) Then he explains why it makes no sense to require those Gentiles to keep the law since it was, ...a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear...(V.10). We Jews were unable to keep it, says Peter. Why expect it Gentiles?

Then Peter closes with this decisive comment: We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are (V.11). Peter establishes that salvation is through the grace of Christ, by faith, without the works of the law.

After a report from Paul, James gives his speech. In it, he endorses Peter's presentation (V.14). He agrees so completely with Peter, he even quotes a scripture to support it. He then echos Peter's final statement about not requiring Gentiles to keep the Law, by his comment, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles (V.19). He then adds an important remark about TESTIMONY.

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (21) For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. Acts 15:20

If we keep in mind James' concern about TESTIMONY, then his discourse in James 2 on faith and works becomes clearer. It explains clauses like, Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. (V.18) and, ...if one of you says...but does nothing... (V.16)

In the context, James says nothing about justification of guilty sinners nor their forgiveness of sins. James was not asserting faith+works= salvation. He was saying, faith=salvation+works.

When Paul used Abraham to illustrate his point, he referred to the day Abraham was justified by faith, upon believing God's promise for a son. (Gen.15:6)

James also uses Abraham as an example...but James refers to another time and circumstance...when Abraham offered up Isaac. We may not know the exact age of Isaac at the time. We do know however, he was old enough to carry a load of wood up a hill, large enough for a burnt offering and discuss the matter with his father. He could not have been younger than around 12.

Remember that "justify" does not mean "make righteous," but "vindicate" or "declare righteous?" We know that Abraham wanted a son. Was he using God to get what he wanted? Or, was God truly the supreme value in his life? his action of offering Isaac back to God vindicated the reality of his personal commitment (fiducia).

This is how Abraham, already a "friend of God," was "justified." It was the genuineness of his faith in offering up Isaac which was "justified," or "vindicated."

The author of Hebrews concurs by calling the incident with Isaac a test:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. Heb.11:17.

Living things move and grow. Dead things do nothing. So with saving faith. It works and grows. This is what James meant by faith without deeds is dead (V.26).

Looking at it this way, Romans 4 and James 2 are sister chapters, mirror images of each other. They perceive the same issue from opposite angles.

The Evangelical Dictionary summarizes superbly:

In James 2:21, 24-25 its reference is to the proof of a man's acceptance with God that is given when his actions show he had the kind of living, working faith to which God imputes righteousness....The justification which concerns James is not the believer's original acceptance by God, but the subsequent vindication of his profession of faith by his life.

..he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of believers shall be operative.

Is Paul saying one thing and James another? Not at all. ...James explains the active side of faith and Paul the passive side. ...James directs his remarks to the person who says that he has faith but fails to put it into practice.

Saving faith contains three elements: Knowledge, reason and trust. Though the first two make personal trust possible, trust is the active ingredient. Though faith alone is the vehicle of justification, genuine faith always results in obedience. The apostles Paul and James concur on this, using Abraham as an example, though from different perspectives.

From this lesson we learn:

1. Justifying faith contains three elements: Knowledge, Reason and Trust. The theological terms for these are noticia, assensus and fiducia.
2. Though faith excludes works as the vehicle for justification, works inevitably follow a genuine living faith.
3. The apparent contradiction between James and Paul is resolved by these facts:
A.James and Paul used different incidents in Abraham's life to illustrate different purposes.
B.Paul referred to Abraham before he was justified by faith. James referred to Abraham after he was justified by faith.
C.Paul distinguishes between faith and works. James distinguishes between true faith and dead faith.
D.Paul was concerned primarily about testimony before God. James was concerned with testimony before man.

What was a motto during the Reformation having to do with the relationship between faith and works?

Explain why James' statement "Faith without works is dead" does not teach that salvation is partly by works and partly by faith.

Homework: Read Chapters 17 & 18 in Westminster Confession.

Adoption means God accepts us as his children. In Galatians, where justification is the theme, Paul explains how adoption is a central benefit of justification because it makes us children of God.

...God sent his Son, ... that we might receive the full rights of sons. (6) Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." (7) So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. Gal.4:4-7.

Believers are first of all children of God by adoption. ... This adoption is a legal act, whereby God places the sinner in the status of a child... By virtue of their adoption believers are as it were initiated into the very family of God, come under the law of filial obedience, and at the same time become entitled to all the privileges of sonship.

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, (5) he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4.

This excludes any righteousness of our own. Neither our degree of personal obedience nor good intentions are reasons why we keep our justification. We keep it for three reasons:

A. The sentence of condemnation our sins deserve, whether past, present or future, has been remitted.
B. The righteousness of Christ is now our own.
C. We have been adopted as God's children.

Twenty-one ways to lose our justification

Just for fun... what would have to be true of justification in order to lose it?

If Christ Himself were not our righteousness.

...Christ Jesus... our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 1Cor.1:30.

If the righteousness of Christ were not a total replacement for our own.

...not having a righteousness of my own... Phil.3:9.

If justification were something we did to ourselves.

It is God who justifies. Rom.8:33.

If our righteousness were earned, rather than a gift of grace.

...how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Rom.5:17.

If God could be convinced to accept accusations against justified people.

Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Rom.8:33.

If our own continued obedience, rather than the imputed obedience of Christ, were the basis of our acceptance with God.

...through the obedience of the one man [Christ] the many will be made righteous. Rom.5:19.

If our righteousness had its origin in ourselves rather than in God.

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. Rom.3:22.

If justification were not a judicial degree from God.

...he [God] did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Rom.3:26.

If the degrees of God could be changed.

...for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Rom.11:2.

If our sins now have the power nullify the righteousness of Christ when they were not a hindrance in the first place.

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him. Rom.4:8.

If our faith, which can waver, were our righteousness.

...not having a righteousness of my own ...Phil.3:9.

If genuine faith does not produce obedience.

As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. James 2:26.

If our hearts were purified in some other way than through faith.

...for he purified their hearts by faith. Acts15:9.

If it could be shown that God will not glorify some he justifies.

...those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Rom.8:30.

If some in Christ walk after the flesh rather than the Spirit.

...who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Rom.8:4

If justification were based on something other than grace.

...so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. Tit.3:7.

If justification did not result in commitment to righteousness.

You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. Rom.6:17.

If Christ fulfilled only part of the righteous requirements of the law, leaving the rest for us.

...in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, Rom.8:4.

If justification were not free.

...and are justified freely by his grace... Rom.3:24.

 

If my present and future sins are not provided for in my justification.

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him. Rom.4:8.

If eternal life, given through justification, is not a permanent kind of life.

...so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. Tit.3:7.

 

Isn't this fun?!

This exercise addresses the frequent concern, "Do you believe in once saved-always-saved?" A good answer, "I believe in once-justified-always justified." If the person is unsure what is meant by the word "justify," this gives opportunity to explain.

The Westminster Confession puts it this way:

God continues to forgive the sins of those who are justified. Although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's fatherly displeasure and not have the light of his countenance restored to them until they humble themselves, confess their sin, plead for pardon, and renew their faith and repentance. Chapter 11, Art.5.

This is precisely what the Lord does with respect to believers. Let's imagine the devil coming before God's throne. Satan says, "Let me tell you what your child Henry did! He..." God interrupts. "How dare you come in here and bring accusations against my children? How dare you! I declared Henry not-guilty once and for all! Get out of here!"

Does the story end there? Not yet. After the devil leaves, God says, "Henry, may I have your attention for a moment? I have something I would like to discuss with you."

Does this mean God is declaring we did nothing wrong? No. God never denies the facts. It means that "judge" is not a role he plays with us anymore. He is "Father" forever.

This is why Christians are not called "sinners" in the Bible. They are saints, holy ones, not because they are without sin but because they stand in the righteousness of Christ.

When Paul assured us of no condemnation, he was not denying our remaining corruption. He was only emphasizing the penalty for it has been remitted.

Why doesn't the Bible answer the question?

For years I puzzled over the why the Bible does not address plainly whether a Christian can lose his justification. Just one verse would settle it.

After understanding justification better, I realized the answer: The question ignores the biblical definition of a Christian as well as the meaning of salvation. Once we see the imputed righteousness of Christ as a permanent judicial decree, the question is answered.

Inevitably someone asks, "What if a person is saved and then commits murder and adultery while drunk and then dies. Will he go to heaven?"

The question is not really a question. Sentences with mutually exclusive elements are invalid. It is like asking, "What is the sound of one hand clapping? What is a circle when it is square? If a sinful person is holy will he go to heaven?" The answer: None of these are valid questions because the definitions are mutually exclusive.

Like positive and negative charges, self-contradictory premises neutralize each other. It does not matter if the nonsense is in the form of a question, a statement or an illustration. So with the question, "Can a Christian lose his salvation?" Nonsense is still nonsense.

The reason, therefore why the Bible does not pose the question of whether a Christian can lose his salvation, is because the Bible does not deal with nonsense.

If a justified person is led by the Spirit, with mind set on the things of the Spirit, has a living faith which obeys God, then by definition he does not live a depraved life.

Does this mean we can be disobedient and continue to be saved?

Of course! That's what happens to Christians every day, anyway. None of us obey perfectly. We sin, to some degree, daily.

Turn the question around backwards. Does this mean God accepts our imperfect obedience as a condition to continue to be saved? If we say, yes, then we must answer, "Where in the Bible does God ever accept imperfect obedience?"

Or, are we suggesting our continued salvation is based on our imperfect obedience?

Carnal-mindedness is another matter. Though our obedience is imperfect, we desire a life of obedience and struggle daily against being controlled by the sinful nature. If this is the case, why bother with the question?

...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Rom. 8:7

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. Rom.8:9.

According to Paul, it is sin that Christ condemns, not the Christian. Before justification, sin condemned us. After being justified, it is sin that is condemned.

If justification could be lost through sin, how much sin and what kind? Would a person lose his salvation over a white lie, or an act of gossip? Nowhere does the Bible insinuate some sins deserve condemnation and some do not.

To say a Christian can lose his justification, we must hold to a dual list of sins...those which condemn, versus those which do not. This amounts to mortal versus venial sins. We find no such distinctions in the Bible, nor a hint that some sins do not deserve condemnation.

Here's the dilemma: To say our personal obedience is the condition for remaining saved, provokes a dilemma. Does this mean perfect obedience or imperfect obedience? If the reply is, "perfect obedience," then who could be saved? No one is perfect. If the answer is, "imperfect obedience," then we must ask, where in scripture does God accept imperfect obedience for anything?

The dilemma is resolved the moment the perfect obedience of Christ enters the picture.

Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Heb.4:16.

Summary

The knowledge of justification should lead to a greater experience of peace, love and joy through the Holy Spirit. As a divine decree, it is permanent. Its core is the imputed righteousness of Christ, not our own. It severs the ordinary connection between sin and condemnation.

From this lesson we learn:

1. Our continued acceptance with God as his children is based on our justification, not our performance.
2. Certain character-development issues influence our service to God, our personal happiness and qualifications for leadership. These have nothing to do with God's acceptance of us as his children, through justification.
3. Justification could be lost only if it were based on another righteousness than that of Christ alone.
4. The Bible does not directly answer the question of whether a Christian can lose his salvation because it is already answered by the nature of justification.
5. Justification severs the ordinary link between sin and condemnation.

What are the two objective benefits of justification?

What are some of the subjective benefits of justification?

Give some reasons for getting excited about justification.

Give five reasons why justification is permanent.

Homework: Read Chapter 7 of Faith Alone and Chapter 16 of Westminster Confession.

If any one says, that by faith alone the impious is justified...let him be anathema.

-Council of Trent, 1545 A.D., Canon IX.

The Roman Catholic Church pronounces a divine curse on any who teach justification by faith alone. Anathema, in the quote above, means "cursed."

This word is found in Gal.1:8-9 where Paul denounces those who teach a different gospel. To anathemize someone means to declare their teachings are so evil that God does not recognize such a teacher as Christian. This may explain why the NIV translates anathema as "eternally condemned."

This curse is one of many the Council of Trent pronounced in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Catechism, quotes Trent as authority for the validity of this anathema today.

Despite this, Evangelicals remain confused about Rome's stance on justification. The reason is because knowledgeable Catholics sometimes say they believe in justification by faith.

Rome indeed teaches a type of justification by faith, but not justification by faith ALONE. Fide, yes. Sola Fide, no.

The problem, however, goes much deeper than the mere absence of the word ALONE. This becomes minimal when we examine the way Catholicism uses the words "justification" and "faith."

Whiskey in a milk bottle

Filling a milk bottle with whiskey is not necessarily wrong. It would be wrong, however, to give someone the bottle and call it milk.

This depicts what happens frequently in theology. Scholars take words, empty them of their original meaning, add their own content and pass them off as legitimate. A good term for this is Semantic Manipulation. (Semantic means "relating to meaning in language.") This causes people to accept an idea they would ordinarily reject, by changing definitions.

In defining justification, Catholicism has stripped every term of its scriptural content and furnished it own.

Rome's Definition of Justification

Catholicism regards justification as a two stage process. In stage one, baptism washes away sins and a partial righteousness is infused into the soul.

This partial infusion grants a measure of "grace" to help the person merit eternal life by good works during the second stage. This infusion is partial because adults already possess a degree of merit, since no one is completely evil. In Catholic thinking, the righteousness of Christ is supplemental to our own.

The first stage does not actually grant eternal life, only forgiveness of sins. This preparatory work places the person in a moral state allowing them to "improve" on the baptismal grace received. This enables him to merit further grace for salvation.

This first stage, received at baptism, places a person in a "state of grace." God accepts him as innocent, because his sins are forgiven. God reckons him as inherently righteous, because of a partial righteousness infused into his being.

Catholic theologians refer to the second stage as, the "second plank." The believer employs "grace" to merit eternal life. "Grace," in Catholic terms, means divine assistance to supplement our weakened human condition.

Eternal life can be lost through mortal sin, such as adultery, gluttony or stealing. This is "falling from a state of grace." Justification, however, can be recuperated through the Sacrament of Penance. In this Sacrament, the priest imposes the good works necessary to satisfy the justice of God and recuperate the lost justification.

Venial sins, however, are removed by charity, love. (The blood of Jesus is not necessary for this.)

...charity wipes away venial sins.

We have seen that Protestants claim the following three qualities for Justification: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it. Diametrically opposed to these qualities are those defended by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap.9-11): uncertainty (incertidudo), inequality (inaequalitas), amissibility (ammisibilitas).

 

Our documentation for each point comes from three authoritative Catholic sources: The Catholic Catechism, The Council of Trent and The Catholic Encyclopedia. These are on the internet, in various languages.

Instrumental Cause: Baptism

Catholic theologians are adamant that baptism is the instrumental cause of the initial stage of justification.

Justification is conferred in Baptism...

It [justification] is granted us through baptism.

(James Buchanan, by the way, refutes the Catholic assertion that Sola Fide was unknown to the early fathers.)

Catholic view of justifying faith

Justifying faith, in Catholic terminology, means mental agreement with the dogmas of the Church. Theologians differ as to exactly which dogmas are necessary. Rome openly mocks fiducia (personal trust), as necessary to justification.

When Catholic theologians assert faith is necessary for salvation, they do not mean personal trust in Christ is essential. Nor do they mean faith is sufficient, even by Rome's definition. Baptism and good works are also necessary.

Faith is a necessary condition for justification, but not the sufficient condition. It only serves to make baptism possible.

Infants, are a separate case. In Catholicism, baptism of infants washes away the sin of Adam since they have no personal sin.

A person would not desire Catholic baptism unless he believed it would wash away his sins. Nor would he seek it unless he assented to the teachings of the Roman Church. This is what Rome means by justification by faith.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia points out aptly that in scripture, Jesus Christ alone is the object of faith in justification:

The object of this faith is Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22, etc.), through whom only comes the gift of righteousness and the reigning in life (Romans 5:17), not Mary, not angels, not doctrine, not the church, but Jesus only.

By declaring that justification is a process, Catholicism openly rejects the judicial, or forensic view discussed in Lesson Two. The Catholic Encyclopedia titles the heading on justification: The Process Of Justification

Why? Partly because the Latin verb justificare means, "to make righteous." The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the fourth century, is the official Bible of the Catholic church. It translates the original Greek dikaiao as justificare.

Do the Catholic theologians ignore the meaning of the original Greek dikaiao (declare righteous)? Not entirely. Catholic theologians agree it means that, but fail to carry it over to the biblical imputation of Christ's righteousness. This has to do with the idea of "infusion" of righteousness which we will discuss in the next section.

Catholicism talks about "inherent" righteousness as the reason why God "declares" some people righteous. Once baptized that person receives a partial infusion of righteousness, enabling him to do good works for salvation. This righteousness is inward. It is "inherent" in the person, not "imputed."

So when Catholic theologians concede that dikaiao means "declare righteous," they mean God merely observes the personal righteousness of a person and declares the facts of the case as he sees it. God "declares" the person righteous because that is what he is.

In the New Testament, "inherent" righteousness is absent from the definition of either dikaiao (justify) or logizomai (impute).

(For a superb explanation of this point, see Appendix A from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.)

Catholicism confuses justification with regeneration and sanctification. This is another reason why they see justification as a process. They fail to grasp the biblical ordo salutis (order of events in salvation.) The Bible places regeneration before justification (Tit.3:4-7) and then sanctification accompanies it (1Thess.5:24).

One Catholic writer attempts to prove imputation means "infused" not just "imputed." he does this by giving a list of verses, which at first sight seems impressive. By looking up these verses, I noticed nearly all of them were about sanctification and regeneration, not justification.

This is circular reasoning. Such proof texts are only valid if we grant sanctification and regeneration are a part of justification. The Apostle Paul did not grant this, nor should we.

While regeneration and sanctification are closely associated with justification, the Bible distinguishes them.

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1Cor.6:11

Catholic definition of imputation

Though Catholic theologians recognize logizomai (impute) as a legal transaction, they nevertheless insist it also means "infuse."

This is because Catholicism rejects the judicial nature of justification altogether, especially the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Infusion, yes. Imputation, no.

What is the difference, and is it important?

Catholicism is essentially syncretistic, with the concept of merit at its roots. (A syncretistic view of salvation means a mutual effort between God and man. God saves man partially and then man finishes the job by his own efforts.)

If justification is only partial, it cannot be a final decree. Judges do not say, "You may now leave the jail partially." Nor does Paul say Abraham's faith was credited to him as PARTIAL righteousness.

We cannot have our logizomai cake and eat it too. It cannot be infused and imputed at one and the same time. It is either judicial, and therefore complete, or experiential...and perhaps partial.

So, to maintain its syncretistic stance, Rome must view obtaining righteousness as a partial infusion of a divine substance, not an imputation of a completed righteousness. Rome does this with vehemence.

Turretin attacks the partial righteousness idea with equal vehemence, pointing out there is no such thing as a partial righteousness in justification, according to scripture. How could a person have peace with God based on justification, asks Turretin, if he thought the righteousness on which it is based were only partial?

Turretin concedes that the word logizomai has various meanings in scripture. But it never means infusion.

The concept of infusion takes another strange turn when we examine more closely the word righteousness. Catholicism seems to view it as a divine substance, part of God's own being. Though Rome does not teach man may become divine, or a part of God Himself, she comes close to it with the mediation of Mary and Saints. Notice the word deifying in the following quote:

...sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism.

Partial obedience?! The Apostle James clearly said partial obedience is sin. It is all or nothing.

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

The whole idea of infused righteousness is a quagmire of theological confusion.

The role of good works

If any one says,... that the justified, by the good works which he performs,...does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life...let him be anathema.

Rome confuses the presence of good works, as a fruit of justification, with good works as a condition for justification.

Catholic definition of grace

In Catholicism, "grace" does not mean a sovereign divine favor given to the elect. It means a strengthening to help merit eternal life.

So, when a Catholic talks about being saved by grace, he means receiving divine assistance to help him save himself by his own merits. Grace, in Catholicism, is not sovereign.

Roman theologians believe fallen man is able to fulfill the divine law, at least in part. The fall of Adam left us weakened, but not spiritually dead. Grace, like the righteousness of Christ, is merely supplemental.

...original sin has weakened and deflected, but not entirely destroyed or extinguished the freedom of the human will

The grace of Christ...infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin...

The infusion idea makes grace akin to an intravenous injection to strengthen a patient so he can go home and cure himself. Grace is stripped of its sovereign power and reduced to a medicine. Grace, in Catholicism, saves no one. It only makes it possible to save oneself.

The Catholic concept of merits

The entire edifice of Catholic theology is founded on the concept of merits. The term is so central to Catholic literature, it is hard to find a document on salvation without it.

The word 'merits' occurs nowhere in scripture. Yet the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts:

In the theological sense, a supernatural merit can only be a salutary act (actus salutaris), to which God in consequence of his infallible promise owes a supernatural reward, consisting ultimately in eternal life,...

-Catholic Encyclopedia.

The word merits was so pervasive in medieval theological literature that even the writings of the reformers were drenched with it. They only began to elude it by talking about being saved by the "merits of Christ" as opposed to one's own merits.

This could be a bit misleading because the Bible never speaks of righteousness as "salutary acts" producing a "beneficial effect." It always refers to righteousness as fulfillment of the divine law... not because of beneficial effects, but just because it was the divine law.

Personal suffering is high on the Catholic merit list. Supposedly it allows us to share in the sufferings of Christ. In Catholicism, Christ's sufferings, like all other aspects of his work, are supplemental to our own. Catholics agree we could never suffer enough to expiate our sins. This, however, does not mean we are exempt from suffering. Christ's sufferings were not intended to replace ours completely, but show us how it is done. Given this perspective, Catholic self-flagellation is perfectly logical. Friar Paul O' Sullivan exclaims:

Now, if we offer our sufferings-the very little ones as well as the greater ones-in union with the sufferings of Jesus Christ, we are doing the easiest and best penance we can perform. We may thus deliver ourselves entirely from Purgatory, while at the same time gaining the greatest graces and blessings.

This reaction bewildered me. I tended to think, "What in the world does that have to do with the gospel? I was talking about salvation by grace!" In their mind, they are saying, "If you only knew how much merit I have, you would not bother me with your message. You would go to someone with fewer merits."

A great salutary act would be to throw the term merits out of our vocabulary. If we do this, we discard Catholicism also, because the two are inextricably intertwined.

A Catholic counterattack

Catholic theologians claim Paul never used the word "alone" when teaching justification by faith. On this grounds they claim sola fide is a Protestant invention. Faith, they argue, is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. Baptism and good works must be added.

It is far easier to explain the absence of the word "alone" than for Catholics to defend the absence of the word "merits."

In Romans 3, Paul emphasized more the absence of works than the presence of faith. There was good reason for this. The Jews never questioned the need for faith. The issue was the value of good works.

Suppose two men, Henry and Joe, are in a room. Henry leaves. If we are narrating the incident, we may emphasize either the absence of Henry or the presence of Joe. If we say, "Henry is not in the room," then Henry's absence is the point of the story. If we say, "Joe was alone," then Joe's presence is the point.

Now let's put Mr. Works and Mr. Faith in the room. Along comes Paul, grabs Mr. Works and puts him out. Then Paul locks the door and nails four signs on it saying, not by works; if grace then not works; not works of righteousness; not our own righteousness.

Catholicism comes along and says, "Well, Paul, I notice you did not say Mr. Faith was in the room alone. I guess that means Mr. Works is in the room after all."

Is Paul addressing small children unable to deduce that two minus one equals one? In Romans, he credits us with the intelligence of adults. If the word "alone" is not there, it is either because it is superfluous, or because it does not convey plainly enough the absence of works.

Review of the Catholic view of justification

By agreement with the dogmas of the Catholic church (faith), a person receives baptism (instrumental cause), to wash away his sins. He receives a partial infusion of grace (a supplemental divine help), and righteousness. This puts him into a "state of grace" to help him merit eternal life.

This "state of grace" can be lost through mortal sins, but recuperated through the sacrament of penance. This involves suffering and good works.

Salvation, in Catholicism, is a cooperative work between God and man. God takes the initiative but man finishes the work by his own merits.

Summary

The Roman Catholic Church has distorted the biblical teaching on justification until it has reversed the very definition of the gospel. Rome has changed the gospel from a sovereign work of God, entirely free, to a works-righteousness system based on human merits.

Rome has taken every single word involved in the doctrine of justification, emptied its biblical content and inserted meanings consistent with its own synergistic theology. In addition, the Catholic Church has anathemized any who disagree.

From this lesson we learn:

The Roman Catholic Church teaches...

1. Justification is a two-stage process initiated by baptism.
2. Baptism, not faith, is the instrumental cause of forgiveness of sins.
3. Faith is mental assent to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Though fiduciary faith is laudable, it is unnecessary for justification.
4. Grace is defined as a divine assistance to help a person do works necessary to merit eternal life.
5. Sanctification and regeneration are a part of justification.
6. Righteousness is obtained by infusion, not imputation.
7. Initial justification through baptism can be lost by mortal sin and recuperated by the Sacrament of penance.
8. Anyone who affirms the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is anathema.
9. Anyone who says justification does not include good works and merits is anathema.

Describe in one or two paragraphs the Catholic doctrine of justification.

Describe what Catholic theologians believe happens in the first stage of justification.

Describe what Catholic theologians believe happens in the second stage of justification.

Explain why Catholicism believes eternal life is granted in the second stage of justification and not the first.

Explain the Catholic definition of the following terms:

A. Justify

B. Impute

C. Grace

Explain the Catholic concept of merits and refute it.

Homework: Read all the Appendices. Some exam questions may be taken from these.

Faith is called a "condition," not because it possesses any merit, but only because it is the instrument, the only instrument by which the soul appropriates or apprehends Christ and his righteousness Rom. 1:17; 3:25, 26; 4:20-22; Phil. 3:8-11; Gal. 2:16 The act of faith which thus secures our justification secures also at the same time our sanctification (q.v.); and thus the doctrine of justification by faith does not lead to licentiousness Rom.6:27.

Good works, while not the ground, are the certain consequence of justification Rom. 6:14.

The perfection of the law of God and the necessity of its perfect observance, if justification is to come by it (Romans 3: 10).

The modem notion of God as a good-natured, more or less nonchalant ruler, to whom perfect holiness is not inexorable, was not that of Paul. If one had indeed kept the law, God could not hold him guilty (Romans 2:13), but such an obedience never existed.

Jesus, not Mary, saints or church doctrine, the only object of faith.

The object of this faith is Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22, etc.), through whom only comes the gift of righteousness and the reigning in life (Romans 5:17), not Mary, not angels, not doctrine, not the church, but Jesus only. This, to be sure, does New Testament exclude God the Father as an object of faith. as the redeeming act of one God is always presupposed (1Corinthians 8:6), but it was the apostolic custom rather to refer repentance to God and faith to Christ (Acts 20:21). But the oneness of God the Father and Christ the Son in a work of salvation is the best guaranty of the Divinity of the latter, both as an objective fact and as an inner experience of the Christian.

The justification being by faith, it is not by works or by love, or by both in one. It cannot be by the former, because they are lacking either in time or amount or quality, nor could they be accepted in any case until they spring from a heart renewed, for which faith is the necessary presupposition. It cannot be by the latter, for it exists only where the Spirit has shed it abroad in the heart (Romans 5:5), the indispensable prerequisite for receiving which is faith. This does not mean that the crown of Christianity is not love, for it is (1Corinthians 13:13); it means only that the root is faith. Nor can love be foisted in as a partial condition of justification on the strength of the word often quoted for that purpose, "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6). The apostle is speaking here only of those who are already "in Christ," and he says that over against the Galatian believers bringing in a lot of legal observances, the only availing thing is not circumcision or its lack, but faith energizing through love.

Baptism also eliminated

Not only are good works and love removed as conditions or means of justification of the sinner, but baptism is also eliminated. According to Paul, it is the office of baptism, not to justify, but to cleanse, that is, symbolically to set forth the washing away of sin and the entrance into the new life...

Buchanan shows the fallacy of these assertations, pointing out how the fathers used the term "merits" in a totally different sense than the Catholic church means today. They originally meant "benefit received," whether deserved or not.

Further, Buchanan quotes from early fathers showing they understood salvation by grace alone, without merits, although they did not use the term "forensic" or "legal."

Below are extracts from Buchanan's introductory essay, with quotes. I have done some editing, because the stilted 18th century style makes it hard to read and nearly impossible to translate. I deleting unnecessary clauses, and put any additions of my own in brackets.
................

The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of its History in the Church and of its Exposition from Scripture (1867).
by
James Buchanan (1804-1870)

History of the Doctrine in the Times of the Fathers

Augustine, as the great Doctor of Grace, has been singled out [by Roman Catholics] as the advocate of 'moral, and the opponent of 'forensic,' justification.

For this reason, his authority was supposed to afford a conclusive proof of the novelty of the Protestant doctrine. And certainly it would be strange, that he who did so much to establish the doctrine of free grace, should undermine grace, in the matter of our justification.

But before we adopt so improbable a conclusion, we must carefully consider the controversy in which he was then engaged. It was materially different from the subsequent controversy between Rome and the Reformation.

The Pelagians, with whom he was called to contend, admitted the doctrine of Grace in the free remission of sins, while they denied the necessity of efficacious grace for the conversion of the sinner. Their heresy, therefore, did not directly raise the question of a sinner's justification in the sight of God. They believed, that 'there is forgiveness with God;' but they believed also, that man is able of himself 'to repent and turn to God.'

Augustine defended the doctrine of Grace and, in doing so, he established certain great principles which were sufficient to counteract the tendency towards a self-righteous scheme of justification.

These two fundamental principles were clearly taught by Augustine:

First, that works done before faith are not good (splendida peccata). Secondly, that works done after faith, although good, are so imperfect in themselves that they need to be sprinkled with the blood of Christ.

These two principles, when combined with his more general doctrine of free grace, involve the substance of the Protestant doctrine. He affirmed the free grace of God in opposition to the free-will of man, as the fountainhead of a sinner's whole salvation. It was ascribed by Augustine, to the free and unmerited grace of God alone. By establishing this fundamental truth, he laid a firm foundation for the more special doctrine of a free justification by grace.

In this way, and to this extent, Augustine prepared the way for Luther and Calvin, by excluding the merit of man, and exalting the grace of God.

It has been alleged, not only that Augustine knew nothing of a 'forensic' justification by faith, but that he taught the opposite doctrine of a 'moral' justification, by infused or inherent righteousness. This allegation rests mainly on two grounds,--first, the use which he made of the term 'Merits' when he spoke of good works; and secondly, the sense in which he used the term 'justification,' when he spoke of the benefit bestowed by the Gospel.

In regard to the first, it has been conclusively proved by most of our great writers in their controversy with the Romish Church, that Augustine, in common with all the Latin Fathers, used the term 'Merits,' not to denote legal, or even moral desert, but to signify a means of obtaining some blessing.

It was at a later period that the doctrine of Merit, was constructed. But, as used by the Fathers, the term denoted merely that by which benefit was obtained. In this general sense, it was said that we might merit Christ, or merit the Spirit, or merit eternal life; not that we could deserve any one of these inestimable gifts, or that they could ever become due to us in justice.

In this sense, the verb occurs even in the Protestant Confession of Augsburg; but now, when the meaning of the term has been entirely changed, it is not safe to speak of Merits at all.

Further testimonies [From early church Fathers]:

Gregory: I grow in life not by merits, but by pardon and mercy. (Job. lib.9. c.14.)

Augustine:[b.354] Whatsoever God has promised, he has promised to those that are unworthy, that it should not be promised as a reward unto works, but as grace freely given. (Praef. in Ps.109.)

Augustine: [b.354]A Christian must not be lifted up for his merits in this world, because no man here in this life can say he is without sin, whatsoever he has in this life is a gift, not a merit. (Hypogn. cont. Pelag. art.3.)

Ambrose:[b.339] Faith has life eternal, as a good foundation, and good works too, whereby a righteous man is proved in word and deed. (Offic. lib.2. c.2. Good works prove the righteous man, they don't make the man righteous: faith is the foundation of eternal life.)

Bernard of Clairvaux:[b.1090] All our merits are gifts of God, and so a man rather for them is a debtor to God, than God to man. (de annuit. Mar. serm.1.)

Bernard of Clairvaux: [b.1090] Bernard of Clairvaux: Dangerous is the dwelling of them that trust in their merits: dangerous because ruinous. (Psal. Qui Habitat. Serm.1.)

Bernard of Clairvaux:[b.1090] Let other men seek for merit, let us study to find grace: Mary pretends not merit but seeks grace. (serm. nat. Mar.)

active obedience. The term referring to the life Christ led as a human being under the law, on our behalf, in order to fulfill the law's requirement of perfect obedience.

assensus. Latin word referring man's reasoning ability. According to Reformed theology, it is one of the constituents of faith.

Calvin, John. French reformer, 16th century, who emmigrated to Switzerland. Calvin was influencial for his incisive writings, especially the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

catalyst. An agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action (MW). In Lesson Six, the word is used to describe how reason, combined with a divine promise can be the element to help produce faith.

commutation. A substitution of one form of payment or charge for another (MW). In theology, this means the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.

condemnation. In theology, usual refers to final judgment in which a sinner is condemned to hell.

Council of Trent. A meeting of Roman Catholic bishops in Trento, Italy in 1545 in response to the Protestant Reformation (EB).

Covenant of Abraham. The name of the agreement between God and Abraham to bless the nations through his descendant (Christ). The New Testament, especially Galatians, describes this covenant as the one to which all Christians belong through faith in Christ.

efficient cause. The agent which performs an action. In discussions on justification, it involves the question, "Who or what actually completes the work of justification?"

essence. In theology, this refers to spiritual substance. Theologians use the word essence precisely to avoid the term substance, because that term may be misunderstand as referring to something material.

Evangelical. That which has to do with the gospel. Normally referring to conservative Protestants.

experiential. That which is experienced and felt, as opposed to legal and theoretical.

fiducia. Latin word for "trust." Considered by Evangelicals to be an indispensable element of justifying faith. Rejected by Catholics as unnecessary for justification.

Formula of Concord. Collected doctrinal standards of the Lutheran churches, published in German, 1580 (EB).

imputation. To credit to a person or cause (MW). In theological terms, it refers to the crediting to the account of one person that which belongs to another.

indictment. A formal written statement framed by a prosecuting authority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person with an offense (MW).

inherent. Essential character of something (MW). In theological writing, it often refers to internal moral characteristics as an integral part of a person's character.

Instrumental Cause. The means by which an agent accomplishes a work. Example: A hammer is the means by which a carpenter drives a nail. The carpenter is the efficient cause. The hammer is the instrumental cause. In theology, instrumental cause deals with the question of what causes the transfer of righteousness or forgiveness to a person.

law. In theological writings, usually refers to the laws of God as expressed in the Pentateuch.

law of God. Generally refers to the Law of Moses in the Pentateuch. In this manual, I use it principally of the moral law, the 10 Commandments.

mortal sin. In Catholic theology, any serious sin which will cause loss of justification. These include, but are not limited to, adultery, murder and theft.

mystical. Having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality (MW).

noticia. Latin word for "knowledge" or "data." In theology, it refers to a vital element of faith.

objective. Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (MW).

ordo salutis. Order of events in salvation. In Reformed theology, it generally refers to the question of whether regeneration precedes faith.

Osiander, Andrew. German heretic, 1498-1552, who troubled the Lutheran church with a doctrine relating to justification.

Owen, John. Prolific English Puritan writer, 1616-1683, known for his defense of the doctrines of grace.

passive obedience. The submission of Christ, as our substitute, to the penalty of death proscribed by the law of God.

penance. An act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin (MW).

Puritan. A member of a 16th and 17th century Protestant group in England and New England opposing as unscriptural the ceremonial worship and the government of the Church of England (MW).

reason. The power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways (MW).

Reformation. A 16th century religious movement marked ultimately by rejection or modification of some Roman Catholic doctrine and practice and establishment of the Protestant churches (MW).

reformers. Those who participated in a 16th century religious movement marked ultimately by rejection or modification of some Roman Catholic doctrine and practice and establishment of the Protestant churches (MW).

righteousness. In accord with divine or moral law (MW).

sanctification. The state of growing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion

scapegoat. One that bears the blame for others (MW). The term is taken from the Old Testament custom of symbolically placing the sins of the people on a goat and sending it into the wilderness. ."

socinianism. A movement founded by Faustus Socius of Italy, 1539-1604, which asserted that faith itself is righteousness.

sola fide. Latin for "faith alone Used to describe the Protestant view of justification by faith.

Stancarus. A 16th century Lutheran theologian who claimed that the divine side of Christ played no role whatsoever in redemption.

subjective. Characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind (MW). The opposite of objective. In philosophy or theology, it refers to the perception of truth as a state of mind rather than an external reality.

Turretin, Francis. A 17th century monk from Italy, converted to Protestantism, who fled to Geneva to escape persecution and subsequently became President of the Geneva Academy which Calvin founded a century earlier.

vindicate. To free from allegation or blame; to provide justification or defense for (MW).

works-righteousness. As used by Protestants, the unscriptural notion that one may obtain acceptance with God through personal adherence to divine law, as opposed to faith in Christ.

This writer claims he is committed to scripture as the basis of Catholicism. He is aggressive and confident. The book has value as documentation for the way Catholicism misuses scripture to justify certain doctrines. It contains some of the most subtle scripture twisting I have ever encountered and may mislead those unfamiliar with sound biblical hermeneutics. 320 pages.

An outstanding American theologian of the Christian Reformed Church wrote this outline as an introduction to the study of biblical theology. His analysis of justification as held by respective groups is succinct and clear. 375 pages.

Berkhof has an uncommon talent for conciseness. He deals succinctly and clearly with justification, while refuting both Catholicism and Arminianism. For preparing lesson outlines on this subject, it is invaluable. 784 pages.

The definitive Lexicon on Old Testament Hebrew. Though the electronic version is abridged, it is more than sufficient except for the most fastidious scholars.

This abridged software version allows brief overviews but not in depth studies. Good for historical data.

This Reformed author, 1804-1870, wrote The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of its History in the Church and of its Exposition from Scripture, in 1867. The online article is part of his defense against Rome's assertion that the early church fathers, especially Augustine, knew nothing of forensic justification. 9 pages.

The supreme classic of the Reformation period with four hundred pages dedicated to the doctrines of grace. Calvin's treatment of Osiander and Stancarus on justification is superb. 1733 pages.

This internet version has the best search utility on the internet for the Catechism. It is fast and works with combined boolean search criteria. Approximately 600 pages.

The authoritative statement of Roman Catholic doctrine. It is a primary source Catholic writers themselves quote when explaining their viewpoints. 826 pages.

This site contains everything about the Catholic Church and its views. The site represents the 15 volume set, available in hardcover. Though some of the theological writing is tedious, with Latin frequently left untranslated, it is thorough. Page count indeterminable. 15 volumes.

http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.htm

This council was held by the Roman Catholic Church in 1545 in Trento, Italy to respond to the Protestant Reformation. It is sometimes called the Anti-Reformation Council. The online version is easy to navigate because the section titles are linked, with a return mode at each section. The search mode is standard, not booleen, but adequate. Approximately 60 pages.

Contains 13 of the most common Reformed confessions in electronic format. Booleen search criteria available for perusing them together.

Contains 1,250 articles on theological themes, including bibliographies of influential theologians. 1204 pages.

The statement of faith of the German Lutheran Church in 1577. This internet version has the index as links for quick perusal. http://www.frontiernet.net/~wndlnd/epitome.html#e8. Approximately 100 pages.

A small lexicon, giving the main meaning of words. Good for looking up a word in a hurry. 241 pages.

The value of this Greek New Testament is in the font which is the most legible on the market. The text apparatus at the bottom, as footnotes, is handy also for those interested in manuscript criticism. 203 pages for the dictionary. 918 for the New Testament.

For those who prefer the western line of manuscripts this one is well printed, although the font is not as attractive as the United Bible Society's version. The text apparatus is also well arranged. 810 pages.

Baker House: Grand Rapids, MI, 2002.

This Reformed author was one of the best of the twentieth century. His analysis of Romans contains none of the obscurities some writers use in dealing with controversial subjects. His logic is incisive and accurate. 533 pages.

This English commentator finished his five volume set in 1721. It is more pastoral and less scholarly in approach. His comments on the texts relative to justification, however, are clear and outlined adequately. 1739 pages.

This ten-volume set is one of the most scholarly and thorough Bible Encyclopedias available. The search mode us usable, but generally unnecessary because of the logical way it is laid out. 913 pages.

Baker House: Grand Rapids, MI, 2002

This scholar from Covenant College in Tennessee, undertook to complete the commentaries started by the late William Hendricksen. His style is equally clear and without the pedantry of some commentators. He has the courtesy to put technicalities of Greek grammar in sections apart from the main text to avoid tedium. The section on James 2 is adequate but not outstanding. 197 pages.

Small dictionary for quick reference, not intended for deep scholarship. 686 pages.

The best Greek lexicon software I have found, part of the Accordance Bible Software put out by Oaktree. The scholarship can be thorough to the point of tedium.

The Greek is on one side and Latin Vulgate on the other, facilitating comparison of the respective languages. For study of Catholic misusage of New Testament words, it is very helpful. 680 pages.

6: Albany, OR, 1997.

Owen was an outstanding Puritan scholar, 1616-1683. Owen left little unsaid about justification in this enormous treatise. He refutes every possible argument against the Reformed doctrine of justification. The software version is valuable to search for specifics rapidly. 557 pages

This work by Dr. Ramsay of Logoi Institute, is less polemic than most works written by Protestants about Catholicism. The intent is comparison, with a view to influencing a Catholic reader. 251 pages.

Parses key Greek verbs in most texts of the New Testament, and comments upon their usage within the context. Useful for exegesis of complex passages like Romans 3. 864 pages.

Evidently the translation has not been updated since 1851 which explains the archaic tone of the English. The print is small due to the large size of the volume. 1130 pages.

Shaw, Robert. Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Accordance Bible Software, Version 4.1. Oaktree Software, Inc: Temecula, CA, 1999.

Shaw's commentary on the WCF was completed in May, 1845. The redundant style of the 19th century makes this work sound pedantic. Some portions are eloquent and well outlined. The software version has all scripture references as links, which makes perusal easy. Also the search mode can find topics quickly, without reference to the index. Approximately 200 pages.

This book is the English translation of Si, Jesús, published in 1994 in Spanish. It introduces the important doctrines of the Reformation in a non-polemic style. 180 pages.

In my opinion, this is the best book on justification in today's market. With Sproul's inimitable style, he makes an old doctrine come to life. His documentation is excellent. 219 pages.

A booklet summarizing Sproul's larger work, Faith Alone, with clarifications on the difference between Catholic and Reformed views of justification. A good primer. 48 pages.

The most thorough and scholarly lexicon I have found. The print is small. Knowledge of New Testament Greek is necessary. 722 pages.

This 17th century Italian scholar eventually became President of the Geneva Academy founded a century earlier by Calvin. He was known for his penetrating intellect and pithy comments which sliced through theological error. This book is a selection from his larger work, Institutes of Elenctic Theology.

Wenham, John. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge University Press: London, England, 1982.

The best self-teaching primer on New Testament Greek on the market, in my opinion. I began my studies of Greek in the mid-70's using Wenham. It avoids the tedium of Machen. 268 pages.

This publication contains the original English with modern English in parallel. Useful for group studies to introduce the Confession to laymen. 65 pages.

The most handy Old Testament Hebrew reference tool in existence. It is ideal for people with some knowledge of Hebrew but without expertise. One searches for the English word and the Hebrew variants are listed with the scripture references and comments by the author.

564 pages

---

 

Luther, Martin. Luther Werke, Weimar Ausgabe. Herman Boehlau: Weimar, Germany, 1930, Vol.40, p.130.

2. Sproul, Faith Alone, p.16.

3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion., Two Volumes. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. 1964 2:37 (3.11.11).

4. Elwell, Walter, Editor. Evangelical Dictionary Of Theology. Baker House: Grand Rapids, MI, 1984. p.594.

5. The Septuagint, sometimes abbreviated as LXX, is the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew scriptures. The apostles quoted from the LXX when expounding Old Testament texts.

6. Louw&Nida. Greek-English Lexicon: Semantic Domains. Oakware Software: Temecula, CA, 1999. Search mode "just."

7. Louw&Nida. Search mode "dikaiao."

8. Thayer, Henry. Greek-English Lexicon. Archa Publishers: Lafayette, IN, p.150.

9. Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon, p.53.

10. United Bible Societies Greek-English Dictionary p.46.

11. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary, p.593.

12. Calvin's Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 11.

13. Such as eisago: bring or put into. Or, diikneomai: penetrate (Heb.4:11).

14. Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies. Hendrickson's Publishers: Peabody, MA, 1999. p.256

15. NIV=credit to; ASV=reckon; NKIV=account.

16. In my book, Unlocking Grace, I use an illustration of a dump truck loading cement into an empty foundation; the cement representing the righteousness of Christ. This illustration is intended to describe the difference between justification as an act versus sanctification as a process.

Someone said this illustration could cause confusion because it could be taken as infusing something into the soul of the believer. I can see how it could be taken that way. This is not my intent. The illustration serves to distinguish between final action and processor not between imputation and infusion.
17. Greek-English Dictionary. United Bible Societies Greek New Testament&Lexicon. London, 1995. p.108

18. Louw and Nida: Search mode, logizomai.

19. Thayer's. p.379

20. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary, p.554.

21. Hodge, Systematic Theology. Vol.3, p.145.

22. Midi, p-179.

23. Owen, John. The Doctrine of justification. Ages Christian Library Software: Albany, OR, 1999, p.70.

24. Ibid, p.315.

25. Encyclopedia. Britannica Software Version 2002.1.0: New York, NY, 2000. Search mode0slander.

26. Formula of Concord. FrontierNet.com: 2004.
http: //www.frontlernet. net

27. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary. p.809.

28. An excellent web article on this point by a Lutheran is, The Concordia Lutheran: Osiander Controversy. http: //www.concordialutheranconf.com/CLO_articleDTM_may1 996.html

29. Quoted in Evangelical Dictionary, p.734

30. Matthew Henry. A Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol.5, p.2829.

31. Institutes. Book III, Chapter XI, Art.12 (Battles, p.742).

32. Berkhof, Systematic Theology. p.515.

33. Hodge, Systematic Theology. Vol.3. p.182.

34. Article III of the Formula of Concord states: "Even though Christ had been conceived and born without sin ... and had fulfilled all righteousness in his human nature alone, and yet had not been true and eternal God, this obedience and suffering of his human nature could not be imputed to us for righteousness .... Our righteousness rests not upon one or the other nature, but upon the entire person of Christ, who as God and man is our Righteousness" (935,55f).

A good commentary on this may be seen at: http://www.wls.wels.net/Iibrary/Essays/Authors/k /KoschnitzkeConcord/KoschnitzkeConcord.htm

35. The Evangelical Dictionary elaborates this point on p.953.

36. I enlarge on this point in my essay, How to Grow In Faith at: On television., we frequently see people mentioning the word faith in the most ambiguous and mystical terms.

37. Britannica Encyclopedia. Standard Edition CD-Rom, Version 2002. Search mode Socius.

38. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p.515.

39. This illustration is taken from Sproul's book, Faith Alone, p.74-75.

40. Institutes, Book 3, chapter 14, article 17. Or, Institutes, Ages Library Software, p.863.

41. Ages Library Software, pp.9F167-169

42. Turretin, Francis. Justification. Presbyterian and Reformed Publications: Philipsburg, NJ, 1994.

Francis Turretin was a 17th century converted monk from Italy who fled to Geneva to escape persecution and subsequently became President of the Geneva Academy which Calvin founded a century earlier. He brilliantly refuted the notion that faith has inherent merit.

43. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p.527-

44. A Catechism produced by the Christian Reformed Church in 1563. Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms: Accordance Oaktree Bible software: Temecula, CA, 1999.

45. Westminster Confession of Faith: Modern English Study Version, Great commission Publications, Suwanee, GA 1999 Chapter 11, Art.2.

46. Ibid p.79.

47. Turretin, p.75.

48. Ibid, p.76.

49. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol.III, p.169.

50. Wenham, John. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1982. pp.69-70.

51. A grammar search using Accordance Bible Software, Greek mode, confirms this.

52. Owen, justification, pp.167-169

53. Turretin, justification, p.79.

54. Berkhof, Systematic Theology p.522.

55. Calvin.. Institutes. Book III, Chap. XI, Art.17.

56. Turretin, justification., p.77&83

57. Turretin, justification, pp.73 &83.

58. Sproul, Faith Alone. p.75.

59. For a deeper study on this point, note the following verses: Eph.4:13; Titus 1:1-2; 2Pet.1:2; 3:18.

60. Sproul, Faith Alone, p.80.

61. Sproul., Faith Alone, p.188.

62. Westminster Confession: Modern Study Version. p.49.

63. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary, p.594.

64. Hendricksen's Commentaries, Epistle of James, pp.87-88.

65. Calvin, Institutes, 2:115 (3.17.12)

66. Berkhof, Systematic Theology. p.516.

67. Catholic Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

68. "Semantic" means, relating to meaning in language. Webster's Dictionary Search mode "semantic." I've seen this term used in philosophical essays. The first time I heard it used in a theological sense was by Francis Schaeffer at LAbri in 1968.. to describe liberal theology. Usages can be found by internet search mode. An example: http://minervacognitive.haifa.ac.il/Hamutal/sIdOO6.htm

69. See Catholic Catechism. Justification. For an extensive Catholic explanation of justification, which documents this entire section.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

70. Catholic Catechism, Code No.1446.

71. Catholic Catechism, Code No.2010: Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.

72. Catholic Catechism, Search mode Grace.

73. Mortal sin is defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia as sin meriting eternal punishment. Venial sins are those meriting temporal punishments. For a discussion of these, see: http://www.newadvent.orglcathen114004b.html.

74. Catholic Encyclopedia. The Sacrament of Penance:
http:www.newadvent.orglcathenlI I 618c.htm

75. Catholic Catechism, Code No.1394.

76. This word means, "'that which can go amiss," i.e., be lost. Merriam-
Webster Dictionary, Macintosh Version: New York, NY, 1999. Search mode amiss.

77. Catholic Catechism: The Process of justification. Art.4. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

78. The URLS for these are:
Catholic Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Council of Trent: http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

79. Catholic Catechism, Code No.2023.

80. Catholic Catechism, Code No.2020.

81. Some quote extensively from Augustine. This can be misleading because he was converted as a young man and lived to old age. In old age, he retracted some of his earlier writings, in his book "Retractions," which contain some of the richest teachings on sovereign grace in Christian literature.

82. A list of quotes from early church fathers in Buchanan's book can be found at the Just For Catholics web site:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a84.htm

83. The Council of Trent (Sess. V1, cap. vi, and can. xii) decrees that not the fiduciary faith., but a real mental act of faith., consisting of a firm belief in all revealed truths makes up the faith of justification. Catholic Encyclopedia, Sanctifying Grace, Section 1A: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

84. The lists are similar. See Catholic Encyclopedia, Sin http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

85. In referring to the Council of Trent, the Catholic Encyclopedia states ... all the bishops present at the council could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention... [i.e., that the Protestants invented the idea.]
The Catholic Doctrine on justification, Art.1, Paragraph 2 http://www. newadvent. org/cathen/08573a. htm

86. Catholic Catechism. Code No.403.

87. See Appendix A.

88. Section One, justification: The Preparation For Sanctifying Grace http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

90. Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford Press: London, England, 1985.

91. Ibid.

92. Catholic Encyclopedia: The Process of justification. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

93. Catholic Catechism, Code No.2019: justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man,

94. Armstrong, Dave, Biblical Overview of justification and Salvation. Web site: http://ic.net/-erasmus/RAZ52.htm

95. Catholic Encyclopedia: The Process of justification. http:www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

96. Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter VII.

97. Turretin, justification, p.59.

98. Turretin, justification, p.4.

99. Catholic Catechism, Code No.2019: justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Computer Edition/ New York, NY1 2000: Search mode Apotheosis.

100. Catholic Catechism, Code No.1999.

101. CathoIic EncycIopedia
http.-Ilwww. newadvent. org/cathen106701a. htm

102. Catholic Encyclopedia: The Process of justification.
http://www. newadvent. org/cathen/08573a . htm

103. Catholic Encyclopedia. Controversies
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/0670la.htm

104. Catholic Catechism, Code No.1999.

105. Catholic Encyclopedia. Search mode "merits." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

106. Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Computer Edition, New York, NY, 2000: Search mode salutary.

107. Ages Christian Library, Adobe Version, 1999. Both Calvin and Luther spoke this way. A search mode of these authors reveals dozens of examples.

108. Fr. Paul O'Sullivan, Catholic Pages.com: http://www.catholicpages.com/life/suffering.asp

109. Catholic Encyclopedia, The Protestant Doctrine of justification, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm -----------------------------168071508944249 Content-Disposition: form-data; name="userfile"; filename=""