I have always apprecited this closing argument by Dr. White in his 1999 debate vs. Mitchell Pacwa on Sola Scritpura. (also glad to see the full debate is up now at aomin.org.) [Thanks to Rich Pierce for all his hard work!]
It was very effective of Dr. White to bring all those other books up front and stack them up like that; those works that Roman Catholics are going to need to study in order to figure out if they can understand the gospel and the truth of God's Word. Or they just take the easy way out and say, "I just believe what the Pope and my priest says without worrying about studying it for myself." The Romanist claim is that they make things clearer and easier by having an infallible interpreter who can tell them the right interpretation of a Bible passage. When one starts reading all the official documents of Rome and the massive complicated books to try and understand, comparing that with the simple Scripture of Romans 5:1; or Galatians 2:16 or Galatians 3:1-8; or Romans 3:28 or Romans 4:1-8 or Ephesians 2:8-9 or John 5:24; 3:16; 20:30-31; or Acts 13:38-39; or Acts 16:31, or Philippians 3:9; or Mark 1:15; it is very clear on which method is clearer for the aveage person to do to understand the gospel.
Maybe that is why another Roman Catholic [Nancy Pelosi, California congress-woman, then speaker of the house of representatives], in a modern political context,, ie, the ObamaCare take over of the insurance industry, said something like, "hurry up and pass the bill, so we can then read the [massive 2,000+ page] bill and see what is in it." Maybe she learned that dogmatic authoritarian method from her church and it filtered down into her politics, . . . ya think? Sounds like Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) -founder of the Jesuits, who said "Whatever we [the hierarchical Roman Church] say is black, even though to your eyes it appears to be white, you must believe that it is black."
Addendum: The more exact rendering of Ignatius of Loyola's statement:
The 13th Rule for thinking along with the Church Militant, in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola: page 75 on the Pdf below. It is quoted differently than is sometimes translated.
"Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, . . . See here. p. 75
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Bravo to Dr. White.
Do you have the source for the Ignatius quote? It's very much a summary of Rome's thoughts on Scripture.
The 13th Rule for thinking along with the Church Militant, in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola: page 75 on the Pdf below. It is quoted differently than is sometimes translated.
"Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed."
see here:http://www.catholicspiritualdirection.org/spiritualexercises.pdf
Ken,
It seems you conveniently left off verse 9 when referencing Galatians 3:1-8. Was that intentional to salvage Sola Fide?
Not at all; I looked at verse 9 and if affirms Sola Fide; in fact all of Galatians chapter 3 is consistent with it.
Why do you think verse 9 somehow is inconsistent with it?
"So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer." Galatians 3:9
I could have written "the whole book of Galatians"
Typo; should have been "it", not "if"
Not at all; I looked at verse 9 and it affirms Sola Fide; in fact all of Galatians chapter 3 is consistent with it.
Verse 9 uses two words for 'faith', the second occurrence best translates as "faithful." So the verse should read "blessed along with faithful Abraham." But the use of "faithful" goes against the idea of 'faith alone'.
I guess 3:8 doesn't help much either, because that's quoting Genesis 12:3 and Paul says Abraham heard the Gospel here, and yet White is explicitly adamant that Abraham wasn't justified until Gen 15. So again, Faith Alone doesn't work by these 'clear' texts you're quoting.
"But the use of "faithful" goes against the idea of 'faith alone'." Could you expand on that a bit? Particularly in light of Rom. 4:13, 16-25.
" So the verse should read "blessed along with faithful Abraham." But the use of "faithful" goes against the idea of 'faith alone'."
Is that your own translation? If no, what version are you reading?
"So what can be said in response? The writer to the Hebrews says that Abraham acted in faith in responding to God's call to leave Ur of the Chaldees. However, saving faith always has an object, and the object of saving faith in Abraham's life was the promise given him in Genesis 15, not Genesis 12. And as we will show in our exegesis of James 2, the justification spoken of there is in a completely different context than that of Romans and Galatians. Still, however, the argument carries weight for many who are seeking a way out of the biblical teaching on the subject."
James R. White. God Who Justifies, The (p. 222). Kindle Edition.
See discussion here we had earlier in the comboxes,
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/other-good-books-on-justification-and.html
Nick, regarding Galatians 3:9 -
"faith" or "faithful" are translational issues, because the word is the same word, πιστις / pistis -for both faith and faithful (here it is in the dative - τω πιστω - along with sun/ συν = with - to the one who has faith, namely Abraham; pistis can be either faith or faithful depending on context and syntax.
Whether "faith" or "faithful" or "faithfulness" - it depends on grammar, syntax, and context - most translate it "Abraham the believer" or "Abraham, the one who has faith".
If the Pope did not make an infallible ex cathedra statement on Gal. 3:9, you cannot say that it for sure means, "faithful".
ESV - Gal. 3:9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Gal. 3:9 ωστε οι εκ πιστεως ευλογουνται συν τω πιστω Αβρααμ
NASB = "Abraham the believer"
ESV = Abraham, the man of faith"
NIV = "Abraham, the man of faith"
NJKV = "with believing Abraham"
KJV = "with faithful Abraham"
Those are probably the 5 best English translations, and 4 are on our side, with only the KJV for your argument.
Joey Henry did a good job of answering Nick's long article on logizomai
I see it is now up to part 8
here is part one and anyone interesting can follow the series:
http://thessalonians516.blogspot.com/2012/12/normal-0-false-false-false-en-ph-x-none.html
One can see all 8 parts - scroll down here.
http://thessalonians516.blogspot.com
Algo,
The beauty of Galatians 3:8 is that White's comments comments end up being a direct contradiction to God's Word. It says in plain English that Abraham heard the Gospel in Gal 3:8 in Gen 12, something White all but denies. And really, his argument is ridiculous because it would mean the "faith" of Hebrews 11 was non-saving faith, but just some generic pre-salvific faith. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, White dodges this when commenting on Gal 3:8.
Ken,
Would you say the KJV teaches heresy by translating it as "faithful"? If no, then you concede faithful is a valid translation, and my original point stands (at least for now).
The term "faithful" appears in about 7 of the top 20 translations:
http://biblehub.com/galatians/3-9.htm
And it appears in about 8 reliable Protestant commentaries:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/3-9.htm
From what I can see, the most common translation is "faithful" in the over 60 times it's used in the NT, including in the NASB, ESV, and YLT.
So the main question is, is the translation of "faithful" heretical, poor, or orthodox?
As for Joey's articles, I've already responded to all of them, showing how Joey's rebuttal was extremely deficient. And White himself has an exceedingly deficient treatment of logizomai himself, commenting upon only about 3 of the over 100 times it appears in the Bible!
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-calvinist-blogger-attempts-to-refute.html
Nick,
Even if
συν τω πιστω Αβρααμ
is translated, "with the faithful Abraham" - or "with faithful Abraham" - in Gal. 3:9, it still does nothing to change the doctrine of justification by faith alone, since a true believer in Jesus Christ will also be faithful to the end - God gives the ability of perseverance, and faithfulness - but that faithfulness is based on the grace that Christ gives, by faith. Abraham believed first, was justfied by his faith, and is also changed/sanctified and given ability to be faithful.
Abraham's ultimate faithfulness is based on his justification, which comes by God's grace and the excercise of faith alone.
Abraham was not always faithful - he struggled with lying in Gen. 12:10-20 and was lacking in trust and faith in Genesis 16, which caused him to go ahead and try to have the child of promise by human efforts.
Abraham struggles with lying again in Genesis 20 (same sin as in Genesis 12)
So, Galatians 3:9 is pointing to his justifying faith, and those that have true faith will also persevere by God's grace, which also gives us the power to persevere to the end, if you want to insist that that phrase has to be translated "with faithful Abraham".
_______
Did you read all my earlier comments at another article on Brian Vicker's book?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/other-good-books-on-justification-and.html
Dr. White is right to emphasize that "you are arguing against the apostle Paul" and the way the apostle uses Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 in order to show that we are justified by faith alone, before and apart from good works - before the performance of a religious ritual like circumcision (Genesis 17) and before the good works of obedience in Genesis 22. James 2:14-26 shows this, when one looks at the quote and allusion and order -
Gen. 15:6 - faith, justification
Gen. 17 - obedience in circumcision - good work - result of true faith
Gen. 22 - obedience to God in the offering - good work - result of true faith
But, along with Vickers, I think that there is another option to the quandry you pose with Genesis 12:3-4 and Hebrews 11:8 - it is not teaching a Roman Catholic doctrine of getting justified in Gen. 12, losing justification, then getting it back in Gen. 15:6 (the treadmill of on again off again sacramentalism).
Personally, because of Hebrews 11:8 (context goes back to Hebrews 10:36-39, where Habakkuk 2:4 is quoted - "the righteous shall live by faith" (also Romans 1:17 - what shook Luther to the core)
and because of Galatians 3:6-8 and the way Paul combines Genesis 12:1-4 and 15:6, it seems to me that Abraham was truly justified in history in between Genesis 12:3-4, but that state of being justified is not communicated to us in the text until Genesis 15:6 and since it is only written in the text there, and is it not written in Gen. 12:3-4; the apostle has to quote from Genesis 15:6, where it is written, for teaching on the doctrine of justification - that we are justified by faith alone before any good works, either in Gen. 17 or Gen. 22.
If you read all the comments at the previous article and Vickers comments, and his interaction with the Hebrew of Genesis 15:6, he also points to this.
So, Romans 4 is harmonized with Gen. 12:3-4/Galatians 3:6-8 and Hebrews 10:36-11:8. Hebrews 11 is talking about justifying faith also.
continued . . .
Nick,
I think Joey Henry is right vs. you - Imputation is a large theological concept that includes the way Paul uses logizomai and other accounting concepts/words (as Peter communicates the same concept without using the words, as in 1 Peter 2:24-25, and 3:18, which all point back to Isaiah 53), but it includes large amounts of Scripture that teach Christ died for us and for our sins - 1 Cor. 15:1-9, etc. including union with Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 5-6), that we are condemned sinners without Christ, Christ is perfect and was the sinless victim who was sacrificed in our place. The transfer of our sins to Christ is seen in the OT passover (Exodus 12), Lev. 1-7, 16-17 (priest confesses sins onto the scapegoat), Isaiah 53: 6, 10 - "the iniquity of us all was laid on Him" - "if He would render Himself a guilt offering", etc. and the whole books and chapters of the books of Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, John, Acts, Ephesians, Philippians, etc. - It is much larger than the specific verses of where logizomai is used.
Christ took our sin and punishment on Himself.
Christ's righteousness is given to us as a gift by grace, since He is perfect and sinless and died in our place. He paid the price.
So, Imputation is a larger theological concept based on all of Scripture as a whole, not just an atomized word study of the Greek word, logizomai, though not excluding how it is used in certains contexts as part of the overall teaching and theology.
I don't think you can make the case that 'faithfulness' is something that accompanies justification, at least not from this text. That's because from your view, Paul is actually trying to distance works/sanctification from justification.
As for Abraham being justified in Gen 12, I'm glad you agree he was justified then, but the fact remains that White firmly opposes this. I think I know why, since it opens you up to a difficulty as well. Genesis 15 is not looking back to Genesis 12, they were two different historical points in Abraham's life, separated by at least a decade. So the Genesis 15 point of Abraham's life would actually have to be the "sanctification" phase in his life (having already been justified for over a decade). Yet this contradicts the plain words of Paul, telling us that Gen 15 was a moment of justification. So the Reformed position runs into serious problems either way. Only the Catholic view makes sense, which teaches that a person not only can recover justification after losing it, but that they can grow in righteousness and thus increase in justification. (This is why even though everyone in Heaven is righteous, some are more righteous than others.)
Lastly, the issue of logizomai is being clouded. The word itself never refers to transferring, nor does it refer to viewing something other than what it truly is. So there's no way to squeeze "faith transfers the alien righteousness of Christ to us" from passages like "faith was reckoned as righteousness." There is no established "Imputation" framework anywhere in Scripture for "Imputation" to even be a valid theme. Again, this is precisely why White deliberately hid the bigger picture from his readers by only citing 2 verses that use logizomai, knowing full well a more rounded look at the term would contradict his entire thesis.
If you go back and read all the quotes from Brian Vickers, and the comments he makes on the Hebrew grammar structure of Genesis 15:6, it does not mean he was justified at that point in time, but that he continued to trust in the Lord, and the Lord (had already) credited justification to him. He was still walking in his justification. As Luther said, “preach the gospel to yourself every day”. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is comforting when we are overwhelmed with sin and guilt – we run again to Christ who is the strong tower and refuge and hiding place from Satan’s accusations. Galatians 3:6-8 puts both Genesis 12:3-4 and 15:6 together.
Paul in Romans 4 does not exactly say that Abraham was justified at that point, but only that it was before circumcision in Genesis 17 and James, in James 2:14-26 quotes it to show that faith was first in Genesis 15 and good works confirm/prove/demonstrate/show that a person has true faith by their obedience/good works in Genesis 22.
As I said, Dr. White is right when discussing the issue to say emphasize the apostle Paul’s emphasis on faith coming before circumcision in Romans 4, Gen. 15, Gen. 17.
But, it seems to me that Hebrews 11 and the emphasis on the nature of faith has to be harmonized with justification in Romans 4-5 and Galatians. Hebrews 10:38 helps, as it quotes Hab. 2:4, which is also quoted in Romans 1:17. Otherwise, Hebrews 10-11 does not seem to be saying much, if it is not talking about justifying faith/believing in Christ for salvation from sin.
I don’t think Genesis 15 is talking about sanctification specifically, (although it is another life experience in his journey with God – a process of spiritual growth; and the text give us more details as to faith being in the Lord and His promise of the one who would come from Abraham's line - and be the one who would bless all the nations - the Messiah - Gal. 3:16) but is communicating that Abraham was already justified.
The concept of transfering comes from the combination of a lot of texts that speak of our sin being laid on Christ and Christ dying in our place and us being considered righteous by faith alone. (not alone from a word study alone - as you did)
not by a word study on logizomai alone
Ken said: "read all the quotes from Brian Vickers, and the comments he makes on the Hebrew grammar structure of Genesis 15:6, it does not mean he was justified at that point in time, but that he continued to trust in the Lord, and the Lord (had already) credited justification to him"
I have his book open in front of me to page 73 and following (esp p80) where he is addressing this. As I keep saying, this is in explicit contradiction to White's claim regarding Genesis 15:6 versus Gen12/Heb11:8. The problem White sees but that Vickers doesn't address and instead leaves hanging (because there is no good response) is just what did happen in Genesis 15:6. White rightly notes Genesis 15:1-12 is a specific event, an actual historical narrative. Verse 15:6 is not ahistorical nor is it looking (exclusively) back in time, but rather is focused on the then and there. What you're saying is that 15:6 says "Abraham believed [years prior] in God, and God [had already, years prior] reckoned it as righteousness." At least White recognizes that's a twisting of the text, making v6 completely non-sequitor to 15:1-5.
You said: "Paul in Romans 4 does not exactly say that Abraham was justified at that point, but only that it was before circumcision in Genesis 17"
More specifically, Paul doesn't say that Genesis 15:6 wasn't the *first* time Abraham was justified/believed. But he certainly is saying Justification took place in the historical event of Genesis 15:6. This is why Romans 4:18 quotes Genesis 15:5, "So shall your offspring be."
You said: "As I said, Dr. White is right when discussing the issue to say emphasize the apostle Paul’s emphasis on faith coming before circumcision in Romans 4, Gen. 15, Gen. 17."
No, that's not what White is saying; you're downplaying what he said and meant. He said to suggest Justification took place prior to 15:6 is to destroy Paul's point; White even said the faith prior to 15:6 wasn't a justifying faith.
You said: "Hebrews 10-11 does not seem to be saying much, if it is not talking about justifying faith/believing in Christ for salvation from sin."
Agreed, which is why White's claim is so problematic, both exegetically and in regards to his own credibility. White says this on P221-222 in The God Who Justifies and White even responded on his radio show to a post I made, in which White reaffirms in no uncertain terms that the Hebrews 11 faith of Abraham was not saving faith and that Abraham was not justified until Genesis 15:6. So I'm not making this up. It's clear why White is making this argument, and it's because to look prior to this point would show Abraham's faith was better understood as faithful obedience, starting in ch12.
You said: "The concept of transferring comes from the combination of a lot of texts that speak of our sin being laid on Christ and Christ dying in our place and us being considered righteous by faith alone."
I'm glad you said this because it delivers a huge blow to the Protestant notion of perspicuity. Now the grand important doctrine that's the hinge of the Reformation is not from this or that plain text of Scripture, but rather a combination of texts strung together. This means two things: texts like Romans 4 aren't clear in themselves nor are they the full story; the texts that are strung together don't end up making as good of a case the Protestant thinks, and instead reveal just how much the Protestant is unwittingly assuming to be true apriori.
The New Testament interprets the Old Testament for us, being a fuller explication and progressive revelation. Galatians 3:6-8 puts Genesis 12:3 and 15:6 together for us as "one unit" - that faith comes before works and good works or obedience can never justify us before us before God.
In Genesis 12, the promise of the covenant is commicated and Gal. 3:6-8 calls it "preaching the gospel beforehand to Abraham", but the results of Abraham's faith and obedience is not communicated in the text. (resulting justification is not mentioned there.) In Genesis 15, the covenant is actually "cut" (Hebrew) or made - and the result of faith, justification is communicated to us in the text there. It is there that that the inspired apostle quotes, both in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 to show that faith comes before good works in Genesis 17 and 22. James confirms this in James 2:14-26 - that Abraham's obedience was the fruit and result of true justifying faith back in Geneses 15:6. Greater details of how and who would be the one who would be a blessing to all nations is communicated to us and to Abraham in Genesis 15:1-5 - "one from your own body". Justifying faith was the object of the one to come in the future who would bless all the nations (the Messiah) and one who would come from Abraham's seed (the Messiah - Galatians 3:16). Galatians is telling us that Gen. 12:3-4 and Genesis 15:1-6 are both speaking about faith in the Messiah to come, not only faith in the one true God, or mere monotheism. Salvation is only through Christ; and the Messiah was the object of justifying faith. (Even though Abraham did not have the revelation of the word "Messiah" yet. That would come in later revelation with David.)
The content of the words "Abram believed in the LORD (Yahweh)" and The LORD "reckoned it to him (Abraham) as righteousness" is not written out for us in Genesis 12, but it is written in Genesis 15:6, so the apostle draws from that text to show that Abraham was not justified by the religious work of circumcision in Genesis 16, and not by good works of obedience in Genesis 22 (james shows us that it means his obedience proves that he was already justified and truly a believer.)
Dr. White is much smarter than I am and much more well read in church history and other Protestant commentaries, so I am sure he thought through the issue of Hebrews 11 before he came to his conclusions. (And I probably need to read more on that tension between Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 - surely other Protestant commentators have commented on this issue in church history before Brian Vickers? )
I just finished listening/watching Dr. White's debate with Dr. Steve Blakemore on the bondage of the will,
see: the sixth debate down at bottom
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/11/01/more-debates-posted-i-have-been-busy-this-week/
Dr. White did an excellent job of responding to Dr. Blakemore's seeming attempt to take the debate more away from the bondage of the will to Predestination, Election, the decrees of God, supralapsianism and infralapsarianism, and Particular Atonement. I am always impressed with his keen sharpness and readiness and ability to respond to his opponents in debate.
I commend that debate to you to listen to and study the texts and argumentation he brings up.
The disagreement we have over Hebrews 11:8 is minor, and does nothing for your Roman Catholic view, as the main point of Romans 4 and Galatians 3 destroys the Roman Catholic doctrines relating to justification. (that we are justified by faith alone in Messiah alone apart from merit and apart from the condition of good works.)
Nick wrote:
I'm glad you said this because it delivers a huge blow to the Protestant notion of perspicuity.
I don't see how you can make such a grandiose claim. There are many clear doctrines that require the harmonization of many texts. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, incarnation, Deity of Christ, and hypostatic union all require the harmonization of many texts. It does not affect the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture at all.
Some of John Calvin's commentary on Genesis 15:6:
"Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world. If any one object, that Abram previously believed God, when he followed Him at His call, and committed himself to His direction and guardianship, the solution is ready; that we are not here told when Abram first began to be justified, or to believe in God; but that in this one place it is declared, or related, how he had been justified through his whole life. For if Moses had spoken thus immediately on Abram’s first vocation, the cavil of which I have spoken would have been more specious; namely, that the righteousness of faith was only initial (so to speak) and not perpetual. But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death. I confess, indeed, that after the faithful are born again by the Spirit of God, the method of justifying differs, in some respect, from the former. For God reconciles to himself those who are born only of the flesh, and who are destitute of all good; and since he finds nothing in them except a dreadful mass of evils, he counts them just, by imputation. But those to whom he has imparted the Spirit of holiness and righteousness, he embraces with his gifts. Nevertheless, in order that their good works may please God, it is necessary that these works themselves should be justified by gratuitous imputation; but some evil is always inherent in them. Meanwhile, however, this is a settled point, that men are justified before God by believing not by working; while they obtain grace by faith, because they are unable to deserve a reward by works. Paul also, in hence contending, that Abram did not merit by works the righteousness which he had received before his circumcision, does not impugn the above doctrine. The argument of Paul is of this kind: The circumcision of Abram was posterior to his justification in the order of time, and therefore could not be its cause, for of necessity the cause precedes its effect. I also grant, that Paul, for this reason, contends that works are not meritorious, except under the covenant of the law, of which covenant, circumcision is put as the earnest and the symbol. But since Paul is not here defining the force and nature of circumcision, regarded as a pure and genuine institution of God, but is rather disputing on the sense attached to it, by those with whom he deals, he therefore does not allude to the covenant which God before had made with Abram, because the mention of it was unnecessary for the present purpose. Both arguments are therefore of force; first, that the righteousness of Abram cannot be ascribed to the covenant of the law, because it preceded his circumcision; and, secondly, that the righteousness even of the most perfect characters perpetually consists in faith; since Abram, with all the excellency of his virtues, after his daily and even remarkable service of God, was, nevertheless, justified by faith. For this also is, in the last place, worthy of observation, that what is here related concerning one man, is applicable to all the sons of God. For since he was called the father of the faithful, not without reason; and since further, there is but one method of obtaining salvation; Paul properly teaches, that a real and not personal righteousness is in this place described." Calvin on Genesis 15:6
(My emphasis in bolding)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xxi.i.html
Ken,
Regarding your first of three recent posts, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but you’re still missing the point of the real historical span of time between Genesis 12 and Genesis 15. The fact is, Genesis 15:6 pertains to a real moment in Abraham’s life taking place years after Genesis 12. So while it is very true that the covenant promise is being affirmed in 12 and 15, these were also distinct acts of faith. So in some real sense, justification took place in 15. White understands this, and since he knows justification can only take place once, this must be ch15 and not prior. He has said this repeatedly, and it makes sense why; either you agree with him or you don't.
The advantage Catholics have with texts like Hebrews 11:8 is that it shows “faith” isn’t an ‘empty hand’ (in fact, no Biblical text ever teaches that), but rather that when the NT speaks of ‘faith’ it means “faithful obedience”. This is the furthest thing from Sola Fide imaginable: meaning Romans 3:28 is saying a man is justified by faithful obedience, apart from works of the Torah.
As for the issue of perspicuity, the doctrine states that the key dogmas of Christianity are plainly taught in Scripture. In regards to say the Deity of Christ, a Protestant would point to a text like John 1:1, where it’s basically taught explicitly. But when it comes to imputation, there aren’t any John 1:1 type texts. Rather, you have all kinds of texts strung together, including texts like 2 Corinthians 5:21, which don’t even use the term ‘impute’ but rather terms like ‘become’.
Lastly, your commentary quote of John Calvin on Genesis 15:6 is basically a restating of Vickers’s view, except Vickers was more honest in that he admits it’s an error to go in the extreme of saying this event wasn’t its own specific moment of faith. Here Calvin says 15:6 merely tells us how justification takes place, but it wasn’t actually a specific historical event on its own. The historical narrative of Genesis 15:1-13 is interrupted by the ahistorical “Abraham was already justified years ago” in 15:6, and that’s just bad exegesis.
Nick wrote:
The advantage Catholics have with texts like Hebrews 11:8 is that it shows “faith” isn’t an ‘empty hand’ (in fact, no Biblical text ever teaches that),
Faith is trust in God and Christ, commitment to God; not the obedience itself - true faith results in obedience, as Hebrews 11:8 says, by trusting/committing God, Abraham obeyed. True faith results in obedience, as in James 2:14-26 and Genesis 22 demonstrate, but faithful obedience is not the faith itself, rather the fruit and result of true faith.
but rather that when the NT speaks of ‘faith’ it means “faithful obedience”.
The Judaizers would be proud of you - you say it is "faithful obedience to God's law". No; faithful obedience is the result of true faith, not the faith itself.
This is the furthest thing from Sola Fide imaginable: meaning Romans 3:28 is saying a man is justified by faithful obedience, apart from works of the Torah.
here you contradict yourself, because the Torah includes God's moral law
and Romans 3:28 cannot mean "a man is justified by faithful obedience" - faithful obedience to God? it is the same as "obedience to God's law", yet the phrase "apart from works of the Torah" means "apart from faithful obedience to the Torah", so you distort the meaning of the gospel totally and that is why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and all others after them who argue the same thing -today: me, James Swan, James White, R. C. Sproul, William Webster, John McArthur, John Piper, Turretinfan, others, have argued against the Romanism you are preaching here. You just distorted all of the NT in a few sentences.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - "By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no can boast, "
Hi Ken,
I know this is a very late comment. I beieve that Abraham has justifying faith in Gen 12. I explained it more clearly in a footnote to the articles you've linked that wrote (Part 5 not 6):
The use of Genesis 15:6 is common during Paul's time and his contemporaries. They applied it to different events of Abraham's life. In the canon itself, such phenomenon is evident. Example, in Romans 4:22, the Genesis 15:6 quote was tied up to event when God promised Isaac to Abraham. Paul also tied up Genesis 15:6 to the event when God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations (Genesis 17:5) which is way beyond the historical chronology of Genesis 15. In Galatians 3:6, the Genesis 15:6 quote is tied up to event when God promised that all nations will be blessed through Abraham (Genesis 12:3). In James 2:23, the Genesis 15:6 quote was tied up to the Aqedah event (Genesis 22). The point is that the “faith of Abraham” that justified him is the same kind of God-given faith that we see in his life (whether in Gen 12, Gen 15, or Gen 22). It is a “faith” which nature recognizes the utter helplessness of man and his total dependence on the promises of a gracious and sovereign God. We can’t say that the “faith of Abraham” in Gen 12 is not the same kind of faith in Gen 15 or Gen 22. It is one and the same kind of faith that justified Abraham throughout his life. Paul does later explain that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised but this is an argument utilized to further support his claim that the “faith of Abraham”, no matter when this is exemplified in his life, consistently shows its nature – it does not rely upon the works of man but on God’s power to fulfill His promise though it is humanly impossible.
However, those who hold that Gen 12 is not beginning of of justifying faith have some good exegetical and theological reasons to mount. Some would respond that viewing Gen 15 as the point is justification does not contradict Gal 3:5-8 because of the concept of progressive revelation. It is true that the gospel (the good news) includes Gen 12 but did not stop there. It is only when the covenant includes the intionality of justification in Gen 15 that Abrahamic faith has the nature of of being ‘justifying’. Let me also give you an additional biblical data to look at. The story of Cornelius portrays that he was a believing Gentile of the Jewish tradition (a proselyte) before Peter met with him. His faith was seen as pleasing to the God of Israel. But, it is not yet a ‘justifying’ faith. He has a relationship with the God of Israel but it is not complete progressively. He has to here the good news of Jesus Christ in order for his faith to be ‘justifying’ faith. To reject the good news of Jesus Christ, even though he is a Gentile proselyte during that time, will not make his ‘faith’ justifying by nature. It is because the knowledge he has about God is not yet ‘saving’ in nature and has to be informed by the saving knowledge of Christ. That’s why Peter had to preach the Gospel to him. There is a progressive aspect in God’s dealings with sinful man that he wants to save.
As to Nick's assertion that his responses dealt with my main contention, I'll leave it to the readers to judge.
Thanks,
Joey
Thanks Joey! That was an excellent analysis; and I appreciate you coming back to this post and adding to it. It is a very helpful and important part of the apologetic argument for the whole issue of justification by faith alone, and very helpful in a proper understanding of justifying faith in the life of Abraham and how to understand it.
Post a Comment