Rebuttal To JP’s Opening Statement

JP’s opening statement consisted of six major sections, in my rebuttal I will attempt to respond to each of those sections. Before doing that, however, I want to say something about the overall presentation. This is a debate about the Scriptural doctrine of Justification. Justification, like few doctrines in Scripture, receives a very full and systematic treatment in the Bible. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for us to spend the majority of our time dealing with the way the doctrine is laid out in the places it is being specifically dealt with. Anyone familiar with the New Testament knows that Paul teaches at length on the doctrine of justification in Romans (specifically chapters 1-5 and 8, and in Galatians). To my surprise then, in his opening statement JP did not deal with single verse in Romans or Galatians. He made a passing reference the fact that James and Paul refer to the same person (Abraham) in their discussions, but there was nothing even approaching a exposition of the most important texts on the very issue under debate. We’re debating whether or not the Reformed doctrine of justification accurately represents the teaching of Scripture. JP knows good and well that Reformed scholars have written numerous commentaries, written numerous books, and preached numerous sermons on the doctrine of justification. And if JP is familiar with any amount of this literature he would know that Paul in Romans 3-5 and Galatians 1-3 makes the clearest and best case for our doctrine for us. Yet JP never touched a single one of these verses.

The Concept of Gracious Merit

The first section of JP’s rebuttal does not need a great deal of space for rebuttal. JP wants to make it clear that Roman Catholics are not Pelagians. Well…great. Neither am I. Not one book by a reputable Reformed Christian would ever accuse Roman Catholic theology of teaching crass Pelagianism. Everyone acknowledges that Roman Catholics believe in the necessity of grace for salvation. The debate is what does God’s grace do? Does His grace infuse us with power to obey the Law and become objectively pleasing to God, thereby allowing us to be called righteous because we are actually inherently righteous (Roman Catholic position) or does the grace of God provide a Savior, who bears in His body the wrath of God for His people’s sins. A Savior who lives a perfect life in our place meriting a right standing before God for His people. And does God graciously impute that righteousness to us by faith (the Reformed position). That is the debate.

Jesus’ words

JP turned to some of Jesus’ words to attempt to argue that Jesus taught his position of works and justification. But I believe JP is misrepresenting what Jesus says.

JP has caught on to a small kernel of the truth. Jesus did teach the necessity of his disciples doing works and being subjectively righteous. But never does Jesus teach that this righteousness will merit us a standing before God, nor does He teach that good works are the ground of our standing before God. I hope to show this in rebutting each of JP’s citations from Jesus.

JP quotes Matthew 5:20, but completely ignore the context, especially the verses that follow (5:23-48). Is Jesus saying, “You out righteous the Pharisees, and I’ll make sure you get to heaven”? I don’t think so. The problem Jesus is dealing with is the Pharisees have a perceived righteousness. People looked at the Pharisees and saw them as righteous people. Jesus wants His disciples to have a real righteousness. Those are are to be His people are to not only manifest that righteousness outwardly, but they are to have it inwardly as well (i.e. by not lusting after women not their wives, by not hating their neighbor, not making flippant vows and not keeping them). I cite the words of Calvin in this regard:

“He takes a passing notice of the Scribes, who were laboring to throw a stain on the doctrine of the Gospel, as if it were the ruin of the Law. True, he does not reason on this subject, but only points out briefly, that nothing has less influence over their minds than zeal for the law. "They pretend, that their hostility to me arises from their strong desire, that the law should not be violated. But their life makes it evident, how coldly they observe the law,--nay more, how unconcerned they are about mocking God,6 while they boast before men of an assumed and hypocritical righteousness." This is the view which the most of commentators give of the passage.

But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather blame the corrupted manner of teaching, which the Pharisees and Scribes followed in instructing the people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained their disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy.7 They lived, I readily admit, as ill as they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their corrupted doctrine, I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false righteousness. The principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine may be easily learned from what follows in the discourse, where he removes from the law their false and wicked interpretations, and restores it to its purity. In short, the objection which, as we have already said, was unjustly brought against him by the Scribes, is powerfully thrown back on themselves.

The same is true JP’s citation of Matthew 7:21-23. The issue there is hypocrisy. Frankly, I don’t know why JP cites this verse. These people made claims to believe in Jesus, and they did good works (prophesied, cast out demons etc.) and yet they were condemned. JP says they were condemned because they didn’t go God’s will. But I think this misses the point. They were condemned because Jesus never knew them. Their profession of being His disciples was false. The Reformed doctrine is not hurt by this text; we believe there are plenty of people throughout church history who have made claims to faith and done good works, who will ultimately not be saved because their confession is false. They don’t know Christ and He doesn’t know them.

The same is true of Matthew 12:37. Jesus is not saying that our words will merit us the grace of justification. Jesus has just had his works attributed to the power of Satan. And so He begins to discuss how the heart affects the tongue. He says that a good tree can’t bring forth bad fruit, and vice versa. A good person brings for good things and a bad person brings forth bad things. The teaching is that our words vindicate our hearts.

Then he teaches a general truth about words to remind His disciples the seriousness of what the Pharisees had just done. Since every careless word will be brought into judgment, how much worse will be the fate of those who self-consciously attribute the works of Christ to Satan. It is in this context that Christ says that we will be justified by our words. I believe Calvin says it best (forgive the long quotation):

The attempt which the Papists make to torture this passage, so as to set aside the righteousness of faith, is childish. A man is justified by his words, not because his speech is the ground of his justification, (for we obtain by faith the favor of God, so that he reckons us to be righteous persons;) but because pure speech absolves us in such a manner, that we are not condemned as wicked persons by our tongue. Is it not absurd to infer from this, that men deserve a single drop of righteousness in the sight of God? On the contrary, this passage upholds our doctrine; for, although Christ does not here treat of the ground of our justification, yet the contrast between the two words points out the meaning of the word justify. The Papists reckon it absurd in us to say, that a man is justified by faith, because they explain the word justified to mean, that he becomes, and is, actually righteous; while we understand it to mean, that he is accounted righteous, and is acquitted before the tribunal of God, as is evident from numerous passages of Scripture. And is not the same thing confirmed by Christ, when he draws a contrast between justified and condemned?

Salvation is a Process

JP then attempted to argue that salvation is a process and therefore cannot be a one time declaration by God. The problem with this argument is twofold. (1) Salvation is not identical with justification. Salvation is the work of God whereby He takes a dead sinner and brings Him to glory for eternity (this includes everything in the traditional ordo salutis: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification). So no Protestant would ever argue that salvation is a one-time thing. But justification is a singular declaration by God. Even in the verse JP cited (Matthew 12:37), Jesus is talking about judgment day when He will make a declaration about us. It is not a process for condemnation is certainly not a process and the two terms are set as opposites. I showed repeatedly in my opening statement that justification is a declaration, usually used in courtroom settings. A judge’s declaration is not a process. (2) JP errs in arguing that because there is a future orientation to salvation, our ultimate attainment of it is somehow in jeopardy. Nothing could be further from the truth. He cites Philippians 2:12, while ignoring that it is God who is at work in us both to do and to will (2:13, the very next verse). The same epistle also states that God will complete the work He began in us unto the day of Christ Jesus (1:6). The security of the saints and perseverance of the saints is not the subject of our debate, however.

James and Good Works

JP turns to the traditional Roman Catholic rebuttal to the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone: James 2. He says this text proves “indisputably that our works justify us”. And in and of itself, that statement is true. Our works do justify us. The question is, before whom do our works justify us?

The subject being dealt with is “if a man says he has faith, and has not works, can that faith save him”. Notice, James is dealing with someone who “says” they have faith. But someone who says they have faith and do not have works is like someone wishing a hungry person fulfillment or naked person warmth. The profession is empty. James then issues the challenge to demonstrate faith apart from works. Obviously it cannot be done. Then he cites two examples of people who believed (Abraham and Rahab). Is James now turning to a totally new topic of how these two people were made righteous before God? No! He is showing them as two examples of people who had faith, and had works. Their “faith” was justified in the eyes of other by the fact that they had works. James never leaves the subject of demonstrating faith by works. JP has not shown that Paul and James are speaking in the same context in their discussions of “justification”. Paul clearly has justification before God in mind (and he says it is by faith apart from “works of the Law”, and “works” in general). James, conversely, has the demonstration or “justification” of a claim to faith in the sight of others in mind (and it is by faith and works).

Which brings me to a crucial point. I can agree that Scripture presents works as necessary, yet maintains that justification is by faith alone apart from works. The question is, what role do works play? Paul says that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works. (Ephesians 2:8,9). But in the very next verse he says we are God’s workmanship, created unto good works (2:10). Titus 2:11-14 Paul says the grace of God saved us, and it teaches us to do good works. Good works are necessary because they are a proof of a truly regenerate, justified heart. Works always accompany true saving faith. So there is no problem with insisting that works be present in the one justified by faith alone.

Back