A Big Admission
I have won at least half of the debate, because JP has admitted that there are no instances of the verb �to justify� in the Bible, where a person is �infused� with righteousness. With that simple admission JP has given up the case that the Bible teaches the Roman Catholic position that justification means to �infuse righteousness�. Recall above the quotations from the Council of Trent. I have shown in my opening statement at length, that to �declare righteous� is the normal meaning of the term. It usually used in a courtroom/judicial setting and refers to someone being declared righteous before a standard.
What about Roman 5:17-19
JP argued that Romans 5:17-19 teaches a subjective �making righteous�, because Adam made us subjectively sinful. I believe JP is mistaken, and his conclusion is based on a simplistic reading of the text.
First of all, remember that Romans 5:17-19 follows Romans 1-4. Paul up to this point has said that justification is �apart from works� and �apart from the works of the Law�. Paul has also said that we are justified by a �gift�. Paul says that Abraham was the prototype of one who is justified, and he was justified by faith apart from works. That same blessing of justification falls on anyone who �does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly� (4:5). David even speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works. JP himself admits that the verb �to justify� does not mean �to infuse or make righteous�, so clearly Paul�s meaning up to now has been that a man is �declared� righteous. Paul, using Abraham as the archetype, says that righteousness is �credited� (vs. 6) apart from works. There is nothing of doing any kind of work, and there is nothing of being subjectively made righteous or infused with righteousness.
With all of that in mind, does it make sense to then say that Paul in Romans 5 (just one chapter later!) has turned and said we are subjectively made righteous by the infusion of righteousness? That would means (1) Paul is talking about two different justifications. One in Romans 4 and one in Romans 5 or (2) Paul flatly contradicts himself in the space of 2 chapters.
What about Romans 5:17-19? Paul has not left his definition of justification and how it happens in chapter 4. Justification is still by the imputation of righteousness. In Romans 5 Paul is comparing the two �heads� or �federal (covenant) heads�. Adam is the head of the sinful race of men who fell �in him�. Acting as our federal head Adam sinned, and his sin is imputed to us. When born we are reckoned as sinners, we are cursed, and so we behave that way. Thankfully, there is another �head� of a new race of men. Jesus Christ is the head of His elect. By faith we are united to Him, his righteousness is imputed to us and we are declared righteous. There is nothing in the text that says that righteousness and sinfulness of Christ and Adam respectfully, is �infused� into a person. In fact Paul even mentions imputation in vs. 13. Notice also the courtroom language used. �Justification� is set in contrast to �condemnation� (vs. 16, 18). The term is still being used in a forensic sense.
What does Paul mean then we he says we are �made sinners� and �made righteous�? As John Piper has shown in his book �Counted Righteous in Christ�, the word �made� (kathistemi) regularly means �appoint�. This can be seen in many of its uses. In Matthew 24:45-47 Jesus says:
Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
Verse 45 uses the same word to mean the wise servant was �put� or �appointed� to a place of leadership. In Luke 12:14 the text reads �But He said to him, "Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you�. There the term is translated �appointed�. Acts 6:3 refers to choosing deacons so the apostles could �put them in charge�. Referring to Joseph, Acts 7:10 say God �made him governor over Egypt and all his household�. And in Titus Paul says he left Titus in Crete �that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you� (1:5). Rather than pointing to some subjective change, Paul uses language that is completely consistent with the language he uses in chapter 3 and 4. We are �appointed� as righteous people when we are united to Christ by faith. How can God do this? Because he imputes to us the �free gift� (15-17), �gift if righteousness� (vs. 17), the �one act of righteousness� of Christ, and the �obedience� of Christ (vs. 19). This substantiates what I said in my opening statement. The ground of our justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us. To sum up:
Paul's point is that our righteousness before God, our justification, is not based on what we have done, but on what Christ did. His righteous act, his obedience, is counted as ours. We are counted, or appointed, righteous in Him. It is a real righteousness, and it is ours, but only ours by imputation-or to use Paul�s language from earlier in the letter, God �imputes righteousness� to us apart from works (4:6), or �righteousness is imputed� to those who believe (4:9). (Counted Righteous in Christ, pg. 110).
The One Assumption
Both on his website, and in this debate, JP has been operating on major assumption. That assumption has colored everything he has said. If that one assumption were proven false, JP simple would not have a leg to stand on. That one assumption was the basis for the answers he gave to questions 3-5. His assumption is that when Paul says we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law, and apart from works, he is only referring to works being done a certain way. That is, Paul is only referring to works being done apart from the grace of God. JP must argue this because he believes we are justified by faith and done by the help/aid of the grace of God. So Paul isn�t saying that we�re not justified by all works, only that we�re not justified by works apart from God�s grace.
I realize this is a debate, and debates are all about making assertions. I�ve plenty of them, but debates are also the place to defend your assertions. This defense JP has not done. Unless I have missed it, nowhere have we seen JP walk through Romans 3-5 and show us how when Paul condemns works as a means of justification, he is only condemning certain kind of work. If Paul were in fact doing so, he has been rather reckless in his language. Paul repeatedly condemns �works of the Law�, and �works� without ever qualifying the state of mind in which they are done. JP, I know we are running out of space in this debate, but you must defend this assertion or it will be clear it is only an empty one. How could Paul say God credits righteousness to him who does not work, but believes, if in fact he has to do works! Paul nowhere qualifies his rejection of works as only of certain kinds of works.. I have shown this repeatedly, and JP has only asserted it.
